Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Fascist USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Re: Fascist USA

    We don't need Russians to tell us how fcked up we are.....they should clean their own house.
    B0zkurt Hunter

    Comment


    • #42
      Re: Fascist USA

      So yet another black man is killed by police and no one is punished not even indicted. The justice system has been horrible in USA for a long time and you can see it in the ratio of the population which is in prison. The last two years have been a little different though. The disregard for human life has reached appalling levels and there is no question racism is alive and well in USA. It is so bad that it feels like the authorities are looking at all this injustice and reveling in it kind of like in your face.. To think that our neutered leaders are lecturing other countries about racism and injustice.. I do not think most people understand the irony of the fact that this is all happening under the "rule" of a black president, that the occupy movement happened under this liar's promise breaking terms. So what lessons have the American people learned from all of this? They elected republicans this time.. It is so sad to see so many fall for the same tricks over and over again.
      Hayastan or Bust.

      Comment


      • #43
        Re: Fascist USA

        Here is a great example of American corporate mentality in action without any regards to humanity.

        Congress could soon allow the benefits of current retirees to be cut as part of an agreement to address the fiscal distress confronting some of the nation’s 1,400 multi-employer pension plans.

        Several unions and pension advocates opposing the move, which would be unprecedented, say that permitting financially strapped plans to cut retiree benefits would violate the central promise of traditional pensions: that they would provide a defined benefit for life.

        “This proposal would devastate retirees and their surviving spouses,” said Karen Friedman, executive vice president of the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit group. “The proposal would also torpedo basic protections of the federal private pension law . . . that states that once benefits are earned they can’t be cut back.”

        Several of the nation’s large multi-employer pension plans are on a course that would leave them insolvent within a decade. If that occurred, the federal insurance fund that protects the retirement benefits of more than 10 million Americans in multi-employer plans could collapse.

        In a proposal made more than a year ago, a coalition of plan trustees and unions said the only way to salvage the most distressed pension plans without a government bailout is to allow them to cut retirement benefits before they run out of money. The reductions would be voted on by the trustees of individual plans, as well as retirees, under proposals now being negotiated by lawmakers. Advocates point out that the plan laid out by the coalition would leave pensioners in distressed plans with more than what they would receive from government pension insurance if their plans failed.

        “The plans that are headed for insolvency would have benefit cuts under existing law,” said Randy G. DeFrehn, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee on Multiemployer Plans. “At least this proposal would preserve benefits above existing law.”

        In recent weeks, negotiations over the proposal have heated up on Capitol Hill. Still, some key elements are unresolved, including a way to satisfy objections from UPS, which withdrew from one of the most distressed plans in 2007 but would be on the hook to make up for any pension cuts affecting its retirees.

        If those details can be ironed out, congressional aides said an agreement is possible before the current session of Congress ends this month.

        “Members are still discussing the details about a possible legislative solution to the multiemployer pension crisis and remain hopeful Congress will act before the end of the year,” said a bipartisan statement for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “Any decisions regarding how a possible solution might move through the legislative process will be made by leadership at the appropriate time.”

        Multi-employer plans are formed by businesses and unions that join forces to provide pension coverage for a wide range of working-class Americans from truck drivers to grocery store clerks and construction workers.

        Their finances have suffered over the past decade in large part because of stock market plunges and a decline in employment and union membership, leaving the plans with a growing share of retirees to current workers.

        Employees covered by the plan are part of a diminishing share of private-sector workers who are still covered by pensions that pay them a fixed percentage of their pay for the rest of their lives. The idea of allowing cuts to benefits now being paid to retirees is supported by some unions, even as it is adamantly opposed by others.

        “This is nothing less than a declaration of war by Congress on American retirees,” said R. Thomas Buffenbarger, international president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “Allowing cuts to existing retirees’ pensions is simply the wrong way to address the problems of a few troubled pension plans. . . . The long-standing promise of a secure pension system must not be overturned by unaccountable lawmakers in a lame duck session of Congress.”

        Since 1974, the federal law governing the nation’s private-sector pensions have prohibited cuts to the benefits of workers who have already retired — a precedent that is now endangered.

        Opponents have accused Congress of negotiating the deal “behind closed doors.” Also, while the general proposal has been aired in legislative hearings, they say the specific legislation now being hammered out has not.

        “Retirees, most of whom are living on modest incomes, have few alternatives, and no ability to plan for or absorb cuts in their benefits,” said Joyce Rogers, senior vice president of government affairs for AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans. “Before demanding reductions in the pension income of current retirees, Congress should first require the key stakeholders to take every possible action permitted under current law to restore their plans to solvency.”
        Hayastan or Bust.

        Comment


        • #44
          Re: Fascist USA

          Here is a great read.
          Hayastan or Bust.

          Comment


          • #45
            Re: Fascist USA

            While you were drinking eggnog on Christmas Eve, the National Security Agency released hundreds of pages of heavily redacted documents detailing instances of improper surveillance on U.S. citizens in the last 12 years.

            The batch of documents, stretching from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2013, was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. While some of the information was already publicly known, the reports shed more light on instances in which NSA employees either intentionally or unintentionally violated the law and collected the private data of American citizens.

            "These materials show, over a sustained period of time, the depth and rigor of NSA’s commitment to compliance," read a statement on the NSA's website. "By emphasizing accountability across all levels of the enterprise, and transparently reporting errors and violations to outside oversight authorities, NSA protects privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies."

            The reports include instances in which analysts conducted unauthorized surveillance on U.S. organizations with the mistaken belief they were authorized to do so; instances in which analysts willfully ignoredrestrictions on surveillance; and even instances in which analysts intentionally abused the system to gather data on spouses or love interests. Such cases apparently occurred enough to have earned the name LOVEINT.

            In one instance, an analyst who surveilled her own spouse was merely "advised to cease her activities." In another, an analyst "mistakenly requested" surveillance “of his own personal identifier instead of the selector associated with a foreign intelligence target." But the NSA maintained that employees who conducted improper surveillance were adequately held to account."

            Results returned from improper queries may be deleted, and the analyst who submitted the query may be subject to additional training or administrative action as appropriate," the agency said.

            The USA Freedom Act, which would have ended the NSA's controversial domestic call tracking program, died in the Senate earlier this year despite support from an unlikely alliance that included Facebook, the ACLU and the National Rifle Association.
            Hayastan or Bust.

            Comment


            • #46
              Re: Fascist USA

              TEHRAN (FNA)- David Barsamian, a leading Armenian-American radio
              journalist, believes that as a result of the good performance of
              alternative press, the young Americans don't pay attention to the
              propaganda of the corporate, mainstream media anymore.

              David Barsamian, who is the founder and director of Alternative Radio
              broadcast from Boulder, Colorado, tells Fars News Agency that the
              journalists in the United States don't need to be censored or
              monitored by the government, because they are accustomed to a
              full-fledged self-censorship.

              Mr. Barsamian says that the US government orchestrated a large project
              of media propaganda against its own people to rationalize and justify
              its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq: "[o]f course the case of Iraq is
              very instructive because it's almost like a textbook example of the
              uses of propaganda."

              "The population here in the United States was subjected to months and
              months of propaganda and the great danger that it posed to the United
              States; that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to events of
              September 11, and that he was somehow connected to the Al-Qaeda; all
              of these things were completely ludicrous and anyone that knew
              anything about West Asia and the history of Iraq and Saddam regime
              would have laughed at these assertions," he noted.

              David Barsamian is a radio broadcaster, writer and journalist who has
              conducted series of extensive, in-depth interviews with prominent
              progressive intellectuals and thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Edward
              Said, Howard Zinn, Eqbal Ahmad and Arundhati Roy. His radio program is
              broadcast on more than 150 radio stations across the United States and
              in other countries. The Institute for Alternative Journalism named Mr.
              Barsamian one of its "Top Ten Media Heroes."

              To discuss the workings of the mainstream, corporate media in the
              United States, the relationship between the White House and the mass
              media and the growing influence of the alternative media, FNA spoke to
              David Barsamian on the phone. The interview was conducted long before
              the US declared removal of the sanctions and normalization of ties
              with Cuba and, interestingly, Barsamian has a note to make in this
              regard. The following is the full transcript of the interview.

              Q: My first question is on the growth of progressive media in the
              United States. Why do you think the corporate media that are owned by
              multinational companies are pushing for an aggressive US foreign
              policy, advocating for new wars, military expeditions and trying to
              entangle the US government into new military adventures? How is it
              possible to counter such an approach taken by these corporate,
              mainstream media?

