Archive | Secret Wars RSS feed for this section

Conspiracy theory? Hell, yeah! It makes sense, considering the fact that FBI spies on you!

10 May

Facebook Backdoor Interception: FBI wants P2P and social media wiretap-friendly

The US is preparing to face FBI-drafted legislation enabling it to monitor any personal communication activities in the web. It aims to use preset backdoors in social networks, online messaging, internet telephony and even Xbox gaming servers.

Tech media website Cnet.com has obtained information that the FBI is already in talks with internet giants on an unprecedented surveillance program, having the legislation approved by the Department of Justice.

The FBI intends surreptitiously to rush a law obliging companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to install government surveillance options into their software on default.

The agency confesses that it faces considerable difficulties in wiretapping suspects since more and more people are shifting their communications from phones to internet.

FBI struggles with the world ‘going dark’

An unnamed FBI representative told Cnet.com that there are “significant challenges posed to the FBI” in the accomplishment of its “diverse mission”, and the rapidly changing technology influences that result a lot.

“A growing gap exists between the statutory authority of law enforcement to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to intercept those communications. The FBI believes that if this gap continues to grow, there is a very real risk of the government ‘going dark,’ resulting in an increased risk to national security and public safety,” the source told Cnet.com.

In February 2011 the FBI acknowledged the agency’s inability to keep up its surveillance capabilities with communications technological development calling it the “going dark” problem. Having admitted the bitter fact of technological incompliance, the agency initiated this new comprehensive web surveillance program.

An obvious solution to the problem was adopting legislation to the needs of the government which the FBI is busy realizing right now.

The FBI calls the program the National Electronic Surveillance Strategy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that as early as in 2006 the FBI was already concerned with “going dark” and established a special division developing the “latest and greatest investigative technologies to catch terrorists and criminals.” In 2009 the division employed 107 full-time specialists.

Another battle for human rights and privacy

Internet companies might be not happy with the new legislation at all, righteously considering that the law will most probably spark a public revolt similar to unsuccessful attempts to push through notorious SOPA, PIPA and ACTA anti-pirate legislation. Moreover, clients’ privacy an integral part of IT products and by trading it off, software companies might ruin their business.

“If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding,” the IT industry representative familiar with the FBI’s draft legislation told CNET.

The draft law also implies that IT companies will be allowed to supply the government with proprietary information to decode information obtained through a wiretap or other type of lawful interception.

IT companies cannot say “no” to the government right off the bat, therefore consultations between the FBI officials and internet company CEOs and top lawyers are already being held.

Reportedly, the FBI’s draft legislation mentions some sort of “compliance costs” of internet companies.

Internet giants utilize lobbyist resources to try to protect their businesses interests in Washington, but the issue of mass control might be too hot for them to handle.

The situation strikingly resembles the one with the music and web content industry, which fails to adapt to new realities of free access to almost anything, including goodies that fall under the copyright laws. The entertainment industry, too, is using its lobbyists to push through punitive legislation to guarantee high profits without evolutionary changes to itself.

In the case with the web backdoor surveillance though, the FBI intends to violate basic human rights on such a high mass-involvement level that a 1984-scenario might appear almost no exaggeration.

If the FBI obtains the legislation it asks for, Lord forbid you should play on the terrorists’ side on an Xbox server, because your game console will report your terrorist sympathies. And this valuable information will definitely find a decent place in a personal dossier of yours somewhere in an underground FBI data center.

Source: RT

NATO’s Secret Army

10 May

A clandestine army? Yes, NATO had one!
from ‘The Voice of Russia‘:
NATO’s secret army existed on Western European soil until early ’90s and probably still exists today. It was called the “Gladio”, which means “sword” in Latin. One of its emblems is a salamander, which represents that it belongs to the secret services syndicate.

In order to understand what this movement really represented or, possibly, still represents, we consulted a well-known Swiss historian Daniel Ganser, who has published a book about the secret army.

Mr. Ganser, you are a historian, specializing in modern history and international relations since 1945. You lecture at the Basel University and you are the author of numerous works, which caused a sensation all over the world. I would like to speak with you about your most well-known book “The NATO’s Secret Army”.

– The NATO’s Secret Army is a poorly studied phenomenon. Even my colleagues used to say to me: «But the NATO has never had any secret army!» The whole world thought that such a thing did not exist. And then, in 1990, the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed that all the European NATO countries had secret armies. Their aim was to resist the Soviet invasion. But during the cold war period nothing of the kind happened, as you know. Therefore, people thought that these armies were useless, but it was not so. They were used in order to manipulate the political climate in many European countries – France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Austria, Spain, Portugal,and Finland. It was a large-scale phenomenon all right.

Your book “The NATO’s Secret Army” inspired film director Emmanuel Amaro to create an excellent 52-minute documentary. Your book deals with both Russia and Western Europe. Has your book been published in Russian yet?

– No, not yet! But in two weeks I am presenting the Russian version of my book in Moscow.

We have received evidence that the secret army had actually existed, at least until the beginning of the ’90s. And yet there is still no reason to believe it was dismissed. Can you add some important details to the abovementioned?

– Historians say that in fact this army conducted acts of terror, aimed at changing political course of one or another country, consistently dissociating it from the USSR and Eastern Europe. So, on August 2, 1980, a bomb exploded in the waiting room of the railway station in Bologna, which took the lives of 85 people. 200 people received injuries of varying severity. At first, the Italian police attributed this terrorist act to the Red Brigades, but ultimately the “Gladio” was pronounced guilty. A month and a half later, during Oktoberfest in Munich there was another terrorist act. Colonel Klaus Fishner, a former employee of the counter-intelligence service of Stasi, says: «The task was to create tension in the NATO countries and to suppress any political left-wing deviation.» As we can see, that was the mission, aimed at justifying the existence of the secret army.

German historian Eric Schmidt-Eenboom affirms that in Germany a considerable part of the secret army, about 25%, was recruited from the former members of the SS.

The General public is well-acquainted with the film «The Bourne Identity». But what people do not know, is that the mysterious organization “Dread Stone”, that stood behind anonymous American political killers and was housed in Langley, has a real and sinister prototype: “Gladio”.

Saudi Grand Mufti urges to destroy all churches in the Arabian Peninsula

16 Mar

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared that all churches in the Arabian Peninsula must be demolished. The statement prompted anger from Christians throughout the Middle East.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah made the controversial statement in a response to a question from a Kuwaiti NGO delegation. A Kuwaiti parliamentarian had called for a ban on the construction of new churches in February, but so far the initiative has not been passed into law. The NGO, called the Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage, asked the Sheikh to clarify what Islamic law says on the matter. 

The Grand Mufti, who is the highest official of religious law in Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Scholars, cited the Prophet Mohammed, who said the Arabian Peninsula is to exist under only one religion. 

The Sheikh went on to conclude that it was therefore necessary for Kuwait, being a part of the Arabian Peninsula, to destroy all churches on its territory.  

In February, Kuwaiti MP Osama al-Munawar announced on Twitter that he was planning to submit legislation that would remove all churches in the country. However, he later clarified that existing churches should remain, while the construction of new non-Islamic places of worship would be banned. 

Another MP, Mohamemd Hayef, backed al-Munawar, saying the number of churches in the country was already disproportionate to the number of Christians. 

As for Saudi Arabia, all religions other than Islam are banned and there are no churches, although a small minority of Christians is theoretically allowed to practice their religion in the privacy of their own home. 

The Grand Mufti’s words have caused a heated response from Christians living in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and other countries throughout the Middle East. A number of bloggers also wrote on the issue. 

Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam – for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor – imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigot,’ demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse,” Raymond Ibrahim of Jihad Watch, a blog critical of extremist Islamic laws, wrote. 

Despite the sensational news value of the story, the Western media has been remarkably silent. No major news services have covered the story yet. Ibrahim argues that the Grand Mufti gets a free pass even when he incites Muslims to destroy churches because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. 

Restrictions on Islam in the West

The Grand Mufti’s words seem to mirror what a number of US politicians have been calling for – only their words were aimed at mosques and Muslims. In January, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain said Americans have a constitutional right to ban mosques, arguing that Islam combines church and state, which contradicts the US Constitution. 

They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it,” Cain said on Fox News Sunday.

In November, Pat Buchanan, who vied for the Republican presidential nomination on a number of occasions, agreed with radio host Bryan Fischer in promoting limits to immigration from Islamic countries and the construction of new mosques. 

In 2009 a constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets was adopted in Switzerland following a referendum on the subject. Almost 58 per cent of the population said yes to the initiative, although the traditionally leftist French-speaking part of the country rejected it. The construction of new minarets is now banned throughout Switzerland, though the four existing minarets in Zurich, Geneva, Winterthur and Wangei bei Olten are to remain. 

In 2010, French legislators banned face-covering headgear in public. The ban meant that women caught wearing the burqa in public could be fined up to 150 euros and/or be forced to participate in citizenship education. Proponents of the legislation argued that face covering was both an issue of security and social integrity, as facial recognition is important for communication. Opponents said the law encroached on personal freedoms.

Source: Russia Today

US launched cyber attacks on other nations

31 Jan

The assumption that the US has the technological know-how to cripple a competing nation has always been just that: as assumption. In a recent sit-down interview, however, a former spy chief confirmed that America has already waged cyber attacks.
Mike McConnell, the former director of national intelligence at the National Security Agency under George W Bush, tells Reuters this week that cyber war is more than a distant possibility. According to the current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton, the US has already launched attacks on the computer networks of other nations.
McConnell did not add any input as to what countries have been hit with American cyber warfare in the past, but he did confirm that the US has already used the ability. When asked by Reuters if the United States had the capability to destroy the computer system of an adversary, McConnell responded “Yes.” When asked if it worked, he confirmed “yes” as well.
“Do we have the ability to attack, degrade or destroy? Sure. If you do that, what are the consequences? That is the question,” added McConnell.
Although the former spy chief neglected to name any countries that have been the target of American attacks, the US is believed by some to be the culprit behind a virus that targeted computer systems in Iran in 2010. Stuxnet, an advanced computer worm discovered in June of that year, impacted the computers used in conjunction with Iran’s nuclear program. In a January 2011 article in the New York Times, an American nuclear intelligence expert speaking on condition of anonymity said that the Israelis were behind Stuxnet, placing the blame on one of America’s most important allies. The expert adds in the article that Israel did indeed work hand-in-hand with the US in perfect Stuxnet before sending it to the Iranian networks, but that Washington wanted “plausible deniability.”
Other sources have since all but confirmed America’s involvement in the worm. German cyber security expert Ralph Langner told National Public Radio last year that the virus seemed like something out of science fiction, but added that, “Thinking about it for another minute, if it’s not aliens, it’s got to be the United States.” He went on to call the US “the leading force” behind Stuxnet, an assumption that many in Iran believe as well. While the Iranians have never officially recognized retaliation on their part, rumors of revenge via cyberwar have been rampant in recent weeks, particularly after news broke out of Mexico last month that hackers south of the border were being recruited by Iran to participate in an infiltration of American computers.
Before it launched an airstrike` attack on Libya in 2011, a cyberattack was considered as a route to oust Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, an Obama official said to the New York Times last year. In the end, however, America relied on other techniques. “These cybercapabilities are still like the Ferrari that you keep in the garage and only take out for the big race and not just for a run around town, unless nothing else can get you there,” the insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times.
Source:

The United States wage a ‘shadow war’ against Chinese occupation of Africa. Perhaps…

23 Sep

Recent Danger Room post about new american drone bases by David Axe has drawn my attention to the topic of neo-colonial expansion of Africa by the USA and China.

The establishment of UAV-bases in Ethiopia, Yemen and Seychelles is supposed to support American war against Islamic terrorism in Somalia and Yemen – a decent task, though the US never implement anything just for one purpose. Drones are a crucial set for reconnaissance, alongside with offensive activities – and the way this branch is developing in the USA demonstrates that very soon the range of UAV’s mission objects will extend.

In fact, Mr. Axe’s post reminded me about American drones in Libya. As far as I’ve understood, this drones were operated from U.S. Navy warships, and it’s clear that in case of any other military conflicts with the US involvement in this region it would be better to have a permanent drone base. However, their MISO guys conceal well whether the largest American military installation in Africa – Camp Lemmonier possesses it’s own UAV wing or not.

Since the beginning of the conflict I’ve decided to hold the position that there was merely a political background for this war. But being interested in the warfare and defence technologies as I am I did not consider the economical reasons, and specifically the amount of commercial interest of non-NATO states. According to the data, provided by the Chinese Trade Ministry, more than 75 Chinese companies had been working in Libya before the war began. After the conflict had escalated about 30,000 of Chinese personnel were evacuated from the war zone. Obviously, the US wouldn’t have managed to perform such an effective ‘economic air- strike’ if there had been no Gaddafi-threat.

By the way, China has began its economical invasion into Africa a long time ago. It had given concessional loans to certain African dictators and military juntas and sponged some of those debts afterwards. The main areas of Chinese influence on the continent are Algeria, Angola, Sudan – countries that occupy the highest positions in the list of African oil exporters.  Right now, such companies as Sinopec and CNPC actively pump money into Nigeria, which is one of the main African oil sources. The USA cannot afford the growth of Chinese partnership with these countries, otherwise they will lose their dominant position of a leading oil importer.

After the South Sudan had gained independence, many territories rich in oil were lost for its northern neighbor and as a consequence – for China. There still are disputable border territories between these two countries, for example – South Kurdufan and Abyei and in case of conflict, it is very likely that China will support its ally.

And the Chinese bonds with Sudan and other abovementioned states bring us back to the US drone bases that will help fighting terrorism in Yemen and Somali. Why?

Firstly, oil from Sudan is transported to China via the sea routes which are frequently disturbed by pirates. The US and Great Britain struggle with pirates primarily on their own and try to block up the intentions of other countries to participate in this process on the UN-level. Is it not advantageous for them to lose control over Somalian buccaneers when they attack a Chinese ship?

Secondly, the Chinese government negotiates terms of building a military base with the government of the Republic of the Sudan. The idea is to establish a military installation in Darfur. If the US take such an intent into account then the drone base in Ethiopia becomes a ‘must have’.

Finally, the US are interested in Nigerian oil. China has strong ties with Nigerian government. Chinese oil giants actively engage in crude oil production on the territory of this country. Nigerian separatists regularly assault personnel of this companies. Maybe there is a connection between the assaults and the US interests?

Though my speculations on this topic are hypothetical and a bit biased by media, the fact that the USA and China are in process of enforcing their positions in Africa is evident. China has a dominant role in Southeast Asia and obtaining the same role in Africa would make it a super power in the very sense of this expression. The USA is a super power in the very sense of this expression. Stabilizing the control over Africa and obtaining the dominant role in Southeast Asia would make it even more powerful.