SEARCH

Loading...

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Commando Team Wiped Out in Afghan Crash?

31 Americans, 7 Afghans killed in helicopter crash

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos. It was the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

http://news.yahoo.com/31-americans-7-afghans-killed-helicopter-crash-145151275.html

Never miss an opportunity to sell war propaganda. Instead of just telling us about the news, right there in the first paragraph we have to pull out the ghost of Bin Laden again.

Sometimes, when I hear news like this, I wonder if a crash even happened at all. It's not like our troops aren't in harm's way though, so let's not go too far off the ranch here, and go ahead and assume this crash did indeed occur. That the Chinook helicopter a group of commandos were flying in, was shot down by an insurgent rocket. But let's take a closer look at what's being reported here.

In the opening paragraph, they lead us to believe that the men who were killed are the same "heros" who killed Osama bin Laden. Indeed, that is what everyone is talking about. That the heros of the BinLaden raid have been murdered by the Taliban. Well, that's pretty convenient that the men who supposedly killed BinLaden are now dead too. After all, dead men tell no tales. And if you think Bin Laden was killed in that raid, then I will tell you about how my buddy just killed Bigfoot in Japan.

But digging a little deeper we see that the information about who was actually killed in the downing of the helicopter during a raid on insurgents, comes from unnamed sources. In other words, it could be completely fabricated. A yarn spun to pull at the heartstrings of Americans.

One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included more than 20 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by a crew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified.

That's not all I smell.
The Associated Press leaves themselves a back door here though when they add:

None of those killed in the crash is believed to have been part of the SEALs mission that killed bin Laden, but they were from the same unit as the bin Laden team.

Ok, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did!

Let's just see if there's anything missing!!!
But how about that Seal Team Six anyway? Oh, you mean that Seal team that doesn't exist? Oh, I get it, super-secret elite group, like our very own Al-Qaeda right? So secret they keep making headlines around the globe. Well, maybe Seal Team Six probably exists, they just can't tell us much about them right?

Naval Special Warfare Command is organized into the following configuration:

  • Naval Special Warfare Group 1: SEAL Teams 1, 3, 5, 7
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 2: SEAL Teams 2, 4, 8, 10
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 3: SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team 1
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 4: Special Boat Teams 12, 20, 22
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 11: SEAL Teams 17, 18 (formerly Operational Support Teams 1, 2)

You know what I don't see there? A Seal Team Six.They might as well be telling us about the further adventures of the elite G.I. Joes.

Now just to be clear here. I am not trying to undermine the real tragedy here. I have close family in Afghanistan at this very moment, and have lost friends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Losing that many men in a single incident is a terrible loss. And they may very well have been elite forces as well, making it a severe blow to a small community of America's most prized operators. But just the same, let's not smear the tragedy with a face full of bullshit from the propaganda machine.

In case you missed the inline link above, be sure to check out:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Monday, July 25, 2011

Homeland Security spreads more crazy conspiracy theories

ABC News spreads lies on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, to keep Americans living in fear and wiling to hand over more billions of dollars to fund our own Orwellien enlsavement. The article begins...

Sabotage by an insider at a major utility facility, including a chemical or oil refinery, could provide al Qaeda with its best opportunity for the kind of massive Sept. 11 anniversary attack Osama bin Laden was planning, according to U.S. officials.


A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks.


Well, if they know this for a "fact" then why haven't we heard about any arrests in this plot of Bin Laden's ghost? Well, gee, because...

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement there was no specific threat.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

New World Order initiation video

Satire, propaganda, or hiding in plain sight? These nefarious sorts have a long history of hiding in plain sight. Is this yet another example of them publicly declaring their agenda?




Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Two articles that debunk the myth...

Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear


The idea that an individual can live in a surveillance society with nothing to fear so long as they have nothing to hide may, on the face of it, appear attractive. For those of us who think of ourselves as 'honest' - we pay our taxes, don't commit murders and are loyal to our partners - why indeed should we fear surveillance?


"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:

Full article at link:

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html



Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'


When the government gathers or analyzes personal information, many people say they're not worried. "I've got nothing to hide," they declare. "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private."


The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. The data-security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the "most common retort against privacy advocates." The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as an "all-too-common refrain." In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal, thus making the contest with security concerns a foreordained victory for security.


