Wayne Madsen of Waynemadsenreport.com noted in his website the following information:
Ed. note: Yesterday, WMR was warned by a reliable European source that there was unusual access activity detected regarding our web site. Fifteen minutes later, our server, which also supports other web sites, temporarily went down. But we have the identity of the source of the unusual access activity: the US Army's 5th Signal Command in Mannheim, Germany. Two component activities of the 5th Signal Command -- the 2nd and 7th Signal Brigades -- appear to be involved in information warfare operations and influence operations. Note to 5th Signal Command operators: by hacking into U.S. computers protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you are in potential violation of Federal law (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Section 1030, US Code, Fraud and related activity in connection with computers). If your Commanding Officer, Brig. Gen. Dennis Via, authorizes such illegal hacking, he is in violation of the law and it is your duty, pursuant to Army and DoD regulations, not to obey such illegal orders and report them to the Army Inspector General -- 1-(800) 752-9747, 1-(703) 601-1060 or DSN: 329-1060.
It is important to note that on this site the Department of Homeland Security has visited this site (weazlsrevenge.blogspot.com) on May 1, April 25th, April 22nd, April 20th, and April 19th. And the same 5th Signal Command operators that Wayne referred to above visited this site on April 20th.
Now weazl doesn't mind friends in high places, but this type of surveillance might remind other less frightened people of life under the Gestapo, Stasi, SAVAK, or other notably repressive regimes conducted surveillance. And coupled with the illegal NSA wiretapping scandal, weazl thinks that this criminal regime has no respect for legality. Just for the record to both friends and foes alike, weazl is no terrorist, does not advocate terrorism, and does not advocate euthanasia of Morons. In fact, if justice is ever done, and the criminal regime are thrown in jail where they belong, weazl will write each of the war criminals on a regular basis, and will hope that they are not subject to the torture that they have advocated and sanctioned on others.
And while weazl may understand the need to slack off and relax for a while, weazl thinks that US taxdollars are being wasted by Department of Homeland Security officials browsing here during work hours. In fact, if you people wanted to earn your living, your time would have been much better spent figuring out how to save people's lives "in the Homeland" in the face of an imminent hurricane that was predicted to cause the deaths of thousands. Fortunately, weazl can't take blame for diverting your attenting for that calamity that would displace up to a million people and kill thousands (though you still haven't bothered to count exactly how many), because weazlsrevenge wasn't up and running during the summer. Nevertheless, in order to salve weazl's conscience regarding your next display of hyper-incompetence in the face of the next American disaster, weazl suggests that you actually do something to earn the taxpayer dollars that departments like yours (and other boondoggles) are looting, and surf on weazl's website at home. And if you don't want to be called out on the massive waste of your time by being here when you're supposed to be "protecting America," play solitaire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I think that in this case it might be too early to suggest that Dept. of Homeland Security people would be hanging out at this site. These 'visitors' could be just bots that collect information on sites that mention certain key words like, Bush, terrorism, CIA etc.
Perhaps after longer activity some real above mentioned people will join the fun. Hope they learn something while they are at it :P
-Iceboy
Sorry, but it's not too soon to say so. I can tell through entry points whether it's through search terms or not how the site is being accessed. The site is being placed in the browser. It's as simple as that. And I can tell exactly which pages are being monitored and for how long.
Might be nice to be trained to think that all such assertions are conspiracies. But what do you do when there's incontrovertible proof?
These are not bots, they're people.
By the way, on what basis would you claim that it is too early for me to know? On what basis do you think you know what information I have about who, when and for how long someone is visiting the site?
You know what they say about when people assume? ;-)
The suggestion that already after a few months of activity your site would be frequented by these guys seems a bit outlandish for common sense. It's also a bit discouraging, because it shows how little criticism levelled at the govt. exists on the net, if you were to gain 'spook stardom' at such an early stage of writing.
I'm no expert on the technical aspects, so I guess I have to take your word for it. I do know that these search bots exist, and that's where my level of knowledge on the matter goes.
-Iceboy
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. But trust me, I'm not making it up.
And I'm not talking about search bots, which I know exist. These are actually monitoring of stories and surfing. It's easily demonstrable, but I'd rather save the proof for a time when it really matters.
I think it defies common sense for you to think you have a handle on what "these guys" are doing or not. And frankly it is not very intelligent at all to think that I would make such assertions based on nothing, and wouldn't know the difference between a bot or not, especially, given your self professed ignorance about matters technical.
Maybe you should guess a bit less, speculate a bit less, lest you be considered some kind of conspiracy theorist. Maybe try to stay on facts and solid footing, and you won't make those similar kind of absurd errors. Sorry, if my language sounds a bit harsh, but I find it quite offensive to be so smug in one's self proclaimed (and overlooked) ignorance.
Don't worry offence is not taken. Harsh is good, if it's justified. By taking blows I learn best anyway. However If you go back to the original message, you can note that I used the words 'might' and 'could' in my post. The usage of conditional terms implies I wasn't sure, and thus was speculating. Perhaps it would have been best to just ask the question rather than speculate, and this is the lesson learned. There was no intention of appearing smug. I'm sure that this question could have been posed by others.
-Iceboy
I think much less offense would have been taken if it appeared a bit less certain that what I was referring to were bots, or that the Dept. of Homeland Security wasn't actually bothering with this site. I'll be the first to agree that they shouldn't be, but it's simply beyond debate that they were here alive and surfing.
And your sentence "Perhaps after longer activity some real above mentioned people will join the fun," didn't seem like you left much room to be wrong. That seemed extraordinarly confident about your version of reality, in the face of tangible proof otherwise, proof that you wouldn't know, and which didn't seem to slow you down in the least.
But thanks for the acknowledgement. I appreciate it.
Well, it's probable that I will make similar mistakes in the future. Consistency has never been one of my prime qualities. This is something that I will improve.
I'm sorry for being offensive, although it has been nice to know that your judgement is sensitive and judicious regarding erroneous thinking.
-Iceboy
Rather harsh responses Weaz, to someone (Iceboy) just suggesting an idea/perception. As you mentioned, you didn't provide proof (for reasons you stated) so perhaps he just didn't get the fact that you had proof? Seems quite possible to me. Iceboy?
My first impression of Iceboy's comments were that he just didn't understand the big picture. He certainly wasn't rude or anything.
Instead of being 'put out' with Iceboy's response I think it would be beneficial to elaborate more on how you got the info or how others can do so for themselves, as much as is possible without giving away information that would harm your blog. This is good educational information for all, especially those who might have a blog that is being monitored as well, unbeknownst to them.
You want people to join in and dialog--he did, and very kindly so.
S
I will be the first to admit that I took offense. I will be the first to acknowledge that I am sure Iceboy did not intend to cause such offense and was trying to be not only polite, but supportive in his comments. And yes, I have asked for and encouraged involvement of readers, something that both you and Iceboy have done.
The extent of my offense is simply what I repeated earlier: the manner of dismissing the likelihood of what I was saying.
With respect to your question to elaborate, suffice it to say that in response to certain people's attempt to disrupt this website during its initial phases, weazl invested in software that monitors how the site is being accessed. This information provided the basis for the claims that I made.
Since that time, the level of disruption on the site has been reduced dramatically. This is not by chance. Of course, Iceboy might not have known that, but as I wrote earlier, it was his apparent conviction or certainty that this was some Kool-Aid inspired conspiracy theory and that the gentle people at Homeland Security would surely have better things to do than what I in fact knew that they were doing that kinda pissed me off.
And hopefully you'll recognize that I knew that my language was a bit harsh, and even apologized in advance for it. In fact, as you might be able to tell by the chronology of the postings, the more I thought of it, the more it got to me.
As an aside, it is my belief that when people are quick to dub others conspiracy theorists it often represents an unwillingness to entertain or keep an open mind about things about which they have little to no information, but nevertheless allows them to feel quite comfortably ignorant about those very same things.
For me, this type of thinking was on full display in the train of thought Iceboy was taking. And it is the rather condescenting tone of someone who calls another person a conspiracy theorist that can be most annoying, when the person who uses the term is often the most ignorant about the subject matter on which they are speaking. This too was mirrored in Iceboy's comments.
And yes, maybe it is a special sensitivity on my part, and that's why I tried to apologize for getting perhaps uniquely annoyed.
But after having looked at things like Robert and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations, the bombing at Pearl Harbor, the Tonkin Gulf incident, and even 9/11 itself, and to see how many things are hidden in plain view of people who have that same condescenting attitute that keeps them in my term "blissfully ignorant," it is my opinion that that conditioned response allows policymakers to continue patterns of egregious criminality because people like Iceboy will think that critics are simply "conspiracy theorists." And it is this blindness to reality that has lead to the destruction of a nation, when millions upon millions of people marched on streets to protect an illegal war for oil, and millions of others dismissed those people as naive conspiracy theorists. And the end of the say, the so-called conspiracy theorists were proven absolutely right, especially as gas prices hover at record highs, and the Administration is at a loss to put forth a coherent response as to why they don't leave and allow the Iraqis to simply get on with life and handle their own security needs, why the US is building 14 permanent bases in Iraq, and why it is building an over half a billion dollar embassy. Maybe if there has been more people sceptical of the Administration's lies, more people less willing to be smug in their dismissal of people they called conspiracy theorists, then there could've been even more pressure to stop this war.
And a similar pattern can be seen regarding warmongering towards Iran.
So weazl feels that this attitude is not simply an academic debate that should always be bound by decorum, but that these attitudes actually lead to the deaths of others, actually lead to a complacency that contributes to the continued degradation of our nation and earth, as people abdicate their responsibility to gain relevent information by the convenient response of dubbing things unpleasant or complicated conspiracies, then remain blissfully ignorant to go around carrying on with life.
Hopefully, this long response explains the crazed train of thought that caused apparently inoffensive language from someone who can be generally thought of as a friend to bother weazl more than the expletives and criticisms of people who despite weazl and what he stands for.
Go figure.
Anonymous - you must not have a Web site with log tracking. Any site owner who gets logs can see the IP address, the company or organization in some cases, and the approximate location of the user. Sometimes you can even get the name of the user if a link is clicked from email.
It's really amazing to watch the one without access to the knowledge dispute the one who presumably DOES have access to the knowledge. (I say presumably because I can't independently verify what he says. But I can independently verify there is a way to know what he knows, so that puts him ahead of you, where there is NO way for YOU to know who visits his site.)
You COMPLETELY misunderstood me, but that's ok, it happens often when conversations are via text, only. which is what prompted my original response. Of course I know he can track users, I read that. Instead, the context of my comments were suggesting an alternative reaction possible (for Weaz) to the 'very amiable' comment from Iceboy, nothing more. Sometimes, as it appeared with iceboy, people don't 'get it' the first time around, for whatever reason.. reading too fast, not getting the entirety of the message or a host of other reasons. Good TEXT communication invites a slow and careful reading and interpretation of the message recieved, knowing it's possible we still may not have 'heard' what the messenger intended. So openness, before defensiveness, is always good. That's all. but I got it the first time... thanks!
I think your argument is undercut by the fact that I got more annoyed after Iceboy's second message containing the phrase, "The suggestion that already after a few months of activity your site would be frequented by these guys seems a bit outlandish for common sense." That was not a result of quick reading on his part or even of defensiveness on my part. I tried to explain why I got annoyed, but it wasn't from defensiveness.
And as far as defensiveness goes, I think you might check the mirror. For I think RHLisa wasn't even referring to your post, but was referring back to Iceboy's.
So much for armchair counselling . . .
so much for not arguing.. the concept I posed as an alternative response.
Post a Comment