CIA’s brand of Taliban now come with tattoos

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

Photo by KHURAM PARVEZ/REUTERS

Ladies and gentlemen, the photo posted above is courtesy of Reuters, a globally-renowned news agency which is part of the corporate media whose every report and breaking news is taken by most of the world’s pseudo-realist citizens as “The Divine Truth”.

When alternative (read “actual”) news forums which present the other side of the picture, such as this very forum itself, share such content, we are mostly ridiculed or brushed aside as non-credible sources. But we remain content knowing that sooner or later, the truth will be spilled out from official sources, some day or the other.

The image above highlights what we’ve been saying all along that the so-called “Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan” (TTP) is actually a poor, distorted duplicate of the Afghan Taliban.

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, these militants are local recruits, even though their handlers are sitting in the confines of their smoothly-tiled executive rooms at Langley. But in most other cases however, they can turn out to be foreigners. I ask you a simple question, readers, that if Jewish American Adam Pearlman alias ‘Adam Yahya Gadahn‘ was successful in presenting himself as an Arab militant, why is it not possible that others can follow his example?

You see, these clandestine wars involving intelligence agencies vying to take the lead is an absolutely complex, dirty game. Their ulterior motive is manipulation of geopolitics which involve both tactical and strategic plans. Latter includes the attack on Peshawar airport (where a few JF-17s of the PAF are also stationed as they share the runway with Civil Aviation Authority). Fortunately for the armed forces, they failed in giving a blow yet again just as they faced humiliation during the attack on Minhas Airbase, Kamra which was carried out by Afghan commando battalions under the command of Joseph Votel. Tactical attacks include those in which the young Malala was unknowingly used.

So while looking at the image above which was sent to me by one of my readers, I was not surprised. In the past, especially during the Mehran base attack in Karachi, media persons were not allowed to take pictures considering the intense amount of international pressure on Pakistan Army. Today, there seems to be a new footing. The aging Generals in Pakistan have had enough of it. Their mid-level subordinates are getting increasingly restless by the silence which their seniors are exhibiting since long; not because they want to hide the truth, but because they are waiting for the right time to speak up. Mind you, when they do, there will be much to share. Being publicly dormant (with a few rare exceptions on certain occasions) has allowed the military to prepare grounds for the coming months in which major, I repeat, major transformations are going to take place in the internal dynamics of Pakistan’s administration. The military will be noticed getting above its currently passive state, having given enough time for the present setup to continue with all the democracy it wants to practice.

Tattoos such as the one above are seen on many army soldiers around the world especially those of the US and UK. In the US Army, the Marine Corps is known for having soldiers who have similar tattoos:

Such tattoos, I understand, are not uncommon. America’s entire West Coast is renowned for its custom tattoo paint shops littered across California. But what I cannot believe is that some American soldier will tie a suicide vest and get ready to blow himself up. This is where, in realistic terms, our previous reporting is confirmed that these militants are foreigners who are very cheap mercenaries-for-hire. These include Tajiks, Gorkhas and Uzbeks. Infact, intelligence estimates in Pakistan argued that Uzbeks are the most preferred recruits for Western intelligence agencies (MI6, CIA, BND). One officer was even quoted as saying that recruits can literally be “bought” for as low as $300 only!

In Central Asia and Caucasus regions, a horde of undercover ‘Lawrences of Asia‘ roam about in search of trainees who are recruited for the infamous Al Qaeda; the group of pseudo-jihadists who spread terror in guise of Muslims and who are jointly controlled and tasked by intelligence agencies of 3 major countries: The US, Her Majesty’s Secret Service, France and ofcourse, the illegitimate Zionist state of Israel.

The US uses agents against MI6′s interests, sometimes vice versa. But when it comes to highly critical geopolitical undertakings, where Pakistan, Iran and Syria top the list, they all unite for a common cause. In our particular case, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals are akin to a pot of honey around which these swarm of flies are always buzzing around.

There are two possibilities: Either that militant pictured above is a US Marine who was dressed like a TTP operative or, it could be the usual situation in which Afghans/Uzbeks are employed. The former assumption is highly improbable and to an extent, far-fetched. A more plausible case could be that the recruit was a convert from Europe as most Germans have infiltrated in the past too.

But what is really mind-boggling is the tattoo. In Islam, the final prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has cursed the one who does tattooing on his body (they are haram i.e. strictly prohibited). Muslim men, especially those who claim to be doing jihad, are not supposed to have such paintings on them since they cause problems for offering regular prayers. The question here arises, why did self-proclaimed warriors of Islam adorn tattoos on their body and that too, of a skull? Are Hakeeullah’s boys inspired by the Ghost Rider?

Anyhow, I will not be going into speculation here. I avoid such things which are signature of our sensationalist, corporate media. I am though, openly saying that I have never seen such a thing on any captured militant. Not as far as declassified information is concerned.

This reminds me of an earlier picture from about 4 years back in which a militant killed in Swat region was found to be uncircumcised.Click here to see one such picture (viewer discretion advised)
Again, Islamic Law makes it clear that all males are supposed to be circumcised in order to uphold the tradition on following what Abraham (peace be upon him) did.
Do you know what’s the funny aspect to all this? Just before this image got released, the TTP spokesperson claimed responsibility for the attacks. What a dumb nut I must say, now that the photo’s released, their beliefs and practices have laid themselves bare. They have, in haste, confirmed adherence to things which have no association with Islam whatsoever. These savages in the past used to blame all their heinous attacks on unseen “Blackwater agents”, later they started acknowledging high-profile attacks since it created a great impact. Today, they just hammered down on their own feet. They could have attempted to gain public sympathy by saying “this is the work of devil America” but instead they endorsed it and now find this picture spreading around in the media and online.

But you see, while this is indeed the work of the US military establishment, the people of Pakistan will at no cost forgive or forget these local/foreign proxies and blood-thirsty hounds who use terror to impose their radical beliefs, who slaughter innocent men, women and children. Pakistanis will and should not discount punishment and accountability of our own sell-outs who joined their ranks.

These militants have been described as the Khawarij “outcasts, dogs of hell” according to Islam. They are the same heretics who attacked the Sacred Mosque in Mecca in 1979 claiming to be upholders of Islamic Law. The same mindset was present inside the Red Mosque and today, across Pakistan, these stooges are carrying out orders issued from their masters in the US, UK and Israel.

Time will itself lay bare the actual details unless officials in echelons of power do so. The military establishment has disappointed much by not making appropriate, much-needed disclosures, at least to media outlets, if not unworthy journalists like me who are nothing more than past-time bloggers for some. If this article is being read by military/intelligence officials, please note that my thorough observation of public reaction has led me to conclude that the time is ripe to reveal some eye-opening secrets on an official level. Otherwise, it will be just be another ‘much ado about nothing‘.

Written By Zaki Khalid

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

YES! The FBI & CIA can read your Emails. Here's how

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

“Petraeus-gate,” some U.S. pundits are calling it. How significant is it that even the head of the CIA can have his emails read by an albeit friendly domestic intelligence agency, which can lead to his resignation and global, and very public humiliation? Here’s how. The U.S. government — and likely your own government, for that matter — is either watching your online activity every minute of the day through automated methods and non-human eavesdropping techniques, or has the ability to dip in as and when it deems necessary — sometimes with a warrant, sometimes without. That tin-foil hat really isn’t going to help. Take it off, you look silly.

Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, resigned over the weekend after he was found to have engaged in an extra-marital affair. What caught Petraeus out was, of all things, his usage of Google’s online email service, Gmail.

This has not only landed the former CIA chief in hot water but has ignited the debate over how, when, and why governments and law enforcement agencies are able to access ordinary citizens’ email accounts, even if they are the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world.

If it makes you feel any better, the chances are small that your own or a foreign government will snoop on you. The odds are much greater — at least for the ordinary person (terrorists, hijackers et al: take note) — that your email account will be broken into by a stranger exploiting your weak password, or an ex-lover with a grudge (see “Fatal Attraction“).

Forget ECHELON, or signals intelligence, or the interception of communications by black boxes installed covertly in data centers. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies can access — thanks to the shift towards Web-based email services in the cloud — but it’s not as exciting or as Jack Bauer-esque as one may think or hope for.