The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums. One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for national-security purposes, declares: "I don't mind people wanting to find out things about me, I've got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government's] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!"


The argument is not of recent vintage. One of the characters in Henry James's 1888 novel, The Reverberator, muses: "If these people had done bad things they ought to be ashamed of themselves and he couldn't pity them, and if they hadn't done them there was no need of making such a rumpus about other people knowing."

Full article at link:


http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Trooper cuts off motorcycle, biker to face charges

Southeast, NY - A motorcyclist is still alive and in stable condition at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut, after hitting the right side of a New York State Police patrol vehicle, a guardrail, and then being thrown from his bike at high speed. 20-year old Matthew Hillman was rescued from a ditch by firefighters.

News reports indicate that a State Trooper positioned on a center-median in Fishkill, NY clocked the bikes at 100-mph, but was unable to pursue and then radioed ahead to another patrol to intercept the dual menace. That patrol engaged the first bike which passed by, cutting off the approaching second motorcycle, when the crash occurred.

The injured biker will face charges.

Wait, what? What about the Trooper? The Trooper must have known that there were two bikes to be on the lookout for to begin with. Second of all, just because someone is speeding, does not give the police the right to pull out in front of them and cause a wreck. Particularly with a motorcycle, which could easily cause a fatality.

And for that matter, we don't even know if the biker was actually speeding at that point. Okay, so maybe they were clocked at 100-mph in the next county, that is no proof that the biker was speeding when the police-patrol vehicle deliberately collided with him.Hard to imagine anyone actually surviving a 100-mph impact on a bike.

But maybe it was just an accident. Maybe the Trooper didn't actually see the second biker coming down the long stretch of interstate highway, at night, with his headlights on. Maybe the biker really was going so fast the Trooper didn't see him in time before pulling out and cutting him off by accident.

Somehow, I doubt that. I really don't care so much that the biker was running out his machine a little in the middle of the night on an open stretch of highway. I am far more concerned that a State Trooper appears to have tried to kill him because of it.

Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

One of the main sticking points by the lynch-mob couch-lawyers that Casey should have been hanged, is the supposed computer search for information on chloroform. During the trial the prosecution claimed that Casey had searched the term 84 times, based on the testimony of their computer expert John Bradley. Now it appears that not only was that information false, but that the prosecution knew that it was false, and never corrected the matter to the jury or shared the revelation with the defense.

This matter is not only a sticking point in the trial-by-media which still continues, but was in fact a primary reason that the prosecution intended to seek a death sentence against Casey. So not only did the prosecution let the jury believe that Casey had searched for chloroform 84 times, but they were going to execute her knowingly based on false evidence.

Was it really false evidence though? It does appear that the term was in fact searched one time from the Anthony home computer. But is that enough for a conviction? Is that enough to execute someone? I can tell you that I have searched chloroform a number of times since this trial, and on at least one occasion before the trial after I saw the movie The Vanishing. We also must consider too, who actually did the search.

Suppose this is why the State Attorney’s office has decided not to seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony? Casey's mother testified at trial that she put in a search query for chlorophyll, and mistakenly entered chloroform. As anyone who as ever Googled knows, when you begin to spell out a word, it pops up with a list of closely spelled suggestions. One click is all it takes to land you someplace other than where you searching originally, either mistakenly, or because a new topic or term catches your interest in the moment.

When clarifying the error in an interview with the New York Times...

The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

So, in a nutshell, the police used an incompetent programmer to design the software for their invesitgation, the prosecution used false evidence in order to prosecute someone and then did not disclose that fact to the defense when the programmer discovered an error, and were also planning to use that false evidence in order to execute someone. And you really want to give those people MORE power?

Say No To Cayleee's Law

Be sure to check out these two related articles from the big boys of media for more details:

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial

Casey Anthony Trial Witness John Bradley Backtracks After Blasting Prosecutors








POSTING GUIDELINES

When posting comments, please refrain from using obscenities or your comments will be deleted. Self-imposed censoring by inserting symbols to "bleep" your swear words is acceptable.

The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the MSMReview or November-Blue Enterprise. We encourage open discussion with a wide variety of viewpoints and the open sharing of information. Please feel free to leave comments and to engage in respectful debate.