              A: Well, I wouldn't agree with your premise that it's the media
              corporations that are the catalysts for the US imperialist foreign
              policy. It's the other military corporations that have a much more
              major influence. The media play two roles in the United States. We
              have two types of media here. One is a Weapon of Mass Destruction to
              keep people's attention focused on the latest divorce in Hollywood,
              the marriage or the adoption of a Malawi baby and things like that.
              Then we have an elite media, which is the New York Times, National
              Public Radio, PBS, the Washington Post and other journals like that in
              general which support US interventions based on the feeling that the
              United States has a unique role to play in the world that no other
              nation can substitute for what the United States can do
              internationally. So the military corporations such as Lockheed Martin,
              Northrop Grumman, Boeing, United Technologies, Raytheon and all the
              others benefit greatly from the US militarism, conflict and war. The
              Middle East, your part of the world and West Asia are flooded with US
              arms. Hardly a month doesn't go by when there is some new arms deal
              negotiated between these military corporations and United Arab
              Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other feudal Persian Gulf
              monarchies.

              Q: You know that the majority of mainstream and elite media, as you
              put it, claim to be independent of the government and maintain that
              their editorial policies are not influenced by the authorities and
              those in power. Is it really the case that PBS, CNN, New York Times,
              Washington Post and NPR are free and independent outlets that
              contribute to the free flow of information regardless of what is
              dictated to them?

              A: Well, the rhetoric of course is that the corporate media are
              adversarial, confrontational, and even hostile to state power. But the
              evidence doesn't support that. They have embedded an internalized
              basic assumption such as the belief that the capitalist economic
              system is the only way you can organize an economy. They accept the
              role that the US has a right to intervene everywhere in the world, to
              have military bases anywhere in the world, to declare its interest
              anywhere in the world. They accept all of these things. They have
              internalized these embedded assumptions. And now the only disagreement
              they have is over tactics. I give you one example. The United States
              has imposed a unilateral embargo on the island nation of Cuba in the
              Caribbean for well over 50 years. It's routinely condemned in the
              United Nations by votes of 191-2, the two beings the United States and
              Israel. No other country supports this. Now, the New York Times, which
              is our best newspaper, had an editorial just a few days back,
              criticizing the Cuban embargo as now largely ineffective; that it is
              just window-dressing and that it is time for the embargo to end. New
              York Times supported the embargo for many many years and now that it
              sees it as ineffective, it's recommending that the Obama
              administration end the embargo. So that's the kind of a discussion
              that exists between the corporate and state. They criticize the
              tactics but not the strategy. So embargos are fine, unilateral actions
              by the United States are fine; but then occasionally, they are
              criticized as not being effective or being too extreme, for example.
              There are so many instances of this that I can talk about for the next
              three days. There's an enormous amount of hypocrisy between what the
              media claim to be doing and what they are actually doing. They are
              pro-imperialist, they are pro-capitalist, they are pro-US hegemony,
              and none of this has changed since the United States has become the
              global superpower.

              Q: How does the US government respond to the unpopular stories run by
              newspapers and magazines, including the intelligence and security
              revelations or articles and commentaries that are critical of the
              White House and Pentagon? What about the alternative media's coverage
              of the daily events and their reaction to the government's handling of
              the current affairs? We haven't seen cases of American newspapers
              being closed down or banned because of publishing what the White House
              people dislike, but they certainly have their own instruments of
              controlling the mass media and punishing the "wrongdoers." Am I right?

              A: Well; the answer to the first part of your question is that, state
              largely ignores the alternative media; it doesn't pay attention to it,
              but occasionally, it has to, as in the case with Julian Assange and
              Wikileaks; as in the case with Edward Snowden and the vast amount of
              information that he has made available to the people of the world in a
              very courageous act of independence and media freedom. So in those
              instances, in fact, the government tried to control the flow of
              information, claiming that national security was at stake and the
              media corporations should cooperate. Occasionally, the government has
              imposed censorship on different media during the release of the
              Pentagon papers, for example, when the Nixon administration tried to
              block the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing, but
              the Supreme Court ruled that the public had a right to know, and that
              this was an interference with the freedom of the press and so the
              Pentagon papers were in fact released.

              In other instances, I know of one in Guatemala when the US was
              preparing to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Jacobo
              Arbenz, the New York Times cooperated in not publishing the
              information it had that the US was going to stage a coup in Guatemala.
              There are other examples of this, but basically they don't have to
              impose rigid restrictions on journalists and editors, because the
              journalists and editors censor themselves. They are part of the power
              elite and part of the problem, and so they know the boundaries; they
              know the redlines; they know what can be reported on, and what can't
              be reported on. So, to give you an example of the catastrophic war in
              Iraq, I just heard yesterday on Democracy Now, which is an alternative
              news program here in the United States, that is based in New York,
              Phil Donahue was on - he is considered a liberal TV and radio talk
              show host - he said the Iraq War was a blunder. This is the limit of
              liberal criticism; it can be called a mistake, a tragedy, a blunder.
              Hayastan or Bust.

              Comment


              • #47
                Re: Fascist USA

                Just today, George W. Bush was interviewed on National Public Radio,
                and there was no question asking him if he should be indicted for war
                crimes and brought before the International Criminal Court for
                violating Iraq's sovereignty on multiple occasions. Well, according to
                liberals like Phil Donahue, this was a blunder. But I have to
                disagree. This wasn't a blunder. It was a war crime and the people
                responsible should be held accountable. We should have universal norms
                of justice. You cannot accuse one state of violating the sovereignty
                of another state; for example, the United States has taken a very
                virtuous position on Russian intervention in Ukraine and the
                annexation of Crimea, which was part of the Soviet Union until 1954
                when the then Ukrainian Prime Minister gave Crimea to Ukraine. So,
                that kind of intervention is considered illegal, criminal and has to
                be condemned, but when Israel invades or bombs other countries like
                Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon and continues to occupy the West Bank
                and carry out major human rights violations and war crimes, that's not
                considered worthy of attention by whoever is in the White House and
                none of the corporate media here report on these vast contradictions
                and hypocrisies. We don't need censors in this country. We censor
                ourselves.

                Q: So, do you think that these mainstream, corporate media are playing
                a role in paving the way for the US military adventures?

                A: They legitimize US intervention. They legitimize the capitalist
                economic system. They legitimize US hegemony and the fact that the
                United States has 735 military bases around the world. Many of them
                are in your part of the world, i.e. West Asia. That is the societal
                function of the media to provide the state with legitimacy and
                propagandistic base so that the citizenry and the American people will
                go along with the policies.

                Q: What's your viewpoint about the role the media in the United States
                played in explicating the tragedy that played out on September 11,
                2001 to the American people and giving rise to the Global War on
                Terror? There were massive demonstrations across the United States in
                the run-up to the occupation of Iraq and after that. There were also
                protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, but the Bush
                administration didn't pay attention to them and went ahead with its
                plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think that the media
                in the United States could play a role in preventing the two wars from
                happening?

                A: Of course the case of Iraq is very instructive because it's almost
                like a textbook example of the uses of propaganda. The population here
                in the United States was subjected to months and months of propaganda
                and the great danger that it posed to the United States; that Saddam
                Hussein was somehow connected to events of September 11, and that he
                was somehow connected to the Al-Qaeda; all of these things were
                completely ludicrous and anyone that knew anything about West Asia and
                the history of Iraq and Saddam regime would have laughed at these
                assertions. But they have a huge effect on the population and even
                though there were demonstrations against the launching of the war on
                February 15, 2003 - there were demonstrations all over the world,
                including in the United States, but Tony Blair - let's not forget him,
                he is a major war criminal - he, along with Aznar of Spain and Bush in
                Washington led the charge against Iraq and the consequences of that
                criminal action are being borne today by the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian
                people and the people of the Persian Gulf. It was not a mistake or
                blunder, but a war crime, and the people responsible for it should be
                held accountable.

                Let's talk about Iran, about your country. The United States media has
                been for many years conducting a virulent and incessant campaign of
                the demonization of Iran largely goaded by Israeli interests who see
                Iran as some kind of existential threat to Israel. So there has been
                lots of negative reporting on Iran in the corporate media here, and
                whenever Iran is discussed, it's always in negative terms: Iran
                refuses; Iran denies; Iran is not forthcoming; Iran is not living up
                to the IAEA treaty stipulation. One should say the United States is
                not living up to the IAEA stipulations. One of those stipulations is
                that it should be actively reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile. Our
                great President Barack Obama recently announced a $1 trillion, 30-year
                plan to modernize US nuclear weapons. It's in direct violation of the
                NPT. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons. We know that India has
                nuclear weapons. We know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They are
                not signatories to the NPT and are not being held accountable, but
                Iran which is a signatory and which has been engaging in negotiation
                is being held out for special criticism. Again, the hypocrisy here is
                absolutely mind-boggling.

                Q: I was about to touch upon Iran before you talked about it. The
                portrayal of Iran in the Western mainstream media is really lopsided
                and biased. Whenever there's talk of Iran in an American TV station,
                they show footages of a vast desert with camels running in them. They
                simply equate Iran with the Arab nations of the region and never
                screen anything about Iran's glorious past, its ancient culture and
                the contribution of the great Iranian poets, scientists and scholars
                to the global civilization. Why is it so?

                A: Well, people who are exposed to alternative media, like my program,
                and others such as Z Magazine, The Progressive and The Nation, have a
                different view of Iran from that which is laid out in the corporate
                media. This view, as you say, largely rests upon clichés and
                stereotypes about Iran and all the orientalist types of thinking which
                Edward Said brilliantly deconstructed in his classic work Orientalism,
                as well as in his Culture and Imperialism. So, the little information
                the general public gets about Iran is all negative, but there are a
                lot of other people who are tuned to the alternative media and
                understand that Iran is in fact a very old, ancient and rich
                civilization; you mentioned the great poetry. For example, Ahmad
                Shamlu, when he died a couple of years ago, thousands of people
                marched in his honor in Tehran. I visited his grave in Karaj. There
                were people honoring him, leaving flowers at his grave. The Iranian
                cinema is one of the world's best, and many Europeans, American,
                Canadian and Latin American people enjoy the great movies produced by
                the Iranian filmmakers.

                Q: How do you think it is possible to counter the hegemony of the
                corporate media in the United States and elsewhere? How is it possible
                to forge new channels for getting people exposed to the realities that
                are withheld and concealed from them?

                A: Well, that's happening right now. The growth of the internet and
                social media and all the new websites - Glenn Greenwald has a great
                website called The Intercept, that was actually funded by an
                Iranian-American Pierre Omidyar, the founder of the eBay, and very
                good journalists such as Jeremy Scahill are writing excellent articles
                there about the different aspects of the economic situation of the
                world, the environmental crisis, the US foreign policy and military
                interventions. Al-Jazeera has made an impact here in the United States
                with its reporting. Al-Monitor is very good. There are all kinds of
                good websites, radio programs and TV programs that are countering of
                the hegemony of the dominant, corporate media. The good news is that
                more and more young people are not paying attention to the corporate
                media here in the United States. They understand that it's garbage and
                propaganda and there's nothing of value there. So they are looking for
                their independent sources.
                Hayastan or Bust.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Re: Fascist USA

                  Interesting read.

                  Better than any spy story.


                  Operation Socialist
                  The Inside Story of How British Spies Hacked Belgium’s Largest Telco







                  When the incoming emails stopped arriving, it seemed innocuous at first. But it would eventually become clear that this was no routine technical problem. Inside a row of gray office buildings in Brussels, a major hacking attack was in progress. And the perpetrators were British government spies.

                  It was in the summer of 2012 that the anomalies were initially detected by employees at Belgium’s largest telecommunications provider, Belgacom. But it wasn’t until a year later, in June 2013, that the company’s security experts were able to figure out what was going on. The computer systems of Belgacom had been infected with a highly sophisticated malware, and it was disguising itself as legitimate Microsoft software while quietly stealing data.

                  Last year, documents from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed that British surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters was behind the attack, codenamed Operation Socialist. And in November, The Intercept revealed that the malware found on Belgacom’s systems was one of the most advanced spy tools ever identified by security researchers, who named it “Regin.”

                  The full story about GCHQ’s infiltration of Belgacom, however, has never been told. Key details about the attack have remained shrouded in mystery—and the scope of the attack unclear.

                  Now, in partnership with Dutch and Belgian newspapers NRC Handelsblad and De Standaard, The Intercept has pieced together the first full reconstruction of events that took place before, during, and after the secret GCHQ hacking operation.

                  Based on new documents from the Snowden archive and interviews with sources familiar with the malware investigation at Belgacom, The Intercept and its partners have established that the attack on Belgacom was more aggressive and far-reaching than previously thought. It occurred in stages between 2010 and 2011, each time penetrating deeper into Belgacom’s systems, eventually compromising the very core of the company’s networks.

                  “a breathtaking example of the state-sponsored hacking problem.”

                  Snowden told The Intercept that the latest revelations amounted to unprecedented “smoking-gun attribution for a governmental cyber attack against critical infrastructure.”

                  .....
                  Politics is not about the pursuit of morality nor what's right or wrong
                  Its about self interest at personal and national level often at odds with the above.
                  Great politicians pursue the National interest and small politicians personal interests

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Re: Fascist USA



                    .
                    Politics is not about the pursuit of morality nor what's right or wrong
                    Its about self interest at personal and national level often at odds with the above.
                    Great politicians pursue the National interest and small politicians personal interests

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Re: Fascist USA

                      Here is a wonderful example of the kind of "stability" that follows American interventions...
                      Libya's internationally recognised government said Monday that its aircraft bombed an oil tanker off the Islamist-held port of Derna, killing two crewmen and...
                      Hayastan or Bust.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X