SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On the sixth anniversary of the first infamous "Cablegate" by WikiLeaks, when it releases its first batch of sensitive US files, on November 28 2010, it has expanded its Public Library of US Diplomacy (PLUSD) with 531,525 new diplomatic cables from 1979.
In a statement to coincide with the release of the cables, known as "Carter Cables III", Mr Assange explained how events which unfolded in 1979, had begun a series of events that led to the rise of ISIS.
He said: "If any year could be said to be the "year zero" of our modern era, 1979 is it."
Mr Assange said a decision by the CIA, together with Saudi Arabia, to plough billions of dollars into arming the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to tackle the Soviet Union, had led to the creation of terror group al-Qaeda.
This, in turn, he said led to the 9/11 terror strikes, the invasion of Afghanhistan and Iraq by the US, and the creation of ISIS.
Source: Express.co.uk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:51PM
We already knew this.
They made a damn movie about it. Starring Tom Freakin Hanks amd Julia Roberts.
Charlie Wilson's War [wikipedia.org]
Wikileaks used to tell us things that were (a) secret and (b) meaningful.
Miss those days...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:55PM
Yeah, I was about to say mostly the same thing here. How is this news? The chain of events from Afghanistan to ISIS is all pretty well understood at this point, even by regular laypeople who keep up decently with world events. It probably even has something to do with why Trump was elected: Hillary and the establishment keep wanting to do more of the same warmongering, which will simply create more "blowback" for us.
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:43PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-promised-drain-swamp-hes-filling-bush-era-crazies-instead/222482/ [mintpressnews.com]
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:05PM
"Neocons brought us to the very brink of fascism after 9/11."
Good thing Obama never re-instated the Patriot Act!
While some of these “crazies” had learned to behave themselves in recent years, at least rhetorically, the outliers, the “even-craziers,” didn’t.
Good thing all of those surveillance bills have been struck down! Good thing I can't show you a fucking VIDEO of Obama talking about "speeding up the training of ISIL forces!"
And now they have access to a vastly improved Bush-era toolset: a totalitarian framework of rendition, torture, and warrantless mass surveillance.
...and best of all! It's SO good that Obama closed Guantanamo Bay as he promised!
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:09PM
I don't know what point you're trying to make...
The author of the piece I linked has been extremely critical of Clinton and Obama's foreign policy, he spent a lot of time over the last couple of years and longer shedding light on the hypocrisy and dangers of their policies. He's also expressed regret that he didn't look closely enough at Trump -- didn't take him seriously -- because his focus was too narrow on Clinton's neocon associations and leanings. His 7+hr documentary series on the neocons is available here: http://averyheavyagenda.com/ [averyheavyagenda.com]
Are we not allowed to have a none of the above position? Clinton, Obama and Trump are all products of their respective environments and have minimal if any respect for the people who endorsed them by voting.
We should not be giving Trump the benefit of the doubt like supports of Obama have done the last few years.
Unless your point was Trump isn't actually going to do any of the stuff that he used to get to the position, just repeat some empty impossible platitudes, and he will be just the same as every other president in recent history, a figurehead guided by deep state element. To me, he is being used to placate the marginalized population who didn't buy into the empty platitudes from Obama.
The other 'side' gets their few years of hope and change and to cheerlead their symbol of rebellion while we continue down the same path, especially in regard to foreign policy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:48PM
That said, it has been fairly convincingly argued that it was the handling of the _peace_ in Iraq that lead to ISIS, not the war itself. The disbanding of the existing Iraqi army, large numbers of well trained soldiers suddenly out of a job, and the rise of Haji Bakr who took advantage of it, and failure to understand or plan for islamic sectarianism.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis [newyorker.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/haji-bakr-former-saddam-hussein-spy-is-mastermind-behind-isis-takeover-of-northern-syria-and-push-10189280.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:53PM
Sure, it was a long sequence of events that got us to where we are today with culpability at each step.
But, It isn't clear if there was only one path to getting here, or this is just the particular path we took.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:22PM
The "peace" in Iraq? Never happened. The war didn't end when we said it ended - but I think everyone knows that. We either stayed to damned long, or not nearly long enough. The point in time at which we declared the war to be over was meaningless, in any context aside from a US political context.
I've said, and I'll repeat here, that Iraq was pretty much an unjustified war. But, if we were going to go in after Saddam, we shouldn't even have declared war. A punitive campaign would have been the correct tool for the job. Go in, destroy the army, get Saddam, and get the hell out. 3 to 6 months tops. And, ditto in Afghanistan. In both cases, our "peace" has been more costly than the war.
And, in both cases, the countries would have been left in better shape to deal with future crisis, such as Isis. We DID dismantle the army in Iraq, thus feeding manpower to what would become ISIS.
I think we see the same facts, mostly, but my slant is a little different than yours.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:57PM
> A punitive campaign would have been the correct tool for the job. Go in, destroy the army, get Saddam, and get the hell out.
> (...)
> And, in both cases, the countries would have been left in better shape (...). We DID dismantle the army in Iraq, thus feeding manpower to what would become ISIS.
Even I don't contradict myself so quickly. Yes I do. No I don't! Yes I do, though not often! No I don't, all the time!
> And, ditto in Afghanistan. In both cases, our "peace" has been more costly than the war.
So tell me exactly what your plans would entail. I'm highly confused by your statements.
Destroy the Iraqi army and kill the dictator, then walk away? Who's controlling the place and its oil then? The religious guys, or the Iran-friendly majority?
More fundamentally, "punitive" FOR WHAT?
Destroy the Afghanistan "Army", kill the dictator, then walk away? Who's in control next, Iran, Pakistan, the dead Massoud, or some random drug lord?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:23PM
The government and the army would have been left in place. We defeat the army, snatch the leader, walk away. That is a "punitive expedition". A defeated army still remains an army, unlike what we did to it.
The concept isn't that hard to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_expedition [wikipedia.org]
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/108653.htm [state.gov]
What we did in Iraq, was to destroy a government, an army, a culture, much of the infrastructure - we tore the country to pieces in many way.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:31PM
I quoted your use of the word "destroy". Defeat is not the same as destroy.
You did not address what would happen to an oil-rich country with influential neighbors with a weakened military and without Saddam, neither did you address why you feel that any US government had any reason to "punish" Iraq in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:24PM
Wrong choice of words, but the effect would have been the same. We defeated and destroyed Saddam's army in what - 3 days? Our tanks and armored vehicles raced to Baghdad, and by the time we got there, there was pretty little left of Saddam's mechainized army, and the infantry was ready to surrender. Only the threats from Saddam of executions of traitors prevented them from surrendering en masse.
One single drive halfway across the country did destroy Saddam's army's will to fight - and that is pretty much "destroyed".
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:37PM
Its revealing that the only point you decided to address was the one of syntax.
All the rest of bob's points, you know the ones with real meat on them, like water off a duck's back.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @12:00AM
Equally revealing: YOu missed the entire disapproval of invading Iraq. I stated that IF Iraq MUST BE punished, then the proper measure would have been a punitive expedition. But, that isn't approval.
In 2001/2002, were you even aware enough of what Iraq was all about to form an opinion? I was - and I argued long and loud against invading. So - what exactly is it that you're asking me to justify, or not to justify?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:41AM
Yeah, I was about to say mostly the same thing here. How is this news?
It's not. Apart from acting as a useful idiot for Putin (and even then he's probably served out his purpose), Assange has pretty much run out of things to tell us. This is a desperate attempt to still appear relevant, and get his name in the news for... well, something other than Sweden's tortuous legal machinations.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:58PM
Hey, but now they can tell us completely misconstrued statements about specific, actually innocuous documents that are clearly intended to favor a single political candidate in an election.
That's almost as good!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:32PM
Julian wouldn't do that to us! Not OUR Julian! He ALWAYS selflessly goes after the TRUTH!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:56PM
I honestly don't know what he's after, as an individual. Not a clue what his agenda is. And that's okay. Unknown bias is an okay thing to have in your discourse in moderate quantities.
But I really can't stand anyone, who, for any reason, willfully misconstrues something harmless as implying a gigantic and terrible conspiracy. There's too much of that now. Conspiracy theorists, as far as I can tell, have won the internet. Of the people who generally seem to care about things, they make up the majority.
Almost everyone else who should be engaged and fighting for sanity likes to play the "above it all" game thinking that if they position themselves as the unconcerned polite middle between the absolutely insane people and those who look equally angry and enraged over said insanity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:48PM
I have to agree. Guess it was a slow conspiracy day at Wikileaks and they had very few submissions in the queue.....
