It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants - Angry yet?

page: 8
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne



Look man, I already showed you how ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with controlling the Internet, I work in the sector, you aren't going to tell me how it works. They handle DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS. Do you know what that is? It's how they relate the NAME (www.example.com) to the IP address that is assigned to you through the ISP (private company) that provides you an IP, nothing else whatsoever. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree here... I leveled your argument, and you keep hopping around using strawman arguments to skip over the fact that you are wrong. "Rebooting" the Internet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the trillions of bytes stored on INDIVIDUAL servers across every private company in the world. The GOVERNMENT does not OWN the servers! They sit in private locations, inside buildings, in some cases, with no access to the outside world. You're reading WAY too much into the word "reboot". It's a backup up plan, in case everything were to fail. You are talking nonsense and using terms that make no sense. I'm not going to keep arguing your vacuous points with no sources to back them up. The sources you have provided actually contradict your claims, and I've shown that.


But you are being misleading. Who cares who owns which servers when they all agreed to be controlled by the government?
You mislead by saying that the government does not have control over all the servers, they don't need to when they can monitor all internet traffic. You claim to be an IT person, please tell us all what the government cannot see. Please tell us all what the government cannot read that is on the internet. If they can read everything then what makes you think they will not if they find a reason to? Do you believe foreign countries do not have the same technology? If you do then you are not very good at IT.

Let us assume that everything on the internet can be viewed. Now what? How should people deal with that is the question.




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


well, interestingly, there has been a push from the International Community for the US to turn over control of the Internet to the ITU. But as of last year it didn't happen from what I understand(not giving POTUS any credit for not doing it, seeing as how he signed on to NSA spying).


But some are calling for the treaty to be given more than a quick modernisation. Some nations are calling for control of the internet's technical specifications to be taken away from a select group of non-profit US companies, and handed over to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU).



But Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT, doesn't agree. "The United States believes that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the health and growth of the internet and all of its benefits," he said.



According to the site, Russia is one nation that is pushing for control of, at least some of, the internet to be handed over the UN.


www.wired.co.uk...

I guess the KGB(or whatever it is today) would love to have the UN controlling the Internet.


edit on 16-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AQuestion
 


well, interestingly, there has been a push from the International Community for the US to turn over control of the Internet to the ITU. But as of last year it didn't happen from what I understand(not giving POTUS any credit for not doing it, seeing as how he signed on to NSA spying).


But some are calling for the treaty to be given more than a quick modernisation. Some nations are calling for control of the internet's technical specifications to be taken away from a select group of non-profit US companies, and handed over to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU).



But Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT, doesn't agree. "The United States believes that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the health and growth of the internet and all of its benefits," he said.


www.wired.co.uk...



Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

You got a star from me. Even if we turned over the technical control of the internet, we still own it and can see everything on it. We are not giving that up. We have created a series of non-profit organizations to manage aspects of the internet and all are under contract with the military or some other governmental organization. I ask my systems people simple questions, I shall ask it here. If you were the President, how would you oversee the internet, would you look for terrorists, would you look for criminals or would you waste your time figuring out who was cheating on their spouse?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


The governmnet is light years ahead of what the public knows and uses. The military gave us the internet and it is wise to assume they retain either a)ownership b)control or c)both. I personally do NOT trust the government or corporations for my privacy.


The military does not OWN the Internet! You all are failing to grasp the concept of what the Internet actually is! It is a NETWORK of tens of THOUSANDS of computers and routers, most of which are owned by the private sector, NOT the government. Yes, the Government has a kill switch, we already knew this, it is nothing new. This is not the subject that is up for debate here, the LEGALITY of it is the issue.


How did libya and egypt shut down the internet during arab spring a few years ago? I bet all the root domains like .ca(canada) .uk(united kingdom) .fr(france) are government owned.


They shut down the Internet because all of the communications in those countries flow through a single pipe, so they just killed the pipe. Here in the US, we have several main pipes coming in, to Virginia, Miami, San Jose, Seattle. Go look up what a Data Exchange Point is. To kill all Internet traffic, they would have to cut off all of those pipes or drop a DNS bomb to wipe out all registered addresses, in which case, that is what the "reboot" is for.


Darpa is as scary as it gets man. I wouldn't mess with them, and I mean EVER! 512bit encryption is probably a minor inconvience at most for them when they can do individual inspection of single bits. Not to mention possible backdoor access to windows operating systems left intentionally open for "special occassions". I lost at least one computer that got bricked a day after everything was working normal. The computer technician spoke of a bios virus that corrupted everything.
edit on 16/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


I don't think you really understand how encryption works. You can't inspect single bits for anything, that is what encryption is. It is called bit-shifting, which is what the encryption key is for, to determine the algorithm to shift the bits. The cipher strength is how LONG the key is for encrypting the traffic. It would take MONTHS for the government to crack 512, so if you're going to split hairs over the number, everyone could use 2048-bit encryption and be hack proof until the year 2030 by today's most powerful computers. The larger the cipher, the more difficult to break, by orders of magnitude. I'm not saying it's unbreakable, I'm saying the time it takes to do it is beyond reason. That is the whole reason for the FISA warrants in the first place, is the time it takes the NSA to break the encryption key and decrypt data instead of having the companies that hold the keys do it for them.


Right now, a dedicated amateur using the published code (e.g. Msieve) may achieve a 512-bit factorization if he has access to powerful computers (several dozens big PC, and at least one clock full of fast RAM) and a few months of free time; basically, "dedicated amateur" means "bored computer science student in a wealthy university". Anything beyond 512 bits is out of reach of an amateur.

Summary: in your code, you can return "practically infinite" as cracking time for all key lengths. A typical user will not break a 1024-bit RSA key, not now and not in ten years either. There are about a dozen people on Earth who can, with any credibility, claim that it is conceivable, with a low but non-zero probability, that they might be able to factor a single 1024-bit integer at some unspecified time before year 2020.


Source

I know that there are a lot of buzz words being tossed around, and some very technical explanations of things, but it's ok if you don't understand, just ask questions and someone more experienced with a good understanding will answer you. I have nothing to gain by sharing this information with others other than to help them. The government is not "light years" ahead of everyone else, why do you think they still recruit and hire hackers in the private sector, hmmmm? Because, they are SMARTER and can do more than the Government can with fewer tools and less resources.

The Government is powerful, but it's made up of normal men and women.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


So who owns the root servers then? Who owns .us, .ca, .fr, .it, .mx, .uk, .ir, etc


How did egypt or was it libya shut down internet access throughout the nation


We are not talking about low level domains, we are talking about top level domains. Top level domains belong to the government and its operations can be outsourced to private parties.

Registering a low level domain is one thing, but the actual central hub is quite another thing.
edit on 16/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the post, because you are really starting to piss me off with your absolute ignorance.


Bottom line, they can not read encrypted traffic, which is why they get warrants, otherwise, why bother with the warrants. The servers are not all controlled by the Government, and the companies never once agreed to it, please show your proof of that, because the ONLY time they allow access to the servers is with a warrant.

To deal with it, use 2048-bit encryption keys for the things you don't want decrypted.

~Namaste
edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne



The military does not OWN the Internet! You all are failing to grasp the concept of what the Internet actually is! It is a NETWORK of tens of THOUSANDS of computers and routers, most of which are owned by the private sector, NOT the government. Yes, the Government has a kill switch, we already knew this, it is nothing new. This is not the subject that is up for debate here, the LEGALITY of it is the issue.


You are playing word games. Here is a simple question, if the government of the United States wanted to shut down the whole internet, could they?" Name another group that could that was not under contract to the government. The government does not control my servers; but, they could prevent my servers from accessing the internet and you know this.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by AQuestion
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the post, because you are really starting to piss me off with your absolute ignorance.


Bottom line, they can not read encrypted traffic, which is why they get warrants, otherwise, why bother with the warrants. The servers are not all controlled by the Government, and the companies never once agreed to it, please show your proof of that, because the ONLY time they allow access to the servers is with a warrant.

To deal with it, use 2048-bit encryption keys for the things you don't want decrypted.

