Want to see the Syrian False Flag memos?

Yeah it all just conveniently disappears, after you manufactured it out of thin air.

 

Not likely. His modus operendi more resembles that of what the white nationalist movement call "legals."

Read The Turner Diaries for further details.

Shall I send room service up with a bit of bleach for your bathwater afterwards?

 

You just love playing the straight man to the trolls don't you?

 

Hardly, chuckles. Should I send you some facepaint?

 

Thats my deal with a thing like this. Are people like this capable of such nefarious dealings? Yes. Does this make my skin crawl and hair stand on end? Yes. But in the interest of truth there should be some independant sourcing and collaberation, at the very least a reliable whistleblower.

 

Did I cost you money because someone started asking the right questions?

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason this isn't enough for most with Sibel Edmonds, and yet everyone seems content in ignoring what she says, so don't mind me if i am a little skeptical of this claim.

 

bump....

 

bump....

 

bump...

 

This isn't even second hand information. This isn't even third hand information. This is fourth hand information! This makes it extremely unreliable. You'd be better off using a magic eight ball. Too many middle men here, any of which could be either wrong, or lying, or changing the meaning, like have you ever played the telephone game?

Not to mention the assumption on the simplest acronyms and terminology.

Not to mention the idea that an email can easily be faked.

Not to mention that no names from either the USA or Qatar are mentioned so as to make an unverifiable story.

Not to mention for such a plot you'd have to be really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid to leave a paper trail with your own name on it.

Not to mention who cares, because the plot has NOT been carried out. If it were true, then it's been decided against. So why be concerned about something that the people chose NOT to do.. If anything it's a testemant to restraint rather than a nefarious agenda.

Provided it's even true, which I doubt.

 

How is a hacked e-mail not 1st hand information?

It is electronic information that can be proven if it were tampered with.

The e-mail is their for everyone to see from a major defense contractor, conducting unsanctioned military operations. That is a act of treason in any country.

You need to provide some evidence that this 1st hand evidence has been tampered with!

 

I already explained this to you. It has an unreliable chain of middle men.

You got it from a blogger who got it from a hacker who got it from a corporate employee who got it from Qatar who got it from Washington, allegedly.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said it was fourth hand information. I should have said it was fifth hand information.

How?

Like I said, nobody actually did this. Such operation never happened.

And the email is there for everybody to see. That's how we can see that there's nothing conclusive about it.. Chain mail spam is also there for you to see. Doesn't mean you have to take it seriously.

No I don't. That's shifting the burden of proof. You need to authenticate this somehow.. I said it could have been tampered with or fabricated, not that it was.. It could have also been lied about, or mistaken about, or had the message changed. I am not making factual claims like you.. I'm just showing you the glaring flaws in your sources which make this unreliable.

Who do you suppose is guilty of treason?

 

It was hacked and then released on the internet by the hackers. Please explain where these middle men are.

No a hacker got it from the company, and then posted it on the internet, but keep digging.

Keep digging.

The same way electronic information is veryfied before being entered into a court of law. Not a Computer Forensics expert so I can't describe the exact process.

Ok, how about conspiracy to commit treason then?

Yes, because this is like a chain e-mail.....keep digging!

I provided evidence here, you have provided nothing but conjecture......keep digging!

Whoever sent that e-mail!

Have you dug your way out of the hole yet?

 

So, you don't even know what this process is, but you somehow know that it's foolproof?

So who did this verification test on this email and when? Where can we see the results?

 

Never Left wrote:

That’s a fair assessment. In this particular instance it seems safe to assume that the firm’s network was hacked into. The question as you suggest is whether to believe the content of the alleged emails or the firm’s denials. I can’t say but I do believe this sort of thing is going on there. We know that the Obama admin has signed off on clandestine operations supporting the rebels. Not direct support of course, but through the empire’s proxies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Turkey). History is littered with the effectiveness of false flags. The mainstream contends that all of the attacks on peaceful demonstrators are at the hands of the Assad regime. An oppressive regime to be sure, but some independent sources contend that the FSA & al qaeda are as much or more to blame. Below is some material in the mainstream that goes to that end:

So, abduction & perhaps ransom, makeshift checkpoints manned by armed gunmen, carjackings, sniper fire, obviously the opposition proves itself no different. In supporting this rogue element, the objective is what, to foment democracy? That last one, it just makes no sense whatsoever that the Assad regime would have snipers taking pot shots upon a funeral procession. Assad is hardly the reformer he depicts himself as, but every state seeks order. This last source is interesting as it sets precedence, even as it pertains to Syria (dated 2003):

Now, this particular operation never actually materialized as the U.S. couldn’t get Syria’s neighbors to support the plan. What’s interesting today is that we know the empire does have their support. Using proxies, layers of duplicity, we see that a lot.

