Take a look at this, is it a prime example of Net scaremongering?
Printable View
Story that the page links to:
Theres also lots of replies that you'd have to go there to read, but I think that everythings posted anonymously on the site and all the evidence is first hand stories by people, ie no hard evidence, just lots of different usernames (where many are probably the same person) posting various kinds of corroboration of the story. The website for the organisation he supposedly is a member of, doesn't seem to have any info on it.Quote:
The U.S. Empire may be at it again. These insane U.S. terrorists MUST BE STOPPED, before they trigger WWIII!
Our 11th Hour...
From: the Peacewatchers at USAF’s Fairford and Welford bases in the UK
Since Saturday, people in the Highlands of Scotland have been witnessing large movements of US warplanes overhead. Experienced observers say the large numbers are reminiscent of those that preceded the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and military strikes on Libya in the1980's as well as the first Gulf War.
At the weekend warplanes were flying over at a rate of roughly one every 15 minutes. As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
At this rate some 288 warplanes would have passed over Scotland in three days.
It is thought that the planes have flown on a route from the US over the North Pole to bases in Europe and the Mediterranean. The size and scale of the movement suggests that the US may be preparing to strike at a country in the Middle East in the next week to ten days.
Please pass this information on as widely as possible- the US may be planning to use the pretext of "foreign" terrorist attacks on US personnel in Iraq to attack Iran or Syria. Please alert any sympathetic elected representatives, media representatives and other sympathetic organizations. Publicizing this military movement may prevent the air-strikes.
Yeah seems to just be net scaremongering. And its not particularly scary.
I particularly liked this response...
;)Quote:
makes sense 03.Nov.2003 23:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roy shivers
I normally discount reports like this Scotland one, but something of it rings true to me.
1) Before 9-11, Bush polled at about 50%. Post 9-11 he peaked at 90%. Before the attacks he was a lame duck president embroiled in corporate scandals. Post 9-11 the reactionary Republican agenda moved through with little debate, with the population shut out of the process.
2) Polls are usually bad science. But even the corporate media polls on Iraq now indicate BushCo is losing control of the American population http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm The propaganda war was supposed to manufacture the consent of the people, but Joseph Wilson and the failure to find WMD have exposed the Bush lies. The dam is close to breaking, with mainstream journalists like Joshua Marshall and Sy Hersh busting the Niger story wide open last week.
The same week as those two articles, three former Senior C.I.A. officials testify in front of Senate Democrats. In damning detail, they explain how the White House defrauded the American people with a manufactured case for war. They talked about Dick Cheney's 4 visits to Langley, and his personal pressure on CIA analysts. All three said this kind of pressure was unprecedented, and represented a clear politicization of the agency. The hearings were ignored of course, but represent a further break in the dam. The CIA, enraged at being manipulated and then scapegoated, may take its revenge in the form of leaks. For now it is former officials, but they also intimated their statements were representative of many current employees in the agency.
Then the helicopter attack where 16 soldiers die. The polls were taken before this attack, so when the new approval ratings emerge next week, Bush is headed for political freefall. He could reach a 40% approval rating, with Iraq approval sinking to 40% or below. This kind of damage would be impossible to counteract with conventional propaganda.
There are no soldiers for a big new war. There is no way Bush can get Congressional approval for an attack on Syria with the American public being so skeptical. One month ago when John Bolton gave a Iraq-style scare speech about Syria's "Nuclear Program," no one listened. The neocons must have recognized this as their imminent fall from power. The influence makers know that they could not sell the public another war, not under the present conditions.
And yet the PNAC goonsquad of bankers, weapons makers, and oil barons thirsts for another war of conquest to consolidate their new empire in the Middle East. Israel dreams of eliminating Syria and with it, Lebanon, for military and economic reasons. The Republican propagandists (Rove and Company) need a new terror attack or war to change the polls, which show no signs of changing. The elites in America will support a new war because it will allow them to further bankrupt the government, allowing for the rollback of all social programs. In other words, it is a play right out of the PNAC plan for "perpetual warfare." Manufactured wars against weak countries, with a compliant press hiding their true motives and the resulting enrichment of the elites.
Bush is facing a crisis as hawks like John McCain and Chuck Hagel have compared Iraq to Vietnam. The Democrats now seriously believe they can win the election, despite Bush's massive election slush fund ($300 million or more) because the poll numbers are so grim.
