Friday, November 1, 2013

http://qrg.globaltuners.com/?q=155.4750+&s=1
 

 

Enter a frequency (in MHz!), a location or a callsign. (NO combination of it!)

Parte superior do formulário

find


 

Parte inferior do formulário

 

Color Legend:
manually verified (max. 12 months ago)
user submitted, not yet confirmed
no longer in use
confirmed
 
 
 
 
 
Details
AM
USB
USB
LSB
USB
USB
LSB
USB
DSB
AM
AM
AM
NFM
NFM
NFM
NFM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM



 

Thursday, October 31, 2013

The Scary Truth About Israel’s Election: Nothing Happened

The Scary Truth About Israel’s Election: Nothing Happened

Israel's recent election was widely expected to yield another triumph for the Israeli right. In the event, what impressed commentators most was the resurgence of the centre. After more than a decade of right-wing dominance, did the vote mark a fundamental realignment of Israeli politics? New Left Project spoke to Shir Hever, economist with Israel's Alternative Information Center and author of The Political Economy of Israel's Occupation.

Many interpreted Israel's recent election results, in particular the strong showing of new party Yesh Atid, as a shift from the right to the centre in Israeli politics. Is there anything to that?
Nothing happened in the elections. The platforms of Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid), Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu), Naftali Bennett (HaBayit HaYehudi) and Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) are pretty much the same. All the Zionist parties in Israel agree on the principles: Israel shouldn't have anything to do with the Gaza Strip except continue the siege; Palestinian refugees' right to return to Israel should not be discussed; Israel should continue to grant extra rights to Jews at the expense of its non-Jewish citizens; and while there should be some kind of division of land in the West Bank, there is no rush to end the occupation. They are prepared to engage in discussions with the Palestinian Authority, which might even eventually produce a Palestinian semi-state, but none are willing to consider the Green Line [i.e. Israel's internationally-recognised legal border] as a basis for negotiations. The Meretz party—the ' Zionist left'—differs on only one point, in that it agrees with the rest of the world that Israel should withdraw from occupied East Jerusalem.
But even as people voted for the same ideology, they voted for different people: nearly half of the Knesset's members were voted out. One of Lapid's main advantages, besides being good looking and well-known, is that he was not a politician before the election campaign. People were sick of politicians, but had no alternative in mind to the consensus ideology they represent. It's a dysfunctional political system, in which elections are becoming an empty ritual.
The elections were fought mainly on socioeconomic issues rather than the occupation and the Palestinians, a significant fact in itself. On the economy, what is the new government's agenda?
There was greater difference between the parties on economic issues than on the Palestinians. All members of the new governing coalition shared pretty much the same view, that of the Likud. 'Centrist' Lapid didn't differentiate himself at all from Netanyahu's economic platform, and unsurprisingly, in his new role as Finance Minister is saying the same things that every other Israeli Finance Minister says on their first week in the job.
The Labour party dared to do something a little different, advocating a soft-Keynesian approach of slightly increasing the deficit and public spending to partially restore Israel's welfare state. It was attacked by most other parties for being unrealistic. That's interesting because we saw massive economic protests in Israel over the last couple of summers, driven by growing inequality and declining standards of living. Almost all the parties tried to ride that wave into the election. Lapid was probably the most successful, even though he was not part of the demonstrations and made no suggestions for solving the housing problem.
It's interesting to consider why the elections were held in January in the first place. Prime Minster Netanyahu pushed to hold them as early as possible, so that they would precede the presentation of the annual budget—and, with it, the publication of government data on the state's finances to parliament and the press. In the end he was unable to do this, because of laws requiring that new parties be given a notice period before holding elections, to give them time to prepare. So just over a week before the elections, the budget information was made public, and it became clear why Netanyahu had wanted to keep it private until after the elections. Netanyahu, so-called 'Mr. Economy' who prides himself on sound economics and responsible belt-tightening, had run up a huge deficit of NIS 39bn [approximately £7bn]. This was mainly because he hadn't wanted to cut certain government programmes before the elections, there were too many important projects that the government wanted to promote, and the government had refused to acknowledge that people's standard of living—and tax revenues—had declined. What I find fascinating is that despite this information being published just over a week before the election, political and media discussion continued to focus on such empty topics as what the election might mean for a renewed 'peace process' with the Palestinians. So Netanyahu succeeded in getting the budget bombshell out of the way.
The unprecedented J14 movement in Israel was driven by opposition to growing economic inequality. It seems as though, with the election of Lapid, this has been transferred onto the issue of inequality of 'service' (i.e. state subsidies to and army exemption for religious Jewish communities).
All social movements and protests in Israel prior to J14 were crushed in the same way: by pitting one minority against the other, and shifting the discussion to security and external threats.
J14 tried hard to overcome these obstacles, which is probably why it was the most successful movement to date. It insisted, 'everybody's invited', 'everybody's welcome, 'we're a movement of everyone'. So when some activists tried to raise the issue of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, others said, 'no, this is a movement of everyone, so we won't bring up any divisive topics: the occupation is off the table'. Then extreme right activists entered the movement and began saying, 'well you know, there's a housing shortage in Israel, why not come and move to the colonies?', 'there's a housing shortage in Israel, so why not kick out the Sudanese and Eritrean refugees so we have more room?' The presence of that kind of extreme right argument was accepted, even though many activists found it abhorrent, because of the idea that 'everyone is welcome'. Of course, inclusive slogans aside, such deep political rifts cannot be papered over for long, and they were eventually exploited by the political parties.
Lapid realised that Israel's ultra-Orthodox community didn't really participate in the protests, despite being the second poorest social group in Israel, after Palestinians. By claiming that 'we all share the benefits and the burdens of the economy, but the ultra-Orthodox only reap economic benefits without sharing the burden of army service', he was able to divert widespread popular frustration and dissatisfaction into hatred. He wasn't the first to do this. His father, Tommy Lapid, created a political party in the 1990s with pretty much the same message (Shinui) and he won a lot of seats. Shinui deteriorated over time and became sort of a joke. In the 2006 election, some of its campaign videos portrayed the ultra-Orthodox so hatefully that they were disqualified by the High Court for being antisemitic.
More interesting is what happened with Bennett and the ultra-Orthodox. Bennett represents national-religious Jews—who combine religious Orthodoxy (but not ultra-Orthodoxy) with Zionism—and many Jewish settlers. The Zionist leadership's initial plans for the political structure of the State of Israel involved allowing non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews a degree of autonomy in exchange for their support for the Zionist project. But national-religious Jews took a much more active role in Zionism, and since 1967 have become increasingly dominant in the Zionist movement, the army and the settlements. Bennett's position in this election reflected that: he effectively advocated that national-religious Jews work with secular Zionists in an alliance that marginalises the ultra-Orthodox. In my opinion this was a strategic error. The ultra-Orthodox are hurt and insulted, and if they decide to turn their back on the Zionist movement because they no longer receive the benefits and autonomy they've received so far, it would create a very strong upheaval in Israeli society, one which Israel cannot really afford.
The big news in Israel last week was President Obama's visit. The extent of the media coverage in Israel illustrated how important the U.S. connection is, on a popular as well as political level. Israeli liberals were in ecstasy over Obama's speech—relieved, I suppose, to receive external support for their embattled position within Israeli politics. What was your take on his visit?
Obama is very good at giving speeches. He managed to win a Nobel Prize for giving one. His speech was well-written, but as with most of Obama's policies, the gap between rhetoric and action was vast. Descending from on high as representative of the international power of the United States to help resolve a local dispute between two squabbling neighbours, Obama didn't address the fact that his country is somewhat involved in this conflict. For the past forty years Palestinians have been killed by American-made weapons that were given to Israel for free by the United States. I think that confers some responsibility.
Obama did help broker a truce between Israel and Turkey, which was a great benefit for Israel. Turkey is a major market for Israeli weapons, a member of NATO and is very important for the Israeli Air Force (a refuelling stop on the way to Iran).
And does Netanyahu's apology to Turkey for the killing by Israeli forces of nine Turkish activists on the Free Gaza flotilla in 2010 open the way to a broader rapprochement?
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan made that very clear from the beginning: he demanded an Israeli apology, which would then open the way to reconciliation. But the Israeli government and media were presenting the dead activists as terrorists, so Netanyahu couldn't apologise for deaths without appearing out of touch with reality to the Israeli public. I wouldn't be surprised if Netanyahu asked Obama to make it look as though he was forced to call Erdogan, or if he just decided to call Erdogan while Obama was there to give the impression that he was forced, because that gives him an alibi.
Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, mocked the rapturous reception of Obama's speech, showing clips of previous U.S. presidents making similar remarks, before exclaiming in exasperation, "We are f*cking powerless!" Similarly, Fareed Zakaria praised Obama's speech for "appeal[ing] to Israel's conscience", on the grounds that every other approach (pressuring Israel, warning it of the dangers of occupation) has failed. Do you agree that U.S. influence over Israel is too limited to pressure it to end the occupation?
U.S. influence over Israel is immense. But it is convenient for a lot of people—for instance, right-wing extremists in the U.S. who speak of their Zionist Occupied Government— to cultivate an image of Israel manipulating the U.S. from behind the scenes.
In the recent Congressional political battle over the nomination of Chuck Hagel as U.S. Secretary of Defense, the Republican senators played the part very well, as if the most important thing if you want to be vetted for high office in the U.S. is to demonstrate your support Israel. But 'Israel' in this sense actually serves as a symbol, a proxy. The U.S. transfers to Israel billions of dollars a year, but it doesn't give Israel any money. It gives Israel vouchers, which Israel can only redeem by purchasing weapons from American companies. What's called 'U.S. aid to Israel' is in fact an annual state subsidy for the American arms industry. Israel lobby groups like AIPAC have a lot of money at their disposal. But the lobby of Lockheed Martin, which produces the fighter planes that Israel is buying with its U.S. vouchers, is many times larger. Every election campaign you see presidential candidates ritually pledging support for Israel before AIPAC. You don't see them going to Lockheed Martin to promise, 'we will keep having wars in the Middle East so your sales will not go down'. They can't do that. But when they go to AIPAC and pledge to support Israel, the most belligerent state in the Middle East whose occupation is a significant cause of continued conflict in the region, they're doing the same thing.
Jon Stewart played soundbites from previous U.S. presidents criticising, in various degrees, Israel's occupation. But none of them backed those statements with any real pressure. They all maintained full support for Israel, none of which was conditioned on Israel's compliance with international law. So it's not that the U.S. is powerless: the U.S. is very powerful, and it cynically uses that power to stoke conflict in the Middle East. A couple of years ago, the U.S. signed the biggest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia, worth about $60bn, because Saudi Arabia wanted to buy the latest airplanes that Israel already has. For American military corporations, it's not a bad deal.
If there's no sign of increased U.S. pressure on Israel, the EU at least seems increasingly impatient with Israel's settlements.
The EU is riddled with contradictions on this issue. Its legal framework is clear that trade relations must be based on respect for human rights and international law, so the EU violates its own laws by granting Israel trade benefits. But EU decisions are mostly taken by the European Council, which operates by unanimity. That gives any one country a veto. Proposals to sanction Israel have always been vetoed, usually by Germany. Israel has other allies in the EU, too, especially right-wing governments: the Czech Republic and Poland, both of which are major importers of Israeli weapons; the former government of the Netherlands, which saw in Israel a model for the treatment of Muslim minorities and wanted to import Israeli military and surveillance technology; the former Berlusconi government in Italy, not because Berlusconi is a Zionist but because he wants to be able to throw asylum seekers in jail for three years, like Israel does.
There are other contradictions too. On the one hand, the European Right supports Israeli policies. But on the other hand, large European corporations have a strong economic interest in ending the occupation. They want to open up markets in the Middle East, and constant regional conflict is losing them money, so they exert pressure in the other direction. Another contradiction in Europe is the gap between public opinion and government policy. You could see this clearly with Israel's 2008-09 invasion of Gaza, which provoked massive demonstrations in the big European cities even as European governments did nothing to stop the massacre.
The increased focus in Europe on proper labeling of products from the settlements is an attempt by EU states to shift the discussion into a legal framework, to avoid the more controversial political issue of EU responsibilities in the region.
Influential sectors of Israel's political elite seem to be desperate for negotiations with the Palestinians to resume, even though, as you've already said, they reject a peace settlement of the kind any Palestinian leader could accept. What's behind this desire to revive the peace process?
In 2011 Idan Ofer, one of Israel's richest capitalists, assembled a conference of 80 of Israel's biggest capitalists to discuss what should be done regarding the political situation. They concluded that unless Israel somehow restarts the peace process and demonstrates to the world that it is interested in peace, its fate will be similar to that of South Africa under apartheid, i.e. economic, political and cultural isolation. These are their words: we will become like South Africa. They have already seen how increased isolation is starting to affect Israel's economy, although they are afraid to talk about it openly. A friend of mine working in an IT company told me, 'we just lost a $9m contract because of the Gaza flotilla killings—but don't tell anyone'. These companies don't ask the government for compensation for the damage caused by government policies, because that would seem unpatriotic.
Israel's business elite is desperate for at least the illusion of a peace process, because it can feel an international boycott campaign building against it. But it won't be able to change the course of the government on this. Israel is locked in a self-destructive trap common to all colonial powers, holding on to its empire even when it's clear that it's a doomed project, because anyone who objects is immediately branded a traitor.
You mentioned Fareed Zakaria's article earlier, praising Obama's appeal to 'Israel's conscience'. The idea that the Israeli public can change from within—that it will one day wake up and declare 'occupation is bad, we should stop it'—is unrealistic. It's not how these things work. This is a Palestinian struggle for freedom, not an Israeli struggle for redemption. Once Palestinians achieve their freedom and rights, Israelis who were involved in occupation and apartheid will begin the process of seeking redemption, asking themselves how they can make up for what they did. But you cannot expect the Israeli government to free the Palestinians. It doesn't work that way.
Jamie Stern-Weiner co-edits New Left Project

