Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

NYC bogus news, propaganda to make you scream

Conveniently, just as the DIA/DoD wants more power to investigate domestically, NYC dutifully falls in step to report news prompting Congress to write another blank check.

Far too convenient. "Nineteen" have been here, and "suddenly" they find them today.


How many baloney DHS "terror alerts" did they issue since 9-11?

* * *

Keep in mind NYPD veracity problem: They fabricate video evidence, thus upping the burden of proof on this claim.

However, NYPD and NYC want to rely on lower burdens: Anonymous, single sources; and "classified" information.


* * *

Which planted informant from DIA-DoD are they relying on for this "anonymous tip"?

"We need to have torture to get unreliable information. . . "

Hay, dipshits: Senate already voted: 90 to 8, game over, you have to follow the Geneva Conventions, even when you don't want to.

* * *

You can bet your bottom dollar: When they come back after Congress passes the legislation, they'll say, "oops."

But the damage will already have been done: DIA will get more power to conduct Domestic surveillance.

Congress, playing their role as DC-placed chicken-heads, will have squawked loudly, "Please, take away more of our rights."

There are axes in that legislation, Congressman.

* * *

Let's be clear: Nineteen people do not make a specific threat.

If the threat was credible against a specific target, they wouldn't make the announcement known: They'd quietly make arrests, get these nineteen down to Guantanamo, and pump them for all the information they could get.

Bloomberg's announcement amounts to more of the RNC "create confusion, and we will save you"-chorus.

* * *

"Unable to discredit the initial source" implies they only have ONE source, not nineteen sources.

* * *

Also, saying "Unable to discredit. . . " is backwards. This implies that that they've actually taken in real information.

First, NYPD doesn't work that way: They start with two factors: Credibility and reliability.

Then they assess the information. Maybe.

Second, NYPD are more inclined to reject information before even looking at it, not take it in and "find an excuse to ignore it."

NYPD has too many other witnesses, victims, and lawful citizens to harass, detain, and ignore to make this statement believable.

* * *

If a "single source" was "so reliable" why the problem with "people not willing to use their names about something that is real?

Real information like this would be great to publicize: "Hay, look what we found out."

But the "big heroes" want to be anonymous.

Remember, they're public servants chasing scarce budget dollars; they're not like bloggers who voluntarily do this between snack breaks.

These guys want a win. So why the reluctance to shine the light on the incident, lay out specific steps the public should take, and show the specific people who have been hauled in?

We have no specific perpetrators, but they've blown the case by publicizing it.

* * *

All US attorneys know "not to comment" on pending investigations.

This investigation isn't real; if it was, an announcement like this, without specifics on what the public should do, tells "the ones we haven't got in our hands" to "lie low for a while."

Duh, that's the same as leaking to the enemy vital plans about ongoing operations.

How do they get around that? Well, if the plan is bogus, you can leak it to anyone, especially if the plan is designed to be digested, while the real problem is ignored or the priority is advanced.

That stuff you're not paying attention to.

* * *

Reminder on 9-11: Buildings explode, Congress votes to support the Patriot Act, nation marches to war.

Meanwhile, the evidence is destroyed.

Were you looking at the evidence or the fireball?

You can only look at one flaming pit at a time. Shredded documents are meaningless in the world of hard drive erasures and payoffs to Echelon officers.

They lie all the time, and their motto is: "You may have to cross the line, and then some."

* * *

If there is a "single source" about "19 people," then they've got two problems: Nineteen people running around that they don't know about [unlikely], and a "source" that can't be corroborated [which is bullshit].

How can a "single source" know about 19 people, but there's no "conversation" about that knowledge?

If it's true, then someone must've mentioned it.

Here's the problem: They can't "not corroborate" something that is made up.

* * *

Also, this makes no sense: If there were people running around, then there'd be public records on the flights and/or entryways. But they conveniently "don't have that."

Far too convenient.

* * *

Here's the problem: relying only on a single source, two anonymous sources then take on "credibility":
The 19 operatives were to place improvised explosive devices in the subways using briefcases, according to two sources.

* * *

You never announce specifics: This is an ongoing investigation.

Because they've "revealed an ongoing investigation," we know the alert is bullshit, and not linked to anything they want prosecuted.


* * *

Why would someone go after NYC, and not have attacked during Katrina? No answer there, thus blowing the theory out of the water.

NYC is just a place for the stage, close to the media, and far enough from DC to make people think "something must be real."

Using NYC for all these "terror alerts" really undermines the propaganda.

* * *

This is the kicker statement, designed to get Congress to write a blank check for DIA to engage in domestic surveillance:
classified operations have in fact partially disrupted this threat

Hay, faggots in DoD: You tell us something about Able Danger, and maybe we'll believe this "terror alert" today is something more than toilet paper to wipe our ass on.


NYPD is closely linked to CIA through the NYPD former CIA operatives.

This smells of a classic public-news release linked more toward swaying Congress to quickly pass legislation.

Terrorism is using threats of violence to intimidate a civilian population. It's time to call NYPD on the carpet and start finding out what CIA stogies they've been humping on this week.

Yes, I do mean humping.

* * *

On 11 Oct 2005, the following headline showed up:
Fabricated fear
Subway bomb threat apparently was based on misinformation from informant; city to scale back security

Rocco Parascandola is a staff writer and Knut Royce is a special correspondent. Staff writers Dan Janison and Glenn Thrush contributed to this story.

October 11, 2005

Sources confirmed yesterday that the train-bomb threat that prompted days of precautions appeared fabricated, while authorities announced they'll soon scale back subway security measures.

* * *

Terrorism succeeds when it does nothing, but can cause:
mixed messages
extra officers have to be assigned

Mind you, the government not the terrorists are the ones that are acting as the information channel.

State-sponsored terrorism in order to get the public to bow down to arrogant, ineffectual leaders in government.

* * *

Update [10 Oct 2005, day after the day]:

NYC has an election in three weeks. Some have speculated that Bloomberg is hoping to show he's got guts.

Also, Bloomberg had a debate scheduled, but bowed out. Is the "terror alert" being used as a diversion?

NYPD report that if the alert was genuine, then officers would have been called in on Sunday to work. They were not called.

Also, NYC reports that the source of the intelligence isn't from US sources, but from inside Iraq. This is the land of torture.

Iraq is not the reliable source of intelligence: How many WMD reports did we get?

Also, adding to the doubt is that there are three [3] not nineteen [19] potential terrorists. That's another change to the story.

* * *

[Update 11 Oct 2005]

You know the terrorist-government-goons "win" when, despite the bogus threat, law enforcement decides to continue the intrusions:

"police will conduct random bag searches"


A. Bogus threats issued;
B. Police conduct intrusive actions;
C. Bogus threat identified, retracted; and then
C. Police continue with intrusions, despite the bogus threat

Why is the "threat response" staying at a "higher level" despite the bogus information?

Answer: The goal is to gradually ratchet down the screws; then use the population's resistance to that arrogant use of power as an excuse to further beat the citizens into submission.