Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: 4/5/09 - 4/12/09

  • Search our BLOG

  • HOME
    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Wednesday, April 08, 2009

    Turks report on Obama in BLACKFACE?

    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Our surfers, 03.08.09

    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Tuesday, April 07, 2009

    Pentagon: $100 million on cyberattack cleanup

    Pentagon spends over $100 million on cyberattack cleanup

    The Pentagon spent more than $100 million in the past six months cleaning up after Internet attacks and network issues, military leaders said on Tuesday.

    "The important thing is that we recognize that we are under assault from the least sophisticated--what I would say the bored teenager--all the way up to the sophisticated nation-state, with some petty criminal elements sandwiched in between," Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, told reporters at a cyberspace conference in Omaha, Neb., as reported by CBS News.

    ( The head of US Strategic Command placed the highest threat with the "sophisticated nation-state";

    that is not the biggest threat, MAD, Mutual Assured Desgtruction, with a Nation state will hold them in check.,

    Hit US we hit you. The biggest threat is the NON-nation state, MAD won't work with them, our paradigm Intel

    places the RBN as the bioggest threat, and probally the brains behind conflicker. G )

    Neither he nor Army Brigadier Gen. John Davis, deputy commander for network operations, would say how much of the estimated $100 million was spent cleaning up from viruses compared with outside attacks and inadvertent security problems due to U.S. Department of Defense employees. However, they did say that spending money to shore up the networks to prevent attacks and breaches would be better than paying to clean up after an incident.

    The Defense Department was forced to take up to 1,500 computers offline last year because of a cyberattack, and it banned the use of external removable storage devices because of their ability to spread viruses.

    The news comes amid internal government squabbles over which department would be best to manage the nation's cybersecurity programs and in the middle of a cybersecurity review ordered by President Obama.

    Last week, legislation was introduced that would create a cybersecurity adviser who reports directly to the president and who would have the authority to disconnect federal or critical infrastructure networks from the Internet if they were deemed to be at risk of attack.


    We have had some experience with cyber weapons, and emphatize with the Pentagon.


    And now read this:

    WASHINGTON -- Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

    The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven't sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

    "The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid," said a senior intelligence official. "So have the Russians."

    The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn't target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. "There are intrusions, and they are growing," the former official said, referring to electrical systems. "There were a lot last year.

    Many of the intrusions were detected not by the companies in charge of the infrastructure but by U.S. intelligence agencies, officials said. Intelligence officials worry about cyber attackers taking control of electrical facilities, a nuclear power plant or financial networks via the Internet.

    Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

    Officials said water, sewage and other infrastructure systems also were at risk.


    Not finished yet, 

    You have heard of the Smart grid .

    That means programable.

    The penetration feels quite through.

    Look out the other window, Conflicker,

    35 million bots todate.

    There is a "Go Around" that stops all of them

    at the next step.

    NSA must realize this.

    Were Cranking this thru Paradigm Intel engine.

    OSINT says its wide open, defenses don't work

    And currently there is no offensive capability.

    And the Lobbyist are running the Super Power.

    Heady times....





    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Monday, April 06, 2009

    Conflicker maps 35 Million + / 03.06.09

    Conflicker MAPS
    All of the following maps and charts were generated from the total infections from the beginning. This has been a total of 35 Million unique IP's. This is not the current population, but only the total systems that connected. Many of these could be mobile or connect from behind networks that conceal actual numbers or systems.

    Note lack of infections in Russia.
    What are they going to do with 35 million bots?
    Any body know where the 13 Internet nodes are?

    Conficker C Network Scanner:
         Source Code:



    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    ops and Intel up date, 03.06.09

    The establishment of a Taliban emirate

    Himal Southasian - ‎Mar 31, 2009‎
    Swat, a former princely state, was merged with Pakistan in 1969, and together with the former states of Dir and Chitral was given the special status of a ...

    ( they do a tremendous job on OSINT
    one of the leaders in OSINT, I have been
    watching them for a couple of years and
    they are way ahead of the other services, G )



    Labels: ,

    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Stolen Cessna Pursued by Jet Fighters

    Stolen Cessna Pursued by Jet Fighters

    ...The plane ( Cessna 172 ) entered American airspace over Michigan's Upper Peninsula at 3:25 p.m. today and was trailed by the military aircraft since 4:43 p.m. as it flew over Minnesota, south through Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri....WHY DID IT TAKE NORAD FROM 3:25 PM TO 4:43 PM TO GET ON HIM?

    Cessna 172:
    Maximum speed: 123 knots (141 mph, 
    Cruise speed: 122 knots (140mph

    MAX SPEED 1,500 mph
    "a stall speed around 250 mph"

    On January 5, 2002 a high school student Charles J. Bishop stole a Cessna 172 and crashed it into the side of the Bank of America Tower in downtown Tampa, Florida, killing himself and no one else, but otherwise causing very little damage. See 2002 Tampa plane crash for more details.

    Student lucky to be alive.
    At one time he was very high,
    and the jets carefully buzzed
    him. He then dropped to a very reasonable height. They think his radio was OFF.



    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Arabs only

    Copy these to your web sites, any post, Arabs can read em.


    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Canada land of the ? What?

    CONTEMPT>:? Canada, we have the travesty of our Human Rights Commissions, tribunals which can be accessed and mobilized free of charge — that is, at taxpayers’ expense — by anyone with a complaint against ostensibly libelous or hate-provoking action, speech, or script. The defendant is presumed guilty from the start and must pay his own legal costs. Originally established to protect tenants against unscrupulous landlords and prevent discrimination on the worksite, these commissions, with the complicity of politically correct bureaucrats and profiteering human rights lawyers, have now been largely monopolized by offended Muslims who are intent on suppressing criticism of their faith, preachings, or actions, in other words, on muzzling free speech. For close scrutiny, as they rightly fear, will often lead to bad press.

    They rely on Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which defines hate speech as “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” The formulation is so nebulous that it can be successfully applied against almost anything in print, which indicates that the tribunals are akin to kangaroo courts and show trials. There are always people, after all, ready to feel misprized by something they may happen to see, hear, or read. As a result, human rights are materially abrogated by Human Rights, rendered hollow by the very bodies created to uphold them. When one of the commission’s investigators, a certain Dean Steacy, was asked what value he ascribed to freedom of speech, he replied: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

    We should keep in mind that these commissions are unelected tribunals with no accountability under law, are not bound by the presumption of innocence or the rules of evidence, are ready to accept unqualified witnesses for the prosecution, permit uninvolved third parties to file complaints, admit hearsay, are staffed by untrained and incompetent judges, do not require that the willful promotion of hatred be proven or that plaintiffs be present, are consistently unfavorable to the objections of the defense, accept anonymous posts on YouTube as evidence, and, in sum, do not operate under the normal procedures of the criminal justice system.

    But although these tribunals are not real courts, they wield real power: the right to impose fines, to prohibit the defendant from speaking out, to demand formal apologies, and to prescribe jail sentences if these conditions are violated. The Human Rights Commission is essentially a contemporary revival of the notorious Camera Stellata, or Star Chamber, which sat at Westminster until 1641, enacting its arbitrary rulings on politically motivated charges.

    The latest CHRC sally into the theater of the absurd is its prosecution of a former member of Parliament, Jim Pankiw, who was harshly critical of the high First Nations crime rate in his home province of Saskatchewan. One of the commission’s sock puppets, Derek A. Smith, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, found that the color of ink used in the MP’s correspondence indicated discrimination and latent racism. Pankiw has now learned to his cost that black and red ink on white paper constitutes a mockery of aboriginal iconography and is tantamount to a cultural offense. “One could hardly claim,” Smith charged, “that the symbolism in this pamphlet is not inflammatory.” Monty Python could scarcely do better. That particular parrot is surely dead.

    Thankfully, several high-profile cases were recently aborted. The imam who lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against the editor of the Western StandardEzra Levant, for republishing the Danish cartoons, thought better of it and withdrew his claim, though not until Levant, harassed for almost three years, was $100,000 out of pocket. The Muslim-instigated case against political writer Mark Steyn andMaclean’s current affairs magazine, which ran an excerpt from Steyn’s brilliant America Alone, was dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, after much adverse publicity, on the flimsy pretext that it lacked jurisdiction over printed material (which did not prevent it from issuing a statement that it “strongly condemns the Islamophobic [sic] portrayal of Muslims”).

    Further details regarding these ludicrous proceedings, which I have only sketched out here, can be gleaned from Levant’s new book Shakedown: How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. More recently, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, which spent five years investigating a hate speech complaint against B’nai Brith Canada, prompted by an anonymous and absent tipster and based on the secret report of an equally anonymous “expert,” eventually concluded there was “no reasonable basis in the evidence” for the case. In this way, our so-called Human Rights Commissions cut their losses in order to live and persecute another day.

    Clearly, considerable and entirely unnecessary damage is done by so skewed a parallel legal system, essentially a form of secular Sharia. These tribunals continue to stress that group rights retain precedence over other human rights and do not recognize that freedom of expression is a Charter value. Nothing daunts a Human Rights Commission. Its latest bit of mischief is the attempt to influence the courts to accept a Muslim woman’s right to be veiled during a judicial proceeding. It has no compunction allowing a masked plaintiff or witness to trump the Charter right to a fair and open trial.

    We are truly in danger of losing many of our cherished rights and freedoms in this country. A working group of American university and college professors, members of the American Political Science Association, think so too. They have objected to Toronto as the site for the Association’s 2009 conference, having come to believe, in the words of spokesman Bradley Watson, “Canada to be a problematic destination.” Cognizant of the “Canadian attacks on freedom of speech,” he feels it is “unacceptable … to risk exposing [our] members to them.”

    “In the hands of barbarians,” writes Andrew C. McCarthy in Willful Blindness, the law “is an offensive weapon.” As brandished by “our swelling nomiocracy,” it has become a dangerous liability. “In the war against radical Islam,” he warns, if we fail to understand how the law can be manipulated to our disadvantage, “we are shrinking from our highest duty: to protect lives.” And, as it should go without saying, to defend “the core aspects of Western liberalism: self-determination, freedom of choice, freedom of conscience, equality under the law.”

    Similarly, when asked in an interview what radical Islam portends for America, Joseph Hakim, vice president of the International Christian Union, replied: “Radical Islamists will never be integrated into American society. They will grow like a cancer, but let us not be fooled by them. They are well educated and lavishly funded. And they know when to wear suits and pretend to conform while seeking to destroy our economy [and] to exploit our system of government.” Hakim knows whereof he speaks, having observed firsthand the systematic abuse of Christian populations in Arab lands and the various methods by which radical Muslims are able to infest the body politic. According to this authority, what is at stake is the integrity of government and the health of the economy, but these are undermined most effectively through the subversion of our judicial system.



    This Human Rights Commission can be used by the Canadians against the JAHIDDIES.

    Or burn up its resources with junk complaints till its fixed.

    "defines hate speech as “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

    Some deserve to be held up for contempt.

    Many of the terrorist actions are contemptable.

    The legistator who wrote this is contemptable, ignorant.

    Can the Mounties get me in USA?

    Tune back in and see if the Mounties will find Gerald

    Will he be indicted for holding this law, the CHR, a cross

    on the backs of Free Speech, IN CONTEMPT?

    For calling the the CHR contemptable, for holding it

    up to comtempt?

    He has friends in town that will alert him to anyone

    coming into town on a horse and red coat.




    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Paki: what more does US want?

    Text Color

    But Obama has warned that the pledge of $7.5 billion in civilian aid over five years will only be forthcoming if Pakistan demonstrates its commitment to uprooting al-Qaida and other violent extremists — comments that have done nothing for the often-strained relationship.

    Islamabad points out the hundreds of Pakistani troops killed by militant attacks or in a series of ill-fated operations along the Afghan border since Pakistan dropped its support for the Taliban in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

    "We have sacrificed much more than they have sacrificed," Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Thursday. "We have sacrificed our soldiers. We have sacrificed our economy. What else do they want?"

    Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani


    500,000 PAKI ARMY Against 50,000 Taliban farmers.

    Leading your troops to slaughter is not a desired Objective.

    Victorys against the Taliban, is an desired Objective.

    Sacrifice is not the Objective, substuting the death of Paki troops

    for victorys against the Taliban, only exhibits your poor Military


    Your offering the deaths of Paki troops as evidence of your

    efforts on the GWOT only highlights Paki failures, and/or

    incompentence at BEST.

    I have suggest a much more sinister paradigm,

    the Taliban are in fact Paki stooges.

    Paki's secret terrorist army.

    6 years of anti insuergent operatiuons

    and the 500,000 strong Paki army has

    managed to ceed 70% of Paki to the 

    Taliban. NOT MUCH OF A RECORD.

    NEW $7.5 billion in civilian aid pay outs:

    $3 Billion for Binnys head on a Stick.

    $2 Billion for big Z;s head on a stick.

    $2 Billion for Omars head on a Stick.

    0 for Sacrifices, Payment for Victorys only.


    All suicide attacks across Paki and all the Military 

    deaths are proof of comittment.

    NO that is proof of sacrifice,

    In the book Jaw Braker he talks ab out Taliban

    leaders that ordered their OWN troops into an Russian 

    ambush for the right price.


    Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: CIA tour-de-force