Bharat Rakshak

Anujan wrote:SSridhar ji

It was Nation, which followed it up with this gem of an editorial:

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -true-face

And Zafar Hilaly's Op-ed in express tribune is a riot.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/87983/no-co ... es-please/

Zafar Hilalyji,this is really going to hurt..so plz take your seat..and do u want to take a puff before breaking the news to you..Here it is.
http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/12/leaking-away.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... eaks-india
http://asiancorrespondent.com/fiverupee ... r-agencies
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... aks_scoops
and…
Original source of all these nonsense the newspaper of mythical Christina Palmer
http://dailymailnews.com/1210/08/FrontPage/index1.php

JFERDY5: "Just when you thought that nothing could damage Pakistan's image more than the real Wikileaks, they decide to dig their own hole."
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... aks_scoops.

Dear Sir,

I was deeply disappointed with your paper and myself for being taken for a ride by what, on second thoughts, should have been seen as an obvious piece of dis-information. I refer of course to the fake WikiLeak documents purporting to be cables from the American Embassy in New Delhi published in your paper’s issue of 9th December. Although, it seems, that the Tribune and I were not the only ones to have been so duped there is no gain saying the fact that better and more intrusive investigation may have revealed them to have been fake. To that extent we were both remiss.

As the article bearing my name in today’s issue of the Tribune was prompted entirely by what these fake cables contained and which now turn out to have been palpably false I would like you to publish this retraction and to convey to your readers my unreserved apologies.

Your’s faithfully,

Zafar Hilaly

James B wrote:Pakistan papers apologise after running anti-India fake WikiLeaks cables

Paki liars bluff got called out.

Rangudu wrote:TSP's Wiki-leak-gate has won a prestigious award
Yours truly had nominated them and is glad that TSP's excellent activities are duly recognized.

Summary. The October 8-9 {2008} closed joint session of parliament convoked by President Zardari to address the security situation has been widely praised as a good first step in convincing Pakistan's elected leadership to take ownership of the fight against extremism; this effort now should be extended to reach the general public. Director General of Military Operations LtGen Pasha's briefing to the group consisted largely of graphic video and other footage demonstrating what one parliamentarian called the inhumane and anti-Islamic nature of the militants. Pasha reportedly blamed India, Russia and the UAE for supporting BALOCH and Taliban militancy and defended Pakistani sovereignty against incursions by U.S. forces, but reportedly he also spoke positively about what he termed the U.S. use of drones, noting the vast majority of those killed in drone attacks were foreign fighters or Taliban.

While the killing of three high level law enforcement officers during the Mumbai attacks is a remarkable coincidence, the Congress Party's initial reaction to Antulay's outrageous comments was correct. But as support seemed to swell among Muslims for Antulay's unsubstantiated claims, crass political opportunism swayed the thinking of some Congress Party leaders. What's more, the party made the cynical political calculation to lend credence to the conspiracy even after its recent emboldening state elections victories. The party chose to pander to Muslims' fears, providing impetus for those in the Muslim community who will continue to play up the conspiracy theory. While cooler heads eventually prevailed within the Congress leadership, the idea that the party would entertain such outlandish claims proved once again that many party leaders are still wedded to the old identity politics. The seventy-nine year old Antulay was probably bewildered to find that his remarks, similar in vein to what he would have routinely made in the past to attack the BJP, created such a furor this time.

Anujan wrote: It was Nation, which followed it up with this gem of an editorial:

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -true-face

...has put its seal of confirmation on the genocide of the people of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, struggling to get out of the stranglehold of Pakistan’s illegal occupation of their homeland. Leaders of the liberation struggle in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, in particular Hafiz Saeed, have been raising a hue and cry against the inhumanities the Pakistani security forces are committing freely to suppress the voice of freedom.

I keep thinking about the Wikileaks affair, and I keep seeing the double-standards multiplying. Given how frequently government officials leak classified information in order to make themselves look good, box in their bureaucratic rivals, or tie the President's hands, it seems a little disingenuous of them to be so upset by Assange's activities.

