 | « on: April 02, 2010, 05:24:50 PM » |  Quote |
This is from a document entitled 'YouTube War: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone And Photoshop On Every Computer".
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=951
YouTube War: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone And Photoshop On Every Computer
Cori E. Dauber
November 2009
Strategic Studies Institute
See, the New World Order has just shot itself in the foot right there with that statement. Allow me to elaborate.
On its own, one might be inclined to agree with this assessment - one might even walk away with the impression "Oh well, yeah, that's what a 'terrorist' intends to do - garner media attention'. But when we pull in disparate sources of information, we realize the full significance of this statement.
We know that 'effects-based operations' essentially amounts to the description given above for 'terrorist attacks' as 'media events' - to have a 'psychological effect' on the opposing force (notice how the article worded it: "to have a psychological effect (to terrorize)") or the non-combatants of the adversary.
Naomi Klein - The 'shock doctrine' explanation
Left-wing 'intellectuals' such as Naomi Klein have tried to skirt around the issue of 9/11 being a false flag by subscribing to a 'shock doctrine' explanatory theory.
In her book, however, Naomi Klein leaves out of the equation the "Revolution In Military Affairs" that is behind all this. Without a 'military transformation', there would have been no 9/11. There would have been no Katrina. There would have been no Iraq War. There would have been no Afghanistan war. All these are military laboratories that serve to gradually usher in the control grid that will enable 'sense and respond' supply chain logistics.
Basically, Naomi Klein is either willfully or unwittingly misdirecting people's attentions away from the military and she basically makes it all about 'politics' and 'Milton Friedman'. She rejects out of hand any alternative explanations/inside job explanations regarding 9/11. The intent here is clear - Naomi wants to distract people from looking into 9/11 Truth or the RMA. The gist of her argument is basically this: 'oh wait, I'm going to give you some alternative explanation that appeals to the anti-corporatist liberals out there, but I will leave you clueless as to 'why' these strategic shocks are 'occurring', why the 'politicians' are ushering them in. Now go lobby for more greenhouse gas regulations - we're in an environmental crisis, blabla'
Thomas Barnett - The 'Pentagon's New Map'
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1
Yeah, but who produced the show, Barny? Refraining from going into a tantrum here, Thomas M. Barnett was Arthur Cebrowski's little minions/stooges that was brought in to radically transform the armed forces.
What is real and what is not in a 'digital age'?
So far, so good. We have all these terrorists, and they stage 'terrorist attacks' as 'media events'. Then our politicians capitalize on that. That, so far, is the orthodox explanation as pushed by the Naomi Kleins and the Thomas M. Barnett.
Here's where it becomes interesting - a little document from 1994 where they pontificate on the upcoming 'Revolution In Military Affairs'. This is from the US Army War College. To all the little debunkers out there that are going to retort: "Well, you shouldn't take this as proof that the insurgents and the beheadings were all staged/provoked/handled' - well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, Jack. Either the US Army War College creates these documents for shits and giggles, OR THEY ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IT. Ever heard of a little guy called Edward Bernays CREATING THE PRETEXT FOR A US MILITARY INVASION IN GUATEMALA? Edward Bernays was the father of 'public relations' - PR, marketing, the shit that makes you want to get an IPhone or an IPod.
Which nicely segues into another thing the previously alluded to document said, that just falls flat on its face:
Excuse me? 'Forbids' the 'propagandizing' of the American people? Exactly who does the guy who wrote this document thinks he is kidding? Like I said, google 'Edward Bernays United Fruit Guatemala'.
Here, I even have a nice video where the author of a book goes into Edward Bernays' lifetime achievements, which includes the creation of a 'fake enemy', selling cigarrettes to women, creating fake emancipation movements, making war propaganda for World War I, creating photo ops for Presidents, and so on.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/110971-1
Basically, if this 'Smith-Mundt' Act really outlawed 'propagandizing' the American people, then it seems to me that act has never really been taken that seriously by any President, congressmen or PR propagandist worth his salt.
Anyway, back to that 1994 document (this is a hypothetical scenario from that document that chronicles the RMA revolution from its inception - somewhere in 2001 - right up to the present day, which is 2010, oddly enough, when public opposition against the wars and the 'revolution' is beginning to mount - see the 'tea parties'):
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241
The Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War
Steven Metz, James Kievit
July 25, 1994
US Army War College
See, folks, the PNAC document was not the only document where they insinuated that a 'terror attack' might be necessary to get the 'RMA' ball rolling.
Here we have an interesting interlude about Americans being forced to wear 'electronic bracelets' and using the 'TV' as a deceptive weapon:
Multiple 'WTFs' right there.
But it gets worse when they segue into the 'hypothetical future scenario' - 'a history of the application of RMA to conflict short of war written in the year 2010. It is not a prediction and certainly not a preference, but is a possibility'.
Alvin Toffler's 'Third Wave terrorism'
Tianenmen Square - 'Third wave' rebellion, as admitted by Heidi and Alvin Toffler themselves - inspired by the book 'The Third Wave'. This was a pre-Soros 'color revolution' that more or less failed but has lingered in the public memory as something of a 'crusade' against 'tyranny' - what a 'joke'.
And it changed - through 'torture fests' such as 'Saw', '24', and slogans such as "We'll smoke them out of their holes".
24: Jack Bauer is being 'tough' with the 'terrorists'
Now, the hypothetical scenario involves a 2005 conflict known as 'Operation Ceberus'. This is a US military campaign in Cuba following an insurgency against a post-Castro regime. You'll notice that in 'real-life', they used this fictitious scenario as a blueprint for the 'insurgency' and the 'surge' in Iraq - you can tell that the whole thing was staged because it mirrors, page for page, what is written in this document. This is quite simply incredible - THE WAR IN IRAQ DID NOT FAIL - THE INSURGENCY AND THE 'SURGE' WERE JUST ADDITIONAL RMA OBJECTIVES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.
Alexander Levis: Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding Its Enemies
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=158847.msg944258#msg944258
Computer-generated/face-morphed or just a really 'bad' actor?
Computer-invented recreations?! Fake 'raids'?! My, you're some crazy conspiracy theorist that has just read some crazy US Army War College document!!!
Here they address the 'tea parties' and other controlled forms of opposition - they also address the 'truth movement' here:
These guys have already anticipated this struggle, long before we were even aware what was going to happen.
I could go on and on about this single document, but let's leave it at this:
SO, TO SUMMARIZE THIS: THEY'VE WARGAMED ALL THIS SHIT OUT IN ADVANCE - 15+ YEARS IN ADVANCE!!!! GET OFF THE CHESSBOARD!!!!
Squarepusher's Truther Newspeak Dictionary
Here is 'Squarepusher's' New Dictionary For The Truth Movement. It consists of three euphemisms for terms which the establishment have already tried to associate with being 'kooky' or 'fruity-loop'. This is what I mean by speaking the enemy's own language - that way, they will have a harder time trying to associate a term such as 'Effects-based operations' as being 'kooky', 'crazy'. Same with 'New World Order' - why not just talk about the RMA, since this is actually the 'engine' behind the 'New World Order' so to speak? 'New World Order' is left specifically vague and non-specific as a term because it is merely intended to be an endgoal.
False-flag operations = Effects-based operations
New World Order = Revolution In Military Affairs (this is the first version of the 'meme')
Revolution In Military Affairs = Net-Centric Warfare (this is version 2 of the same 'meme')
Net-Centric Warfare = Net-Centric Operations (this is version 3 of the same 'meme')
Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs) = Katrina/FEMA camps/Haiti Humanitarian Disaster Relief
Weapons Of Mass Destruction = Weapons Of Mass Effect ('Weapons of Mass Destruction', according to Michael Chertoff himself, is a 'subset' of Weapons Of Mass Effect. The people who actually came up with the textbook literature behind Weapons of Mass Effect were Dr Ruth A. David and her ANSER Analytic Services company and Mitretek, now called Nobilis)
For proof of where Chertoff said that, see this here (and go to 52:00)
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190653-1
Alvin Toffler, the 'Future Shock', the 'Bio Shock', the 'Strategic Shock', the 'System Shock'
All three of these games (System Shock 2, BioShock 1 and 2, Terminator Future Shock) - all three of these are 'allusions' to Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock'. Alvin Toffler regularly pops up in nearly all RMA literature - Alvin Toffler is seen as the oracle lauding the information age's coming. He has predicted massive unemployment, mass civil disarray and lots of 'casualties' in this upcoming transition from the 'industrial age' to the 'information age' - a lot of people with fixed skillsets will be made obsolete.
Har har. What a coincidence, then, that we now have a popular videogame series called BioShock, where the game is essentially about just that - people are turning themselves into transhumanist ghouls and they fight amongst each other and resort to corpse looting and child harvesting. This is the 'bio shock' in the game's title - just as the 'Strategic Shocks: Unknown Unknowns' document referred to 9/11 as a 'strategic shock'. When people are turning themselves into transhumanists, there will be a civil war between those who do want to upgrade and those who do not.
Kevin Warwick has already said that human beings in his opinion will be a 'subspecies', just like cows now:
This is scary stuff people, and they are now conditioning you for it through entertainment, just like they 'conditioned' people for the 'fake CGI/face-morphed insurgents' about 15 years ago.
http://thcforum.ning.com/video/kevin-warwick-says-humans-will
Kevin Warwick Says Humans Will Become Subspecies Like Cows Next To Cyborgs/Transhumanists Dominant
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=951
YouTube War: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone And Photoshop On Every Computer
Cori E. Dauber
November 2009
Strategic Studies Institute
Quote
"Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted media events, and while that has always been the case, today it is more true than ever before in two ways. First, the terrorist attack is itself often designed and intended for the cameras. Terrorist attacks are designed for an audience. Their true target is not that which is blown up—that item, or those people—for that is merely a stage prop. What is really being targeted are those watching at home. The goal, after all, is to have a psychological effect (to terrorize), and it isn’t possible to have such an effect on the dead." - p5 out of 135
See, the New World Order has just shot itself in the foot right there with that statement. Allow me to elaborate.
On its own, one might be inclined to agree with this assessment - one might even walk away with the impression "Oh well, yeah, that's what a 'terrorist' intends to do - garner media attention'. But when we pull in disparate sources of information, we realize the full significance of this statement.
We know that 'effects-based operations' essentially amounts to the description given above for 'terrorist attacks' as 'media events' - to have a 'psychological effect' on the opposing force (notice how the article worded it: "to have a psychological effect (to terrorize)") or the non-combatants of the adversary.
Naomi Klein - The 'shock doctrine' explanation
Left-wing 'intellectuals' such as Naomi Klein have tried to skirt around the issue of 9/11 being a false flag by subscribing to a 'shock doctrine' explanatory theory.
In her book, however, Naomi Klein leaves out of the equation the "Revolution In Military Affairs" that is behind all this. Without a 'military transformation', there would have been no 9/11. There would have been no Katrina. There would have been no Iraq War. There would have been no Afghanistan war. All these are military laboratories that serve to gradually usher in the control grid that will enable 'sense and respond' supply chain logistics.
Basically, Naomi Klein is either willfully or unwittingly misdirecting people's attentions away from the military and she basically makes it all about 'politics' and 'Milton Friedman'. She rejects out of hand any alternative explanations/inside job explanations regarding 9/11. The intent here is clear - Naomi wants to distract people from looking into 9/11 Truth or the RMA. The gist of her argument is basically this: 'oh wait, I'm going to give you some alternative explanation that appeals to the anti-corporatist liberals out there, but I will leave you clueless as to 'why' these strategic shocks are 'occurring', why the 'politicians' are ushering them in. Now go lobby for more greenhouse gas regulations - we're in an environmental crisis, blabla'
Thomas Barnett - The 'Pentagon's New Map'
Quote
"9-11 was the first live broadcast mass snuff film in human history. First opportunity in my life to watch several dozen people I knew die live on national television. I was meant to watch that. I was meant to be impressed." - Thomas M. Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map lecture
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1
Yeah, but who produced the show, Barny? Refraining from going into a tantrum here, Thomas M. Barnett was Arthur Cebrowski's little minions/stooges that was brought in to radically transform the armed forces.
What is real and what is not in a 'digital age'?
So far, so good. We have all these terrorists, and they stage 'terrorist attacks' as 'media events'. Then our politicians capitalize on that. That, so far, is the orthodox explanation as pushed by the Naomi Kleins and the Thomas M. Barnett.
Here's where it becomes interesting - a little document from 1994 where they pontificate on the upcoming 'Revolution In Military Affairs'. This is from the US Army War College. To all the little debunkers out there that are going to retort: "Well, you shouldn't take this as proof that the insurgents and the beheadings were all staged/provoked/handled' - well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, Jack. Either the US Army War College creates these documents for shits and giggles, OR THEY ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IT. Ever heard of a little guy called Edward Bernays CREATING THE PRETEXT FOR A US MILITARY INVASION IN GUATEMALA? Edward Bernays was the father of 'public relations' - PR, marketing, the shit that makes you want to get an IPhone or an IPod.
Which nicely segues into another thing the previously alluded to document said, that just falls flat on its face:
Quote
"This is not a question of propaganda, this would not be a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act (which is interpreted to forbid “progapandizing” the American people)" - p97/135
Excuse me? 'Forbids' the 'propagandizing' of the American people? Exactly who does the guy who wrote this document thinks he is kidding? Like I said, google 'Edward Bernays United Fruit Guatemala'.
Here, I even have a nice video where the author of a book goes into Edward Bernays' lifetime achievements, which includes the creation of a 'fake enemy', selling cigarrettes to women, creating fake emancipation movements, making war propaganda for World War I, creating photo ops for Presidents, and so on.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/110971-1
Basically, if this 'Smith-Mundt' Act really outlawed 'propagandizing' the American people, then it seems to me that act has never really been taken that seriously by any President, congressmen or PR propagandist worth his salt.
Anyway, back to that 1994 document (this is a hypothetical scenario from that document that chronicles the RMA revolution from its inception - somewhere in 2001 - right up to the present day, which is 2010, oddly enough, when public opposition against the wars and the 'revolution' is beginning to mount - see the 'tea parties'):
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241
The Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War
Steven Metz, James Kievit
July 25, 1994
US Army War College
Quote
"The revolutionaries' first task was to recruit proselytes throughout the government and national security community. Initially the revolutionaries, who called their new strategic concept "Dynamic Defense," were opposed by isolationists...
Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective--a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled "perception-molding" systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war." (My note: The 'revolutionaries' - they are referring to the 'RMA' proponent guys - these are what we know as the PNAC crowd - the Project For A New American Century. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Andrew Meyer, Cebrowski, Cheney, all these guys. But what is especially interesting here is how they slyly mention the 'perception-molding' systems that they use in advertising. You know, this is a nice-sounding euphemism for "selling you fakery".
Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective--a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled "perception-molding" systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war." (My note: The 'revolutionaries' - they are referring to the 'RMA' proponent guys - these are what we know as the PNAC crowd - the Project For A New American Century. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Andrew Meyer, Cebrowski, Cheney, all these guys. But what is especially interesting here is how they slyly mention the 'perception-molding' systems that they use in advertising. You know, this is a nice-sounding euphemism for "selling you fakery".
Quote
The fact that the United States has not faced a recent military or national security disaster has hindered the development and application of new technology to conflict short of war. To many Americans, the absence of disaster shows that our national security strategy "ain't broke."" - p13/28
See, folks, the PNAC document was not the only document where they insinuated that a 'terror attack' might be necessary to get the 'RMA' ball rolling.
Here we have an interesting interlude about Americans being forced to wear 'electronic bracelets' and using the 'TV' as a deceptive weapon:
Quote
"Will Americans accept the fact that the government might, by access to the NEO locator data base, know every move they make? If a locator device could be remotely activated, how could Americans be sure that activation was only effective outside the United States? How would they know that "wrist radios" were not used to monitor personal conversations? Similarly, military use of television against foreign adversaries raises the specter of domestic applications. Even if domestic use was never contemplated, its possibility might cause greater public skepticism regarding television appearances, reducing the impact of one of the American politician's greatest communication tools. Deception, while frequently of great military or political value, is thought of as somehow "un-American.""[/b][/color]
Multiple 'WTFs' right there.
But it gets worse when they segue into the 'hypothetical future scenario' - 'a history of the application of RMA to conflict short of war written in the year 2010. It is not a prediction and certainly not a preference, but is a possibility'.
Alvin Toffler's 'Third Wave terrorism'
Tianenmen Square - 'Third wave' rebellion, as admitted by Heidi and Alvin Toffler themselves - inspired by the book 'The Third Wave'. This was a pre-Soros 'color revolution' that more or less failed but has lingered in the public memory as something of a 'crusade' against 'tyranny' - what a 'joke'.
Quote
"Likewise, the RMA of the 2000s was sparked by a series of fiascos in the mid-1990s. First was the emergence of what became known as "third wave terrorism". Recognizing the strategic bankruptcy of old-fashioned hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, and bombing, terrorists rapidly adopted state-of-the-art technology to their sinister ends." - p15/28[/b]
Quote
"One of the turning points of the revolution came when its leaders convinced the President and key members of Congress that traditional American ethics were a major hinderance to the RMA. This was crucial: the revolutionaries and their allies then crafted the appropriate attitudinal vessel for the RMA. Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic "consciousness-raising", old fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed" - p17/28
And it changed - through 'torture fests' such as 'Saw', '24', and slogans such as "We'll smoke them out of their holes".
24: Jack Bauer is being 'tough' with the 'terrorists'
Quote
"Once the norms concerning personal privacy changed, law soon followed.
Old-fashioned ideas about information control and scientific inquiry also changed." - p18/28
Old-fashioned ideas about information control and scientific inquiry also changed." - p18/28
Quote
"The external dimension actively sought to delay or prevent counterresponse by controlling information and through well-orchestrated deception."
Now, the hypothetical scenario involves a 2005 conflict known as 'Operation Ceberus'. This is a US military campaign in Cuba following an insurgency against a post-Castro regime. You'll notice that in 'real-life', they used this fictitious scenario as a blueprint for the 'insurgency' and the 'surge' in Iraq - you can tell that the whole thing was staged because it mirrors, page for page, what is written in this document. This is quite simply incredible - THE WAR IN IRAQ DID NOT FAIL - THE INSURGENCY AND THE 'SURGE' WERE JUST ADDITIONAL RMA OBJECTIVES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.
Quote
Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as "potential" or "active," with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each. (My note: This is what Alexander Levis did in Iraq with CAESAR.)
Alexander Levis: Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding Its Enemies
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=158847.msg944258#msg944258
Quote
"Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader."
"Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug-assisted subliminal conditioning." - p19|20/28
"Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug-assisted subliminal conditioning." - p19|20/28
Computer-generated/face-morphed or just a really 'bad' actor?
Quote
"The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders--"morphing"-- in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful."
"US strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaigns as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credits for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented 'recreations'." - p19|20/28
"US strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaigns as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credits for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented 'recreations'." - p19|20/28
Computer-invented recreations?! Fake 'raids'?! My, you're some crazy conspiracy theorist that has just read some crazy US Army War College document!!!
Here they address the 'tea parties' and other controlled forms of opposition - they also address the 'truth movement' here:
Quote
Perhaps most important, Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy. A political movement called the "New Humanitarianism" is growing, especially among Americans of non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear.
These guys have already anticipated this struggle, long before we were even aware what was going to happen.
Quote
In Conflict Short Of War, war is most often won or lost through the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions."
This makes psychological technology much more important than strike technology"
This makes psychological technology much more important than strike technology"
I could go on and on about this single document, but let's leave it at this:
SO, TO SUMMARIZE THIS: THEY'VE WARGAMED ALL THIS SHIT OUT IN ADVANCE - 15+ YEARS IN ADVANCE!!!! GET OFF THE CHESSBOARD!!!!
Squarepusher's Truther Newspeak Dictionary
Here is 'Squarepusher's' New Dictionary For The Truth Movement. It consists of three euphemisms for terms which the establishment have already tried to associate with being 'kooky' or 'fruity-loop'. This is what I mean by speaking the enemy's own language - that way, they will have a harder time trying to associate a term such as 'Effects-based operations' as being 'kooky', 'crazy'. Same with 'New World Order' - why not just talk about the RMA, since this is actually the 'engine' behind the 'New World Order' so to speak? 'New World Order' is left specifically vague and non-specific as a term because it is merely intended to be an endgoal.