The easiest way to access almost anybody’s email nowadays is still through the courts. (Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s true.)

The ‘save as draft’ trick

Petraeus set up a private account under a pseudonym and composed email messages but never sent them. Instead, they were saved in draft. His lover, Paula Broadwell, would log in under the same account, read the email and reply, all without sending anything. The traffic would not be sent across the networks through Google’s data centers, making it nigh on impossible for the National Security Agency or any other electronic signals eavesdropping agency (such as Britain’s elusive GCHQ) to ‘read’ the traffic while it is in transit.

Saving an email as a draft almost entirely eliminates network traffic, making it nigh on impossible for intelligence agencies to ‘traffic sniff.’

And yes, terrorists and pedophiles have been known to use this ‘trick’, but also sophisticated criminals also use this technique. It eliminates a network trail to a greater or lesser extent, and makes it more difficult to trace.

But surely IP addresses are logged and noted? When emails are sent and received, yes. But the emails were saved in draft and therefore were not sent. However, Google may still have a record of the IP addresses of those who logged into the account.

However, most Internet or broadband providers offer dynamic IP addresses that change over time, and an IP address does not always point to the same computer, let alone the same region or state every time it is assigned to a user. Even then, recent U.S. court cases have found that IP addresses do not specifically point to a computer, meaning even if the authorities were sure that it was Petraeus, for instance — though IP addresses very rarely give the exact house number and street address — it would not stick in court.

As is often the case, human error can land someone in the legal spotlight. 37-year-old Florida resident Jill Kelley, a family friend to the Petraeus’, allegedly received emails from an anonymous account warning Kelley to stay away from the CIA chief.

But when Broadwell sent these messages, it left behind little fragments of data attached to the email — every email you send has this data attached — which first led the FBI on a path that led up to the very door of Petraeus’ office door in Langley, Virginia.

Get a warrant, serve it to Google?

There’s no such thing as a truly ‘anonymous’ email account, and no matter how much you try to encrypt the contents of the email you are sending, little fragments of data are attached by email servers and messaging companies. It’s how email works and it’s entirely unavoidable.

Every email sent and received comes with ‘communications data,’ otherwise known as “metadata” — little fragments of information that carries the recipient and the sender’s address, and routing data such as the IP addresses of the sender and the servers or data center that it’s passed through. Extracting this metadata is not a mystery or difficult, in fact anyone can do it, but if you have the legal tools and law enforcement power to determine where the email was passed through — such as an IP address of one of Google’s data center in the United States.

Email is surprisingly similar to the postal system, especially when it comes to the communication “metadata.”

The system is remarkably similar to the postal system. You can seal the envelope and hide what’s inside, but it contains a postmark of where it came from and where it’s going. It may even have your fingerprints on it. All of this information outside the contents is “metadata.”

That said, even if you use a disposable Gmail account — such as iamananonymousemailsender@gmail.com, for instance — it’s clearly a Gmail account, and Gmail is operated by Google. Sometimes it just takes a smidgen of common knowledge.

Ultimately, only Google had access to the emails. Because it’s a private company, it does not fall under the scope of the Fourth Amendment. If the U.S. government or one of its law enforcement agencies wanted to access the private Petraeus email account, it would have to serve up a warrant.

In this case, however, the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) would not apply. Even the Patriot Act would not necessarily apply in this case, even though it does allow the FBI and other authorized agencies to search email. However, in this case, above all else, the Stored Communications Act does apply — part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The act allows for any electronic data to be read if it has been stored for less than 180 days. In this case, the law was specifically designed — albeit quite some time before email became a mainstream communications medium — to allow server- or computer-stored data to be accessed by law enforcement.

However, a court order must be issued after the 180 days, and in this case it was. Reporting from London, the BBC News’ Mark Ward summed it up in a single sentence:

Once it knew Ms. Broadwell was the sender of the threatening messages, the FBI got a warrant that gave it covert access to the anonymous email account.

And that’s how they do it. No matter which way you look at it, no matter how much the government or its law enforcement agencies want the data or the proof of wrongdoing, they must almost always get a court order.

And Petraeus is no different from any other U.S. citizen, U.K. citizen, or European citizen — and further afield for that matter. What it always boils down to is a court order, and it’s as simple as that. It’s not ECHELON or an episode of “24“ using hacking or cracking techniques; it’s an afternoon in a fusty courtroom with a semi-switched on (and preferably sober) judge.

That said, it doesn’t grant unfettered or unrestricted access to a user’s inbox or email account, but when an alleged crime has been committed or law enforcement starts digging around, it allows a fairly wide berth of powers to request access to electronically stored data.

Former assistant secretary to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Stewart Baker told the Associated Press:

The government can’t just wander through your emails just because they’d like to know what you’re thinking or doing. But if the government is investigating a crime, it has a lot of authority to review people’s emails.

So there it is. A court order is all you need to access a person’s inbox, but sufficient evidence is often required in order to do this — particularly through the Stored Communications Act, or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

It sounds obvious, of course, that’s because it is.

That said, if there is reasonable suspicion albeit lacking evidence, or a U.S. law enforcement agency is dealing with a foreign national outside of the United States, that normally requires a secret FISA court order to be granted in order to proceed with the interception of data or warranted access to an email account, for example.

Outside the U.S.: Is it still ‘just’ a court order?

A simple court order is all it takes and it can apply to anyone in public office or the man on the street holding a sign warning that “the end is nigh.”

But it’s OK; you’re in Europe, or Australia, or Asia. The U.S. can’t use their laws against you in a foreign country because, well, you’re outside of its jurisdiction. Again, sorry to burst your privacy bubble but that excuse didn’t wash with the European Parliament, it shouldn’t with you either.

If you’re a European citizen with a Microsoft, Google, Yahoo or Apple account — or any email offered in the cloud by a U.S. company — which is most consumer email services nowadays — it is accessible to the U.S. courts and other nations through various acts of law, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or the PATRIOT Act, in which the latter amended much of what the former had implemented in the first place.

(“Oh great, he’s talking about the Patriot Act again,” says everybody.)

It’s worth noting a common few misconceptions. Since first reporting this some years ago (and subsequently sparking a trans-Atlantic diplomatic row, whoops) analysts and experts alike, some who are under the thumb of the cloud companies themselves, claim that the Patriot Act — to use the umbrella, common term — does not allow the U.S. government or its law enforcement agencies the powers that others (*cough* including me) claim.

Let’s just run through a few examples of false claims on top of false claims:

Myth Fact
The Patriot Act is the magic wand that allows the U.S. government unrestricted access to any data, anywhere, anytime. Untrue.
The Patriot Act gives the U.S. government unprecedented access to data hosted by U.S. companies anywhere in the world. Untrue.
All countries have similar legislation that gives the authorities a means to requisition data on cloud services, to investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. Unt… actually, quite true.
It doesn’t give “unrestricted” or “unprecedented” access to date outside the U.S., because for the most part these warrants must go through a special FISA court. The trouble is even though there is some level of accountability via the FISA courts, these sessions are held in secret and there are no public minutes or record to go from, so swings and roundabouts.

Only in exceptional cases where warrants are not issued is when there is an immediate threat to life. But because these courts are secret, there’s no definitive and ultimate way to know for an absolute fact that the U.S. authorities don’t just bypass the FISA courts and skip ahead with their investigations anyway. (You only really have my word — and my sources in the U.S. government, such as legal counsels and spokespeople, to go on.)

Pretty much every country around the world has ‘Patriot Act’-like legislation. It’s just where to look for it.

On the third point, other countries do have similar laws and this should be noted. (I personally thought it was relatively common knowledge, forgive my naivety.) The U.K., for instance, has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that can be used to acquire data from a third-country via a U.K.-based firm, just as the Patriot Act can be used on a U.S. firm to access data in a third-country via a local subsidiary.

But in terms of where the major email and cloud providers are based — the United States, notably on the West Coast — it means that U.S. law must apply, in spite of foreign laws that attempt to or successfully counteract the provisions offered in U.S. law. Not many major cloud providers operate solely in the U.K., whereas Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon are all U.S. headquartered with a subsidiary in the U.K. and other countries.

The lesson here? We’re all as bad as each other and no legally or financially reasonable place is safe to store data if you’re a massive criminal or looking to stash a bunch of secret or uncouth documents away from the authorities.

As for Petraeus, he may have been careful but in spite of his counter-terrorism knowledge and clever tricks in going under the radar, ultimately there was a weak link in the security chain — and no matter how far you go to try and cover your tracks, often it always falls down to two things: human error, or sex.

Zack Whittaker

(ZD.net)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Zionist UK to double number of drones in Afghanistan

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

The UK military reportedly aims to double the size of its armed drone fleet in Afghanistan to ten by purchasing five US-made Reaper drones, which for the first time will be controlled from a UK base. The first five were controlled at US stations. The Royal Air Force (RAF) announced the expedited purchase of the US-made unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), with operations set to begin in six weeks, AFP reported. The drones will be flown and operated from a tech hub built 18 months ago in the British region of Waddington in Lincolnshire, a leap forward in technological prowess for the UK. The other five drones the UK operates in Afghanistan were controlled from a US Air Force base in Nevada, and target suspected insurgents in Afghanistan’s southwest province of Helmand.

"The new squadron will have three control terminals at RAF Waddington, and the five aircraft will be based in Afghanistan," an RAF spokesperson told the Guardian. “We will continue to operate the other Reapers from Creech though, in time, we will wind down operations there and bring people back to the UK.”
It is not known whether the drones will remain in Afghanistan following the NATO withdrawal in 2014. Drone controversy deepens The use of UAVs in Middle East is a controversial issue, as drones airstrikes frequently kill large numbers of innocent civilians.

Last month’s study from Stanford and New York universities titled ‘Living Under Drones’ claimed that only two percent of drone strike casualties in Pakistan are the top militants targeted in the attacks, and that the large number of collateral civilian deaths have turned Pakistanis against the US.
The “best available information,” according to the study, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan from June 2004 through mid-September of this year. An estimated 474 to 881 of those killed were civilians, including 176 children. In early October, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that an overwhelming majority of those killed by US UAV strikes in Pakistan are innocent civilians. Malik asked the US to share its drone technology with Pakistan, claiming his government could do a better job at targeting terrorists than Washington.

"The Americans themselves often don’t know who they’ve hit,” anti-drone activist and filmmaker Grayson told RT. “And this huge discrepancy over the figures… we’re finding out that a lot more civilians are being killed. But these are the people that the Americans don’t tell you about. And they actually class these people as ‘other.’” The CIA has not responded to these calls for restraint, and recently asked the White House to increase the number of drones it employs, effectively transforming the program into a paramilitary force.

This summer, the UN lashed out against US drone policy, and asked Washington to clarify the legal basis for drone strikes against terror suspects rather than trying to capture them. The body argued that the airstrikes, which frequently kill innocent civilians, may be violating international law. The US uses drone technology across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. In the first nine months of 2011, leading up to the ten-year anniversary of the Afghan War, US-led spy drones operating with NATO conducted nearly 23,000 surveillance missions in Afghanistan. At around 85 flights a day, this figure nearly doubles the rate of such missions from two years previous.

As the Pentagon increases the number of drones used in NATO missions in Afghanistan, insurgent attacks have risen nearly 50 percent since 2009, according to a media brief released in the fall of 2011 by the Afghanistan International Security Assistance force. The UK has operated UAVs in Afghanistan since 2008 for combat missions and surveillance operations. According to the UK’s Ministry of Defense, Britain’s five drones were flown for 39,628 hours and fired 334 laser-guided missiles and bombs at suspected insurgents.

The Ministry of Defense said that it does not know how many insurgents have died from drone attacks because of the risks involved in verifying who has been hit. The ministry also said that it relies on Afghans to handle complaints of civilians killed by such strikes, and gather statistics. Heather Barr, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch, believes this system of verification is flawed because it lacks uniformity, and not all Afghans have ready access to NATO military bases where such complaints can be made. For some Afghans, there is “a certain sense of futility in doing so [reporting civilian deaths] anyway,” due to lack of trust in the West, she said.

(RT)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter