Saturday, April 1, 2017

New Terrorist Fears: Laptop Bombs May Evade Airport Security, Does The Washington Establishment Seek War With Russia?




First on CNN: New terrorist laptop bombs may evade airport security, intel sources say



US intelligence and law enforcement agencies believe that ISIS and other terrorist organizations have developed innovative ways to plant explosives in electronic devices that FBI testing shows can evade some commonly used airport security screening methods, CNN has learned.
Heightening the concern is US intelligence suggesting that terrorists have obtained sophisticated airport security equipment to test how to effectively conceal explosives in laptops and other electronic devices.
The intelligence, gathered in the last several months, played a significant role in the Trump administration's decision to prohibit travelers flying out of 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and Africa from carrying laptops and other large electronic devices aboard planes.
    The findings may raise questions about whether the ban is broad enough. CNN has learned that, through a series of tests conducted late last year, the FBI determined the laptop bombs would be far more difficult for airport screeners to detect than previous versions terrorist groups have produced. The FBI testing focused on specific models of screening machines that are approved by the Transportation Security Administration and are used in the US and around t


    "As a matter of policy, we do not publicly discuss specific intelligence information. However, evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation, to include smuggling explosive devices in electronics," the Department of Homeland Security told CNN in a statement. "The U.S. government continually re-assesses existing intelligence and collects new intelligence. This allows DHS and TSA to constantly evaluate our aviation security processes and policies and make enhancements when they are deemed necessary to keep passengers safe. As always, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen.


    US authorities have said the electronics ban is focused on the eight countries in part because of intelligence indicating a greater threat there. Intelligence and law enforcement assessments done in recent months also indicate that, though the broader vulnerabilities exist, the US has more confidence in detection machines and security screeners at airports in the US and Europe. Advanced technology and training helps mitigate the risk.


    Aviation security expert Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, said limiting the ban to eight countries makes sense based on the capability and locations of terrorist groups.
    Not only are US and European airports better protected, he said, but developed countries have a "better policy regime" that allows them to set standards and ensure uniform compliance.
    "We don't have the same level of confidence in other areas of the world because we don't have the government bodies and stature to assure compliance," said Liscouski, president of Secure Point Technologies.
    When the electronics ban was announced, US officials told CNN they were concerned that terrorists had developed ways to hide explosives in battery compartments. But the new intelligence makes clear that the bomb-makers working for ISIS and other groups have become sophisticated enough to hide the explosives while ensuring a laptop would function long enough to get past screeners. Though advanced in design, FBI testing found that the laptops could be modified using common household tools.

    FBI experts have tested variants of the laptop bombs using different battery and explosive configurations to assess how difficult it would be for airport screeners to detect them. 
    The intelligence that contributed to the ban on electronic devices was specific, credible and reliable, according to three officials who used the same words to describe it. One official called the intelligence "hair-raising."






    US authorities reportedly believe that jihadist organizations have discovered innovative ways to insert explosives inside electronic devices that can evade common screening techniques used by most airports.

    The intelligence gathered in recent months played a role in the Trump administration’s decision to issue bans prohibiting electronic devices such as laptops and tablets in the cabins on flights from several Middle Eastern countries, CNN said.










    Which Is scary to Washington’s Establishment: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies?
    What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that:
    We replaced Saddam Hussein.
    We replaced Muammar Gaddafi.
    We replaced Viktor Yanukovych.
    We’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership.
    There’s question as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue that string, and many in the press consider him to be too favorable toward Russia.
    The newsmedia pick up from the Democrats and the other neoconservatives, and therefore Trump is being pressed hard on his being ‘Putin’s stooge’ or even ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate,’ though the presumption in those statements is that Russia is doomed to be America’s enemy unless America outright conquers it — and this is a war-mongering and arrogant presumption for the U.S. government to be making about Russia, and it’s also very far from being a realistic assumption about Russia. Will Russia tolerate having all of its allies overthrown by the U.S.? How many more U.S. nuclear missiles will Russia accept being placed near and on its borders in formerly allied countries that now are in NATO — the anti-Russia military club?
    Trump made clear during his campaign, that he wants to be allied with Putin’s consistent war against “radical Islamic terrorism” — no one can challenge that Putin has always, and consistently, been uncompromisingly determined to oppose that — never to arm nor train jihadists like the U.S. and its Saudi ‘ally’ the Saud family, do (in order to overthrow Russia’s allies).
    So: which of the two is scary — the Hillary Clinton and John McCain crowd, the neocons, who want to crush Russia; or, the few people in Washington who (at least until Trump became elected) were that crowd’s enemies?
    As soon as Trump became elected, his fear of being dubbed ‘Putin’s stooge’ or ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate’ caused him to appoint a national-security team who were hell-bent on replacing Russia’s remaining allies, Iran and Syria. But even this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the neocons who run both Parties, and the newsmedia. Trump has been trying to accommodate the people who are doing all they can to bring him down, but it doesn’t seem to be appeasing them. The Washington Establishment has terrified him away from his campaign promise of creating an alliance with Russia to cooperate together in wiping out jihadism — and jihadism is something that didn’t even exist in modern times until the U.S. and its Saud allies introduced it into Afghanistan in 1979 to overthrow the secular, Soviet-allied leader of that country, Nur Muhammed Taraki. This joint effort with the Sauds created jihadism in the modern age. Zbigniew Brzezinski said of his and the CIA’s and the Sauds’ achievement, in a 1998 interview, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” It became the model for what they’re now doing to Syria. 
    Trump had said that his top national-security priority would be against jihadism, not against Russia and its allies. But so far, his foreign policy in this regard seems more like what had been widely anticipated in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. (Even Trump’s focus against “radical Islamic terrorism” is directed almost exclusively against seven mainly Shiite nations that America’s Saudi allies — who are fundamentalist Sunnis and hate Shia muslims — despise. And two of those Shiite-run nations, Iran and Syria, are backed by Russia; so, Trump might just be continuing his predecessor’s pro-Saud policy there.) Yet nonetheless, the neoconservatives press on with investigations of whether Trump is a secret Russian agent.
    What does the Washington Establishment really want? What is their real demand? Putin’s head on a stake? Or do they really want Trump’s head on a stake, for some entirely different reason? The motivations that they are stating for wanting to replace Trump by his Vice President, Mike Pence — a rabid neoconservative — don’t make sense, and the ‘evidence’ they’re basing this campaign on, is, as of yet, after months of trying, still more smears than authentic evidence. Clearly, there are ulterior motives behind it. And they seem to be winning — whatever their real motivations are.







    For those who are skeptical about North Korea’s capabilities, there is an excellent article presented by The Hill, entitled How North Korea could kill 90 percent of Americans.”  The article is authored by none otherthan R. James Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the Executive Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and a former analyst with the CIA.
    Although the President is moving forward with his agenda, he has hit a “stall” in these first two months just on repealing Obamacare: The Republican Party has been the stall, refusing to give him the necessary votes and impetus to overcome it.  As mentioned in previous articles, it will take the President at least 6 months before his actions and effectiveness can be assessed.  Six months is a long time.  In the meantime, the U.S. continues to emplace measures such as THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Aerial Defense) being deployed to South Korea.
    China and Russia view it as an aggressive measure and a threat rather than a defensive strategy to protect South Korea and Japan.  This is partially correct.  The important thing to consider here is that North Koreans and their leader are starting to become more irate regarding the deployment of THAAD, the ongoing military exercises of U.S. and South Korean troops in the latter’s nation, and the demand by Japan for a first strike initiative to occur.
    Here are some excerpts from the article that readers should keep in mind:
    “The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons.  False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.
    Yet any nation that has built nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as North Korea has done, can easily overcome the relatively much simpler technological challenge of warhead miniaturization and reentry vehicle design.”
    These two paragraphs clearly state that North Korea can miniaturize a warhead.  Once again, the naysayers will only be satisfied that they “can” when either an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon and/or a nuclear warhead is delivered with either complete loss of power in the U.S. and/or the loss of an American city.  When such occurs, the naysayers will then say nothing.
    The objective is not to be “right” in this debate, but to be aware…to foster such awareness and help others to make whatever preparations they can before such occurs.  Here is another declaration by this article…a deep one:
    “The notion that North Korea is testing A-Bombs and H-Bomb components, but does not yet have the sophistication to miniaturize warheads and make reentry vehicles for missile delivery is absurd.”

    The threat could not be made any clearer than that.  The article goes on to describe assessments made in February and March of 2015 by former senior national security officials who warned this:
    “…North Korea should be regarded as capable of delivering by satellite a small nuclear warhead, specially designed to make a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States.”
    In April Admiral William Gortney, former Commander of North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) warned at a press conference that the KN-08 mobile ICBM missile system of North Korea could strike the United States with a nuclear warhead.
    Exactly six months later, Gortney declared (based on intelligence analyses) that North Korea has nuclear weapons, the capability to miniaturize them, and is capable of placing them on a missile that can reach the continental United States. This last excerpt of the article is very important due to the gravity of the current situation (the article was written today), the warning it gives, and the denouncement of the MSM (mainstream media) for obfuscating the facts on the matter and “underreporting” an issue of this magnitude:
    “According to the Congressional EMP Commission, a single warhead delivered by North Korean satellite could blackout the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for over a year – killing 9 of 10 Americans by starvation and societal collapse.  Two North Korean satellites, the KMS-3 and KMS-4, presently orbit over the U.S. on trajectories consistent with surprise EMP attack. 
    Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts?  Perhaps no administration wants to acknowledge that North Korea is an existential threat on their watch.  Whatever the motives for obfuscating the North Korean nuclear threat, the need to protect the American people is immediate and urgent…”
    These men are experts in the field.  Why is the United States (as a whole) being so lackadaisical when it comes to such a problem?  As I have written in the past, it is my fervent wish that it never comes to pass…because the death of millions is not a “fair tradeoff” just to be able to be “right” or “correct” in a point of view.  For me personally, it is not about that.  It is about paying attention to men who make it their full-time business to be aware of the true threat that the MSM does not report, and reporting it here.  In this manner, you may be able to give yourself a small edge to make it by being aware and taking any precautions you can take with your family.  It is better to be aware, prepared, and have nothing happen than to wake up one morning and find an American city has been nuked and an EMP has rendered us without power.  Let us hope that doesn’t ever happen.


























    1 comment:

    Ivan Alvarez said...

    Perhaps it is worth noting that President Trump is not the one who makes decisions, it is Congress.

    Clearly Congress was on Obama's side, otherwise this country would never have been so corrupted. What Trump failed to understand was that everything he planned on doing must be agreed upon by Congress, and it doesn't like him.

    Which means if Trump wants his way to be done, he literally has to go to war with Congress.

    Q.E.D. Start a Civil War