Homegrown Terror Bill - Update - 4 incorrect assumptions and a truth

The 'right wing monkey poo' Technology site (see assumption 3 for clarification) 'arts technica' just published the following article entitled:Congress to examine "the Internet" as a tool for homegrown terrorism. There is nothing remarkable or particulary interesting about the article other than a few incorrect assumptions the author makes to essentially say, "nothing to worry about here folks, go back to sleep, it's for your own good anyway" Let me show you why.

Assumption one:

"The section quoted above is, in fact, the only specific mention of the Internet in the bill."

So what? - The bill only mentions the internet specifically once therefore it isn't really too much to worry about???? let's say I've decided that your Grandmother's personal internet communications are deemed offensive and she's marked as a dissident, it's declared that she's a homegrown terrorist and she's sent to a detention centre without trial, but there is only one picture of her, does that mean it didn't happen? clearly not!Assumption two:

"The remainder of the "findings" only vaguely address a need to understand, prevent, and combat homegrown terrorism in the US—all of which are noble goals—with the Internet being the only tool singled out."

The author is already 'sold' on the idea that clamping down on privacy is for your benefit and these methods are 'noble goals'.

Truth one: Anyone is a potential target:

"Because the bill leaves all definitions up to the committee, critics like Philip Giraldi worry that it will be used to target just about everyone who dislikes some aspect of government policy."

Assumption three:

"Writing for the left-leaning Huffington Post, Giraldi argues that the act "could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as 'terrorist,' ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. "

The author feels compelled to point out the Huffington post 'leans to the left' so of course the only truthful opinion presented in this article can be dismissed. They are liberals - they probably eat monkey poo too, so ignore them.

Assumption four:

"In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations."

Will it? This is certainly not the reality you or I live in. This is just wishful thinking, based on no fact what so ever. Believe what they tell you obedient citizen. go back to sleep!


Technorati categories: News, technology, Politics, internet, digg, wired

Attack on alternative news sites - the Pentagon's WAR against free speech

" People are using sophisticated techniques attacking Web sites, and it's not just the PayPals and Yahoos being attacked. "
Brian Chess Chief Scientist, Fortify Software

SOTT.net is the one news and commentary source that gets hit regularly and taken down. WHY?

What does one do when the only news source you trust for objective reporting is taken down for 2 days? Take some time looking on bias Mainstream news reporting?
Start believing:

• the economy is doing fine
• the planet is in better shape than ever
• wars responsible for killing a million iraqi civillians are an excellent use of US tax payer money
  
• we need more wars so a new one should be started against Iran.
• Britney Spears is your girlfriend
  

Or try and find out why websites that question what THEY want us to believe are frequently the targets of attack.

Is Velcom just a bunch of cowboys?

SOTT.net uses a hosing company called Velcom. Many have lodged complaints at www.velcom.com/contacts only to recieve an automated message. It is difficult to find objective reviews of this host provider, on one forum a customer was very clear about how they felt:

IF YOU WANT A RELIABLE AND DECENT SERVICE, STAY AWAY FROM THIS HORRIBLE VELCOM.

Is this just a case of a badly performing outfit of cowboys or is it part of the sinister campaign that is being waged against EVERYONE who dares to question official government or mainstream news sources?

"War against the net"

In 2003 The Pentagon declared war against the net . Their Operations Roadmap was released to the public after a Freedom of Information Request by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in 2006:

The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals. The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

"We Must Fight the Net. DoD [Department of Defense] is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to "fight the net." " [emphasis mine] - 6

The form of this 'war against the net' could take the form of gradual corporatisation of existing internet infrastructure at the detriment of existing channels of free speech. The evidence for this is already evident:

In an article by Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet.com, he describes the emergence of Internet 2.

"The development of "Internet 2" is also designed to create an online caste system whereby the old Internet hubs would be allowed to break down and die, forcing people to use the new taxable, censored and regulated world wide web. If you're struggling to comprehend exactly what the Internet will look like in five years unless we resist this, just look at China and their latest efforts to completely eliminate dissent and anonymity on the web."

