DaniMartExtras, Too

ALTERNATIVE NEWS NETWORK

REAL NEWS June 12, 2012

Posted by Xaniel777 on June 11, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : June 12, 2012

=================================================================================================

The USA: Military Arm Of The New World Order

From Cosmic Convergence 2012

May 31, 2012

Is there any doubt that the United States of America is the military arm of the New World Order (NWO), as it has been since World War I?

Just as the City of London has functioned as the world headquarters for the financial arm of the NWO, and Vatican City has functioned as the religious headquarters for the NWO, Washington, DC has functioned as the military headquarters for the NWO.

Surely you have read or heard by now that each of these city states was set up as an autonomous political entity so that no one could control them except their masters within the Global Control Matrix (GCM).

When you understand this reality, you can clearly understand all that has taken place with the US of A for the past hundred years.

Viet Nam (What on earth were we ever doing there?), Korea (Why was MacArthur willing to drop an atom bomb there?),

Argentina and Chile (The CIA plot to assassinate Allende was also about what?),

Iraq (Twice!!),

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran (Economic warfare and stealth bombings),

Cambodia and Laos, Cuba and Grenada, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, East Timor and Suharto’s Indonesian, Serbia and Bosnia, Somalia and Yemen, Libya and Syria, etc. etc., etc.

Will the bellicose behavior ever end?!

END

US Military Deception And Psychological Operations

From Alexander Higgins Blog

Alexander Higgins

Posted by  – June 11, 2012

US Military Deception And Psychological Operations

US Military Deception and Psychological Operations manual reveals deception tactics used to manipulate targets to promote US nation interests.

“I make the enemy see my strengths as weaknesses and my weaknesses as strengths while I cause his strengths to become weaknesses and discover where he is not strong . . . I conceal my tracks so that none can discern them; I keep silence so that none can hear me.”

Sun Tzu
The Art of War, c. 500 BC

The US Military Deception and Psychological Operations manual outlines some of the deception tactics and information operations used to psychologically manipulate a target into doing or not doing certain things.

The tactics are used to get inside of decision makers heads and makes it difficult for the “enemy” to establish an accurate perception of reality prompting the enemy to take specific actions or inaction.

Furthermore the deception operations uses full array of civil and technological capabilities along with technical means to control and manipulate any and all communication systems during a deception operation.

Gaining complete control of the EM spectrum can be achieved through the deliberate radiation, alteration, absorption, or reflection of energy or the emission or suppression of nuclear particles.

Using the EM spectrum, they can disrupt communication and intelligence systems to insert deceptive information coupled with traditional psychological operations using Multi-media (radio, television, sound broadcasting, or computers) or even tactics such as the emission or suppression of chemical or biological odors.

These are just some of the many Military Deception (MILDEC) operation tactics outline in the manual and are applied using four basic deception techniques: feints, demonstrations, ruses, and display.

Principles Of Military Deception

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

COMMANDER’S OVERVIEW

  • Provides a General Overview of Military Deception

  • Outlines the Relationship of Information Operations to Military Deception

  • Discusses the Roles, Coordination, and Training for Military Deception

  • Summarizes the Military Deception Planning Process

  • Details the Execution of Military Deception Operations

Military deception (MILDEC) is applicable across the range of military operations.

Military deception (MILDEC), conducted at strategic, operational, and tactical levels, is defined as being those actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary decision makers as to friendly military capabilities, intentions, and operations, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission.

MILDEC can be conducted during all phases of military operations.

Use of MILDEC during any phase of an operation should help to mislead adversaries as to the strength, readiness, locations, and intended missions of friendly forces.

In later phases of an operation, prior to termination, MILDEC should support the transition of responsibility to civil control or other authority and must focus on national objectives and end state, not just the military termination.

During this time, the joint force commander (JFC) focuses on synchronizing and integrating all elements of national power to bring operations to a successful conclusion.

