reply to post by schrodingers dog
Yes, I agree this release is a show of force.
I don't entirely agree with many of those who say there is nothing important in it. Some thoughts:
First of all, I don't trust them at all, and I don't trust the MSM who are reporting on it and saying it has little significance.
Hence I take with a pinch of doubt the official description of what Red Cell is, and its purpose.
Re the classification 'secret'/noforn. 'Secret' isn't such a high a classification, but noforn does mean it's not meant to be seen by a foreign
I think there are some things in the report which are 'embarrassing' for US in terms of its relations with its allies. For example, it openly
admits rendition, as opposed to extradition, (a very sensitive subject) and the co-operation of other countries in it.
The document admits that US has blackmailed/coerced other countries into agreeing to immunity for US citizens. This is pretty damning. It's one
thing to suspect it is happening, it's another to see hard evidence in the form of an admission.
It admits that US has used the leverage of 'recent' terrorist attacks within US to persuade other countries to release suspects into US custody (aka
rendition) but also admits it doesn't want to reciprocate.
As such it expresses an awareness of, and a wish to protect, a degree of US dishonesty and double standards in International dealings.
These may well be why it was classified NOFORN.
Given the level of 'secret', I do not believe this document confirms the existence of Al-Qaeda. Many believe, including myself, that AQ is a CIA
fiction. At 'secret' level, this would not be disclosed. I see this document as 'playing the game' as far as AQ is concerned. AQ's fictitious
nature would only ever be acknowledged at the very highest levels of secrecy - and probably in veiled terms at that. It would never be alluded to in
a document which merely has 'secret' classification.
I do see this as a CIA 'request' or 'support' for either more surveillance of the internet or more repression of the internet (under the pretext
of protection against terrorism/AQ). So, I think it's signalling that it is supports the Cabal's wish to suppress/survey the Internet more and
more, is willing to play the game and is providing ammunition for that.
The same applies to more restrictions on travellers - perhaps providing the Cabal with an argument to support something like the implementation of
iris scanning of all travellers - ostensibly to protect against (fictitious) terrorism, but expressing a willingness to support the Cabal's agenda to
control more and more.
As such it could be construed as a 'psychops' document, to prep the those who have lower level clearance and engage their support in such
It could even be a veiled threat - by hinting at its knowlege of US double standards in International relations and at the same time pointing out that
the internet risk re 'terrorism' - ie. justifying more illegal surveillance of citizens.
Diplomats/bureaucrats/politicians all have a language of their own, full of veiled references and subtle references. It would take someone in the know
to really point out the significance of the document, but I think there may well be more to it than meets the eye, and those who are 'in the know'
will be able to decipher it more accurately and will definitely understand its full implications.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by wcitizen]