Acepilotf14
Sucked so much dick for this title
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Messages
- 13,016
- Reaction score
- 48
Explosions solve everything.
New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran
- Thread starter CptStern
- Start date
delusional
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 1
fixed.
PortalStormzzzz
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 968
- Reaction score
- 0
DARK ENERGY FLARE AWAAAAAAY!
no, really on topic, this is probably an irrelevant topic with the recent release of data from intelligence. NOW let's see that poll redone!
no, really on topic, this is probably an irrelevant topic with the recent release of data from intelligence. NOW let's see that poll redone!
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Iowa primary proves we need an honest and clear election system (1/4/08)
Over 92% of Iowans are whites. But they choose an African American. Why? That means most Americans hate Iraq war and want their civil liberty back.
Edwards and Hillary, though both are whites and experienced Deomcrats, they behaved more like a Bush's follower. Both voted for Patriot Act and approved the Iraq war Authorization Bill.
How could we got this result? Because the Iowa Demo primary counts vote on attending people. It makes the election honest and clear and hard to be rigged.
Why Ron Paul only got 10%? (He is the only one in GOP that anti Iraq war and is the only one meets major American's will) Because the Iowa GOP primary counts vote on ballots. Then who controls election office controls election result. They give you a number nobody can confirm. That's how Bush could be selected twice.
---------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
Over 92% of Iowans are whites. But they choose an African American. Why? That means most Americans hate Iraq war and want their civil liberty back.
Edwards and Hillary, though both are whites and experienced Deomcrats, they behaved more like a Bush's follower. Both voted for Patriot Act and approved the Iraq war Authorization Bill.
How could we got this result? Because the Iowa Demo primary counts vote on attending people. It makes the election honest and clear and hard to be rigged.
Why Ron Paul only got 10%? (He is the only one in GOP that anti Iraq war and is the only one meets major American's will) Because the Iowa GOP primary counts vote on ballots. Then who controls election office controls election result. They give you a number nobody can confirm. That's how Bush could be selected twice.
---------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
SirGrotius
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2006
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
Zogby poll? Who commissioned this project? I'm extremely skeptical of the numbers projected, and the company's website (Zogby international) looks like it was made in 1996 somewhere in Eastern Europe. Nice source.
Hmm.... a lie 100% perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in order to fool the world community in order to create a sense of safety between them and their neighbor Iran.
If it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that Iran is only weeks/months away from a nuclear weapon, I would fully support strategic air strikes on these nuclear weapon facilities.
The main issue we're currently seeing is that although there are a lot of estimates saying that he abandoned his nuke program a few years back..... but on the other hand is aggressively creating highly enriched uranium. The creation of highly enriched uranium is 95% of the creation of a bomb. The other 5 percent is the design and assembly of such bomb and once Iran gets enough highly enriched uranium, they can easily turn the "bomb program" back on and have a viable weapon in a matter of 3-6 months.
Remember when Clinton believed Kim Jung Il back in the late 90's that his enriching uranium was for peaceful purposes?
Oh yeah.... once he had enough uranium, he test fired his first bomb within months of re-activating his bomb program.
It's ALWAYS the fault of the U.S. no matter what we do. Well... perhaps in the eyes of Ron Paul and the far left.
nurizeko
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,926
- Reaction score
- 0
Unlike the adherents to the Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement, I would happily support military strikes to cripple Iran's ability to go nuclear weapon enabled.
I'm not so much suprised at a large percentage of Americans supporting this action because they are just dumb warmongers as you think, but because there is a sizable bunch of Americans who want to give Ahmadinejad fellatio.
Theres a clear difference between not being a blood thirsty war monger picking on any state thats weak enough, to you know, stoping a recognised nut job lead regime from getting hold of weapons that could enable it to carry out such known ambitions such as wiping out another neighbouring country...not merely invading occupying or regime change, but ending it.
Anyway, before we go further, bare in mind there was barely a single American voice, democrat or not, against the war before it started, from my seat over here in the UK what I saw was a country ready and raring to go blow sum shit ups yo!.
All this bitchin' against the war after the fact because your getting a bloody nose sticks of complete and utter hypocrisy and I have no sympathy.
Also, before you ask, take a second, do you honestly think crippling strikes against nuclear infrastructure, and occupation like in Iraq, are anywhere on the same level of cost in lives resources and time?. One is...going in, blowing shit up, coming out...the other is what we have now...
How people cant tell the fundamental difference in the two situations I dunno.
I'm not so much suprised at a large percentage of Americans supporting this action because they are just dumb warmongers as you think, but because there is a sizable bunch of Americans who want to give Ahmadinejad fellatio.
