False Flag Cyber Attack

Steve Watson warns of false flag attacks in cyberspace that could take down the Internet, at InfoWars:

An increasing clamour to restrict and control the internet on behalf of the government, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and their private corporate arms, could result in a staged cyber attack being used as justification.

Over recent months we have seen a great increase in media coverage of inflated fears over a possible “electronic Pearl Harbor” event, with reports claiming that the U.S. could be “felled within 15 minutes”.

Vastly over-hyped (and in some cases completely asinine) claims that the power grids and other key infrastructure such as rail networks and water sources are wired up to the public internet have permeated such coverage.

Is the United States government or outside forces the real threat to cyber security? Alex Jones says that the government is trying to silence free speech in America by expanding their reach on the internet. He also says his own personal sites have been censored, even deleted.

Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a respected researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.

Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”

When the Cybersecurity Act was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller last year, he made similar claims about the threat of cyber attacks, adding “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?”…

[continues at InfoWars]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

24 Comments on "False Flag Cyber Attack"

  1. GoodDoktorBad | Jul 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm |

    Who's “we”(d) Mr. Rockefeller?

    If that isn't the statement of an consumate elitest, I don't know what is….

  2. Obama Deception being censored was an Alex Jones false-flag, publicity stunt operation to help fight the “infowar.” If it was deleted, it wouldn't have been put back, let alone with the same view count — they would have closed the account altogether.

    • Troofer,

      Tell me, how do you take a video off of Youtube and put it back with the same count? And don't forget, the video was posted at a Jones fan site, NOT, a PrisonPlanet or Infowars site.

      The owner of that channel also has a video explaining what happened if you would just look! But let me guess, everyone is lying, and Alex Jones has special hackers that can do things like take people's video's down, and put them back up at will, whenever they want, with no effect to stats like view counts, right?

      You need to be paying attention at what is happening over at infowars. Google is actively messing with the settings to grief them. You know it, I know it , and anyone who takes the time to look, can find out and know it, too!

    • Constructionchuck | Jul 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm |

      does the government pay you good money? Alex Jones dosn't run the channel that it was on , he didn't have the pass code, it was one of his fans! Change your name to lier!

    • disinfo!!

  3. Hadrian999 | Jul 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm |

    i hate to give any credence to alex jones but false flag cyber attacks are a easy way to manipulate the public
    drum up anti foreign sentiment and rive through anti privacy legislation all without doing any actual damage.

    • Heheheheh. Hate to give credence to Jones but I'm just gonna pretty much say the exact same thing he says all the time.

      People really hate this guy, huh? Even when they agree with em', they can't do so without a disclaimer, lest somebody get the impression that they're endorsing him. Powerful stigma he's got attached to him.

      • Hadrian999 | Jul 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

        i agree with some of what he says but his “we white christians have to save the world from the nwo and evil darkies” speeches really put me off. he's a racist theocratic bigot bet he keeps it undercover most of the time. he uses real stuff to give his agenda credibility.

        • yeah i agree, he has been very right about just about everything, but the jesus shit, and the fear mongering commercials and the rants…. ehh. thats why people call him crazy. its almost like he does it on purpose its weird. he'll be talking about something completely serious, then all the sudden rant about “evildoers” and all that. i bet it makes first time jones listeners think hes nuts.

        • you obviously don't listen personally. He is the farthest thing from a racist. “Evil darkies!” this site is called disinformation, its not calling out all disinformationalists. Go home puke. Were trying to save your freedoms! Leave us to fight your fight for you. Coward.

          • Hadrian999 | Jul 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm |

            i did listen and he was going on one night about how Mexicans have human sacrifice in their blood
            and white christians have to dominate the world so the primitives don't bring it down. he keeps it under cover most the time but lets it out when he gets frustrated.

          • I think I heard that same show. If I'm not mistaken, the sacrifices he was referring to were those of the Aztecs and the Mayans. The Christians he was referring to were Cortes, the Spanish conquistador and his men.

          • Hadrian999 | Jul 23, 2010 at 12:08 am |

            yeah and he was using it as justification for the continuing christian imperialism today and crackdowns on migrants

          • Hadrian999 | Jul 22, 2010 at 8:54 pm |

            i doubt you've ever fought anyone for anything

  4. False Flag cyber attack may be coming. Alex Jones is correct. He also warns about vaccines that are intentionally designed to kill and maim.

  5. emperorreagan | Jul 21, 2010 at 6:52 pm |

    Standing armies run counter to maintaining a free state. Perpetual intelligence work is an extension of the standing army and constant war our civilization has opted to pursue.

    Historically, intelligence agencies have been most frequently used by rulers against their own populations. False flag actions on the part of the government come as no surprise – why should our rulers be any different than any other civilization?

    The only question is discerning true threat from false, though I personally believe all threats are inherently false because even the real “threats” stem from the projection of US force into regions it is not wanted.

  6. Construtionchuck | Jul 21, 2010 at 7:08 pm |

    If it does happen, I hope everybody that says it is Alex Jones bullshit will say he was right! I hope he ain't!

    • Hadrian999 | Jul 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm |

      if it does happen there will be no way to track it back to the gov.
      it'll be routed through cointelpro ops or agents in enemy organizations
      to make it look like actual attacks.

  7. For those of you interested in the truth, here it is:
    The world-wide internet brought the world closer together than it has ever been. If free speech remains on the internet it would bring down any dictator or corrupt government because the truth would get spread too easily.

    Thus, every elite power of the world wants the internet under their control or, at the very least, changed into something more like TV where there are only a handful of channels and they're all owned by the same handful of corporations. Essentially, making it so those who are established will never be challenged by new people with new ideas that are not part of their club.

    If you read human history you will realize from day 1 there has always been someone or rather, someones who had the desire to 'rule the world'. Until now it has always been impractical. TODAY, our technology has become advanced enough to feed, clothe and house every human on this planet — or for a small group of extremely rich, elite individuals to literally rule the world.

    Democracy has power when every person in the country can lift up a gun and be a soldier…it has no power when a man behind a computer terminal can coordinate and control thousands of missiles, unmanned bombers, satellite surveilance and an ability to literally spy on the entire internet.

    What is going on is the end of democracy and the introduction of a one world government controlled by the most corrupt members of our society. All it took was for good people to do nothing…or rather, to argue with each other about whether being 'red' or 'blue' makes them a better human.

    Americans like to fight but they weren't willing to educate themselves. They allowed others to pull their emotional strings and have them dance here and there. The problem is they have no idea who the real enemy is so they just keep turning on each other, weakening themselves further.

    It's scary to see all this happening when so few do.

    • Why do people find the idea of one world government so threatening? Is it because we haven't suffered a devastating world war in over 60 years?

    • Somewhere | Jul 25, 2010 at 5:50 pm |

      A) There is no way a world government can serve the citizens the same way a national government can. What does a council of foreign officials, who might not even have visited the continent I happen to live on, know of MY problems?
      B) How many people does it have to take to shake that government? Let's say a country with 1 million people isn´t happy with something, do they have a chance of chances if the other, how many were there now, 8 billion?, citizens are OK with the same thing?

  8. David Frost | Jul 22, 2010 at 12:14 am |

    I have my doubts that something like this could happen to begin with….

    Think about it the internet is the largest computer network on earth that was invented by the U.S. military to keep communication going if cold war inspired nuclear devastation where to actually occur.

    There are many many servers which host websites to individual “clients” (meaning each one of you on your PC). There is not a centralized computer which hosts the internet to the world so if one where to destroy the internet you would have to destroy each individual server.

    The most devastating thing you could do to the internet is engineer a virus or hack into a server. Needless to say that has been done.

    Power companies (at least in the US) are intelligent enough not to lean onto the internet too much. When you really think about it thier is little reason for them to be that reliant on th internet to begin with, combine that with security issues such as the one stated on the video and the “cons” outweigh the “pros.”

    Even if the power grid and railways were to shut down the threat that it would have to human life is wildly exaggerated by the media and for some reason people are dumb enough to believe them. Think about it (1) just about everyone has experienced a black out at some point, (2) there is plenty of food out there that doesn't need cooking on beverages that are bought over the counter, (3) if the power goes out plenty of homes, stores, malls, hospitals, etc have generators that can compensate, and (4) people lived without all that stuff for thousands of years

  9. lol, whats real funny about his is, is the anti-virus companies writes viruses, releases it, and like a miracle, has the fix for it, dont you people know this, this is why their rarely caught, why a majority of them cant be traced, because they already know who did it, as far as the internet its already controlled because you cant use it without paying for it,

  10. Somewhere | Jul 25, 2010 at 10:50 pm |

    A) There is no way a world government can serve the citizens the same way a national government can. What does a council of foreign officials, who might not even have visited the continent I happen to live on, know of MY problems?
    B) How many people does it have to take to shake that government? Let’s say a country with 1 million people isn´t happy with something, do they have a chance of chances if the other, how many were there now, 8 billion?, citizens are OK with the same thing?

Comments are closed.