Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts

Saturday, December 1, 2012

FBI uses Facebook "likes" and "shares" to build terrorism case


Refreshing News
Earlier this month, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office revealed it had charged four men over alleged involvement in an al-Qaeda inspired terror cell based in and around California. Since 2010, the men had, according to the feds, been plotting ways to help provide “material support” to terrorists in order to kill American targets in Afghanistan. The FBI’s complaint against the group was under seal until it was released a few days ago, and it has since attracted attention from activists because of some of the shadowy law enforcement techniques it reveals.
The document shows that aside from using the traditional method of paying a “confidential source,” the FBI was also trying to infiltrate the group electronically. Using an “online covert employee,” the feds posed as terrorism sympathisers in order to gauge the potential threat posed by certain individuals. In one case, they say they got a 21-year-old Mexico-born man to admit he was keen to pursue jihad in order to “stop the oppressors.” Other sections of the complaint detail how the FBI was somehow able to obtain audio and video recordings of Skype conversations in which their confidential informant participated. Given that it remains unclear whether it is technically possible to wiretap Skype due to its encryption, it’s possible that the FBI had installed some sort of spyware directly onto the terrorists’ computer in order to bypass any eavesdropping barriers.
But perhaps most interesting is how the feds monitored social networks. One part of the complaint, headed “DEFENDANTS' SOCIAL MEDIA,” lists Islamist content the men had “liked”, “shared”, commented on or posted on their Facebook pages. The FBI details how Sohiel Omar Kabir, a U.S. citizen who appears to be the alleged ringleader of the group, posted “photographs of himself, non-extremist content, radical Islamist content, and items reflecting a mistrust of mainstream media, abuses by the government, conspiracy theories, abuses by law enforcement, and the war in Afghanistan.” It adds, in reference to two of the other suspects, “Kabir has ‘shared’ several postings with Santana and/or Deleon, both of whom have ‘liked’ or commented on several other postings by Kabir.”
This illustrates how important social media behavior is becoming for law enforcement agencies as they try to build cases against individuals. But it will also raise concerns about how social network monitoring could have a chilling effect on free speech, especially if “liking” or sharing any controversial content on Facebook becomes viewed by authorities as inherently suspicious or criminal. Other countries have already had to face up to controversy over how their law enforcement agencies monitor and penalize social network users. Earlier this month, for instance, two women were arrested in India: one for posting an “offensive” comment on Facebook about a recently deceased political leader, the other for “liking” it. The women have since been released on bail and, the New York Times reports, a police investigation into why they were arrested in the first place has been ordered.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Ben Swann: "No Country Would Tolerate Missiles From Outside




The Osama bin Laden Myth


Daily Bell


Paul Craig Roberts

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat, and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged "mastermind" of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation's World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden's sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden's refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled "Osama bin Laden's interview denying responsibility for 9/11." Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden's denial, concludes that "we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions." In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.
The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american "free press," a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington's NATO puppet states, Israel's Mossad and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement-building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over "the great satan" that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda's ranks. Yet the alleged "mastermind" denied all responsibility.

I remember decades ago when a terrorist attack occurred in Europe, whether real or an Operation Gladio false-flag attack, innumerable organizations would claim credit. Perhaps this was the CIA's way of diverting attention from itself but it illustrates that every intelligence service understands the value to an organization of claiming credit for a successful attack. Although bin Laden denied responsibility, in 2011 some al Qaeda leaders, realizing the prestige value of the 9/11 attack, claimed credit for the attack and criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad for questioning the official US story.

Although only a few Americans are aware of the September 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his non-involvement with the 9/11 attacks, many Americans have seen post-2001 videos in which a person alleged to be bin Laden takes credit for the attacks. There are two problems with these videos. Experts have examined them and found them to be fakes, and all of the videos appeared after bin Laden was reported by the Pakistan Observer, the Egyptian press and Fox News to have died in mid-December, 2001, from lung disease.

Bin Laden also suffered from kidney disease. According to a CBS news report on January 28, 2002, Osama bin Laden was hospitalized for dialysis treatment in the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11


Obviously, a man suffering from terminal lung and kidney disease did not survive for another decade to be murdered by a US Navy SEAL team in Abbottabad. A Pakistani TV interview with the neighbor of the alleged "bin Laden compound" exposed the assassination hoax. This sensational interview also went unreported by america's "free press." I had the interview translated, and it is available here. See also this video from the BBC.

Shortly after the alleged assassination 30 members of the SEAL unit died in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan, and now we learn that not a single one of the thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, witnessed bin Laden's alleged burial at sea from that ship. The press reports with a straight face that for unexplained reasons it was kept secret from the ship's sailors. This is supposed to be the explanation of the sailors' emails reporting to family and friends that they witnessed no burial at sea. Some speculate that the SEALs were bumped off before their questions to one another, "Were you on that raid?", reached outside the unit. Apparently, it doesn't strike the media or the public as strange that the US government captured and killed the terror mastermind without interrogating him and without keeping any evidence or presenting any witnesses to support the assassination claim.

Adolf Hitler claimed that communists burned down the Reichstag and that Polish troops had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. With 9/11, Americans experienced Washington's version of these grand lies. An omniscient bin Laden dying from terminal illnesses in distant Afghanistan defeated the American National Security State and drove his attack through the walls of the Pentagon itself, requiring for our defense a "war on terror" that destroyed US civil liberties and financially ruined the country in order to prevent the triumph of a man who died of natural causes in December 2001.

On May 9, 2011, Professor Michel Chossudovsky republished the September 28, 2001, Osama bin Laden interview in Global Research.


Interview with Osama bin Laden. Osama Denies his Involvement in 9/11

Saturday, November 17, 2012

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “In the Name of 9/11″


Global Research
Professor Michel Chossudovsky

Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11

911TRUTH3

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War

Committed “in the Name of 9/11″

Initiating a Legal Procedure
against the Perpetrators of 9/11
 Michel  Chossudovsky
*    *    *
International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”
Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)
Kuala Lumpur, November 2012
Introduction
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history,  a decisive watershed, a breaking point. 

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11. 

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus. 

9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.  

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”. 

In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property on 9/11,  from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″.
 
The latter build  upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed “in the name of  9/11″ involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries. 

The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties. 

The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly consist in two intimately related processes:
1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest. This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a counterterrorism mandate.
2. The derogation of civil liberties and the instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries. In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalization of extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged  counter-terrorism mandate.  
The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians. 

The dramatic loss of life on the morning of 9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”, including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran. 

We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright  war of global domination.   

The perpetrators of war propaganda are complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched to protect civilians. The “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) concept prevails: The killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.

Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the “state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright act of war against the United States.
Realities are turned upside down.  The US and its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism mandate.  

The 9/11 attacks are used to  harness public opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in motion. 

Chronology of Events

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Petraeus' Resignation Will Stop Him From Testifying About Benghazi


Business Insider
Joshua Beringer

Obama David Petraeus
Former CIA Director David Petraeus' resignation today, following his confession of an extramarital affair, seemed to come out of nowhere, and has raised a plethora of questions that will need to be answered in the coming days.

It's worth asking: was this in any way connected to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi?
Ben Shapiro at Breitbart seems to think so, calling the scandal the "latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people." And Rupert Murdoch seems to agree:
Petraeus was scheduled to testify before the House and Senate Intelligence committees on Thursday regarding the events surrounding September 11, as Congress gears up for a week of hearings related to the attackMark Knoller at CBS News tweets that he will no longer be testifying in light of his resignation, but acting CIA director Mike Morell will testify in his place, according to PoliticoMorell was quickly named Petraeus' temporary replacement by the Obama administration.
However, many reject the theory that Petraeus' actions are connected to Benghazi. “This had nothing to do with Benghazi or relationship with the White House — which by the way was excellent — or anything else for that matter,” an anonymous aide told Wired magazine. “Just his flawed behavior." 
It's also important to note that an extramarital affair could very well have cost Petraeus his security clearance, as Business Insider reported earlier today.