Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
GOOD PASSWORD POLICY
Now Playing: Insecure Passwords
Fix Your Terrible, Insecure Passwords in Five Minutes
A foolproof technique to secure your computer, e-mail, and bank account.
Posted Friday, July 24, 2009, at 7:05 AM ET
It's tempting to blame the victim. In May, a twentysomething French hacker broke into several Twitter employees' e-mail accounts and stole a trove of meeting notes, strategy documents, and other confidential scribbles. The hacker eventually gave the stash to TechCrunch, which has since published notes from meetings in which Twitter execs discussed their very lofty goals. (The company wants to be the first Web service to reach 1 billion users.) How'd the hacker get all this stuff? Like a lot of tech startups, Twitter runs without paper—much of the company's discussions take place in e-mail and over shared Google documents. All of these corporate secrets are kept secure with a very thin wall of protection: the employees' passwords, which the intruder managed to guess because some people at Twitter used the same passwords for many different sites. In other words, Twitter had it coming. The trouble is, so do the rest of us.
Your passwords aren't very secure. Even if you think they are, they probably aren't. Do you use the same or similar passwords for several different important sites? If you don't, pat yourself on the back; if you do, you're not alone—one recent survey found that half of people online use the same password for all the sites they visit. Do you change your passwords often? Probably not; more than 90 percent don't. If one of your accounts falls to a hacker, will he find enough to get into your other accounts? For a scare, try this: Search your e-mail for some of your own passwords. You'll probably find a lot of them, either because you've e-mailed them to yourself or because some Web sites send along your password when you register or when you tell them you've forgotten it. If an attacker manages to get into your e-mail, he'll have an easy time accessing your bank account, your social networking sites, and your fantasy baseball roster. That's exactly what happened at Twitter. (Here's my detailed explanation of how Twitter got compromised.)
Everyone knows it's bad to use the same password for different sites. People do it anyway because remembering different passwords is annoying. Remembering different difficult passwords is even more annoying. Eric Thompson, the founder of AccessData, a technology forensics company that makes password-guessing software, says that most passwords follow a pattern. First, people choose a readable word as a base for the password—not necessarily something in Webster's but something that is pronounceable in English. Then, when pressed to add a numeral or symbol to make the password more secure, most people add a 1 or ! to the end of that word. Thompson's software, which uses a "brute force" technique that tries thousands of passwords until it guesses yours correctly, can easily suss out such common passwords. When it incorporates your computer's Web history in its algorithm—all your ramblings on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere—Thompson's software can come up with a list of passwords that is highly likely to include yours. (He doesn't use it for nefarious ends; AccessData usually guesses passwords under the direction of a court order, for military purposes, or when companies get locked out of their own systems—"systems administrator gets hit by a bus on the way to work," Thompson says by way of example.)
Security expert Bruce Schneier writes about passwords often, and he distills Thompson's findings into a few rules: Choose a password that doesn't contain a readable word. Mix upper and lower case. Use a number or symbol in the middle of the word, not on the end. Don't just use 1 or !, and don't use symbols as replacements for letters, such as @ for a lowercase A—password-guessing software can see through that trick. And of course, create unique passwords for your different sites.
That all sounds difficult and time-consuming. It doesn't have to be. In Schneier's comment section, I found a foolproof technique to create passwords that are near-impossible to crack yet easy to remember. Even better, it'll take just five minutes of your time. Ready?
Start with an original but memorable phrase. For this exercise, let's use these two sentences: I like to eat bagels at the airport and My first Cadillac was a real lemon so I bought a Toyota. The phrase can have something to do with your life or it can be a random collection of words—just make sure it's something you can remember. That's the key: Because a mnemonic is easy to remember, you don't have to write it down anywhere. (If you can't remember it without writing it down, it's not a good mnemonic.) This reduces the chance that someone will guess it if he gets into your computer or your e-mail. What's more, a relatively simple mnemonic can be turned into a fanatically difficult password.
Which brings us to Step 2: Turn your phrase into an acronym. Be sure to use some numbers and symbols and capital letters, too. I like to eat bagels at the airport becomes Ilteb@ta, and My first Cadillac was a real lemon so I bought a Toyota is M1stCwarlsIbaT.
That's it—you're done. These mnemonic passwords are hard to forget, but they contain no guessable English words. You can even create pass phrases for specific sites that are coded with a hint about their purpose. A sentence like It's 20 degrees in February, so I use Gmail lets you set a new Gmail password every month and still never forget it: i90diSsIuG for September, i30diMsIuG for March, etc. (These aren't realistic temperatures; they're the month-number multiplied by 10.)
How many different such passwords do you need? Four or five at most. You don't have to keep unique passwords for every single site you visit—Thompson says it's perfectly OK to repeat passwords on sites that don't need to be kept very secure. For instance, I can use the same password for my accounts at the New York Times, the New Republic, The New Yorker, and other online magazines, because it won't hurt me too much if someone breaks into those. (My mnemonic is, I like to read snooty publications quite often.) You should probably use different passwords for each your social networking accounts—someone can do real damage by breaking into your Facebook or Twitter, so you want to keep them distinct—but you can still come up with a single systematic mnemonic to protect them: Twitter is my second favorite social networking site, MySpace is my third favorite social networking site, etc. Reserve your strongest, most distinct passwords for the few very important services that, if cracked, could do the most damage—your bank account, your computer, and most of all your e-mail, which often contains the keys to everything else in your life.
To be sure, this is more of a hassle than what you're doing now—but what you're doing now is going to come back to bite you. These days, we're all dishing personal information all the time; you may think that your password is totally unguessable, but your Facebook makes clear that you're a huge U2 fan and you graduated from college in 2000. Achtung2000, eh? Just go ahead and make some new passwords right now. Trust me, you'll feel better.
According to the story he gave TechCrunch, the Twitter hacker began exploiting Gmail's forgotten-password feature to get into one staffer's personal e-mail. The hacker got a bit lucky here: When he hit the forgotten-password button, Gmail gave him a hint about the secondary e-mail address that the employee had entered when he or she had set up the Gmail account: ******@h******.com. The hacker guessed that this was a Hotmail address; when he checked Hotmail for some addresses that might belong to the user, he found they were no longer active. (Hotmail, like a lot of Web e-mail services, deletes accounts that haven't been accessed in a while.) So the hacker set up the Hotmail account that Gmail thought belonged to the Twitter employee. When Gmail sent a password-reset link to the Hotmail address, it went right into the hacker's hands. (Google has recently added a feature in Gmail that occasionally prompts users to update their backup e-mail addresses.)
After rifling through the Twitter employee's Gmail in search of passwords, the hacker noticed that he seemed to use similar passwords for a lot of different sites. From there, Twitter fell like a line of dominoes: The hacker used the passwords he found in the Gmail account to get into the employee's Google Apps account, which led him to company documents that contained personal information about other Twitter employees. That information allowed him to guess those employees' passwords, which gave him even more personal information, which got him even more passwords, and so on. Eventually the hacker had access not only to documents floating around inside Twitter but also to some employees' accounts at Amazon, AT&T, and iTunes. He even got into the GoDaddy account that managed some of Twitter's domain names.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2223478/
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:00 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 25 October 2009 7:20 PM PDT
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Man In Black - Johnny Cash
Now Playing: Johnny tells you why
Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 6:06 PM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 18 October 2009 6:10 PM PDT
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Now Playing: Creates Bullseye In The Sky (experiment)
Creates Bullseye In The Sky
Published on 10-15-2009
Source: Britain News
An experiment that fires powerful radio waves into the sky has created a patch of 'artificial ionosphere', mimicking the uppermost portion of Earth's atmosphere.
According to a report in Nature News, the experiment is called the 'High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program' (HAARP), near Gakona, Alaska.
It has spent nearly two decades using radio waves to probe Earth's magnetic field and ionosphere.
One of the most obvious results of the experiments is that they can create lights in the sky that are similar to auroras, the glowing curtains of light that naturally appear in the polar skies when electrons and other charged particles pour down from Earth's protective magnetosphere into the upper atmosphere.
There, at an altitude of about 250 kilometres, the charged particles collide with molecules of oxygen and nitrogen and make them emit light, similar to the process inside a fluorescent light bulb.
HAARP's high-frequency radio waves can accelerate electrons in the atmosphere, increasing the energy of their collisions and creating a glow.
The technique has previously triggered speckles of light while running at a power of almost 1 megawatt1.
But since the facility ramped up to 3.6 megawatts - roughly three times more than a typical broadcast radio transmitter - it has created full-scale artificial auroras that are visible to the naked eye.
But in February last year, HAARP managed to induce a strange bullseye pattern in the night sky.
Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bullseye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP.
The team modelled how the energy sent skywards from the HAARP antenna array would trigger these odd shapes.
They determined that the areas of the bullseye with strange light patterns were in regions of denser, partially ionized gas in the atmosphere, as measured by ground-based high-frequency radar used to track the ionosphere.
The scientists believe that these dense patches of plasma could be gas that was ionized by the HAARP emissions.
"This is the really exciting part - we've made a little artificial piece of ionosphere," Pedersen said.
"The novelty is not seeing the aurora - it's the fact that we can actually create enough high-energy electrons to form plasma," said Mike Kosch, chair of Experimental Space Science at Lancaster University, UK.
"It shows something completely different and new that we hadn't expected. We didn't know we could do that from a radio array on the ground," he added.
Watch This YouTube Video:
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 25 October 2009 7:22 PM PDT
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Portland Human Rights Meeting Video
Now Playing: The Portland monthly meeting is now viewable
Portland Human Rights Meeting
Full Version Video from 10.7.09
This meeting is open to the public
The full video is 1.hr 49.min
5 short video out-takes from the 2 hour meeting
1. "The Dream Act"
2. "Public Notice"
4. "Police Relations"
5. "Public Announcement"
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 6:59 PM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 18 October 2009 4:58 AM PDT
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Videos: Iran & Nukes & Diss-Info
Now Playing: Wake Up !
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:10 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 25 October 2009 7:24 PM PDT
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Irans nuke facility and USA media Bullshit
Now Playing: Analysis finds holes in US Iran story: US may have pretended to know about facility
Analysis finds holes in US Iran story:
US may have pretended to know about facility
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 -- 7:25 am
The story line that dominated media coverage of the second Iranian uranium enrichment facility last week was the official assertion that U.S. intelligence had caught Iran trying to conceal a "secret" nuclear facility.
But an analysis of the transcript of that briefing by senior administration officials that was the sole basis for the news stories and other evidence reveals damaging admissions, conflicts with the facts and unanswered questions that undermine its credibility.
Iran's notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the second enrichment facility in a letter on Sep. 21 was buried deep in most of the news stories and explained as a response to being detected by U.S. intelligence. In reporting the story in that way, journalists were relying entirely on the testimony of "senior administration officials" who briefed them at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh Friday.
U.S. intelligence had "learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised", one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because "they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid..." Later in the briefing, however, the official said "we believe", rather than "we learned", in referring to that claim, indicating that it is only an inference rather than being based on hard intelligence.
The official refused to explain how U.S. analysts had arrived at that conclusion, but an analysis by the defence intelligence consulting firm IHS Jane's of a satellite photo of the site taken Saturday said there is a surface-to-air missile system located at the site.
Since surface-to-air missiles protect many Iranian military sites, however, their presence at the Qom site doesn't necessarily mean that Iran believed that Washington had just discovered the enrichment plant.
The official said the administration had organised an intelligence briefing on the facility for the IAEA during the summer on the assumption that the Iranians might "choose to disclose the facility themselves". But he offered no explanation for the fact that there had been no briefing given to the IAEA or anyone else until Sep. 24 - three days after the Iranians disclosed the existence of the facility.
A major question surrounding the official story is why the Barack Obama administration had not done anything – and apparently had no plans to do anything - with its intelligence on the Iranian facility at Qom prior to the Iranian letter to the IAEA. When asked whether the administration had intended to keep the information in its intelligence briefing secret even after the meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1, the senior official answered obliquely but revealingly, "I think it's impossible to turn back the clock and say what might have been otherwise." In effect, the answer was no, there had been no plan for briefing the IAEA or anyone.
News media played up the statement by the senior administration official that U.S. intelligence had been "aware of this facility for years".
But what was not reported was that he meant only that the U.S. was aware of a possible nuclear site, not one whose function was known.
The official in question acknowledged the analysts had not been able to identify it as an enrichment facility for a long time. In the "very early stage of construction," said the official, "a facility like this could have multiple uses." Intelligence analysts had to "wait until the facility had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended for use as a centrifuge facility," he explained.
The fact that the administration had made no move to brief the IAEA or other governments on the site before Iran revealed its existence suggests that site had not yet reached that stage where the evidence was unambiguous. A former U.S. official who has seen the summary of the administration's intelligence used to brief foreign governments told IPS he doubts the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Qom site was an enrichment plant. "I think they didn't have the goods on them," he said.
Also misleading was the official briefing's characterisation of the intelligence assessment on the purpose of the enrichment plant. The briefing concluded that the Qom facility must be for production of weapons-grade enriched uranium, because it will accommodate only 3,000 centrifuges, which would be too few to provide fuel for a nuclear power plant.
According to the former U.S. official who has read the briefing paper on the intelligence assessment, however, the paper says explicitly that the Qom facility is "a possible military facility". That language indicates that intelligence analysts have suggested that the facility may be for making low-enriched rather than for high-enriched, bomb-grade uranium. It also implies that the senior administration official briefing the press was deliberately portraying the new enrichment facility in more menacing terms than the actual intelligence assessment.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offer the day after the denunciation of the site by U.S., British and French leaders to allow IAEA monitoring of the plant will make it far more difficult to argue that it was meant to serve military purposes.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that Iran never intended to keep the Qom facility secret from the IAEA but was waiting to make it public at a moment that served its political-diplomatic objectives.
The Iranian government is well aware of U.S. capabilities for monitoring from satellite photographs any site in Iran that exhibits certain characteristics.
Iran obviously wanted to make the existence of the Qom site public before construction on the site would clearly indicate an enrichment purpose. But it gave the IAEA no details in its initial announcement, evidently hoping to find out whether and how much the United States already knew about it.
The specific timing of the Iranian letter, however, appears to be related to the upcoming talks between Iran and the P5+1 - China, France, Britain, Russia, the United States and Germany - and an emerging Iranian strategy of smaller back-up nuclear facilities that would assure continuity if Natanz were attacked.
The Iranian announcement of that decision on Sep. 14 coincided with a statement by the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, warning against preemptive strikes against the country's nuclear facilities.
The day after the United States, Britain and France denounced the Qom facility as part of a deception, Salehi said, "Considering the threats, our organisation decided to do what is necessary to preserve and continue our nuclear activities. So we decided to build new installations which will guarantee the continuation of our nuclear activities which will never stop at any cost."
As satellite photos of the site show, the enrichment facility at Qom is being built into the side of a mountain, making it less vulnerable to destruction, even with the latest bunker-busting U.S. bombs.
The pro-administration newspaper Kayhan quoted an "informed official" as saying that Iran had told the IAEA in 2004 that it had to do something about the threat of attack on its nuclear facilities "repeatedly posed by the western countries".
The government newspaper called the existence of the second uranium enrichment plan "a winning card" that would increase Iran's bargaining power in the talks. That presumably referred to neutralising the ultimate coercive threat against Iran by the United States.
* Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. Originally published by Inter Press Service.
lets make the middle east nuke free, lets see, who is armed to the teeth with nukes built
with technology stolen from the usa?????OH YEA, ISRAEL, THE APARTHEID LAND GRABBING,LYING, SPYING,SHIT DISTURBING FUCKS! Haven't we been interfering with Iran long enough?
Likely there wouldn't even have been a revolution, had we not twisted their political system according to our own whims (a.k.a. lust for petroleum).
And isn't self-defense a recognized right of anyone on the planet--person or nation? If I had a psycho neighbor like Israel, I'd want nukes too. Besides...who the hell will stand up and say it's our right just 'cause we're the USA, but not Iran's. And let's not forget that Iran IS under constant threat from Israel and the US for doing the exact same things we've done and/or are doing.
We, the USA, wants to negotiate on the international stage from a position of strength, security, and what we want to think is morality. I bet Iran, and her people, want the same thing. Guess what? They can't. They can only negotiate right now from a standpoint of fear and paranoia. If we were in the same position, you can bet your bottom dollar we'd literally move mountains (like Iran is doing) to get nukes. It's understandable to a six-year-old.
If we want no nukes, let's lead by example, like any good commander must assuredly do. Leadership is done by LEADING. Enough of "do as I say, not as I do."
If the USA grew a set of nads about Israel, maybe other nations would feel a little more respect, and a little less fear. Maybe they wouldn't NEED nukes. I don't like Ahmedinijad any more than I liked GW Bush. But he's correct that nuke energy is the right of every nation. We have no right to browbeat them into doing things we, ourselves, will not do.
I think the CIA has fucked this situation up for us for longer than anyone alive remembers. Why do we believe the CIA at all? They are, if I'm not mistaken, professional liars. Hey! Here's an unusual idea: why don't we scrap the CIA altogether. And then we could begin, oh, I don't know...telling the truth, treating other nations even-handedly, and not accepting lies from our "allies" any more than we accept lies from our "enemies".
A part of that honesty would be to say, "you know, we're only interested in 1)oil, and 2)not being attacked...and Israel has no oil." It'd rather change the equation, don't you think?
If we'd not made religious whackos out of Iran, they'd have probably been pretty good friends and allies. Because of large corporations and the CIA, it'll be a long, long time before they're either.
Just my two cents. Very well put.
I see a few positive things happening toward your view.
-The US is finally openly talking to Iran. Finally.
-The coverage of their election plight, I think, did a lot more to help Americans understand Iranians and feel more connected. I think Americans secretly wish they were allowed to protest like the Iranians did. Sure, didn't end so well there, but here? Same protests would have been much, much worse, much sloppier.
-The clincher- who currently controls the airspace between Israel and Iran? The only direct flight of missiles or fighters is either across an unwilling Arab country or Iraq. The US is right in the middle and would have to be complicit in a preemptive Israeli attack. My opinion, that ain't gonna happen. We're sick of war. We are allowed to protest like the Iranians, but we're so zombified by television, internet, cellphones and mp3 downloads, we won't get off our fat lazy butts to go out into the streets to do what they did. Absolutely shameful. Yeah, a lot of people are more satisfied than they profess, and yes, some lack conviction, but some are just afraid to protest and won't admit it.
We've been brainwashed into thinking it's still allowed and we're "free" to do it, but deep down people know the various local govt's won't let them until their "group" has been fully vetted.
Tried to protest spontaneously lately? I dare ya!
They look at it now like you should have a permit; the lack of one is reason enough to make you disperse. On TV, they report lack of permit, show a little fake violence or the one person who's throwing something or acting wildly, and the viewers agree it should be broken up.
