Category Archives: Energy Agenda

Behpajooh and John Kerry

Posted on by

At least four secret letters have been dispatched from the White House and sent to Iran. The full contents of the letters are still unknown except the most recent was revealed by the Wall Street Journal containing two items, points of collaboration over the ISIS war in Iraq and striking a final deal on the Iranian nuclear program.

Denials have been made by the White House that the United States was not working with Iran on the matter of Iraq as noted here. ‘Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the U.S. wasn’t working with Iran on the fight against the Islamic State. “We are not in coordination or direct consultation with the Iranians about any aspect of the fight against ISIL,” Rice said, using an alternate acronym for the jihadist group. “It is a fact that, in Iraq, they also are supporting the Iraqis against ISIL, but we are not coordinating. We are doing this very differently and independently.”

After doing some deep research, it was found that under SecState John Kerry, nothing else matters when it comes to Iraq, Syria, Russia or Iran except gaining a nuclear deal with the help of the P5+1, a deal that has excluded the U.S. Congress and ALL allies in the Middle East.

The United States under the G. W. Bush administration worked a stealthy mission to halt the Iran program in coordination with Israel by creating and infecting the Iranian nuclear program with an undetected virus into the computers controlling the spinning centrifuges. Outside companies were identified and sanctions and later targeted via a thumb drive to infect the computer network to bring a halt to the cascading centrifuge system.

One such company was Behpajooh and there are many more, but all of these associated firms have been ignored by the State Department, Treasury, the interagency and the envoy working in cadence with John Kerry giving freedom to Iran to continue their program.

The betrayal of the State Department and the White House of allies and Congress is epic in nature, when this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a long future of hostilities with Daesh and a much sooner launch of a nuclear weapon by Iran on their targeted enemies the little Satan and the big Satan, Israel and the United States.

Here is the story on how Stuxnet came to be. Clearly, the Bush administration and Israel were clandestine in this regard and the mission was successful. It now begs the question, will it happen again if a deal is reached by the November 24 deadline?

An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon

In January 2010, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency visiting the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in Iran noticed that centrifuges used to enrich uranium gas were failing at an unprecedented rate. The cause was a complete mystery—apparently as much to the Iranian technicians replacing the centrifuges as to the inspectors observing them.

Five months later a seemingly unrelated event occurred. A computer security firm in Belarus was called in to troubleshoot a series of computers in Iran that were crashing and rebooting repeatedly. Again, the cause of the problem was a mystery. That is, until the researchers found a handful of malicious files on one of the systems and discovered the world’s first digital weapon.

Stuxnet, as it came to be known, was unlike any other virus or worm that came before. Rather than simply hijacking targeted computers or stealing information from them, it escaped the digital realm to wreak physical destruction on equipment the computers controlled.

Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon, written by WIRED senior staff writer Kim Zetter, tells the story behind Stuxnet’s planning, execution and discovery. In this excerpt from the book, which will be released November 11, Stuxnet has already been at work silently sabotaging centrifuges at the Natanz plant for about a year. An early version of the attack weapon manipulated valves on the centrifuges to increase the pressure inside them and damage the devices as well as the enrichment process. Centrifuges are large cylindrical tubes—connected by pipes in a configuration known as a “cascade”—that spin at supersonic speed to separate isotopes in uranium gas for use in nuclear power plants and weapons. At the time of the attacks, each cascade at Natanz held 164 centrifuges. Uranium gas flows through the pipes into the centrifuges in a series of stages, becoming further “enriched” at each stage of the cascade as isotopes needed for a nuclear reaction are separated from other isotopes and become concentrated in the gas.

As the excerpt begins, it’s June 2009—a year or so since Stuxnet was first released, but still a year before the covert operation will be discovered and exposed. As Iran prepares for its presidential elections, the attackers behind Stuxnet are also preparing their next assault on the enrichment plant with a new version of the malware. They unleash it just as the enrichment plant is beginning to recover from the effects of the previous attack. Their weapon this time is designed to manipulate computer systems made by the German firm Siemens that control and monitor the speed of the centrifuges. Because the computers are air-gapped from the internet, however, they cannot be reached directly by the remote attackers. So the attackers have designed their weapon to spread via infected USB flash drives. To get Stuxnet to its target machines, the attackers first infect computers belonging to five outside companies that are believed to be connected in some way to the nuclear program. The aim is to make each “patient zero” an unwitting carrier who will help spread and transport the weapon on flash drives into the protected facility and the Siemens computers. Although the five companies have been referenced in previous news reports, they’ve never been identified. Four of them are identified in this excerpt.

The Lead-Up to the 2009 Attack

The two weeks leading up to the release of the next attack were tumultuous ones in Iran. On June 12, 2009, the presidential elections between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi didn’t turn out the way most expected. The race was supposed to be close, but when the results were announced—two hours after the polls closed—Ahmadinejad had won with 63 percent of the vote over Mousavi’s 34 percent. The electorate cried foul, and the next day crowds of angry protesters poured into the streets of Tehran to register their outrage and disbelief. According to media reports, it was the largest civil protest the country had seen since the 1979 revolution ousted the shah and it wasn’t long before it became violent. Protesters vandalized stores and set fire to trash bins, while police and Basijis, government-loyal militias in plainclothes, tried to disperse them with batons, electric prods, and bullets.

That Sunday, Ahmadinejad gave a defiant victory speech, declaring a new era for Iran and dismissing the protesters as nothing more than soccer hooligans soured by the loss of their team. The protests continued throughout the week, though, and on June 19, in an attempt to calm the crowds, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sanctioned the election results, insisting that the margin of victory—11 million votes—was too large to have been achieved through fraud. The crowds, however, were not assuaged.

The next day, a twenty-six-year-old woman named Neda Agha-Soltan got caught in a traffic jam caused by protesters and was shot in the chest by a sniper’s bullet after she and her music teacher stepped out of their car to observe.

Two days later on June 22, a Monday, the Guardian Council, which oversees elections in Iran, officially declared Ahmadinejad the winner, and after nearly two weeks of protests, Tehran became eerily quiet. Police had used tear gas and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, and most of them were now gone from the streets. That afternoon, at around 4:30 p.m. local time, as Iranians nursed their shock and grief over events of the previous days, a new version of Stuxnet was being compiled and unleashed.

Recovery From Previous Attack

While the streets of Tehran had been in turmoil, technicians at Natanz had been experiencing a period of relative calm. Around the first of the year, they had begun installing new centrifuges again, and by the end of February they had about 5,400 of them in place, close to the 6,000 that Ahmadinejad had promised the previous year. Not all of the centrifuges were enriching uranium yet, but at least there was forward movement again, and by June the number had jumped to 7,052, with 4,092 of these enriching gas. In addition to the eighteen cascades enriching gas in unit A24, there were now twelve cascades in A26 enriching gas. An additional seven cascades had even been installed in A28 and were under vacuum, being prepared to receive gas.

The performance of the centrifuges was improving too. Iran’s daily production of low-enriched uranium was up 20 percent and would remain consistent throughout the summer of 2009. Despite the previous problems, Iran had crossed a technical milestone and had succeeded in producing 839 kilograms of low-enriched uranium—enough to achieve nuclear-weapons breakout capability. If it continued at this rate, Iran would have enough enriched uranium to make two nuclear weapons within a year. This estimate, however, was based on the capacity of the IR-1 centrifuges currently installed at Natanz. But Iran had already installed IR-2 centrifuges in a small cascade in the pilot plant, and once testing on these was complete and technicians began installing them in the underground hall, the estimate would have to be revised. The more advanced IR-2 centrifuges were more efficient. It took 3,000 IR-1s to produce enough uranium for a nuclear weapon in one year, but it would take just 1,200 IR-2 centrifuges to do the same.

Cue Stuxnet 1.001, which showed up in late June.

The Next Assault

To get their weapon into the plant, the attackers launched an offensive against computers owned by four companies. All of the companies were involved in industrial control and processing of some sort, either manufacturing products and assembling components or installing industrial control systems. They were all likely chosen because they had some connection to Natanz as contractors and provided a gateway through which to pass Stuxnet to Natanz through infected employees.

To ensure greater success at getting the code where it needed to go, this version of Stuxnet had two more ways to spread than the previous one. Stuxnet 0.5 could spread only by infecting Step 7 project files—the files used to program Siemens PLCs. This version, however, could spread via USB flash drives using the Windows Autorun feature or through a victim’s local network using the print-spooler zero-day exploit that Kaspersky Lab, the antivirus firm based in Russia, and Symantec later found in the code.

Based on the log files in Stuxnet, a company called Foolad Technic was the first victim. It was infected at 4:40 a.m. on June 23, a Tuesday. But then it was almost a week before the next company was hit.

The following Monday, about five thousand marchers walked silently through the streets of Tehran to the Qoba Mosque to honor victims killed during the recent election protests. Late that evening, around 11:20 p.m., Stuxnet struck machines belonging to its second victim—a company called Behpajooh.

It was easy to see why Behpajooh was a target. It was an engineering firm based in Esfahan—the site of Iran’s new uranium conversion plant, built to turn milled uranium ore into gas for enriching at Natanz, and was also the location of Iran’s Nuclear Technology Center, which was believed to be the base for Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. Behpajooh had also been named in US federal court documents in connection with Iran’s illegal procurement activities.

Behpajooh was in the business of installing and programming industrial control and automation systems, including Siemens systems. The company’s website made no mention of Natanz, but it did mention that the company had installed Siemens S7-400 PLCs, as well as the Step 7 and WinCC software and Profibus communication modules at a steel plant in Esfahan. This was, of course, all of the same equipment Stuxnet targeted at Natanz.

At 5:00 a.m. on July 7, nine days after Behpajooh was hit, Stuxnet struck computers at Neda Industrial Group, as well as a company identified in the logs only as CGJ, believed to be Control Gostar Jahed. Both companies designed or installed industrial control systems.

electrical systems for the oil and gas industry in Iran, as well as for power plants and mining and process facilities. In 2000 and 2001 the company had installed Siemens S7 PLCs in several gas pipeline operations in Iran and had also installed Siemens S7 systems at the Esfahan Steel Complex. Like Behpajooh, Neda had been identified on a proliferation watch list for its alleged involvement in illicit procurement activity and was named in a US indictment for receiving smuggled microcontrollers and other components.

About two weeks after it struck Neda, a control engineer who worked for the company popped up on a Siemens user forum on July 22 complaining about a problem that workers at his company were having with their machines. The engineer, who posted a note under the user name Behrooz, indicated that all PCs at his company were having an identical problem with a Siemens Step 7 .DLL file that kept producing an error message. He suspected the problem was a virus that spread via flash drives.

When he used a DVD or CD to transfer files from an infected system to a clean one, everything was fine, he wrote. But when he used a flash drive to transfer files, the new PC started having the same problems the other machine had. A USB flash drive, of course, was Stuxnet’s primary method of spreading. Although Behrooz and his colleagues scanned for viruses, they found no malware on their machines. There was no sign in the discussion thread that they ever resolved the problem at the time.

It’s not clear how long it took Stuxnet to reach its target after infecting machines at Neda and the other companies, but between June and August the number of centrifuges enriching uranium gas at Natanz began to drop. Whether this was the result solely of the new version of Stuxnet or the lingering effects of the previous version is unknown. But by August that year, only 4,592 centrifuges were enriching at the plant, a decrease of 328 centrifuges since June. By November, that number had dropped even further to 3,936, a difference of 984 in five months. What’s more, although new machines were still being installed, none of them were being fed gas.

Clearly there were problems with the cascades, and technicians had no idea what they were. The changes mapped precisely, however, to what Stuxnet was designed to do.

Reprinted from Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon Copyright © 2014 by Kim Zetter. Published by Crown Publishers, an imprint of Random House LLC.

 

Kerry, Pro-Centric Mission Centrifuges

Posted on by

Nothing else matters to the White House or to John Kerry than that of coming away with a nuclear deal with Iran as summarized here.

As November 24, the deal expiration dates gets closer, Iran continues to enjoy more red-carpet treatment rolled out by John Kerry and his hand-selected team.

Meanwhile, it is important to know what Iran is really doing while all these talks go on and get extended.

 

Iran began installing two cascades of advanced centrifuges at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz. As of August 28, 2011, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran had installed 136 IR-2m centrifuges in cascade 5 and 27 IR-4 centrifuges in cascade 4. Iran started feeding 54 of the 136 IR-2m centrifuges with natural uranium hexafluoride.1  Each of these cascades is designed to contain 164 centrifuges. Iran first told the IAEA in January 2011 that it intended to install these two cascades, and it is unclear why Iran waited nearly eight months before starting to install them.

Installation of the IR-2m centrifuges is now complete. Installation of the IR-4 centrifuges could finish anytime.

The IR-2m and the IR-4 centrifuges have the same length and diameter. They are derived from the Pakistani P2 centrifuge design that A.Q. Khan sold Iran in the 1990s. Iran subsequently modified this design (see figures 1 and 2). The IR-2m rotor is made of two carbon fiber rotor sections or tubes and a maraging steel bellows. The IR-4 has two carbon fiber tubes connected by a carbon fiber bellows, an unusual choice likely reflecting a shortage of maraging steel.  Both centrifuge designs use a top and bottom bearing and a motor taken from the P2 design.

Khan found that the P2 design worked considerably better than the P1 centrifuge, suffering far fewer failures. Similarly, the IR-2m and IR-4 centrifuges are expected to have fewer breakdowns than the IR-1 centrifuges currently at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant that are copies of the P1 centrifuge. However, as is discussed below, these centrifuges may not perform as expected.

 

It must also be understood, however that the talks with Iran should such an agreement be reach, will not be under the title of treaty or agreement such that it would go to Congress to be approved and members of Congress already know this. They are worried to the point that several have introduced legislation to prevent advancement of the Iranian nuclear program and are poised to re-install many sanctions that the Obama administration has suspended. The White House and the State Department are looking for methods to completely excluded allies but most of all our own Congress from the comprehensive details of the nuclear deal and from subsequently voting on accepting or opposing the deal completely. This speaks to the Obama administration having its own exclusive authority. In fact it is so disturbing, even the New York Times spells it out with concerns.

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote.

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

White House officials say Congress should not be surprised by this plan. They point to testimony earlier this year when top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off.

Nothing on the other side of the horizon is more dangerous than Kerry and his army right now leading the charge to get a pen in the hands of Iran.

 

Ebola, Years of Building the Perfect Storm

Posted on by

Barack Obama is not going to either slow or stop the air traffic from at least three countries in a Dante’s Inferno of the epidemic Ebola outbreak. So a sensible plan would be for control of people and passengers leaving African nations affected by Ebola to be done so only on chartered aircraft medically designed to assess signs of illness with experts from the Center for Disease Control as part of the medical crew on board. Then all passengers with any type of indications we transported to a single isolation facility in the United States where again Center for Disease Control personnel and virus experts are in control rather than spreading patients around the United States terrifying the country.

Now, the genesis of the Ebola outbreak, there are two articles of due importance for consideration and understanding.

Professor Peter Piot, who discovered the Ebola virus in 1976, conducted an extensive interview with the London newspaper, The Guardian, over the weekend whereby he discussed his initial discovery of the virus; and, what may lie ahead. The Guardians’ Rafela von Bredow, and Veronika Hackenbroch write that Professor Piot “still remembers that day in September 1976, when a pilot from Sabena Airlines brought us a shinny blue Thermos; and, a letter from a doctor in Kinshasa — in what was then Zaire.” At the time, Professor Piot was a researcher at a lab in Antwerp, Belgium. The letter stated that the blood sample contained in the Thermos came from a Belgian nun who had recently fallen ill from a mysterious illness in Yambuku. a remote village in the northern part of the country. The doctor who sent the sample, asked Professor Piot’s lab to test the sample for yellow fever.”

 

When asked by the two Guardian reporters how he protected himself back then from such a dangerous pathogen?, Professor Piot said “we had no idea how dangerous the virus was; and, there were no high-security labs in Belgium.” Tests for yellow and Lassa fever, as well as typhoid were all negative. What then, could it be?” Professor Piot said they all asked themselves. In order to get at least some idea of what they might be dealing with, Professor Piot and his lab colleagues decided to inject some of the blood sample into mice and other lab animals. At first, nothing happened,” Professor Piot said, and the researchers “thought that perhaps the pathogen had been damaged from insufficient refrigeration in the Thermos. But then, one animal after the next began to die. We began to realize the sample contained something very deadly.”

As they began to analyze additional samples that had just been received; the World Health Organization (WHO) “instructed us to send all of our samples to a high-security lab in England.” But, says Professor Piot, his boss at the time “wanted to bring our work to a conclusion, no matter what.” “He grabbed a vial containing the virus to examine it, but his hand was shaking and he dropped it on a colleagues foot. The vial shattered, My only thought was: “Oh shit!” “We immediately disinfected everything; and luckily, our colleague was wearing thick leather shoes. Nothing happened to any of us.”

Eventually, The Guardian reports, Professor Piot and his colleagues were able to create an image of the virus using an electron microscope. “What the hell is that?” they asked themselves. “The virus we had been searching for was very big, very long, and worm-like. It had no similarities with yellow fever. Rather, it looked like an extremely dangerous Marburg virus which, like Ebola, causes hemorrhagic fever. In the 1960s, the virus killed several laboratory workers in Marburg, Germany.”

Soon after it was confirmed that this was a new, previously unknown virus, Professor Piot “became one of the first scientists to fly to Zaire,” The Guardian noted. Although thrilled at being one of the first doctors to be tracking down and studying this new, deadly virus, there was genuine fear among these scientists as “we had no idea that it was transmitted by bodily fluids.”

When deciding what to name the new virus, Professor Piot and his colleagues “definitely didn’t want to name the new pathogen “Yambuku Virus,” since that name would stigmatize the place of origin forever. “There was a map hanging on the wall; and, our American team leader suggested looking for the nearest river — ultimately giving the virus its name. It was the Ebola River. But, the map on the wall was small and inexact. We only learned later that the nearest river was actually a different one; but, Ebola is a nice name isn’t it?” Professor Piot said, and the name stuck.”

Professor Piot and his colleagues eventually discovered that the infected Belgian nuns had also unwittingly spread the new virus called Ebola. “In their hospital, they regularly gave pregnant women vitamin injections using unsterilized needles. By doing so, they infected many young women in Yambuku with the virus.” “Clinics that failed to observe [proper hygiene] this and other rules of hygiene functioned as catalysts in all additional Ebola outbreaks.” Their mistakes, “drastically sped up the spread of the virus, or made the spread possible in the first place. Even in the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa, hospitals unfortunately played this ignominious role in the beginning,” the Guardian journalists noted; and, no doubt feed the suspicion and distrust of the medical profession in these remote places in the world — a suspicion that probably still lingers today.

The Guardian journalist’s postulated that “there is actually a well-established procedure for curtailing Ebola outbreaks: isolating those infected and closely monitoring those who had contact with them. How could such a catastrophe as the one we’re seeing now — ever happen?” Professor Piot responded that “I think it is what people call a Perfect Storm: when every individual circumstance is a bit worse than normal; and, they combine to create a disaster. And with this outbreak, there were many factors that were disadvantageous from the very beginning. Some of the countries involved were just emerging from terrible civil wars, many of their doctors had fled, and their healthcare system [such as it was] had collapsed. In all of Liberia for example,” Professor Piot said, there were only 51 doctors in 2010, and many of them since then — have died of Ebola.” “The fact that the outbreak began in the densely populated border region between Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia…also contributed to the catastrophe,” Professor Piot added.

“For the first time in its history, the virus also reached metropolises such as Monrovia and Freetown. Is that the worst that can happen?” The Guardian journalists asked Professor Piot. “In large cities — particularly in chaotic slums — it is virtually impossible to find those who had contact with patients, no matter how great the effort. That is why I am so worried about Nigeria as well. The country is home to mega-cities like Lagos and Port Harcourt; and, if the Ebola virus lodges there…and begins to spread….it would be an unimaginable catastrophe,” Professor Piot warned.

When asked “if we’ve lost complete control of the epidemic?,” Professor Piot responded that “I have always been an optimist; and, I think we have no other choice than to try everything, really everything. It’s good the United States and some other countries are finally beginning to help. But, Germany, or even Belgium, for example, must do a lot more. And, it should be clear to all of us: This isn’t just an epidemic any more. This is a humanitarian catastrophe. We don’t just need care personnel, but also logistics experts, trucks, jeeps, and foodstuffs. Such an epidemic can destabilize entire regions. I can only hope that we will be able to get it under control. I never really thought that it could get this bad.” Professor Piot said.

When asked if he thought “we might be facing the beginnings of a pandemic?” Professor Piot said, “there will certainly be Ebola patients from West Africa who will come to us in the hopes of receiving treatment. But, an outbreak in Europe or North America would quickly be brought under control. I am more worried about the many people from India who work in trade or industry in West Africa. It would only take one of them to become infected; and, travel to India to visit relatives during the virus’s incubation period, and once he/she becomes sick, go to a public hospital there. Doctors and nurses in India, too often, don’t wear protective gloves. They would immediately become infected and spread the virus.”

The Guardian journalists postulated that the “virus is constantly changing its genetic makeup; and, the more people who become infected, the greater [the] chance the virus will mutate.,” to a more virulent and transmissible form — “which might speed its spread.” Professor Piot said, “yes, that really is the apocalyptic scenario. Humans are actually just an accidental host for the virus, and not a good one. From the perspective of a virus, it isn’t desirable for its host, within which the pathogen hopes to multiply, to die so quickly. It would be much better for the virus to allow us to stay alive longer.”

When asked “if the virus could suddenly change itself…so, it could spread via the air/respiratory route?,” Professor Piot responded that “luckily, that is extremely unlikely. But, a mutation that would allow Ebola patients to live a couple of weeks longer is certainly possible; and, would be disadvantageous for the virus. But, that would allow Ebola patients to infect many more people than is currently the case.” “But that is speculation isn’t it?” The Guardian journalists asked. “Certainly,” Professor Piot responded. “But, it is just one of many possible ways the virus could change to spread more easily. And, it is clear that this virus is mutating.”

When asked about his views with respect to experimental drugs, Professor Piot said “patients could probably be treated more quickly with blood serum from Ebola survivors, even if that would likely be extremely difficult — given the chaotic local conditions. We need to find out now, if these methods, or if experimental drugs like ZMapp, really help. For most people, they will come [experimental drugs] too late in this epidemic. But, if they help, they should be made available for the next outbreak.”

In concluding the interview, The Guardian journalists observed that “in Zaire, during the first outbreak, a hospital with poor hygiene was responsible for spreading the illness. Today, almost the same thing is happening. Was Louis Pasteur right when he said: “It is the microbes who will have the last word?” Professor Piot said, “Of course we are a long way from declaring victory over bacteria and viruses. HIV is still here; in London alone, five gaymen become infected daily. An increasing number of bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. And, I can still see Ebola patients in Yambuku, how they died in their shacks; and, we couldn’t do anything except let them die. In principal, it’s still the same today. That is very depressing. But, it also provides me with a strong motivation to do something. I love life. That is why I am doing everything I can to convince the powerful in this world to finally send sufficient help to West Africa. Now! Enough said.

 

While this is long, please continue reading to understand the scope and reason of the Ebola threats. Now let us move on to the World Health Organization (WHO) and why that is yet another very big problem.

World Health Organization is absent:

More information with links but not all vetted with regard to Ebola possibilities:

http://www.eddiefleming.com/2014/10/was-ebola-designed-as-bioterrorism-weapon-and-is-already-airborne/

How Ebola is spreading:

http://newsok.com/how-the-world-let-ebola-spread/article/feed/743729

 

 

 

 

Dancing with the Soviets, Putin Style

Posted on by

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.

 

Vladimir Putin’s mission is to destroy NATO and he is about to get real help in doing so. Jens Stoltenberg is the new Secretary-General of NATO effective October 1 and that is going to be a problematic for NATO or will it? The Minsk Agreement defines the Putin mission.

With Jens Stoltenberg in leadership at NATO, there are some very disturbing clues that Putin could be getting closer to his long term goals demonstrated by some historical facts and current approaches.

‘The former Norwegian prime minister — the first NATO secretary general from a country bordering Russia — is known for his good relations with President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

During his decade in power, the two countries signed milestone agreements on the delineation of their frontier in the Barents Sea and on visa exemptions for their border populations. An economist by training, the former Labour Party head has never shown any particular fondness for defence or security matters.

But his experience has left him with a strong international network and honed his skills as a cross-border negotiator, both of which could prove essential.’

Here are some facts regarding Stoltenberg that collectively provide some insight to what may be ahead for NATO.

1. Stoltenberg is a manipulator of politics as noted when he chose to be a taxi driver for a day to get a political pulse on the ground, but used paid actors.

2. Stoltenberg has had previous dealings with Russia over border issues regarding the Barents Sea and he compromised.

3. Not only is Stoltenberg an Atheist but he is an Anti-Semite as well.

4. Jens Stoltenberg is inert and is passive when it comes to a drug narcotic policy for Norway, Europe and globally.

5. He is in fact a globalist and did work while at the United Nations as a special envoy promoting ‘climate change missions and financing’, he is a robust supporter of a global tax to solve climate change along with the Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Barack Obama. Jens also walks in lock-step with Greenpeace.

6. Stoltenberg also endorses and has worked diligently for global vaccinations in cadence with the Gates Foundation. Vaccinations have not proven to be effective or administered as advertised.

7. Perhaps the most disturbing and factual component of Stoltenberg is that he had his own KGB code name “Steklov” bestowed upon him by a close friend of many years as a KGB operative.

Stoltenberg is a member/leader of the Labour Party which is telegraphed as a social democracy but yet has deep ties to Communists International. Camilla, the sister of Jens was a member of the Red Youth, a group of loyal followers of Marxists/Leninists. Stoltenberg protested against the United States during the Vietnam war and caused damage to the U.S. embassy during a demonstration for which he was jailed.

Then we cannot omit his mentor and friend Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Merkel speaks fluent Russian and had a membership card in the Free German Youth movement which was managed by the Socialist Party out of East Germany. As the defacto leader of the European Union, Merkel worked to install a full immigrant acceptance policy in Germany for which other European nations would follow. Today that policy has failed with particular regard to Muslims.

Some time ago, it was determined that Merkels’ communications were being tracked by the NSA. Given her history, associations, education, friendships and objectives, it is no wonder that U.S. intelligence agencies want to know her real actions as part of the overall agendas, collusions, and relationships that must be assessed into U.S. domestic analysis and policy.

Countries within Europe will follow Merkel and now especially so with Stoltenberg at the head of NATO. It was Merkel who supported, nominated and worked to install Jens Stoltenberg at the helm of NATO.

While Putin has used soft aggression on Crimea and then terror aggression on Ukraine in an effort to rebuild his version of the Soviet Empire, Ukraine is but one solution to put real pressure on Europe to dance the Waltz with Putin over nothing more than the threat of shuttering oil and gas resources NATO members and Europe requires. The dance partners are many on the world stage.

For an audio version of the future of NATO and Russia being at the core of terrorism, go here.

Look out world this could be the very end of the joint military cooperative of NATO members, it is predicted that more countries will successfully fall under Russia annexation while sanctions against Russia will likely be lifted page by page by the West. Stay warm my friends.

 

 

ISIL Against the World, America Next?

Posted on by

The leftist argument for quite some time is that the United States never should have gone into Iraq. It is a popular ethos but way off base if one would bother with the real history and reasons. So, Barack Obama pulled America troops out in 2011 ending the war, telling the world that Iraq is now stable.

The very moment coalition troops exited Iraq the vacuum was filling up again. Barack Obama blames Iraqi leadership for the failed ‘status of forces’ agreement, when that was yet another lie on behalf of the White House. Yet, if Barack Obama wanted to actually keep Iraq stable after the American exodus, then why did Barack Obama refuse all later requests for military support by Maliki which were requests of urgency that began in 2012?

After this past week of the Pershmerga and Yizidis being trapped on top of a mountain by ISIS, Barack Obama told us that America could not turn a blind eye to the innocent desperations on that mountain. The Pentagon with Obama’s nod authorized only a handful of air-strikes but they were not offensive at all versus ISIS, they were only gestures of defense to protect American personnel in Irbil and Baghdad. While Barack Obama was on the golf course this weekend at Martha’s Vineyard, the United State was evacuating our personnel from Irbil and Baghdad, leaving behind only very essential personnel. (Cant have another Benghazi).

Now, as hostilities were building, al Maliki is under pressure to step down and he refuses so he has surrounded his palace with military forces and dispatched additional forces throughout the ‘green zone’ fending off a coup.

Meanwhile, ISIS continues to be bold issuing public threats to Jordan, Turkey, and the West. Some in America are taking notice by voicing concern that the United States is in the crosshairs of ISIS. Sure the threat is there but we have our government to protect our homeland right?

Must watch video: The World at War

ISIS recruits globally and does so effectively and as a result of seizing banks and military hardware, the terror group is worth an estimated $1.8 billion and that buys a lot of terror and fighters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-11/suspected-american-isis-supporter-arrested-new-yorks-jfk-airport

Having demanded “American blood,” the news that a suspected American militant who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group in chilling Twitter rants is being held without bail after his arrest at New York’s Kennedy Airport is somewhat concerning. Donald Ray Morgan, 44, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state of North Carolina and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to The Daily News. The presiding judge noted, his actions “clearly implied to me that he is trying to go to Syria or Iraq as the next step and trying to be actively engaged.”

 

As The Daily News reports,

FBI agents nabbed Donald Ray Morgan, a 44-year-old ex-convict from North Carolina, on Aug. 2 when he returned to the U.S. after an eight-month stay in Lebanon, where his wife lives.

 

Morgan, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

 

But what caught counter-terrorism agents’ attention were his chilling Twitter rants from the Middle East under the alias “Abu Omar al Amreeki.”

 

“It’s possible that he traffics in guns to people in this organization (ISIS),” Moore said in Brooklyn Federal Court.

 

Besides pledging allegiance to chief ISIS thug Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, his tweets strongly suggested he may have been preparing for jihad in Syria, Iraq or possibly the states, law enforcement officials feared.

 

He also referred to himself as a mujahedeen, or jihad fighter.

——

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-isis-more-dangerous-now-than-al-qaeda-was-pre-911/

As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — or simply “The Islamic State” as the group now says it should be called — continues to sweep through northern Iraq, U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm that it could be just as dangerous as al Qaeda in the days before it launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

“Every day that goes by, ISIS builds up its caliphate and it becomes a direct threat to the United States of America. They are more powerful now than al Qaeda was on 9/11,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

Experts say the Islamic jihadist group has indeed been able to accomplish an enormous amount in a short period of time. And in global reach, fundraising capabilities and pure operational ability, they are certainly outpacing Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

 

“Al Qaeda in the pre-Sept. 11 phase was capable of engaging in strikes and bombings,” Tom Sanderson, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News. But what ISIS has now, he said, “is more significant and more varied than what al Qaeda had in terms of its actual combat capabilities where they are fielding artillery. They are holding much greater territory than al Qaeda had, they are governing people, they have a more diverse funding base… they have a greater localized funding base than al Qaeda.”

The group is in fact a rival faction to modern-day al Qaeda, whose general command cut ISIS off from its network in February because it disobeyed orders from leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

The Internet has afforded ISIS the ability to recruit all over the world. The group gained power and experience fighting in Syria, where an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 foreigners have traveled to join the fight, including 1,500 and 2,500 Sunni extremists from Europe and 100 to 200 Americans who hold Western passports and have far easier access to the U.S. if their terror activities go undetected by authorities.

 

 

Al Qaeda “simply did not have the technology that ISIS has now, the social networking that enables them to reach a much greater audience,” Sanderson said.

Still, big does not always mean organized.

Juan Zarate, CBS News’ Senior National Security Analyst, said that ISIS is probably less well-organized than pre-9/11 al Qaeda, which spent years meticulously training and plotting to attack the United States. And Sanderson said the surprise element of its attack on the United States was part of what made the group so lethal.

But ISIS could also be benefiting from the years of groundwork laid by its predecessor-turned-rival.

“ISIS, especially with the announcement of the Islamic State, is piggybacking off of the global networks and inspiration that al Qaeda fomented post-9/11 and give them, in some ways, a global infrastructure on which to build. It’s not as if they’re starting from scratch,” said Zarate.

One of the group’s biggest advantages over al Qaeda is the fact that it has seized a vast swath of territory and virtually erased the border between Iraq and Syria. Unlike al Qaeda, “in some ways…rented from the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Zarate said, ISIS has gained strength from the territory it occupies.

“In the 21st century any operating room for a terrorist group is a prescription for disaster because they have the ability not just to build up their local strength but to allow themselves global reach,” he added.

ISIS has a local fundraising base from Iraq and Syria, where it brings in revenue from the granaries, oil wells and power plants it has captured. Last week, it seized Iraq’s largest dam, gaining control of enormous power and water resources as well as access to the river that runs through Baghdad. Trafficking, extortion and kidnap-for-ransom operations bring in millions of dollars.

“There’s no daddy for ISIS when it comes to funding,” Sanderson said. By contrast, al Qaeda was dependent on bin Laden’s personal fortune, which was not limitless, and donors from the Gulf states that could impose a certain amount of pressure and control over the group.

 

Plus, ISIS has captured millions of dollars of American weaponry abandoned by Iraqi troops that fled the fight early on in the jihadist group’s takeover. David Rohde, a columnist for Reuters and The Atlantic said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” Sunday called that a “disaster.”

“What’s so astonishing about the Islamic State is that they’re able to maneuver, use this weaponry. They can move 1,000 guys very quickly and that they defeated the Peshmerga [Kurdish forces] so quickly I think surprised many people,” Rohde said.

There is one glaring similarity between the two groups, Zarate said, and that is the extent to which the U.S. does not entirely know what ISIS will do next.

“There were massive blind spots as to what al Qaeda was doing or planning and I think you’ve started to hear the same threads or chords of insecurity on the part of U.S. counterterrorism officials about blind spots with respect to ISIS,” he said.

“I think we had certainly not done enough through the ’90s and into 2001 to disrupt al Qaeda’s infrastructure, training, plotting and in some ways we’ve allowed ISIS to gain a foothold by being fairly inactive in Syria to date so in some ways you can say we’re rather equivalent in terms of our passive posture.”

Experts and lawmakers have debated whether ISIS will carry out the next 9/11-style terror attack. With the group’s full capability somewhat of a mystery, it is hard to predict when they might turn their attention to the U.S.

But earlier this summer, former acting CIA Director and CBS News Analyst on Intelligence Michael Morell said that an increasing U.S. presence in Iraq could speed up that process.

 

“That’s one of the downsides of U.S. involvement,” he told CBS News. “The more we visibly get involved in helping the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] government fight these guys, the more we become a target.”

And with President Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes in Iraq as a means to provide humanitarian aid and safety for thousands of Iraqi religious minorities being targeted by ISIS, that day could come sooner.