Theres a clear difference between not being a blood thirsty war monger picking on any state thats weak enough, to you know, stoping a recognised nut job lead regime from getting hold of weapons that could enable it to carry out such known ambitions such as wiping out another neighbouring country...not merely invading occupying or regime change, but ending it.
Anyway, before we go further, bare in mind there was barely a single American voice, democrat or not, against the war before it started, from my seat over here in the UK what I saw was a country ready and raring to go blow sum shit ups yo!.
All this bitchin' against the war after the fact because your getting a bloody nose sticks of complete and utter hypocrisy and I have no sympathy.
Also, before you ask, take a second, do you honestly think crippling strikes against nuclear infrastructure, and occupation like in Iraq, are anywhere on the same level of cost in lives resources and time?. One is...going in, blowing shit up, coming out...the other is what we have now...
How people cant tell the fundamental difference in the two situations I dunno.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
ok go to iraq right now and re-ask the questions ..you're skeptical? who the hsell are you? as if you being skeptiocal means anything ..but we can solve this right now. post research that contradicts the poll
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
532. We need an honest, transparent election (Iowa Primary lesson 1) (1/13/07)
Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right.
How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged.
As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting.
The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually.
This is proved in New Hampshire Primary:
Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H
By admin | January 8, 2008
Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted:
My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655#more-655
Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton
Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news0807
The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125.
-----------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right.
How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged.
As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting.
The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually.
This is proved in New Hampshire Primary:
Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H
By admin | January 8, 2008
Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted:
My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655#more-655
Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton
Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news0807
The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125.
-----------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
534. Feds strategy (Iowa lesson 3) (1/23/08)
1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee.
2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic:
(1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds.
(2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather.
(3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black.
Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%.
But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change.
3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged.
To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus.
4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged.
The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.
1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee.
2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic:
(1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds.
(2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather.
(3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black.
Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%.
But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change.
3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged.
To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus.
4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged.
The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.
Vigilante
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 2,660
- Reaction score
- 0
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Unreported news revealed there were at least 5 cable cut in recent weeks. Go to the site you'll find Iran is the center of these damages. That's a prelude of war.
“These are SeaMeWe-4 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe-4) near Penang, Malaysia, the FLAG Europe-Asia near Alexandria, FLAG near the Dubai coast, FALCON near Bandar Abbas in Iran and SeaMeWe-4, also near Alexandria.”
Submarine Cables, Subsidiares and Subversion
Iran is going to have their own “oil stock exchange,” but why does this matter? The Iranian oil bourse <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse> was going to be a stock market for petroluem, petrochemicals and gas. What’s the big catch here? The exchange planned on being ran with currencies excluding the U.S. dollar. If you remember from earlier in the post, Iran stopped allowing purchases of their oil with the U.S. dollar in December of 2007. So, obviously, the U.S. is not going to be happy about this. The biggest piece of information linking this to the recent damages is the proposed location of the bourse: the island of Kish. This is the island that is RIGHT NEXT TO at least two of the cuts that have recently occurred:
Some of you may suddenly be thinking to yourselves that this sounds familiar. That’s because the last person who decided to stop using the U.S. dollar for trading oil was a man by the name of Saddam Hussein in the fall of 2000.
[UPDATE: To further add to this argument, this would not be the first time the U.S. would have disrupted submarine cables to further themselves in times of war or conflict. (Operation Ivy Bells <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells>) (Previous NSA Submarine Wiretaps <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html?legacy=zdnn>)]
http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2008/02/06/submarine-cables-subsidiares-and-subversion/
“These are SeaMeWe-4 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe-4) near Penang, Malaysia, the FLAG Europe-Asia near Alexandria, FLAG near the Dubai coast, FALCON near Bandar Abbas in Iran and SeaMeWe-4, also near Alexandria.”
Submarine Cables, Subsidiares and Subversion
Iran is going to have their own “oil stock exchange,” but why does this matter? The Iranian oil bourse <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse> was going to be a stock market for petroluem, petrochemicals and gas. What’s the big catch here? The exchange planned on being ran with currencies excluding the U.S. dollar. If you remember from earlier in the post, Iran stopped allowing purchases of their oil with the U.S. dollar in December of 2007. So, obviously, the U.S. is not going to be happy about this. The biggest piece of information linking this to the recent damages is the proposed location of the bourse: the island of Kish. This is the island that is RIGHT NEXT TO at least two of the cuts that have recently occurred:
Some of you may suddenly be thinking to yourselves that this sounds familiar. That’s because the last person who decided to stop using the U.S. dollar for trading oil was a man by the name of Saddam Hussein in the fall of 2000.
[UPDATE: To further add to this argument, this would not be the first time the U.S. would have disrupted submarine cables to further themselves in times of war or conflict. (Operation Ivy Bells <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells>) (Previous NSA Submarine Wiretaps <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html?legacy=zdnn>)]
http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2008/02/06/submarine-cables-subsidiares-and-subversion/
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
He can report to MI5 if he wants. Though MI6 is slightly more likely to respond I imagine, him being in Canadia.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Ron Paul second in Nevada primary
They let Paul be in second place in Nevada. It's only a gimmick. The election is a manipulated one. Ron Paul is an unfavorable of the Inside Group. His loss is designated by a rigging election though he should have won the election if there was an honest voting system.
The Nevada case is a trick to cheat people.
1. A small state won't affect the general election. So they award you a second place to show it's "democratic". A second place means nothing in campaign.
2. It's a tactic to lure more money from people of grievance(to urge Paul's supporters continue to donate more money. That money finally will go to media's wallet.) to support its propaganda machine. After all, you won't win. So why not squeeze more money from you by increasing your confidence a little bit.
3. To show people that the election is fair. He is an unfavorable, he was still in second place. That proves our system is fair. But the reality is, Paul may be the leading candidate in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states. They(Feds) moved his votes to his rival's.
They let Paul be in second place in Nevada. It's only a gimmick. The election is a manipulated one. Ron Paul is an unfavorable of the Inside Group. His loss is designated by a rigging election though he should have won the election if there was an honest voting system.
The Nevada case is a trick to cheat people.
1. A small state won't affect the general election. So they award you a second place to show it's "democratic". A second place means nothing in campaign.
2. It's a tactic to lure more money from people of grievance(to urge Paul's supporters continue to donate more money. That money finally will go to media's wallet.) to support its propaganda machine. After all, you won't win. So why not squeeze more money from you by increasing your confidence a little bit.
3. To show people that the election is fair. He is an unfavorable, he was still in second place. That proves our system is fair. But the reality is, Paul may be the leading candidate in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states. They(Feds) moved his votes to his rival's.
delusional
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 1
Maybe Paul is them
Saturos
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,068
- Reaction score
- 1
As long as the masses has their conveniences, (electricity, internet, i-pods etc.) I truly believe that most people could care less. Apathetic to the cause until these conveniences are taken away they are and screw patriotism. Patriotism is nothing but the domain of the ignorant Christian extremists it seems nowadays. :hmph:
Some people may harshly criticize Kathaksung and wasdy for being tin-foil hat wearing nut-jobs, but paranoia is simply nothing more than a, "heightened sense of awareness" and should not be underestimated even though the sources they provide are questionable to most members here. The only thing that pisses me off about conspiracy theorists is when some shit like 9/11 happens, they seem to care less about how many people have died more than going out to set their own agenda.
Nobody is willing to take risks beyond donations or wearing T-shirts that says, "Support the troops" or "Support the *insert some other cause here*" because it would be a major sacrifice to comfort and convenience. What the U.S. needs for president is another pioneer like George Washington that's not afraid to step outside the comfort zone of mass popularity and convenience to stir things up and settle this middle east dispute thing once and for all. Alas, this is not going to happen as complacency and apathy has already taken it's toll on the U.S. as a whole and has affected it's leaders to the extent of doing whatever it takes to get ahead. It will be the ultimate downfall of the U.S., just like the Roman empire.
weak minded leaders + weak minded mass(s) = FAIL!...and this saddens me. I love our country.
BTW: George W. Bush is probably not going to finish what he started before the end of his term, so he fails as a president and as a man in general.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
But you know that two hundred years ago, people could elect someone who really care for their interest. Now, an organization with so much power control this country. They rigged the election, let out fake poll to justify the result. People have no chance anymore to have a real politician as their president. Now most politicians become puppets of the Feds. Feds control this country like a Mafia.
Quote, "FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'
By Matthew Rothschild , The Progressive <http://www.progressive.org>.
Posted February 8, 2008 </ts/archives/?date[F]=02&date[Y]=2008&date[d]=08&act=Go/>.
The FBI has a new set of eyes and ears, and they're being told to protect their infrastructure at any cost. They can even kill without repercussion.
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does -- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law. InfraGard is "a child of the FBI," says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
"Then the FBI cloned it," says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
"We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility," says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.
"At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector," the InfraGard website states. "InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories."
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."
To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."
He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they "note suspicious activity or an unusual event." And he said they could sic the FBI on "disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers."
In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members' website, Mueller says: "It's a great program."
The ACLU is not so sanguine.
"There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations -- some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers -- into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI," the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the "trade secrets" exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
"The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members," the website states. "During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . .
The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . .
Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided."
http://www.alternet.org/rights/76388/
Quote, "FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'
By Matthew Rothschild , The Progressive <http://www.progressive.org>.
Posted February 8, 2008 </ts/archives/?date[F]=02&date[Y]=2008&date[d]=08&act=Go/>.
The FBI has a new set of eyes and ears, and they're being told to protect their infrastructure at any cost. They can even kill without repercussion.
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does -- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law. InfraGard is "a child of the FBI," says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
"Then the FBI cloned it," says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
"We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility," says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.
"At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector," the InfraGard website states. "InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories."
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."
To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."
He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they "note suspicious activity or an unusual event." And he said they could sic the FBI on "disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers."
In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members' website, Mueller says: "It's a great program."
The ACLU is not so sanguine.
"There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations -- some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers -- into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI," the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the "trade secrets" exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
"The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members," the website states. "During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . .
The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . .
Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided."
http://www.alternet.org/rights/76388/
Qonfused
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 9,500
- Reaction score
- 6
I chuckled quite a bit at this when re-reading through this thread.
I'm not sure if it's possible to technically hijack a stupid thread with stupidity. Wouldn't that be... adding to the discussion?
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
it didnt start off stupid ..well that is till you helped fill the quota on non on topic (call it stupid if you will) remarks
anyways since you and pesmerga joined after hl2 was released I cant fault you for not knowing I've played hl2 - I posted about having it on release day:
http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=981899&postcount=96
.....not that that has anything to do with this topic but you're not one to remain on topic ..I suspect it's because you have so little to say on anything not dealing with superficiality
anyways since you and pesmerga joined after hl2 was released I cant fault you for not knowing I've played hl2 - I posted about having it on release day:
http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=981899&postcount=96
.....not that that has anything to do with this topic but you're not one to remain on topic ..I suspect it's because you have so little to say on anything not dealing with superficiality
DEATHMASTER
The Freeman
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 12,752
- Reaction score
- 151
not so new common sense reveals that a majority of Americans are complete idiots.
Direwolf
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 0
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
If you do this one more time, it's going to become an infractionable offence.
Vegeta897
Banned as all ****
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 26,141
- Reaction score
- 471
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
you dont know about kathaksungs allegations that the US has a weather/earthquake machine which they use to manipulate geo-politics? ..no seriously he posted about it in one of the threads I just dont feel like digging it up
Atomic_Piggy
Newbie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,485
- Reaction score
- 2
Direwolf
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 0
New project: conspiracy fanfiction.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
For ignorant people (or pretend to be ignorant) there is no "weather machine". Although weather modification technologies do exists. Otherwise why there is even a international treaty? Here are some information about it. Though it's rare reported by mainstream media.
When there is historical unusual tornado occurred in US these days, even in winter, how do you know this is not a covert experiment of the new climate weapon?
Quote, "The invisible U.S. military offensives in weather as a weapon.
keith harmon snow
Adherents of weather warfare prefer to call it “environmental modification” - or ENMOD. The corporate media has reported almost nothing about these aerospace and defense programs. Global climatic mayhem is here, and it is happening now. On top of all this is the permanent state of war perpetuated by multinational corporations and their agents in western governments. Behind this threshold of climate chaos the military is manipulating our weather.
Throughout April, 2002, Amherst College (MA) radio (WAMH) ran a series of public service announcements (PSAs) sponsored by a Christian church organization declaring the existence of weather modification technologies, and advocating that listeners contact the U.S. government to demand that these technologies be deployed to moderate the extreme weather and drought we are seeing. According to these PSAs, the government use of these existing technologies to mitigate hostile weather “is a fundamental right” of every U.S. citizen.[2]
On February 17, 2002, ABC News ran a very brief “news” clip titled “Weather As A Weapon?” The inquisitive title infers that this is some not-yet-certain possibility, contributing to the democratic ideal that supposes weather warfare might be something we - the public - ought to at least be thinking about, and possibly debating. ABC would never have run the story without some greater purpose than simply “to keep the public informed.”
The United States is party to an arms control treaty known as the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Treaty), ratified in 1978.[3] We do not know why the U.S. signed this treaty in 1977, but we can be at least 95 % certain that the Nixon/Ford administrations did not do so out of concern that “too many civilians could be harmed,” as reported in this ABC article.
.............
While his ties to the military industrial complex run to the deepest levels, Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s pursuit of ENMOD research and technologies ostensibly in the private sector can be gleamed from the web site of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation. The corporate product line includes such state-of-the-art ENMOD capabilities as:
? Ionospheric modifications
? Weather Modification
? Tornado modification
? HAARP Applications
http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-61Weather Warfare2.htm
