Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag

Most of the sources if not all come off in a similar fashion. Take for example the source used to create this exact thread.
In 1992, Pieczenik told Newsday that in his professional opinion, President Bush was "clinically depressed". As a result, he was brought up on an ethics charge before the American Psychiatric Association and reprimanded. He subsequently quit the APA.


He calls himself a "maverick troublemaker. You make your own rules. You pay the consequences."


On May 3, 2011, radio host Invalid Link Removed aired an interview in which Pieczenik claimed that Osama Bin Laden had died of Invalid Link Removed in 2001 shortly after the Invalid Link Removed, and that the attacks on the United States on 9/11 were part of a false flag operation by the American government. (Keep in mind he purports to have no direct evidence to support his contentions, which again probably doesn't matter in these forums for some people)


On October 20, 2011 in an interview with the Alex Jones, where Piecezenik claimed that Libyan leader Invalid Link Removed is alive and said "There’s no way they killed Muammar Gaddafi, that’s not our operating mode and I’ve been involved in 30 years with the takeouts and change the regimes." (Once again no direct evidence to support his contentions, but reference his own mantra above about being a troublemaker and stirring up crap when you can)

Its just an interview from a goverment insider...he shouldnt be trusted, and it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is however something to dig deeper into especially Bin Laden's health condition and his likelihood of being alive a decade later which is damn near scientifically impossible. The government hasn't backed up their claim with any evidence that they killed him which was followed by the shady event of Seal Team 6 going down in that chopper they werent supposed to be in.

Now, there is much evidence of 9/11 being a false flag operation and Ive heard Piecezenik speak of it so I dunno where you made that up. Something tells me you didnt dig much at all to come up with that nonsense.

I have to look more into that Gaddafi claim since I havent heard it and you didnt supply a source.
 
true...but there is a greater likelihood. It just makes me take what they say with a grain of salt.

Jones is the biggest drawback to his "cause". He comes off as a fringe, tinfoil hat, loon. Most who have heard of him have a hard time taking him seriously

see, if you took what he said with a grain of salt, that would work. But you don't (and by you I don't mean you personally alone much as more general liberals/progressive leaning people), you start with what he said was false.
 
Its just an interview from a goverment insider...he shouldnt be trusted, and it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is however something to dig deeper into especially Bin Laden's health condition and his likelihood of being alive a decade later which is damn near scientifically impossible. The government hasn't backed up their claim with any evidence that they killed him which was followed by the shady event of Seal Team 6 going down in that chopper they werent supposed to be in.

Now, there is much evidence of 9/11 being a false flag operation and Ive heard Piecezenik speak of it so I dunno where you made that up. Something tells me you didnt dig much at all to come up with that nonsense.

I have to look more into that Gaddafi claim since I havent heard it and you didnt supply a source.


Alex Jones isn't the brightest guy around and has limited education. Look up Jonathan Krohn, once viewed as a conservative prodigy at the age of 13. Interesting story. Education is truly transformative.
 
Alex Jones is the brightest guy around and has limited education. Look up Jonathan Krohn, once viewed as a conservative prodigy at the age of 13. Interesting story. Education is truly transformative.

Again...this is stereotyping, prejudiced and slander. It has nothing to do with the content presented. On the contrary, one who has an extensive education is neither an excuse to validate any of content that he/she would present.
 
Alex Jones is the brightest guy around and has limited education. Look up Jonathan Krohn, once viewed as a conservative prodigy at the age of 13. Interesting story. Education is truly transformative.

And I just did look him up, the first search bought up this new heading,
Jonathan Krohn, Ex-Conservative Boy Wonder, Jabs GOP 'Bullies,' Explains Shift To The Left

Invalid Link Removed

Looks to me he is only feeding into this false "Left, Right" paradigm and feeding society to more stereotyping, slander and prejudice further feeding, propagating and fueling divisions of society. Not saying its intentional but its wrong.
 
Its just an interview from a goverment insider...he shouldnt be trusted, and it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is however something to dig deeper into especially Bin Laden's health condition and his likelihood of being alive a decade later which is damn near scientifically impossible. The government hasn't backed up their claim with any evidence that they killed him which was followed by the shady event of Seal Team 6 going down in that chopper they werent supposed to be in.

Now, there is much evidence of 9/11 being a false flag operation and Ive heard Piecezenik speak of it so I dunno where you made that up. Something tells me you didnt dig much at all to come up with that nonsense.

I have to look more into that Gaddafi claim since I havent heard it and you didnt supply a source.

The source is the same guy you used to create/reference this thread, Piecezenik. He's offering his account to A. Jones in an interview. There is much evidence to support that 9/11 was a false flag operation? Really? Lol. Make sure you preface your own comments by saying, "I AX, have my own ideas and standards as to what constitutes evidence."
 
there was recently a Daily Kos blogger who started researching into all the flack a planned islamic center in the south was causing, only to end up deciding and realizing that it is a radical institution and should be stopped. Of course he became excommunicated from the liberals at that point
 
Again...this is stereotyping, prejudiced and slander. It has nothing to do with the content presented. On the contrary, one who has an extensive education is neither an excuse to validate any of content that he/she would present.

Lol right. ;)
 
The source is the same guy you used to create/reference this thread, Piecezenik. He's offering his account to A. Jones in an interview. There is much evidence to support that 9/11 was a false flag operation? Really? Lol. Make sure you preface your own comments by saying, "I AX, have my own ideas and standards as to what constitutes evidence."

I source is the same guy? Since it was from October 20th and my thread started on May 5th I must not be the source quoting him saying that. Anyways it doesnt matter, the thread started with an interview. I always state not to conclude on everything and use information presented to dig deeper and put the puzzle pieces together to help understand the truth. I dont want you to believe him just because he said so.

Lol right. ;)

It doesnt take a genius to read bills that congress and the executive are passing.

If a 5th grader tells an adult that Military Police State policies are being passed he will get laughed at. If he prints out the actual bills directly from the white house and military websites and places it on their desk and they read it all the sudden its real.

Move past character attacks, prejudice and stereotyping and focus on content....prejudice is a terrible ugly trait. Look at Obama, he is very educated, yet after doing a immediate 180 on all his campaign promises his education level does not make him honest, now does it?
 
you think someoene's education level means they have no ulterior motives and guarantees honesty? boy are you confused.

No. It means that someone who googled heart surgery and saw a youtube video, does not a heart surgeon make. Education and accreditation are extremely important in accessing the validity of sources. Let me preface that by saying...maybe not here.
 
No. It means that someone who googled heart surgery and saw a youtube video, does not a heart surgeon make. Education and accreditation are extremely important in accessing the validity of sources.

So an un-educated person who uses sources from the Whitehouse website, Military website, plays full interviews of politicians and military is all invalid by default due to their education level.

Obama on the other-hand was very very intelligent and educated, so he would be a good source to get information from.
 
No. It means that someone who googled heart surgery and saw a youtube video, does not a heart surgeon make. Education and accreditation are extremely important in accessing the validity of sources. Let me preface that, by saying...maybe not here.

your example is crap though. We aren't talking about someone doing an activity based on education, we are talking about someone relaying information and research. it does not take special skills to read a document, or uncover secrets unlike heart surgery. When education + accreditation are managed by the groups who are trying to hide things from you, neither will provide you with tools to uncover it. People with PHds lie regularly. The global warming scientists admitted to falsifying data. But they were the highly accredited, educated people you talk about.
 
