Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 17, 2012

Real Journalism?

Real journalism? When Julian Assange interviews Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah on Russia Today?

Posted by b on April 17, 2012 at 13:23 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Thanks b, again. A jewel interview in a sea of disinformation. No way will any impartial parts of this interview be aired in the U.S. corporate media.

Posted by: ben | Apr 17 2012 14:52 utc | 1

Go Nasrallah,go Julian Assange!Man, I used to love those Al Manar ladies in headscarves earnestly bringing US more truth in a minute than Western truth in a year,that's why they stopped it,they saw that it was effective in countering their screwed up narrative of lie after lie.

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 17 2012 15:54 utc | 2

Assange has got guts. Kudos to him. Nasrallah as well of course.

btw, fantastic interpreting.

Crack-down in the internet is spurred from many quarters, one main one is to censor such content.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 17 2012 16:07 utc | 3

Was a good interview alright ! Thought it started a bit slow and Assange seemed to be supportive of the Free Syrian Army, which seemed a bit naive/ill-informed but Nasrallah did a good job. The last quarter of the interview was the best, very lighthearted and loved the question on using simplicity to defeat complexity in warfare.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 17 2012 16:39 utc | 4

The ultimate accolade comes from the Guardian's Luke Harding, who is almost certainly an MI6 or CIA agent and is given the best position on the website to attack Assange as a "useful idiot" for Russia.
To be attacked by Harding is to have one's reputation exalted.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 17 2012 16:53 utc | 5

@ Bevin

Yeah just saw the hit piece. So much bad elements of journalism incorporated into one article.

Firstly there is the competitive streak between rival news outlets that if one side gets a big scoop, the other has to respond by dismissing it. It's an ugly side of journalism that is becoming much more common. The Guardian did it with the Murdoch Phone-hacking Scandal running it for weeks on end. Not that it shouldn't have been reported but there was a clear "conflict of interest" underpinning Britain's second-best selling Newspaper (The Guardian) attacking Britain's best selling Newspaper (The News of the World) until it was shut down.

The second bad journalism element is the "personel vendettas" that they run. Not even 2 years ago The Guardian was working with Assange and calling him a hero. I'm sure everyone here remembers reading the Wikileaks stories on The Guardian website. Now after a public falling out they are calling Assange "Russia Today's Useful Idiot". Bitterness is never an attractive quality.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 17 2012 17:32 utc | 6

Good catch, b.

From a couple of bloopers Assange made (Al-Jazeera & FSA) it would seem that he ... Don't Get Around Much Anymore.
Nevertheless the moral cowards in Western politics, and especially and specifically in Australia, will be "outraged" at Assange being given an international voice.

Someone above said JA has got nuts. He's also quick on his feet (mentally and verbally) and has a memory like a steel trap.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17 2012 17:52 utc | 7

I'd like to echo Noirette #4 that in that video interview we see "fantastic interpreting", i.e. articulate translation from Arabic to English in Real Time. Our human thinking has built-in defects, and I believe I find some of those defects in both Nasrallah's and Assange's thinking, but the translator keeps on reminding me that the brain has brilliant capabilities.

By the way, the same video was uploaded to Youtube earlier today by RussiaToday at . At this moment as I write -- only some hours after the upload --- the video at Youtube has gotten 763 comments and 945 thumbs up. And yet Youtube is declaring the video has had only 301 views. The 763 comments are really there, so the report of only 301 views is some sort of an error. I'm told that Youtube has put the video on Youtube's home page today, though I don't see it on my own edition of Youtube's home page.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Apr 17 2012 18:35 utc | 8

ditto noirette, very capable translating

given the context of a bourgeois media - what was availabe here was space & not noise. a human's fragility is their force. & that is evident here.

it is a central reality the empres are condemned to forget

the guardian's hit piece, cretinous bbut then england was the home of such fools as malcolm muggeridge & the contemporary version of him, martin amis

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Apr 17 2012 18:52 utc | 9

@Parviziyi - that 300 and some viewers count at youtube is a known bug. It has been discussed on many other videos. It will clear up in a day or two.

I found the Assange questions a bit soft at times and missed follow ups when Nasrallah tried to escape them. The best question was the last one about the absolutism of religion. And the answer to that was very good too.

Quite enlightening. But Assange is in no way a fast thinker that has good interview skills. He'll need to work on that.

Posted by: b | Apr 17 2012 19:01 utc | 10

the translators are so excellent, that they clearly had time to think about the translations - this is no spontaneous conversation. even so the translation still is very good. so some people thought it important to pay for excellent translation
i guess Assange did not have a chance to follow up. He handed in the question video and got the answer video back.
Assange basically asks what Nasrallah wants to get across: some distance to the Syrian regime, an offer to act as mediator, assurance that Hezbollah does not wish to force religion down the throat of Abrahamic co-religionists (including atheists who instinctively know right from wrong, too), assurance that Hezbollah will defend but not attack, resistance in the name of Lebanese and Palestinians, the one-state solution. He is basically saying, I am part of the solution, not the problem.
You watch it and learn that Nasrallah is a very good politician. Somehow I knew that before.
Russia Today is like Voice of America or the BBC state owned.
I wonder, whom is Assange going to interview next? Any bets?

Posted by: somebody | Apr 17 2012 19:49 utc | 11

so Assange seems to support the FSA!

no surprise

theres no excuse for not knowing the nature of this terrorist organisation...esp by someone like Assange

Posted by: brian | Apr 17 2012 21:41 utc | 12

Thanks Brian @12. I was about to give up all hope

Posted by: DM | Apr 17 2012 22:02 utc | 13


Everything outside my Manichean world must be psyops.

Posted by: Biklett | Apr 17 2012 23:11 utc | 14

Fuck some of this shit takes me back to the days of trying to resist the bosses attempts to restructure our organisation into irrelevancy whilst the delegates conferences got bogged down with self-obsessed nutters who wanted to fight over whether our industrial officer was a trotskyist, neo-lib or russian imperialist (take yer pick depending on the particular drongo making the accusation's own obsession) plant.
I didn't like or trust our industrial officer much myself but sometimes you hafta bury that shit to fight a common foe. "No! No!" the tools cried, just like the looney tunes here who dream up the most off the wall asinine 'conspiracy' and claim it must be true because it is so asinine and off the wall, the silly delegates who were all guilty of the worst crime a unionist can commit, breaking solidarity to further one's own interest, those delegates don't really give a stuff about other humans. All they care about is forcing everyone else to hear their delusions.

Just because some one doesn't agree with everything another humanist spouts, that doesn't automatically follow the other is a traitor. it just means that their process of winnowing shit from truth isn't identical to yer own.

The upshot of all the divison and pissing around by those delgates whose primary purpose was meant to be representing the best interests of the workmates was sadly predictable. The department was closed down and most of its functions have never been picked up by any other agency private or public in the years since.

Not only the thousands of workers whose interests those drongos were meant to respresent lost out; millions of impoverished australians, in particular indigenous Australians lost any chance of escaping the trap of alienation and poverty that had held them in a vice grip since birth, because we argued irrelevancies when we should have focussed on the goal.