There are actual fucking conspiracies in our midst, and a well known fuckup of US diplomacy isn't one of them. It's so ridiculously logical for the U.S to arm Afghan rebels in an invasion of their own fucking country by the "Red Menace" at the height of the cold war. Not just one movie either like another poster pointed out, but I think people forget Rambo and how he was working with the Afghan rebels to fire a rocket into a Soviet general's ass. If it was a Hollywood movie, where is the secret?
Talk about a huge fucking stretch. The CIA is as responsible for ISIS as the administrations of the time, and technically, the American people. Although on that last one I've always contended we were never represented in the first place, or ever. That being said, what American would have said no to arming rebels defending an invasion of their country? Did we forget the French and British in WWII? :)
We *always* knew that we had a hand in creating Osama Bin Laden as a military leader, and the cluster fuck in the Middle East produced ISIS. Fucking Duh.
Where are all the documents that showed how much we've fucked with South America? There is some scandalous shit there and Assange needs to work on situations that Americans know nothing about.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday November 30 2016, @12:17AM
/puts on tinfoil hat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:21AM
The secret is in the data that was previous to today- 'secret'. Assange is probably not thinking he revealed that narrative, but rather what he did reveal were government documentation of the minute details of that narrative. I'm guessing there are real historians and journalists that are thankful for the access to the information. If you want to jump on someone for sensationalization, you can start your search a littler closer to home with whoever crafted the soylent headline. Perhaps it wouldn't bait as many clicks if it was just "Wikileaks Releases 500k more US Cables".
(Score: 2) by n1 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:30PM
http://www.spyculture.com/the-cia-and-charlie-wilsons-war/ [spyculture.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:50PM
Duh! I didn't say it was a documentary.
The point is that the story is so well known that they made it into a Tom Hanks movie.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:05PM
The 'story' in very broad strokes with CIA approval/advisers to make sure the right message got across to the audience.
CIA guy Milton "He gave me the Stinger missiles and a billion dollars!" Bearden was an adviser on the movie and actually trained the afghan mujahadeen in the 1980's, but wasn't featured in the movie.
A movie being made about a situation does not make the situation well understood by the general population or viewing audience, it can mislead as much as it can inform.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:40PM
the commenter didn't say you did! adding morwe info to your post doesn't mean it was even a criticism of your post. get a grip.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:38PM
it's the american mentality to "plant the flag" and then leave?
it is also show in the "documentary" that after the russians returned home
that not much money was invested to rebuild Afghanistan. rebuilding might
have put a stop to further future ... errr ... "bush fires"?
this fact, more then any, show that it indeed was a proxy war.
i don't know much about the pre-russian afghanistan but some old
photos seem to suggest that it was rather open and a bit "glitzy", a place for
beautiful and enlightened people to hang out?
there still is the matter of drugs in afghanistan .. now, today, though.
in china it was opium for silver ... now i'ts opium for weapons (and some " finanCIAl education")?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:39PM
photos seem to suggest that it was rather open and a bit "glitzy", a place for
beautiful and enlightened people to hang out?
Kabul was, mainly because they were trying to do an Attaturk and drag the country into modernism.
The rural parts, not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:10PM
Wikileaks used to tell us things that were (a) secret and (b) meaningful.
Miss those days...
I don't.
Who died and made Assange God?
The value of the leaks (even early on, when they embarrassed an administration I despised almost as much as I despite the incoming one) was questionable, and a lot of damage done for no real value. In stark contrast to Snowden, whose leaks, like them or not, actually resulted in some (though not enough) real change in Silicone Valley and Washington.
Wikileaks is trying to restore its ruined reputation following its role in the US elections, and the monster Assange personally helped elect. I would like to say I find it hard to believe people would be stupid enough to buy into it, but after the results of this last elections, I no longer feel there is a lower limit to human stupidity, both among otherwise technically savvy people, and the population at large.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:34PM
Silicon Valley is where the high tech firms are. Silicone Valley is the L.A. area. That's where all the fake boobs are (both literally and figuratively).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:04PM
Silicone Valley? Is that some locale filled with porn startups and plastic surgeons?
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:35PM
While we know this, if you ask someone they probably didn't believe it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 29 2016, @09:03PM
Color me surprised that this "breaking news" from 1979 came out after "Clinton created ISIS" was no longer useful.