Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

[Starving Steve]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

This will bring to an end public support for the war in the USA. Today, the admin. and it's defenders will attempt to focus on the leak aspect. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the admin. facilitated the leak, but either way, this is huge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/wo...i.html?_r=1&hp

The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.

Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul.

Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place.

But many of the reports rely on sources that the military rated as reliable.

While current and former American officials interviewed could not corroborate individual reports, they said that the portrait of the spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence.

Some of the reports describe Pakistani intelligence working alongside Al Qaeda to plan attacks. Experts cautioned that although Pakistan’s militant groups and Al Qaeda work together, directly linking the Pakistani spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, with Al Qaeda is difficult.

The records also contain firsthand accounts of American anger at Pakistan’s unwillingness to confront insurgents who launched attacks near Pakistani border posts, moved openly by the truckload across the frontier, and retreated to Pakistani territory for safety.

The behind-the-scenes frustrations of soldiers on the ground and glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials, looking to sustain a drone campaign over parts of Pakistani territory to strike at Qaeda havens. Administration officials also want to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan on their side to safeguard NATO supplies flowing on routes that cross Pakistan to Afghanistan.

This month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in one of the frequent visits by American officials to Islamabad, announced $500 million in assistance and called the United States and Pakistan “partners joined in common cause.”

The reports suggest, however, that the Pakistani military has acted as both ally and enemy, as its spy agency runs what American officials have long suspected is a double game — appeasing certain American demands for cooperation while angling to exert influence in Afghanistan through many of the same insurgent networks that the Americans are fighting to eliminate.

Behind the scenes, both Bush and Obama administration officials as well as top American commanders have confronted top Pakistani military officers with accusations of ISI complicity in attacks in Afghanistan, and even presented top Pakistani officials with lists of ISI and military operatives believed to be working with militants.

cont...

Why does this administration, the Obama Administration, continue to pursue an appeasement policy toward nations like Pakistan? And Pakistan is a case in point: it sheltered Bin Laden and then said it didn't; also it aided the Taliban in Afganistan and then said it didn't; Pakistan also provided shelter to fleeing terrorists from Afganistan and then said that it did not intend to do so.

I know how a Joseph Stalin would have handled appeasers, double-agents, and nations (like Pakistan) with an endless list of excuses for failure.

[reggie]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Sometimes an ink stain is just an ink stain.

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."

Propaganda, 1928
Edward L. Bernays

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

Propaganda, 1928
Edward L. Bernays

"The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest."

The Engineering of Consent, 1947
Edward L. Bernays

Also, see
Crystallizing Public Opinion, 1923
Edward L. Bernays

[cjppjc]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Nothing was true of all that she had believed, but the falsest thing of all was what she had mistaken for revealed truth.

Francois Mauriac

[reggie]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Nothing was true of all that she had believed, but the falsest thing of all was what she had mistaken for revealed truth.

Francois Mauriac

One must take into account the source of your referenced quote, as well as the source of the digital media that shapes society's perception of reality. I simply don't see how one can absorb these inputs without trying to understand them relative to current societal trajectories, which seems to me what you are suggesting I do.

When one owns the "greatest goddamn propaganda force the world has ever seen" (quoting from Network, the movie), then one doesn't distribute programming without first understanding how that programming will impact the target audience. Hence, the inkblots are focus group tested before they are uploaded for mass distribution and consumption.

In the case of Jon Stewart, who I quoted in my earlier post, his programming is primarily designed to vent the public outrage while keeping his mostly "left" audience within traditional frames of orientation. One won't find insights that are outside the bounds of acceptable thinking by watching Stewart's show.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

I don't know about the other outlets, but MSNBC / NBC has been pushing non-stop the theme of the "danger of the leak".

It's shameful. A media outlet, or an entity masquerading as one, equating investigative journalism with treason.

[cjppjc]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

One must take into account the source of your referenced quote, as well as the source of the digital media that shapes society's perception of reality. I simply don't see how one can absorb these inputs without trying to understand them relative to current societal trajectories, which seems to me what you are suggesting I do.

When one owns the "greatest goddamn propaganda force the world has ever seen" (quoting from Network, the movie), then one doesn't distribute programming without first understanding how that programming will impact the target audience. Hence, the inkblots are focus group tested before they are uploaded for mass distribution and consumption.

In the case of Jon Stewart, who I quoted in my earlier post, his programming is primarily designed to vent the public outrage while keeping his mostly "left" audience within traditional frames of orientation. One won't find insights that are outside the bounds of acceptable thinking by watching Stewart's show.

One should also take into account that sometimes things, while they are more complex, are not driven from conscious decisions. Jon Stewarts programming is designed to make money and is a product of the creative talent employed by the show. Not the owners of the network. It's hard to find insights that are outside the bounds of acceptable thinking almost anywhere. You have an agenda driven by the need to educate others into your way of viewing the stimuli we receive. You might take a little more time with yourself first asking "Is my asssumption a result of my prejudices?"