Nevertheless, BushCo has prepared for such a public revolt with help from Diebold and ES&S, the electronic voting machines. Despite the legimitate possibility of outright election theft, the machines will be used since so many states have already purchased them. We may be able to prevent more from being purchased, but there is little hope of installing a paper trail on the machines, or having a fair election in 2004.
Now, the election theft will work in close races for House or Senate seats. If the results produce a 5% swing in what the polls predicted, it will quickly be explained as "Bush loyalists," or "white male support," as was done in the Georgia election fraud of 2002 for the Gubernatorial and Senate elections. This will happen all over the country.
With exit polls gone and the VNS disbanded, there will be no way to prove the results were manufacured. The system was aligned perfectly for the Republicans.
Just keep it close, keep it near 50%, and let the machines do the rest.
But the plan falls apart if Bush reaches 40% in the polls. Then the fraud is too difficult to pass along even to the corporate media. They will swallow a Florida again, but not something that blatant.
So back to this week. Bush is reaching a potential fall into the low 40's in the polls as the Iraq quagmire worsens and our military looks increasingly weak. The PNAC agenda is in danger. Some Republicans are even advising Bush to cut and run, as State Dept. stories indicate.
This week Noam Chomsky predicted a "new scare" in a talk. For months he has written about Reagan's use of the same tactics (Grenada, Libya) before the 1984 elections. Without a new war, the neocons will lose the White House and their perpetual war may end. Like Kennedy in the early stages of Vietnam, Bush is at the critical point where we decide whether to get in deep or bail out. The next few months will decide.
PNAC can not risk an end to their political influence. The voting machine scam won't work if Bush is below 45%, so they have to go to Plan C and start another war. In their original plans, the Iraq war would segway seamlessly into the Syrian invasion, but the failure to find WMD hampered their effort. Now the American people are starting to call for a return of the troops in Iraq.
One other reason for attack.
The Bush Administration is finally being asked for documents relating to what they knew about 9-11, and calls for an independent inquiry are rising from Senate Democrats.
The PATRIOT Act has become a political liability as people hear about its implications. Republicans may lose the far-right libertarian vote that is so crucial in the Midwest and Southern states. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are talking about repealing parts or all of the act. Many in the national security and intelligence circles will not tolerate the Warren Court rulings and want to crush civil liberties. This issue is crucial for them, and a new war will eliminate discussion of the PATRIOT Act
Clearly PNAC does not play by the rules and will manufacture another terrorist attack to reignite their flames of their perpetual war. Perhaps they know of an attack thats coming and will do nothing, in a stand down similar to the one I feel happened on 9-11.
In other words, I believe the story about these planes in Scotland. I feel that the reactionary elements in the government are planning something, confident that their plans will never be exposed. After all, only a few thousand people will view this site, at most. The story of their pre-made war would never be told, and the Scotland plane departures would be lost in the memory hole. A manufactured war would bury the new questions about 9-11, and allow the junta to continue their war on democracy.
The next few months should be interesting, but I know check my new with a profound fear that a new global conflict is being planned at the highest circles. I hope in one month I don't remember this article as we submerge into a new Middle East conflict.
Really grabs your attention though. I thought OMG not again. :-"Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@6 November 2003 - 16:00
Yeah seems to just be net scaremongering. And its not particularly scary.
That surely is not possible with todays technonlogy ? Is it ? <_<Quote:
As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.Quote:
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@6 November 2003 - 13:14
That surely is not possible with todays technonlogy ? Is it ? <_<Quote:
As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
And the radio frequencies are easily available.
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.Quote:
Originally posted by El_Jefe+6 November 2003 - 18:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 6 November 2003 - 18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@6 November 2003 - 13:14
That surely is not possible with todays technonlogy ? Is it ? <_<Quote:
As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
And the radio frequencies are easily available. [/b][/quote]
Whatever happened to scrammbling? <_<
Whatever happened to scrammbling? <_< [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»+6 November 2003 - 18:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö» @ 6 November 2003 - 18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by El_Jefe@6 November 2003 - 18:32
<!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
Quote:
@6 November 2003 - 13:14
That surely is not possible with todays technonlogy ? Is it ? <_<Quote:
As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.
And the radio frequencies are easily available.
It depends upon the system being used.
Signals are only "Scrambled" electronicaly if needed, as this is merely an encryption. This means that the more they are used, the more likely it is to have been compromised.
Battlefield Codes at unit level are easy to use, and can be used most of the time...as they are only valid for 24 hours anyway.
There are huge problems with trying to do the same above "unit" level...you would never know if/when an encryption device had been taken, and when discovered the logistics of changing them all so that the compromised one is no good...
In addition, pilots cant use paper methods for obvious reasons. They also have to talk to civilian air traffic control I believe, as well as their own controllers.
The British Army is now using a system which is marvelous...but again, above unit level problems occur.
Saying that i suppose you would not hear any important information being communicated over the air waves, like where they are going, what thier sortie involves and indeed if they are even on a sortie.Quote:
Originally posted by El Jefe@6 November 2003 - 19:11
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.
And the radio frequencies are easily available.
Saying that i suppose you would not hear any important information being communicated over the air waves, like where they are going, what thier sortie involves and indeed if they are even on a sortie. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»+7 November 2003 - 05:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö» @ 7 November 2003 - 05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-El Jefe@6 November 2003 - 19:11
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.
And the radio frequencies are easily available.
That's right, all the classified info is programmed into the plane's computer. It would be difficult to operate in battlefield operation with coded communications, as RF says, they have to communicate with civilian ground control too.
:)
Yes, with just a simple scanner, anybody can pick military air communication on vhf and uhf.Quote:
Originally posted by El_Jefe+6 November 2003 - 19:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 6 November 2003 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@6 November 2003 - 13:14
That surely is not possible with todays technonlogy ? Is it ? <_<Quote:
As well as watching them from the ground the plane spotters have also been able to overhear pilots talking by listening to their radio frequencies.
And the radio frequencies are easily available. [/b][/quote]
wrong, I live next to the worlds largest AF base, and they have to use trunked communications, its not as simple as a scanner, you will typically only pick up non-trunked conversions, mp's and mostly non mission specific, situational awareness is top priority and they can't just ease drop that easy, maybe in the 40's and 50's but not at all now
If this is from the 'Peacewatchers' at Fairford and Welford bases, how is it they haven't detected any extra planes landing at Fairford or Welford? Why are they are having to monitor things in the "Highlands of Scotland". And of course these planes just happen to be flying low so that they can be identified, rather than at there normal height.Quote:
From: the Peacewatchers at USAF’s Fairford and Welford bases in the UK
Since Saturday, people in the Highlands of Scotland have been witnessing large movements of US warplanes overhead.
I live near one of the main UK route markers (I forget the proper name), and when it is clear it is not unusual to see about a dozen planes flying north at the same time. While it is sometimes possible to work out the difference between large and small aricraft, there is no way to tell if they are commercial or military planes. Many of these aircraft would continue on over the west of Scotland, so such a sight would not be unusual there either. I believe inbound aircraft use a lane further east (directly over the Highlands) so similar numbers would be expected there. Trying to pick out an extra aircraft every 15 mins would be almost impossible.
The article certainly sounds like uncorroborated scaremongering, and it does not even fit together logically.
There's a whole segment of radio hobbyists that listen to military air comms(search google).Quote:
Originally posted by muchspl2@7 November 2003 - 03:08
wrong, I live next to the worlds largest AF base, and they have to use trunked communications, its not as simple as a scanner, you will typically only pick up non-trunked conversions, mp's and mostly non mission specific, situational awareness is top priority and they can't just ease drop that easy, maybe in the 40's and 50's but not at all now
As said before, many military frequencies used in the HF, VHF and UHF range can be picked up with a scanner. Mainly voice traffic with the tower and tactical controllers are those that are intercepted with regards to tactical air traffic. While that might not be the wealth of information that's available on the data signals transmitted to a military aircraft's computer, with enough practice and basic understanding of teminology, one could determine things like take off and landing and routine training and operations (i.e. speed runs, altitude runs, intercept, para-drop, ground attack, search and rescue, refueling, etc.)
But as to the original topic, there are other reasons that could account for the movement of that many aircraft. Reserve and Guard wings deploying for in theater training, rotation of units in the Gulf, deployment for an exercise, it could just be an exercise at those particular bases(ops tempo has increased dramatically at many bases due to the events of the past few years and restructuring of the military), ect.
ok just to add to this, this news is keeping very quiet in all news bulitins but if you go look at official news bulitins then you will see that america has started using air strikes on certain parts of iraq again
Well why wasnt i informed?Quote:
Originally posted by k-liteuserintheworld@10 November 2003 - 09:23
ok just to add to this, this news is keeping very quiet in all news bulitins but if you go look at official news bulitins then you will see that america has started using air strikes on certain parts of iraq again
Am i being behind a propaganda media smokescreen?