Wikileaks exposes more US lies

[RLENT]

....... and the hits jus' keep on comin' .....

"The United States declined a request from the United Arab Emirates to assist an investigation into the assassination of a top Hamas commander.

Dubai suspects Israel's Mossad agency to have been behind the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhoh in a Dubai hotel in January 2010. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied a role in the killing.

The U.S. last year denied reports that it had received a request for assistance from Dubai, but a recently released WikiLeaks cable proves otherwise.

A cable sent from the embassy in Dubai less than a month after the assassination reveals that senior U.A.E. officials asked the American ambassador and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to probe urgently "cardholder details and related information for credit cards reportedly issued by a U.S. bank to several suspects" in the murder ........"

Original Article:

U.S. declined to cooperate in Dubai probe

 

[RLENT]

Of course the article above was foreign press so ya expect that they might be a little better than the government-bootlickin-journalists-cum-stenographers from a US news organization ..... and lo and behold we are not disappointed - the AP coverage on the same matter fails to mention the USG lied, but manages to construct the article so it leaves the impression that we're probably doin' all we can:

"Another cable outlines a request the Emirates made on Feb. 24 for U.S. help in tracking down cardholder details and other information relating to credit cards linked to the suspected killers.

Dubai police say many of the alleged members of the hit squad used prepaid credit cards issued by a bank in Iowa that were distributed through another U.S. company known as Payoneer.

U.S. embassy officials passed on details of the request to the FBI and urged Washington to handle it urgently, according to the cable ......."

What an absolute frickin' joke .....

Original AP article:

WikiLeaks: UAE considered keeping Hamas hit quiet

 

[Black Sheep]

I'm sure everyone is shocked, SHOCKED!!, mind you, that the US would be less than enthusiastic about cooperating with an investigation into the assassination of a known major player of a terrorist group like Hamas. And to be less than forthcoming with details concerning what they knew?? DISGRACEFUL is what I say. Round up the usual suspects!

And who was the victim, anyway?

Hamas...identified the man as Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, one of the founders of Hamas' military wing that has been responsible for hundreds of deadly attacks and suicide bombings targeting Israelis since the 1980s.

Hamas: Israel electrocuted agent in hotel - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

Certainly a sympathetic figure judging from all reports. Just unbelievable that the Israelis didn't arrange for tri-lateral talks involving the US, and try to negotiate a peaceful understanding. I mean, can't we all just get along??

 

[RLENT]

I'm sure everyone is shocked, SHOCKED!!, mind you, that the US would be less than enthusiastic about cooperating with an investigation into the assassination of a known major player of a terrorist group like Hamas.

We were asked by one of our "allies" (clearly only a so-called ally) to assist them in upholding the rule of law (albeit theirs), in apprehending the perpetrators of an illegal, extra-judicial killing - an assassination.

It's bad enough to not uphold the principles that we claim to espouse and practice (but apparently only when it's convenient), but to then also lie about it (misleading the American people) goes beyond the pale .....

Those are the actions of a corrupt, immoral government.

And to be less than forthcoming with details concerning what they knew??

It would be one thing to come out publicly and say, after being asked for assistance: "We are not going to assist in this matter because ....." - that would be claiming the moral high ground and actually standing up for what we (claim) to believe in.

But that isn't what happened.

And who was the victim, anyway?

When the US government knowingly and willfully lies ?

Really ..... you actually need someone to explain that to you ?

Tells me alot about your own sense of ethics and morals ....

I'll bet if you try real, real hard you might be able to figure it out .... although it appears that for you, it might take a good, long while. Here's a little hint - just so your brain doesn't explode trying to figure it out: the answer is actually contained in this reply.

Certainly a sympathetic figure judging from all reports.

Newsflash:

Apparently the rule of law only applies if you happen to be a "sympathetic figure" ...... otherwise all bets are off.

I mean, can't we all just get along??

Well, considering that I'm highly disinclined to "get along" with people, who while claiming to ethical, honest, and morally upright, approve, enable, and facilitate immoral and unethical actions on the part of their government, I'd have to say:

No, probably not .....

Such hypocrites just pretty much just make me wanna vomit .....

 

[Black Sheep]

Now, ain't you just the picture of outraged virture and self-riteousness. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone lived in the same land of make-believe as you do, expecting politicians to always tell the truth to the people who elected them? I'll bet you even think the foreign policies of all nations should be an open forum conducted on the internet with truth detectors like you deciding who meets the decency standards. You just spent all that effort being indignant and didn't address the reality of a single issue, much less the main point. Here's a nasty dose of reality for you, sonny: the world has some really bad guys out there and they want to kill us and our allies just because of who we are. We can try all that play nice stuff but it won't change a thing. When we're in a war with crazy fanatics who think they're going to paradise when they're dead we had better be willing to accomodate their wishes. There hasn't been a government in the history of civilization that has adhered to the silly, unrealistic standards of morality you think should be in place. And about the so-called victim and who he was and what he did? He killed innocent civilians, women and children. Bet your attitude would be different if it was your wife and kids that got their arms and legs blown off by one of his home-made bombs. And the ethics and morality you spout off about? Judging from some of your past postings you'd better try something else 'cause that ain't your strong suit. Try getting in touch with reality. It ain't pretty but it's out there whether you like it or not.

 

[aristotle]

Black Sheep.... I hope you post more often! You show alot of promise and cut straight to the point. Refreshing.

 

[skyraider]

Now, ain't you just the picture of outraged virture and self-riteousness. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone lived in the same land of make-believe as you do, expecting politicians to always tell the truth to the people who elected them? I'll bet you even think the foreign policies of all nations should be an open forum conducted on the internet with truth detectors like you deciding who meets the decency standards. You just spent all that effort being indignant and didn't address the reality of a single issue, much less the main point. Here's a nasty dose of reality for you, sonny: the world has some really bad guys out there and they want to kill us and our allies just because of who we are. We can try all that play nice stuff but it won't change a thing. When we're in a war with crazy fanatics who think they're going to paradise when they're dead we had better be willing to accomodate their wishes. There hasn't been a government in the history of civilization that has adhered to the silly, unrealistic standards of morality you think should be in place. And about the so-called victim and who he was and what he did? He killed innocent civilians, women and children. Bet your attitude would be different if it was your wife and kids that got their arms and legs blown off by one of his home-made bombs. And the ethics and morality you spout off about? Judging from some of your past postings you'd better try something else 'cause that ain't your strong suit. Try getting in touch with reality. It ain't pretty but it's out there whether you like it or not.

all righty then Big Orange.

 

[Turtle]

"The U.S. last year denied reports that it had received a request for assistance from Dubai, but a recently released WikiLeaks cable proves otherwise."

Last year? Huh? When?What?

 

[hdxpedx]

Wake me up when they expose al gorky’s global warming conspiracy..All those brainwashed school children used for profiteering, carbon credits and mass fuel increases all documented..

 

[RLENT]

"The U.S. last year denied reports that it had received a request for assistance from Dubai, but a recently released WikiLeaks cable proves otherwise."

Last year? Huh? When?What?

The first day of the Jewish New Year is Rosh HaShanah, which fell this year on September 9th on the Gregorian calendar.

That was the first day of the year 5771 .... and anything earlier than that would have been last year (5770)

 

[Turtle]

The first day of the Jewish New Year is Rosh HaShanah, which fell this year on September 9th on the Gregorian calendar.

That was the first day of the year 5771 .... and anything earlier than that would have been last year (5770)

Yes, I know, but the published date of the article uses the Gregorian calendar, not the Hebrew calendar, which is used even in Israel only for religious purposes, and hasn't been used by Jews for daily purposes for more than 2000 years. I know they have the dual Gregorian and Hebrew calendars at the top of the masthead, but all other articles on the site, and the references within them, are Gregorian, not Hebrew.

So I can't conclude that this one particular article uses the very unorthodox co-mingling of two sets of calendars within the same article as a way to explain away a phrasing mistake by a writer, which was confirmed by a Jewish fellow I know when he said in an e-mail, "Year, that is an obvious mistake. It makes me wonder if the article wasn't originally written to be published after the first of the year, like closer to the anniversary of the murder, and for some reason that particular cable was decided to be released in the press earlier than expected. Or it was something that was put together very quickly and it is just a simple phrasing mistake."

He also added, "I wonder if Wikileaks will ever go back to being a publisher of leaks, rather than being a selective media distributor of them. Your side, my side, our side, their side -- does Wikileaks now have a side? It certainly seems so, releasing cables to select media outlets to curry favor of some sort, perhaps?"

January is practically last year, so maybe that's what was in the writer's mind when he wrote it. It just looked funny to me when I read it.

 

[RLENT]

Interesting possibility that you raise re: publication next year ..... could very well be the case. Or it just could be a slip of the writers tongue, in how he views the years (mebbe he's extreme orthodox or something, I dunno ..)

Regarding Wikileaks publishing of leaks: Are they no longer making the leaks publicly available on their own website ? (which would be "publishing" them)

Shalom.

 

[aristotle]

Like manna from Heaven, pieces of the puzzle are now cascading into place. Peeling back the onion has proved worthwhile. Disturbing revelations met with equanimity as the quest for truth always pays dividends. Mystery solved. Righteous!

 

[RLENT]

Like manna from Heaven, pieces of the puzzle are now cascading into place. Peeling back the onion has proved worthwhile. Disturbing revelations met with equanimity as the quest for truth always pays dividends. Mystery solved. Righteous!

..... so many words ..... and yet so little really said ....

 

[Turtle]

Interesting possibility that you raise re: publication next year ..... could very well be the case. Or it just could be a slip of the writers tongue, in how he views the years (mebbe he's extreme orthodox or something, I dunno ..)

Just to be clear, the possibility of it originally meaning to be published next year was not something that I had even considered. I figured it was a slip of the writer's tongue in the same way I'll say "last week" on a Saturday, when I'll talking about the most recent Monday, since Monday is practically last week, but is technically still this week. But like I said, it stuck out and just struck me as odd.

Regarding Wikileaks publishing of leaks: Are they no longer making the leaks publicly available on their own website ? (which would be "publishing" them)

Again, I don't know. As far as I know they still publish on their Web site (kinda defeats their purpose if they didn't), but I haven't paid any attention to the timing of who published what first. Maybe they release stuff to news outlets, and then some time later, either later that day or at some other time, publish the leaks on the site. I don't know.

Shalom.

Aloha


"..... so many words ..... and yet so little really said ...."

Hey! I resemble that remark.

I do try not to be cryptically barmy when I do it, tho.

 

[RLENT]

Just to be clear, the possibility of it originally meaning to be published next year was not something that I had even considered. I figured it was a slip of the writer's tongue in the same way I'll say "last week" on a Saturday, when I'll talking about the most recent Monday, since Monday is practically last week, but is technically still this week. But like I said, it stuck out and just struck me as odd.

Good eye - I missed it completely

Again, I don't know. As far as I know they still publish on their Web site (kinda defeats their purpose if they didn't), but I haven't paid any attention to the timing of who published what first. Maybe they release stuff to news outlets, and then some time later, either later that day or at some other time, publish the leaks on the site. I don't know.

Same here - too much other stuff to follow to pay attention on the timing thing.

Aloha

Tja!

Hur går det?

Hey! I resemble that remark.

I do try not to be cryptically barmy when I do it, tho.

Oh man ... looks like that's gonna be my new word for the day ....

 

[greg334]

So Weakileaks is part of a Jewish conspiracy?

 

[RLENT]

So Weakileaks is part of a Jewish conspiracy?

Eh ?

Conspiracy to do what ?

 

[greg334]

I don't know. Aren't you who brought up the Hebrew calendar thing?

Who else uses the Hebrew calendar? Arabs? The Chinese?

 

[RLENT]

I don't know.

Clearly .....

Aren't you who brought up the Hebrew calendar thing?

Since the original article article I quoted and linked was published in Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper), and since the current Hebrew year was included on said paper's masthead, along with the Gregorian date, it just somehow seemed germane ....

Who else uses the Hebrew calendar? Arabs? The Chinese?

No idea .... maybe you'll enlighten us .....