If I want to protest the government, why would I want to get a permit from it to do so?
This is why I say Americans are developing an admiration for Iranians. They want freedom, like we do, and they still have the drive to make it happen. More lies and paranoia-induced delusion coming from the CIA? There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb, just fear. Yes, let's scrap the CIA. Fat chance. When an empire permits the existence of a secret fear machine, it has one foot in the grave and the other in a bear trap. The CIA is self perpetuating. Sure, its funding could be entirely discontinued by Congress but, yawn, there's no leadership there. And the neo cons obama keeps appointing in his administration are continuing bushs policies. But we know what they are doing now.. we always did know what the neocons were doing, but nobody would listen or open their eyes and see the warped american ultra-patriotic propaganda. continuing to push teh stupid ball forward. Somebody is paying attention!! The rest of us have learned big ZERO from the Iraq "mushroom clound", "WMD", "Mobile labs", .... Nothing new here...move along. This isn't the least bit surprising since those guilty of using forged documents and illegal domestic propaganda and lies to take the US military into an illegal war of aggression have yet to be brought to justice. They think they can continue to get away with it. But the majority of the American citizens are getting some feed up with this anti--American right wing radical bullshit!!! Trust Mr. Porter to always come up with an in-depth analysis and clears the ambiguity. Off-topic:
Seems Senator David "Shitter" Vitter has the balls to take on the made-up ACORN scandal. Really. A guy made this great video slamming the "Shitter." Watch the video, rate it(we want it on the most viewed list), then make the call. Post the video to your facebook so all your friends will call and bug the "crap" out of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCesaJ479Vw Srsly, that is hilarious! Known since construction started
Years and years
"impossible to turn back the clock "
No accountability for Government
No justice for Government I guess we need another war in order to continue the american charade. The existence of this facility has been known for YEARS...I remember looking at it via Google Earth at least 3 years ago. Just Google the words "Qom" and "nuclear" and you'll see references going back as far as 2005!!
http://www.google.com/search?&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_... At first the American government, or at least the part of it that seems to be in control of such things, imposed an authoritarian monarchy on Iranians; you know, like the one in Saudi Arabia. I ask, why would the great Democracy do this and at the same time so blatantly turn its back on its own history and principles? Indeed the story is the same almost everywhere America goes when claiming to free the people in the name of democracy.
It all begins as a pretext, covering up for the true reason; ask any Vietnamese and they will tell you what their war with America was really about, OIL! (there are huge reserves of oil off its coast) It eventually ends in dictatorship however and whether or not the gambit is itself successful, the population shall fall into the hands of people brutal enough to maintain it. Yet invariably, it isn't because of the brutality perpetrated against its people or even its form of governance, that cause America's geo-political interests and supporters to hate the current regime in Iran. Its because they have been told NO! We need not look far for similar examples of American duplicity expressed elsewhere in the region, where most leaders have said YES, and where exists a general inability of the people there as well as in Iran, to effectively throw out these thugs and dictators.
In all, it is the usurpation and at times, the downright theft of the natural resources of those who are perceived to be weak and therefore unable to defend themselves, which is at the heart of this game that America plays around the world. Unless that is, like the Israelis and N Koreans have found, you make everyone believe you are bat shit crazy enough and willing to use nuclear weapons, real or not, to protect your country; such deception is better known as black mail, and countries like Iran, Burma and other incipient nuclear manipulators will be added to a growing list of counties, actually all of them, who are willing to use the bomb in this way. What really bothers me,the Juice have been bad mouthing the germans since 1932 and they take it. Now Germany has saddled with the USA/UK/French thugs to protect Israel.