Six principles of MILDEC are:

(1) focus — the deception must target the adversary decision maker capable of taking the desired action(s);

(2) objective — the deception must cause an adversary to take (or not to take) specific actions, not just to believe certain things;

(3) centralized planning and control—MILDEC operations should be centrally planned and directed in order to achieve unity of effort;

(4) security — friendly forces must deny knowledge of a force’s intent to deceive and the execution of that intent to adversaries;

(5) timeliness — a deception operation requires careful timing; and

(6) integration — fully integrate each military deception with the operation that it is supporting.

MILDEC employs physical means to convey or deny selected information to an adversary.

Technical means are those military material resources and their associated operating techniques used to convey or deny selected information to an adversary.

Administrative means include resources, methods and techniques designed to convey or deny oral, pictorial documentary, or other physical evidence.

Information Operations

Information operations (IO) involve the integrated employment of the core, supporting, and related activities and operations to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp human and automated decision making.

Collectively, MILDEC targets decision makers to affect their information, information systems, and decision making processes.

Conduits consist of all the systems, organizations, and individuals through which information reaches the adversary.

Military planners rely on deception to mask the real objectives of military operations.

Capabilities in MILDEC operations vary with the mission type, adversary, location, assets available, and even the political climate. 

Technological advances now enable joint forces to employ a larger range of deception techniques.

Proper planning with regard to time, resources, accurate intelligence, cultural awareness and other factors is essential to a successful MILDEC operation.

In addition, risk is a key factor that must be reexamined during every phase of planning and execution.

Commanders must understand the risks associated with basing the success of any operation on the assumed success of a deception.

The MILDEC plan must be able to clearly delineate both the goal and the objective of the MILDEC.

The ability to do so provides the commander with a solid understanding of how the deception supports the overall operation and establishes a firm foundation for planning and executing MILDEC operations .

MILDEC often requires substantial investments in effort and resources that would otherwise be applied against the adversary in a more direct fashion.

Consequently, it is important for the commander to first envision the deception goal in terms of its specific contribution to accomplishing the designated mission.

The MILDEC objective is a concise statement of what the MILDEC will cause the adversary to do or not do.

The objective of the MILDEC is expressed in terms of the target’s action or inaction that directly leads to the purpose or condition stated in the MILDEC goal.

An example of a MILDEC objective is: “Cause the adversary to misdirect reconnaissance and surveillance assets away from the friendly attacking force and to defend the wrong sector.”

Further MILDEC objectives may include:

  1. Cause the adversary commander to employ forces and assets in ways that are advantageous to the joint force.

  2. Cause the adversary to reveal strengths, dispositions, and intentions.

  3. Cause the adversary to withhold strategic reserves until friendly forces have achieved mission success.

  4. Condition the adversary to particular patterns of friendly behavior to induce adversary perceptions that are exploitable at a time chosen by the joint force.

  5. Cause the adversary to waste combat power with inappropriate or delayed actions.

The functions of MILDEC include:

a. Causing ambiguity, confusion, or misunderstanding in adversary perceptions of friendly critical information, which may include: unit identities, locations, movements, dispositions, weaknesses, capabilities, strengths, supply status, and intentions.

b. Causing the adversary to misallocate personnel, fiscal, and material resources in ways that are advantageous to the friendly force.

c. Causing the adversary to reveal strengths, dispositions, and future intentions.

d. Conditioning the adversary to particular patterns of friendly behavior to induce adversary perceptions that can be exploited by the joint force.

e. Causing the adversary to waste combat power with inappropriate or delayed actions.

Levels of Military Deception

a. Strategic MILDEC. 

Strategic MILDEC attempts to influence adversary strategic decision makers’ capability to successfully oppose US national interests and goals.

Strategic MILDEC is conducted to undermine adversary national leaders and senior military commanders’ ability to make accurate decisions.

The desired result is adversary strategic objectives, policies, and operations that favor friendly interests.

b. Operational MILDEC. 

Operational MILDEC seeks to influence adversary operational level decision makers’ ability to successfully conduct military operations.

