WL Central

Julian Assange interview on ABC Radio National Breakfast, 21 June 2012. This is his first interview conducted since he applied for political asylum in Ecuador. At the time of this interview, Mr Assange had been at the Ecuadorian Embassy for three days. Full Audio is avialable at the ABC Radio website.

Fran Kelly: And let's head straight to Britain where Julian Assange is about to spend his third night holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, as he awaits a decision on his bid for political asylum. The 40 year old Australian walked into the Embassy on Tuesday in a dramatic bid to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sexual assault allegations. Even if he's granted asylum in Ecuador, British police say they will arrest him as soon as he steps foot outside the embassy, accusing him of being in breach of his bail conditions. Julian Assange joins us now live from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Julian, welcome back to RN Breakfast.

Julian Assange: G'day, Fran. Good to be with you.

Fran Kelly: Julian Assange, why did you walk into the Ecuadorian Embassy?

More »

Stephen Lendman

CIA fighters/Free Syrian Army squatting in a home in Aleppo.

On June 21, The New York Times headlined "CIA Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition," saying, operating covertly from southern Turkey,

CIA operatives are "decid(ing) which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers." Weapons supplied include "automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition, (and) antitank weapons...." They're smuggled across Turkey's border through "a shadowy network of intermediaries...."

They're also entering through Lebanon. Muslim Brotherhood officials are involved. So are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other Gulf States, Jordan and Israel. Obama denies what other US officials confirm. A knowledgeable unnamed Arab intelligence operative said:

"CIA officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people" to help topple Assad.

Turkish army vehicles are used to transport weapons and munitions to border areas. From there they're smuggled into Syria. Turkish officials deny what confirmed evidence shows they're doing. The New York Times article failed to explain what's been ongoing since violence erupted early last year.

Throughout the conflict, NATO's been waging covert war. Washington directs everything. Israel, France and Britain are directly involved. So are Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon's March 14 alliance, and other Arab League countries.

In January 2012, British media confirmed that MI6 and CIA operatives were training Syrian insurgents. US, British, French, and Qatari special forces are involved. They're recruiting, funding, equipping, arming, training, and directing insurgents. They're choosing targets. They're responsible for recent massacres and terrorist bomb attacks.

More »

Philip Giraldi

The most recent issue of the National Counter Terrorism Center’s annual Report on Terrorism [.pdf] came out last week, covering the year 2011. I would like to say that it is well worth a read, but actually it is quite tedious. For those who are interested, it is essentially a statistical and analytical breakdown of the terrorism phenomenon derived from the U.S. government–maintained Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, or WITS, which is based on publicly available open-source material reporting alleged terrorist activity around the globe. Most often the analysis is bare bones and avoids political coloration, not, for example, going deeply into the motives of the various terrorist groups but instead providing information in a pie chart and chronological fashion. This year’s report is 33 pages long.

The United States is engaged in what most Americans still refer to as a global war on terror or, in shorthand form, a war on terror. The Obama administration avoids the expression because it is a legacy of the Bush years and because it uses the expression “war,” so it refers to “overseas contingency operations,” which has a nicer sound and does not appear to be so preemptive or premeditated. It also fudges the reality of what is taking place by pretending that the process is reactive, which it is not. The unrelenting expansion of U.S. military intervention is in response to many diverse overseas developments, most of which are not genuine threats. This was recently demonstrated by the White House decision to extend the U.S. terrorism fight to the entire continent of Africa.

More »