The children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus was staged by U.S. Intelligence

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


My take is this.. There is something very wrong with Syria and the urgency to go to war without undeniable proof, and the US track record with "telling the truth" is laughable at best. Secondly we are all agreed that these hacked messages can be tampered with..
Well my suggestion is, what if the messages are correct but the wording has been altered to make it sound as if it was translated by a foreigner.

The classic double bluff that steers everybody away from the truth! My gut and my money is on that.

Wives and husbands talk..then women gossip..men gossip..fact.

We are at a time where no lie or secret can be kept, and truth is coming out. What we are hearing now is just the beginning.

*and if you think ATS is exempt from disinfo merchants then im the prince of Persia*
edit on 14-9-2013 by vivid1975 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jedi_hamster
 





and if you would read the thread in RATS, you would see that i don't really care about his wife's emails. all that i consider important, are colonel's emails, especially the one from Eugene Furst, because those have digital signatures, that - when verified - are UNDENIABLE proof.


And they can be faked.

blog.trendmicro.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


BS. you obviously know nothing about digital signatures nor their security. signatures of those emails i've verified are displayed as valid and CA root used to verify them was downloaded directly from .mil site, so those signatures were really issued by US DoD and there is NO doubt about that.

if you're not very familiar with the technical aspects of this topic, don't even bother to try bashing this thread, this goes too far into my field of expertise.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by voyger2
 


I'm not disputing internal foreign affairs are not responsible for false flags. However, false flags doesn't necessarily mean false deaths. Mugging for the camera is just disinfo



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


if the US army/intelligence was responsible, the fact that it didn't really happen is the most probable scenario. think about it. if they would kill Syrian kids (not those of rebels), Assad and his people would certainly know and it would cause an outrage. if they would kill rebels - they would pretty much piss them off instead, and it was done not only to help US government's cause, but to help rebels in a result as well - they're going to be put in power when Assad gets removed, so they're 'friends'.

so, assuming that Assad's forces didn't do it (and there's no evidence that they did), it would have to be rebel kids that died - otherwise it would be known already. neither US army had an interest in killing them, nor - especially - rebels. so if Assad's forces aren't behind this whole mess, then it's a safe bet it didn't happen at all and the evidence was forged to frame Assad.

and disinfo is the primary tactic of US government since decades.
edit on 14-9-2013 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jedi_hamster
 


So you're saying the CIA/rebels aren't going to gas their own kids and Assad isn't mad enough so therefore no kids were gassed?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
wow! JUST WOW! This just went to categorie of LOL !!

wow


this say a lot ... about the search for the trutH around here.... ALL PROPOGANDA, EVEN HERE!!

you can TRY TO HIDE, BUT THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS GO REAL ABOVE SECRET
edit on 14-9-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


they wanted to create a false flag that would damage Assad's image in the strongest way possible, on the other hand they know things get out of hand for them, so in case of a leak perhaps.. why would US army need to kill those people?

there were mostly bodies, right? if they would really kill them, you can bet that a bunch of rebels acting as Assad's forces would kill them all in front of the camera, to increase the effect.
edit on 14-9-2013 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

jedi_hamster
reply to post by RobinB022
 

the ignorance and stupidity on ATS nowadays makes me want to vomit.


Irony personified.

I'm so glad the LOL forum was set up, it's the perfect place to come for a good laugh at people believing rubbish like these emails are real. It's just a shame that the backstories are so tragic.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Subterranean13
 


it's all about reading with understanding. my opinion on the attack being real or not isn't cemented, altough i have my doubts. Russia wouldn't submit evidence to the UN that the whole thing was faked, without being sure about it. also, i wouldn't trust MSF and others that blindely. MSF's co-founder was against Hussein, is against Iran and thinks that war, in the end, is an option. many public organizations, created to help people, have been spitting out outright lies. who said MSF cannot? is there an OFFICIAL confirmation by the UN, done after checking all the evidence at hand, submitted by all the sides, about what happened? not some back-stage rumours? because if there is none, then unless you've been there on the ground and saw it with your own eyes, you cannot be sure.

and those emails are about something else entirely, and that's what pisses me off beyond belief. people tend to cringe to that damn screens about colonel's wife's emails that could well be altered, while almost noone seems to notice the colonel's emails alone, the fact that they look real and the fact that what they suggest is not that it didn't happen - that isn't clarified - but that the US army was behind that. and THAT is the most important point of this whole subject, a point everyone seems to ignore.

but of course, US government caught red-handed on staging a false flag to get rid of Assad isn't something some of you would like to see on TV, is it?
edit on 16-9-2013 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
The big problem with these sources is that emails can be faked rather easily, so regardless if they are real or not we wont her the better end of it



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jedi_hamster
 


forgive me for not being super familiar with digital signatures, but if someone hacked the emails and had access to them, could they send emails back and forth (i.e. the hacker sending and responding from another person's email) and it would still have the digital signature?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kangajack
 


digital signatures CANNOT be faked.

reply to post by ML8715
 


no. yahoo accounts were hacked, not the military account - to log in there, the hacker would need the smart card (CAC) of the colonel, which stores his digital certificate and acts as an authorization card when using military email account. and you can bet he doesn't have that card - if he would have it, military wouldn't have to say a word, but you can be sure that they would revoke colonel's certificate so when verified online, it would be displayed as invalid. that is not the case. and the most important email comes from Eugene Furst, so the hacker would actually need his certificate to fake that one. also, regardless of email account and the way of accessing it, you need the certificate to sign the email - if you forward a message, the signature becomes invalid and you have to regenerate it. every single change of the email contents invalidate the signature - it doesn't matter that the messages are stored as plain text in those .eml files, the signature acts as a checksum signed with sender's certificate, which cannot be faked.

so unless one would hit the sender in the head and stole his certificate - which isn't the case, because DoD didn't revoke those signatures, neither colonel's, nor Furst's - when the signature is verified as valid, the email contents ARE real and couldn't be tampered with.

the only issue we're facing right now with this is that it isn't easy to verify signatures on colonel's mail, because the messages were damaged by yahoo mail service. i've managed to restore some of them to their original form and validate them as real, but all of them were sent from colonel's military email to his yahoo email. the crucial email we need to validate, comes from Eugene Furst, and i didn't validate it yet, nor for example a notification email from AKO - which isn't important, but was sent from different military email account as well. the exact form of email headers and so on, depend on email client used and its configuration, and because all that original structure was destroyed by yahoo, it's a matter of changing the headers and encoding to all possible combinations that could be used in original message - if by a chance one particular combination gets the signature to verify successfully, you can be certain you've 'guessed' the original contents before they were damaged by yahoo. also, all the emails with attachments cannot be verified, because yahoo destroyed some of the headers (one of multipart separators) and that cannot be undone. luckily, email from Eugene Furst doesn't contain any attachments, just the signature.
edit on 16-9-2013 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join