The objective of operational MILDEC is to undermine adversary operational commanders’ ability to make decisions and conduct campaigns and major operations.

Operational MILDEC influences the decisions of adversary commanders before, during, and after battle so the tactical outcome can be exploited at the operational level.

c. Tactical MILDEC. 

Tactical MILDEC focuses on the ability to affect adversary tactical commanders’ ability to make accurate and timely decisions.

The objective of tactical MILDEC is to influence the adversary commander’s capability to make decisions on the conduct of battles and engagements.

These deceptions manipulate adversary commanders before and during combat.

Tactical MILDEC serves to exploit the immediate tactical situation confronting the commander and should both take advantage of and support operational MILDEC efforts.

Military Deception Means, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

MILDEC employs three basic means : physical, technical, and administrative.

Employ these means independently or in collaboration depending on the situation.

(1) Physical Means.

Activities and resources used to convey or deny selected information to an adversary.

Physical means include operational activities and resources such as:

(a) Movement of forces.

(b) Exercises and training activities.

(c) Dummy and decoy equipment and devices.

(d) Tactical actions.

(e) Logistics actions, and location of stockpiles and repair facilities.

(f) Test and evaluation activities.

(g) Reconnaissance and surveillance activities.

(2) Technical Means.

Those military material resources and their associated operating techniques used to convey or deny selected information to an adversary.

As with any use of US military material resources, any use of technical means to achieve MILDEC will strictly comply with domestic and international law.

A variety of technical means include:

(a) Deliberate radiation, alteration, absorption, or reflection of energy.

(b) Emission or suppression of chemical or biological odors.

(c) Emission or suppression of nuclear particles.

(d) Multi-media (radio, television, sound broadcasting, or computers).

(3) Administrative Means.

Administrative means include resources, methods and techniques designed to convey or deny oral, pictorial, documentary, or other physical evidence.

MILDEC Tactics. 

The applications of tactics vary with each operation depending on variables such as time, assets, equipment, and objectives and are assessed for feasibility accordingly.

The tactics of MILDEC may:

(1) Mask an increase in or redeployment of forces or weapons systems spotted by the adversary.

(2) Shape the adversary’s perception and/or identification of new forces or weapons being introduced into combat.

(3) Reinforce the adversary’s preconceived beliefs.

(4) Distract the adversary’s attention from other activities.

(5) Overload adversary ISR collection and analytical capabilities.

(6) Create the illusion of strength where weakness exists.

(7) Desensitize the adversary to particular patterns of friendly behavior to induce adversary perceptions that are exploitable at the time of friendly choosing.

(8) Confuse adversary expectations about friendly size, activity, location, unit, time, equipment, intent, and/or style of mission execution, to effect surprise in these areas.

(9) Reduce the adversary’s ability to clearly perceive and manage the battle.

MILDEC Techniques. 

MILDEC operations apply four basic deception techniques: feints, demonstrations, ruses, and displays.

(1) Feints.

A feint is an offensive action involving contact with the adversary conducted for the purpose of deceiving the adversary as to the location and/or time of the actual main offensive action.

(2) Demonstrations.

A demonstration is a show of force where a decision is not sought and no contact with the adversary is intended.

A demonstration’s intent is to cause the adversary to select an unfavorable course of action (COA).

(3) Ruses.

A ruse is a cunning trick designed to deceive the adversary to obtain friendly advantage.

It is characterized by deliberately exposing false or confusing information for collection and interpretation by the adversary.

(4) Displays.

Displays are the simulation, disguising, and/or portrayal of friendly objects, units, or capabilities in the projection of the MILDEC story. Such capabilities may not exist, but are made to appear so (simulations).

The entire document has much more detail.

Military Deception and Pyschological Operations Manualhttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/96704040/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list

Related Posts :

END

International Aid Convoy Enters Gaza

From Alexander Higgins Blog

Alexander Higgins

 Posted by  – June 11, 2012

International Aid Convoy Enters Gaza

A delegation of about a hundred pro-Palestine activists from several countries has arrived in the Gaza Strip in support of the besieged Palestinian people.

Press TV – The convoy, which is part of the “Miles of Smiles Aid Convoy 13″, entered the coastal enclave via the Egypt-controlled Rafah Crossing on Sunday and was received by Palestinian officials.

The activists, some of whom had visited Gaza in previous aid missions, appealed to the international community to help reduce the sufferings of the Palestinians in the impoverished coastal sliver.

“We are here to share the pain and inshallah help to relief the pain. We brought some aid from Malaysia, from the people of Malaysia,” Mousa Nordin, the chairman of Viva Malaysia, told Press TV.

Activists say they are inspired by the resistance of the Palestinian people who have been enduring hardships under Israel’s decades-long occupation.

Convoy members managed to bring some symbolic amount of much needed medical aid and educational tools in order to build links with the Gazans.

The activists are scheduled to stay for four days to see firsthand the situation on the ground and meet officials, and to talk to people affected by the siege.

The Tel Aviv regime has denied the nearly 1.7 million residents of Gaza their basic rights, including the freedom of movement and the right to appropriate living conditions, work, health and education.

Related Posts :

END

Amnesty Int’l: Israel guilty of torture, unfairly detains Palestinians

JTA NewsFrom JTA News

The Global News Service of the Jewish People

June 08, 2012

(JTA) — Amnesty International says Israel is guilty of torture and human rights violations.

The nongovernmental organization’s report, “Starved of justice: Palestinians detained without trial by Israel,” states that Israel must end its policy of detaining Palestinian prisoners without charge or trial.

The report said that the Israeli Prison Services punished Palestinian hunger strikers by placing them in solitary confinement, claiming that holding the action was against prison regulations, Haaretz reported.

Israel denied the charges and said torture is forbidden in Israel.

Spokeman Mark Regev also said administrative detention is used only to hold those who present an immediate security threat.

“If we get information from someone whose neighbor is making explosives for suicide bombers and that evidence is presented in court, then terror groups will take violent action against him and his family,” Regev said, according to The Associated Press.  

He also said that international law allows for adminstrative detention, and that Israel detains suspected Jewish extremists as well.

NGO Monitor, meanwhile, has accused Amnesty International of hiring a researcher with an “extensive background in anti-Israel activism,” the London Jewish Chronicle reported.

NGO Monitor says Deborah Hyams previously had volunteered as a human shield in Palestinian villages.

She also had written that Israel was a “terrorist state” guilty of “ethnic cleansing” before she began working for the charity in 2010.

“When you hire someone like Deborah Hyams there’s no leg to stand on in claiming to have no bias,” NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg said, according to the Chronicle.

““NGO Monitor repeatedly attacks A.I. and other organizations that report on Israel. We do not give any credence to their comments,” Amnesty International said in a statement.

 Don’t miss out! Get the JTA Daily Briefing delivered FREE to your inbox!

END

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

From Chelsea Green Publishing

Posted on Thursday, May 21st, 2009 at 5:22 am by dpacheco

Once you hear what Jeffrey Smith has to say, you may want to think twice about eating that genetically modified corn you bought at the supermarket.

More and more doctors are telling their patients to avoid genetically modified foods whenever possible, based on some very disturbing scientific evidence.

Lab animals fed GM foods, for example, showed higher rates of infertility and immune problems, accelerated aging, problems regulating insulin, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

And that’s not the worst of it.

The article below appeared originally online at Responsible Technology:

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”

[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,”as defined by recognized scientific criteria.

“The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.”

Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.”

World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods.

He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”

[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary.

When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.

[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.

[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7]

Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock.

Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses.

Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties.

Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water.

Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell.

When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them.

Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful.

When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.

[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”

[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16]

A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20]

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%.

Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Read the whole article here.


END

( Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777

©2009/2010/2011/2012Danimartextras

Advertisements

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: