Al-CIAeda may be planning to use a ‘dirty bomb’

February 2, 2011

Al-Qaeda is actively trying to secure nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build a radioactive “dirty” bomb, according to leaked diplomatic documents revealed by Wikileaks.

Telegraph
January 2, 2011

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a “nuclear 9/11″.

• The WikiLeaks cables in full

Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing “workable and efficient” biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.

Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.

At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaeda was plotting a programme of “dirty radioactive IEDs”, makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.

As well as causing a large explosion, a “dirty bomb” attack would contaminate the area for many years.

The briefings also state that al-Qaeda documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that “greater advances“ had been made in bio-terrorism than was previously realised.

An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a “manifest attempt to get fissile material” and “have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb”.

Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign US embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium.

Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a “small-time hustler” in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.

In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder – yellowcake – out of the compound in plastic bags.

“Acute safety and security concerns” were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog.

Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a “nuclear 9/11″ if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists .

But diplomats visiting the IAEA’s Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was “no way to provide perimeter security” to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins.

Senior British defence officials have raised “deep concerns” that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear programme “could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon,” according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009.

Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to “extremists” who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.

Anthrax and other biological agents, including smallpox and avian flu, could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.

The security of the world’s only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, USA, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by “a growing chorus of voices” at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.

The alarming disclosures come after President Barack Obama last year declared nuclear terrorism “the single biggest threat” to international security with the potential to cause “extraordinary loss of life”.

Filed under World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Information Immunization Programs

December 13, 2010 1 Comment

When Information is Dangerous you create Information Immunization Programs

Max Axiom
Infowars.com

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule’s 2008 paper, simply titled, “Conspiracy Theories,” is a startling read for its intellectual dishonesty and implications because Sunstein is now Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President Obama. This document may be “the Operation Northwoods of ‘Cablegate’.”

Where Northwoods was classified and written in plain military English suggesting specific false-flag tactics for sparking an invasion of Cuba, this document is written publicly in quasi-academic terms such that the plainly stated goals are dressed up in deceptive rationalizations. Nevertheless it amounts to the classic three step plan: Ignore everything. Deny everything. Infiltrate everything.

It is this infiltration that is of interest to Axiom Today in the context of understanding current events regarding WikiLeaks. The question is not, so much, if Assange is an “Agent” of any type, but how and why this scandal is taking place in the mainstream media. As I argued yesterday, the “Houdini’s of Politics” have been hiding the elephant in the room: 9/11 truth. This topic, according to Sunstein and Vermeule, is actually dangerous, and could lead to terrorism.

“Consider the Oklahoma City bombing, whose perpetrators shared a complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government,” the authors claim with no evidence available in the public domain to support it. What perpetrator(s)? The patsy Tim McVeigh? Who else? And who read their minds? That Oklahoma City bombing should be mentioned as the byproduct of “conspiracy theory” shows the deranged and absurd nature of this paper considering that bombing was, itself, a government conspiracy.

The document appears written for a parallel universe where government is “well-motivated” and “aims to eliminate ‘conspiracy theories,’ or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.” Not, you know, as techniques for cover ups. Nevertheless, the paper does concede that some “conspiracy theories” (which I again note would otherwise be known as a “scandals”) are actually true. Page 5:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect). In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.

I find this paragraph to demonstrate the intellectual fallacy of this entire paper. The scandals mentioned would each have been treated with the same recipe Sunstein and Vermeule advocate as the thesis of their paper, however the focus on “false conspiracy theories” intends to distance the authors from cover ups. For the record “Operation Northwoods” did go into effect on Sept 11, 2001.

However the inclusion of aliens shows the authors speak with disregard to their own credibility. This was likely was summoned as comedic relief to the shocking list of real government conspiracies. There is also a long history of government collusion in fostering UFO conspiracy as a distraction tactic from weapons testing and experiments involving human lab rats.  I don’t appreciate their sense of humour given the gravity of their policy considerations.

Sunstein and Vermuele define “conspiracy theory” as:

…An effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.

What they fail to mention is that the term is a widely-acknowledged as a derisive term having the connotation of being paranoid, dubious, and not to be trusted. Of course, that is because a telling of the history of the term “conspiracy theory” would show it used to negate claims of journalists and whistleblowers by the media and government.

Sunstein claims this sort of logic is a “self-sealing quality, which tends to fold government’s denials into the theory itself as further evidence of the conspiracy.”

Naturally what he cannot concede to is the fact his entire paradigm is a manifest travesty, fallacy, and atrocity.

With all the terrorist-preventing rationalizations out of the way, Sunstein and Vermuele outline how to counter “conspiracy theory”. Page 15:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy theories has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding to any one of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

These terms “More, rather than fewer” and “cognitive diversity” should be considered in the context of document dumps and WikiLeaks. Simply silencing the “extremist groups” is not the way as it will only embolden their cause. So the strategy is: bullshit baffles brains. Cripple their epistemology. Continuing:

(page 16) …We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories.

(Page 19) [Government must] address the supply side of conspiracy theorizing by attempting to debias or disable its purveyors, to address the demand side by attempting to immunize third-party audiences from the theory’s effects, or to do both (if resource constraints permit).

(page 22) Many officials dismiss direct responses to the suppliers of conspiracy theorists as an exercise in futility. Rather, they implicitly frame their responses to the third-party mass audience, hoping to stem the spread of conspiracy theories by dampening the demand rather than by reducing the supply.

Sunstein and Vermeule prefer a information immunization program, termed “countermisinformation” over “counterspeech” in newspeak. In this context we can see how 9/11 truth (false flag awareness campaigns) has once again been overwhelmed by noisy, time consuming, and distracting current events. It appears that Cablegate is a sophisticated implementation of everything Sunstein and Vermeule hoped for.

Finally, the authors engage in conspiratorial behavior according to their own definition. They have outlined something that could be well  described as, “the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role”:

(page 21) Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed.

Here’s a side note: Not all false conspiracy theories are bad: Consider the (conspiracy theory?) of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and the Toothfairy. Page 6:

Within the set of false conspiracy theories, we also limit our focus to potentially harmful theories. Not all false conspiracy theories are harmful; consider the false conspiracy theory, held by many of the younger members of our society, that a secret group of elves, working in a remote location under the leadership of the mysterious “Santa Claus,” make and distribute presents on Christmas Eve. This theory is false, but is itself instilled through a widespread conspiracy of the powerful – parents – who conceal their role in the whole affair.

Filed under World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will they shut the web down to stop Wikileaks?

December 9, 2010

In a previous article, we entertained the idea that the whole Wikileaks issue would be the perfect event to give the government complete control of the world wide web.  Now, a Wikileaks spokesman suggests this may be the only way to stop the disclosure of more documents.

ABC

The arrest and detention of Julian Assange Tuesday on charges of rape and sexual assault was at the least a convenient development for government leaders who’ve sought ways to contain the leader of the controversial website Wikileaks.

But in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jim Sciutto, Wikileaks’ spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson insisted Assange’s arrest won’t alter the site’s calculated release of thousands of secret government cables, which still continues according to plan. The site published a new slate of cables Wednesday.

“It is not derailing us in any way,” said Hrafnsson, adding that a group of five to six people is running Wikileaks’ operations in Assange’s absence. “This is a turning tide and starting a trend that you can’t really stop unless you want to shut down the Internet.”

Meanwhile, supporters of Assange are saying the timing and nature of the personal allegations against him are more than coincidence – they’re “politically motivated.” And the confluence of recent events gives at least the appearance that could be true.

In mid-August, two Swedish women told prosecutors and news outlets they had each had consensual sex with Assange, but that he didn’t use a condom against their wishes and subsequently refused to get tested for sexually-transmitted disease. Their complaint led to a warrant on charges of sexual molestation.

But now prosecutors allege Assange forcibly raped at least one of the women and sexually assaulted the other — significantly more serious allegations than what investigators initially pursued.

Assange, 39, was formally charged and held without bond in London on one count of rape, two of sexual assault, and one of coercion. He has denied the allegations and insists the sex with both women was consensual.

“Fortunately, the international corralling was successful,” Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said shortly after Assange’s arrest. “Assange has hurt international diplomatic relations and I hope he is questioned and tried as established by law.”

Assange’s brainchild, Wikileaks, is also weathering its most intense attacks to date. The site has been bumped from its servers without notice and mysteriously cut off from key funding sources after PayPal and major credit card companies, Visa and MasterCard, pulled the plug pending “further investigation.”

“We are getting seriously close to censorship in the U.S., and that must surely go against the fundamental values the country is based upon,” said Hrafnsson.

But State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said via Twitter “the U.S. government did not write to PayPal requesting any action regarding #WikiLeaks. Not true.”

Swiss authorities Monday closed a Swiss bank account tied to Assange, freezing tens of thousands of dollars used to fund the Wikileaks operation, his lawyers said.

“It wouldn’t be surprising in the least that Wikileaks and political pressure from the U.S. and other affected governments has at least something to do with the current charges in Sweden,” said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security and international criminal law. But “whether it’s because of that pressure [that he faces charges] is something I think we can’t know.”

No Charges Yet for Assange Over Wikileaks

The apparent onslaught against Assange comes in spite of the fact that he has not been formally charged by any government for Wikileaks’ activities.

“It may be that what Julian has done is a crime,” said Clay Shirky, an Internet and technology consultant and author, referring to Assange’s role in the dissemination of a massive cache of classified government files. “In that case, the right answer is to bring the case to a trial.”

“The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us ‘You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site,’” he said. Shirky’s comment clearly suggests that governmental pressure may be behind the recent setbacks for Assange.

Attorney General Eric Holder has promised a vigorous investigation and prosecution of those involved with the Wikileaks leak. But Vladeck says the law under which Assange could most likely be tried — the Espionage Act — is “politically and legally fraught,” explaining why government prosecutors have not yet laid out any charges.

“One of the flaws in the Espionage Act is that it draws no distinction between the leaker or the spy and the recipient of the information, no matter how far downstream the recipient is,” Vladeck said. “So there’s no difference in the statute between Assange and someone at home who opens up something that Assange has posted on his website knowing that it’s classified. It’s why this is such a problem.”

Army Private Bradley Manning is alleged to have downloaded vast numbers of secret diplomatic cables and military documents while working as an intelligence analyst, committing the greatest security breach in U.S. history using little more than a memory stick and a Lady Gaga CD.

Wikileaks has pledged to release more than 250,000 documents, most, if not all of which, are believed to have been obtained by Manning. Already the site has published classified military records pertaining to the death toll in Iraq, and secret diplomatic cables about relations with foreign governments.

“In the entire history of the Espionage Act there’s been exactly one case when the government went after someone other than the thief – and that prosecution fell apart,” he said.

Filed under World Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Internet 9/11 Courtesy of Staged Wikileaks Disclosures

December 6, 2010 2 Comments

Is Wikileaks the Internet’s Pearl Harbor? Will Julian Assange and his web operation help bring Martial Law to Cyberspace?

by Zen Gardner

Think about it. Where is this seemingly staged Wikileaks furor taking us? While we participate in digging into the juicy tidbits of information that incriminate just about anybody and everybody, where is it all going?

Julian Assange

Lessons of 9/11

While 9/11 served as a wake up call to those awake and aware enough to see the obvious demolitions and misinformation and resultant “Pearl Harbor” effect, most of the world fell for it. And now people are literally bending over, as in airport ‘screenings’, to the onslaught of police state fascism worldwide. It’s staggering. In fact, it’s Orwellian. The armies, police and private sector are at war with the vague concept of terrorism – an unbeatable enemy in a war that can be drawn out indefinitely and fought in any arena necessary.

And what was the result of this declared war on terrorism? Not a war on terror, but an increase in fear and terror, all to justify the economic, social and political clampdown that has followed.

What will the Wikileaks debacle herald?

You guessed it–the last bastion of freedom of information and expression, a free Internet, will topple. After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium–all for the safety and protection of ‘we the people’.

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the “approved” list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get “on the net”. No biggie. Thanks Julian–job well done.

Warning Signs

#1. Wikileaks—WAY too approved and publicized. Every TV and cable network, press worldwide, official recognition from every level of government. Heck, he even does a TED talk!  Where’s anyone else trying to expose the agenda? Only Julian. Hmmm.

#2. Biggie: This supposed system fighter says the 9/11 truth issue is “a distraction”. Mustn’t step on your bosses’ toes now, should we Julian..  Very suspicious if you ask me.

#3. Wikileaks and Assange’s sketchy background:

The WikiLeaks website first appeared on the Internet in December 2006.[15][16] The site claims to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[5] The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[17] It has been represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange and others. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks’ advisory board.[18] (Wikipedia)

Also, Assange reportedly wrote for both the New York Times and the Economist which is fishy as well–not a real enlightened or ‘alternative’ mindset. His mysterious persona also plays well to the Wikileaks furtive image so people won’t expect to know too much, which also is very ‘convenient’ for keeping anything hidden.

[NOTE: There doesn't have to be deliberate, conscious involvement in some agenda on Wikileaks' part, but it helps. He, they, could be 'useful idiots' whose program has been conveniently co-opted by the controllers to serve their purpose. Either way, look for the pattern and the effects.]

#4. Watch the hype: There’s a growing crescendo of anger and hate that is now being whipped up–to the point that Assange is being called a new kind of terrorist–and more disturbingly, and as expected, the comparison is now being drawn between Assange and Bin Laden:

Social Media Leaks Categorize Julian Assange  As the Osama Bin Laden Of The Internet

The founder of WikiLeaks is not only a wanted man by the American authorities, his now infamous Web site

WikiLeaks is also under attack by notorious hackers, while its services are being cut-off by Amazon and EveryDNS.net. Although not officially announced, Julian Assange might be considered today’s public enemy number-one, taking the place of the illusive Osama bin Laden. Not since 9/11 has any one figure reached such notoriety due to what many consider acts against a state.

Like bin Laden, Assange has no permanent address, does not maintain a headquarters, employs only a select few confidants and has taken to hiding in covert areas. Younger than bin Laden, Assange at 39 years-old may be a little more mobile than the 53 year-old, choosing to hopscotch the globe versus hibernating in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While his face resides on the covers of magazines and newspapers around the world, similar to a Wild West ‘Wanted’ poster, little is known about his day-to-day activities. Like bin Laden’s video addresses, while the CIA and other mercenaries are seeking his where-a-bouts, it’s amazing that he still finds ways to release updates justifying his actions. (SOURCE)

Notice also how we’ve been hearing about Wikileaks’ exploits for a few years now, giving us time to make the connection between it and sensational and ‘destructive informational terrorism’. Similarly we heard about Osama through the Yemen and Nairobi attacks being attibuted to him, imprinting his “brand” on the collective mind which led to the foregone phony conclusion that he had masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Ah, ‘But what about these apparent exposures? Would they attack their own?’

Could all these serious indictments against their own just be a deflecting smokescreen to hide the real purpose? Sure worked last time. So why wouldn’t they risk taking down some of their own to give this psychological operation credibility?

The Tactic Is Very Familiar – Know Your Enemy

First there’s the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, provoke a reaction and then implement the pre-planned solution. The staged 9/11 attacks, including the internationally inhabited World Trade Center,  ‘justified’ the ensuing wars and worldwide clampdown on freedoms in the name of ‘security’, including the horrendous Patriot Act that was already written and just waiting for an excuse to be signed and implemented.

Similarly, this attack over the international Internet and drawing in diplomatic communities worldwide by exposing state secrets from a variety of countries will greatly help usher in international measures in the name of ‘security’, probably spearheaded once again by the fascist US government with coinciding EU, Canadian & Australian measures. It’s already under way with the Department of Homeland Security confiscating websites.

All they need is ‘the right incident” to justify bringing on full control. Like “Internet Terrorism”? They just can’t use that term enough now, can they. After all, it’s a war on terror, and “if you’re not for us, you’re for the terrorists.” The ultimate false choice, just like everything else they foist on the human consciousness.

Pretty clever these ol’ boys. It’s in their blood

Those manipulating world events belong to a cult, a brotherhood that hides behind many names and guises, and to which they pledge their absolute loyalty above everything, even their own flesh and blood. Commonly referred to as the Illuminati, this cult has an agenda they work to fulfill using certain rituals, methods and tactics.

One of their central themes and modus operandums is “Ordo Ab Chao”– order out of chaos. Create the chaos, pitting anyone against anyone while controlling and fomenting both sides–hence the double headed red phoenix symbol– for any reason, even killing or exposing their own, to create an illogical madness that they think only they can see through and understand. All the while they are manipulating world governments, banks, armies and corporate leaders and drawing the net on the outcome they have already planned.

Fear and confusion is the climate they love to foment. As long as there’s a confused and uninformed populace, the ignorant and fearful masses will be crying out for help from the ‘powers that be’ – the very “powers that be” that caused all the problems in the first place.

They’re not out to help, they’re out to control. At any cost, by any means necessary.

 

Filed under World Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

New York Times self censors on WikiLeaks Information

November 29, 2010

The paper asked White House for feed back and decided to hide information under the excuse of National Security.  It also asked other publications to do the same.

NYT

A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

Reporting Classified Information

About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

Read more…

Filed under World Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links