COINTELPRO

So is SOTT.net down as part of the bigger plan to eliminate free speech on the web or is this web-attack a far more targeted and deliberate action by cointelpro - the US Government's Counter Intelligence Programs?

COINTELPRO began in the 1960's before the Department of Defence through DARPA gave us the internet in the first place) How did it work?: (warning this website is garish, badly designd but has nice music)

• 1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main function was to discredit and disrupt.
• 2. Other forms of deception: The FBI and police also waged psychological warfare from the outside through bogus publications, forged correspondence, anonymous letters and telephone calls, and similar forms of deceit.
• 3. Harassment, intimidation and violence: Eviction, job loss, break ins, vandalism, grand jury subpoenas, false arrests, frame- ups, and physical violence were threatened, instigated or directly employed, in an effort to frighten activists and disrupt their movements. Government agents either concealed their involvement or fabricated a legal pretext. In the case of the Black and Native American movements, these assaults including outright political assassinations were so extensive and vicious that they amounted to terrorism on the part of the government.

It seems a logical development that these programs would be extended to curbing dissent on the internet and this has been the case. The FBI are keen to show-off their skills:

At a recent ISSA (Information Systems Security Association) meeting in Los Angeles, a team of FBI agents demonstrated current WEP-cracking techniques and broke a 128 bit WEP key in about three minutes. Special Agent Geoff Bickers ran the Powerpoint presentation and explained the attack, while the other agents (who did not want to be named or photographed) did the dirty work of sniffing wireless traffic and breaking the WEP keys. This article will be a general overview of the procedures used by the FBI team.."

Ron Paul under cyber attack

For examples of cyber attacks, one only has to look at the disinformation surrounding Ron Paul's campaign (a critical and outspoken Republican presidential candidate with huge public support). Technology is used to launch attacks and then reported by the main stream media to shape public opinion. see this article:

There was an article on foxnews.com yesterday (10/31) which referenced an original article on wired.com regarding the use of botnets or open mail relays in the dissemination of email messages that were supportive of Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign. Apparently, the original wired.com article did not originally clearly specify that there is no evidence that the Ron Paul campaign was involved. I say ‘apparently’ since at the bottom of the article one finds this line: “This article has been modified to clarify that Warner has seen no evidence suggesting that the Paul campaign is responsible for the spam.”

In his article with the inverse headline "Ron Paul under cyber attack" Michael McDonnough writes that:

"The recently reported spam emails that are believed to originate from a botnet do the Ron Paul campaign direct harm not good" "There has been a recent flurry of news articles that have made the conjecture that the Ron Paul campaign or his supporters are in possession of a botnet and are using it to generate spam emails for the candidate. I have been in the business of computer technology for a long time and have good friends in the IT security business and we have discussed this at length. Cui-bono (who benefits)"

Social networking or social net-censoring?

Wired (it's owner Conde Naste is in turned owned by the wealthy Newhouse family) and FOX have a political agenda in line with the Neocon and Zionist campaigns of Imperialist Wars. They both have connections to the CFR - As I wrote in a previous article on the influence of media companies on military recruitment:

Watch the video to see how the role CFR plays in one aspect of
controlling the American media: CFR controls American media. The CFR was formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. It essentially dictates foreign policy and promotes their hidden agenda to the public by maximising the number of media companies they control or influence through mergers, acquisitions and change of editorial staff.

DIGG maintains it is a free agent and are the innocent victim of attacks as a result of wired.com's acquisition of their competitor reddit:

Wired Magazine seems hell bent on convincing the world that Digg is falling apart. I have a problem with that because Wired Magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, owns Digg competitor Reddit. And because Wired isn’t just reporting Digg news - they are actively engaged in using Wired to undermine Digg.

DIGG however, is not an innocent party according to an article on November 7th 2007, DIGG Banned Ron Paul Nation!

According to our sources at Ron Paul Nation, a popular online social news networking site has banned this site’s official Digg account. With no warnings or stated reasons, DIGG arbitrarily banned the account from posting any new articles. Apparently after posting a record amount of Positive Ron Paul mainstream media news coverage and digging each relevant and news worthy post, this pro-Ron Paul site has been cut off from sharing our positive news with the rest of the Digg culture.

While I am not suggesting that all social networking and bookmarking sites have been set up to stifle debate, it should be clear that many of them are answerable to the media giants that own them, hence the political agenda's they follow and use to censor free speech. You should be wary that COINTELPRO will have a web presence and millions of dollars at its disposal to influence what information is channelled where.

What do you do about it?

You can stumble and digg this article for a start and if you dont think corporate media is controlled watch this demonstration of blatent myspace censorship.

The controls on the internet are getting tighter, objective news sites that are essential in providing alternative views to main stream media. Social networking sites are increasingly censored and owned by large media companies. Independent sites are facing increasing pressures and are under concerted attacks to silence them.

It is up to you to support and defend websites such as SOTT.net. Your liberty (and your brain) is at stake and you are running out of time...

Oh, - and don't use Velcom to host your website, They're crap!

Homegrown Terror Bill and bogus Terrorist Websites

It is disturbing reading that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terror Bill Passes House. Clink the link to read thought provoking editorial on the implications of this bill of what is essentially a fascist bill that gives the green light to target ANYONE: an extract:

"By all appearances the bill is designed to label those who speak out against the government's proven lies, deceit and ever increasing fascist tendencies and allows the government and law enforcement agencies to strongly and rapidly stifle any and all dissent. Said otherwise, the bill - should it become law - removes your right to disagree with anything the government says or does and places you at extreme risk of becoming arrested and possibly "disappeared", or to use the Bush government's euphemism, "rendered"."

US intelligence spent $43.5 Billion in 2007, how much specifically on the war in cyberspace isn't clear, however, The bill deemed the internet to be a key threat:

"SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."An image from Jihadunspun.net, It supports a holy war against the West but is created by who?.

The methods used so far by counter terrorism units have been deemed creative. an AFP article in May 2007 entitled US gets creative in online battle against Al-Qaeda is quite revealing: It begins:

"US officials championing freedom and democracy are well aware that they cannot try to silence Islamist militants by censoring or blocking the burgeoning number of Al-Qaeda related web sites."

Are there any US officials championing freedom and democracy? Only 6 out of Some 432 representatives voted against the bill which seems to be aimed at eliminating freedom and democracy! Surely censoring and blocking websites would be an effective method of diluting their impact?

"Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Felter, director of the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States military academy at West Point said that attempts to close down the sites have proven futile. "Attempts to shut down websites have proven as fruitless as a game of whack-a-mole.""

But at least you end up with one less mole each time, so instead:

Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University outlined a number of tactics for tapping into the online community and using its very nature to US advantage.

For one, "it is possible that an intelligence officer posing as a sympathizer could infiltrate an online extremist community," he said.

"Seeds of confusion, doubt and distrust could then be planted in order to chip away at the ties that bind individual extremists into a cohesive and dangerous group."

If you come home from work and find that someone has laid a turd in your living room wouldn't the most sensible response be to scoop it up and flush it down the loo? Then secure the locks and tighten the windows to make sure that the offender doesn't revisit. The 'creative' solution of fighting like with like, seems to be to akin to laying your own turd next to the unwanted guest in the vague hope that you might defeat it by rendering it 'confused'. Felter continued:

"Exploit enemy vulnerabilities made publicly available on the Internet. One of the most effective ways to hurt the jihadis is to use their own writings, discourse and web postings against them,"

"We can monitor them ... follow the networks and assess their operational capacity. We can sabotage them by infiltrating their networks and flooding the web with bogus information."

So not just one turd, a whole sewer in your own living room to solve the problem! in researching this it was reported that over 75% of alleged terrorist websites were registered in US. To account for this anomaly it was suggested that proxy's were used. Is it possible that many of these websites are in fact the products of the creative war of terror?

How many so called "terrorist websites" are actually in fact the product of US intelligence agencies? Flooding the web with bogus information to perpetuate the necessity for The Mega Lie called the war on terror?