Or consider the case of the most famous of all "insider" journalists: Bob Woodward. Over the past several decades, he's built a highly-lucrative career on his ability to get Washington insiders to talk to him. Less charitably, you could say he's gotten rich giving politicos a vehicle to make their case in print. Just think about how many insiders spill their guts to Woodward, and even provide him with key memos, which are sometimes published as appendices in his opuses. It is apparently entirely acceptable for Woodward to publish remarkably detailed stuff on the most sensitive deliberations of the U.S. government, including the nasty things our officials say about one another and about foreign officials. This well-established practice warrants no adverse comment whatsoever; instead, the usual result is a front page review in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and a #1 position on the best-seller list.

Has anybody proposed arresting Bob Woodward? Has anyone looked into applying the 1917 Espionage Act to his revelations of the most secret deliberations of the national security establishment? Is the State Department telling employees not to buy or read his books, the same way they are telling employees not to look at any of the Wikileaks materials? And remember: Woodward isn't writing about minor issues or even the trivialities of diplomacy; his books deal directly with core issues of war and peace. One could argue that what Woodward digs up and displays-information drawn from the highest and innermost counsels of the U.S. government-is more important and more potentially damaging than zillions of often-trivial memcons by mid-level bureaucrats in overseas embassies. How can these leaks be more sensitive or troublesome than a detailed, blow-by-blow account of Obama's secret Afghanistan decision-making?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that somebody ought to threaten Woodward with prosecution, ban his books, or try to hack his laptop and destroy his hard drive. But the contrast between the reflexive praise with which his books are received-and to be fair, some of them make for pretty interesting reading -- and the "sky is falling" witch-hunt surrounding Julian Assange, is striking.

...

Their view of the public's right to information is akin to the view expressed by Col. Nathan Jessep (memorably played by Jack Nicholson) in the film A Few Good Men. When defense attorney Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) says "I want the truth!," Jessep retorts: "You can't handle the truth!" Unless, of course, it is filtered by establishment journalists like Woodward, and not by some unsympathetic upstart like Assange.

Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, told U.S. officials that it had hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Nigeria's attorney general in order to pressure him to drop a lawsuit against the firm. An April 20, 2009 cable recounts a conversation between embassy officials and Pfizer Country Manager Enrico Liggeri in Lagos:

"Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to Federal Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media, XXXXXXXXXXXX. A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa’s “alleged” corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa’s cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles."

Monday, 29 June 2009, 05:53
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001337
SIPDIS
NSC ANISH GOEL
EO 12958 DECL: 06/26/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, PTER, PK, AG, IN
SUBJECT: NSA JONES DISCUSSES U.S.-INDIA SECURITY
......
......

3. (C) After warmly welcoming Jones, Antony began by emphasizing the importance of expanding the quality and depth of the U.S.-India relationship. He stressed his desire to expand the bilateral military relationship despite minor irritants, and expressed his hope that Jones' visit to India would further the relationship. Antony mentioned joint development and production, and technology transfers as meriting focus, adding that the Indians find U.S. technology transfer conditions too restrictive. Jones and Burleigh urged completion of the End-Use Monitoring agreement. Antony said it needed to be defensible to Parliament, musing that he himself is accountable to parliament and to India's vibrant and multi-party democracy.....

He assured Antony that the U.S. will be as flexible as possible within the confines of U.S. laws, Indian laws, and both our publics. We must do whatever we can to resolve the challenges that can potentially slow the relationship down, since these are sensitive times that require both nations to find ways to more closely cooperate.
..........
........
Pakistan: Infiltration Continues/Trust Deficit Remains

----

6. (S) After the conversation moved to Pakistan, General Deepak Kapoor, Chief of Army Staff, interjected and told Jones the Pakistani military's statements regarding the Indian threat on its eastern border are wholly without merit. Even after the 11/26 terrorist strikes on Mumbai, he emphasized, India did not make any move of a threatening nature toward Pakistan. Kapoor alleged that there are 43 terrorist camps in Pakistan, 22 of which are located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Although the Pakistanis raided some camps in the wake of 11/26, Kapoor averred, some camps have reinitiated operations. Kapoor further asserted infiltration across the Line of Control cannot occur unless there is some kind of assistance and/or degree of support that is institutional in nature. He described several incidents of infiltration that occurred this year, including that of 40 terrorists in March who were found possessing significant ammunition and other equipment. India is worried, Kapoor said, that some part of the huge U.S. military package to Pakistan will find its way to the hands of terrorists targeting India. Furthermore, if "we can catch them (the infiltrators), why can't the Pakistani military?" Kapoor asked. "There's a trust deficit between the U.S. and Pakistan but there's also one between India and Pakistan," he stressed.

7. (S) Jones asked Kapoor how the Pakistanis react when the Indians confront them with these incidents. Kapoor replied the Pakistanis remain in denial mode, but fortunately today India's counter-infiltration posture is stronger than in the past. Asked about the percentage of infiltrators that get through, Kapoor estimated between 15 to 20 percent but cited the challenge posed by India's open border with Nepal. He asserted that at least 16 terrorists this year entered India through Nepal and then traveled to Kashmir. Throughout his remarks, Kapoor stressed that infiltration bids were "acts of aggression."[/b]

8. (S) Jones queried Kapoor on prospects of upgrading Indo-Pak military talks to discuss these issues. Kapoor rhetorically asked whether there should not be a degree of confidence in Pakistan before such a dialogue can even begin. Antony interjected that unless there is some tangible follow-up action by Pakistan against the perpetrators of the 11/26 attacks, discussions with Pakistan will be difficult. Regarding terrorist camps in Pakistan, Jones told Antony and Kapoor that the U.S. will take up the issue with Pakistan.
......
.........

Tuesday, 30 January 2007, 10:23
S E C R E T RANGOON 000105
SIPDIS
.......
¶1. (S) Summary: Embassy contacts XXXXXXXXXXXX shared with us on XXXXXXXXXXXX documents for 112 metric tons of “mixed ore” shipped on January 25 from Burma to China via Singapore. XXXXXXXXXXXX noticed that authorities treated the shipment as highly sensitive, and suspect it may have included uranium. Our contact had no direct evidence to support this claim. End summary.

'Japan and India were struggling to deal with China's influence due to their ''stupid'' behaviour;"

Surya wrote:If someone can find the Singapore cables which mention

'Japan and India were struggling to deal with China's influence due to their ''stupid'' behaviour;"

shynee wrote:Big fat red faces for Singapore leaders - from smh.com.au

Rangudu wrote:[quote="A_Gupta]"The cables, leaked exclusively to The Sun-Herald by WikiLeaks" - since when was Wikileaks leaking exclusively to The Sun-Herald?????

Russia was hunting the killers of Alexander Litvinenko before he was poisoned but KGB officials were assured by British intelligence the matter was “under control”, according to a claim in the latest Wikileaks release.The memo, dated December 26 2006, recorded details of a dinner meeting at the US embassy in Paris between Russian Special Presidential Representative Anatoliy Safonov and US Ambassador-at-Large Henry Crumpton. Speaking about the need for bilateral co-operation to tackle terrorism, Safonov "cited the recent events in London – specifically the murder of a former Russian spy by exposure to radioactive agents – as evidence of how great the threat remained", the leaked cable said. "The implication was that the [Russia] was not involved, although Safonov did not offer any further explanation," read a comment added by U.S. embassy staff

I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. I certainly do not support or like his disclosure of secrets that harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. But as all the hand-wringing over the 1917 Espionage Act shows, it is not obvious what law he has violated. It is also important to remember, to paraphrase Justice Stewart in the Pentagon Papers, that the responsibility for these disclosures lies firmly with the institution empowered to keep them secret: the Executive branch. ...

I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times.

...

In Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward, with the obvious assistance of many top Obama administration officials, disclosed many details about top secret programs, code names, documents, meetings, and the like. I have a hard time squaring the anger the government is directing toward wikileaks

...


Whatever one thinks of what Assange is doing, the flailing U.S. government reaction has been self-defeating.

...


As others have pointed out, the U.S. government reaction to wikileaks is more than a little awkward for the State Department’s Internet Freedom initiative. ...

The wikileaks saga gives the lie to the claim of United States omnipotence over the naming and numbering system via ICANN.

...