No. It means that someone who googled heart surgery and saw a youtube video, does not a heart surgeon make. Education and accreditation are extremely important in accessing the validity of sources. Let me preface that by saying...maybe not here.

Your problem is you think my world revolves around Alex Jones which is far from true. you think I believe everything he says and I dont. I do my homework and check sources when I do.

Try researching Webster Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Michel Chossudovsky, Jeremy Salt, Paul Craig Roberts and their education levels for starters. I read their material as well as many others. Education level is still not relevant to reporting information though but I do acknowledge I read material from educated people as well.

Did you know Steve Piecezenik is highly educated yet you knock him based off your stereotype?
 
So an un-educated person who uses sources from the Whitehouse website, Military website, plays full interviews of politicians and military is all invalid by default due to their education level.

Obama on the other-hand was very very intelligent and educated, so he would be a good source to get information from.

Here's the thing, AX. I'm not the first person to describe your sources as being that of the tinfoil variety. You take what would otherwise be described as fringe sources by most reasonable minds to support your viewpoints. I just happen to disagree with them. I'm not going to retread over some of your links. You think an army is being amassed by Palpatine to secure the Republic. I happen to know something you don't. There is a son, a son who will come to redeem his father and bring about peace and democracy to the Republic. His name is George Lucas.
 
your example is crap though. We aren't talking about someone doing an activity based on education, we are talking about someone relaying information and research. it does not take special skills to read a document, or uncover secrets unlike heart surgery. When education + accreditation are managed by the groups who are trying to hide things from you, neither will provide you with tools to uncover it. People with PHds lie regularly. The global warming scientists admitted to falsifying data. But they were the highly accredited, educated people you talk about.

Researching and vetting materials are both highly sought after skills. Posting up a youtube video of a blogger, not a journalist, because there is marked difference, whether you want to believe that or not. A guy who formed a personal opinion rather than just disseminating the materials he supposedly researched and then reporting on them without bias, allowing the audience to reach their own conclusions. Instead he wanted to present the material in order to substantiate his "opinion", which isn't exactly a standard. I realize you're talking about the DailyKos, I can't speak to that website, since I don't read any of their material.
 
Here's the thing, AX. I'm not the first person to describe your sources as being that of the tinfoil variety. You take what would otherwise be described as fringe sources by most reasonable minds to support your viewpoints. I just happen to disagree with them. I'm not going to retread over some of your links. You think an army is being amassed by Palpatine to secure the Republic. I happen to know something you don't. There is a son, a son who will come redeem his father and bring about peace and democracy to the Republic. His name is George Lucas.

So your dependent on others validating the content for you? As Ive stated, the term "tinfoil variety" is nothing but prejudicial stereotypical form of invalidating content.

So you disagree with them because they are the "tinfoil" variety, although I frequent legislation being presented and passed in both the executive branch and congress in regards to your statement of "You think an army is being amassed by Palpatine to secure the Republic." Im proving it with actual law and documents, but you refuse to open your mind to it. Knock yourself out dude, and have that "highly educated" guy on CNN tell you how it is good for you, lol

Here is the official US Army page to confirm the existence domestic psych-ops manual and the US re-education camps,
FM 3-39.40

Invalid Link Removed

Here is another direct manual from the Army website Civilian Inmate Labor Program Army Regulation 210–35 and their "rehabilitative programs." You see there is so much more than what Im posting, and this is from 2005.
Invalid Link Removed

AR 210–35

Civilian Inmate Labor Program

This rapid action revision dated 14 January 2005--

o Assigns responsibilities to Headquarters, Installation Management Agency
(para 1-4j).

o Makes administrative and editorial changes (throughout).
This new regulation dated 9 December 1997

o Provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor
programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.

o Discusses sources of Federal and State civilian inmate labor.


Here on the official Army website there is an official career page to hire new military personal to run these domestic concentration camps.
Invalid Link Removed

Whats your feelings on the recent NDAA act and the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive orders that Obama signs officially declaring the homeland the battlefield? Allowing the military to take domestic property from the people and control individual natural resources as well as forcing American's to forced labor (basically the draft is back.)
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

How to stage terror attacks official Army field manual
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
 
Here's the thing, AX. I'm not the first person to describe your sources as being that of the tinfoil variety. You take what would otherwise be described as fringe sources by most reasonable minds to support your viewpoints. I just happen to disagree with them. I'm not going to retread over some of your links. You think an army is being amassed by Palpatine to secure the Republic. I happen to know something you don't. There is a son, a son who will come to redeem his father and bring about peace and democracy to the Republic. His name is George Lucas.

Here is some more for you buddy,

New Domestic Military Police State Document leaked today...this is what freedom is all about in this country.

"Warning shot will not be fired" by MPs trained in Martial Law in America: Military Police training: heavily patrolled domestic detention facilities, dissident/sniper warrantless searches - CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations training @ Ft McClellan

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America


Invalid Link Removed

July 6, 2012 in Invalid Link Removed
The following self-learning course from the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan describes procedures for military police involvement in civil disturbance operations. The course makes it clear that temporary detention facilities in the event of a civil disturbance overloading local resources would be operated under existing military doctrine for internment facilities. The course cites Invalid Link Removed, which is now numbered Invalid Link Removed, as the primary reference for the operation of these facilities.​
Invalid Link Removed
United States Army Military Police School Subcourse Number MP 1005


  • 115 pages
  • April 2006
Invalid Link Removed
This lesson is designed to describe the nature and causes of disaffection and social unrest; define the potential for social unrest in the United States; identify the types of confrontations; define crowd behavioral and psychological influences; identify patterns of disorder.

Invalid Link Removed


2. Application of Force.


a. General.

(1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available. The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help. In performing this mission, the control force may have to actively participate, not only in subduing the disturbance, but also in helping to detain those responsible for it. Control force commanders are authorized and directed to provide such active participation, subject to restraints on the use of force.

(2) Prior to committing any federal forces in the quailing of civil disturbance whether in CONUS or OCONUS commanders should train and continually brief the control force on the rule of engagement (ROE). The commander is responsible for drafting, interpreting, disseminating, and training the control force on the ROE. The staff Judge Advocate (SJA) should be included in the ROE development to ensure that it will not improperly constrain actions, but still will remain consistent with domestic and international laws, polices, and orders of the chain of command.

(3) If non lethal weapon and munitions are to be utilized, they should be addressed within the ROE and disseminated to the lowest level, preferable to platoon and squad levels. This requires that all personnel have a clear understanding of the ROE and the commander’s intent.

(4) While serving with a multinational operation under the preview of the United Nations (UN) charter or customary international law the UN will may mandate certain restrictions on the use of force. By the use of overwhelming force during a civil disturbance under the UN may compromise diplomatic efforts to reach a peaceful solution. Commanders must beware that any confrontation of the ROE made by soldiers can have strategic political implications on current and future operations.

(5) The primary rule which governs the actions of federal forces in helping state and local authorities to restore law and order is that the control force use only the minimum force required fulfilling the mission. This chief principle should control both the selection of appropriate operational techniques and the choice of options for arming the control force. In carrying out this principle, the use of deadly force is authorized only under extreme circumstances where certain specific standards are met. To emphasize limitations on use of firepower and to restrict automatic fire, rifles with only a safe or semiautomatic selection capability or modified to such a capability will be used as a basic weapon for Soldiers in a civil disturbance area.

b. Use of Deadly and Non-deadly Force.

(1) Commanders are authorized to use non-deadly force to control the disturbance, to prevent crimes, and to detain persons who have committed crimes; but the degree of force used must be not greater than that reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The use of deadly force, in effect, invokes the power of summary execution and can, therefore, be justified only by extreme circumstances. Accordingly, its use is not authorized for the purpose of preventing activities which do not pose a significant risk of death or serious bodily harm. If a mission cannot be accomplished without the use of deadly force, but deadly force is not permitted under the guidelines authorizing its use, accomplishment of the mission must be delayed until sufficient non-deadly force can be brought to bear. All the requirements of paragraph (b), below, must be met in every case in which deadly force is employed.

(2) The use of deadly force is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:

(a) Self- defense and defense of others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Assets involving national security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as “vital to national security” only when their loss, damage, or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted area as containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.

(c) Assets no involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily harm to others. Examples include high risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.

(d) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm. Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

(e) Arrest or apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest, apprehend, or prevent the escape of a person who, there is probably cause to believe, has committed an offense of the nature in (2) through (4) above.

(f) Escapes. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD Components and reasonable appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided law enforcement or security personnel have probable cause to believe that the escaping prisoner poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to security personnel or others.

(3) Every Soldier has the right under the law to use reasonably necessary force to defend himself against violent and dangerous personal attack. The limitations of this paragraph are not intended to infringe on this right, but to prevent the unauthorized or random use of other types of deadly force.

(4) In addition, the following policies regarding the use of deadly force will be observed:

(a) Give an order to halt.

(b) Warning shot will not be fired.

(c) When a firearm is discharged it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is discharged incapable of
continuing that activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.

(d) Shot will be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.

(e) In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

(5) Even when its use is authorized, deadly force must be used only with great selectivity and precision against the particular threat which justifies its use. For example, the receipt of sniper fire, however deadly, from an unknown location can never justify “returning the fire” against any or all persons who may be visible on the street or in nearby buildings. Such random response is far too likely to result in accidents among innocent bystanders or fellow law enforcement personnel; the appropriate response is to take cover and try to locate the source of the fire so that the threat can be neutralized.


f. Army Detention Facilities.

(1) The Army will not operate facilities for confinement, custody, or detention of civilian personnel apprehended for violation of local or state laws as long as civil confinement facilities, operated by the Department of Justice, state, or local agencies are sufficient to accommodate the number of persons apprehended.

(2) When it appears that available local facilities are insufficient, due to the large number of persons apprehended or detained, and this fact can be verified by the person or agency responsible for the facilities, temporary confinement/detention facilities may be operated with prior approval from DA, specifically, the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. These facilities will be operated only until custody of the persons detained can be transferred to and assumed by civil authorities. They will not be used for the confinement of persons charged or convicted under civil jurisdiction.

(3) Temporary confinement/detention facilities can be developed from local federal facilities provided they are adaptable to the requirements of custody and control. Such facilities should be established, if possible, within the affected area; this will conserve time, transportation, and escort personnel. However, if no suitable federal property is available within the affected area, they can be located elsewhere on any property under federal control as long as the persons to be detained are apprehended in the affected area. Whenever such temporary facilities are established during civil disturbance control operations, the Army is responsible for providing those personnel, facilities, and supplies necessary for the custody, control, health, comfort, and sustenance of persons detained.

(4) Officers and key NCOs specifically trained and experienced in confinement operations are required to operate such facilities. Guards and support function personnel operating under the direct control of such officers and NCOs need not be specifically trained or experienced in confinement operations as long as they are under close and continuing supervision of trained responsible personnel. Whenever females are detained, they must be held in physically separate detention facilities and under the control of selected female guards operating under the supervision of trained and experienced confinement personnel.
(5) Temporary detention facilities should be constructed and arranged to provide for adequate custody, control, and safety of detainees. It is advisable to use existing permanent-type buildings. Where sufficient permanent structures are not available, only that amount of new construction required for temporary custody, control, and administration of prisoners should be accomplished. Temporary fieldtype facilities provide compartments to assure effective control.


(6) The same operational procedures that apply to the operation of installation confinement facilities and treatment of detainees apply to these temporary facilities except that those policies and procedures establishing training, employment, mail and correspondence, and administrative discipline requirements will not apply. Detailed guidance in procedures for confinement of detainees is contained in EPW Operations, FM 3-19.40.

Plus this one has quizzes!!
Invalid Link Removed


There is a lot of stuff about formations -
Invalid Link Removed

Related material:


  1. Invalid Link Removed
  2. Invalid Link Removed
  3. Invalid Link Removed
  4. Invalid Link Removed
  5. Invalid Link Removed
  6. Invalid Link Removed
  7. Invalid Link Removed
  8. Invalid Link Removed
 
Here is some more for you buddy,

New Domestic Military Police State Document leaked today...this is what freedom is all about in this country.

"Warning shot will not be fired" by MPs trained in Martial Law in America: Military Police training: heavily patrolled domestic detention facilities, dissident/sniper warrantless searches - CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations training @ Ft McClellan

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America


Invalid Link Removed

July 6, 2012 in Invalid Link Removed
The following self-learning course from the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan describes procedures for military police involvement in civil disturbance operations. The course makes it clear that temporary detention facilities in the event of a civil disturbance overloading local resources would be operated under existing military doctrine for internment facilities. The course cites Invalid Link Removed, which is now numbered Invalid Link Removed, as the primary reference for the operation of these facilities.​
Invalid Link Removed
United States Army Military Police School Subcourse Number MP 1005


  • 115 pages
  • April 2006
Invalid Link Removed
This lesson is designed to describe the nature and causes of disaffection and social unrest; define the potential for social unrest in the United States; identify the types of confrontations; define crowd behavioral and psychological influences; identify patterns of disorder.

Invalid Link Removed


2. Application of Force.


a. General.

(1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available. The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help. In performing this mission, the control force may have to actively participate, not only in subduing the disturbance, but also in helping to detain those responsible for it. Control force commanders are authorized and directed to provide such active participation, subject to restraints on the use of force.

(2) Prior to committing any federal forces in the quailing of civil disturbance whether in CONUS or OCONUS commanders should train and continually brief the control force on the rule of engagement (ROE). The commander is responsible for drafting, interpreting, disseminating, and training the control force on the ROE. The staff Judge Advocate (SJA) should be included in the ROE development to ensure that it will not improperly constrain actions, but still will remain consistent with domestic and international laws, polices, and orders of the chain of command.

(3) If non lethal weapon and munitions are to be utilized, they should be addressed within the ROE and disseminated to the lowest level, preferable to platoon and squad levels. This requires that all personnel have a clear understanding of the ROE and the commander’s intent.

(4) While serving with a multinational operation under the preview of the United Nations (UN) charter or customary international law the UN will may mandate certain restrictions on the use of force. By the use of overwhelming force during a civil disturbance under the UN may compromise diplomatic efforts to reach a peaceful solution. Commanders must beware that any confrontation of the ROE made by soldiers can have strategic political implications on current and future operations.

(5) The primary rule which governs the actions of federal forces in helping state and local authorities to restore law and order is that the control force use only the minimum force required fulfilling the mission. This chief principle should control both the selection of appropriate operational techniques and the choice of options for arming the control force. In carrying out this principle, the use of deadly force is authorized only under extreme circumstances where certain specific standards are met. To emphasize limitations on use of firepower and to restrict automatic fire, rifles with only a safe or semiautomatic selection capability or modified to such a capability will be used as a basic weapon for Soldiers in a civil disturbance area.

b. Use of Deadly and Non-deadly Force.

(1) Commanders are authorized to use non-deadly force to control the disturbance, to prevent crimes, and to detain persons who have committed crimes; but the degree of force used must be not greater than that reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The use of deadly force, in effect, invokes the power of summary execution and can, therefore, be justified only by extreme circumstances. Accordingly, its use is not authorized for the purpose of preventing activities which do not pose a significant risk of death or serious bodily harm. If a mission cannot be accomplished without the use of deadly force, but deadly force is not permitted under the guidelines authorizing its use, accomplishment of the mission must be delayed until sufficient non-deadly force can be brought to bear. All the requirements of paragraph (b), below, must be met in every case in which deadly force is employed.

(2) The use of deadly force is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:

(a) Self- defense and defense of others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Assets involving national security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as “vital to national security” only when their loss, damage, or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted area as containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.

(c) Assets no involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily harm to others. Examples include high risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.

(d) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm. Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

(e) Arrest or apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest, apprehend, or prevent the escape of a person who, there is probably cause to believe, has committed an offense of the nature in (2) through (4) above.

(f) Escapes. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD Components and reasonable appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided law enforcement or security personnel have probable cause to believe that the escaping prisoner poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to security personnel or others.

(3) Every Soldier has the right under the law to use reasonably necessary force to defend himself against violent and dangerous personal attack. The limitations of this paragraph are not intended to infringe on this right, but to prevent the unauthorized or random use of other types of deadly force.

(4) In addition, the following policies regarding the use of deadly force will be observed:

(a) Give an order to halt.

(b) Warning shot will not be fired.

(c) When a firearm is discharged it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is discharged incapable of
continuing that activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.

(d) Shot will be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.

(e) In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

(5) Even when its use is authorized, deadly force must be used only with great selectivity and precision against the particular threat which justifies its use. For example, the receipt of sniper fire, however deadly, from an unknown location can never justify “returning the fire” against any or all persons who may be visible on the street or in nearby buildings. Such random response is far too likely to result in accidents among innocent bystanders or fellow law enforcement personnel; the appropriate response is to take cover and try to locate the source of the fire so that the threat can be neutralized.


f. Army Detention Facilities.

(1) The Army will not operate facilities for confinement, custody, or detention of civilian personnel apprehended for violation of local or state laws as long as civil confinement facilities, operated by the Department of Justice, state, or local agencies are sufficient to accommodate the number of persons apprehended.

(2) When it appears that available local facilities are insufficient, due to the large number of persons apprehended or detained, and this fact can be verified by the person or agency responsible for the facilities, temporary confinement/detention facilities may be operated with prior approval from DA, specifically, the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. These facilities will be operated only until custody of the persons detained can be transferred to and assumed by civil authorities. They will not be used for the confinement of persons charged or convicted under civil jurisdiction.

(3) Temporary confinement/detention facilities can be developed from local federal facilities provided they are adaptable to the requirements of custody and control. Such facilities should be established, if possible, within the affected area; this will conserve time, transportation, and escort personnel. However, if no suitable federal property is available within the affected area, they can be located elsewhere on any property under federal control as long as the persons to be detained are apprehended in the affected area. Whenever such temporary facilities are established during civil disturbance control operations, the Army is responsible for providing those personnel, facilities, and supplies necessary for the custody, control, health, comfort, and sustenance of persons detained.

(4) Officers and key NCOs specifically trained and experienced in confinement operations are required to operate such facilities. Guards and support function personnel operating under the direct control of such officers and NCOs need not be specifically trained or experienced in confinement operations as long as they are under close and continuing supervision of trained responsible personnel. Whenever females are detained, they must be held in physically separate detention facilities and under the control of selected female guards operating under the supervision of trained and experienced confinement personnel.
(5) Temporary detention facilities should be constructed and arranged to provide for adequate custody, control, and safety of detainees. It is advisable to use existing permanent-type buildings. Where sufficient permanent structures are not available, only that amount of new construction required for temporary custody, control, and administration of prisoners should be accomplished. Temporary fieldtype facilities provide compartments to assure effective control.


(6) The same operational procedures that apply to the operation of installation confinement facilities and treatment of detainees apply to these temporary facilities except that those policies and procedures establishing training, employment, mail and correspondence, and administrative discipline requirements will not apply. Detailed guidance in procedures for confinement of detainees is contained in EPW Operations, FM 3-19.40.

Plus this one has quizzes!!
Invalid Link Removed


There is a lot of stuff about formations -
Invalid Link Removed

Related material:


  1. Invalid Link Removed
  2. Invalid Link Removed
  3. Invalid Link Removed
  4. Invalid Link Removed
  5. Invalid Link Removed
  6. Invalid Link Removed
  7. Invalid Link Removed
  8. Invalid Link Removed

^^^ When should I begin building my bunker?
 
EasyEJL said:
see, if you took what he said with a grain of salt, that would work. But you don't (and by you I don't mean you personally alone much as more general liberals/progressive leaning people), you start with what he said was false.

Are you pigeon holing me E? I can assure you I am no liberal...I am more a bull moose republican. ;).

With that said, there have been too many instances where infowars has been off are, so I fully acknowledge that I presume what's being said is false.

Now, Ax, I will give you credit for,using military sites etc... My question to you is this: do you really think that have of this is entirely new? That this hasn't been done before or that the government has not completely I fringed the rights of the citizens?

You look at all of this as though this is a new fad, it's not. Take a look at our history under some of our better leaders
Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR etc...

nothing new here...and the world will continue to march forward regardless as it has in the past
 
Are you pigeon holing me E? I can assure you I am no liberal...I am more a bull moose republican. ;).

With that said, there have been too many instances where infowars has been off are, so I fully acknowledge that I presume what's being said is false.

Now, Ax, I will give you credit for,using military sites etc... My question to you is this: do you really think that have of this is entirely new? That this hasn't been done before or that the government has not completely I fringed the rights of the citizens?

You look at all of this as though this is a new fad, it's not. Take a look at our history under some of our better leaders
Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR etc...

nothing new here...and the world will continue to march forward regardless as it has in the past

Its always a constant battle and we must always fight against tyranny. I will never accept as norm just because it's always been done in the past.
 
Instead he wanted to present the material in order to substantiate his "opinion", which isn't exactly a standard.

are you seriously off your rocker? name a single journalist who doesn't do the exact same thing. news is reported for sensationalism, and to push the ideological viewpoint of the individual journalist and company as is evinced by the difference in headlines between different outlets on the same piece of news.
 
Are you pigeon holing me E? I can assure you I am no liberal...I am more a bull moose republican. ;).

nah, although you do it somewhat, its more in general I see it abused further by liberals + progressives, immediately dismissing information if it doesn't come from a source that has their stamp of approval. And of course, since the stamp of approval is controlled by liberal/progressives, only a specific ideological stance gets approved. I saw one flaming ludicrous socialist liberal (his father was a union lawyer....) say "the truth has a liberal bias". I feel sorry for him.
 
are you seriously off your rocker? name a single journalist who doesn't do the exact same thing. news is reported for sensationalism, and to push the ideological viewpoint of the individual journalist and company as is evinced by the difference in headlines between different outlets on the same piece of news.

Right...I'm off my rocker while some are insisting a domestic war is brewing, WHICH HAS YET TO COME to fruition, based on language that's been written into documents and has been for years. But, yeah, I'm the one who is way out there on a limb. Lol.
 
Right...I'm off my rocker while some are insisting a domestic war is brewing, WHICH HAS YET TO COME to fruition, based on language that's been written into documents and has been for years. But, yeah, I'm the one who is way out there on a limb. Lol.

no, you're off your rocker because you think presenting material to substantiate an opinion isn't the standard.
 
no, you're off your rocker because you think presenting material to substantiate an opinion isn't the standard.

Again, I didn't reference any of the opinion news shows that blanket cable, i.e. MSNBC,Fox or web publications like the dailykos. Those outlets have clear and obvious slants in their "reporting." Hence, why I never referenced them in my previous comments. I don't see that as the standard across the board.
 
Again, I didn't reference any of the opinion news shows that blanket cable, i.e. MSNBC,Fox or web publications like the dailykos. Those outlets have clear and obvious slants in their "reporting." Hence, why I never referenced them in my previous comments. I don't see that as the standard across the board.

what other "board" is there? What news outlet isn't like that?
 
what other "board" is there? What news outlet isn't like that?

You want me to provide a list? Which I've done before and then they were subsequently dismissed as being "corporate/liberal" news sites/publications, then those same individuals turned around and posted videos with "bloggers", fringe sites supported by Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and other similar tinfoil types, but those are deemed newsworthy because ta-da they share similar viewpoints. And around and around we go...
 
Right...I'm off my rocker while some are insisting a domestic war is brewing, WHICH HAS YET TO COME to fruition, based on language that's been written into documents and has been for years. But, yeah, I'm the one who is way out there on a limb. Lol.

Im posting new Executive orders and Congressional Police State Bills that are new from the past several months and as recent as another one passed yesterday.

Why do you think they are spending all the time and energy recently to destroy Habeas corpus, allow arbitrary arrest and detention, deny right to speak to a lawyer, allow Executive execute assassinations of Americans, to Federalize all states powers and police enforcement and set up concentration camps from coast to coast. Why do you think they spent energy to re-instate the draft, abolish private property rights to hand it over to the military, allow the excecutive branch to bypass congress to declare wars, further allow tapping, eavesdropping and domestic spying, allowing the plans of 30,000 drones to fly in our skies, allow TSA agents to do to our children what policeman in the parks would get arrested for, etc...and its getting worse by the day across the country.

This is all recent, not some historical documents. If you dont think we are already in a domestic war knock yourself out.

According to bills passed in the last several months, Domestic America IS the battlefront.

We are all guilty until proven innocent.
 
Its always a constant battle and we must always fight against tyranny. I will never accept as norm just because it's always been done in the past.
my point to my comment was that the "brewing catastrophe" has been brewing for centuries. Nothing happens, nothing changes except the people involved. I am always amazed at how narcistic we are as a society that we always believe we are the ones who are going to have to fight the good fight when the sh!t hits the fan. Those in power have been abusing it since the beginning of organized civilizations, that will not change. I understand you are fighting the fight, but I think the way your present material is misleading. This is not new or novel. Government abuses have always gone on, and will continue long after you and I are long gone.

nah, although you do it somewhat, its more in general I see it abused further by liberals + progressives, immediately dismissing information if it doesn't come from a source that has their stamp of approval. And of course, since the stamp of approval is controlled by liberal/progressives, only a specific ideological stance gets approved. I saw one flaming ludicrous socialist liberal (his father was a union lawyer....) say "the truth has a liberal bias". I feel sorry for him.

I do love this. A liberal thing? I will admit to watching several different media outlets, specifically fox and msnbc, as I find them both very amusing. However, they are both guilty of the same thing you mention in your post.

This is indicative of the problem. Saying one party is to blame for something and not the other. They are 2 sides to the same coin. Which I know you are very well aware of
 
my point to my comment was that the "brewing catastrophe" has been brewing for centuries. Nothing happens, nothing changes except the people involved. I am always amazed at how narcistic we are as a society that we always believe we are the ones who are going to have to fight the good fight when the sh!t hits the fan. Those in power have been abusing it since the beginning of organized civilizations, that will not change. I understand you are fighting the fight, but I think the way your present material is misleading. This is not new or novel. Government abuses have always gone on, and will continue long after you and I are long gone. f

I believe in fighting before sh!t hits the fan. There is nothing narcissistic about being an activist, trying to fight government corruption and trying to make society a better place.

Everything changes for everybody, we are independent of each other. Soldiers dying in combat do to what I view as unjust wars doesnt effect me directly, but I feel pathetic ignoring it. Their death is a death in my family. Their contribution to protect our constitution deserves all our attention. I feel I owe it to them to try to contribute even if some disagree with me. Just one example that drives me to do more.

How is the material I present misleading? Maybe you are misunderstanding my intentions? You do realize that your understanding of my material will vary from other individual to individual.

Life is good, and Im in an extremely comfortable position but to accept everything as norm due to its repeated history will only lead to a darker path should society accept it. To accept it and use the excuse that Im not directly affected is what I view as ignorance.
 
Im really not surprised that you made a statement like that, very "tinfoil" of you.

What? You don't believe Unicron is out to to destroy us? Also the chupacabra, bigfoot, Macaulay Culkin, strategically designed horse flies, peanut buttercups, birds, Corey Feldman and Alex Rodriguez.
 
What? You don't believe Unicron is out to to destroy us? Also the chupacabra, bigfoot, Macaulay Culkin, strategically designed horse flies, peanut buttercups, birds, Corey Feldman and Alex Rodriguez.

Well....Chupacabra's and A-Rod, now your talking, lol
 
I do love this. A liberal thing? I will admit to watching several different media outlets, specifically fox and msnbc, as I find them both very amusing. However, they are both guilty of the same thing you mention in your post.

This is indicative of the problem. Saying one party is to blame for something and not the other. They are 2 sides to the same coin. Which I know you are very well aware of

oh sure all news organizationsy are all full of sh!t, as well as both parties. What I meant by the liberal thing was just the offhand disqualifying data based on its source (or the education level/accreditation thereof) is more common in liberals. Thats part of why people talk about the elitism. having a certification or degree has no bearing on whether a person is honest or pushing an agenda.
 
Americans' Confidence in Television News Drops to New Low

Liberals' and moderates' views are now similar to conservatives'

by Lymari Morales
July 10, 2012
Invalid Link Removed



WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in television news is at a new low by one percentage point, with 21% of adults expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it. This marks a decline from 27% last year and from 46% when Gallup started tracking confidence in television news in 1993.

Invalid Link Removed

The findings are from Gallup's annual update on confidence in U.S. institutions, conducted June 7-10 this year. As such, the findings preceded the Invalid Link Removed about the constitutionality of Invalid Link Removed.

Among 16 U.S. institutions tested, television news ranks 11[SUP]th[/SUP], following newspapers in 10[SUP]th[/SUP] place. The 25% of adults who express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers is down slightly from 28% last year. Confidence in newspapers is now half of what it was at its peak of 51% in 1979.

Invalid Link Removed
This year's updates mark a setback from last year for both television news and newspapers, when Americans Invalid Link Removed, though they are more in line with 2007-2010 readings.

Liberals' and Moderates' Faith Plummets Below Conservatives'

Liberals and moderates lost so much confidence in television news this year -- 11 and 10 points, respectively -- that their views are now more akin to conservatives' views. This marks a turnaround from the pattern seen since 2009, in which liberals expressed more confidence than conservatives. Conservatives' views of television news were last similar to liberals' in June 2008, before the last presidential election. However, moderates are significantly less confident now than they were then, 20% vs. 28%.

Invalid Link Removed

The decline since last year in confidence in television news among liberals did not coincide with a similar decline among Democrats. Democrats this year are the most confident in the television news media among key subgroups. Interestingly, postgraduates, who tend to be Democrats, are now the least confident.

Invalid Link Removed

Many of the groups that lost confidence in television news also tended to lose confidence in newspapers, though to a lesser degree. These include liberals, older Americans, men, and postgraduates. Other groups budged only slightly.

Invalid Link Removed

Implications

It is not clear precisely why Americans soured so much on television news this year compared with last. Americans' negativity likely reflects the continuation of a broader trend that appeared to enjoy only a brief respite last year. Americans have grown more negative about the media in recent years, as they have about Invalid Link Removed and the Invalid Link Removed.

Still, confidence in television news could plummet further after the high-profile errors CNN and Fox News made in their coverage of the intensely anticipated Supreme Court healthcare law ruling that some have called a Invalid Link Removed. CNN has Invalid Link Removed, and its handling of the outcome of that review could help to bolster confidence. More broadly, these and other networks -- and the news media as a whole -- will have to renew their efforts to show Americans that they deserve a higher level of confidence than what they enjoy today.

Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-10, 2012, with a random sample of 1,004 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit Invalid Link Removed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[h=1]Repost: Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media [/h]


Aired on RT, March 3, 2011
Invalid Link Removed

The US is losing the global information war, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared while appearing before a congressional committee to ask for extra funds to spread US propaganda through new media.

Clinton said existing private channels are not good enough to handle the job, naming as *****s Al Jazeera, China's CCTV and RT -- which she watches, she added.

Clinton was defending her department's budget in front of the House's Committee on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday.

Clinton said the US should step up its propaganda effort and get back "in the game" of doing "what we do best."

"During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America's message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, 'Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,' and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it," she said. "Our private media cannot fill that gap."

"We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I've seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive," she stated.

Things have changed a lot since the days when Western media outlets, including BBC and CNN, had a monopoly on the coverage of world news. More and more viewers across the world tune into various foreign media to get a fresh take on events.

It is all in the numbers. For instance, RT's presence on YouTube is a real hit: almost 300 million views, when CNN International is struggling to reach 3 million.

RT's constantly growing audience is an indication that the days of media monopoly are over and that people are demanding more multi-polar thinking.
 
Government Will Soon Be Able to Know What You’re Thinking

Invalid Link Removed
July 12, 2012

You might have heard that police are deploying scanners – not only in airports – but also on Invalid Link Removed. AndInvalid Link Removed.

You probably know that the National Security Agency is building a $2 billion dollar facility in Utah which will use the world’s most powerful supercomputer to Invalid Link Removed.

And that Invalid Link Removed to tap your communications as well.

You may have heard that drones will soon be flown all over America to spy on us. For example, ABC News Invalid Link Removed:
Drones can carry facial recognition cameras, license plate scanners, thermal imaging cameras, open WiFi sniffers, and other sensors.

And they can be armed.
***
Without privacy and transparency rules — these powerful surveillance tools … have strong potential for misuse.


The military is already using drones over the American homeland to gather information on Americans. See Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed.

AP notes that the American public is Invalid Link Removed:

Public worries about drones began mostly on the political margins, but there are signs that they’re going mainstream.
***
An ACLU lobbyist, Chris Calabrese, said that when he speaks to audiences about privacy issues, drones are what “everybody just perks up over.”


For unbelievable video showing the maneuverability of the new generation of drones, watch Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed.
And remember that drones can be as small as Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed … or even Invalid Link Removed (and see Invalid Link Removed).
That’s nothing.


Government Will Be Able to Tell What You Ate for Breakfast – Or How Much Adrenaline You’ve Got – from 164 Feet Away

Gizmodo Invalid Link Removed today:
Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you. And without you knowing it.

The technology is so incredibly effective that, in November 2011, its inventors were Invalid Link Removed to work with the US Department of Homeland Security. In-Q-Tel is a company founded “Invalid Link Removed at the request of the Director of the CIA and with the support of the U.S. Congress.” According to In-Q-Tel, they are the bridge between the Agency and new technology companies.

Their plan is to install this molecular-level scanning in airports and border crossings all across the United States.
***

The machine is ten million times faster—and one million times more sensitive—than any currently available system. That means that it can be used systematically on everyone passing through airport security, not just suspect or randomly sampled people.

***
Invalid Link Removed
Above: The Genia Photonics’ Picosecond Programmable Laser scanner is capable of detecting every tiny trace of any substance on your body, from specks of gunpowder to your adrenaline levels to a sugar-sized grain of cannabis to what you had for breakfast.

Meanwhile, In-Q-Tel states that “an important benefit of Genia Photonics’ implementation as compared to existing solutions is that the entire synchronized laser system is comprised in a single, robust and alignment-free unit that may be easily transported for use in many environments… This compact and robust laser has the ability to rapidly sweep wavelengths in any pattern and sequence.” [Invalid Link Removed]

So not only can they scan everyone. They would be able to do it everywhere: the subway, a traffic light, sports events… everywhere.
***

The small, inconspicuous machine is attached to a computer running a program that will show the information in real time, from trace amounts of cocaine on your dollar bills to gunpowder residue on your shoes. Forget trying to sneak a bottle of water past security—they will be able to tell what you had for breakfast in an instant while you’re walking down the hallway.

The technology is not new, it’s just millions times faster and more convenient than ever before.
***

And the Russians also Invalid Link Removed: announced last April, their “laser sensor can pick up on a single molecule in a million from up to 50 meters away.”
***

There has so far been no discussion about the personal rights and privacy issues involved. Which “molecular tags” will they be scanning for? Who determines them? What are the threshold levels of this scanning? If you unknowingly stepped on the butt of someone’s joint and are carrying a sugar-sized grain of cannabis like that Invalid Link Removed, will you be arrested?

And, since it’s extremely portable, will this technology extend beyone the airport or border crossings and into police cars, with officers looking for people on the street with increased levels of adrenaline in their system to detain in order to prevent potential violent outbursts? And will your car be scanned at stoplights for any trace amounts of suspicious substances? Would all this information be recorded anywhere?
***


According to the undersecretary for science and technology of the Department of Homeland Security, Invalid Link Removed, which means you might start seeing them in airports as soon as 2013.

In other words, these portable, incredibly precise molecular-level scanning devices will be cascading lasers across your body as you walk from the bathroom to the soda machine at the airport and instantly reporting and storing a detailed breakdown of your person, in search of certain “molecular tags”.


(Researchers at Cornel university are working on ways to scan which are even Invalid Link Removed … leading to the possibility that these type of scanners could one day be ubiquitous.)

I Heard That …

Moreover, as Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, the Invalid Link Removed and many other mainstream sources have reported on experiments showing that mind-reading machines have gone from the realm of science fiction to engineering fact.
Newsweek points out:
Nothing in physics rules out remote detection of brain activity. In fact, says law professor Hank Greely of Stanford, an infrared device under development might read thoughts using little more than a headband. He can imagine a despot scanning citizens’ brains while they look at photos of him, to see who’s an opponent.
***

As with all technology, some uses will bring unalloyed benefits (translating a quadriplegic’s thoughts to move a prosthetic limb). Other uses … well, as Greely says, “we really don’t know where this will end.” That mind reading has begun, however, there is now no doubt.

Indeed, patents were granted for machines which can read people’s thoughts at a distance Invalid Link Removed, and IBM predicts that mind-reading machines will be Invalid Link Removed.

We posted Invalid Link Removed in December showing mind-reading machines in action:
There are now prototypes of machines which can read your mind for a wide variety of purposes. [They include driving, computers, music, and other uses with higher potentials for abuse:]

Department of Homeland Security Unveils Mobile Mind Screening Checkpoints (Official Video)




Michio Kaku on Fox News about Mind Reading





For Good or For Ill?

Technology can be used to make us healthier, more prosperous and more interconnected … or it can be used to impose tyranny.
In a time age when Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed and doing Invalid Link Removed that average, normal people do can get you labelled as a potential terrorist, the risk of the technology being used for repressive purposes has to be taken seriously.

Indeed, the government has been spying on many – or most – Americans Invalid Link Removed. Indeed, massive spying started Invalid Link Removed.
The government monitoring efforts will not focus on spying on potential terrorists – or even criminal activity – but in Invalid Link Removed.

Indeed, the spying Invalid Link Removed… and to Invalid Link Removed (and Invalid Link Removed).

As influential senator Frank Church Invalid Link Removed in 1975:
“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.


The former head of the above-described NSA spying program held his thumb and forefinger close together, and Invalid Link Removed:
We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.

On the other hand, the ability to Invalid Link Removed (and remember, the parts for Invalid Link Removed are just over $1,000) may mean that technology will be available for the people to keep an eye on our government, just as the web is being used to “be the media” and hold our leaders to account.


Whether technology imprisons us or frees us remains to be seen. And the result is largely up to us: scientists, engineers and we the people as a whole.


 
NATO-FSA False Flag Alert: US Claims Syria “Moving Nerve Gas Out of Storage”

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
July 13, 2012

Citing no evidence, and on the heels of yet another baseless “activist” report claiming a massacre has taken place in Homs, Invalid Link Removed that the Syrian government is taking chemical weapons out of storage for possible use “against anti-regime rebels or civilians, possibly in an ethnic cleansing campaign.”

Despite claiming to possess this information, the US officials refused to disclose the location these weapons were being moved to, nor the actual nomenclature of the weapons, stating only “they are most worried about Syria’s stockpiles of sarin gas.”

Invalid Link Removed
Image
: The symbols for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The West is the undisputed champion of deploying each of these weapons of mass destruction against their enemies – from nuclear bombs upon Japan, to depleted uranium and white phosphorus upon Iraq, to Agent Orange all across Vietnam – it stands to reason that these weapons would eventually end up in the hands of the their proxies as well.

….
In mid-June, Invalid Link Removed of a possible Invalid Link Removed operating under the cover of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” employing chemical weapons pilfered from devastated, militant-overrun Libya. The aim of the operation would be to create a justifiable impetus for overt Western military intervention, citing the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations as the most extreme attempt yet to manufacture otherwise nonexistent consensus for a repeat of NATO’s operations in Libya.

In, “Invalid Link Removed,” it was explained how NATO’s militant proxies possessed not only the means and capabilities of carrying out such an attack, but the motivation and precedents of doing so – with the FSA already admittedly carrying out a deadly, nationwide terrorist bombing campaign killing scores of civilians per attack. Invalid Link Removed into the hands of militants operating in Syria has also been confirmed by governments and international media on numerous occasions, as has the factInvalid Link Removed (Invalid Link Removed) have joined NATO’s covert operations to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Syrian government has withstood over a year of withering, brutal attacks, economically, politically, diplomatically, throughout the Western controlled corporate media, and militarily by the West. One might then be troubled to fathom why the government would then use chemical weapons sure to provide the impetus needed to leap over the obstructions placed in the West’s way throughout the UN Security Council by Russia and China. The answer is simple, the Syrian government is not pondering the use of chemical weapons, NATO and its terrorist proxies are.

This, along with a recent roll-out of preplanned, over-hyped “defections” seeks to psychologically stampede the Syrian government from power, and if necessary, create a pretext to do so militarily.
 
Newt Gingrich Autographs Bohemian Grove Picture

avatarPosted by Luke Rudkowski on Jul 11, 2012

Once again, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange confronts Newt Gingrich on Bohemian Grove, only this time, Luke has proof of Newts attendance.



Invalid Link Removed


For an further look into Bohemian Grove check out below:

The most powerful death cult that you've probably never heard of.

Dark Secrets : Inside Bohemian Grove Full Length


Alex Jones bringing it (in case you dont know what your leaders do) - Since 1873, the Global Elite Has Held Secret Meetings in the Ancient Redwood Forest of Northern California.

Members of the so-called "Bohemian Club" include Former Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

The Bush Family Maintains a Strong Involvement. Each Year at Bohemian Grove, Members of This All-Male "Club" Don Red, Black and Silver Robes and Conduct an Occult Ritual Wherein They Worship a Giant Stone Owl, Sacrificing a Human Being in Effigy to What They Call the "Great Owl of Bohemia."

Now, for the First Time in History, an Outsider Has Infiltrated Bohemian Grove with a Hidden Digital Video Camera and Caught the Ritual on Tape.



The 40 foot Owl at Bohemian Grove worshiped during the "Cremation of Care" ceremony.


Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Newt Gingrich Autographs Bohemian Grove Picture

avatarPosted by Luke Rudkowski on Jul 11, 2012

Once again, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange confronts Newt Gingrich on Bohemian Grove, only this time, Luke has proof of Newts attendance.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsN8GZfox5c&feature=player_embedded#!">YouTube Link</a>

For an further look into Bohemian Grove check out below:

The most powerful death cult that you've probably never heard of.

Dark Secrets : Inside Bohemian Grove Full Length

Alex Jones bringing it (in case you dont know what your leaders do) - Since 1873, the Global Elite Has Held Secret Meetings in the Ancient Redwood Forest of Northern California.

Members of the so-called "Bohemian Club" include Former Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

The Bush Family Maintains a Strong Involvement. Each Year at Bohemian Grove, Members of This All-Male "Club" Don Red, Black and Silver Robes and Conduct an Occult Ritual Wherein They Worship a Giant Stone Owl, Sacrificing a Human Being in Effigy to What They Call the "Great Owl of Bohemia."

Now, for the First Time in History, an Outsider Has Infiltrated Bohemian Grove with a Hidden Digital Video Camera and Caught the Ritual on Tape.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtEvplXMLs&feature=fvwrel">YouTube Link</a>

The 40 foot Owl at Bohemian Grove worshiped during the "Cremation of Care" ceremony.

This fat slug is one of the biggest frauds in american politics. He is a snake
 
This is a repost from my Police State Thread...

Emergency Alert! UN Set To Ban Civilian Gun Ownership

Alex Jones

Infowars.com
July 14, 2012

The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month. The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations. Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away– it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic. Look at all the uncovered martial law revelations: Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions.



Reason.com: Invalid Link Removed
A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People.

Death by “Gun Control”

Mirrored from Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Why must all decent non-violent people fight against “gun control”? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.

People frequently ask why we are so dedicated to our cause? This book answers that question by collecting the key facts and arguments in one place.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.

Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: “Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.” For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.

What disarms the citizens? The idea of “gun control.” It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.

Death by Gun Control carefully examines the “gun control” idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.

The Mother of All Stats: The Human Cost of “Gun Control” Ideas

Invalid Link Removed

Addition – For easier chart printing, download the Invalid Link Removed, it includes a text synopsis of this page.
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.

In the 20th Century:

Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power – and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Truth They Cannot Refute


Death by Gun Control delivers the essential – and gut wrenching — truth that the anti-self defense “gun control” advocates never try to refute. They simply cannot refute the facts or the formula.

Here’s the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide


What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone.

Using the facts in Death by Gun Control, you can take down the enemies of the Bill of Rights. The rights-destroyers have no answers to these facts. They have no excuses for their killer ideas.

JPFO’s work has already borne fruit. John R. Bolton, an under-Secretary of State for the United States, this year urged the United Nations to recognize how an “oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government” will need ready access to firearms. Mr. Bolton might have been the first U.S. official in modern history to have argued to the UN that private citizens might need to be armed against their own killer governments.

Paul Harvey, the world-renowned and much admired radio commentator, last year reportedly broadcast the JPFO-produced facts linking “gun control” to the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Country by country, Mr. Harvey counted the murdered victims of civilian disarmament policies.

Our new book could inspire other opinion-makers to join the chorus. Chapters in the book teach about:
The essential meaning of “gun control”
The Genocide Formula
The laws and policies that led to mega murder in Cambodia, China, Nazi Germany, Guatemala, Rwanda, Ottoman Turkey, Uganda, USSR
Zimbabwe’s land invasions and firearms confiscations
Soaring crime in Britain after gun prohibition
Violence and police state polices in Japan
The right and duty of armed self-defense in Judaism and both Protestant and Catholic Christianity
Racist roots of “gun control” in America
The United Nations program to disarm civilians worldwide
Police state polices that condition Americans to accept victim disarmament.

Hurricane Katrina Door to Door Firearms Confiscation


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof: UN Plans To Ban American Guns


Infowars.com
July 14, 2012

Globalist United Nations moving to undermine and kill off Second Amendment. See more in Alex’s addendum and even more evidence/explanation of the gun ban intent.


Fast & Furious Staged to Pass UN Gun Treaty

In an Infowars Nightly News special report, Aaron Dykes examines the long-standing United Nations agenda to disarm populations.



United Nations’ Office for Disarmament Affairs

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed [PDF]

Invalid Link Removed [PDF]
————
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

“If the American people learn that the motivations for all of this was to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the (Justice) department’s ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry,” said Rep. Trent Franks.

“We have an administration that has said ‘don’t let a good crisis go to waste’ and you wonder if this was actually a manufactured crisis,” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) said on Fox News back in the summer.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans

Invalid Link Removed

Alex Jones responds to the radical and anti-American rhetoric issued today by visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderón on the floor of the U.S. Congress.

Keep in mind, Calderón and Obama are continuing unfinished business-- i.e. the North American Union. The two heads met alongside Canadian PM Steven Harper in August 2009 in Guadalajara where they discussed very similar themes-- the problem of "illegal weapons flowing south and fueling violence."

The Obama White House has had the resurgence of the Assault Weapons Ban on its agenda since the beginning of his term, but only now dare to raise an issue they know will be a political fight and free-for-all.


 
National Security Threat: Obama’s Birth Certificate Proven Fraudulent

(note: just wanna say....again, lol)

One of the biggest cover-ups in U.S. political history

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold case posse has confirmed that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is “definitely fraudulent,” prompting the media and political establishment to launch a frenzied spin campaign in an effort to deflect attention from the astounding new evidence uncovered by the investigation.



In addition to the Invalid Link Removed clearly proving Obama’s long form birth certificate had been tampered with, including the fact that when analyzed the document clearly shows that layered text has been added in artificially and that the scan of the document is not an original, Arpaio and his posse unearthed tantalizing new information.

The most stunning revelation is the fact that in numerous places, Obama’s birth certificate has had information added at a later date than the original.

The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the “race of father,” the number 9 on the coding guide indicates “unknown or not stated.”

The number 9 appears on Obama’s birth certificate in section 9 entitled “race of father.” This means that the race of Obama’s father was unknown or not stated at the time the original birth certificate was filed. However, the box also contains the word “African,” which was not even used as a descriptive term at the time. The fact that the document contradicts itself in that it denotes the “race of father” as not stated but then also “African” clearly indicates that “African” was added in at a later date.

The same error can be found in box 12b, “kind of business or industry,” which is also marked with a number 9 to denote ‘not stated’ yet also contains the word “University,” again clearly suggesting the document was tampered with at a later date.

Sheriff Arpaio has now promised to elevate the issue to a higher authority within the federal government.

“Although I am having a difficult time deciding who to forward this information to given the fact that the obvious choices report directly to the president, I cannot stand by and hold on to information that threatens to weaken national security,” said Arpaio.

If you’re wondering how the media and the political establishment will respond to this latest bombshell evidence that Obama’s background is completely fraudulent, look no further than two of the individuals featured in a Invalid Link Removed
Instead of attempting to respond to the astounding facts about the fraudulent nature of the birth certificate unearthed during the investigation, critics resorted to emotional manipulation.

Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods labeled the issue “an absolute joke” and questioned why Arpaio would even look into the matter, before falsely claiming that most conservatives had “given up on this issue,” when in reality Invalid Link Removed that Obama was born in another country. Woods also labeled the matter “fake” and “offensive,” relying on the use of emotive words rather than challenging the facts surrounding the suspect birth certificate.

Democrat Paul Penzone, who is running against Arpaio for Maricopa County Sheriff, also displayed a jaw-dropping disregard for irony when he responded to the new evidence by stating, “I feel like it’s groundhog day, I’m hearing the same thing over and over again but you’re not going to convince me otherwise – I don’t want to hear any more.”

In other words, ‘my mind’s already made up – don’t bother me with the facts.’

“The media has demeaned this investigation at every turn as silly and wasteful,” said Lisa Allen, MCSO spokesperson. “We simply ask right now that you put your preconceived notions about this listen to the facts and if you can keep an open mind.”

However, none of the criticism of the investigation has dared to address the facts because they cannot be shot down. Instead, opponents of Sheriff Arpaio have cast aspersions about political motivations behind the investigation while others have resorted to name calling and petty jibes.

No matter what spin the media and political establishment attempt to put on this, the facts cannot be denied. President Obama’s birth certificate betrays innumerable instances clearly indicating that the document has been tampered with in an effort to manufacture the myth that Obama was born in the United States.

The manifestly logical conclusion that he was not creates an urgent national security threat and represents one of the biggest cover-ups in U.S. political history.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio News Conference July 17th - Obama's Birth Certificate Is A 100% Forgery



Invalid Link Removed



 
Always great when people make outrageous claims with absolutely no proof at all.

They do supply some new proof (when I say proof, I dont mean believe it without checking it of course) above with the coding "9" and other inconsistencies.

Its also interesting how they discovered Hawaii's birth certificate laws which basically allow birth certificate's to be given to anybody born wherever.

"Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an
adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue
a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been
submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual
while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory
or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child. "


Source: Invalid Link Removed


Just want to note, I downloaded the document the day it was released on the official Whitehouse website and had my photo-shop expert (yes professional) friend help confirm with me that it was totally fraudulent so my conclusions had been prior to anything I saw on the net or news. This doesnt mean you should believe me of course :)
 
Back
Top