Certainly there are forces at work trying to get results to go the way they want them. I just don't think they spend any time confiring on it.

[reggie]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

One should also take into account that sometimes things, while they are more complex, are not driven from conscious decisions. Jon Stewarts programming is designed to make money and is a product of the creative talent employed by the show. Not the owners of the network. It's hard to find insights that are outside the bounds of acceptable thinking almost anywhere. You have an agenda driven by the need to educate others into your way of viewing the stimuli we receive. You might take a little more time with yourself first asking "Is my asssumption a result of my prejudices?"

Certainly there are forces at work trying to get results to go the way they want them. I just don't think they spend any time confiring on it.

It is reasonably well documented that there has been a constant, consistent and well funded effort to control the public mind. Just because they don't teach the techniques to the public or talk about it in media doesn't make these efforts any less real.

Gustabe Le Bon had made significant headway into the craft with his work

The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, 1896.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon

Why would I disregard such efforts when evaluating today's digital symbols, whether contextual or otherwise?

[cjppjc]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

It is reasonably well documented that there has been a constant, consistent and well funded effort to control the public mind.

I disagee with this emphatic sentence. Right now somewhere in America, there are people plotting the violent destruction of America. But I would not phrase their action the way you have. The lense you view things through is similar to those who obsess with that small violent minority.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Right now somewhere in America, there are people plotting the violent destruction of America. But I would not phrase their action the way you have.

Either you are, reggie is or I am confused. I can't tell which.

When I read your first sentence, about people plotting the violent destruction of America, I figured you were referring to Terrorists, such as are blamed for the 9/11 attack by the official story.

When I read your second sentence, referring to how reggie described an effort to control the public mind, I looked back at reggie's comment and figured he was talking about the Military Industrial (and Intelligence) Complex, which consists of American, Brit, Israeli and other Western institutions of which reggie has been energetically warning us.

... somewhere I lost the thread of your post, sorry.

[cjppjc]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Either you are, reggie is or I am confused. I can't tell which.

When I read your first sentence, about people plotting the violent destruction of America, I figured you were referring to Terrorists, such as are blamed for the 9/11 attack by the official story.

When I read your second sentence, referring to how reggie described an effort to control the public mind, I looked back at reggie's comment and figured he was talking about the Military Industrial (and Intelligence) Complex, which consists of American, Brit, Israeli and other Western institutions of which reggie has been energetically warning us.

... somewhere I lost the thread of your post, sorry.

Using the violent overthrow of America is what confused you. I could just have easily used the obsesion some here have with thinking everything bad that happens is the result of a cabal of rich and powerful people, made by conscious choice. In accordance with a master plan. If it's all you see, you see it everywhere.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Using the violent overthrow of America is what confused you. I could just have easily used the obsesion some here have with thinking everything bad that happens is the result of a cabal of rich and powerful people, made by conscious choice. In accordance with a master plan. If it's all you see, you see it everywhere.

Ah - the one watt light bulb in my brain flickers on briefly. You were disagreeing with reggie's casting the ideological consistency of main stream shows as a conspiracy. You're saying: No organized conspiracy here, just your usual group think.

[cjppjc]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Ah - the one watt light bulb in my brain flickers on briefly. You were disagreeing with reggie's casting the ideological consistency of main stream shows as a conspiracy. You're saying: No organized conspiracy here, just your usual group think.

Yes. And you did get to the core quicker than I.

[reggie]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

I disagee with this emphatic sentence. Right now somewhere in America, there are people plotting the violent destruction of America. But I would not phrase their action the way you have. The lense you view things through is similar to those who obsess with that small violent minority.

I don't think like this. This is a conspiracy-esq frame, which is a deliberate frame meant for public consumption and marginalization.

One can certainly refer back to Plato's Noble Lie as good candidate for an initial data point for efforts to control the public mind. Since then, extensive work has been completed, which is certainly not limited to the Military Industrial Complex. It's now a well developed science. Unfortunately, the public is generally unaware of the research or the techniques, which proliferate all of our communications mediums. The good news is that much material is available publicly, such that the science can be generally understood.

[D-Mack]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Unfortunately, the public is generally unaware of the research or the techniques, which proliferate all of our communications mediums. The good news is that much material is available publicly, such that the science can be generally understood.

Reminds me of the quote attributed to Allen Dulles, it may have changed a bit with the internet.
But there are new challenges like too much information.

"The American people don't read."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

[reggie]

Re: Wikileaks does it again: NYT: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Here's part 1 of a lecture by Chomsky that addresses the matter. It's posted just as a single data point.