Get this, 3 years ago, Germany developed one of the most advanced submarines,with mechanics to accomdate nukes. Between 6 to 7 were GIVEN to Israel.Just like Saudia Arabia--19 terrorist attackers 911,even though it was Made in USA self attack,the Saudias didn't demand a proper investigation. What gives? Are Jews that poerfull or money talks kosher. No wonder Jewish money is called Shackles :^/ geoi671,
Can we leave "jews" out of it? This has zero to do with judaism, but a hell of a lot to do with unprincipled power, and paranoia, and fear. Of course, many, many people, of all nations, and of just about all cultures, justify their untenable wants and practices by reference to their imaginary friends.
Oftentimes, however, there are no justifications to be found in those belief systems save the ones spun up by people claiming to be adherents to those belief systems. Jews do not, in particular, have a corner on that market.
I find no credibility in ascribing lawful or moral authority to any of them. Re; Mio2cent's comment-'Can we leave "jews" out of it? This has zero to do with judaism"..
FYI:^) Jews control Washington establishment, all major media Video/Print/publishing, Hollywood, militray Industry complex, Banking Money System, Stock exchanges, Major recycling,Food processing plants, Hotel chains, Resorts and they own you to fight their dirty wars.
Hard to forget USS LIBERTY KILLINGS and COVER-UP by the Jews.I guess , in your silly rants would put the blame on Arabs.
It is well known,that the 4 War Crimimials of WWII, where Stalin, Churchill,Roosevelt, Hitler and all from Jewish bloodlines. Only Hitler kept his real Jewish name. Over 60 million died for the creation of Israel--- and yet they again got away with pulling off 911 attacks.
Really sucks,Big Time, in how stupid slaves think! It's not a "uranium enrichment facility" until the centrifuges and uranium are inside the facility.
So far, it is just an empty building inside a mountain, therefore Iran was not required, by the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you know, the Treaty that all civilized countries have signed)(not Israel) to report this empty building until a certain amount of time before occupation.
Iran claims that it is not bound by the revised Code 3.1 of its Subsidiary Arrangement with the IAEA and, therefore, they need to announce new facilities only 180 days before nuclear material enters the site and material will not be introduced for at least 6 months as of last Monday, when Iran sent the letter to the IAEA.
The U.S. and Israel *HATE IT* when Iran abides by the NNPT, obeying it to the letter. That's why they are trying to use the UN Security Council to "punish" Iran, because the IAEA cannot do anything to a country that is perfectly compliant with the NNPT. Unfortunately for the bullies, China and Russia have a Veto to their illegal sanctions - the U.S. can only bribe them with economic carrots for so long, and now the U.S. is economically weaker than ever... The notions of secrecy and ill intent have been the only evidence that US and its attack dog Isreal have been reliant upon to push their line of aggression. However, the facility is well with in the NPT guide liens and as such has been referred to by IAEA.
Fact that no treaty or agreement seems to be of any interest to US, UK, Isreal, begs the question why the rest of the world is not withdrawing from all the treaties, and get on with their own versions thereof as in the case of the vociferous trio.
blog comments powered by
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 25 October 2009 7:35 PM PDT
Saturday, 10 October 2009
I will be posting South America related post on a new Blog Page
Now Playing: My New Blog Page - For Latin America Solidarity
Topic: VENEZUELA SOLIDARITY
October 10, 2009
Joe Anybody Latin America Solidarity Blog
I am going to be posting and uploading information related to Latin America and my solidarity with the social justice, human rights, independent media issues and peace movements in that region on a new blog page. I have been posting related information on this blog, but will be primarily posting to this “new” link in the near future … please stop by and stay current with solidarity concerns and issues.
I will occasionally post Latin America
posts on this Z3 Report blog site
as well as other webpages in conjunction with the
But am excited to tell you that
All new related information to
South America that I find
I will now be posting it here
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:11 AM PDT
Updated: Saturday, 10 October 2009 12:18 AM PDT
Friday, 9 October 2009
Jamie Leigh Jones - And the 30 republicans who could care less
Now Playing: Rape and the tollerance of it happening, all for corporate military profits
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Republicans for Rape
There were 30 Senators Who Voted Against
the Ammendment in the Appropriations Bill 10-9-09
Yesterday, 30 Republican senators opposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would prohibit federal defense contractors like Halliburton/KBR from getting money "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
In other words, 30 GOP senators want to deny rape victims their day in court.
Think Progress has the story of the woman who prompted this amendment: In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.
Guess Who Received The Most Campaign Dollars From Private Contractors? (AUDIO)
The thirty GOP Senators who voted against the Franken amendment, which protects women who were raped or sexually abused while working for private defense contractors, received generous contributions from those same private contractors. Are we surprised? Didn't think so.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:00 AM PDT
Updated: Saturday, 10 October 2009 12:21 AM PDT
Congress Approves Release of SOA/ WHINSEC Names But Serious Concerns Remain
Now Playing: SOA - for the first time in US History....
Partial Legislative Victory!
Congress Approves Release of SOA/ WHINSEC Names
But Serious Concerns Remain
10.8.09 sent to my email
For the first time in the history of the SOA Watch Legislative Campaign, the U.S. Congress has approved legislative language opposing the negative practices and secrecy at the School of the Americas (SOA), now renamed WHINSEC. Congratulations and thanks go to all who worked so hard this year to achieve victory! SOA Watch is encouraged and hopeful about the outcome, however serious concerns remain.
On June 25, 2009, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill by a vote of 224 - 190 that required the Pentagon to release information about students and instructors at the SOA/ WHINSEC. This language was not passed by the Senate, so for the past three months, human rights advocates embarked on a multi-level pressure campaign to ensure the House-Senate conference committee included the amendment language in the final version of the bill. It was the second year in a row that the House passed this amendment by a wide margin, giving hope to many that the practice of secrecy at the SOA/WHINSEC would finally end this year.
Today the House of Representatives approved the conference report that includes the amendment language, but not in the exact form that was passed by the House.
The new language requires that the Secretary of Defense release the names of students and instructors but with two clarifications: names are only released for FY 2009 and FY 2010, and the Secretary of Defense can waive this provision should it be deemed to be in the national interest.
While the release of names for FY 2009 and FY 2010 is a welcome first step, the decision by the conference committee to maintain secrecy about who has attended the SOA/ WHINSEC for the past 4 years raises a red flag about what the Pentagon may be hiding. From FY 2005 to FY 2008, hundreds of serious human rights crimes, including the San José de Apartadó massacre among many others, implicated Latin American military officials throughout the region. The gap in knowledge about what role U.S. military training played in the practices of Latin American militaries for 4 years undermines the pursuit of a just foreign policy by denying the public and Congress the very information they need to make important foreign policy decisions.
In addition, the waiver granted to the Pentagon to deny the release of this vital information in the name of national interest ignores the many reasons why it is in the national interest for public disclosure of SOA/ WHINSEC graduates and instructors. What could be more of a national interest than human rights, democracy and transparency?!
SOA Watch is hopeful that in the next few weeks human rights advocates will receive the names of SOA/ WHINSEC attendees and begin the important human rights oversight work of the school that has been missing for the past 4 years.
In the next few weeks, SOA Watch will continue to press forward on a number of legislative campaigns, so watch for our alerts with new information that you and your local group can take action on.
Click here for the next step to take action NOW!
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Thursday, 8 October 2009
NEWS YOU CAN USE
Now Playing: 18 news stories worth reading about from 10.9.09
NEWS YOU CAN USE
Amazing pictures from the BBC of Menik Farm, the refugee camp in Sri Lanka currently housing over 240,000 Tamils. This is just one of the camps in the country housing Tamil refugees who fled the fighting in the country's north earlier this year.(This photo is not from their set, but is from Menik Farm. Click through for their photos.) The question for these refugees is how soon will the government let them return to their homes and villages? http://current.com/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8297760.stm
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Friday, 9 October 2009 10:38 AM PDT
Newer | Latest | Older