Originally Posted by SDW2001
That is a very good point. My assumption this is yet another planned leak to distract from what's really going on. It's my contention that the government has monitored all electronic communication for at least 30 years. Phones. Internet. Content...of everything.
Obviously "the government" monitors electronic communications - but since >99.99xxxxxx% of electronic communications is unrelated to terrorism, and the (highly unlikely) "terrorism signal is constantly overwhelmed by noise, filters are employed to catch any material that might be considered 'hot'. Then human beings look at it.
BUT - despite the fact that it is impossible, on account of manpower limitations to analyze and act on all this data in real time, this does not prevent the storage of this vast history of digital interaction and communication between the member of the public, for further analysis if and when required.
This may be useful in prosecuting a crime, where past communications reveal motive or intent, or a certain attitude, or links with others who may have also committed crimes. However, this vast database of material could become a powerful instrument of abuse in the hands of "a government" which has become even more paranoid than the current batch. And we have all heard that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Even before the advent of mass digital communication, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the 1970s and 1980s - for a notorious example - would employ simple and effective security measures to prevent their plans from leaking to the British authorities: they would hold operational/planning meetings out in the country, such as a farmer's barn or a picnic area; somewhere where there was no chance of their being eavesdropped. Communication by phone was forbidden to avoid conversations being tapped, and written plans were delivered via trusted couriers, to avoid being intercepted in the postal system. REAL terrorists are abundantly aware that if they use modern electronic digital or digitized protocols, their plans to stage an attack would be *severely* compromised at best. The IRA used to strike anywhere in Northern Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe with impunity. It was extremely rare (virtually unknown) for their terrorist operatives to be apprehended by the authorities while planning, or carrying out an attack. Bearing this in mind, why would genuine terrorists resort to the internet, cellphone etc. to build and plant a bomb somewhere, knowing they were being monitored, unless they were trying to deliberately get busted. The terrorist "mentality" is a mess, for sure - ie using violence against a civilian population for political gain - but surely they are not completely stupid? The IRA certainly wasn't, and neither is MEK in Iran, or al Qaeda in Syria and Libya, who use flash drives and other erasable media, and like the IRA in the 1970s/1980s use trusted couriers to transfer plans from operative to operative.
Do you have any evidence our government has done that? You raise this issue of false flags constantly. But "false flag" is really just code for "our government plans and carries out terrorist attacks against American citizens." Isn't that what you really believe?
It's impossible to bust "elements within the government" for a false flag operation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Who would bring the charges - the FBI? Who would prosecute the case - the DoJ? Uhhhhh..... no. lol.
But we do know that the intent has certainly been there, for one example involving the military itself at the highest level: Operation Northwoods, which would have probably gone ahead had President Kennedy signed off on the plan - instead he nixed it. Another example involving the US intelligence community was undoubtedly carried out, and its legacy is still ongoing today: Operation Gladio. Then there was the Tonkin episode, a false flag-propaganda variant or hybrid, in which a non-existent attack was fabricated by "the government" and reported in the popular media - and public support for war in Vietnam soared. (Mission accomplished!) Another variation on the false flag theme was foisted upon the US public after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - in which DC based PR company Hill and Knowlton manipulated a young lady named "Nariyah", who turned out to the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US - in which she tearfully recounted a bogus, fabricated story at the United Nations - in front of gathered world media, of Iraqi troops "ejecting Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators leaving them to die on the cold hospital floor". Previous to this broadcast, the US public was disinterested in going to war against Iraq. Afterwards, with our emotions played like so many violins - we were gung-ho to go in there and kick former US ally Saddam Hussein's ass... with some 90% approval! Bingo! Mission seriously accomplished with 5 stars. In that same build-up period, stories were being broadcast of Iraqi tanks lined up in the desert to invade Saudi Arabia... the US' main source of mid-east oil, also used to "justify" Operation Desert Storm. This was also a fabrication - Soviet satellite photos of the time in question revealed an empty desert - not a single Iraqi tank or troop anywhere near the Iraq-Saudi border!
The "false flag" spectrum covers anything from actual terror attacks resulting in death and destruction, to fabricated events for psychological/propaganda purposes; the universal purpose being to get the public on the side of the authorities, whether its to wage war overseas, or shock and awe us into voluntarily signing away our rights and freedoms, on the pretense of being 'protected from some vague, or ill defined danger'.
As another thought, it is unrealistic, when discussing false flag attacks, to talk about "the government" doing it. It only takes 20 people or less to pull off an attack, and with the compartmentalization system, the operatives know only their part in the operation - nobody else's - and therefore are unlikely to blow the whistle. It is commonplace for those who are skeptical of such events to claim that "the government" is to incompetent to pull something off like a terrorist attack. This is a false premise from the start - with no more credibility than claiming "the Jews run the world's economy". As I said, it only takes, 5, 10, 20 or less, and 20 people is *not* "the government" (!!!!) but a tiny, rogue, element employed within it, with the paramilitary expertise and capability, and privileged access to succeed.
OK... now I've said all this, and my ISP and location, and my identity is clearly visible to the NSA. This little rant - alongside the contents of this entire bb is now stored on a server, for future collation - and in a future dystopian United States, may be used against me in some fabricated trumped-up case, if the powers that be decide they don't like what I write. Do I care? Do I hell. If I was paranoid, like "our" government appears to be becoming, I would remain below the radar and bottle up my first amendment rights of freedom of expression.... as many people now do. Screw the National Security Agency and their army of brownshirts and trolls; and the same sentiments go to "President" Obama his administration appear to be more of a national disgrace/liability than an asset. He has violated his oath to "protect the US and its Constitution"... on multiple counts. Same goes for Feinstein and company.
America needs to clean house, as Abraham Lincoln exhorted us to do in times like this....