False-flag operations = Effects-based operations
New World Order = Revolution In Military Affairs (this is the first version of the 'meme')
Revolution In Military Affairs = Net-Centric Warfare (this is version 2 of the same 'meme')
Net-Centric Warfare = Net-Centric Operations (this is version 3 of the same 'meme')
Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs) = Katrina/FEMA camps/Haiti Humanitarian Disaster Relief
Weapons Of Mass Destruction = Weapons Of Mass Effect ('Weapons of Mass Destruction', according to Michael Chertoff himself, is a 'subset' of Weapons Of Mass Effect. The people who actually came up with the textbook literature behind Weapons of Mass Effect were Dr Ruth A. David and her ANSER Analytic Services company and Mitretek, now called Nobilis)
For proof of where Chertoff said that, see this here (and go to 52:00)
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190653-1
Alvin Toffler, the 'Future Shock', the 'Bio Shock', the 'Strategic Shock', the 'System Shock'
Quote
"If writers like Alvin Toffler and Winn Schwartau are correct and the key to future conflict is information, organization of the military by geographic medium may be obsolette. At a minimum, the growing importance of information suggests the need for an integrated interservice C4I force."
All three of these games (System Shock 2, BioShock 1 and 2, Terminator Future Shock) - all three of these are 'allusions' to Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock'. Alvin Toffler regularly pops up in nearly all RMA literature - Alvin Toffler is seen as the oracle lauding the information age's coming. He has predicted massive unemployment, mass civil disarray and lots of 'casualties' in this upcoming transition from the 'industrial age' to the 'information age' - a lot of people with fixed skillsets will be made obsolete.
Har har. What a coincidence, then, that we now have a popular videogame series called BioShock, where the game is essentially about just that - people are turning themselves into transhumanist ghouls and they fight amongst each other and resort to corpse looting and child harvesting. This is the 'bio shock' in the game's title - just as the 'Strategic Shocks: Unknown Unknowns' document referred to 9/11 as a 'strategic shock'. When people are turning themselves into transhumanists, there will be a civil war between those who do want to upgrade and those who do not.
Kevin Warwick has already said that human beings in his opinion will be a 'subspecies', just like cows now:
This is scary stuff people, and they are now conditioning you for it through entertainment, just like they 'conditioned' people for the 'fake CGI/face-morphed insurgents' about 15 years ago.
http://thcforum.ning.com/video/kevin-warwick-says-humans-will
Kevin Warwick Says Humans Will Become Subspecies Like Cows Next To Cyborgs/Transhumanists Dominant
Quote
"Clearly, the world is going to be dominated either by intelligent machines, or cyborgs, or a combination - that's where the future is going.
So, the future for an ordinary everyday human - I guess there will be some sort of subspecies, just like we have cows now - so we will have humans in the future. There will be other creatures of the species - cyborgs, intelligent machines - that are the dominant lifeforms on Earth.
And as a cyborg - if a human came to see me and he starts making silly noises - a bit like a cow does now - if a cow comes to me and says: "moo, moo, moo", I'm not going to say: "Yeah, that's a great idea, I'm going to do what you tell me", so it'll be with a human.
They'll come in and start making these silly noises that we call speech and human language and so on - and these trivial noises - I'm not going to do those silly things - why should I? This creature is absolutely stupid in comparison to me."
So, the future for an ordinary everyday human - I guess there will be some sort of subspecies, just like we have cows now - so we will have humans in the future. There will be other creatures of the species - cyborgs, intelligent machines - that are the dominant lifeforms on Earth.
And as a cyborg - if a human came to see me and he starts making silly noises - a bit like a cow does now - if a cow comes to me and says: "moo, moo, moo", I'm not going to say: "Yeah, that's a great idea, I'm going to do what you tell me", so it'll be with a human.
They'll come in and start making these silly noises that we call speech and human language and so on - and these trivial noises - I'm not going to do those silly things - why should I? This creature is absolutely stupid in comparison to me."
.Sense and respond - The new 'perpetual war/business' business model
Quote
All these are military laboratories that serve to gradually usher in the control grid that will enable 'sense and respond' supply chain logistics.
I just found an excellent explanation for 'sense and respond' that is without equal. 'Sense and respond' is the 'next-generation' business model that all 'war' and 'business' ('business' is essentially 'war' - same strategies, same terms, same hierarchical structure) will be conducted by.
This is also the reason why they want RFIDs on everything and all these sensors installed all throughout the cities - all these 'sensors' will form a 'sensor overlay grid' where a sensor can immediately 'sense' an 'event' given specific 'stimuli' (say: you just walk by it and you do something 'anti-social' - say: you are carrying a concealed firearm), and based upon that event being 'sensed', the unmanned drone with the big-ass mounted 'taser'/'shotgun' will be paying you a little visit, or a CCTV camera with inbuilt speaker will be shouting at you, chastising you for your 'anti-social behavior').
Now, read this:
http://www.bettermanagement.com/library/library.aspx?l=12447
Quote
"The Minority Report," Steven Spielberg's sci-fi movie release in 2002 has the following scene. John Anderton (Tom Cruise), after having eyeballs replaced to escape police detection, walks into an apparel store (the Gap). The camera in the store scans his eyes, and the flat TV panel instantaneously starts an advertisement showing a holographic image of a woman, "Hello, Mr. Yakamoto! Welcome back to the Gap. How did those assorted tank tops work out for you? Come on in and see how good you look in one of our new Winter sweaters." Well, this scene (prepared with the help of MIT Media Lab) demonstrates the next generation of business model—sense and respond.
Minority Report, I tell you, was one big 'predictive programming' movie. But within a war context, or from a civilian security perspective, 'sense and respond' simply means the following: you are wearing an RFID bracelet and you leave your designated zone. Well, instantly, the 'sensors' see that you're carrying around with you an RFID bracelet, they can 'infer' the attributes from that device, they can 'infer' that hey, this is a case of 'area denial'/'unauthorized access', and in an instant the entire 'Minority Report' police force/unmanned drone will be on your tail to put you back into your residential block or taser you to death. That's how this shit is going to roll.
.http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/transformation/military-transformation-a-strategic-approach.pdf
.http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/uk-mod/nec.htm
Network Enabled Capability
The UK's programme to enhance military capability by better exploitation of information.
Introduction - The NEC information viewpoint
Source: UK MoD
© Crown Copyright 2003
The aim of NEC is to enhance military capability by the better exploitation of information. Key drivers include UK Effects Based Operations (EBO) research and the US Network Centric Warfare initiative (NCW).
The use of information can be seen in the context of a set of basic, dynamic processes common to all military operations:
Suds Diagram
Sense
The direct and indirect sensing of a situation by multiple diverse sensors
(which will include people).
Understand
The generation and maintenance of a common perception of the situation,
allowing shared awareness across the battlespace.
Develop Intent
Adynamic, distributed decision making process at all levels of command.
Synchronise Effects
The co-ordination of all forms of effect in the battlespace to achieve a shared objective.
Working definition
"Linking sensors, [size=15
pt]decision makers [/size]and weapon systems so that information can be translated into synchronised and overwhelming military effect at optimum tempo"
Network Enabled Capability vs. Network Centric Warfare
Core NEC Themes
The development of NEC has been arranged under a number of core themes, each capturing a related subset of the overal NEC vision.
Full Information Availability - Enabling a user to search, manipulate and exchange information of different classifications captured by, or available in, all sources internal and external to the battlespace.
Shared Awareness - Providing a shared understanding and interpretation of a situation, the intensions of friendly forces, and the potential courses of action amongst all elements in the battlespace.
Flexible Working - Enabling assets to rapidly reconfigure to meet changing mission needs, allowing them to work together with minimum disruption and confusion.
Agile Mission Groups - Enabling the dynamic creation and configuration of Mission Groups that share awareness and that co-ordinate and employ a wide range of systems for a specific mission.
Synchronised Effects - Achieving overwhelming effects within and between Mission Groups by co-ordinating the most appropriate assets available in the battlespace through dynamic distributed planning and execution.
Effects Based Planning - Taking an approach to planning that focuses on the use of military and non-military effects required against an enemy, and is integrated with other planning processes in the battlespace.
Resilient Information Infrastructure - Ensuring information resources can be managed and that secure and assured access is provided with the flexibility to meet the needs of Agile Mission Groups.
Fully Networked Support - Allowing the ready use of non-frontline government bodies, industry, academia and public service capabilities to support operations.
Inclusive Flexible Acquisition - Co-ordinating process across MOD, OGDs and industry that promotes the rapid insertion of new technologies, facilitates coherence between acquisition programmes and provides an incremental approach to delivering 'net-ready platforms'.
Delivering NEC
The challenges of delivering the UK's aspirations for NEC are considerable, and require co-ordinated action from a wide range of stakeholders and authorities.
Military Research
Dstl and QinetiQ are actively pursuing research into a wide range of issues grouped under the core NEC themes.
Acquisition
NEC will affect the acquistion and development of many equipment programmes. Co-ordinating these activities represents a considerable challenge for both the military customer and procurement organisations. The Integration Authority and DEC CCII, as the core capability DEC, will both play pivotal roles in the implementation of NEC.
Experimentation
Co-ordinated experimentation, involving research demonstrators, fielded systems and industry prototypes will be central to accelerating the development of requirements and delivery of capability.
Concepts and Doctrine
Delivering the full benefits of NEC, will require development of operational concepts and doctrine; this important aspect is being led by the UK's Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre (JDCC).
Industry
Industry partners have a key role to play in many aspects of NEC, including experimentation and delivery of systems.
International Partners
Many nations are currently studying and undertaking similar network related/network centric warfare developments. The UK will forge relationships with these nations to share research, leverage experimentation and build coalition capability.
Perceived Benefits
The advantages of implementing a network enabled force include having precision of control, precision in applying force, rapidity of effect, the force multiplier effect, improved force protection and improved combat effectiveness.
These benefits will mean a shift in the Balance of Investment towards increasing the integration rather than the effect of weapons and sensors.
NEC Aspiration
NEC "encompasses the elements required to deliver controlled and precise military effect rapidly and reliably. At its heart are three elements: sensors (to gather information); a network (to fuse, communicate and exploit information); and strike assets to deliver military effect. The key is the ability to collect, fuse and disseminate accurate, timely and relevant information with much greater rapidity (sometimes only a matter of minutes or even in "real time") to help provide a common understanding among commanders at all levels".
Secretary of State for Defence
Strategic Defence Review New Chapter
July 2002
"NEC allows platforms and C2 capabilities to exploit shared awareness and collaborative planning, to communicate and understand command intent, and to enable seamless battlespace management. It will underpin decision superiority and the delivery of rapid and synchronised effects in the joint and multinational battlespace."
Major General Rob Fulton
Capability Manager (Information Superiority)
30 April 2002
NEC will be a key enabler of:
Tempo matched to need, a highly reactive force, smaller agile units, smaller in theatre forces, better utilisation of resources, truly joint operations at all levels, synchronisation of effects, reduction in fratricide and a fully interoperable coalition.
Documents
NEC Outline Concept, Part 1 - Background and Programme of Work
The NEC Outline Concept - Part 1, introduces Network Enabled Capability (NEC). It sets out the origins and purposes of the UK NEC initiative, and contrasts it with the US Network Centric Warfare (NCW) concept. It then summarises the work undertaken to date and charts future research intiatives.
NEC Outline Concept, Part 2 - NEC Conceptual Framework
The NEC Outline Concept - Part 2, details the work done to explain the fundamentals of NEC. It outlines the military aspirations for UK forces and describes the NEC themes required to acheive them.
The NEC flyer v5.0
The NEC flyer is a distributive pamphlet detailing the main points in this website. To obtain a copy please contact the NEC concept project manager.
Quality of systems map v2.21
The Quality of systems map is a top-level view of the information network that links the key components of our equipment capability.
Quality of Service Map
In order to assist in a common understanding of NEC, MoD sponsers wished to create a model of the information network that links the key components of our equipment capability. This is seen as the top-level view of the network, complementary to the detailed systems and technical components on which work is in progress within MoD.
Source: UK MoD
© Crown Copyright 2003
.September 10, 2001 (the day before RMA and 'transformation' inside the Pentagon was made mandatory policy):
Rumsfeld declares war on Pentagon bureaucracy
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=20010905&id=ICcuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NdEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6557,6168375
Here is the full speech that Rumsfeld gave on September 10, 2001.
Defense Business Practices
September 10, 2001
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/165947-1
It was about much more than just trillions of dollars being unaccounted for. It was about 'force transformation', implementing the 'RMA', and 'taking out' those people opposed to change within the Pentagon.
Hey Rummy, we're piecing all this shit together now and putting it into the proper context nine years later. It took us a while, but we are now onto your game. You and all the other criminal pieces of shit behind the RMA had better be damn afraid of even more of us waking up and realizing the full extent of your criminality. Because this knowledge is spreading all from the US all the way to China - people are finding out about your bull, and there is a sizeable population now that is not 'dumbed down', will not 'swallow' the crap you're feeding us, and will oppose you at every strategic junction.
Here's what they 'wargamed' in 1994:
Quote
A political movement called the "New Humanitarianism" is growing, especially among Americans of non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear.
'as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear'. That about sums it all up right there. No matter how 'gung-ho' you are, once you REALIZE what this 'revolution' actually hopes to accomplish, you will be scared SHITLESS, and you WILL TRY TO PUT THE GENIE BACK INTO THE BOTTLE. That's what a lot of guys within the intelligence community are finding out right now - "Holy shit, I did not know I was going to be personally impacted by this stuff - this is horrible - this is not what I want to leave behind for my children". We know that is the phase these people are going through, because it happened in every 'Marxist' revolution - the 'revolutionaries' that implemented the 'revolution' became disillusioned eventually when they saw what they had actually brought into existence and were subsequently disposed of. This 'revolution' - the RMA - is another 'Marxist' revolution - hell, that document I linked to above even mentions 'Marx' and quotes him on several occasions. Not to mention the neoconservatives have strong Marxist roots.
All you COINTELPRO minions and all the other 'enablers' - YOU WILL GO THROUGH THIS PERIOD, MARK MY WORDS. It's not a matter of 'If' but 'when'.
.
Pentagon's New Map - Thomas P.M. Barnett:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7El18wbBd4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqJ1QJ9Kjd8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KGAvxjlUM&feature=related
(I have a copy of this book)
.http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:YmFeojePeC0J:www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hohonu/writing.php%3Fid%3D140+media,+perception,+and+terror&cd=34&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7El18wbBd4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqJ1QJ9Kjd8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KGAvxjlUM&feature=related
(I have a copy of this book)
Mass Media and Propaganda in the context of the War on Terror
Das Flagg
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the mode of thought in the United States changed dramatically. Since those first horrific images flashed before our eyes, there has been a steady influx of media commentary on what the implications of this act are and will be. In a survey of published material five years after the terrorist attack, three perspectives stand out. In each there is an understanding that in our new technological post-industrial society the lines between journalism and propaganda have significantly blurred. The three perspectives that will be addressed are shaped by how each relates media propaganda to the war on terror.
The most obvious and mainstream argument is that in this era of worldwide media proliferation, the “terrorists” utilize propaganda to its fullest and in order for the civilized world to emerge victorious, we must in turn harness the power of media for all its worth (Zuckerman 76; Terror.com; Tierney). The second perspective states that the media have altered our perception of war by utilizing language that justifies our military actions both at home and abroad while demeaning and demonizing the opposition (Hammer 232; Pilger 23; Wekerle and Jackson 35). The third argument recognizes that propaganda is being used on a massive scale, but the concern is that a great majority of it is being used on the American public to shape opinion and rally support for the Bush administration’s militaristic agenda. While similar to the second idea, this third argument goes one step further in asserting that the government is deliberately shaping public policy and opinion in order to pursue a scripted plan to maintain American global supremacy (Newswise; Dalglish and Leslie 1; Rampton and Stauber 6).
In assessing the first perspective on media propaganda, it is essential to recognize that the sources read as a who’s who in terms of American intellectual print media. U.S. News and World Report, The Economist, and The New York Times can be viewed as some of the most credible sources in American media whose primary audience is business and political leaders. These three present a similar message that states, “we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media” (Zuckerman 76). The irony is that these three sources express this point emphatically but the above quote does not come from an American source but from none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Osama bin Laden’s deputy” (76).
The Economist features a book review from a university professor in Israel, which details how “the 40 organizations designated as active terrorist groups by America’s State Department now maintain more than 4,300 websites” (Terror.com). This excessive use of new media, the internet, highlights the struggle the West is in with terrorist organizations. A tool that has become a necessity in the lives of the American public can at the same time be utilized as a weapon against them.
This double edged sword of media epitomizes the comments made by John Tierney in his New York Times column entitled “Osama’s Spin Lessons.” His first sentence declares, “Once again he (bin Laden) has beaten America at an American game: public relations” (“Spin Lessons”). The article details how, throughout the war on terror initiated after 9/11, bin Laden has used media presentation to further his motives even while the U.S. decimated al-Qaeda’s infrastructure. The essential point to take from these periodicals is that in this post-modern age, war has dramatically changed and these days words can often be as dangerous as bullets.
The second mode of thought certainly agrees that words are dangerous but feels that the words used by the media provoke violence by hiding its true danger. Rhonda Hammer, in her work “Militarism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Approach,” feels the media “sanitize and aestheticizes war” (232). She argues that modern media packages and presents war in the same way it presents its television shows. This framing of war allows the people to view the death of human beings as they do the characters on TV. “The bombing of Afghanistan…is translated as a “war on terrorism,” rather than a war on men, women, and children” (232).
Hammer details how the media continually bombard us with images of war that are always in the context of a struggle against terrorism. John Pilger continues with this line of thought by saying that while many people and organizations do commit acts of terror, the primary source of violence in the world comes from governments. This fact is concealed from us in the ways that Hammer described, but Pilger adds that another level to the problem is that, “the media have no language to describe state terrorism” (23). Thus, when “the enemy” detonates small explosives they become terrorists and make headline news, but when the United States, Britain, and Israel massacre thousands of innocent civilians, not a word is paid to that destruction of life. “If the word terrorism has any modern application, it is this industrial state terrorism” (23).
While Hammer and Pilger discuss how the media “sanitize” the war on terror that is going on around the world, Wekerle and Jackson write about how the internal spaces of America are being shaped by “the anti-terrorism Agenda” (35). This agenda involves analyzing how every space within the country could be utilized for a terrorist act and taking steps to mitigate the danger. A consequence of this has been that social movements within the country have had to tread lightly in terms of the political and social actions they take because of the possible repercussions of being branded a terrorist by the media, who have also learned to tread lightly and not question the administration’s motives because “the ‘War on Terrorism’ quickly expanded to a generalized chill on dissent” (35). In an effort to police those who dissent too much, there has been a formation of “’pop-up armies,’ the collaboration of military, security, and local police forces” (35). In their uncompromising adherence to public policy, the mainstream media have projected this terrorist label on the social progressive movements and failed to question the heavy-handed tactics of the militarizing police forces who have targeted these groups.
The previous authors have given us clear examples of what has and is happening in the war on terror but the final three share a perspective on why this is happening. David Altheide is a Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University and has recently released a book that claims, “the U.S. government used the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as a catalyst to unleash a sophisticated propaganda campaign” (“Book Details Use of Fear”). The article that reviews the book hits on many of the topics that have already been discussed, as well as indicating that the events that have happened since 9/11 were planned well before the attacks happened. Altheide asserts that it was the media going along with the government’s version of the story that allowed the country to go in the direction it did. As was shown in the first perspective, the mainstream print media are still using the same approach. Altheide points out that “the use of “entertaining fear” applied to the war on terrorism,” was used on the American people (“Book Details Use of Fear”). This is precisely what Hammer described. Pilger noted how the real terrorists are the governments engaging in war while Altheide describes the group who drew up the plans for preemptive war a decade before The Iraq War included many of Bush’s cabinet members as well as the vice-president. His book also corroborates the opinions of Wekerle and Jackson when he says, “the goal is to encourage the U.S. people to relinquish certain privacy rights for protection and a safer world” (“Book Details Use of Fear”).
It is important to reiterate the difference between the second group of perspectives from this third opinion. The second group consisted of scholarly journals that detailed aspects of the war on terror and its repercussions. Altheide is making a leap from the actual occurrences, which can be viewed as a natural unfolding after a dramatic event, to an intent to orchestrate this unfolding. With this in mind, the comments by Lucy Dalglish and Gregg Leslie in Homefront Confidential take on dramatic consequences. The forward to their yearly report on the public’s access to information states, “In the days immediately following September 11, the U.S. government embarked on a disturbing path of secrecy” (1). They go on to describe the countless breaches of civil liberties that were once the hallmarks of American society.
Finally, a book entitled The Best War Ever by Sheldon Rampton and Jon Stauber reiterate the implication that the administration deceived the American people again and again. “One of the saddest realities about Iraq is that the American people have had to relearn a lesson they already learned during the Vietnam War: that the nation’s leaders, like the leaders of other countries, are capable of misleading the public even with respect to matters of life-and death importance” (6).
The opinions presented in this review, while espousing three continues with this line of thought by saying that while many people and organizations do commit acts of terror, the primary source of violence in the world comes from governments. This fact is concealed from us in the ways that Hammer described, but Pilger adds that another level to the problem is that, “the media have no language to describe state terrorism” (23). Thus, when “the enemy” detonates small explosives they become terrorists and make headline news, but when the United States, Britain, and Israel massacre thousands of innocent civilians, not a word is paid to that destruction of life. “If the word terrorism has any modern application, it is this industrial state terrorism” (23).
While Hammer and Pilger discuss how the media “sanitize” the war on terror that is going on around the world, Wekerle and Jackson write about how the internal spaces of America are being shaped by “the anti-terrorism Agenda” (35). This agenda involves analyzing how every space within the country could be utilized for a terrorist act and taking steps to mitigate the danger. A consequence of this has been that social movements within the country have had to tread lightly in terms of the political and social actions they take because of the possible repercussions of being branded a terrorist by the media, who have also learned to tread lightly and not question the administration’s motives because “the ‘War on Terrorism’ quickly expanded to a generalized chill on dissent” (35). In an effort to police those who dissent too much, there has been a formation of “’pop-up armies,’ the collaboration of military, security, and local police forces” (35). In their uncompromising adherence to public policy, the mainstream media have projected this terrorist label on the social progressive movements and failed to question the heavy-handed tactics of the militarizing police forces who have targeted these groups.
The previous authors have given us clear examples of what has and is happening in the war on terror but the final three share a perspective on why this is happening. David Altheide is a Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University and has recently released a book that claims, “the U.S. government used the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as a catalyst to unleash a sophisticated propaganda campaign” (“Book Details Use of Fear”). The article that reviews the book hits on many of the topics that have already been discussed, as well as indicating that the events that have happened since 9/11 were planned well before the attacks happened. Altheide asserts that it was the media going along with the government’s version of the story that allowed the country to go in the direction it did. As was shown in the first perspective, the mainstream print media are still using the same approach. Altheide points out that “the use of “entertaining fear” applied to the war on terrorism,” was used on the American people (“Book Details Use of Fear”). This is precisely what Hammer described. Pilger noted how the real terrorists are the governments engaging in war while Altheide describes the group who drew up the plans for preemptive war a decade before The Iraq War included many of Bush’s cabinet members as well as the vice-president. His book also corroborates the opinions of Wekerle and Jackson when he says, “the goal is to encourage the U.S. people to relinquish certain privacy rights for protection and a safer world” (“Book Details Use of Fear”).
It is important to reiterate the difference between the second group of perspectives from this third opinion. The second group consisted of scholarly journals that detailed aspects of the war on terror and its repercussions. Altheide is making a leap from the actual occurrences, which can be viewed as a natural unfolding after a dramatic event, to an intent to orchestrate this unfolding. With this in mind, the comments by Lucy Dalglish and Gregg Leslie in Homefront Confidential take on dramatic consequences. The forward to their yearly report on the public’s access to information states, “In the days immediately following September 11, the U.S. government embarked on a disturbing path of secrecy” (1). They go on to describe the countless breaches of civil liberties that were once the hallmarks of American society.
Finally, a book entitled The Best War Ever by Sheldon Rampton and Jon Stauber reiterate the implication that the administration deceived the American people again and again. “One of the saddest realities about Iraq is that the American people have had to relearn a lesson they already learned during the Vietnam War: that the nation’s leaders, like the leaders of other countries, are capable of misleading the public even with respect to matters of li e-and death importance” (6).
The opinions presented in this review, while espousing three different perspectives, make one point perfectly clear. Terrorism affects virtually every aspect of modern American life. Because media, television, internet, and print, pervade our culture, it is impossible to escape the barrage of propaganda that continually flash before us. Many Americans spend their entire days in a media propaganda vacuum. They wake up to headlines of destruction in their newspapers, drive to work with reports of terrorist activity on their radios, are employed in buildings that are considered “soft” targets for terrorists, utilize the internet for a variety of workplace tasks and view the latest breaking news stream across their screen, watch the evening news with stories of the government’s daily efforts to enact legislation to protect them, and settle into bed with their favorite magazine’s description of what could’ve, should’ve, or would’ve been done if only we knew more about why “they” hate “us”.
WORKS CITED
“Book Details Use of Fear to Support War on Terror.” Newswise. 15 Sep. 2006. http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/521877/
Dalglish, Lucy A., and Gregg P. Leslie. “How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know.” Homefront Confidential Sep. 2005.
Hammer, Rhonda. “Militarism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective.” Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies 25.3 (2003): 231-256. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Pilger, John. New Statesman 133 (2004): 23-24. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 Sep. 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. The Best War Ever. New York: Tarcher, 2006.
“Terror.com; The internet.” The Economist. 29 Apr. 2006. LexisNexis. U of Hawai’i-Hilo. Lib., 18 Sep. 2006.
Tierney, John. “Osama’s Spin Lessons.” New York Times 12 Sep. 2006. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12tierney.html
Wekerle, Gerda R., and Paul S. B. Jackson. “Urbanizing the Security Agenda.” City 9.1 (2005): 33-49. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “What It Will Take to Win.” Editorial U.S. News & World Report 140.18 (2006): 76-76. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i- Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
This paper was written for English 215 (Writing for the Humanities and Social Sciences).
.Bombshell info Squarepusher. I'll add in a prior post of mine:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=142507.msg860413#msg860413
Agile EA has created patsies for every type of false flag-nuclear-bio-cyber
Hey, NWO: F*CK OFF
Agile software methodology enterprise architectures have preemptivley created patsies way ahead of time to serve as the cover for a full range of false flag terror attacks that the NWO has at their disposal, to be used selectively at their discretion, based on what Agile (i.e. CAESAR) tells them has the highest probability of stupefying the sheep public into buying as the most likely believable propaganda.
1st we have the circumstances all set to go for the false flag bioterror patsy angle:
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!
http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/advanced_research/02_09/genes.html
(See above link for a pic of a bunch of scumbags who work for the NWO, not gonna bother posting it here until it gets appropriately photoshopped 1st.)
Hunting Dangerous Genes, Inbox by Inbox
February 2009
The building blocks for deadly bio-weapons are available by email or online to almost anyone who cares to place an order—and the world has begun to pay attention. "Current government oversight of the DNA-synthesis industry falls short of addressing this unfortunate reality," wrote a group of academics, industry executives, and security experts in a 2007 article, "DNA Synthesis and Biological Security," which appeared in the journal Nature Biotechnology.
Addressing that scary scenario head-on is a group of MITRE experimental and computational biologists developing a method for weeding out dangerous synthetic DNA orders from harmless ones. They call their fledgling process DOTS, short for DNA Order Tracking System. And with the success of an early prototype, they now have set their sights on making DOTS available outside of the laboratory.
Some background: Genetic materials made to order from the basic chemical components of DNA are now routinely manufactured by dozens of companies in the United States and abroad. Anyone can place an email order with these DNA synthesis companies for any combination of genetic base pairs A, T, G, and C and have the order delivered. (Please see "The ABCs of ATGC," on this page.) It's also cheap: costs for DNA synthesis have fallen from $30 per base pair in 1990 to roughly 55 cents per base pair today.
So far, one factor limiting easy abuse of factory-made genetic materials is that no manufacturer has yet been able to make a DNA sequence longer than 35,000 base pairs. Because a virus like Variola major, which causes smallpox, contains 190,000 base pairs of DNA, some feel comfortable that would-be bioterrorists can't readily order such dangerous pathogens.
"Don't be so comfortable," warns John Dileo, experimental biologist and MITRE's lead in the DOTS project. "Small lengths of DNA can be ordered from multiple manufacturers and then stitched together" to make a potentially deadly virus.
MIT's Drew Endy, a leading authority on synthetically engineered pathogens, offered a simpler "genetic hack" to the audience at the 24th Chaos Congress in Berlin in 2007: "You can add key genes to an otherwise harmless but close relative to the virus" and thereby convert it to a virulent pathogen. Dileo, citing a sobering example, reckons that the ultra-deadly genome of the Ebola virus, which is fewer than 19,000 base pairs, would cost a mere $8,500 to manufacture.
Siloed Checks Provide No Safeguard
In 2005, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga., showed just how easy this process can be. They placed email orders to purchase many different DNA sequences from several manufacturers and then stitched those sequences together, thereby recreating the virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic that killed 40 million people worldwide. Thankfully, these were the good guys—but what if they weren't?
James Diggans, Dileo's colleague and DOTS co-developer, cites published reports showing that virtually all DNA synthesizers have some kind of screening system in place to "systematically check their orders and ensure that they are not constructing and delivering dangerous DNA sequences." These screening systems, however, are designed to detect orders for large segments (more than 300 base pairs) of DNA from a single vendor. A bad actor ordering smaller segments from multiple vendors for later assembly into an infectious agent would go unnoticed, and it is this shortcoming that the DOTS system addresses.
Though a new industry, DNA synthesis is a burgeoning one. In the U.S. alone, manufacturing requests are on track to top more than 15 million orders a month by 2012, up from 9 million a month just two years ago. Overwhelmingly, the orders are from trusted government, private, and university laboratories that use the synthetic DNA for legitimate research. However, it's an order stream that is not monitored across companies in an industry that's essentially unregulated. As such, the potential for danger by those committed to the covert production of biological weapons remains unaddressed.
A recent survey conducted by the publication New Scientist found wide divergence in industry reaction to overseeing questionable DNA orders. "It's not our job," reported the director of Genemed Synthesis in California. The general manager at Bio Basic in Canada admitted only to spot-checking orders. Conversely, the president of Blue Heron in Bothell, Wash., claims that his company checks every order. And Picoscript of Houston, TX, turned down an email order from a reputable U.S. laboratory when it learned that the order was to be shipped to an unknown third party in a foreign country. For Dileo and Diggans, the lack of uniformity and siloed nature of these companies' policies is insufficient to address the threat posed by the technology.
Developing a Hard-to-Evade System
For three years now, DNA synthesizers' only defense against such orders—other than scrutinizing their own in-boxes—has been freely available software from a West Coast software development company. According to the developer, the software is "designed to identify DNA and protein sequences derived from hazardous biological agents," tracking potential problems by uploading the ordered sequence and matching them against select agents in the National Institutes of Health's GenBank genetic sequence database.
However, "the software can be evaded by breaking select agent sequences into short segments and ordering from a number of synthesis companies allowing intent to fly under the radar," contends MITRE's David Walburger, another of the DOTS researchers. That's where DOTS comes into play, say Dileo and Diggans. They recently co-presented their new order-checking software at a MITRE Lecture Series event on bio-security. They reported that DOTS scrutinizes DNA sequences from both the black list as well as a "grey list," made up of DNA sequences that could be either virulent or harmless depending on how they are used. The system also checks the additional details found in every order, such as buyer information, shipping, and other relevant data. This information becomes the input for specially designed algorithms to calculate a threat score for any one order or collection of orders. DOTS processes and re-processes the orders in the database looking for collections of DNA strings that, if stitched together, could be hazardous.
To date, the DOTS prototype can efficiently process 10,000 orders at a time on a single processor, with each screened order ranging from 20 to 300 base pairs in length. Of course, checking 10,000 orders is a far cry from the 15 million orders a month worldwide expected by 2012. The goal now is to scale up DOTS and move to a computing cluster to meet that demand.
"Based on past experience," notes Dileo, "within the next two or three years some federal agency will be given a national security mandate to be responsible for monitoring and regulating recombinant and synthetic DNA activities." Well in advance of that looming directive, the MITRE DOTS team feels confident that their DNA Order Tracking System will be ready for use by government and industry partners.
http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/advanced_research/02_09/genes.html
(See above link for a pic of a bunch of scumbags who work for the NWO, not gonna bother posting it here until it gets appropriately photoshopped 1st.)
Hunting Dangerous Genes, Inbox by Inbox
February 2009
The building blocks for deadly bio-weapons are available by email or online to almost anyone who cares to place an order—and the world has begun to pay attention. "Current government oversight of the DNA-synthesis industry falls short of addressing this unfortunate reality," wrote a group of academics, industry executives, and security experts in a 2007 article, "DNA Synthesis and Biological Security," which appeared in the journal Nature Biotechnology.
Addressing that scary scenario head-on is a group of MITRE experimental and computational biologists developing a method for weeding out dangerous synthetic DNA orders from harmless ones. They call their fledgling process DOTS, short for DNA Order Tracking System. And with the success of an early prototype, they now have set their sights on making DOTS available outside of the laboratory.
Some background: Genetic materials made to order from the basic chemical components of DNA are now routinely manufactured by dozens of companies in the United States and abroad. Anyone can place an email order with these DNA synthesis companies for any combination of genetic base pairs A, T, G, and C and have the order delivered. (Please see "The ABCs of ATGC," on this page.) It's also cheap: costs for DNA synthesis have fallen from $30 per base pair in 1990 to roughly 55 cents per base pair today.
So far, one factor limiting easy abuse of factory-made genetic materials is that no manufacturer has yet been able to make a DNA sequence longer than 35,000 base pairs. Because a virus like Variola major, which causes smallpox, contains 190,000 base pairs of DNA, some feel comfortable that would-be bioterrorists can't readily order such dangerous pathogens.
"Don't be so comfortable," warns John Dileo, experimental biologist and MITRE's lead in the DOTS project. "Small lengths of DNA can be ordered from multiple manufacturers and then stitched together" to make a potentially deadly virus.
MIT's Drew Endy, a leading authority on synthetically engineered pathogens, offered a simpler "genetic hack" to the audience at the 24th Chaos Congress in Berlin in 2007: "You can add key genes to an otherwise harmless but close relative to the virus" and thereby convert it to a virulent pathogen. Dileo, citing a sobering example, reckons that the ultra-deadly genome of the Ebola virus, which is fewer than 19,000 base pairs, would cost a mere $8,500 to manufacture.
Siloed Checks Provide No Safeguard
In 2005, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga., showed just how easy this process can be. They placed email orders to purchase many different DNA sequences from several manufacturers and then stitched those sequences together, thereby recreating the virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic that killed 40 million people worldwide. Thankfully, these were the good guys—but what if they weren't?
James Diggans, Dileo's colleague and DOTS co-developer, cites published reports showing that virtually all DNA synthesizers have some kind of screening system in place to "systematically check their orders and ensure that they are not constructing and delivering dangerous DNA sequences." These screening systems, however, are designed to detect orders for large segments (more than 300 base pairs) of DNA from a single vendor. A bad actor ordering smaller segments from multiple vendors for later assembly into an infectious agent would go unnoticed, and it is this shortcoming that the DOTS system addresses.
Though a new industry, DNA synthesis is a burgeoning one. In the U.S. alone, manufacturing requests are on track to top more than 15 million orders a month by 2012, up from 9 million a month just two years ago. Overwhelmingly, the orders are from trusted government, private, and university laboratories that use the synthetic DNA for legitimate research. However, it's an order stream that is not monitored across companies in an industry that's essentially unregulated. As such, the potential for danger by those committed to the covert production of biological weapons remains unaddressed.
A recent survey conducted by the publication New Scientist found wide divergence in industry reaction to overseeing questionable DNA orders. "It's not our job," reported the director of Genemed Synthesis in California. The general manager at Bio Basic in Canada admitted only to spot-checking orders. Conversely, the president of Blue Heron in Bothell, Wash., claims that his company checks every order. And Picoscript of Houston, TX, turned down an email order from a reputable U.S. laboratory when it learned that the order was to be shipped to an unknown third party in a foreign country. For Dileo and Diggans, the lack of uniformity and siloed nature of these companies' policies is insufficient to address the threat posed by the technology.
Developing a Hard-to-Evade System
For three years now, DNA synthesizers' only defense against such orders—other than scrutinizing their own in-boxes—has been freely available software from a West Coast software development company. According to the developer, the software is "designed to identify DNA and protein sequences derived from hazardous biological agents," tracking potential problems by uploading the ordered sequence and matching them against select agents in the National Institutes of Health's GenBank genetic sequence database.
However, "the software can be evaded by breaking select agent sequences into short segments and ordering from a number of synthesis companies allowing intent to fly under the radar," contends MITRE's David Walburger, another of the DOTS researchers. That's where DOTS comes into play, say Dileo and Diggans. They recently co-presented their new order-checking software at a MITRE Lecture Series event on bio-security. They reported that DOTS scrutinizes DNA sequences from both the black list as well as a "grey list," made up of DNA sequences that could be either virulent or harmless depending on how they are used. The system also checks the additional details found in every order, such as buyer information, shipping, and other relevant data. This information becomes the input for specially designed algorithms to calculate a threat score for any one order or collection of orders. DOTS processes and re-processes the orders in the database looking for collections of DNA strings that, if stitched together, could be hazardous.
To date, the DOTS prototype can efficiently process 10,000 orders at a time on a single processor, with each screened order ranging from 20 to 300 base pairs in length. Of course, checking 10,000 orders is a far cry from the 15 million orders a month worldwide expected by 2012. The goal now is to scale up DOTS and move to a computing cluster to meet that demand.
"Based on past experience," notes Dileo, "within the next two or three years some federal agency will be given a national security mandate to be responsible for monitoring and regulating recombinant and synthetic DNA activities." Well in advance of that looming directive, the MITRE DOTS team feels confident that their DNA Order Tracking System will be ready for use by government and industry partners.
Others see danger of a more calculated variety, particularly since the 1918 viral genome was published and can now be recreated by other laboratorians using entirely synthetic materials. Among those questioning the wisdom of the research is Kenneth Alibek, MD, PhD, DSc, former chief scientist and deputy director of bioweapons research in the former Soviet Union.
Born Kanatjan Alibekov in the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, Alibek oversaw bioweapons research and development involving such pathogens as smallpox, anthrax, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. Now a U.S. citizen, he changed his name when he defected to the United States in 1992. Weaponizing influenza — particularly the 1918 strain — was discussed by Soviet researchers, says Alibek, now a distinguished professor in the department of molecular and microbiology at the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason University in Washington, DC.
Prior to publication, the 1918 virus research was reviewed by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, an advisory committee to the U.S. government. Julie Gerberding, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, issued a joint statement that read in part: “The rationale for publishing the results and making them widely available to the scientific community is to encourage additional research at a time when we desperately need to engage the scientific community and accelerate our ability to prevent pandemic influenza. . . . Moving forward with research conducted by the world’s top scientists and openly disseminating their research results remain our best defense against H5N1 avian influenza virus and other dangerous pathogens that may emerge or re-emerge, naturally or deliberately.”
2nd we have the circumstances all set to go for the false flag nuclear (includes cyber motive as well) patsy angle:
Obama Releases List of Nuclear Sites - These screw-ups happen - Deutch
Fear! We need more Fear!
http://www.groupintel.com/2009/06/03/us-releases-secret-list-of-nuclear-sites-accidentally/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/03nuke.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
U.S. Releases Secret List of Nuclear Sites Accidentally
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: June 2, 2009
The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 4, 2009
An article on Wednesday about the mistaken release of a report detailing America’s civilian nuclear complex described incorrectly a statement on the document’s cover about its publication. The statement said the document had been “referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.” It did not directly attribute the report’s publication to the committee.
http://www.groupintel.com/2009/06/03/us-releases-secret-list-of-nuclear-sites-accidentally/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/03nuke.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
U.S. Releases Secret List of Nuclear Sites Accidentally
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: June 2, 2009
The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 4, 2009
An article on Wednesday about the mistaken release of a report detailing America’s civilian nuclear complex described incorrectly a statement on the document’s cover about its publication. The statement said the document had been “referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.” It did not directly attribute the report’s publication to the committee.
3rd we have the circumstances all set to go for the false flag cyberterror/cyberattack patsy angle:
Quote
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=555&pst=1354165
Cyberspies Penetrate U.S. Power Grid, Leave Software That Could Disrupt System April 08, 2009 9:30 AM
The intrusions were not just limited to the electrical power grid, but affected systems like water and sewage.
Cyberspies Penetrate U.S. Power Grid, Leave Software That Could Disrupt System April 08, 2009 9:30 AM
The intrusions were not just limited to the electrical power grid, but affected systems like water and sewage.
INSERT: WATER AND SEWAGE? REALLY? LIKE SHOWN IN THIS RED TEAM DOCUMENT, WHERE SUCH ATTACKS COULD, AND WOULD ONLY BE CARRIED OUT BY ENEMY TRAITORS THAT WORK FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER. WHAT THE F*CK PART OF ***WE KNOW THAT YOU AHVE BULEPRINTED OUT EVERY ASPECT OF CRITICAL F*CKING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH PTECH/PROMIS BASED AGILE SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURES THAT ALLOW YOU TO FALSE FLAG ATTACK THEM ACCORDING TO YOUR CRIMINAL AFCEA ORGANIZATION WHO SPONSORS SYMPOSIUMS FOR JOHN ZACHMAN, THE PROGENITOR/FATHER OF EA. SHUT THE F*CK UP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT INCESSANT LIES! NO ONE IS GOING TO BELIEVE YOU PIECES OF SHIT, YOU ARE THE TERRORISTS!
NWO is going to decapitate IT infrastructure with 2 phase RNA recomb Flu
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=137788.msg835599#msg835599
Quote
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The U.S. has uncovered evidence that cyberspies, most likely from China and Russia, have penetrated the U.S. power grid and left behind software that could be activated to disrupt American infrastructure, FOX News confirmed Wednesday.
The "intrusions," first reported by The Wall Street Journal, have occurred over a period of time, one U.S. official said -- not all at once.
The breaches are "something we're concerned about," a U.S. official told FOX News.
The concern is that any software could be activated at a later date to disrupt critical systems.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The U.S. has uncovered evidence that cyberspies, most likely from China and Russia, have penetrated the U.S. power grid and left behind software that could be activated to disrupt American infrastructure, FOX News confirmed Wednesday.
The "intrusions," first reported by The Wall Street Journal, have occurred over a period of time, one U.S. official said -- not all at once.
The breaches are "something we're concerned about," a U.S. official told FOX News.
The concern is that any software could be activated at a later date to disrupt critical systems.
INSERT: JUST LIKE HOW CRIMINAL ENEMY TERRORIST TRAITOR AMIT YORAN OVERSAW THE CYBER FALSE FLAG BETA TEST AT DHS WITH PTECH USING UNOBTRUSIVE MICROWAVE HACKING TO FORCE THE SCADA COMPONENTS TO MODULATE THE AC SINEWAVE FREQUENCY FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM 60 HZ SO THAT IT WOULD EXPLODE--THE VIDEO THAT YOU HAD THAT WAS FUOU, BUT YOU SLAPPED WITH THE CLASSIFIED DESIGNATION FOR "NATIONAL SECURITY" BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THAT WAS A TEST RUN FOR HOW YOU PLAN TO ATTACK U.S. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE DURING A FALSE FLAG ATTACK THAT YOU WOULD PLAN YEARS LATER TO USE DURING A MANUFACTURED BIOWEAPON FLU.
Quote
The intrusions were not just limited to the electrical power grid, but affected systems like water and sewage. The motivation for the breaches is not well understood, and while the electronic trail appears to lead to China and Russia, it is not clear whether these actions were state-sponsored.
The Washington embassies of China and Russia deny involvement.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the espionage appeared pervasive across the country and did not target any particular region or company.
The intrusions were in many cases detected by U.S. intelligence agencies, not the companies, officials told the Journal.
"If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on," one official told the Journal.
Click here to read the story in The Wall Street Journal.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge and Mike Levine contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/08/cyberspies-penetrate-power-grid-leave-software-disrupt/
The Washington embassies of China and Russia deny involvement.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the espionage appeared pervasive across the country and did not target any particular region or company.
The intrusions were in many cases detected by U.S. intelligence agencies, not the companies, officials told the Journal.
"If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on," one official told the Journal.
Click here to read the story in The Wall Street Journal.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge and Mike Levine contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/08/cyberspies-penetrate-power-grid-leave-software-disrupt/
I almost forgot: the radiological angle that their Agile software methodology calculated for them, BUT FAILED--because someone who was not being observed within their OODA loop of this planned FALSE FLAG, DISRUPTED IT AND DESTROYED IT ENTIRELY BY DESTROYING THE PATSY BEFORE HE COULD ACT.
American Nazi slain by wife/FBI finds nuke dirty bomb parts and depleted uranium
Cummings had violent history
http://www.bangornews.com/detail/99358.html
By Abigail Curtis 2/12/09
BELFAST, Maine - James G. Cummings II was known as "kind of a violent dude" back home in Fort Bragg, Calif., according to Lt. Rusty Noe of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"He was involved in several assault cases," Noe said in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. "He was a victim in some, a suspect in others, most of them involving family."
But despite the 16 contacts the sheriff's office had with him in the late 1990s, Noe sounded surprised to learn of recent allegations that Cummings was a white supremacist with a cache of radioactive materials and directions for building a dirty bomb in his Belfast home. [Profile of a patsy, look into connections with this guy and government agencies. He could be one of the "Homegrown" patsies that they have available. Look how everyone is completely quiet about this one.]
"The guys say they never knew him to be a Neo-Nazi type," Noe said. "He seemed like he was a kind of angry dude that argued with the family."
Police say that Cummings was shot to death by his wife, Amber B. Cummings, two months ago, in what they have described as a domestic violence homicide. He had no criminal history in Maine.
There was even less information readily available about Amber Cummings, whose maiden name may have been Brown. Cummings didn't answer the phone at her Belfast home Wednesday afternoon.
It wasn't clear Wednesday why the Cummingses moved to their home at 346 High Street in Belfast.
There are three vehicles registered to the couple with the office of the Maine Secretary of State: a 2000 Jeep Wrangler, a 1999 Dodge Durango and a 1998 motor home.
All in all, a modest lifestyle for a man who came from a California family as wealthy as it was troubled. His father, James G. Cummings Sr., made a fortune in real estate and was a well-known local philanthropist before being shot to death at his home in 1997, according to newspaper accounts.
Just months before his father's death, when James G. Cummings II was 17, he made the national news - including Oprah - when he and his father allegedly conspired to secretly videotape his mother in the act of using hard drugs, according to the archives of the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
"The national media swooped down on Fort Bragg, and there was a 24-hour cacophony about kids spying on parents," wrote Bruce Anderson in a 2002 story. "[They] were long gone by the time it was found that Mom had been brewing up popcorn balls for the kids, not black tar heroin."
Mark Scaramella, the managing editor of the paper, said Wednesday that Cummings and his sister, Kathryn, sued to get more of their father's estate in the early 2000s.
It isn't clear how much they inherited, but the father's trust fund reportedly earns an estimated annual income of $10 million.
When asked about a neo-Nazi presence in Fort Bragg, Scaramella chuckled.
"There are some red-necky sorts of skinheady people," he said. "I don't think they read enough to be neo-Nazis."
http://www.bangornews.com/detail/99358.html
By Abigail Curtis 2/12/09
BELFAST, Maine - James G. Cummings II was known as "kind of a violent dude" back home in Fort Bragg, Calif., according to Lt. Rusty Noe of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"He was involved in several assault cases," Noe said in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. "He was a victim in some, a suspect in others, most of them involving family."
But despite the 16 contacts the sheriff's office had with him in the late 1990s, Noe sounded surprised to learn of recent allegations that Cummings was a white supremacist with a cache of radioactive materials and directions for building a dirty bomb in his Belfast home. [Profile of a patsy, look into connections with this guy and government agencies. He could be one of the "Homegrown" patsies that they have available. Look how everyone is completely quiet about this one.]
"The guys say they never knew him to be a Neo-Nazi type," Noe said. "He seemed like he was a kind of angry dude that argued with the family."
Police say that Cummings was shot to death by his wife, Amber B. Cummings, two months ago, in what they have described as a domestic violence homicide. He had no criminal history in Maine.
There was even less information readily available about Amber Cummings, whose maiden name may have been Brown. Cummings didn't answer the phone at her Belfast home Wednesday afternoon.
It wasn't clear Wednesday why the Cummingses moved to their home at 346 High Street in Belfast.
There are three vehicles registered to the couple with the office of the Maine Secretary of State: a 2000 Jeep Wrangler, a 1999 Dodge Durango and a 1998 motor home.
All in all, a modest lifestyle for a man who came from a California family as wealthy as it was troubled. His father, James G. Cummings Sr., made a fortune in real estate and was a well-known local philanthropist before being shot to death at his home in 1997, according to newspaper accounts.
Just months before his father's death, when James G. Cummings II was 17, he made the national news - including Oprah - when he and his father allegedly conspired to secretly videotape his mother in the act of using hard drugs, according to the archives of the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
"The national media swooped down on Fort Bragg, and there was a 24-hour cacophony about kids spying on parents," wrote Bruce Anderson in a 2002 story. "[They] were long gone by the time it was found that Mom had been brewing up popcorn balls for the kids, not black tar heroin."
Mark Scaramella, the managing editor of the paper, said Wednesday that Cummings and his sister, Kathryn, sued to get more of their father's estate in the early 2000s.
It isn't clear how much they inherited, but the father's trust fund reportedly earns an estimated annual income of $10 million.
When asked about a neo-Nazi presence in Fort Bragg, Scaramella chuckled.
"There are some red-necky sorts of skinheady people," he said. "I don't think they read enough to be neo-Nazis."
http://www.bangordailynews.com/external/cummings/dc-sec-08-0116.pdf
Maine Man Tries to Build Dirty Bomb, No One Cares
http://jonathanstray.com/maine-man-tries-to-build-dirty-bomb
Published by admin at 3:19 pm. Tags: media, politics, terrorism
A leaked FBI report states that a man named James G. Cummings was trying to build a dirty bomb when he was shot and and killed by his wife last December 9th in Belfast, Maine. He had plans, parts, explosive ingredients, and small quantities of radioactive material, though nothing that could not be purchased legally within the US. Cummings was a white supremacist who was reportedly very upset about Obama’s election.
The leaked document has been posted on Wikileaks since January 16th. While the material concerning Cummins was first noticed by the rumor site Unattributable.com on January 19th, only yesterday was there any sort of story about it in the mainstream media, in this case the local Bangor Daily News.
Although this dastardly plot was probably not much more dangerous to the public than a garden-variety bomb, this man would certainly qualify as a bona fide “terrorist” under Bush-regime logic. Or at least he would if he was Arab. In point of fact, he actually is a threat to the public, or was. So why haven’t we heard about it? Are crazy white supremacists somehow less of a threat than crazy fundamentalist muslims?
The FBI report notes:
State authorities detected radiation emissions in four small jars in the residence labeled ‘uranium metal’, as well as one jar labeled ‘thorium.’ The four jars of uranium carried the label of an identified US company. Further preliminary analysis on 30 December 2008 indicated an unlabeled jar to be a second jar of thorium. Each bottle of uranium contained depleted uranium 238. Analysis also indicated the two jars of thorium held thorium 232.
Depleted uranium (DU), the by-product of uranium enrichment for use in nuclear power plants or weapons, is not terribly radioactive and is reportedly not very suitable for use in a dirty bomb. Thorium is similarly weakly radioactive, and can be purchased legally through chemical supply companies (such as Fisher Scientific). Dispersal of these isotopes wouldn’t exactly be healthy — they’re both considered carcinogens, and DU has been well documented to cause birth defects, which is why the US and Israeli armies really shouldn’t be spraying foreign countries with DU bullets. However, a depleted uranium/thorium bomb couldn’t really be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Still, the man was on his way to building some sort of upsetting bomb. Aside from the nastyness of bombings of any sort, I am quite sure the headlines screaming “radioactivity” wouldn’t bother with the scientific subtleties I just covered. I for one am glad that the FBI finally clued in — though only because these materials were found after Cummins was shot and killed by his wife, who claimed she was defending herself after years of physical and sexual abuse.
This is all very strange, and I am left with questions.
1. Given this foiled plot, the sadly succesful Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, and other deranged loners such as the Unabomber, what is the actual risk to the public from foreign jihadists versus homegrown wackjobs, of which there are apparently plenty? [UPDATE: See also the Texas militia with a sodium cyanide bomb in 2003]
2. Do the DHS and the FBI know the true answer to this question? Are they allocating their resources appropriately? How come we only found out about this plot accidentally?
3. Again, the mainstream media still haven’t touched the story. Would this have been an instant headline if the guy was muslim?
4. If domestic terrorists don’t count, why not? Is it because they’re useless in justifying foreign wars? Or is mostly ignoring them the right response, implying that we are far too jumpy about terrorism in general?
5. This is completely ridiculous in so many ways. When do we, as a culture, decide to think rationally about terrorism?
And what would a rational approach be to terrorism be? I suggest public health as a model, which would doubtless show that if saving lives and property is the aim, we are wasting our time and money with “terrorism” as compared to, oh, I don’t know, obesity, car accidents, and global climate change.
Maine Man Tries to Build Dirty Bomb, No One Cares
http://jonathanstray.com/maine-man-tries-to-build-dirty-bomb
Published by admin at 3:19 pm. Tags: media, politics, terrorism
A leaked FBI report states that a man named James G. Cummings was trying to build a dirty bomb when he was shot and and killed by his wife last December 9th in Belfast, Maine. He had plans, parts, explosive ingredients, and small quantities of radioactive material, though nothing that could not be purchased legally within the US. Cummings was a white supremacist who was reportedly very upset about Obama’s election.
The leaked document has been posted on Wikileaks since January 16th. While the material concerning Cummins was first noticed by the rumor site Unattributable.com on January 19th, only yesterday was there any sort of story about it in the mainstream media, in this case the local Bangor Daily News.
Although this dastardly plot was probably not much more dangerous to the public than a garden-variety bomb, this man would certainly qualify as a bona fide “terrorist” under Bush-regime logic. Or at least he would if he was Arab. In point of fact, he actually is a threat to the public, or was. So why haven’t we heard about it? Are crazy white supremacists somehow less of a threat than crazy fundamentalist muslims?
The FBI report notes:
State authorities detected radiation emissions in four small jars in the residence labeled ‘uranium metal’, as well as one jar labeled ‘thorium.’ The four jars of uranium carried the label of an identified US company. Further preliminary analysis on 30 December 2008 indicated an unlabeled jar to be a second jar of thorium. Each bottle of uranium contained depleted uranium 238. Analysis also indicated the two jars of thorium held thorium 232.
Depleted uranium (DU), the by-product of uranium enrichment for use in nuclear power plants or weapons, is not terribly radioactive and is reportedly not very suitable for use in a dirty bomb. Thorium is similarly weakly radioactive, and can be purchased legally through chemical supply companies (such as Fisher Scientific). Dispersal of these isotopes wouldn’t exactly be healthy — they’re both considered carcinogens, and DU has been well documented to cause birth defects, which is why the US and Israeli armies really shouldn’t be spraying foreign countries with DU bullets. However, a depleted uranium/thorium bomb couldn’t really be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Still, the man was on his way to building some sort of upsetting bomb. Aside from the nastyness of bombings of any sort, I am quite sure the headlines screaming “radioactivity” wouldn’t bother with the scientific subtleties I just covered. I for one am glad that the FBI finally clued in — though only because these materials were found after Cummins was shot and killed by his wife, who claimed she was defending herself after years of physical and sexual abuse.
This is all very strange, and I am left with questions.
1. Given this foiled plot, the sadly succesful Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, and other deranged loners such as the Unabomber, what is the actual risk to the public from foreign jihadists versus homegrown wackjobs, of which there are apparently plenty? [UPDATE: See also the Texas militia with a sodium cyanide bomb in 2003]
2. Do the DHS and the FBI know the true answer to this question? Are they allocating their resources appropriately? How come we only found out about this plot accidentally?
3. Again, the mainstream media still haven’t touched the story. Would this have been an instant headline if the guy was muslim?
4. If domestic terrorists don’t count, why not? Is it because they’re useless in justifying foreign wars? Or is mostly ignoring them the right response, implying that we are far too jumpy about terrorism in general?
5. This is completely ridiculous in so many ways. When do we, as a culture, decide to think rationally about terrorism?
And what would a rational approach be to terrorism be? I suggest public health as a model, which would doubtless show that if saving lives and property is the aim, we are wasting our time and money with “terrorism” as compared to, oh, I don’t know, obesity, car accidents, and global climate change.
OH WOW, LOOK WE ALSO HAVE A SMALL EXAMPLE OF THE EXPLOSIVE PATSY ANGLE COVERED.
I haven't checked on updates to that stuff, I pointed you to it because of this link in there: SEPTEMBER 11th SPECIAL - URANIUM GETS THROUGH THE HOMELAND SECURITY, IN L.A. HARBOR!
Meanwhile, get a load of this, in contrast to your OP main story:
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YpsPxAoyYs
4 Tons of Fertilizer Stolen In Frederick Maryland
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/03/02/4-tons-of-fertilizer-stolen-in-frederick-maryland/
Submitted by national on Monday, 2 March 2009
UPDATE: The Frederick Police Department says they have surveillance tape of the theft and believe a white man between the ages of 45 and 50 may be the suspect.
Investigators believe the theft occurred on Sunday afternoon.
The contents of the fertilizer have the police concerned that it could be used for making a bomb.
The thief stole two types of fertilizer: Triple 19 and Urea. Police say the Urea is more dangerous of the two because it contains hydrogen.
“We want to make sure that we covered all bases. We want to make sure that the Frederick community understands that we are following through as far as we can possible go with FBI and other agencies,” said Lt. Clark Pennington with the Frederick Police Department.
Frederick police say four tons of fertilizer have been stolen from a farm supply store.
A store representative told police that 2,000 pounds of urea and 6,000 pounds of other fertilizer are missing. The fertilizer was in white 50-pound bags with a company logo.
Lt. Clark Pennington says they don’t know what the motive behind the theft is, but they have notified the Maryland Coordination Analysis Center, which alerts all federal agencies of the theft.
_____________________________________________________________
LMFAO? They can ignore Radioactive materials for a real dirty b0mb, but go balls out insane over fertilizer? HAHAHAHAHAHA WTF!? Hey, FBI, if you're reading this, why not give me a job? LOL I can do a better job investigating than you guys! I actually catch REAL terrorists! And you wouldn't get away trying to carry out false flags on my watch!
Meanwhile, get a load of this, in contrast to your OP main story:
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YpsPxAoyYs
4 Tons of Fertilizer Stolen In Frederick Maryland
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/03/02/4-tons-of-fertilizer-stolen-in-frederick-maryland/
Submitted by national on Monday, 2 March 2009
UPDATE: The Frederick Police Department says they have surveillance tape of the theft and believe a white man between the ages of 45 and 50 may be the suspect.
Investigators believe the theft occurred on Sunday afternoon.
The contents of the fertilizer have the police concerned that it could be used for making a bomb.
The thief stole two types of fertilizer: Triple 19 and Urea. Police say the Urea is more dangerous of the two because it contains hydrogen.
“We want to make sure that we covered all bases. We want to make sure that the Frederick community understands that we are following through as far as we can possible go with FBI and other agencies,” said Lt. Clark Pennington with the Frederick Police Department.
Frederick police say four tons of fertilizer have been stolen from a farm supply store.
A store representative told police that 2,000 pounds of urea and 6,000 pounds of other fertilizer are missing. The fertilizer was in white 50-pound bags with a company logo.
Lt. Clark Pennington says they don’t know what the motive behind the theft is, but they have notified the Maryland Coordination Analysis Center, which alerts all federal agencies of the theft.
_____________________________________________________________
LMFAO? They can ignore Radioactive materials for a real dirty b0mb, but go balls out insane over fertilizer? HAHAHAHAHAHA WTF!? Hey, FBI, if you're reading this, why not give me a job? LOL I can do a better job investigating than you guys! I actually catch REAL terrorists! And you wouldn't get away trying to carry out false flags on my watch!
.
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment