Archive for the 'Politricks' Category

Manningham-Buller must be sacked

Friday, November 10th, 2006

This article, in the independent, is full of lies. Lets go!

There are up to 30 alleged “mass casualty” terror plots in operation in Britain,

This is a lie, just like all the other lies that have been dished out about bogus threats.

as well as hundreds of young British Muslims on a path to radicalisation, the head of MI5 has said.

There is no such thing as ‘radicalization’. You are murdering the relatives of these people and that is intolerable to any civilized person, as these people are. If someone were incinerating your cousins, you too would go berserk with anger.

Furthermore, you are shooting innocent people in their own homes simply because they are brown and have a beard. That is enough to make anyone take a bad attitude towards HMG, and its all for naught.

In an unprecedented public announcement yesterday, the MI5 director general, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, revealed that the caseload of the Security Services had risen by 80 per cent since January, and that the counter-terrorism agency was fighting to keep the rapidly growing threat under control

It has risen because you illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and committed mass murder in those places. If you withdraw and repent, then your caseload can return to levels and consist of what it should be; keeping track of what is in people’s garbage.

Describing the scale of the home-grown terrorist problem, she said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 groups or networks totalling more than 1,600 identified individuals in the UK who were “actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts”.

The only thing ‘home grown’ about the ‘home-grown terrorist problem’ is that it has been hatched, nurtured and hand reared at Number 10 Downing Street. You know this. If you do not, you need to be sacked and replaced by someone who understands the problem and who genuinely has Britain’s interests at heart, and who is neutral. By coming out with this twaddle, you demonstrate that you are either not neutral (another one of Bliar’s liars) or you don’t understand the causes of the rage your government is fomenting. Either way, you are part of the problem.

Islamic militants linked to al -Qa’ida were recruiting teenagers to carry out attacks using chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology.

This is all a pack of nonsense. Just like the bogus ‘Ricin Plot‘ and the more recent ‘Liquids On Airplanes’ sharade. There are no such plans afoot, and if anyone is discussing them, it’s just ‘chatter’ and nothing substantial. In any case, if you want to talk about mass casualties, lets talk about the 650,000 murdered by Bliar and his henchmen. If you address that, in public, in an ‘unprecedented statement’ with frankness, you would be doing FAR MORE to shut down the chatter that is keeping you so ‘busy’, and perhaps these angry young men would start to believe that everyone in the UK is not out to kill them.

These people, are not stupid. Do you not think that they are using cellphones and the web to flood the channels with the keywords that you are looking for? Cypherpunks used to do this to make ECHELON incorrectly flag up communications. It’s done (in email) by putting trigger words in the body of your mail. The computers pick this up and flag it for the attention of a human. This keeps the ‘security’ services busy running around chasing phantoms.

This ‘battle’ cannot be won by using an axe to chop up the bucket carrying brooms. You have unleashed an unstoppable army of people who if they are cut down, bifurcate into two fighters, each as dedicated as the original. The only way to stop the onslaught is to break the magic spell that started it all off in the first place. And you know what that means.

Speaking to an audience at the department of contemporary British History at Queen Mary College in London, Dame Manningham-Buller said she was not seeking to be alarmist, and did not wish to stir up fear.

Now we are sure. You are one of Bliar’s Liars

But she added that because of the sheer scale of what MI5 faces, the issue is a daunting one. “We shan’t always make the right choices and we recognise that we shall have ‘scare sympathy’ if we are unable to prevent one of our targets committing an atrocity,” she said.

The only atrocity here is the dismantling of Britain and its cherished freedoms by a venal, monstrous, criminal gang of lying murders in thrall to The Great Satan. Yes, a mouthful. Leaves a bad taste too.

The nature of the threat was increasing because of the radicalisation of British Muslims, she told the audience, including some as young as 16, and it “will be with us for a generation”.

They can be disempowered in an instant. The cabinet that went to war should be sent immediatly to the Hague to face trial for war crimes. Justice will not only have been done, it will have been seen to have been done. All these 16 year olds will go back to music, mobile phones, girls and everything else that they should be doing.

Its being said all over the internets. If The President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein can be found guilty of crimes against humanity, then Bliar Bush and Murder Inc. should also be put on trial, because their crimes are actually greater than Saddam Hussein’s in the thoughts of every fair minded person, and that means 16 year olds in Birmingham. If you put a stop to their indignation right now, it will not have a chance to fester grow and harden. It will melt away like the pimples on their faces. This is your one and only chance to calm them down. I suggest that you take it.

The young age of potential terrorists also made it difficult for MI5 to infiltrate the groups. “Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers,” she said. “We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Give 10? No, nearer 30 that we know of.”

Lies and hysteria mongering. Shameful. Counterproductive. Evil.

At the extreme end, there were resilient networks directed by al-Qa’ida in Pakistan or some more loosely inspired by it, who were planning the attacks, she said. And while the training and the guidance comes from al -Qa’ida, it was “largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale”.

Turn down the heat and the milk will not boil over. You should know this.

Given the scale of radicalisation, this indoctrination was happening to some while still at school, she said, adding: “If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July bomb attacks in London were justified.”

Think about why that poll returned those results. You invaded a country without cause, in fact, on the basis of a lie. It was an unjustified act, resulting in the murder of 650,000 innocent people. In the minds of these 100,000 people, revenge for that act is completely justified, because it is in retaliation for a real injustice.

But there is more to it than that.

We know that those ‘London Bombers’ in the mythical and staged ‘7/7’ were patsies that didn’t know they were going to blow up anything but that is not the point. These 100,000 simpletons who answered those questions believe that ‘7/7’ was real, and they are basing their answers on that assumption. But you know this, because you know that ‘7/7’ was a piece of theatre, and you are, like Lord Tyrannus, holding up this bogus poll about a bogus event to bolster bogus claims about imaginary threats to further your ultimate goal.

What is really saddening is that the Independent publishes something like this without comment, without rebuttal, and doesn’t even let people comment on this garbage at their shitty website.

They have grand single issue covers “It’s the War Stupid” (or should that have been “It’s the Stupid War”??!!) and then inside, they revert to the ordinary, very stupid, twentieth century newspaper style, where they act as mouthpiece to whoever has the fistful of fivers and a good PR firm, printing the drivel verbatim.

Shame on you!

The latest from Oldturdman

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

Keith Olbermann has another special comment that deserves comment.

In it, he mentions the verdict of the kangaroo court against the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and then says:

[…] And whose fault is this?

Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else.

But we let you take that advantage.

And so we let you go to war in Iraq. To… oust Saddam. Or find non-existant Weapons. Or avenge 9/11. Or fight terrorists who only got there after we did. Or as cover to change the fabric of our Constitution. Or for lower prices at The Texaco. Or… ?

When you listen to this piece you will hear Olberman mispronounce the name of The Lion of the Desert, just like that buffoon Colin Powell did with sheer contempt and malice in the UN, substituting ‘Sodom’ (as in Sodom and Gomorah) for ‘Saddam’; two very different words, impossible for any educated person to mix up.

And here is where I take issue with Olbermann.

Bush and Murder Inc. will ALWAYS be able to take advantage of you because the best of you cannot even pronounce the names of your ‘enemies’ let alone find them on a map, and let’s not mention the congressmen who have never set foot outside the usa.

You know perfectly well that The President of Iraq’s name is not ‘Sodom’. You know that you should not be pronouncing his name like that, the same way that Colin Powell deliberately did when he lied in front of the UN.

You must be aware of the appalling behavior of your evil colleagues in the american propaganda machine who followed suit, and who did worse, ‘photoshopping’ The Presidents mustache so that it resembled Hitler’s. By mispronouncing his name, you demonstrate that you are not in command of the facts. You are another insular parochial nincompoop that has no business being in charge of anything so dangerous as a vote.

Your evil tune starts with mispronouncing people’s names, has WMD as a chorus (another despicable lie), has a middle eight of babies ripped out of incubators for variety and ends with dropping bombs on them after the dehumanizing propaganda machine is finished with your feeble minds.

Now bush has started the process by mispronouncing the name of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as ‘Ahmadinejihad‘ as is everyone else on the internets. Are you going to go along with that too, and then whine like a baby when these same people strip what is left of your rights from you?

We don’t have any sympathy for the likes of you, if you are going to engage in the demonizing and pure evil of your colleagues. This special comment sounded hollow and false because you tow the line of the liars with the same breath that you use to sing the praises of the founding fathers.

Looks like the sole voice of reason on american TV is just another empty shell. This is to be expected, because…The Revolution Will Not Be Televised! Hah!

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Monday, November 6th, 2006

Tony Bliar talks trash in The Telegraph about ID cards.

Let us tear him to bits:

On any list of public concerns, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism and identity fraud would figure towards the top.

Illegal immigration: Close the borders
Crime: Lock up the criminals
Terrorism: Stop terrorizing other people in their countries
Identity Fraud: not the business of government

In each, identity abuse is a crucial component. It is all part of a changing world: global mass migration; easier travel; new services and new technologies constantly being accessed.

The world is not changing; what HMG has done is opened the floodgates to migrants instead of thinking about the future carefully. It is this open borders policy that has caused the ‘problem’. The world has not changed at all; people are exactly the same as they used to be. Had you not, Mr Bliar Mass Murderer, invaded Iraq, we would not be on the top of the list of skunk nations. That is a fact. If the UK removes itself from Shengen and the EU, then the migration problem goes away. That is a fact. No matter how easy travel is, if you are stopped at the border, all the woes of unchecked immigration melt away.

As for new technologies being accessed, where these are transactions between private entities, the government has no place butting its terrorist head between the two parties. Period.

The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world.

The case against ID cards is all about liberty in the modern world, murderer, traitor and betrayer Bliar.

Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards’ cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event.

Biometrics do not solve the ultra flexible list of problems you are trotting out, scumbag, and as for the bulk of the ID cards’ cost having to be spent on new biometric passports, this is a blatant lie. The new passports, in order to conform to the international standards need only have a digital photograph in them. Everything else you are doing is by the design of your criminal vendors.

I am not claiming ID cards, and the national identity database that will make them effective, are a complete solution to these complex problems. That is the tactic of opponents who suggest that, if their introduction is unable to prevent all illegal immigration or every terrorist outrage, they are somehow worthless. What I do believe strongly is that we can’t ignore the advances in biometric technology in a world in which protection and proof of identity are more important than ever.

They are certainly not worthless. They have a great value to HMG as a tool of absolute control and surveillance. You have completely lost this argument you bastard Bliar, thanks to ‘Frances Stonor Saunders’: the thread in that link is highly representative of what happens to people when they find out what your bogus ID Card scheme really means. Once people understand the true horror of it, they turn against it 180°. Precisely this conversation and millions like it have appeared up and down the country. You have LOST this argument Bliar, and the more people are informed of precisely what you are doing, the less likely it will be that your evil scheme will be pulled off.

Nor is the Government alone in believing that biometrics offer us a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition.

That is a PRIVATE matter between customer and business. It is not by compulsion that they identify themselves in this way to a business, and if it is, that is a matter for them to deal with. Also, providing this information to a business is not by compulsion of the law, and neither does doing it expose ALL of your personal details to millions of civil servants, criminals, the police and every busybody in the UK.

Providing your biometric to a business is completely different. Not only do you have a choice, but if you do decide to be identified in this way to them, they have a legal obligation to keep your details secret, and if they fail in this obligation, you can seek redress in the courts. As we have shown on BLOGDIAL again and again, HMG doesn’t give a DAMN what damage they do to you. If you are mistakenly branded a criminal or an alcoholic, “TOUGH SHIT, we don’t care” is the response.

You can hardly claim that this is of benefit to the British public…oh, I’m sorry, yes you can, because you are a pathological liar.

More than 50 countries are developing biometric passports. France, Italy and Spain plan to make their ID cards biometric.

I have just covered this. This means only a digital photo. You are misrepresenting this, as expected.

Visitors to the United States now digitally record their fingerprint, and new UK passports from last month must carry a facial biometric.

I’m glad that you mention USVISIT, because that evil system shows EXACTLY what this ‘biometric net’ is going to be used for; catching innocent people, like the heads of the absolutely legal internet gambling businesses who were intercepted thanks to USVISIT.

USVISIT is not about stopping terrorists, its about arresting people who are in no way a threat to the USA, but who represent a way to extort monies from foreigners trying to visit that beleaguered and once great country.

It is also not about stopping illegal workers, since those are able to WALK into the USA in their MILLIONS on an annual basis.

This is the truth about USVISIT and these systems in general:

Since January 2004, US-VISIT has processed more than 44 million visitors. It has spotted and apprehended nearly 1,000 people with criminal or immigration violations, according to a DHS press release.

I wrote about US-VISIT in 2004, and back then I said that it was too expensive and a bad trade-off. The price tag for “the next phase” was $15B; I’m sure the total cost is much higher.

But take that $15B number. One thousand bad guys, most of them not very bad, caught through US-VISIT. That’s $15M per bad guy caught.

Surely there’s a more cost-effective way to catch bad guys?

Yes indeed there is, and it does not involve this faddish Biometric madness.

USVISIT is a lie, just like your ID card scheme is a lie. It is there to control the decent people, the people with disposable cash who are economically active.

We also know how effective it can be. In trials using this new technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying to get back into the UK illegally.

So, for 1,400 people, the liberty of the ENTIRE UK is going to be flushed down the toilet. BILLIONS are going to be spent setting it up, and we are going to have all of our details recorded and made available to anyone who wants to see them, for life.

I don’t think so.

A national identity system will have direct benefits in making our borders more secure and countering illegal immigration.

That is a lie. Illegal immigrants WILL enter this country, and they WILL find work. If they are not able to find work, and are not able to leave, then they will turn to crime to survive, unleashing a crime-wave the likes of which this isle has never before seen.

Biometric visas and residence cards are central to our plans and will be introduced ahead of ID cards. I also want to see ID cards made compulsory for all non-EU foreign nationals looking for work and when they get a National Insurance number. This will enable us, for the first time, to check accurately those coming into our country, their eligibility to work, for free hospital treatment or to claim benefits.

Biometric residence cards for EU citizens are illegal. In France, the ‘Carte de Sejour’ was found to be in contravention of EU law for anyone with EU citizenship wanting to live in France. This will be challenged and it will be put down.

I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities – up to 50 at a time – to hide and confuse. This is something al-Qa’eda train people at their camps to do.

More lies. All the Madrid bombers had valid ID, as did the ‘hijackers’ in ‘911’ and the people who perpetrated ‘7/7’. ID will do nothing to stop these outrages, and you know this Bliar you mass murderer. This argument has been defeated many times since it was first trotted out by the adulterer Blunkett. It was a lie then and it is a lie now, which is why you have written it like it is the truth. You are a liar. That is what you do.

It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually – a figure that has increased by 500 per cent in recent years.

‘Identity Fraud’ is a problem of service providers and the customers they serve. The market will take care of it in a highly efficient way. For example, the market for paper shredders has skyrocketed because discarded paperwork is one of the root causes of people having their identities taken over. Remove the discarded paperwork, the threat is greatly diminished. That is the market solving problems efficiently. It is not the place of government to guarantee the identity of anyone to a business. Of course, this is not your true aim. Your true aim in this is to have a frictionless taxation system, where everyone and every penny they earn is taxable and transparent to you.

But that is another blog post.

Building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

But not impossible. Meaning that the small number of ID thieves that are working now will simply tool up to the next level, while the bleating UK population are fleeced, and the crime carries on unabated. And of course, since all the IDs of everybody in the UK will be in one place, criminals will have a one stop shop to get your ID from, and staffers in Whitehall will be happy to facilitate them, as they have been proven to be in the past.

There will also be the added ‘bonus’ to you, Bliar, of being able to look into everyones lives at will; you and the millions of people around the world who will be able to buy info on any UK citizen from the illegally created databases that will emerge, not to speak of the journalists, and corrupt civil servants who will make a fortune out of this gold mine.

The National Identity Register will help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children.

The only evil here is you, Bliar. What this sentence actually means is astonishing. We have said on BLOGDIAL before how this will work. Everyone in this system will have a criminal record (even though the legislation does not provide for this). It will either be blank or not. Every company, individual an entity in the UK will be able to check wether or not you have a criminal record, simply by telephoning a service and dictating your number or asking you to swipe your card.

It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip between the cracks. Crime detection rates, which fell steadily for decades, should also be boosted. Police, who will have access to the national database, will be able to compare 900,000 outstanding crime-scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.

This is total speculation. Bliar says it SHOULD make it more difficult, crime detection rates SHOULD be boosted. Its a gamble, and a gamble with the liberty of every British person in the land. It is unacceptable, even if the detection rates went up; after all, they do not keep criminals locked up long enough to make a difference, so this is totally absurd.

This is how a national identity system will help tackle some of the major challenges facing our country. However, I believe its benefits go beyond helping us counter problems. Biometric technology will enable us, in a relatively short period of time, to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services. By giving certainty in asserting our identity and simplicity in verifying it, biometrics will do away with the need for producing birth certificates, driving licences, NI and NHS numbers, utility bills and bank statements for the simple task of proving who we are.

The problem with all of this, is that in each of these scenarios, the government keeps a record of when you identified yourself, and where you were when you did it. They track you, keep you under surveillance, and none of this is needed to prove your identity. Systems can be developed that do not require a central database to verify identity but which are 100% infallible and accurate. Of course, these systems empower the user and leave the government with no way to centrally track you, which is why they were not pursued. This is a project of control, pure and simple, designed from the outset to facilitate the needs of government surveillance.

A national identity system will quickly become part of the national infrastructure. It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house. In future, we could be automatically alerted when our passports are running out.

Just because everyone might become used to it if it becomes reality doesn’t mean that its right. The people in the USSR were used to living in their totalitarian state for decades, so much so that when it ended, some of them wanted it to be brought back.

This line also demonstrates amply that every agency will know your address, because they are watching you.

So these are the benefits against which we have to gauge the disadvantages of introducing a secure national identity system. There are three main lines of attack — the civil liberties argument, effectiveness and cost. I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don’t think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.

It doesn’t outrage us Bliar. After participating in the murder of 650,000 this is peanuts. Your points need to be shot down nonetheless.

Just because we CHOOSE to give our private data to organizations and companies, and because we WILLINGLY CHOOSE to carry a variety of cards for clearly defined purposes, doesn’t imply that YOU and your murderous cabal of genocidal traitors have the right to COMPEL us to carry YOUR CARD.

This is the difference that totalitarianists cannot understand; we choose what we want to do in a free society, and we let the market solve our problems. If there was a need for a centrally controlled database where your every move was under surveillance, accessible to every civil servant criminal and busybody, someone would have created it and sold it to the public. That is guaranteed. And what’s more, it would work VERY WELL unlike the IT projects that HMG perpetually fumble. NO one wants this when they find out what it really means. You know this, you liar.

More than two million shoppers in the US already use a “Pay by Touch” system that links their fingerprints to their bank accounts, and a similar system is on trial here in the UK.

Not compulsory, and your entire life is not laid bare to everyone through it, though your shopping habits are. These systems are facing opposition, which is due to grow exponentially once people find out what it really means to hand over your fingerprints like a criminal.

Parliament has attached important safeguards to the scheme, which should meet reasonable concerns.

Bhwaahhaahhahahahahahha!!!!!

Individuals will have the right to see what information is held on them; the register will not contain medical records or tax and benefits information;

That is a lie. We now know that the personal and private medical data of everyone in the UK is about to be uploaded to the NHS spine in 2007 (unless something is done about it) and to think that the NIR unique number that is issued to you will not be used as your universal patient number is simply absurd. 250,000 people will have unfettered access to the spine, meaning that once these two systems are up and running as designed, it will be trivial to match you with your medical records, and literally, millions of people will be able to see everything about you, including and not limited to, your medical records.

One of the reasons why this system is being built is, ostensibly, to cut benefit fraud. That means that anyone in the DSS system will have their NIR unique number in that database, meaning that all the people who have access to that system will be able to pass your information on that database to anyone else.

Any database run by HMG where your NIR unique number is attached to your name creates in effect, a virtual database, that is trivial to ‘short circuit’ into a connected single database, accessible as if it were a single entity. Everyone knows this.

This is an experiment not only in mass surveillance, but in how much intrusion and violation a civilized population will take before it breaks. That is why it is vital that no matter what the consequences, we all absolutely refuse to let it happen, by denying access to our GP records, not registering in the NIR by renewing our passports right now and not applying for new ones should the system come on stream. If we don’t do this, the message is, “fleece us, we don’t care”.

full accreditation will be required for any organisation that wishes to use the data – and they will have to get consent from each individual before they access their details.

That is bullshit not only because of what I just wrote, but consent in this case means handing over your card for a swipe, which will be construed as consent for your records to be accessed. ‘Full accreditation’ in this case means anyone who can pay the trivially small fee for accessing the Identity verification service, which will be an online service, and if you are not accredited, you simply pay someone who is. More lies from the Maximum Liar.

It was also very clear from last week’s arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that’s what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.

The surveys that have been done have been shown to be wholly inadequate because the questions used did not address what the ID card scheme actually means to the interviewee. Questions like, “If an ID card could cut crime, would you be for it?” does not tell us anything at all about the real opinion of the interviewee, and the people who ran these polls knew this when they conducted them. As I said before, people are waging their own infowar on this subject, and the facts about this system are so chilling people go ballistic when they understand what it all really means.

Then there is the argument that ID cards and the national register simply will not work. This rests largely on the past failures, which I accept exist, of IT projects of all governments. This, however, seems to me an argument not to drop the scheme but to ensure it is done well.

‘Done well’? Bliar, you have absolutely no understanding of databases and computers; in fact, you are computer illiterate. This is clearly demonstrated by your statements on this subject. You are a luser. An asshat, and a murderer. Your next victim will not be the freedom of the British.

There are plenty of examples of how this can be achieved. The Passport Service database, which holds 70 million records, has already issued 2.5 million biometric passports since March.

See? A total moron.

That leaves the cost to the individual. Here, too, there has been some confusion. I simply don’t recognise some of the figures that have been attached to ID cards which, too often, include the costs of biometric passports. This is unfair and inaccurate.

You will be MADE to ‘recognize’, Bliar!!!

We will have no choice but to have a biometric passport, if we want to travel abroad.

That is a lie. We DO have a choice. ‘Biometric Passport’ means only a digital photo as the minimum requirement to qualify as ‘Biometric’. All the rest of it, the eye scans, fingerprints etc is all optional.

The United States has started to require them.

Yes, and we should REALLY follow them further into the abyss shouldn’t we?

This will soon be the case throughout the world. On present estimates, biometric passports make up 70 per cent – or around £66 – of the cost of the combined passports/ID cards we want.

and will not get.

The additional cost of the ID cards will be less than £30 — or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Not a bad price for the problems I am convinced they will help us tackle and for the benefits they will bring. […]

Telegraph

My God, the evil of this man is beyond belief. The lying bastardy, the baseness, the misdirection, omission, ignorance…The only price that matters in this bogus equation is that of LIBERTY and FREEDOM. The value of liberty and freedom are infinite. That means you cannot use them in an equation of any kind where you are trying to do a cost benefit analysis. You traitor. And even if we were to take your figures seriously, which we do not, they are totally bogus. The cost of running the system must be taken in aggregate and not on the individual level, since that is the context in which the money is going to be spent. Also, the benefit is not to the individual, but to the state, and since the man in the street is being made to pay and not the state (yes, they really are two separate things, now more than ever) HMG is getting a total surveillance system for free. The only people who are benefitting financially are the venal vendors.

Tony Bliar is a bad guy. With this scheme, he is single handedly throwing away what greater men than him died for in two world wars. He is a traitor to this nation, as are all the people are helping put this together, and those who voted for it.

It is not too late however to dismantle the whole thing. It has been done before, right here in the United Kingdom There is no justification, no excuse, no rationale that can be trundled out to justify enslaving people.

That is the bottom line. That is what this system is; a radical dehumanizing slave grid. The answer is ‘no’ and this scheme will be destroyed; mark it well nunckle.

The Return of Jultra

Thursday, November 2nd, 2006

“Today I fear that we are in fact waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us,” Mr Thomas said.”

Well duh. I could have told you that for free and saved the glorious social democratic state a few quid on your wages.

The reality is this, those cameras need to come

down

, people need to tearing them down like the Berlin wall.

And people should not be paying taxes or accepting ‘social political punishments’ based on amalgamated lifestyle data, government departments should not be sharing information and the human ID radical quantized pleb-grid needs to be liquidated.

Goodnight.

Jultra is back!

the hideous disgusting turd, Gordon Brown tries use global warming as a political weapon against the population to mold them into a new shape, against a backdrop with a strong lobby in the establishment for more war and police-state measures, I think we need to take a much harsher approach and stop fucking around.

Some have said that the best thing for the UK (and especially the US) would be a military coup. That sounds a dramatic and dangerous proposition and indeed it is, but in all honesty, I don’t think it’s something that we can afford to rule out either. I don’t see it happening but quite frankly, the problem is, if you just carry on like this things are just going to continue to get worse, so some sort of really major revolt at least is necessary.

A state with cameras everywhere logging car journeys, sticking bugs in wheelie bins, house arrest, internment, biometric ID slave grids, information sharing, a new even more intrusive census etc etc etc is not a legitimate entity at all, it is now a vile and illegitimate mess (note legislation doesn’t make something legitimate) and it’s vital that we understand that these things are wrong and to put it bluntly, they need to be disposed of and there is a strong impetus to dispose of them.

People like Jultra really UNDERSTAND what is going on and what needs to be done to fix it.

Any glimmer of legitimacy is now gone or at the very very least flickering out, but personally I would say gone. In my opinion, the rule of law or the process of the rule of law is sufficiently compromised and twisted as to make its meaning overall considerably problematic. A strong contributory factor in this is a logged, watched society where everyone lives in some quantized pleb-grid, which itself also eats away at the very meaning of the law.

You see?!

When the state becomes a complete meaningless failure run into the ground by degenerate socialists like Gordon Brown and David Miliband obsessed by their own egos who want to hurt people with their stream of putrid filth and remold peoples’ lives as if the country were their private socialist toy factory, I think the state is something we have to reassess the legitimacy of, reassess the meaning of, and I’m sorry to say therefore I think the case for supporting a state gone malignant, also in light of these plans with council tax, green taxes and so on has to be very strongly reassessed and people should not feel that pouring money into this catastrophe is anymore an appropriate thing to do than pouring money into a pedophile ring. New and existing forms of taxation should no longer be accepted by rolling your eyes and treating it as a kind of tolerable burden anymore. They should now be challenged.

For how many years have I been talking like this?

Also, kind of on this point, the BBC needs to go, it has proved itself an utterly worthless heap of poisonous sickly drivel for the most moronic and politically-crippled in society. If it doesn’t want ads, then it should become subscription-funded or die. The concept of a ‘state broadcaster’ and TV tax is an archaic nonsense that belongs in the dusty wardrobe of history.

like everything else, you should refuse to pay for it point blank.

In the current climate though, I don’t think the state as it currently is; a grotesque monument to New Labour’s perversion and to the repugnant cowardice of the civil service and council workers, has any real legitimacy anymore quite honestly, it’s a broken, stained monster that people should now start rejecting and viciously chipping away at with a view to getting rid of what it has been made into, and where it is heading, and trying to restore it to something more appropriate.

Again, as I’ve said before, this is not a case of this policy is bad, that policy bad, the whole thing is bad. And yes, I feel that the UK is in real trouble, it is quite literally broken. I think we have to say that, we have to accept that and frankly there now needs to be an organised zero-tolerance movement against what it has become. […]

http://jultra.blogspot.com/

As it was in the case of the the Berlin Wall, the decent people need to come out en-masse and tear down all CCTV in a day of action to free us from surveillance. I have said this before. As in the case of the former East Germany, there will be many people who are actually FOR the surveillance of everyone. They will be pushed out of the way.

A critical mass of disgust is coming, and this mass is aggregating at a rate that is the cube of the square of the numbers of people who are pissed off at whatever new horror HMG comes up with. Soon this enormous mass will collapse into a black hole that will destroy this country. It will then be re-born, bursting into a Quasar of a new and better Britain, where the bright light of millions of suns will NEVER allow a Bliar or a Brown or a Reid or a Blunkett or a Straw to ever again soil this beautiful island.

We must use science to defeat al-Qa’eda

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

(I was thinking of some good wordplay for the title but the plain quote can’t be bettered)


The Telegraph

John Reid yesterday compared the technological advances needed to fight Islamic terrorism to Britain’s battle against the Nazis.

The Home Secretary invoked the spirt of great wartime scientists like Barnes Wallis, the inventor of the bouncing bomb, as he spoke of the ”enduring struggle’’ facing the country.

‘Enduring…’ oh dear, the shoddy rhetoric starts early, let us read into ‘enduring’ costly, irrelevant and misplaced.
This is the same government that tells us these “religious fantics” cannot be “reasoned with”?

And of course such unobjective faith in the power of technology belies the ‘irrational’ basis of government policy.

Mr Reid said he was setting up a taskforce drawn from business and the academic world to pool ideas that would keep one step ahead of al-Qa’eda, which is increasingly sophisticated in its use of computers and weaponry.

So Neu Labour Politician wants to ‘do something’:
1. Form a quango of acolytes
2. (If you haven’t been lobbied recently) ring up business for a product/’solution.
3. Comission a report to see if it is technically sound.

Western governments are already two steps behind their al-queda golem never mind one step ahead.

”It is a race between those who would find the weaknesses in our defences and use that to wreak havoc on our society; and those of us involved in a constant search to defend our country, our freedoms and our democracy,’’ he said in London. ”Just as the innovators Barnes Wallis, Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers were vital in our battle to beat the Nazis, so now we must be able to utilise the skills and expertise of all in our battle against terror.’’

Constant improvement of defences? I refer you to the W.G. Sebald passage I quoted last year

The comparison of the counter-terrorist campaign with the Second World War marks a step change in the rhetoric being deployed by ministers about the nature of the threat.

Mr Reid said, notwithstanding the prospect of obliteration during the Cold War or the IRA’s 30-year bombing campaign, that ”in the UK we are living through the most sustained period of severe threat since World War Two.

The only threat is that maintained, overseen and fed by this government.

He added: ‘This assessment is the diligent product of intelligence professionals. It is no exaggeration. On the strength of such an assessment it would be easy to pump up the politics of fear. But this is not the basis for advancing our values today.’’

Left is the new Right.

Mr Reid was attending a conference of businessmen and specialists from the security sector which has been developing new technology to combat terrorism and decrypt encoded computer programs.

The Home Secretary said that in the past in five years, 387 people had been charged with terrorist offences. Of those, 214 have already been convicted, with a further 98 awaiting trial.

How many people have been temporarily held/harassed by police using anti-terrorism legislationwithout final charges being brought? where all 214 convicted for ‘terrorism’ or rather for subsequent charges?

He added: “That is an indication of the scale of the threat which we face. In responding to it, the struggle has to be at every level, in every way and by every single person in this country. It is easy between trials and between headlines to forget just how deep this on-going struggle is.”

Mr Reid said the current threat was even more worrying than during the Cold War. ”For all the potential horror of Mutually Assured Destruction, the dangers were both stark and, in retrospect, the risks straightforward,’’ he said. ”It is folly to assume that the struggle to advance the values we prize most came to an end with the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism…We cannot underestimate the rate at which those who would do us harm innovate.’’

Coming from a ‘former communist’ the phrase “It is folly to assume that the struggle to advance the values we prize most came to an end with the defeat of Soviet totalitarianism” is rather terrifying is it not?

Mr Reid was shown some of the new security measures now being developed, including a screening device called a Tadar, which uses the body’s naturally-released electromagnetic radiation to see beneath the clothes of suspect passengers – though with a ”fuzzy’’ picture to preserve their modesty.

Concealed objects such as guns, knives or explosives – even those that are non-metallic – are exposed. Stephen Phipson, managing director of Smiths Detection, part of the group that organised the conference, said the machine, costing between £80,000 and £100,000 generated images with no risk to the person being inspected.

No,no,no! The point is not the dignity of whether some jobsworth can ‘see’ your tackle. It is that of ‘innocent people’ being able to live their lives without intervention (and being hammered into F.E.A.R. driven complicity).

He also envisaged architects building security devices into the design of buildings in future and welcomed Mr Reid’s idea of a taskforce to bring together inventive expertise from business and the academic world.

Architects should concentrate on not creating ugly rabbit hutches No one should pander to govenment rhetoric when going about their private business.

They did wrong, but have learned nothing

Monday, October 30th, 2006

Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today.

Ummm we and every other person on the planet already knew this.

A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

The memo, circulated in recent weeks to ministers and security chiefs and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, outlines an extraordinary “wish list” of how the Government would like world troublespots to look in 10 years’ time. It also signals a drive to reduce Britain’s military commitments around the globe.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

In other words, KNOCK IT OFF, COME BACK HOME and DONT EVER GO BACK.

After a decade, Iraq must have “stable central and local government, accepted by all sectarian groups”. Afghanistan must be “stable, democratic, with all territory under central government control”.

You guys just don’t get it do you?

WHY should Iraq have a central government? ‘What does this have to do with Richmond?’ is the test that you need to apply to every one of these pronouncements. Why should Britain have a say about anything that happens in Iraq? That is what caused this problem in the first place. You are all living on tenter hooks, paranoid, disrupted, humiliated and scorned…and for what? For precisely nothing, since these people have their own ideas about what is right and what is wrong, and they will live by those ways or die and take you with them. They resist living in ‘democracy’ in the same way that we would all resist living under pure Sharia; to the death. Only the most blinkered and uneducated buffoons can not see this.

Similarly, why on earth should Afghanistan be a centrally controlled democratic government? Who are you to make that judgement? You making these proclamations and then acting on them are the sole cause of everyone hating the UK second only to the USA. For the thousandth time, will you KNOCK IT OFF. What those people do has absolutely NOTHING to do with Richmond. You have no right to demand that they live in a democracy. You have no right to dictate anything to anyone. If you DO believe that you have the right to shape the destiny of hundreds of millions of people in other lands, then take the consequences, and don’t whine like babies when people are lining up to slaughter you.

Israel must have “secure borders” and live in “peaceful co-existence” with its Arab neighbours,

sure, but thats up to THEM isn’t it?

while Iran must have a “representative, tolerant government … no nuclear weapons” and “no sponsorship of terrorism”.

There you go again.

The whole reason why there is an Islamic Republic in Iran is because YOU DISMANTLED THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT that was running there. What the Iranians have now is the government that they want. What happens in Iran is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The Iranian government doesn’t ‘sponsor terrorism’. The entire cause of ‘terrorism’ is USUKs interference in other people’s countries. Look at this documentary to find out just how IGNORANT Bliar and Bu$h are; the killer part is where the presenter recounts the event where Bu$h took some Shias and Sunnis to the Super Bowl. They talked. Somehow, the discussion came round to Islam, and someone mentioned that Sunnis and Shias sometimes….’don’t get along’, whereupon The Great Satan said, “You mean that there is more than one kind of muslim?”.

You cant make stuff like this up.

A similar story is recounted about Bliar. These people, these ignorant animals have the gall to tell Iran how to run its affairs? It beggars belief.

The document concludes: “If all or most of the above were in place, threats from other sources of Islamic terrorism (eg Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria) would be manageable or on the way to resolution. Any remaining deployments of the British armed forces should be seen as contributing to international stability and security.”

Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria? listing these countries shows that the person who wrote this memo is as ignorant as Bu$h and Bliar. No muslim in any of these countries gives a damn about the UK, and they would be more than happy to never have any hatred towards anyone. If you however, decide to land troops in their countries, try and stage coups there, stir up trouble and make a nuisance of yourself, you are guaranteed to face fierce resistance. This part of the memo shows that they know nothing and have learned nothing, not even from recent history…and by recent I mean the last five years. There is no problem between Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria and the UK. My advice to you you JACKASSES is not to start one!

A Downing Street spokesman declined to comment on the memo. However, in an interview, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, played down suggestions that large numbers of British troops may soon be coming home from Iraq. “I think you’re perhaps a little impatient to see a huge change, which I don’t think we are yet in,” she said.

She acknowledged, how-ever, that Britain and America had failed, before going to war, to predict that “there were huge pent-up hatreds and resentments in Iraq which exploded once Saddam Hussein was deposed”.

[…]

Telegraph

You fail again and again. You know nothing about Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria and anywhere other than Richmond Upon Thames. Nothing wrong with that; just make sure that you NEVER interfere with any of these countries and how they are run. As soon as you try to interfere, you cause disaster. You always have caused disaster, and always will cause disaster. Solve your own problems, mind your own business and all the ‘terrorism’ will melt away. If you do not, it will be ramped up and your precious ‘democracy’ which you have already partially dismantled, will be utterly destroyed by your own hand.

No one wants your ‘help’ and no one needs your advice. Every educated person can see that you are amongst the biggest hypocrites ever to walk the face of this earth. The British people on an interpersonal basis are the best ambassadors for the UK, because they are decent, peace loving people, and amongst the most tolerant, creative and intelligent in the entire world. The same cannot be said about HMG sadly, and its brief should be confined to garbage collection; that way, no one gets hurt.

Anyone who mentions Iran, who says its ‘intolerant’ who creates and transmits bogus documentaries about, sharia, veiled women blah blah blah; these people are traitors and warmongers and liars and are completely insane.

Enough is enough. Britain has alot of healing to do, and the sooner it starts the sooner Britain will start to look like the place we all loved. The first step is the purging of the war criminals and their bogus anti-democratic legislation.

But thats another blog post!

Glasgow BBQ: an island unto itself

Friday, October 27th, 2006

One in 10 of Glasgow’s call centres has been infiltrated by criminal gangs, police believe.

The scam works by planting staff inside offices or by forcing current employees to provide sensitive customer details.

The information is then used to steal identities and fraudulently set up accounts or transfer money.

The Customer Contact Association played down the extent of the problem but admitted it was a concern to those in the industry.

Det Ch Insp Derek Robertson of Strathclyde Police told the BBC’s Newsnight Scotland programme that there were a large number of call centres in the Glasgow area.

Recruit volunteers

“We have 300-plus, and we know that number is growing,” he said.

“I would say approximately 10% have been infiltrated in the past and we are working very hard to reduce that number.”

Detectives believe that criminal crews are sent out to recruit volunteers to work in the centres.

Once they agree, they are asked to supply financial information in return for a fee.

Another tactic is to identify pubs where call centre workers visit and intimidate the employees to pass on the details.

Det Ch Insp Robertson said: “There are a number of different ways to do it.

“We know of organised crime groups who are placing people within the call centres so that they can steal customers’ data and carry out fraud and money laundering.

“We also know of employees leaving the call centres and being approached and coerced, whether physically, violently or by being encouraged to make some extra money.

“And of course you have the disgruntled employee who may turn their hand to fraud just to benefit themselves.”

However, Anne Marie Forsyth of the Customer Contact Association played down the extent to which criminal gangs had managed to manipulate the industry.

She told the programme: “I think what Derek is talking about is the financial services sector, but the contact centre sector is far wider with travel, health, insurance and lots of others.

“Nevertheless it is obviously a concern and it’s a concern for all businesses.

“CCA membership has been very active over the last couple of years over sharing and exchanging data in this area. There is lots and lots to learn because business has got to be one step ahead as fraud increases.”

Call centres have become an increasingly important source of jobs.

Scottish Enterprise estimates that the industry employs about 18,000 people in Glasgow alone.

Across the UK the number is closer to 800,000. Median wages for those answering the phones are about £14,000.

The union, Unison, said that most call handlers working for established companies would be well trained and well monitored.

Dave Watson, their senior regional officer for Scotland, said that the biggest concern over security centred on out-sourcing companies which had high staff turnovers.

Mr Watson told Newsnight Scotland: “I think the real issue here is there are opportunities for criminal gangs to infiltrate staff where you’ve got high turnover and employers are desperate to recruit anyone to fulfil a particular contract.

“So what companies need to do is maximise their in-house operations and where they are using out-sourced providers they do that with the same standards that they require with their in-house operations.”

Det Ch Insp Robertson said call centre fraud was now a top priority.

His officers regularly monitor local jobs pages and contact new call centres.

He said: “That’s the only way to get ahead of the criminal – by pro-actively targeting the organisation before they recruit their member of staff. We are actively working on that.” […]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6089736.stm

And surprise surprise, no mention of the NIR, the previous scandal of Identities for sale from inside Whitehall, and we have been here before.

The habitual and deliberate failing to connect the dots practiced by BBQ imbeciles, in this case, one ‘Raymond Buchanan’ is simply appalling.

It doesn’t take a genius to extrapolate from this and previous examples to see that if the NIR is rolled out as planned, it will be a piece of cake for anyone to get into the most intimate details of a a British citizen. It will be even easier than is the case in this ‘article’, because NIR access will be widespread, with terminals everywhere, plastered with Post-It® notes sporting privileged user passwords….

You get the picture.

For you people that DONT get it (BBQ dunderheads who lurk on BLOGDIAL) this is just the tip of the iceberg. If the NIR is rolled out, people will be able to investigate you without having to commit any sort of crime or deception. The NIR will provide a ‘service’ where you, the man in the street, can check if someone has a criminal record or not. If you think that it is outrageous that ‘criminals’ are getting into call centres, imagine the scenario (you do have SOME imagination dont you?) where all you have to do is pay to get access to anyone’s details, and its all perfectly legal. The logical conclusion will be that if you are allowed to access this part of a person’s life (criminal record), why not let people access everything else? This WILL happen if the NIR is put in place, and people stupidly enroll in it.

By not connecting the dots, by brainlessly boosting the idea of biometrics, by letting it slip again and again, deliberately, and with malice of forethought, you, you ignorant BASTARD are a part of the PROBLEM.

Or maybe I have it all wrong.

Maybe BBQ Glasgow exists in a parallel universe, where there is no Whitehall, no Bliar, no NIR, nowhere else that HMG IT has been corrupted from the inside, no broken DVLA, where Google is actually ‘Google Glasgow’ where you can only search inside that universe, where the police have never sold surveillance to criminals. You get my point, and there are many more that I could have sourced and quoted. If I felt like it, I could even extrapolate this story to the call centres in other countries, that have the billing records of millions of Britons on tap.

But why go there?

This is irresponsible journalism…or it would be if what BBQ did really was journalism, and not wildly biased propaganda on behalf of every punter with a fist full of fifties.

This story was brought to you by an very vigilant virologist, its veracity verified and its verse vectored to me for vilification.

Appeal for Redress: at least it’s something

Thursday, October 26th, 2006

I read this story at the lovely Al Jazeera today, a story that I have not yet seen anywhere else:

US troops call for Iraq pullout

More than 200 men and women from the US armed services have joined a protest calling for American troops in Iraq to be brought home, organisers say.

The soldiers said they did not think it was worth their while to be in Iraq and questioned the use of repeated tours of duty.

The campaign, called the Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq, takes advantage of defence department rules allowing active duty troops to express personal opinions to politicians without fear of retaliation.

The appeal posted on the campaign’s website at www.appealforredress.org said: “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq.

You can read the rest at Al Jazeera

We could perhaps criticize the soldiers for not going all the way, risking full-on court martial and the whole lot, but I wouldn’t expect anyone with a family to do that, it’s just… far too self-sacrificing to be done by Americans on a wide scale. What they’re doing instead is intelligently speaking through a loophole that has been used before, effectively. If this picks up steam, it could get interesting, that is if anyone knows about it. Like I said above, I haven’t seen this story ANYWHERE but on Al Jazeera, so perhaps it’s being successfully buried by “teh mna.”

Regardless, what I want to get at is… if a few soldiers with brains can do this, where the hell is everyone else? This is an easy thing to do, the soldiers know the system, how it works, and they’re using it to their advantage. While they’re not fully refusing to co-operate – I can sort of understand that due to the reasons I spelled out above – this is at least something that piques my interest. These are average soldiers – nothing could ever be more media-friendly. But watch the media try to pull an Ann Coulter and bend the story into something ridiculous and insulting and full of glitz and mega-sports-channel style election graphics that somehow convinces Average Joe American (though, givent the current hemmorhage of stupidity in the US media the past couple of days, that may not happen). Or worse yet it just… won’t be reported on. At all. That’s what I’m betting on. We’ll see what happens.

Combine it with despair-filled articles like this, and maybe something good will happen for a change?

(sorry to push things down with yet more American news, but this is fun stuff! C’mon! Maybe I’ll post some retarded Canadian news soon. There’s plenty of it going around right now.)

Perfect Encapsulation

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

If Your Fingerprints Aren’t Down You’re Not Coming In

UK Government wants to control where citizens go to get drunk. Will people start caring more about the liberty crushing surveillance society now?

Steve Watson / Infowars.net | October 23 2006

The drinks are on Big Brother.

The British government has announced that it wishes to send nationwide a previously localized program of mandatory fingerprint scanners at the entrance of every pub and club in major UK cities. Under such rules If you want to have a drink in the trendiest places in the UK you will have to be fingerprinted.

As usual this is being sold as a way to reduce alcohol related crime and weed out troublemakers. We’re all suspects now, we’re all possible criminals and we all need to be scanned and catalogued in order to save civilized society. The young hoodlums are taking over and we must all be considered dangerous in order to stop them.

The move to introduce the scanners is being sold to club and bar owners with the promise that they can stay open longer if they implement it. If they refuse that nice little earner they will simply be shut down as new licenses stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licenses revoked.

What’s more, reports detail the fact that all clubs and bars that have this forced upon them, or choose to willingly use it, will be hooked up to a centralized database in order to easily share the biometric information. Access to this database will also be granted to the police and the government.

We have previously been told that it is just a matter of time before the fingerprint replaces cash and credit cards.

As a citizen of the UK I have not known a time when civil liberties have been under attack from so many angles at the same time. In the name of the war on crime, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on binge drinking, the war on anything the government can’t be bothered to attempt to get to the real cause of, we have to relinquish our privacy.

Big Brother Is watching… And listening and shouting and scanning and taking your fingerprints and swabbing your DNA. Lets take a snapshot of a typical day in Britain should all these things be fully implemented.

You get up to go to work and walking down your residential street you are picked up by multiple cameras within minutes of leaving your house. Before you board the tube or the train you may have to relent to going through the high-tech body screener for detecting would-be terrorists. Place your hands above your head and wait for the machine to produce a naked picture of you on a screen.

If your ‘re lucky enough not to have to go through one of these you will certainly be picked up by the the face scanning cameras which are programmed to sound an alarm when they spot suspicious behaviour, such as waiting somewhere for a prolonged period of time or just walking in a suspicious way.

Should you drop some litter or act out of turn the cameras may even start shouting at you in order to publicly humiliate you and let everyone else around you know what you’ve done. This way you might be shamed into never stepping out of line in that way again.

You swipe your electronic travel card over the reader and a unit of travel credit is deducted. This sends a signal to the central database reporting your whereabouts. You could still use cash but the fare has been raised so high for cash users that it seems ludicrous to opt for that.

Those who are lucky enough to work out of the big cities or those who drive to work will have their movements and personal behaviour monitored by traffic cameras all over the country. They will also be tracked at all times by the black box locator within their vehicles.

Once you get to work you are continuously monitored from the moment you enter the building until you leave.

After work you may go for a drink. Once you have had your fingerprints scanned to enter you may also have to undergo a DNA swab test for drug use. If you refuse you are recorded as suspicious and may even be arrested at which point your DNA will be forcibly taken anyway.

This will be added to the national DNA database which is also hooked up to the central UK citizens database which eventually will contain the DNA of everyone no matter whether or not they have committed a crime. You will not have access to this information but the government will. They may even sell the information to private companies should they wish to. The Information will be stored on the database forever.

If you do manage to get in the pub for a drink you will be able to pay for it much more quickly and easily if you have an implanted microchip. Just wave your arm over a reader and it will pick up the chip’s signal and deduct a beverage credit accordingly. A chip may also eliminate the need for an ID card, travel card, medical card and the like. No need to carry cumbersome wallets or handbags anymore!

Perhaps you will not have worked hard enough this week to earn enough beverage credits though. Oh well never mind time to go home. When you get back remember to put out the trash. Make sure the bag is not too heavy though or more refuse credits will be deducted from your allowance. And don’t forget to recycle or you could get some jail time.

Just before you turn in check your personalized cctv channel and report any suspicious activity in your neighbourhood. You can then go to sleep safe in the knowledge that you are ‘secure beneath the watchful eyes’ of Big Brother.

In the UK we are the most observed population outside of North Korea. Britain is the surveillance bench mark, the rest of the Western world is a close second. As Henry Porter Commented in last week’s London Observer, It’s time to wake up to what we have become and stop allowing limits to be put on our liberty. It’s now or never.

[…]

http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/231006prints.htm

Once again, the nail is hit right on the head.

But…

WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING TO DO ABOUT IT?

We can sit down and write about this until the end of time (not too far away now ay?) but it will change absolutely nothing. In the past, people made careers out of being in opposition. Lets be absolutely clear; I am NOT one of these people. I do not enjoy or endorse or agree with the idea of an ‘underground’ or ‘resistance’. I do not want to spend time paying the price of eternal vigilance for freedom. There are simply some things that I will not do, by default and so all these measures do not apply to me. But I digress.

As we can see, despite all the blathering and warnings spread all over the country, England is being turned into a police state. Once again, what are you going to do about it? I mean, what personally are you going to do to stop this fingerprinting abomination from spreading to every pub in the land?

Are you going to:

  • Write to every publican?
  • Write to the breweries that own the pubs that are not free houses?
  • Write to CAMRA and every other beer association, asking them to contact all of their members?

Those are for example. If you are not willing to do this, or to even suggest that this should be done whenever you write an article, then you are part of the problem, whoever you are, when you do not act to preserve this great land.

This fingerprinting at pubs is not the final goal. It is a softening up exercise, designed to get every drinking adult used to the idea of being fingerprinted on a regular basis. If they manage to roll out the NIR, enrollment will encounter much less resistance because everyone will think that fingerprinting is a part of ‘normal life’ and will not think twice about handing over their prints for their passport or driving license etc etc.

Business must resist this. They are proxy shearing centres that HMG uses to enforce its nonsense and butter up the public. There is no way that they will revoke the licenses of ALL the pubs in the UK; if all of them refuse to help bastardize this country, the only recourse for the government is to back down. The publicans and license holders will only have the balls to do it if they feel threatened by a massive letter writing campaign (one of the last instances where letter writing actually works; between one human and another).

That is what I propose; because the British don’t flee from their own land when its under attack from a hostile enemy, and this is a war, no doubt about it!

Like we said: BOLT CUTTERS!

Thursday, October 19th, 2006

The rest of the world slowly catches up with BLOGDIAL:

By Mark Ballard
18th October 2006

The public fears losing their fingers to ruthless biometric ID thieves in the fingerprint-controlled future, apparently. Or at least, so says Frost & Sullivan analyst Sapna Capoor, who argued unconvincingly that “A dead finger is no good to a thief.”

If you have a fingerprint scanner protecting your family jewels, your data might be safe, but what about your fingers?

So, it’s all getting out of hand? Then on the other… there are recorded instances of people having their fingers chopped off, and the biometric industry takes the issue seriously.

For example, there were the Malaysian crooks who nabbed a man’s fingers in order to operate the biometric security on the S-class Mercedes they stole from him.

Nevertheless, biometric firms are doing what they can to detect whether a fingerprint being scanned is alive or not, said Jean Francois Mainguet, chief scientist of fingerchip biometrics at Atmel-France, and inventor of the sweeping technique for direct silicon fingerprint scanning (he was awarded his patent on 9/11, as it happens).

Speaking at Biometrics 2006 in London, Mainguet said it wasn’t yet possible to detect “liveliness”, and even when it was, this would guarantee security no more than a regular biometric.

“Absolute security doesn’t exist,” he said. If you could detect liveliness, you wouldn’t be able to tell if someone was accessing some system or authorising some payment under duress or not.

Security causes an escalation of causes and reactions just like the arms race. Want to cheat the banking system? Forge an ID. Fingerprint scanner making it tricky? Chop someone’s finger off. Live fingerprint scanner? Hold someone’s family at gun point.

The techniques being explored for live scanners include inducing involuntary responses via an electric charge to cause a spasm in skin pressed against the glass. Or there’s the use of light fluctuations to induce involuntary responses from the user of an iris scanner.

They can all be faked, said Mainguet. The electrical response, for example is as easy as making a frog’s leg twitch if you have chopped carefully.

There is a solution, he said, which is to use a variety of biometrics to identify someone. Biometrics? You just can’t get enough of them. At some shows, anyway.

[…]

The Register

We made this exact point before. Like we have been saying if you do not register in the biometric net (ID Card, NIR), or in this case, buy a car, or a lock, or a safe that uses your thumbprint as the key, you will not have to worry about the bolt cutters removing your thumb(s) or the cheese slicer removing the top four millimeters of your thumb skin.

Now, if they get out the cheese slicer, and slice off your prints, when they stick them onto their own fingers, they will seem to be alive, because the criminals finger is providing the 37° warmth that these ‘is she alive’ scanners will be looking for. For example. Either way, having a biometric door-lock on your house tells the criminal that he has to come properly equipped, just as he does when he sees a particular type of lock that he knows how to pick. It also tells him that he can target your wife, your children and your housekeeper.

Its pretty obvious really.

I had the opportunity to look at Virgin’s ‘self service’ checkin at Heathrow. To use this ‘service’ you put your machine readable passport into a machine, and your checkin pass is printed out for you.

What’s wrong with this picture? That instead of using your credit card or some other card to issue with your ticket, they use a state issued document whose purpose is to get you past immigration, and nothing else. There is no reason whatsoever for them to use your passport for this, and since you and your passport and your ticket will be examined by several people on your way to the cattle truck aircraft, this check is redundant. A machine should never be used to check your ‘identity’ or validity. Of course, people were lining up to take advantage of the ‘convenience’ of this ‘service’, blithely sticking their passports into this machine without any indication of what this machine was doing with their data. Of course, if the RFID passports gain wide acceptance, you wont even have to touch the machine….and thats the machine that you know about.

What 5.4 billion gets you these days

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006

1 ID card system for the first ten years (read: 1 extremely rich IT consultancy firm and no working ID card database)

About 7% of a new nuclear deterrent. (which is the greater waste of money?)
Around 100 new hospitals.

1000 pounds of tax back in the hands of every man, woman and child in the country.

Over 200,000 of these…

The image “http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

… anyway…. I digress. What a neat beard that man has.
Been listening to Sinead O’Connor (Lion and the Cobra) and the Waterboys (eponymous) a bit tonight. It’s been a long time. Makes me feel old and young at once. And it’s good to have a sing along now and again.

Jack Straw betrays his liar roots

Friday, October 6th, 2006

Mr Straw insisted that he respected those who wear the veil and would never demand it was removed, but added that in conversation it was important to “not only hear what people say but see what they mean”. […]
Guardian

This is the most fascinating part.

According to Jack “Straw Man” Straw, you cannot tell what someone means by their words alone, because people lie, and the only way to REALLY know what people are saying is to use the secondary clues and cues that the human face give off involuntarily. In other words, the only way to know if what someone is saying is true is to put them on a lie detector, wether it be a passive one (looking into someone’s eyes) or an active one (an electronic device).

Of course, Jack is projecting his own lie centered ‘no one can be trusted’ paternalist mentality onto his constituents. He thinks that he needs to see their faces and not just hear their words because he himself is a habitual liar, and he uses words to obscure the truth, not to convey meaning.

The end of a great country: They are starting to feel it

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

“There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country – if the people lose their confidence in themselves – and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.” – Walt Whitman

It was a dark hour indeed on Thursday when the United States Senate voted to end the Constitutional Republic and transform the country into a “Leader-State,” giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone – American citizens included – whom they arbitrarily decide is an “enemy combatant.” This also includes those who merely give “terrorism” some kind of “support,” defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.

All of this is bad enough – a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush – powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality – there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed – and used – openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the “extrajudicial killing” of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide – arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal – is an “enemy combatant.”

That’s right; from the earliest days of the Terror War – September 17, 2001, to be exact – Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you’re an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he’ll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or “conspiracy theory”: it’s simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents – and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.

And although the Republic snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush’s royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an “enemy combatant” is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing “Executive Orders” authorizing “lethal force” against arbitrarily designated “enemy combatants,” it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill – with the seal of Congressional approval.

How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

“[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant,” Olson argues.

“‘There won’t be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,’ Olson said in the interview. ‘There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.'”

In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the “law” is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their “instincts” determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism – and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record – a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There’s nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know – if they choose to know it.

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a “presidential finding” authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton’s White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president’s right to issue “an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense,” despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the “inherent powers” of the “Commander in Chief” – that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.

The practice of “targeted killing” was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw – as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation’s collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy’s adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.

Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the “security organs” could designate “enemy combatants” and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency’s wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner’s son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported. […] http://www.chris-floyd.com/

If you were reading this in a book thirty years ago you would have laughed it off as impossible, and bad writing.

Now it has come true, all of it. This is worse than the 50s Communist witch hunt era insanity…. much worse. One thing is for sure; if america comes through this and returns to being a free country, it will come back stronger and better than ever. I can imagine that happening, more readily than I could have imagined america turning into a dictatorship decades ago.

Further than ever down a dark road

Monday, October 2nd, 2006

Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of “wrongfully aiding the enemy” which labels all American citizens who breach their “allegiance” to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.

01:27 GMT UPDATE

After five hours of searching through the 80-plus page bill, Alex Jones, who won the 2004 Project Censored award for his analysis of Patriot Act 2, uncovered numerous other provisions and definitions that make the bill appear as almost a mirror image of Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act.

In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation’s legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush’s authority on the torture of detainees.

“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.”

The Bush administration is preemptively overriding any challenge to the legislation by the Supreme Court.

The definition of torture that the legislation cites is US code title 18 section 2340. This is a broad definition of torture and completely lacks the specific clarity of the Geneva Conventions. This definition allows the use of torture that is, “incidental to lawful sanctions.” In alliance with the bill’s blanket authority for President Bush to define the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit, this legislates the use of torture.

The media has spun the bill as if it outlaws torture – it only outlaws torture for “enemy combatants,” and in fact outlaws the retaliation of any military against the United States as “murder.” Those deemed “enemy combatants” are not even allowed to fight back yet the government affords itself every power including the go-ahead to torture.

  • Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following.
  • Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal’s choosing.
  • Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.
  • A change of the definition of “pillaging” which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.

In light of Greg Palast’s recent hounding by Homeland Security, after they accused him of potentially giving terrorists key information about U.S. “critical infrastructure” when filming Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery (clear photos of which were publicly available on Google Maps), sub-section 27 of section 950v. should send chills down the spine of all investigative journalists and even news-gatherers.

“Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 – Crimes triable by military commissions – includes the following definition.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the “enemy combatant” designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, “The compromise legislation….authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.”

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, “A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.”

Calling the bill “our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts,” the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture.

“Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.”

Since with this bill, in the aggregate, Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the allegiance of American citizens is no longer to the flag or the freedoms for which it stands, but to Bush himself, the self-appointed dictator, and any diversion from that allegiance will mandate arrest, torture and conviction in a military tribunal under the terms of this bill.

Similar to the UK’s Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of “wrongfully aiding the enemy,” could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack.

That renders the entire 9/11 truth movement an aid to terrorist suspects and subject to military tribunal and torture. In addition, Bush’s recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters. […]

Propaganda Martix

Something must break…

The Upside down world of the Bliar Regime

Sunday, October 1st, 2006

Flights from UK ‘escape US bans’

Passengers flying from UK airports will not be affected by a EU-US row over US demands for information on passengers, the British government has said.

The Department of Transport (DoT) said it had taken out an air navigation order, so planes flying to the US would escape potential American landing bans.

So, where there was actually no potential at all for any sort of ban, since the economic damage would be so great as to make such a move impossible, HMG decides to cave in anyway.

It means airlines can pass information to the US without running into legal trouble under data protection laws.

The action came as a deal between the EU and US remained in doubt.

A DoT spokesman said: “We took out an air navigation order so planes could have a legal basis for data transfer while the EU-level talks are ongoing.

“It’s a patch, if you like.”

Only in the ‘up is down’, ‘black is white’, ‘day is night’, ‘fast is slow’, ‘true is false’ world of this insane war criminal government could anyone possibly call an action that FACILITATES LEAKS be called ‘a patch’.

You cant make shit like this up.

Planning ahead

Paul Charles, Virgin Atlantic’s director of communications, said the British government had good foresight to put the legal patch in place.

“They took it on that if there was not a deal between the EU and the US then this patch could take effect.

“It means airlines can carry on as normal as if the argument had never occurred, and the agreement was not about to run out.

“It means airlines can go on providing the passenger data that the US require without facing possible legal action.”

In other words, Virgin Atlantic doesn’t care about the privacy of its passengers. And that is a very serious thing indeed. It is one matter to be compelled by the law to do something immoral and then to be affronted by it, but to say that violating your passengers privacy is a GOOD THING is simply astonishing.

Deadline

European and American officials had been holding talks to resolve the dispute on the transfer of airline passenger data before it ran out on Saturday.

The row began in May, when the European Court of Justice ruled against a deal set up following the 9/11 attacks.

Under this agreement, European airlines agreed to supply the American authorities with detailed information about passengers flying into the US.

The two sides had until Saturday to replace the deal, with the Americans warning it may fine airlines or deny them landing rights if they refused to provide such data.

The US government believe the information is vital in their fight against terrorism and called for even more access to information. […]

BBQ

We all know that this is completely bogus, and the only reason why they want this is to violate the ordinary citizen going about his totally lawful business. I wonder if any other EU countries have ‘patched’ their regulations, and wether or not a legal challenge can be mounted against HMG for violating the rights of the passengers that leave from here to the usa.

Now, for those that feel the compelling need to go to the usa, it is the best bet to take another, non British, carrier so that your personal data remains just that; personal.

Pretexts to Justify Us Military Intervention in Iran: the leaked memorandum

Friday, September 29th, 2006

PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN

(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order. Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military attack on Iran).

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military attack in Iran a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Iranian reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Iranians of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to attack if Iranian response justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around The Persian Gulf to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Iranian forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Iranians in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on Iraq.

(3) Capture Iranian (friendly) saboteurs inside Iraq.

(4) Start riots in Tehran (friendly Iranians).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside Umm Qasr; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft in Iraq airport (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells into Iraqi Mosques. Some damage to Mosques.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Bagdad.

(9) Capture militia group which storms Basra.

(10) Sabotage ships in harbors; large fires — napthalene.

(11) Sink ships near harbor entrances. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements and Nuclear installations which ‘threaten Israel’.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in the vicinity of Doha and blame Iran.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Persian Gulf. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Iranian attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Iranian planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was under attack. The nearness to Kuwait or Bahrain would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Islamist Iranian terror campaign in the Abu Dhabi area, in other Gulf cities and even in Riyadh.

The terror campaign could be pointed at Iranian refugees seeking haven in the U.A.E.. We could sink a boatload of Iranians enroute to Abu Dhabi (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Iranian refugees in the U.A.E even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Iranian agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Iranian involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A “Iranian-based, Ahmednejad-supported” filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Gulf nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Ahmednejad is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against the USA in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Lebanon at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Iraqi Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. “Iranian” Saegheh Fighter Jet aircraft could make raids at night. Iranian incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with “Iranian” messages to the Al Qaeda in Iraq and “Iranian” shipments of arms which could be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of F-5 aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by F-5 type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-5 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Iranian Saegheh, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in modifying and deploying an out of service F-5 aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the Saegheh could be produced from US resources in about three months.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Iran. Concurrently, genuine defections of Iranian civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Iranian aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the anywhere to U.A.E, Iraq, Kuwait or Quatar. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross near Iran. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at an Iraq AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Iraq theatre. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Baghdad. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at the Iraq AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When near Iran the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Iranian Saegheh aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Persian Gulf to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Islamic Iranian Saeghehs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-16 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Iraqi AFB to the vicinity of Iran. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Iraq. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Iranian coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Iranian Saeghehs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Iranian coast this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by Saeghehs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base in Iraq. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-16 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Iranian coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

[…]

PDF of this dastardly plan

Now we know what to look for. Of course, we also have the alternative plans not included in this document, that involve ‘gaming’ the United Nations. I will leave it to you to figure out how that works.

Let’s twist again

Friday, September 29th, 2006

“We will go where we please, we will discuss what we like, and we will never be browbeaten by bullies. That’s what it means to be British.”

Yes John Reid, we will.

We will;

not submit to State interference of our lives
not register our ‘identity’ on the NIR
not contribute to the charade that is the ‘war on terror’
not allow the government to define and limit our rights
never believe talk of liberty and freedom from a party devoted to centralism

conduct our private business in private
continue to resist and inform of the deceit at the heart of UK politics
repeal or ignore the legislative burden of government

And if you don’t like it you can fuck off to Belarus