~Namaste
edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

Be truthful, they don't need warrants. Haven't you read the news or what Google, Microsoft and Facebook have said? Read the court cases, they don't need warrants. Get it and be as pissed off as you wish, only you have control over that. Encryption has nothing to do with getting a warrant. You may understand computer systems; but, you do not understand the law. One of my American Jurisprudence Awards is in Constitutional law what is yours in? I may not like what is going on and I may not think it should be legal; but, the courts and precedent say it is.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
[more
ch
I think most of this discussion about root servers and central hubs is completely missing the point.
The Domain Name central servers are irrelevant - aside from the access of typical users' ability to get to internet sites. The internet domain name resolution for the entire Southern US can be neutralized due to an outage in a router room at Georgia Tech - still, IP communications remain available even though it appears that "the internet is down" to most users.

Surveillance access happens at the backbone level - concurrent radio streams from satellites, microcode in digital switches, back channels from COMSAT (and other) major communications satellites - PLUS -
there are a number of internet routers managed by various alphabet agencies that "listen in" as well.

A number of years ago (1994) I was employed by a data center at the INFOMART in Dallas. One hop away all of our net traffic went through an extremely fast NSA node located a few blocks away - you could watch the intercept with a trace route command if you were quick enough and had physical access.

ganjoa



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


So who owns the root servers then? Who owns .us, .ca, .fr, .it, .mx, .uk, .ir, etc


There is an organization, sometimes several, responsible for them in each country. You can find the list HERE


How did egypt or was it libya shut down internet access throughout the nation


Because in both Egypt and Libya, the registration for those root domains is controlled by a University (Egyptian Universities Network (EUN) Supreme Council of Universities and American University of Beirut Computing and Networking Services), so they just marched in and turned the root name server off, or took control of it and tuned off the domain. That's not how it works for .COM of .NET or our domains here in the US, because those are controlled by Verisign, which is a private company. Granted, if there was a national security issue and our Government wanted to, they could do the same thing, but it would be unprecedented.


We are not talking about low level domains, we are talking about top level domains. Top level domains belong to the government and its operations can be outsourced to private parties.


It doesn't matter unless it's .GOV or .MIL because those are government owned registrars. The others are not.


Registering a low level domain is one thing, but the actual central hub is quite another thing.
edit on 16/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


No disagreement there.

The Internet here in the US was designed to be decentralized, so that information would still flow in the event of an attack on one segment of the network. The government has their own set of networks that they use which are completely separate from the ones that are for public use. That is how the Internet came to be what it is today. The same folks who constructed the networks for the military and government moved into the private sector and took jobs building the same types of networks for businesses. Understanding how it works is not trivial or simple, which is why I'm trying to distill it down.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
For the first time in my life, I am absolutely speechless! We were told it was going to get much worse, and look at this! Just look!


ezinearticles.com...?&id=890891


How did every one forget the patriot act, signed after 9/11? This is not new nor was it a secret.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Where was the outrage when this was codified


en.wikipedia.org...



On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927 ) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110–55 , S. 1927 ) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.[37] --snip---- A summary of key provisions follows. The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met: There are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications); The acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications; A significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and Minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.


This is when FISA was made "easier"



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This is the problem with such overburdening secrecy.

We have a lawmaker specifically asking a very particular question and getting two different answers. That may be what gets hits and sells newspapers (those that are left,) but the real problem in my view is that the question has to be asked at all.

If there is so little oversight and such carte blanche inherent to these programs that the question of whether unconstitutional warrantless phone surveillance is taking place needs to be asked by lawmakers, then there is effectively no oversight except by those behind closed doors. Which means literally anything could be happening, and we would never know.

This is the real issue here in my opinion. Peace.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Thanks for explaining it. You probably know much more about computer networking than me. I think under the national security pretense companies that control and operate the central hubs could have the means to decrypt data extremely fast with supercomputers, so it would not be a matter of 20 years but a much shorter span.

Anyway the NSA has its own supercomputers that encrpyt and decrypt messages 24/7. Project Echelon is not fiction. Supposedly they specialise in foreign surveillance but after the patriot act and ndaa anything is possible, if not likely.

I am not sure exactly what we disagree on, because apparently we agree on almost everything.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by AQuestion
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the post, because you are really starting to piss me off with your absolute ignorance.


Bottom line, they can not read encrypted traffic, which is why they get warrants, otherwise, why bother with the warrants. The servers are not all controlled by the Government, and the companies never once agreed to it, please show your proof of that, because the ONLY time they allow access to the servers is with a warrant.

To deal with it, use 2048-bit encryption keys for the things you don't want decrypted.

~Namaste
edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

Be truthful, they don't need warrants. Haven't you read the news or what Google, Microsoft and Facebook have said? Read the court cases, they don't need warrants. Get it and be as pissed off as you wish, only you have control over that. Encryption has nothing to do with getting a warrant. You may understand computer systems; but, you do not understand the law. One of my American Jurisprudence Awards is in Constitutional law what is yours in? I may not like what is going on and I may not think it should be legal; but, the courts and precedent say it is.


Cite some of those cases Mr. Jurisprudence... I'll put it against my PhD in Information Technology any day of the week.


You have to be one of the thickest people I've seen on here. I don't care what you know about law, you know nothing about technology, that much is apparent.

The government can not decrypt strong encryption, so they issue a warrant to get the company that houses the encrypted data to decrypt it for them. I have seen the warrants myself, I have even helped to provide the data for audits when necessary, and like I said before, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. They MUST have a warrant to ask for decrypted data because they can't force a private company to violate the privacy of its customers by providing their data, and if you had any basis in law, you would not be arguing this. It's almost as if you aren't reading anything I've said. The legal teams that I have worked with in every case, always push back as much as possible on the Federal agencies because of how complex the infringement on privacy is, but nobody will spend the money to take the Feds on in a Federal lawsuit when they have almost unlimited funds.

I'm starting to think you're filling an agenda....

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne



You have to be one of the thickest people I've seen on here. I don't care what you know about law, you know nothing about technology, that much is apparent. The government can not decrypt strong encryption, so they issue a warrant to get the company that houses the encrypted data to decrypt it for them. I have seen the warrants myself, I have even helped to provide the data for audits when necessary, and like I said before, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. They MUST have a warrant to ask for decrypted data because they can't force a private company to violate the privacy of its customers by providing their data, and if you had any basis in law, you would not be arguing this. It's almost as if you aren't reading anything I've said. The legal teams that I have worked with in every case, always push back as much as possible on the Federal agencies because of how complex the infringement on privacy is, but nobody will spend the money to take the Feds on in a Federal lawsuit when they have almost unlimited funds.


Wait, I know nothing about technology, how many people even know that ICANN exists? Nothing? You know nothing of the law. You have also failed to answer any of my questions. What organization other than the United States federal government or their contractors can shut down the whole internet? Answer that one question.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Thanks for explaining it. You probably know much more about computer networking than me. I think under the national security pretense companies that control and operate the central hubs could have the means to decrypt data extremely fast with supercomputers, so it would not be a matter of 20 years but a much shorter span.

Anyway the NSA has its own supercomputers that encrpyt and decrypt messages 24/7. Project Echelon is not fiction. Supposedly they specialise in foreign surveillance but after the patriot act and ndaa anything is possible, if not likely.

I am not sure exactly what we disagree on, because apparently we agree on almost everything.


I wish I could explain it better!


I really don't disagree with you on your points Citizen, they are very valid and good topics to discuss. I just don't want anyone to misunderstand how things work, because misunderstand the facts can be worse than not knowing them at all.

There are supercomputers that run around the clock to decrypt things, I don't dispute that, but if it takes 3 months to crack something, compared to 72 hours to get a warrant and another 72 hours to turn over every shred of data someone has, which would you pick? The NSA has all of the encrypted data, but mathematically, you still have to compute each possible key to the encryption, which is mostly a matter of CPU clocks. It still takes a good amount of time, even with extremely fast and powerful computers, but that doesn't mean it isn't being done.

At the end of the day, if they really want to invade your privacy, they can, and there is little we can do about it, warrants or not. If you want to protect your data, keep it locally and encrypt it using 1024 or 2048-bit keys.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


I've been mad for a while, I was called a nutbag two years ago when I tried to tell people they are watching us on Facebook, watch when the # comes out about cameras in smart TV's and relaying that info via smart meters watching you and recognizing your face! You don't have to have a smart meter for your TV to talk to the neighbors smart meter! This is just the tip of the iceberg!



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


So you are making the case that the NSA does not have backdoor methods, and they ONLY perform surveillance on foreign entities, especially after patriot act including ndaa?



Domestic "threats" exist for the ptb, just like foreign threats exist. I would be suprised if they did not store messages and phone calls for future use.

You are stuck on the "you need a warrant" issue which is academic nonsense imho!



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Is this really a surprise? No. We can safely say that the whole PRISM is no surprise in the least. An intelligence service will take all the information they can get and it is in the nature of intelligence service to think backwards. Basically everyone is a suspect until proven and if they are not a suspect they might become an obstacle if they do not do what you want. Therefor you must know everything there is to know about everyone when you are an intelligence service.

What is different about the NSA and their PRISM program is the scale of searching as well as the focus. The behavior of intelligence agencies is largely dictated by a balance of trust on various levels:

1) The trust between one country and another.
2) The trust between the ruling party of a country and its competitors.
3) The trust between the government and its citizens.

In the traditional way an intelligence service of a country focuses on hostile countries and there allies and mildly focuses on its allies and neutral countries. During the cold war for instance there was large spy traffic going on between the democratic countries and the communist countries. This is a bit paranoid but reasonable healthy response since both were in a cold war situation.

When things slide however and an imbalance appears internally the intelligence service shifts its scope and targets. Not only are external threats in own land and abroad being targeted, the whole meaning of 'threat' changes. No longer is a threat a definable target with deeper motives and higher goals, the target and its motives become far more abstract. Motivation changes from reasonable suspicion into general suspicion. From 'communist radical' or 'Islamic fundamentalist' to 'anyone who can harm the government'.

This general approach is nothing new and is in fact well used in the past. The Gestapo, the KGB, the Stasi and even the inquisitors of the Roman church fall under these mantles. Such agencies arrive whenever governments become detached from their own base and it is usually caused by fear. In the case of the Roman church it was the fear of rivaling religious movements, the Gestapo of anti Nazi sympathizers, the KGB and Stasi of capitalistic collaborators.

When 9/11 happened this caused a general fear in the United States as well as in its government. Fear caused people to be 'aware' of plots like the bombing in London for instance or more recently the Boston bombings.Reason declined as fear took its place. Barriers that instituted trust got broken down. Allied nations and neutrals could no longer be trusted, they could be slacking of and missing vital information of insurgents in their lands. Average Joe could no longer be trusted, he could be an Islamic convert ready to make bombs. Laws were pushed (the infamous Patriot act comes to mind).

Now power is a funny thing, when you get a taste of it you want more and the more you get the further you want to reach to get it. PRISM existed a long time before it actually did. the NSA was probably well capable to spy upon the worlds population the way PRISM worked far longer then PRISM is active. But 9/11 allowed them to set up PRISM. To check what everyone is doing and then to effectively filter it using AI programs and search filters. That information is multi-usable. It can be used to find out who is posting Jihad video's on youtube but it can also be used to know what adult websites a senator watches. What black business a judge is doing and what new technologies a corporation in an allied country is making.

Such power used well needs disciplined minds and unfortunately that is not a strenght humans have (I have not met a single human with that capacity EVER). So naturally the NSA would use such power to 'liberate' more power. I expect them to spy upon us using webcams and things like the Kinect of the XBoX One that conveniently needs to be always online and is in the hands of an American company that has already cooperated with the NSA compliances in the past and has, in fact, no choice due to laws pressed in the Patriot Acts wake.

The real question is if the United States government can actually still rolls this back. The government probably doesn't care about its own civilians being spied or that the trust between its allies is gone as long as its own power is still in tact. But soon the NSA will use its resources to contest and influence that power even more then it already has and then the 'land of the free' will be just another totalitarian state with a nice pasta sauce over it.

When the terrorist attacked on 9/11 they did so because of the US influence in their countries and because they were opposed to the principle of freedom and free expression. Wake up and smell the coffee; The terrorist of 9/11 got what they wanted; the USA is no longer a free country, it is becoming they gray mass of corruption. Power demands discipline, control and restrained not the ill advisory of fear. Still, its your choice too make.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join