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_scary_truth_about_israels_election_nothing_happened

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Step-grandchildren of Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels are worth billions after inheriting industrial fortune

 
 
The step-grandchildren of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels share a fortune worth at least £3.8billion from their family's wartime industrial success, it has been revealed.
Four sisters and the two children of a deceased sibling are worth around £760million each, according to an investigation by Bloomberg.
The family's wealthy history can be traced to two men who owed their success to the rise of the Nazi party -  Joseph Goebbels and a businessman named Guenther Quandt.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272438/Step-grandchildren-Nazi-propaganda-minister-Goebbels-worth-billions-inheriting-industrial-fortune.html#ixzz2j8BnrIeE
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Both were married at different times to Magda Ritschel.
Harald Quant - the only surviving son from Magda's first marriage - joined the German Luftwaffe during the Second World War and was being held as a prisoner by Allied forces in the Libya when he received a farewell letter from his mother and step-father Joseph Goebbels.


The pair committed suicide alongside their six children on May 1, 1945 in Hitler's bunker.

He and his half-brother Herbert inherited their father's empire which produced Mauser firearms and anti-aircraft missiles for the Third Reich's war machine.

THE 'POISON DWARF' - PROPAGANDA MINISTER JOSEPH GOEBBELS

Goebbels
Joseph Goebbels was one of the most important and influential people in Nazi Germany.
Hitler put him in charge of the party's propaganda machine in 1929 and he played a key role in implementing the dictator's agenda.
His limp and sharp tongue earned him the nickname among some as the 'Poison Dwarf'.
He organized attacks against Jews, banned them from the world of the arts and media, censored the news and supported Nazi propaganda films.
As the Second World War turned in favour of the Allies, he increased his propaganda in order to convince the German people of the idea of 'total war' and mobilization.
Goebbels killed himself and his wife, and their six children biological children with cyanide capsules the day after Hitler in 1945.
The half-brothers passed away decades ago, but their financial success has endured.
Herbert’s widow, Johanna Quandt, 86, and their children Susanne Klatten and Stefan Quandt, have remained in the public eye as BMW shareholders.
The billionaire daughters of Harald Quandt - Katarina Geller-Herr, 61, Gabriele Quandt, 60, Anette-Angelika May-Thies, 58, and 50-year-old Colleen-Bettina Rosenblat-Mo -- have kept a lower profile.






The four sisters inherited about 1.5 billion deutsche marks (£483 million) after the death of their mother, Inge, in 1978, according to the family’s official biography, 'Die Quandts'.
They manage their wealth through the Harald Quandt Holding GmbH, a family investment company and trust named after their father.
Fritz Becker, the chief executive officer of the family entities, told Bloomberg: 'The family wants to stay private and that is an acceptable situation for me.
'We invest our money globally and if it’s $1 billion, $500 million or $3 billion, who cares?'
The Quandt family fortune can be traced to Germany's involvement in both world wars.
Guenther Quandt inherited one of the country's biggest state clothing manufacturers from his father
Adolf Hitler with his propaganda minister Jospeh Goebbels, his wife Magda, and three of their children in 1938
Adolf Hitler with his propaganda minister Jospeh Goebbels, his wife Magda, and three of their children in 1938
Emil which made military uniforms in the First World War.
After his first wife died from Spanish flu he married Magda Ritschel in 1921 and the couple had their only son Harald.
They divorced in 1929 and two years later she married Jospeh Goebbels, a member of the German parliament and rising star in the Nazi party.
After the Nazis took power in 1933, their leader, Adolf Hitler, appointed Goebbels as the Third Reich’s propaganda minister. Hitler was the best man at the couple’s wedding.
Guenther Quandt joined the party that same year. His factories became key suppliers to the German war effort, even though his relationship with Goebbels had become increasingly strained.
'There was constant rivalry,' said Bonn-based history professor Joachim Scholtyseck, author of a family-commissioned study about their involvement with the Third Reich, in a telephone interview with Bloomberg.
'It didn’t matter that Goebbels didn’t like him. It didn’t have any influence on Quandt’s ability to make money.'
From 1940 to 1945, the Quandt family factories were staffed with more than 50,000 forced civilian laborers, prisoners of war and concentration camp workers, according to Scholtyseck’s 1,183-page study.
The report was commissioned by the family in 2007 after German television aired the documentary 'The Silence of the Quandts,' a critical look at their wartime activities.
According to 'Die Quandts' the siblings try to get together a few times a year to discuss their investments.
After Scholtyseck’s study was published in 2011, cousins Gabriele and Stefan Quandt acknowledged their family’s ties and involvement with the Third Reich in an interview with Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper.
'Magda killed her six children in the Fuehrerbunker. Our father loved his half-siblings very much. And when, like me, you have something like this in your family history, you think: It can’t be any worse,' Gabriele Quandt said in the interview.
'It’s a sad truth that forced laborers died in Quandt companies,' said Stefan.
'They have to live with the name. It’s part of the history,' said Scholtyseck. 'It will be a constant reminder of dictatorship and the challenges that families have to face'


 

Monday, October 28, 2013

File p2p-conficker

Script types: hostrule
Categories: default, safe
Download: http://nmap.org/svn/scripts/p2p-conficker.nse

User Summary

Checks if a host is infected with Conficker.C or higher, based on Conficker's peer to peer communication.
When Conficker.C or higher infects a system, it opens four ports: two TCP and two UDP. The ports are random, but are seeded with the current week and the IP of the infected host. By determining the algorithm, one can check if these four ports are open, and can probe them for more data.
Once the open ports are found, communication can be initiated using Conficker's custom peer to peer protocol. If a valid response is received, then a valid Conficker infection has been found.
This check won't work properly on a multihomed or NATed system because the open ports will be based on a nonpublic IP. The argument checkall tells Nmap to attempt communication with every open port (much like a version check) and the argument realip tells Nmap to base its port generation on the given IP address instead of the actual IP.
By default, this will run against a system that has a standard Windows port open (445, 139, 137). The arguments checkall and checkconficker will both perform checks regardless of which port is open, see the args section for more information.
Note: Ensure your clock is correct (within a week) before using this script!
The majority of research for this script was done by Symantec Security Response, and some was taken from public sources (most notably the port blacklisting was found by David Fifield). A big thanks goes out to everybody who contributed!

Script Arguments

realip

An IP address to use in place of the one known by Nmap.

checkall

If set to 1 or true, attempt to communicate with every open port.

checkconficker

If set to 1 or true, the script will always run on active hosts, it doesn't matter if any open ports were detected.

randomseed, smbbasic, smbport, smbsign

See the documentation for the smb library.

smbdomain, smbhash, smbnoguest, smbpassword, smbtype, smbusername

See the documentation for the smbauth library.

Example Usage

# Run the scripts against host(s) that appear to be Windows
nmap --script p2p-conficker,smb-os-discovery,smb-check-vulns --script-args=safe=1 -T4 -vv -p445 <host>
sudo nmap -sU -sS --script p2p-conficker,smb-os-discovery,smb-check-vulns --script-args=safe=1 -vv -T4 -p U:137,T:139 <host>

# Run the scripts against all active hosts (recommended)
nmap -p139,445 -vv --script p2p-conficker,smb-os-discovery,smb-check-vulns --script-args=checkconficker=1,safe=1 -T4 <host>

# Run scripts against all 65535 ports (slow)
nmap --script p2p-conficker,smb-os-discovery,smb-check-vulns -p- --script-args=checkall=1,safe=1 -vv -T4 <host>

# Base checks on a different ip address (NATed)
nmap --script p2p-conficker,smb-os-discovery -p445 --script-args=realip=\"192.168.1.65\" -vv -T4 <host>

Script Output

Clean machine (results printed only if extra verbosity ("-vv")is specified):
Host script results:
|  p2p-conficker: Checking for Conficker.C or higher...
|  | Check 1 (port 44329/tcp): CLEAN (Couldn't connect)
|  | Check 2 (port 33824/tcp): CLEAN (Couldn't connect)
|  | Check 3 (port 31380/udp): CLEAN (Failed to receive data)
|  | Check 4 (port 52600/udp): CLEAN (Failed to receive data)
|_ |_ 0/4 checks: Host is CLEAN or ports are blocked

Infected machine (results always printed):
Host script results:
|  p2p-conficker: Checking for Conficker.C or higher...
|  | Check 1 (port 18707/tcp): INFECTED (Received valid data)
|  | Check 2 (port 65273/tcp): INFECTED (Received valid data)
|  | Check 3 (port 11722/udp): INFECTED (Received valid data)
|  | Check 4 (port 12690/udp): INFECTED (Received valid data)
|_ |_ 4/4 checks: Host is likely INFECTED

Requires


Author: Ron Bowes (with research from Symantec Security Response)
License: Same as Nmap--See http://nmap.org/book/man-legal.html

hostrule

hostrule (host)
For a hostrule, simply use the 'smb' ports as an indicator, unless the user overrides it

Parameters

  • host:

Saturday, October 26, 2013

CIA Informant


#OpAnonRat

Transcript:

Hello Citizens of the world, We are Anonymous. Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes and expose the truth!

It has come to our attention that someone within the world of anonymous, their has been grave threats life, physical attacks, as well as compromised IRC networks.

Their are certain groups of people that pose as Anonymous that have connections with the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies aimed at harming or killing activist and people with in the anonymous community.

These groups that are promoting disunity and false information, tricking our fellow brothers into a contaminated cloud of operations and information in an effort to depict Anonymous as a terrorist organization and to invoke psychological warfare within the anonymous community.




The DOX exposes such Anti Anonymous members as I haz candy, who's real name is David Michael Heine. Mr. Heine is a FBI and CIA informant as well as a suspected pedophile during a darknet investigation. Anonymous discovered that Mr. Heine was a past channel operator in teen related channels on EFNET. Further research has shown him to even operate portals targeting underage children.

The Jester, who's real name is Thomas Ryan has been pushing lies and disinformation across the web. Mr. Ryan is a strong advocate against Occupy wall street and Wikileaks, and Thomas is obsessed with unmasking members of anonymous, Extreme pro military industrial complex, and Right Wing Neo Conservative. Mr. Ryan Is obsessed with anonymous turned snitch Hector Monsegur also known as Sabu.

Da Black Packet, who was responsible for Operation Warhead causing anonymous to look like extreme terrorist is known to operate on Facebook. Da Black Packet is considered dangerous and has complete access to any Facebook accounts. Anyone who reports Da Black Packet for abuse such as hacking Facebook pages get automatically banned from Facebook. Such people who are targeted by Da Black Packet are Information warriors, activist, Freedom fighters, and members of anonymous.

After obama's speech to congress threatening activist and anonymous members live on national television, Anonymous members and liberty activist began to go missing or killed, run over by Government cars, targeted with sniper rifles, Destroyed financially. All of these actions where conducted without Charge or trial and is part of the national defense authorization act.

While their are other extreme threats to Information warriors, activist, Freedom fighters, and members of anonymous, it is imperative to know that such threats exist within the liberty community and the ninety nine percent is responsible for protecting the lives of those who fight for our inalienable rights to life, freedom and liberty.

Anonymous cannot and will not tolerate threats of physical harm or cyber domination to the innocent. Anonymous will systematically expel any person from the internet who feels that the life of another has less value then their own. Such actions will have no place in the world of the ninety nine percent and will be forced to seek refuge with the elite one percent.

Too many anonymous brothers and sisters have risked their lives to spread truth.

There is no leader of anonymous, there is no god of Anonymous. Anonymous is an idea. And an idea can not be killed.

United as one, divided by zero.

We are anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Expect us.


http://irishgreeneyes-welcometomyworld.blogspot.pt/2013/03/anonymous-message-opanonrat.html#.UmwFTStdZjo
 

Anonymous Is CIA, Government Terrorist's and False Flag Operation MUST W...