'Anonymous' group a tool of the CIA?, page 1

I believe the CIA, Mossad, FBI, or some other shadowy alphabet government agency could not only be behind the information we've been seeing coming out of wikileaks - but they could also be behind, or encouraging, the internet group "Anonymous" which seeks to 'defend anonymous free speech'.


Former Pakistani General: CIA, Mossad behind WikiLeaks Reports

TEHRAN (FNA)- A former Pakistani army commander said that the disclosure of classified documents by the whistleblower site of Wikileaks is a US plot to create rift among friendly and neighboring states.

Whether or not wikileaks and anonymous were created by the CIA, or were hijacked by the CIA, or were legitimate operations that the CIA is using to steer public opinion, there is little doubt in my mind that the groups are, indeed, catalysts for something greater than their stated purpose.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said anonymity on the Internet is dangerous

Arguing that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous, Schmidt had reportedly said, "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you."

He also said governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a (verified) name service for people," he said. "Governments will demand it."

It's dangerous to not be able to identify me? Why? Where is the danger in that? Governments will DEMAND that internet users be identified? Why? Where will this demand stem from?

Last summer the FBI quietly established a special working group with U.S. intelligence and other agencies to identify and respond to cyber threats against the United States.

The bureau's justification for next year's budget, in which it has requested an additional 70 agents and more than 100 support personnel for its cyber division, says the task force "seeks to address cyber intrusions presenting a national security threat."

The budget justification says the task force will "develop a global view of information warfare activity; identify intelligence gaps; create a strategic framework to develop operations; de-conflict investigations and operations (and) generate timely intelligence."

Obviously the infrastructure for seeking out these online threats to "national security" has been in place for a couple years now if not more. All these letter agencies need now is someone or something to shed a public light on the cyber threats America is facing.

Link to quote...

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a bloggers' roundtable last month that cybersecurity was "the one area in which I feel we've been behind where I would like to be."

"The general public is not aware (enough) of the threats," he said. "People need to be sensitized to potential vulnerabilities"

Wikileaks is the perfect opportunity to get the public aware about the threats we face from the cyber domain. But where did their documents come from? Anyone can submit information to wikileaks. If the info is from Private Manning, how did a private get access to so many classified documents? Did someone maybe have foreknowledge that he would do what he did? Something doesn't add up, but let's forget about that, because according to a Rasmussen Poll, the Majority Of Americans Believe WikiLeaks Committed Treason.


Now whether or not the poll is accurate is another question, but don't let that stop you from believing that these internet 'bad guys' need reigning in. Not only does our country have classified information being sent around the globe via the web, risking our national security, but a second cyber threat has popped up in direct response to dealing with the first!

MasterCard.com has been taken down after a second distributed denial of service attack by Anonymous.

MasterCard's payment processing systems were affected during the first DDoS attack on Wednesday, with many consumers reporting that they were unable to pay for goods online. Businesses reported a corresponding drop in trade during that first attack.

You mess with classified information, and sure some citizens might get upset over the principle of the matter - but they'll move on with their life. People have short memories.

You mess with their money, though, and watch out. There's nothing a consumer society will condemn more than those who try to put the brakes on their consumerism. Can't buy gas? Can't play on e-bay? Can't Christmas shop? "It's those evil internet hackers, the anonymous ones. Damn that anonymity to hell." The people, and the government, soon will be seeking... no, DEMANDING, the END of internet anonymity.

And for what? What purpose does it serve?

A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

To sum this all up, whether or not there are alphabet agencies involved in this recent internet wikileaks/anonymous drama that's been unfolding before our eyes, we need to remain very vigilant about what direction these events are taking us.

I do believe there are tyrannical forces at work around the world, not always successful, but they are exerting their influence on people, on governments, and on corporations. To destroy anonymity, and thereby reducing open dissent, would be a step towards an Orwellian police-state. Could there be other motives to destroy net anonymity? Sure - I'd love to hear some ideas. All you have to do is find out WHO BENEFITS? Follow "the money" as it were.

And I'll leave you with this.

Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy...censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mightily little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked...

Contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; The most you can do is kill him.

- Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940

Originally posted by againuntodust

If the info is from Private Manning, how did a private get access to so many classified documents? Did someone maybe have foreknowledge that he would do what he did?

The commission investigating the terrorist attacks of 9/11 found that "poor information sharing was the single greatest failure of our government in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks,"

The State Department created something that went by the unlovely name of Net-Centric Diplomacy database, or NCD. The department stored classified information on the database right up to the top-secret level. Agencies across the government had access to State's information through their own secure networks. The Pentagon's network, created in 1995, was called the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, and was available to everyone from top officers in the Pentagon to troops in the field helping to track intelligence for their units. Read more: www.time.com...

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery

---

Good link. I somehow doubt, though, that the US relaxed themselves in the handling of confidential material in the post Cold War era, as the article asserts. I also doubt that there was any gap in sharing knowledge; in my opinion that was just a farce used to justify a.) inaction on 9/11, and b.) an increase in those agencies budgets. The government (and especially the military and alphabet agencies), despite enjoying the citizenry believing it, is not stupid. They rule the world.

reply to post by mr-lizard

---

no, i believe anon influences 4chan.

whether you want to admit it or not, is irrelevant.

reply to post by Myendica

---

I agree with you. The anonymous I'm referring to, are the members responsible for breaking the law in the name of freedom, those individuals behind the keyboard. All combined efforts require guidance; where did their guidance come from? We know the CIA is actively "luring" potential terrorists into pseudo-terror acts, posing themselves as a terror organization in order to provide guidance to would-be terrorists, and "cut them off at the pass", if you will.

No reason they couldn't do the same with a coordinated effort such as denial of service attacks.

reply to post by againuntodust

---

Well if you did your research, you'd find the attacks were 'organised' via collective discussion on public IRC channels and no single person made a decision.

I was witness to such a discussion and i can honestly say that no 'anonymous member' has any more control over anything than any other.

reply to post by againuntodust

---

I agree. When I was younger, 17-20, I had many run ins with operatives. It is rather scary how they infiltrate our younger citizens and warp their attitudes. They are very noticeable though. I feel the best we can do is inform and make people aware that we have a bunch of operatives running around trying to persuade you to do something you may not feel is relevant. Though when you see them as a "cool" guy, you feel you want to impress them, but this is not the case.. they are weak, which is why they feel the need to manipulate our younger generations. If I had known better, I would have hospitalized them. Governments think they can corrupt a minor, and get away with it.

Not to say they may not infiltrate us as older adults, just more noticeable to the younger ones.,.

sad

reply to post by mr-lizard

---

i dont think hes talking about control i think hes talking about influence.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by againuntodust

---

Well if you did your research, you'd find the attacks were 'organised' via collective discussion on public IRC channels and no single person made a decision.

I was witness to such a discussion and i can honestly say that no 'anonymous member' has any more control over anything than any other.

I can believe that to a degree... obviously some people have more control, reputation, ability, or knowledge; but the essence of what you're saying, I understand.

Influence needn't be an individual, rather a set of ideologies, somehow psychologically put into play. The psychology of human interaction, emotion and rationale can be used as a tool.

Massive Wave Of Resignation From Top Level Bankers. The Elite Are Loosing Their Grip or/and SHTF
  Posted 3 days ago with 187 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 14 days ago with 177 member flags

[HUGE] 300.000 Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto In Federal Court!
  Posted 9 days ago with 137 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 18 days ago with 85 member flags

The Greatest Conspiracy Ever Known - Tesla, The law of nature and modern existance.
  Posted 6 days ago with 82 member flags

10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 13 days ago with 77 member flags

Superbowl Halftime Conspiracy!
  Posted 17 days ago with 75 member flags

Millions of Pounds of TOXIC POISON to Flood US Farmland (READ PLEASE)
  Posted 1 days ago with 74 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: