videos and thousands of social media reports
Either you are in crime and criminal denial mode, or the US government is in "crime and crime concoction mode". You should write to your congressman.brihaspati wrote:This is an assessment report and not any compilation or link to primary resources on which this supposed conclusion was drawn.
From the US government report:RSoami wrote:videos and thousands of social media reports
What is next? bombing another state on the basis of facebook posts, likes and shares.
If Kerry had any evidence he would have shared with the Brits which would have helped Cameroon.
Apart from dancing naked on the Statue of Liberty celebrating.
US is under tremendous pressure from the Saudis to intervene. All this drama is one way or the other related to that.
In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.
From the US government report:brihaspati wrote:Who is using what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iqns5xeoYk
We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.
The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.
Claiming something vaguely without evidence - on issues of mass-murder, shows the highest degree of criminal mentality. The US government can justify its lies - if any - in the future, against supposed national interests.eklavya wrote: Either you are in crime and criminal denial mode, or the US government is in "crime and crime concoction mode". You should write to your congressman.
Obviously these "journalists" exclude people like Dale and yes, many others who do not agree with the Bandar-Obama line.eklavya wrote:From the US government report:brihaspati wrote:Who is using what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iqns5xeoYk
We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.
Yes, and so do youbrihaspati wrote:Do you read everything that you post?
It has not provided source evidence. Those that appear "independently" on the net, are dubious because often they cannot be independently verified, and they often also come from cut-and-paste jobs from islamist and pro-islamist western sources.eklavya wrote:^^^
So you think the US government is lying to the US people and the world?
Nothing amusing about the real point. The report stops short of "confirmation". You confirmed on their behalf that Assad "gassed".eklavya wrote:Yes, and so do youbrihaspati wrote:Do you read everything that you post?
Another view:The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.
David Kay
Weapons expert, ex-Iraq Survey Group
There is no doubt that a chemical weapons attack took place but not such a compelling case on who did it. The evidence tying this attack directly to the Assad regime was largely circumstantial and asserted - not revealed.
What we would like are the details of the conversations, who carried them out and the background. This is one of the conundrums of intelligence - the reluctance of the people who collect it to reveal in detail what they collected because of the fear of loss of sources and methods.
Key US intelligence findings
- Attack on 21 August killed 1,429 people, including 426 children
- Syrian military chemical-weapons personnel were operating in the area in the three days before the attack
- Satellite evidence shows rockets launched from government-held areas 90 minutes before first report of chemical attack
- 100 videos attributed to the attack show symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve agent
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer
Nick Fielding and Ian Cobain
The Guardian, Thursday 17 March 2011 13.19 GMT
Gen David Petraeus has previously said US online psychological operations are aimed at 'countering extremist ideology and propaganda'. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".
Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
Centcom said it was not targeting any US-based web sites, in English or any other language, and specifically said it was not targeting Facebook or Twitter.
Once developed, the software could allow US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations Command.
Centcom's contract requires for each controller the provision of one "virtual private server" located in the United States and others appearing to be outside the US to give the impression the fake personas are real people located in different parts of the world.
It also calls for "traffic mixing", blending the persona controllers' internet usage with the usage of people outside Centcom in a manner that must offer "excellent cover and powerful deniability".
The multiple persona contract is thought to have been awarded as part of a programme called Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which was first developed in Iraq as a psychological warfare weapon against the online presence of al-Qaida supporters and others ranged against coalition forces. Since then, OEV is reported to have expanded into a $200m programme and is thought to have been used against jihadists across Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
OEV is seen by senior US commanders as a vital counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation programme. In evidence to the US Senate's armed services committee last year, General David Petraeus, then commander of Centcom, described the operation as an effort to "counter extremist ideology and propaganda and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard". He said the US military's objective was to be "first with the truth".
This month Petraeus's successor, General James Mattis, told the same committee that OEV "supports all activities associated with degrading the enemy narrative, including web engagement and web-based product distribution capabilities".
Centcom confirmed that the $2.76m contract was awarded to Ntrepid, a newly formed corporation registered in Los Angeles. It would not disclose whether the multiple persona project is already in operation or discuss any related contracts.
Nobody was available for comment at Ntrepid.
In his evidence to the Senate committee, Gen Mattis said: "OEV seeks to disrupt recruitment and training of suicide bombers; deny safe havens for our adversaries; and counter extremist ideology and propaganda." He added that Centcom was working with "our coalition partners" to develop new techniques and tactics the US could use "to counter the adversary in the cyber domain".
According to a report by the inspector general of the US defence department in Iraq, OEV was managed by the multinational forces rather than Centcom.
Asked whether any UK military personnel had been involved in OEV, Britain's Ministry of Defence said it could find "no evidence". The MoD refused to say whether it had been involved in the development of persona management programmes, saying: "We don't comment on cyber capability."
OEV was discussed last year at a gathering of electronic warfare specialists in Washington DC, where a senior Centcom officer told delegates that its purpose was to "communicate critical messages and to counter the propaganda of our adversaries".
Persona management by the US military would face legal challenges if it were turned against citizens of the US, where a number of people engaged in sock puppetry have faced prosecution.
Last year a New York lawyer who impersonated a scholar was sentenced to jail after being convicted of "criminal impersonation" and identity theft.
It is unclear whether a persona management programme would contravene UK law. Legal experts say it could fall foul of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which states that "a person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice". However, this would apply only if a website or social network could be shown to have suffered "prejudice" as a result.
• This article was amended on 18 March 2011 to remove references to Facebook and Twitter, introduced during the editing process, and to add a comment from Centcom, received after publication, that it is not targeting those sites.
eklavya wrote:^^^
So you think the US government is lying to the US people and the world?
Yes - that in legal terms would still allow them to escape, as "high confidence" that "Assad gassed" is not the same as "Assad gassed".eklavya wrote:What do the words "high confidence" mean to you?
Read again:The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.
What did you find aggressive. I was being friendly.brihaspati wrote:You must have learned this habit of uncalled for personal aggression under protection of seniors who protected you from consequences.eklavya wrote: Either you are in crime and criminal denial mode, or the US government is in "crime and crime concoction mode". You should write to your congressman.
"High Confidence" means to you that they know that the evidence is "fabricated"?brihaspati wrote: This shows that they are very much aware of the weakness of their case, and know that a lot is fabricated and possibly never provable.
So, you are saying the US government is lying and making up everything below:brihaspati wrote: Again they can justify this behaviour as a "nation" and national "strategic justification". Can you justify the same as an individual?
Preparation:
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.
The Attack:
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.
It is to leave the possibility of denial when shown that Assad did not really do it. They will be able to say that they had "high confidence" based on what evidence was provided/appeared to them at that time point - but they had never "confirmed". You can laugh and rotfl - but you were caught out napping in noticing your own quote excusing in small print "short of confirmation".eklavya wrote:"High Confidence" means to you that they know that the evidence is "fabricated"?brihaspati wrote: This shows that they are very much aware of the weakness of their case, and know that a lot is fabricated and possibly never provable.
Question was whether you can "confirm" when the writers of the document "stops" short of confirmation. You wrote "Assad gassed".So, you are saying the US government is lying and making up everything below:brihaspati wrote: Again they can justify this behaviour as a "nation" and national "strategic justification". Can you justify the same as an individual?
brihaspati wrote:You can laugh and rotfl - but you were caught out napping in noticing your own quote excusing in small print "short of confirmation".
you are clutching at straws my friend to defend the indefensible. You know very well Assad gassed his people, but you are having trouble acknowledging it for reasons best known to you. I am not in the napping business, as you know well, and nor am I in the business of making excuses for war criminals that have committed grotesque crimes against humanity.In short the positive evidence linking the regime to previous attacks is stronger than the evidence linking the regime to this particular attack. Rather what the case depends on this time is the absence of available evidence that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra have the capability conduct an attack on this scale. In that sense the assessment itself makes no attempt to disguise the limits of the evidence. That is why the reports coming in from Dave Gavlak, the senior AP correspondent in Amman about an accident with CWs supplied by the Saudis to Jabhat al-Nusra are so important. Now obviously there's a lot of hearsay and rumour on the street at a time of war, including deliberate disinformation, but these are very specific, and coming from people who seem to have been close to the events on the ground.It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale. The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.
Harold Wilson kept the UK out of Vietnam (despite SEATO obligations that dragged Australia and New Zealand in), and got to be PM twice. He also happened to be the Queen's favourite prime minister. The only reason he didn't serve longer was early onset Alzheimer's.eklavya wrote:Johann, Ed Miliband got the politics right, but proved beyond doubt his insuitability for the post of PM.
Sure - having been caught out not noting the disclaimer - it is you who are clutching at the straws. You still have not been able to justify your statement confirming that Assad did it while the "document" consciously stops "short".eklavya wrote:brihaspati wrote:You can laugh and rotfl - but you were caught out napping in noticing your own quote excusing in small print "short of confirmation".
I don't agree with your assessment of the US motivations. The US political class has had plenty of opportunity, which they have steadfastly refused to take, to intervene in Syria. Obama identified chemical weapons usage as a red line, and is intervening against all his instincts.Johann wrote:Eklavya, the heart of the unclassified JIC assessment reads as follows
In short the positive evidence linking the regime to previous attacks is stronger than the evidence linking the regime to this particular attack. Rather what the case depends on this time is the absence of available evidence that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra have the capability conduct an attack on this scale. In that sense the assessment itself makes no attempt to disguise the limits of the evidence. That is why the reports coming in from Dave Gavlak, the senior AP correspondent in Amman about an accident with CWs supplied by the Saudis to Jabhat al-Nusra are so important. Now obviously there's a lot of hearsay and rumour on the street at a time of war, including deliberate disinformation, but these are very specific, and coming from people who seem to have been close to the events on the ground.It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale. The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.
I don't think this attack would just be about CW use, nor about regime change. Its just like the first NATO strikes against the Bosnian Serbs in 1994-95. Its a boiling over of the US political class's anger and frustration over appearing impotent in the face of a situation they fundamentally dislike - i.e. two years of slaughter by a government that there has been mutual hostility with over 40 years. They need to prove to themselves that they have the power to shape situations. It is an attempt at gunboat diplomacy.
Also, the case that the CW were used by the regime is much stronger than what you have made out above. Read the US government report:"We're not considering any open ended commitment. We're not considering any boots on the ground approach," Obama told reporters in a brief interaction with the leaders of three Baltic countries.
"There is a certain weariness, given Afghanistan. There is a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq. And I very much appreciate that," Obama said.
"But its important for us to recognise that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we're sending a signal. That is a danger to our national security," he said.
"And in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm," Obama said.
We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.
We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.
Miliband has comprehensively demonstrated that he lacks the qualities of statesmanship. Basically, an opportunistic chancer. Can't see him becoming PM or any world leader treating him with respect.Johann wrote:Harold Wilson kept the UK out of Vietnam (despite SEATO obligations that dragged Australia and New Zealand in), and got to be PM twice. He also happened to be the Queen's favourite prime minister. The only reason he didn't serve longer was early onset Alzheimer's.
Just a few weeks before people were criticising Ed Miliband for a lack for fire in his leadership, and there was talk of a leadership challenge unless he pulled his socks up. His action on the Syria vote has been fundamentally popular here, and has won him respect in drawing rooms and pubs across the country, and in plenty of quarters around the world. If anything he's actually improved Labour's prospects as well as his own with his leadership on the issue.
Eklavya, if as the JIC has said the regime has used chemical weapons on 14 previous occasions, its made Obama's warnings of a red line appear so much hot air.eklavya wrote:I don't agree with your assessment of the US motivations. The US political class has had plenty of opportunity, which they have steadfastly refused to take, to intervene in Syria. Obama identified chemical weapons usage as a red line, and is intervening against all his instincts.
No sir, the people making excuses for war criminals are those ignoring the huge body of evidence that shows with a high degree of confidence that the crime of murdering 1,400 people with chemical weapons was committed by the Assad regime's forces.brihaspati wrote:If you are not saying anything against them - are you not then by your logic an excuser of war crimes?
If your conscience rests easy with reading the above and concluding that the world should not take action against Assad, then so be it.We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21
Why on earth would it be opportunism to act in line with 89% of the British population, and his own previous stance on Iraq? Sounds like democracy at work to me.eklavya wrote:Miliband has comprehensively demonstrated that he lacks the qualities of statesmanship. Basically, an opportunistic chancer. Can't see him becoming PM or any world leader treating him with respect.
Johann, the British government, by virtue of being an irrelevant third (heading for fourth) rate power, have the luxury of watching from the sidelines. Secretly, I bet Cameron is pleased as punch that Miliband got him out of a tricky situation. Cameron can tell Obama and Sam Cam, "look, I tried my best, but that bloke Miliband has no principles and went back on his word."Johann wrote:Eklavya, if as the JIC has said the regime has used chemical weapons on 14 previous occasions, its made Obama's warnings of a red line appear so much hot air.eklavya wrote:I don't agree with your assessment of the US motivations. The US political class has had plenty of opportunity, which they have steadfastly refused to take, to intervene in Syria. Obama identified chemical weapons usage as a red line, and is intervening against all his instincts.
If you were the regime, wouldn't you be tempted to use them more heavily? And if you were the Americans wouldn't you be worried that your authority in the region was being undermined, and in need of shoring up?
This is a dangerous ladder of escalation Obama has got himself into. He doesn't want to have to invade Syria, but if he is going to put US credibility on the line, he will be forced to keep escalating or risk cutting his losses and looking irrelevant. The regime's survival is at stake, and like North Korea, it will go as far as it has to in order to survive. And Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia militias will go just as far.
This failure to properly evaluate the means and the will of the opponent, and the escalation ladder is exactly how the US got itself stuck in the sideshow of South Vietnam for a decade.
So why was Cameron arguing for the motion? Because he misread the poll numbers? Because he doesn't want to be popular? Because the government can obviously afford another costly war?Johann wrote:Why on earth would it be opportunism to act in line with 89% of the British population, and his own previous stance on Iraq? Sounds like democracy at work to me.eklavya wrote:Miliband has comprehensively demonstrated that he lacks the qualities of statesmanship. Basically, an opportunistic chancer. Can't see him becoming PM or any world leader treating him with respect.
And just which world leader is aghast at the fact that the leader of the opposition has decided not to participate? Apart from Obama, Erdogan (who has deep problems with large sections of his own population) and King Abdallah.
Relax, administrations and governments come and go in Whitehall and the Beltway. Come back and continue this discussion in a decade.
Eklavya,eklavya wrote: What exactly do YOU think the US should do in the face of this crime? Nothing?
Would that make you feel better: 1,400 people gassed to death and do nothing?
How will history judge Obama and the US if 1,400 people are gassed to death and they do nothing?
Oh look!! George W. cloned himself already....Sorry, on a much serious note. Don't know who you are, but you are definitely a government insider or a six-pack average Joe who will take whatever government throws at face value and defend vigorously. Nothing wrong with that. In fact it is good thing. Wish India had people like yourself. We would not be going through so much trouble. Keep up the good work.......
What exactly do YOU think the US should do in the face of this crime? Nothing?
Would that make you feel better: 1,400 people gassed to death and do nothing?
How will history judge Obama and the US if 1,400 people are gassed to death and they do nothing?
eklavya wrote:^^^
So you think the US government is lying to the US people and the world?
Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.
His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.
According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.
“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.