The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and said “Kompromat“. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments. They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
Well, Julian Assange has been getting the bog standard Kompromat. I had imagined he would get something rather more spectacular, like being framed for murder and found hanging with an orange in his mouth. He deserves a better class of kompromat. If I am a whistleblower, then Julian is a veritable mighty pipe organ. Yet we just have the normal sex stuff, and very weak.
Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads:
“He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”
So from rape to non-sexual something. Actually I rather like that law – if we had it here, I could have had Jack Straw locked up for a year.
Julian tells us that the first woman accuser and prime mover had worked in the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC and had been expelled from Cuba for anti-Cuban government activity, as well as the rather different persona of being a feminist lesbian who owns lesbian night clubs.
Scott Ritter and I are well known whistleblowers subsequently accused of sexual offences. A less well known whistleblower is James Cameron, another FCO employee. Almost simultaneous with my case, a number of the sexual allegations the FCO made against Cameron were identical even in wording to those the FCO initially threw at me.
Another fascinating point about kompromat is that being cleared of the allegations – as happens in virtually every case – doesn’t help, as the blackening of reputation has taken effect. In my own case I was formerly cleared of all allegations of both misconduct and gross misconduct, except for the Kafkaesque charge of having told defence witnesses of the existence of the allegations. The allegations were officially a state secret, even though it was the government who leaked them to the tabloids.
Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated – but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these “serious allegations”.
Governments operate in the blackest of ways, especially when it comes to big war money and big oil money. I can see what they are doing to Julian Assange, I know what they did to me and others (another recent example – Brigadier Janis Karpinski was framed for shoplifting). In a very real sense, it makes little difference if they murdered David Kelly or terrified him into doing it himself. Telling the truth is hazardous in today’s Western political system.
Sounding a chilling note, journalist Alan Hart has said recently that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007.
The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan Hart, people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is the awareness of the people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.
http://www.alanhart.net/
Mark,
Who the fuck is “journalist” Alan Hart?
What’s his evidence, you idiot?
So … to be clear … the sneaky Jews are just about to attack America, and the Jew media are covering it up. Is that about right?
This blog is full of morons who are painfully consumed by Jew hatred.
OK, just looked up “journalist” Alan Hart. Apparently he thinks 911 was a Jew job. Doesn’t that conflict with your religious belief that 911 was an inside job?
Also, are you and Mr. Hart of the view that the Jews started WWI and WWII?
Mark, do you have a more precise reference ? I can’t see the article you refer to.
I was wondering what it would take to resurrect Larry…
Alan Hart, former presenter of BBC Panorama, first Western correspondent to reach the banks of the Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967, at times on friendly terms with Golda Meir, Yasser Arafat, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal, Jordan’s King Hussein, and both Egyptian Presidents Nasser and Sadat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Hart_(writer)
“I was wondering what it would take to resurrect Larry…”
Voodoo rituals.
Richard Robinson,
I found the following link on the Wikipedia article above. There’s a video, but ytimg is streaming it very slowly.
http://norcaltruth.org/2010/05/26/alan-hart-breaks-silence-about-911-on-kevin-barrett-show/
However, the article above cites infowars as its scouce – infowars is Alex Jones, isn’t it?
“Not necessarily, no. I also queried what you meant by ‘mainstream media’. My guess is that most of what you get is from the USA. Please note (before you reply) that I said “most”. Was I right?”
No, you’re wrong. I get most of my mainstream news from the Daily Yomiuri, the BBC, the Economist, the Independent and, until my subscription ran out earlier this year, the London Review of Books. I wasn’t talking about US mainstream news but I do occasionally (and please note – before you reply – I said “occasionally”) buy the International Herald Tribune, which is the New York Times.
“I have read Jon’s book Shooting History (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shooting-History-Personal-Jon-Snow/dp/0007171846), and I’m aware of the enormous number of contacts he has made over 30 years in journalism, both at home and abroad. I would guess that they are many more, and more varied, than yours.”
So it IS an argument from authority, as I said. Well, so what if Jon Snow thinks Osama bin Laden is dead? I said that it is NOT A COMMON VIEW in the mainstream press. I didn’t say that nobody holds it. So, let’s take an overview of the MSM. As you’re including broadcast news such as Channel 4 then we’ll include the BBC, ITV and cable such as Sky. We’ll include the four standard broadsheets and the tabloids and news magazines such as the Economist. (I’ve left out the Yanks as they trouble your parochial mind). Now, can you honestly tell me that it is commonly opined on those news outlets that Osama bin Laden is dead?
The answer is “NO!” and that in fact, if anything, the view that is expressed is that he is alive (witness the Telegraph and the Mail’s latest articles). And if you do want to hide behind an authority such as Jon Snow and for him to go toe-to-toe with my contacts or whatever then I invoke a second as well and that’s Robert Fisk who has met bin Laden three times and believes he is still alive.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-on-bin-laden-at-50-438729.html
I’ve read the whole of his Great War OF Civilization (Yes, I read the whole thing and turned each page, I didn’t have the plotline “briefed” to me!) and I’m aware of the enormous number of contacts he has made over 30 years in journalism, both at home and abroad. I would guess that they are many more, and more varied, than yours, Dreiolin!
“However, I didn’t SAY, “if he says he’s dead then he’s probably dead”.” I was simply quoting someone from the mainstream media, something you mentioned. Stop putting words in my mouth please. I have not stated anywhere that bin Laden is dead, but I do think it’s highly likely.”
Right, you don’t think he is “probably dead” you just think it is “highly likely”. Could you split that hair any finer? And why do you think it is highly likely? You used a ouija board, perhaps? You felt a disturbance in the force? Or perhaps you were relying on seasoned journalists of the calibre of Jon Snow. In other words, I put no words in your mouth at all. What I said you were implying is exactly what you were implying.
“But my guess is that some mainstream journalists are far better informed than you are. (And they don’t say everything they think on air. Cf Snowmail.)”
I don’t doubt it at all. That’s their job, after all. Or at least I think that’s their job. (According to some people their job is to further the “Zionist agenda”). But if they don’t say these secret opinions on air then these can’t be considered commonly aired views on the mainstream media. Is this not obvious?
“Are you saying I am being paid to write on blogs?”
“Typical ‘Angry’ question. If I want to say you’re being paid to write on blogs, I’ll say that. Until then, don’t continue to try and put words in my mouth. You seem to do it to everyone with whom you argue.”
And there you go again. You engage in a flurry of innuendo and then, when challenged, you scurry off behind a curtain of plausible deniability and faux-outrage, “Ooh! How dare you accuse me of making accusations, XYZ! I only ever say what I mean! Stop putting words in my mouth… !”
Then why don’t you explain what you mean when you said you don’t believe I have read very much but that I am being briefed? “Being briefed” is a typical use of the passive voice for people who want to avoid being clear as George Orwell could have told you. If you could explain who you think I am being briefed by and for what purpose and then explain the rest of those innuendo-laden questions then I wouldn’t need to jump to the conclusions that your weasel words quite obviously point to.
And as for putting words in my mouth, you made this comment: “I think you might find that you’re referring to American rules. (We don’t use the Chicago Manual of Style, either.)”
I never referred to the Chicago Manual of Style. I’m not even sure if I have ever opened it. Michael Swan, the famed author of Practical English Usage which is a manual of natural spoken and written English advises: “We do not usually put commas between grammatically separate sentences.” This is another description of “comma splice” even if the term comma splice isn’t commonly used in the UK and Eire.
Now, here’s Lynne Truss (no Yank she) on comma splices:
“Done knowingly by an established writer, the comma splice is effective, poetic, dashing. Done equally knowingly by people who are not published writers, it can look weak or presumptuous. Done ignorantly by ignorant people, it is awful.”
But let’s abandon such pedantry; it is tiresome beyond words.
“However, the article above cites infowars as its scouce – infowars is Alex Jones, isn’t it?”
Yes, of course.
I’ve been telling you this all along: American Right-Wing Nuts = British Left-Wing Nuts
Clark, yes, InfoWars is Alex Jones.
But this one,
“I found the following link on the Wikipedia article above. There’s a video, but ytimg is streaming it very slowly.
http://norcaltruth.org/2010/05/26/alan-hart-breaks-silence-about-911-on-kevin-barrett-show/”
Is even worse. Kevin Barrett makes even Alex Jones look sane. He’s the guy who was going ballistic at Noam Chomsky and fabricating quotes from Chomsky in that email exchange I showed you on “The Other Thread”.
Alan Hart himself is also famously pretty nutty. I think he did a bit of a David Icke.
“What are you talking about? In particular, what is “it” I am supposed to “produce?” Or are you just in a muddle and your repeated references to me were, in fact, intended for someone else?”
Alfred, stop playing dumb! (Or are you playing?)
On your site is the reference to the video in which Benazir Bhutto claimed on BBC that Osama bin Laden was dead. I asked you what video you were referring to. I saw the Al-Jazeera video but was sure that even you couldn’t be dishonest enough to pass that off as evidence of bin Laden’s death so I wanted to know where the BBC one was and could you produce it.
No point now as I can see you really were trying to pretend that bin Laden’s death was being confirmed by Benazir Bhutto and you had obviously got your information second-hand that she had said it on BBC because you were referring to the re-broadcast in which her comments about “bin Laden” had been edited out.
So it seems it is you who is desperately muddled.
By the way, what happened to TM?
Angrysoba,
the trouble is that expressing certain viewpoints is what ‘nuttiness’ is judged by – the argument gets circular. Hmm. I suppose now I’ll have to read that long e-mail exchange.
Hey, the link I posted to norcaltruth.org is redirecting to a different page now…
Angry: It’s hard to tell what you’re disputing here (unless it’s just everything on general principles), but the BBC did broadcast Benazir Bhutto claiming UBL was dead. Perhaps you don’t believe that, but here’s a discussion by BBC editors on their decision to edit out that comment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/post_8.html
“During the interview, first broadcast at the start of November last year (more info here), Ms Bhutto made what was, on the face of it, an astonishing allegation – that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. The claim was brief, and went unchallenged by Sir David Frost.
Under time pressure, the item producer responsible for publishing the video on the BBC website edited out the comment, with the intention of avoiding confusion. The claim appeared so unexpected that it seemed she had simply mis-spoken. However, editing out her comment was clearly a mistake, for which we apologise, and it should not have happened.”
Are you actually trying to claim that never happened, and that the Al-Jazeera re-broadcast of it was some sort of fake?
OK, here’s the link to the start of Alan Hart interviewed on the Kevin Barrett Show. Six parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux8_20tf-a4
Glenn, well found. It was clearly a BBC programme, even if it was only broadcast in its entirety on Al-Jazeera.
Hi Clark… my understanding is that it was originally broadcast in full, and was captured by Al-Jazeera, but was subsequently (and quite quickly) altered by the BBC to remove the comment. The transcripts still do not show it (despite the BBC stooge claiming it was “a mistake”), and the BBC website links still do not show it.
I don’t want to go chasing off looking at other stuff on youtube, and anyway it’s giving me shit about about how my flash is out of date, yet again . mark said there was something on http://www.alanhart.net/ , so _that’s_ what I want to read to chase it up. Simples.
and, I really must learn not to put stuff in anglebrackets here. Never mind.
Good night.
Angrysoba said,
“Alfred, stop playing dumb! (Or are you playing?)
On your site is the reference to the video in …”
Sacre bleu. We’re discussing what’s on my site?
So you’re demanding that I produce a link that you say is already on my site?
Or are you saying the link on my site is not the link I say it is, or what?
And who cares?
My recollection confirms Glenn’s report of what Mrs. Bhutto said in an interview with David Frost. So what’s to argue about?
And what’s the reason for your perpetual insults? “Shit for brains” “playing dumb (if you are playing).”
Is that how you learnt to reason when you studied in philosophy?
To the person too timid to leave their name who said:
‘And you would take stuff from a hate site like
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203776.php
as gospel would you?
Do you understand the meaning of the term ‘smear’?’
You can find the same information in Wired Magazine.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/manning-mental-health/
Is that a hate site too?
The site I quoted came up first in a Google search. But maybe you don’t know how to use Google with the search terms I specified and were uanble to verify the story for yourself.
God! What’s wrong with you people?
Clark: “Glenn, well found. It was clearly a BBC programme, even if it was only broadcast in its entirety on Al-Jazeera.”
On the very same link that Glenn provided:
“In the past week or so, the BBC – and more specifically, the News website – has been accused on various websites, blogs and bulletin boards of censorship.
The claims relate to an interview with the late Benazir Bhutto, originally conducted by Sir David Frost for the al-Jazeera channel, and later rebroadcast in part on this website (the BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material).”
It was an al-Jazeera programme! Follow the bloody link!
Glenn: “Angry: It’s hard to tell what you’re disputing here (unless it’s just everything on general principles), but the BBC did broadcast Benazir Bhutto claiming UBL was dead.”
Jesus! She didn’t think OBL was dead. She made a mistake!
“Are you actually trying to claim that never happened, and that the Al-Jazeera re-broadcast of it was some sort of fake?”
Of course I don’t think that and I never said anything remotely like that.
I already told you. She made a mistake on the original broadcast which was for al-Jazeera and it was subsequently edited out of the BBC rebroadcast for the obvious reason that it was a mistake and would cause confusion to the likes of you who would be squealing, “OOOOOOOh Bin Laden’s dead! She said it! She said it! Can’t go back on that!”
“My recollection confirms Glenn’s report of what Mrs. Bhutto said in an interview with David Frost. So what’s to argue about?”
The link Glenn provided proves you both wrong. Go to the bloody link!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/post_8.html
I’m going to post the whole bloody thing here including the bit that Glenn deceptively left off.
Christ! You people are so blatant in your fabrications and you cast aspersions on MY credibility:
“In the past week or so, the BBC – and more specifically, the News website – has been accused on various websites, blogs and bulletin boards of censorship.
The claims relate to an interview with the late Benazir Bhutto, originally conducted by Sir David Frost for the al-Jazeera channel, and later rebroadcast in part on this website (the BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material).
During the interview, first broadcast at the start of November last year (more info here), Ms Bhutto made what was, on the face of it, an astonishing allegation – that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. The claim was brief, and went unchallenged by Sir David Frost.
Under time pressure, the item producer responsible for publishing the video on the BBC website edited out the comment, with the intention of avoiding confusion. The claim appeared so unexpected that it seemed she had simply mis-spoken. However, editing out her comment was clearly a mistake, for which we apologise, and it should not have happened. There was no intention on our part to distort the meaning of the interview, and we will endeavour to replace the edited version currently available via our website, with the original interview as broadcast by Al-Jazeera, which, in the meantime, you can find on YouTube here.”
Larry said,
“Also, are you and Mr. Hart of the view that the Jews started WWI and WWII?”
Well, they do seem to have been the first to declare war in the leadup to WWII.
http://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
And most likely, Larry, Israelis were involved in 9/11, which is quite different from saying that Israel did 9/11. No one in their right mind thinks Israel would do anything to the United States, unless it were approved by the United States.
How the Hell would they survive the response to a preemptive terrorist attack on NY?
It is the case, however, that Israel is very closely tied to the United States. It is a de facto member of NATO, its air defenses are integrated with those of the US, its intelligence services are closely allied with those of the US, and it receives a multi-billion-dollar arms subsidy from the United States.
Therefore, to postulate Israeli participation in 9/11 (hey, do tell us what those dancing Israelis were doing hi-fiving to the backdrop of the burning Twin Towers) is merely to say that Israel was involved in a manner that was not antagonistic to the US government.
It is equally silly to suggest that Isreal controls the US Government. However, it is true to say that American Zionists who differ very little in view from the Israeli Government, are influential in the US Government: hence a Zionist vice president and an Israeli citizen and IDF veteran as WH Chief of Staff.
So if you want to talk about 9/11, don’t just gives us sneers and jeers. Give us some real idea what you think the reality was.
“Well, they do seem to have been the first to declare war in the leadup to WWII.”
Oh Jesus! That ole chestnut. “Judea Declares War on Germany” is a sensationalist headline from the Daily Express and beloved of neo-Nazis such as at the Barnes Review which your link goes to.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html
How many Tanks did Judea possess in 1933? You stupid fool, the Nazis were a virulently anti-semitic political party and the boycott was a response to their coming to power. It wasn’t literally a declaration of war!
“So if you want to talk about 9/11…”
Do it on the Other Thread!
Angry said: “I’m going to post the whole bloody thing here including the bit that Glenn deceptively left off.”
“Deceptively left off?” You paranoid twat. I’d put the link there so everyone could see it. If I’d over-quoted, that might have been a problem too. If you honestly think I’m trying to hide something, while including a link to it in the same post, you need to get your head examined.
“You paranoid twat.”
Glenn said: “It’s hard to tell what you’re disputing here (unless it’s just everything on general principles), but the BBC did broadcast Benazir Bhutto claiming UBL was dead…Are you actually trying to claim that never happened, and that the Al-Jazeera re-broadcast of it was some sort of fake?”
Glenn’s link says: “The claims relate to an interview with the late Benazir Bhutto, originally conducted by Sir David Frost for the al-Jazeera channel, and later rebroadcast in part on this website (the BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material).”
Of course, Glenn didn’t post that part which directly contradicts his claim. So that leaves us with the possibility that he didn’t read it and got it wrong by accident, in which case he may like to admit he was wrong.
Or:
He read it and decided to deliberately leave it off because it contradicated him and he’s now been exposed as a liar.
Which is it Glenn?
Angry, you really are reaching. It’s not at all clear what the heck your shrill denunciations are even about any more. It’s pretty clear you’re getting desperate, but nobody is clear about what your point actually is these days. Do you know? Has paranoia really got the better of you, as your recent posts would strongly suggest?
Let’s recap – Benazir Bhutto claimed that UBL had been murdered. You, of course, know what she _really_ thought, but regardless – I’ve mentioned her quote, and subsequently referenced a BBC discussion about the editing of this quote.
Now what they heck are you raving about? Why are you spraying foam around regarding my “claim”, when all I’ve done is discussed and referenced indisputable quotes?
Angry – you’re losing it. You are obsessed with “gotcha” debate tactics, and punching at shadows. Maybe you should take a holiday – may I suggest Cuba?