Assange is in more shit than anyone posting here would dare to face. He got bailed out by a rich man largely cause capitalist justice systems don't accept million quid bonds from poor people, and sure the rich bloke prolly is tryin to make an earner from that. This is what capitalists do.
Look at it from Assange's point of view and you'll agree he has a better chance of not being executed or locked up for life if he is on the outside trying to set an agenda than inside letting the assholes make all the runnin. So what?

I'd like to see any on these boards else face down a lethal injection by 'just goin with the flow' man.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 18 2012 0:50 utc | 15

Debs! So glad to see your handle again.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Apr 18 2012 1:43 utc | 16

Russia Today is like Voice of America or the BBC state owned.
I wonder, whom is Assange going to interview next? Any bets?

Posted by: somebody | Apr 17, 2012 3:49:57 PM | 11
just because a media is state owned doesnt mean it produces bad FOX state owned? or Daily telegraph???

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 1:56 utc | 17

according to the NYT:

Moscow is at odds with Washington over Syria, and RT accordingly colors its reports from Damascus with sharp digs at the West and American support of opposition fighters that RT describes as “terrorists.”

Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed

Assange is right on one point: Nasrullah did support the war on Libya...Assange tho supports them all

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 3:11 utc | 18

@Parviziyi, it's at 39,000 now. i have tracted certain videos on youtube and my opinion is that they only 'count' the videos after a number of hrs. so it will look identical for a long time and then a huge jump.

debs, i miss you and everything you say here i am in agreement. ditto what maxcrat said.

b, i love this video, thank you so much.

what i noticed is at around 20 minutes-in when JA asked him about his childhood his whole energy changed. and when he spoke of the palestinians there was the first glimmer of this smile that was really beautiful. and then the subsequent questions be just became more in radiance. and then the end i understood why he is the leader of his people. he's smart about syria too.

Posted by: annie | Apr 18 2012 4:09 utc | 19

debs, by "here" meaning your comment on this thread and the entire thrust of it.
i don't agree with everything you have said here at MOA, but i always value it and love having you around.

Posted by: annie | Apr 18 2012 4:13 utc | 20

@ Maxcrat Hiya. I must be too bored with the local neo-libs today.

Still the neo-liberal suck asses currently in charge of aotearoa got a much needed lesson a coupla weeks ago. They had gotten so comfortable with the easy pickings from taking down bourgois trade unions they actually tried to bring down a traditional workers union. One that still had members organising picnics on public holidays and that passes the hat around if a member's family is having a tough time. They tried to destroy the Auckland 'wharfies' (watersiders or dockers in Oz, longshoremen in amerika). Predictably the union handed them their asses by sticking together and waiting out the bosses (who had locked them out & hired scabs).
Many locals & branches outside NZ (australia & amerika in particular gave financial & industrial support) The result was the bosses fell out with each other when the retailers and exporters began to whine about how much this was costing. But the best bit was when a scumbag on the ports board who had once been a potential high flyer in the union and Labour Party (social democrat) movement that had gone all neo-liberal back in the 80's was forced to resign from the ports board. He had been the strategist of the plan to get rid of union labour and when his strategy failed, in typical capitalist dog eat dog style they turned on him & sacked him.

According to the local fishwrap he resigned but that will be as duplicitous as everything else the Herald published about this dispute.

But here's the dark irony. The tactician through this dispute for the port management was board director Rob Campbell. When I was a young lad, this man was being groomed to be the anointed son to ascend to the role that Kelly now possesses.

Campbell was the darling of the Labour Party and the left wing in the mid-1980s. He was the head of one of the biggest and certainly the most militant trade unions in this country. Campbell led the fight against GST within the Labour Party and was heralded as the face of modern trade unionism. He was assumed to be a member of old stalwart Ken Douglas' Communist Party, which added to his credibility in some circles. He was our own Bob Hawke and, by now, a potential prime minister for the workers.

Instead, he turned, and now attacks his former comrades. I'm told Campbell does it with a passion that shocks even his strongest right-wing supporters. I understand he promised his fellow port directors an easy victory.

When the wheels fell off his campaign, they got cold feet. So, in a fit of pique he resigned in protest.

Notice how even the left of centre social democrats such as McCarten try and claim this victory for their mendacious organised labour structure, which the wharfies have always operated outside of.

How does the song go
It's the same the whole world over,
Ain't it all a bleedin shame. . ."

Of course this doesn't mean anything other than what it is. That it is still possible to beat the bastards, and young people here got to see how much can be done by people who won't be divided.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 18 2012 4:32 utc | 21

no 18 brian you do not seem to be able to distinguish a question from an opinion and an interviewer from the interviewed. which is strange for someone who can write English.

Sure, what Assange does, is journalism. Journalists do have to work in the framework of their media's "tendency". In Germany there even is a law excepting journalists from labour laws if they do not follow this "tendency".

Assange's situation is difficult and legally it may make sense for him to be officially a "journalist". RT employing or contracting him also gives them some rights to intervene in his favor. Maybe that is behind it. Basically RT got a lot of new watchers and Western press is envious of this media coup - which they could have had if they had some real courage.

The real hero behind all this is Bradley Manning who should be supported.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 5:46 utc | 22

it also allowed Nasrallah to cross over to the atheist bunch of wikileaks supporters. and I am sure nerves in Israel are blank as they wonder both focused on encryption methods so much ....

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 5:50 utc | 23

next guest will be MIA

Russia Today made a big catch with Assange ...

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 5:53 utc | 24

debs is back

but i've to disagree about assange

from the outset, assange announced to the whole world
his mssion in life was to bring down those *non-democratic and repressive regimes.*
this is ned n freedom house parlance for countries on the empire's
official enemy list.
thru out the mission statement, china is the *non-democratic and repressive regime* that keep popping up,
heck, i could've sworn that wiki's manifesto was penned by none other than the mdm sec herself.
wiki cannot be an *anti empire whistle blower*
i've to concur with this
*If a psyop gets any more obvious than Julian Assange, I haven’t seen it*

Posted by: denk | Apr 18 2012 5:57 utc | 25

well, he must have gone rogue then denk.

The New York Times is green with envy. They cannot distinguish questions from opinions either and their summing up is questionable.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 6:27 utc | 26

and they are doing it in English, Arabic, Spanish and Russian. Very attractive for anybody who wants to have a global impact.

as noted the translators are excellent.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 6:29 utc | 27

and this here is a clarification of the setup

Who is producing “The World Tomorrow”?
The show is being produced by Quick Roll Productions, a company established by Julian Assange.
The main production partner is Dartmouth Films, a UK producer of independent films. Indispensable help and advice has been received from friends and supporters of WikiLeaks. If your network is interested in licensing the show, please visit the website of the distributor, Journeyman Pictures.

What has RT got to do with “The World Tomorrow”?
RT is the first broadcast licensee of the show, but has not been involved in the production process. All editorial decisions have been made by Julian Assange. RT's rights encompass the first release of 26-minute edits of each episode in English, Spanish and Arabic.

Will the full material recorded during the interviews be made available?
We are devoted to making available as much material as possible within the constraints of Julian's circumstances. Longer edits of the episodes will be released in due course, and transcripts of the interviews will be published on the show's independent website,

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 6:33 utc | 28

real journalism?

assange interviews Nasrullah:
at about 9:45 Assange mentions HOMS and colvin...but also challenges Nasrullah by invoking 100000 dead(if there are 100000 people killed...when will Hezbollah say etc etc)....which interestingly is the figure used for the dead in Libya ! Has Assange had his red line crossed with 100000 people killed in libya due to UNSC res 1973 allowing NATO to support the insurgency there with no legal repercussions

Why is Assange silent on the US/NATO war on Libya./..i notice he leaves out libya when he mentions egypt and tunisia regarding the socalled 'arab spring'!

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 7:55 utc | 29

somebody @22...

ive no idea what youre referring to...even plain english didnt help u express yourself well (medias 'tendency'?!)...My comment was that NYT writer says Assange supports the insurgency...without a blush the NYT which also gave us the war on Iraq thru their WMDS lies writes: 'Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed'

bloodshed? what has the NYT ever done to stop US orchestrated bloodshed?

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 8:03 utc | 30

a problem i have with the translator is his (media?) tendency to use the word 'regime' when referring to the syrian government...NOW would this same translator refer to the UK or US govts as 'regimes'? the use of this word over and over conditions the listener...since 'regime' suggests something uNsavory, illegitimate something to be removed.

as you can see i know english very well....

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 8:08 utc | 31

Assange 16:09: 'tunisia declares it will not recognise the syrian regime...'

why not ''tunisian regime declares it will not recognise the syrian regime...'

why is the word 'regime' used for a legitimate govt and why is it not used for one that has no legtitimacy?
Colour revolutions give the illusion the regime that enters power is somehow it must have the support of the masses...when behind the scenes are lies US regime.

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 8:26 utc | 32

the translator then goes on to refer to the new tunisian regime as 'the young new government...'!!!

this confirms the translatior(who is he by the way? a member of SOHR?) is skewing the interview to subtly demonise Syria

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 8:30 utc | 33

wikileaks was a disappointment because there doesnt seem to be any cables critical of israel... dont you spose there would have been cables when israel attacked the flotilla? ...or shelled gaza with white phosphorus? ...or killed rachel corrie?

well, maybe assange covered his ass on that account by submitting the cables to the guardian first, so they could weed out stuff that's critical of israel.

or, maybe the US state department people know the rules, and dont dare criticize israel for fear of losing their jobs.

or, maybe assange himself santitized the cables.

why would he do such a thing? ...could it be that anyone who attains that sort of prominence is threatened? ...surely asange got plenty of warning... if he hadnt knuckled under, he'd be in the joint now, serving time for rape...

is any of the above possible, or is all of the above not only possible, but probable?

i mean, any yahoo like assange that decides he's going for a career in politics has got to be suspect... maybe assange figures, "well, i've shown them what a i good boy i am, maybe they'll will let me run for office."

the empire is too rotten to believe anything... you just got to ignore the bullshit and watch the action, and make up your own mind what's happening... and what's already happened.

it's just too goddamned bad that everything that's happening and has happened was spelled out by PNAC in september of 2000.

and it's way way way too goddamned bad that israel, israeli americans, and other zionists figure so prominently in the whole operation.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 8:47 utc | 34

i got to say that any philosophy that produces people like that lt col of the IDF is fucked up beyond remption.

here we are, hasbara mobilized to the hilt, and israel is till losing the propaganda wars at the grassroots... so this dismal fucking colonel bashes a peace guy in the face with his rifle, and the video goes viral.

no amount of hasbara is gonna make those couple seconds go away... they're burned into people's minds.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 9:11 utc | 35

brian [29]
*assange interviews Nasrullah:
at about 9:45 Assange mentions HOMS and colvin...but also challenges Nasrullah by invoking 100000 dead(if there are 100000 people killed...when will Hezbollah say etc etc)....which interestingly is the figure used for the dead in Libya ! Has Assange had his red line crossed with 100000 people killed in libya due to UNSC res 1973 allowing NATO to support the insurgency there *

true to form
assange bolstering the empire's narrative...again

note the theme in this thread
*china is getting its just desert
coz it has been mounting cyber attacks on us sites all these yrs*

how do these sheeples know that ?
coz pentagoon says so
besides.....its *verified* by the oh so reliable wiki [sic] !!

every time the pentagoon, state dept aka the regime change dept
accuse china, iran, etc of something nefarious
the wiki is there to certify the veracity
i bet obama n gangs wouldnt mind at all to have such a
*whistle blower* by its side hehehe

Posted by: denk | Apr 18 2012 9:54 utc | 36

"Although modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, like an authoritarian one, Webster's definition clearly states that the word "regime" refers simply to a form of government.[1]"

Can you compare the Arabic word Nasrallah used to the translation?

Don't you think "regime" is very polite for "police state"?

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 10:49 utc | 37

somebody... "regime" vs "police state"...

when it comes to foreign policy, "regime" is the form of government imposed on the US by israel and the israeli lobby.

the patriot act, which just happened to be waiting in the wings on 9/11, was a giant step towards formalizing the official US police state...

it's just a matter of time until economic conditions worsen enough to cause uprisings, then the process will be complete, as the crackdowns will result in a complete suspension of civil rights.

but, if that's what it takes to secure israel, so be it.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 10:56 utc | 38

the Guardian has forgotten the cold war is over

they call Russia an "opaque regime", apart from calling Assange an "useful idiot"

about "regime" ...
this here e.g is an example of the use of "regime" in internal US use

anyway, good luck to Assange, its a great coup ...

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 11:22 utc | 39

the neocons will never forgive putin for chasing the oily israeli russians out of russia... i mean, if we could have relied on russian oil to tide us over while we tore the middle east up and remodelled it to israeli specifications, things would have been a lot simpler, dont you think?

it's really nice to see leftwing rags like the guardian finally climb aboard the neocon bandwagon.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 11:29 utc | 40

About 171,000 google results for yukos OR oligarchs flee "to israel"

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 11:39 utc | 41

"171,000 google results" - dude, that's nothing!

I counted 31,500,000 google results for the phrase "you are a boring c**t"

Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 18 2012 11:58 utc | 42

somebody @37
it doesnt matter what webster says...its how a word is used currently that matters. regime has only negative connotations, these days. But the translator does not use it for Tunisia...they get the word 'government'

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 14:07 utc | 43

Goldberg theme and variations:

'Me: Let me say up front, I partially agree with Matthews. I don’t like this “regime” talk. He’s wrong when he says that regime only refers tyrannical juntas and the like. A regime is a larger concept that means not just an administration or “government” in the parliamentary sense, but a system of government itself.'

It doesnt matter what he likes...current english does not wait on him. The Bush and obama admins were not called 'regimes'...not over and over: but governments or words that do not alert the people to their unsavoury natures.

he may not like this 'regime' talk/..yet he and his kind use it invariably for independent governments that are seen as impediments to US interests

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 14:15 utc | 44

brian, you decide the way English is used?

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 14:32 utc | 45

Even if regime can be translated to government, it is implied something illegitimate when that word is used. In practical terms, in the west, regime is used when the government is one the writer does not approve of.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 18 2012 14:49 utc | 46

Hey Hubris,did all the Zionists use aliases to multiple vote in your accusation of boredom?
Nasrallah knows that we don't want democracy in Syria,just a compliant dictatorship for Israeli interests,so he is just being realistic,and Assange is not hypocritical in not liking the Syrian dictatorship,as it is one,but the end result of the rebel takeover will be a Libyan nightmare redux.
We all want a democratic government of freedom for all peoples,but the Ziomonsters do not.

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 18 2012 15:30 utc | 47

"Nasrallah knows that we don't want democracy in Syria"
Posted by: dahoit | Apr 18, 2012 11:30:29 AM | 47

Not quite true. Hezbollah TV was loudly cheering the Arab Springs on, thye even featured a full tribute to it on Al Manar.

Assange is to whistleblowers what the Arab Springs are to "democracy". CIA/MI6/Western itel agency tool. This banal intv has reendowed their agent with street cred he lost when earlier outed as the CIA MI6 western "alternative whistleblower" years ago.

Realistically, this intv contains no new ground that Nasrallah hasnt covered in dozens of intvs for years if any cared to tune in.
More than anything else, what it really reveals, considering its delivery through the CIA proxy platform Assange, is the West's next strategy in the War on Terror: the propping up and support of the Islamist Ascendency across the M.E. We've been negotiating (in fact we created, Taliban), we're actively supporting Qaeda and have been for years- another of our creations built up so we have a Muslim 'enemy' to fight in Hegelian fashion. Then there is the west's renewed backing for the Muslim Brotherhood as the latest tool. Even Hamas turned against longtime ally Syria, to rejoin the MB fold. Legitimizing Hezbollah kind of completes the Islamist spectrum, huh?

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 18 2012 16:11 utc | 48

The hasbaras are droller and drier than ever; but their little jokes fall flat, now. At least we're no longer pushovers for their demonic little asides; and we can't so easily be suckered into the "Hegelian fashion" of self-defeat. But nice try, Hasbro.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 18 2012 16:38 utc | 49

no46 Alexander
So how would you interpret this msbnc headline

Clinton urges 'transition to a democratic regime' in Egypt
Secretary of state praises Egyptian army for trying 'to bring a sense of order'

Regime is not same as government it "refers to a set of conditions, most often of a political nature"

Presumably it is not the Syrian government that is cracking down on the opposition but its Secret Service i.e part of the "regime"

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2012 17:26 utc | 50

CIA now mimicking the 99% grassroots, ad hoc activist movement to sell their feces. Arab Springs=Assange Awakening? Big psyops impersonating people power. PS: Next Assange intv will be Anonymous. You know of Lulzec fame that worked for the FBI... LOLOL

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 18 2012 17:31 utc | 51

@brian, @denk @retreatingbladewhatever

You are nuts. Assange isn't CIA. The damage he has done to U.S. standing is severe and real.

@Debs - nice to see you back. I was worried about you. Good luck to the unions in NZ.

Posted by: b | Apr 18 2012 18:12 utc | 52

Assange is in more shit than anyone posting here would dare to face.

Debs is dead wrote. Absolutely. That is why I said he has guts. It is amazing actually.

hang on, this is relevant:

Russia, China, and the BRICS (the S is for South Africa) support al Assad.

The reasons for that are multiple.

One that is little mentioned is that these countries, for their own reasons, partly historical, partly in oppo to the W (US, EU, Isr, etc.), partly because of competition between them (they are all suspicious of China) are very attached to the State as Sovereign.

They need, want, to re-affirm their own power through that kind of discourse and action.

They need that stable foundation to be able to deal, treat, negotiate. Without large powers granted to the State, a Sovereign State, they are empty-handed, vulnerable. So, in that stance they are united, and respect each other, while they argue and compete.

Attacking Al Assad is not welcome - beyond the question of commercial, trade, agreements, which as we all know are important ...

BRICS are all in different degrees opposed to ‘humanitarian war’ and the ‘responsibility to protect’ - Brazil has even just recently proposed and amendment to that piece of International UN law to water it down.

Julian Assange is a ‘Westerner’ and is favorable to all (?) ‘liberation movements’, incl. in Syria.

Almost anything that ‘liberates’ will get his attention and support. That is his mind-set.

All cyber, pirate, geeky (at the upper level) types are the same.

They have a major ideological stake in opening up the boxes and supporting ‘freedom fighters’, are anti-communist and have vivid libertarian streaks.

Global Intl. politics are not their prime concern. They champion, first of all, information open and free, with the idea that ppl then can make up their own minds. Say. On the surface.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2012 18:13 utc | 53

> No way will any impartial parts of this interview be aired in the U.S. corporate media.

ha !

I've aired the entire interview 4 times since I first saw it yesterday, about to air again...

CONTROLLED MEDIA Declassified Documents Of Israel Lobby Mani.wv
Julian Assange interviews Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah.wv

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 18 2012 18:22 utc | 54


assange may have damaged the US, but who cares? ...the damage done by wikileaks is miniscule compared to the damage US does to itself, and it's becoming more apparent every day where the destructive impulse is coming from.

so, why hasnt wikileaks released cables that damage israel?

dont they exist?

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 18:28 utc | 55

#48 ( and a few others) should know better than to screw around with the dialectic, trying to incite paranoia and confusion in the ranks.

Some facts should be considered. Pvt. Bradley Manning (who is alleged to have collaborated with Julian Assange and Wikileaks) was treated in US military custody, in a way in which most people would describe as torture; while President Obama only commented that Pvt. Manning's time in the brig conformed, or was in keeping with, "our values". The Grand Jury proceedings, inside the US district in which Assange's prospective trial would take place--if he is unlucky enough to fall into US hands--is pretty much rigged against him. The so-called "jury of his peers" would be drawn from a pool of people that is in the midst of a pro-state security neighborhood , populated largely by government functionaries. With Manning tortured and Assange being lined up for Kangaroo Court; this makes the case against Assange's authenticity weak indeed.

It was dahoit's statement that drew fire from Number 48: "Nasrallah knows that we don't want democracy in Syria"; the principal part of that, reads "...we [US & Israel] don't want democracy in Syria", But really the Empire doesn't want democracy breaking out anywhere, not even (or especially) in the "Homeland". This Empire could care less about "hearts and minds", which since the creation of the National Security State has always been a line of bullshit. All the Empire cares about, right now, is the primacy of compliance across the world, and creating their ubiquitous climate of fear, and winning the information war, and of course seizing the goods, for the delight of the 1%.

The NYT propagandists don't for a minute believe that Assange is a "nutter"; it's just that they hate the very idea of an interview with Nasrallah, an interview that would possibly get around the internet and compete with their own careful filtering of facts, and break through their special NYT slant and distortion. Assange has guts to face all that is set against him; and that goes double for Pvt. Manning.

And the thrust of all this state terror from the US, and its accomplices, is clearly the destruction of nation states and of democracy itself. Libya, Somalia , Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, are all being feed to this beast; and perhaps Iran is next.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 18 2012 19:01 utc | 56

how much cable traffic must there have been about the dancing israelis?

it took over two months for pinkas and chertoff to spring them... that's time for lots of cables, but did wiwileaks release any cables about the happy dancers? ...not that i know of.

is there some kind of super-secret back channel that the state department uses to communicate with or about israel?

show me wikileaks cables about the dancing israelis, and rachel corrie... if wikileaks dpesnt possess those cables, assange and wikileaks are not really much force.

and if those cables have been held back, then wikileaks in nothing more than a limited hangout.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 19:06 utc | 57

retreating. nobody knows if any cables have been held back.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2012 19:16 utc | 58

if wikileaks doesnt have cables about the dancing israelis, who were there "to document the event", and it took 71 days to get them released, what does that say about wikileaks' access? ...pretty poor access, dont you think? ...

assange comes out of nowhere to global prominence more-or-less overnight on the strength of information that's not really important.

if wikileaks is holding back cables that incriminate israel, then it's operations normal... assange and wikileaks are a limited hangout operation, thrust into global prominence as muckrakers to gain credibility so assange can support the official 9/11 story.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 19:24 utc | 59

I would suspect that the Israelis are more discreet in what they say to US under-staff for one thing. Also, almost all US/Israeli communications probably have a higher security classification than the level of the cables released.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some were held back during the time Wikileaks was courting the NYT and Guardian, with the erroneous assumption that it might avoid alienating pro-Zionist liberal support for Wikileaks.

Posted by: Biklett | Apr 18 2012 19:39 utc | 60

i got no faith in assange...

if he's straight, the stuff he's revealed doesnt make much difference compared to the self-inflicted ongoing catastrophe.

if he's crooked, he's just another big yawn.

either way, he's more pop star than player, and it looks to me like his main function is to support the official 9/11 story.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 18 2012 19:45 utc | 61

Knowing other peoples motives is always a tricky business. You cannot blame Assange for NOT doing something. Just because he hasn't produced any Israeli scoops, that doesn't mean that he supports Israel. It just means it is easier to get US classified documents.

I remember reading somewhere that the US has 2 Million citizens with various military security clearances, that is alot of potential leakers. Israels entire Jewish population is 5 million, probably only 100 thousand with security clearances (alot less potential leakers). Then there is the language barrier, of translating any Hebrew material into English to find out if it contains any valuable info.

Wikileaks is not some all-powerful organisation able to just produce evidence on 9/11 or on Israel at will. It's consists of 5-6 core members and a healthy volunteer base all run out of Julian Assange's living room and suffering a funding blockade by Visa/Mastercard/Paypal. Given the resources, it is a miracle he was able to get such a load of documents from the US military. But again even the documents he did get were mainly CONFIDENTIAL level of clearance (the lowest classification level). Anything relating to 9/11 would easily be TOP SECRET defined as "information that would pose a grave threat to National Security if released" and only available to the top guys. Alot harder to find a Bradley Manning at the top of the chain than within the ranks.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 18 2012 20:26 utc | 62

JA is certainly a puzzle. I already knew the US State Dept was a sink of depravity and props to him for pointing that out to those not already innoculated. But his desire to run for public office under the present dispensation irks me. And MIA, pop sensation, will be his next feat of journalism? I'd like to see him interview someone from FARC or Shining Path or the Naxalites ere he gets edgy cred from this prole.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 18 2012 20:38 utc | 63

Posted by: b | Apr 18, 2012 2:12:56 PM | 52

Damage? What damage? He is the tightest black ops the CIA has run in years. His leaks didnt reach much above classified and usually buttressed the govt position on the stuff leaked-esp Israel. The Startfor emails that wiki released were given to them by the FBI- only server on which they were archived. State Dept itself admitted that hundreds of the 'cables' had been released with their ok?! Problem is not that this slick baggage is so convincing; its that enough people dont bother to do some hardcore research into him.

http://w w

At the same time Assange was “the most dangerous wanted man” in the west- he was partying at the US Embassy with the Ambassador at a cocktail party in Iceland. The true whistleblowers like Colleen Rowley, Manning etc are either blacklisted or IN JAIL. The real whistleblowers get the Gary Webb or Bill Cooper treatment- not nominations for Nobel Peace Prize, or Time's Man of the Year cover, million dollar book advances and gifts by western militaries with state of the art DUMBS. They also dont spend their 'house arrest' in billionaire's castles.

Assange gave the Guardian, NYT and WaPo the pick of any cables before they then published their heavily redacted versions.
BTW: Netanyahu himself praised wikileaks saying it vindicated Israels position. Another Telegraph article had headlines about Julian Assange partying with the US Ambassador at a cocktail fete in the US Embassy in Iceland- all the while he was a fugitive from the West. With the trillions spent on surveilling the rest of us- dont you think they could have caught Julian as he hopped across intl borders to do the morning talk show circuit? Maybe CIA should have just phoned Matt Lauer.

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 18 2012 20:38 utc | 64

UK Telegraph of dec 13, 2010 :

Yup. sounds like a desparate man on the lam to me. Cheers!

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 18 2012 20:49 utc | 65

Assange goes back quite a ways before wikileaks, including John Young

If you look at more detail however, into the leaked cables, you'll find there was some damaging stuff released about israhell

- the MSM he worked with, did their damndest to keep that aspect of the leaks under wraps, which is partially why he stopped dealing with them

WikiLeaks: JEWS START ALL THE WARS, just like Mel Gibson said

WikiLeaks to publish 'sensitive' Israel cables

Wikileaks Monday showed US doubts over Israel's commitment to Mideast peace

WikiLeaks cables: Lamb sales behind New Zealand' s ' flap' with Israel

WikiLeaks: Israel aimed to keep Gaza economy on brink of collapse

The U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks include a considerable number of communications by American diplomats stationed in Israel

A considerable number of cables focus on the Hamas enclave in Gaza and its relations with Israel.

Among the most important revelations to have emerged from the leaks is the fact that Israel sought to coordinate its far reaching military operation in Gaza in late 2008 with both Egypt and the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority. In a confidential telegram sent from Tel Aviv, then Deputy U.S. Ambassador Luis Moreno noted that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a visiting congressional delegation that Israel had asked both Egypt and the PA if they would be willing to take control of the Gaza Strip once Hamas was defeated. Barak noted that both had declined. PA officials denied this version of events.

One cable revealed details of a conversation between then-U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones and then-Military Intelligence Head Amos Yadlin. Yadlin argued that a Hamas takeover might have positive effects, since Israel would then be able to relate to Gaza as an unambiguously hostile entity. Yadlin also assumed that Israel would be able to deal successfully with a West Bank PA run by Fatah.

One cable noted a plan devised by Counterterrorism Bureau Chief Danny Arditi, according to which a new Palestinian intelligence monetary unit would be established to receive additional funding from the United States and the EU, while the amount of funds transferred monthly to the Gaza Strip would be downsized. Another noted Israeli intentions of keeping the Gazan economy under pressure, without ever causing its absolute collapse. The cable dealing with this issue, dated November 3, 2008 (i.e., immediately prior to Operation Cast Lead), defines the goal of the Israeli blockade as keeping the Gaza economy “at its lowest possible level without getting a humanitarian crisis.”

The pro-Hizballah newspaper al-Akhbar was one of the outlets to which Wikileaks chose to leak cables. Lebanon is currently in a state of political tension as the country awaits a possible issuing of indictments against individuals suspected of involvement in the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005.

Among the cables published by al-Akhbar was a dispatch from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut dated March 2008. The cable depicts then-Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr apparently issuing advice or requests to Israel via the United States regarding possible future large-scale military operations against Hizballah. The writer of the cable suggests that:

Murr is trying to ascertain how long an offensive would be required to clean out Hizballah… The LAF will move to pre-position food, money, and water with these units so they can stay on their bases when Israel comes for Hizballah–discreetly, Murr added… For Murr, the LAF’s strategic objective was to survive a three week war “completely intact” and able to take over once Hizballah’s militia has been destroyed.


WikiLeaks: Israel's secret hotline to the man tipped to replace Mubarak


sometimes you have to go to the other side to see the real meat of the leaks since the controlled media meant for more mainstream public consumption are the ones most cleansed, while the cleaners are less careful on their own turf..

and don't forget the smear operation - what better way to discredit him, than to claim he's a agent for the very people he's leaking data from

a variation on the 'ol attack the messenger hasbara tactic..

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 18 2012 20:55 utc | 66

@ limited hangout

Julian Assange partying with the US Ambassador at a cocktail fete in the US Embassy in Iceland- all the while he was a fugitive from the West.

You didn't provide a link to the piece so I just looked it up. Here is a quote from the Telegraph piece that paints the scene in a bit of a different light.

"He certainly had fun at the party," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic MP and former activist in WikiLeaks. "He went as my guest. I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea."


Also bear in mind this party was in 2009 not a time when Assange was "a fugitive from the West". Wikileaks has always been based out of Iceland going back to 2006 due to its powerful internet privacy laws, which Assange and Jonsdottir helped draft.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 18 2012 21:07 utc | 67

Because Israel is presently governed by ruthless men who are unwilling to heed the warnings of some former heads of their agencies, and because the IDF is the most dangerous torpedo in the Empire's arsenal, and because in the event of conflagration, Israel also stands to be ruined by a hiccup of one of the Big Powers; then--Samson Option and rampant insanity aside--they ought to consider what will happen if they miscalculate their brinkmanship, or fail to appreciate the raw limits of their audacity.

The big circulation American papers don't report gritty details of Israel's Palestinian Ghetto, nor do they give detailed reports of how Israel is keeping captive people on short rations, how Israeli authorities hold people they don't like in indefinite detention. And from Israel, US administrations have learned the efficacy of the most brutal measures, and that fascistic power is not obliged to apologize or justify the measures it takes.

There's a tragic symbiosis going on between the US and Israel. When will cables or secret papers released by American investigators and journalists appear in the Washington Post?--in the NYT?--in CNN or from the Big Three of American corporate TV? The glorious days of American Journalism are over, with few exceptions, except for alternatives on Internet, the bloggers and independents.

AIPAC is the horrid, hideous symbiosis of the Israeli/American right wing. But Israel is the one riding on the back of the Tiger, not the other way around.

When I think of what the US and Israel have become together, and when I think of all hubris their leaders show, or their tacit conviction that Divine Protection will sanction their acts, with unquestioned Will to Power; when I see their immodesty, deviousness and recklessness; I really shudder for or future.

Still, the obsessions of Israel might trigger a conflagration; and if they get what their crazy leaders are pushing for: Lebensraum made possible in the end by ethnic cleansing, or other spoils of war and a false sense of safety created by helping to destroy Iran; does this Israeli history count for nothing but ambition, after all?--will they disobey even their own scriptures? To put it another way--don't they think God can see what they are doing?

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 18 2012 21:22 utc | 68

somebody @45

its the way english is used...your grasp of english may be shaky.

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 21:44 utc | 69

b @52..

please refrain from the 'nuts' comments. Ive not said Assange is CIA (ive not even used the word)...

i do say the translator is using the word 'regime' to refer to the syrian govt and government to refer to Tunisia's recent US backed coup beneficiary. this skews the listener understanding to expect the syrian government is unsavoury: its a standard demonsising ploy.

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2012 21:51 utc | 70

@68 sad but true: The "Jewish" State cannot even abide by the law they say they originated. At this state they don't even seem to care what people think of them. It's all "hate" to them. When the bottom falls out I see lots(most?) seeking safety in Europe or N. Am, leaving a few fanatics to ascend Masada with their Uzis.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 18 2012 22:24 utc | 71

somebody @45

its the way english is used...your grasp of english may be shaky.

Posted by: brian | Apr 18, 2012 5:44:13 PM | 69

.. Or he is being purposely obtuse

Posted by: DM | Apr 18 2012 22:34 utc | 72

@51 bitchen link! The Dailymail is one of my guilty pleasures, no worse than the other gothic fonted horrors.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 18 2012 22:38 utc | 73

On the question of the meaning of "regime", the Oxford Dictionary says a regime is:

(1) a government, especially an authoritarian one
(2) a system or ordered way of doing things, e.g "a tax regime"; a regimen.
Origin: ... Early English use was in the sense 'regimen'. Later English use developed from specific reference in French to the French Ancien Régime (i.e. before the 1789 French Revolution).

Likewise, #50 'somebody' says:

Regime is not same as government it "refers to a set of conditions, most often of a political nature". Example: Clinton urges 'transition to a democratic regime' in Egypt.

In Syria, before this past year's reforms, there was officially for decades an "Emergency Law" that legally empowered the executive government to disregard the Constitution. It made the executive government legally all-powerful. Also, some key laws, notably the censorship laws, consisted of general principles which were subject to a large leeway of administrative interpretation, which had the practical effect that the executive government had the legal power to change the policy of interpretation and effectively change the real law, without changing the written law. Also, new laws could be and were issued by simply an executive order of the President, without having to obtain approval of the parliament. It became customary to refer to this government and its way of governing as "the regime", in both Arabic and English. In Arabic the word also means "the System".

Contrary to brian #70, I don't think it's unsavory in English.

Here's what's really "unsavory" and demonizing and grossly defamatory and slanderous:

US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, 16 apr 2012: “They [the Syrian government] have lied to the international community, lied to their own people. And the biggest fabricator of the facts is Assad himself.... His representatives are merely doing his bidding and under probably some not insignificant personal duress.”

Compared to that, use of the word "regime" is harmless and amiable.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Apr 18 2012 23:11 utc | 74

'Contrary to brian #70, I don't think it's unsavory in English.'
contrary to Parviziyi , it is...and as a native speaker thats how the word is interpreted by any native speaker.

It was this use of the word 'regime' to refer to the Libyan govt and the word 'govt to refer to the govt under Idris, in a report from benghazi, that alerted me to the bias in Democracynows reporting. Its the same here with Assanges translator: who always uses the word 'regime' for Syrias govt and the word 'government' for Tunisias!
Since he was translating Nasrulllah, id like to know what arabic words he uses when refering to syria government. Because it sure cant be the arabic version of 'regime'.

theres nothing harmless let alone amiable about this misuse of words... i suggest you go and read Orwell.

Posted by: brian | Apr 19 2012 1:45 utc | 75

'In Syria, before this past year's reforms, there was officially for decades an "Emergency Law" that legally empowered the executive government to disregard the Constitution...Also, new laws could be and were issued by simply an executive order of the President, without having to obtain approval of the parliament. '

this sounds like what Bush instituted.

I may add: the use of the word 'regime' lies in its cumulative effect..being used over and if to say : 'usavoury' 'unsavory' 'unsavory'...being repeated by authoritive media and poltical figures, people come to see Syrias govt as unsavoury.

as for Rice and the US ...welcome to the real 'regime' unsavory as it gets.

Posted by: brian | Apr 19 2012 1:54 utc | 76

a useful execise:

google 'syrian regime' with advanced search:

then 'syrian government'

then do the same for 'US regime' and 'US government'

Theres nothing harmless about this word

Posted by: brian | Apr 19 2012 1:58 utc | 77

'So Assange took his first guest — someone who, by agreeing to be his guest, provided him with an important scoop for his debut show — and conducted an aggressive, adversarial interview with him: something most American TV personalities would be loathe to do. But not only that, Assange’s questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad.'

why support the syria opposition at all? why base a journalistic investigation on support for anyone? what happened to impartiality?
but it is nice to see at least the word 'government' being used: as in 'Assad government' by Greenwald

Posted by: brian | Apr 19 2012 2:33 utc | 78

Just as the false left-right paradigm is used to mislead- so is the Russia vs West meme. Russia has been controlled by zionists since the Bolsheviks took over. In 1990s the neocon gangster zio-Oligarchs moved in on what was left. The illusion is buying that its China vs Russia or East vs West. Its The Elite (of all countries) against the rest of us, the people or 'useless eaters' as they have dubbedus. If Russia were truly backing the Arabs-Syria the equation would look much different. TPTB take orders from Rothschild syndicate, be they asian, russian or saudi. That being said, I dont believe Assange working at RT is in conflict. Overall it supports the Powers' agenda, not hurts it. Recall the charade that Turkey pulled in their "fight with Israel" over Mavi Marmara? For the cameras only. Offscreen it was business as usual, still is.

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 19 2012 3:28 utc | 79

#66 None of the items you reference are anywhere near "classified". All that was well known and discussed, at least in Arab and M.E. media and much US alternative media too. Didnt need Assange after the fact to verify it. Spilling such widely known info is hardly 'exposure'. the fact that Netanyahu praised wikileaks and said it vindicated Israel's position- and that Assange derides 911 investigators really tells me most of what I need to know on him.

He is an Illuminati "opposition" product. But glad he intv'd Nasrallah rather than another MSM Trayvon or Kony article

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 19 2012 3:35 utc | 80

how do the expelled oligarchs fit into the picture?

for instance, was khodorkovsky jailed as a cover operation for the remaining zionists, like putin, who now run russia?

nevzlin, berezovsky, gusinsky... are all those guys witting or unwitting that heir expulsion is nothing but cover for zionist illuminati who remain in control of russia?

alex jones strikes again... next, we'll be posting articles about chemtrails, abiotic oil and UFOs.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 3:53 utc | 81

whos to say 'limited hangout' is is not an illuminati!

Posted by: brian | Apr 19 2012 4:22 utc | 82

that robert anton wilson guy is spinning in his grave...

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 4:35 utc | 83

Now Mr limited hangout says [Assange] is an Illuminati "opposition" product. This is a cute aside, after he strikes just a couple of little squeaky off-notes on the John Birch fiddle, in order to throw us off the hasbara (or perchance, Pentagon) scent. Again, very droll.

And using the pseudonym limited hangout to run his dissembling by us is pure inspiration. You have to hand it to him for sheer pluck.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has declared Assange and his wikileaks organization "an enemy of the State" and has enumerated the means by which it aims to destroy both. Obama's Justice Department has caused a Grand Jury to convene and may have already wrapped up the secret indictment, and has cherry-picked the venue to guarantee a conviction, should Julian Assange ever fall into their clutches. And the US military subjected Pvt. Manning to some aspects of torture, during his early time in custody.

Mr limited hangout seems so studied in his arts, that it occurs to me that his posts might even turn out to be part of the Pentagon's project, making good on their early threats to discredit Assange any way they could, and trying to drive a wedge between him and his supporters, using all these goon-like, long-practiced gambits, all their guile and trickery. Hasbara or Pentagon Tool; and his is the performance of one slippery customer, I'd say.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 19 2012 6:02 utc | 84

Thanks to all, both recent arrivals and long-term barflies for a vivacious but civil thread.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Apr 19 2012 10:40 utc | 85

When the interviewer fades into the background, as Assange did, you get an astounding amount of information from the interviewee. When I first saw it was only 28 minutes, I was bummed it wasn't an hour, but Assange just asked questions and then sat back and let Nasrallah take it and run, with lots of detail and opinions without interjecting.

On U.S. "talk shows," the guests are competing with the hosts (and commercial breaks) for air time, so that thoughts are cut up and cut off, ideas can't be taken to their conclusions, and you're sort of left hanging and frustrated after it's all over.

I loved Assange's interview style. Hell, he wasn't even wearing a suit, just a white shirt, no tie (nice cufflinks though), never vying for attention. It was refreshing for a change.

Posted by: Cynthia | Apr 19 2012 12:50 utc | 86

@ hangout

as was already pointed out, these are only confidential level cables, and only from U.S. assets.

and this was only a cursory search, to show that in fact cables damaging to israhell were in fact released, which means you or anyone else, could have likewise found them, with only minimal effort

and if you look at the HBGary leaked emails, you'll see just how much a threat Assange is to the US

As Copeland also pointed out..

cherry picking strawmen positions, while failing the above doesn't lend credibility to your case

at this point, I'm just waiting to see the same treatment applied to Cryptome, for confirmation.

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 19 2012 13:40 utc | 87


i just re-read you post about all the damage wikileaks has done to israel...

there's nothing there that isnt common knowledge... on the other hand, there's nothing there that pertains, even vaguely, to the really damaging stuff, like israel's treatment of rachel corrie, or the problems with getting the dancing israeslis released.

why is that?

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 14:03 utc | 88

A raft of controversial diplomatic secrets published by the WikiLeaks group has not damaged Israel and in fact strengthened its position, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday.

A collection of over 250,000 classified U.S. dispatches released by WikiLeaks caused global diplomatic turmoil and discomfort for the United States, which had warned allies ahead of publication to prepare from embarrassment.


But for Israel, the outcome is positive, Netanyahu said.

"Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications," the prime minster told a group of editors in Tel Aviv. "The documents show many sources backing Israel's assessments, particularly of Iran."

Netanyahu: WikiLeaks cables prove Israel is right on Iran haaretz 29.11.10


Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 14:15 utc | 89

if wikileaks doesnt have cables about the dancing israelis, who were there "to document the event", and it took 71 days to get them released, what does that say about wikileaks' access? ...pretty poor access, dont you think? ...

The ‘diplo’ cables released by wikileaks represent official, but somewhat informal, and supposedly ‘secret’ (protected) communications. They are just one step down from public official statements.

That is the why many ppl were uninterested in them, they showed pretty much what you would expect. Meida (e.g. Guardian) tried to drum up interest with a few salacious details or off-the-cuff judgments, which never really gathered much attention, for good reasons, they were not very revealing.

Those using such a com. channel realise it isn’t *really* safe. More importantly, they have integrated what topics are fine to mention, even in an extravagant, unbridled fashion, what opinions, meets, statements, etc. they can burble on about. That is their life, taboo topics are respected.

None of them would write, in the normal run of things, anything about 9/11 or dancing Israelis. The dancing Israelis appeared in the US media by accident so to speak.

That does not mean that some cables weren’t held back or that JA has an ‘image’ that does not exactly correspond to his real position.

I agree though that if he represented a real threat, he would not be interviewing ppl on RT.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 19 2012 14:40 utc | 90

you got to wonder why assange was set up as this big deal, dont you, Noirette?

we're pretty much agreed here that his info is not much force, but still, on the "strength" of that info, he becomes this big hero or villain or whatever...

he's got to have some function, or he wouldnt have been put on a pedastal.

the only obvious thing, as far as function goes, is his "annoyance" with "truthers".

now he's trying to parlay the whole dismal thing into a career in politics... how does this interview with nasrallah fit into that? he trying to recover some credibility? ...or is he just trying to keep up a media presesence?

who knows, who cares?

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 14:54 utc | 91

> the really damaging stuff, like israel's treatment of rachel corrie, or the problems with getting the dancing israeslis released.

'really damaging' is in the eye of the beholder

and zio-neo-cons always downplay or twist things into /\ictory

being /\ictorous is /\ery important to them

the real questions are what would U.S. diplomats be discussing, in only confidential level cables, which hundreds of thousands of U.S. servicemen had free access to

its like some people have personal axes to grind and therefore disappointment over what they wish to be exposed, clouding their judgement over the actual facts of the wikileak operation

proving a negative 'why wasn't this released' turns the tables, from appreciation for those who are actually risking their freedom and lives, like Assange and those who, say, air Hizballah in the U.S. (technically illegal) on a pirate station, (technically illegal) to casting FUD while said doubters, are doing nothing themselves

other than criticizing..

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 19 2012 15:04 utc | 92

it's pretty obvious, to me at least, that assange was set up, via a massive media campaign, to serve some function.

it's obvious that the quality of his information doesnt merit the attention, so he's being manipulated into a position from which he can do the manipulators some "good".

the only function visible is his support of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, and his "annoyance" with people who'd rather know the truth about 9/11.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 15:08 utc | 93

what's more important... assange's hundreds of thousands of cables of meaningless diplomatic chit-chat, or PNAC's need for "a new pearl harbor"?

why arent PNAC signatories and PNAC documents --that spell the project out-- getting an appropriate amount of attention?

given the massive amount of attention paid to assange, what would be, in comparison, an "appropriate amount of attention" to PNAC, its people, and its documents?

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 15:19 utc | 94

whos to say 'limited hangout' is is not an illuminati!

LOL Brian indeed. If Julian Assange is considered Illuminati just because he hasn't produced a scoop on Israel then I wonder how trustworthy "limited hangout" who ALSO hasn't produced any scoops on Israel is. In fact I myself have never discovered any secret Israeli intelligeance files !!! So maybe I'm an Israeli plant.

Of course all this speculation doesn't answer the questions of why.

Why if Julian Assange was aligned with the US-Israel would he mainly be targetting the US?

Why would he be working now for a Russian news channel?

Why would he promote Nasrallah and Hezbollah as Freedom Fighters if he was a US-Israeli stooge?

Why would Visa/Mastercard/Paypal be blocking him off from financing?

Why would he be under House Arrest on trumped up rape charges?

Assange has a history of battling authority figures going all the way back to his early twenties when he was arrested in Australia for hacking.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 19 2012 15:25 utc | 95

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 18, 2012 5:07:45 PM | 67

Most freelance journalists or even Americam citizens would never have ANY access to the diplomats' parties at Embassies- much less 'random, rogue' freelance hackers.

That Russia and US, Turkey- the leaders work behind the scenes while doing theater in public is long established and those who are naive or shallow cant fathom such duplicity perhaps. As to Illuminati? Whatever one calls it- The Elite, Bilderberg VIPs etc there is a group of ruling class honchos that are arbiters of world policy. Does anyone here read Carroll Quigley or Anthony Sutton? These could not be dismissed as conspiracists but were insiders who wrote about the reality. (Though when same info is referenced by non-prestigious status quo sources the same data is dismissed as flaky conspiracy).

You can sell me Assange and his line when he stops being "annoyed" by the 911 investigators and intvs Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim and those players. Maybe Assange's lawyer- who works for the Rothschilds- could make contact.

As per They did a good article about NYT reporters who met with the WH before publishing wikileaks story---
"Administration praised NYT reporters for their handling of leaked Afghan war material"- July 26, 2010

Assange took NYT, Guardian and Spiegel as his media partners but fell out with one of them over payment for the material. (Independent Jan 8, 2011). More grassroots huh? Meanwhile the Iraq Vets who ran public hearings over troops' blatant criminal acts committed on duty didnt get much MSM coverage. Hmm...

Wiki was founded in 2006 with George Soros funding and got its plumb MSM entre via 'cognitive infiltration' czar Cass Sunstein (Feb 24, 2007) op in WaPo titled "Brave New WikiWorld".
Yes the same Sunstein (wife is Obama war whore Samantha Powers) who head Obama's WH Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In Jan 2008, Sunstein wrote a Harvard paper called "Conspiracy Theories" demanding that US deploy groups of covert ops and pseudo 'agents of influence' to change the narrative of those false narratives, specifically the 911 deniers.
But Assange is another underground dissident or average occupy grassroots taxpaying citizen out there trying to make a difference? LOLOL

Posted by: limited hangout | Apr 19 2012 15:26 utc | 96

@ retreatingbladestall

while good points, I have no control over what programs become available in english from such 'hot' sources, just as wikileaks has no control over what is leaked to them

some people are simply involved in the effort to free information despite the risk and cost to their personal lives because they feel the principle is an overriding concern compared to the importance of one person

perhaps if more people were like that, the world wouldn't be in the shape it's in

if you have superior material ready for broadcast I'd be glad to air it..

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 19 2012 15:33 utc | 97


have you given much attention to PNAC and its people?

i surely dont have any "superior material", but i've been watching this more-or-less full time since a couple days after 9/11... as NPR went haywire in the aftermath, i was driven to the internet to try to figure it out.

all the information is out there, but some assembly is required.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 15:44 utc | 98

the basic building blocks, as you're assembling the story, are peak oil, america's dependence on cheap oil, and israel's dependence on american protection.

PNAC's parent, the AEI -the american wing of the likud party-- became allied with exxon in 1997, and the AEI and exxon are allied in denying global warming (which threatens israel) and peak oil (which threatens america)/

the basic premise being, america must grab enough oil to protect israel until israel secures itself from sea level rise...
and if israelis can also set themselves up as the oil distribution hub of the middle east, they can be assured of a comfy living even after their american protection expires from oil shortages.

all that stuff is out there, but there are very determined, very powerful people want to keep anyone from connecting the dots.

so far, they've been successful.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 19 2012 16:01 utc | 99

I've tried to post a list of shows here 3 times..

this is the 4'th time

Ahmadinejad speech at UN nuclear conference.
Arrest George W Bush.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Cynthia McKinney(all).
dn2003-1017-1(psyops and information operations used against public scandal).
Gaza all.
inside job.
Iranian Scientist Shahram Amiri's Interview (longer - english).
Iraq Veterans Against the War Speak Out.
Julian Assange_s explosive disclosure.
K street whores.
Louis Farrakhan on fear and 911.
Media Reform Conference.
Sibel Edmonds.
War Made Easy.
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler.
William Black lecture.
WMD - Weapons of Mass Deception-2004-Danny Schechter-a.
World According to Monsanto.

Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 19 2012 16:07 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.