 

Why is this a safe assumption? What collaborating details do we have to know that this hack took place and it's a stolen document as opposed to fabricated, other than being told by somebody over the internet?

Of course it's going on over there.. The Western world is so complicit in the intentional destabilization of the Middle East.. That doesn't mean that every allegation made however and read on the internet is automatically true.

Nobody has any way to verify any of this chain of rumors that this thread is about, so to automatically conclude this must be true because it makes sense and explains things is wrong. It can make perfect sense and still be complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Actually for this one, it doesn't even make sense.. Nobody pitching a proposal like this one is using their real first and last name and corporate email to build their paper trail. That'd be pretty stupid wouldn't it.

 

happy fun dude wrote:

With respect to your first point I never made any such contention. The point I did make was based a brief search until I came across a mainstream Israeli source, which also cites the Sunday Times. That suggests that while this story wasn’t picked up by the U.S. media, it did run elsewhere. Interestingly, the OP contends that the plot was approved at the highest levels of the US government. Again, I’m not saying it’s so, just... an interesting coincidence.

Okay, so this corroborates the OP, again, to the extent that the firm’s network was indeed, hacked. As to your second point, I suppose you could ask the same question about any damning internal memos. Right? The phoenix memo, zippy-cheats-and-tricks, the wikileak cables, I mean, when do people get it? What may be worth considering is that someone on the ground actually has to implement whatever objective is sought. We know these people are expected to break serious laws all over the world on a near daily basis. Would you actually do any of it w/o written authorization, a paper trail? No way could they get me to do that. I’d want as much documentation as possible. Guess what happens to you if the thing implodes? Huh? Yeah, you’re fuq’d is what!

 

You're right about wanting a paper trail.. Or what they call "insurance" but in this case, the sender of the email identified themselves yet didn't have a name to name, and he originated the document himself (it was his own writing) and so wouldn't have any insurance value (you need the other guy to say it).

As far as for any legal memo? Well, YES! You're right. People shouldn't assume things they read are definitely true.

However there's different levels of things to dictate reliability or increase certainty.. Especially who disclosed it and who authenticated it or corroborated it and how. They can range in reliability from conclusive/smoking gun, to circumstantial or hypothetical, or to proven hoax.

 

happy fun dude wrote:

Alright, let’s consider it a hoax. Initially, I went to one of my favorite spook-declassified content sites, which is http://cryptome.org/. I just skimmed the first 10-15 headlines & when I didn’t see it I assumed its validity wasn’t taken seriously. When I found that it had received mainstream attention outside the U.S. I went back and sure enough, found it posted back in January. I want to say that the emails are considered … likely to be a hoax. A German blogger broke it down, the English translation can be accessed here http://pastebin.com/RG01GhLf. It’s a computer generated translation so the author’s intent isn’t always clear. That said & if my understanding is correct, here's what he says:

The blogger downloaded Britam’s published archives that were hacked, the content of which was in three folders titled Syria, Iraq & Iran. One problem is that he went through the content & the vast majority of it is just company stuff (employee information, protocols, charts, diagrams, etc.) Obviously, the question then is why were these very sensitive emails, that would normally be encrypted, sitting in a general data directory? He then searched the Iran & Syria folders, his search keys were “Iran” & “Syria” from which there were no hits, except for the two emails. So the emails don’t belong there... He then notes that the process identifier (PID) for each email is identical & the time of day in which they were sent is identical. He derives that the calendar dates of the emails have been falsified. PID is simply a number the OS attributes to the last action taken with respect to any given file. Which may only prove all the more that these emails were dumped into said folder(s).

What he doesn’t refute & leaves open the possibility is the content of the emails themselves. We also have to consider what the motive was here. Oh, a conspiracy website trying to up it’s readership. No, prison planet had nothing to do with this, apart from running a story that accepts the "evidence" as genuine. The manipulation of the dates got me wondering whether the content pertained to some prior time. Sure enough, the premise of the emails (that rebel forces are to gain access to chemical weapons, use them against civilians & blame the Assad regime) has been previously reported on:

June of 2012-

This is interesting (December of 2012)-

Perhaps the Russian source can’t be trusted, but this last one reporting that the U.S. is training rebel brigades on how to handle chemical weapons & then contend that Assad is responsible for making sure they don’t end up in terrorist hands is just incredible. I have several mainstream reports noting that the strongest faction within the opposition is al-Nusra, a terrorist org! Another source states that the rebels look to secure such sites as they gain control of any given district or military base. It's not just some post-conflict objective.

 

Interesting, hadn't seen that info on the general data directory.

You got a source for that?

 

As if the hacker didn't insert the memos himself. Trusting hack sources is, at best, like citing unnamed sources in the media. A joke and nothing better than rumor.

- - - Updated - - -

Not hardly, child. I don't invest in stupidity.

 

Thread does not meet thread creation guidelines