back to article Citizenfour: Poitras' doco is about NSA and GCHQ – not Snowden

There is no subtlety in the political stance of Laura Poitras, which makes Citizenfour a completely one-sided documentary. Yet oddly enough, this bias doesn’t detract from the power of the film that covers a week in a Hong Kong hotel bedroom, during which Edward Snowden reveals himself and the extent of the NSA’s cyber- …

  1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

    Sounds worth a watch. Off to the cinema - assuming its playing at my local.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      a graphic from Finland

      https://fsecureconsumer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/141017-mass-surveillance-infographic.jpg

      lets try and get it above 4%

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sounds worth a watch. (GPS)

      Gordon 10, don't forget to leave to leave your phone at home as the 'Fuckheads' at GCHQ will undoubtably be monitoring who's going to these particular screenings at your local Odeon.

    3. as2003

      Remember to pay for your ticket with cash

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Black Helicopters

        Cash that you got from a shop 100 miles away, not a local cash point...serial numbers and all that...

        Oh and wear gloves when handling it.

  2. MuckerDog

    Looking forward to seeing this

    Snowden is an exceedingly brave individual and a true hero, and I say that as someone who is generally a very cynical person. What he has revealed is to my mind the most important news in my lifetime (I'm 50+) and far more horrifying and far-reaching than such things as ebola or IS. It shows that my government is far more dangerous than any of those and is descending into a fascist/police state from which it might be very difficult if not impossible to return.

    All I can think of is Orwells boot stamping on a face forever, and Nietzsches "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you." The Fbi director's comments demonstrate straight out that they no longer even care to pretend they are for freedom, and yet the vast majority sit silently and ignorantly by as the water slowly starts to boil around them.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Suckerdog Re: Looking forward to seeing this

      LOL at the paranoia!

      ".....far more horrifying and far-reaching than such things as ebola or IS....." So the NSA and/or GCHQ have killed thousands like the Ebola virus? Did I miss the reports of the NSA making vids of their operatives beheading hostages and burying executed Shias, Kurds and Christians in mass graves? Please do try to develop a sense of perspective.

      1. PleebSmash
        FAIL

        Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

        Ebola is barely transmissible compared to measles or the flu, and ISIS is a problem of the US's own making, surrounded by enemies (Assad, Iran, Turkey, Saudis, Kurds, "Iraq", US from the sky, etc.)

        Whereas the NSA programs have barely slowed down, and will improve in reach as technology improves.

        Good luck on developing that perspective.

      2. Graham Marsden
        Facepalm

        @Matt Bryant - Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

        Of course *you* have never been personally affected by Ebola or the beheading of hostages, so from *your* perspective you have nothing to worry about, do you?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Marsbarbran Re: @Matt Bryant - Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

          "Of course *you* have never been personally affected by Ebola or the beheading of hostages....." Actually, I have travelled to parts of the a World where both occur. Avoiding Ebola was simpler and considered less of a risk (going by the insurance premiums).

          "......so from *your* perspective you have nothing to worry about, do you?" The difference is I not only did my research but made a reasoned assessment of the risks based on real facts. You are simply still insisting that there are monsters under your bed because she celebutard told you so.

        2. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: @Matt Bryant - Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

          "Of course *you* have never been personally affected by Ebola or the beheading of hostages, so from *your* perspective you have nothing to worry about, do you?"

          Bit of a shame that. Of course, it may be that he has experienced one or both of the above, but got better.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

        @Matt No, they just use drones to do the dirty work. I guess that makes it more palatable for some people.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: AC Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

          ".....they just use drones to do the dirty work....." Wrong! Neither the GCHQ nor NSA operate armed drones. The people that do are the respective armed forces of Britain and the U.S., and - allegedly - the CIA.

          "......I guess that makes it more palatable for some people." When those drones are used they are striking at real terrorists and I have zero problem with killing them or the 'innocent bystanders' they are being assisted by. The drones are used when it is impractical or too risky to send special forces in to do the job. The virtual elimination of Al Quaeda has shown just how effective they are, which is probably what makes them unpalatable for some people.

          1. SolidSquid

            Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

            Considering some of their targets have been in civilian housing blocks, and in once case was entirely non-combatant, it's very likely that those 'innocent bystanders' are exactly that

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              RE: SolidSquid Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

              "Considering some of their targets have been in civilian housing blocks....." AQ (and the Taleban and IS and other Islamist terror groups) doesn't have any defined military installations because they do not have any conventional military force, therefore ALL their 'fighters' and support infrastrucure are in civilian buildings! Duh! Indeed, AQ (and similar Islamist terror groups) deliberately hide amongst civilians in an attempt to avoid being hit, relying on Western values when AQ and co have no compunction about massacring civilians. And military strikes against 'terrorists/guerrillas/freedom-fighters' and their 'support systems', including Auntie Mila making them brihani whilst sheltering them in civilian buildings, is legal under UN law. Even the UN Special Rapporteur for Dictators- sorry, I mean the UN Human Rights Council - was unable to show breaches of law, his best whine being to question whether 'self-defence' could be used to justify drone strikes on 'militants' setting roadside bombs (the roadside bomb represents a threat, therefore killing the 'militants' setting the bomb before they can detonate it is self-defence under US and UK rules of engagement).

              The British MoD actually prohibits strikes, drone or otherwise, if it is clear beforehand that it will result in any civilian casualties, a zero-acceptance policy. The big difference is the West seeks to limit collateral damage and civilian deaths, even amongst those that openly support and assist Islamist terror groups, whereas the Islamist terror groups primary targets are civilians and they seek to maximize the number of civilian deaths they cause. If you want to pretend otherwise then please do go ahead and compare the number of civilians killed daily by Islamist suicide- and car- bombs against those killed by infrequent Western drone strikes. You can start here - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm - and then get the shrieking, 'liberal' figure for 'five years of drone strikes under Obama' here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html. Please try to note that even the inflated figures used by HuffPo are about 10% of the people killed by Islamist terror groups in just 2014 so far alone.

          2. antiRev

            Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

            @Matt Bryant

            "and I have zero problem with killing them or the 'innocent bystanders' they are being assisted by"

            Does that mean you do have a problem with the real innocents being killed? I can't believe you are naive enough to believe innocent civilians aren't killed in drone strikes.

            If one agrees with drone strikes then one also accepts "collateral damage" will happen.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              WTF?

              Re: antiRev RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

              ".....Does that mean you do have a problem with the real innocents being killed?...." Firstly, what 'innocents'? By the laws of The Hague Covention, civilian buildings used for a military purpose become legitimate military targets, including mosques and other normally protected buildings. Similarly, civilians giving aid or other support to armed fighters, be they uniformed soldiers or 'militants', also lose the protection of their civilian status whilst they are giving such support. A civilian worker in an factory that supplies military items or a military building is a legitimate target, and the definition of 'factory' is so lose legally it can cover an unarmed woman cooking food (a 'military supply') for 'militants' in a mud-brick compound (the 'factory'). Whilst she may have been forced by 'tradition' to do the cooking, it is highly unlikely she does not know what her 'guests' have done and intend to do in the future, and that her giving them shelter and sustenance enables the 'militants' to carry on their murderous tasks. Maybe you want to look at the real innocents killed daily by such 'militants' who expressly target civilians, with the approval of their supporters - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm

              ".....I can't believe you are naive enough to believe innocent civilians aren't killed in drone strikes....." If civilians are killed by drone strikes then it is unintentional. That is the difference - the West and allies seek to minimize such 'collateral damage', whereas the terrorists seek it as their primary aim. Please do list the number of non-'innocents' killed on 9/11, or the London Tube bombing, or any number of other terrorist attacks. As far as I can ascertain, not one single serving member of the armed forces of any Western country was killed out of the 2753 people killed on 9/11 alone, which is more than HuffPo's inflated figure for 2400 'civilians' killed in five years of drone strikes under Obama. Oh, sorry, did your definition of 'innocent' not extend to non-'militant-friendly people?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: antiRev RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

                I'm afraid that, after reading your many missives and echo chamber retorts, I can only conclude that you are a complete cock.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

            "and I have zero problem with killing them or the 'innocent bystanders' they are being assisted by" - Matt Bryant

            Matt Bryant supporting death threats amounts to trolling. Does that mean we can get him banged up for 2 years under Chris Grayling's proposed anti-free speech legislation?

            Imagine he had said "I have no problem anyone killing David Cameron."

            Or does hate speech against foreigners not count - only state approved speech is acceptable?

          4. Bernard M. Orwell

            Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

            "When those drones are used they are striking at real terrorists and I have zero problem with killing them or the 'innocent bystanders' they are being assisted by." ~Matt Bryant, 2014.

            Here are my replies to that, MB.

            http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html

            http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/

            You fucking sicken me, MB.

            More children have been killed as a result of the US war on terror than died in the 9/11 event and all other "related" events. How many more children have to die to support the way of life you espouse? Before you and your demented thinking tells you you've "won" the war on an abstract concept?

            1. Bernard M. Orwell

              Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

              I note that you haven't refuted this yet, MB. Why not?

              Surely you have some opinion about how many children we're allowed to kill before its not ok? Or some argument that they aren't really children?

              Or perhaps you're going to fall back to that idea that those who aid "terrorists" are just as bad as the "terrorists" and need to be killed? Doesn't matter if they aren't cooperating willingly or they've been herded into buildings you consider to be "military/viable targets" does it?

              They're just terrorists getting in the way of killing more terrorists.

              Not children. Not victims.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Boring Bernie Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

                "I note that you haven't refuted this yet, MB. Why not?...." El Mod seems to be having an issue accepting my laughing at your hypocritical use of the 'think of the children' argument you so habitually slate when used by 'The Man'. I assume it's just backlog, no bias. Strange that others' posts don't seem so affected....

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @matt: Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

        It seems that, as usual, you have missed the point. In fact, the reaction of GCHQ, NSA and others is the victory of the short-term extremism and horror. The IRA did not win because they did not bring normal life in most of the British Isles, including most of N. Ireland, to a halt (I was in the police for much of that time). But today, a couple (really, in Europe and N. America, very few) atrocities by a tiny minority of Muslims has given our borderline democratic governments and apparatchiks the ability to scare you into blind acceptance of their claims.

        For all their banal, horrifying evilness, The various terrorists will grow old, fall out and fade away, just as the Mongol hordes, Stalin, Hitler, Highland chiefs who treated their clansmen as useless livestock, the most criminal of the IRA and Loyalists ....

        However, excessive state intrusion and control will outlast them and do more long-term damage.

        Even Ebola is not as bad as, for instance, the plagues that killed a third of Europe in very short order with, even today, the remains of abandoned villages and towns to be found in England and on the Continent, as well as mass graves even in quiet places like Exeter. Considering its reputation, Ebola is remarkably inefficient in that, after several years, the total number of dead, even if doubled, while firghtening to us today, does not compare with the normal rates in the routine plagues and pests of the past. And, dreadful for the victims as it is, it will pass. I suspect more people are still dying from Bubonic plague, malaria, influenza, car accidents, crime and civil war, starvation and neglect.

        If you need examples, modern Russia has not really escaped from its surveillance culture (that enabled the killing of millions over many years and vast tracts of land and many countries). China is still arresting people on the basis of surveillance. Even Britain has had police knocking at the door because of some faulty surveillance and neighbours's tittle-tattle spurred on by the hopeless fear inspired by the politicians' and "security service's" claims about our "safety".

        Freedom requires that one takes some risks. I suggest that inhabitants of the former East Germany did not view the Stasi as caring for their safety, even if it probably did provide a safe environment as long as one lived according to their terms.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

        >." So the NSA and/or GCHQ have killed thousands like the Ebola virus?

        Yes, actually. But perhaps like most Americans and English, you don't remember September 11. No, not the one in 2001, which has Americans all atizzy, but the one in 1973, when the CIA led a coup d'etat in Chile which overthrew the democratically-elected government, installing military dictators who killed many thousands of people. And of course next door the accompanying Dirty War in Argentina, that killed many thousands more, killers trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia. And many other CIA and NSA-assisted operations that did indeed kill many people. Just not all white Americans.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          RE: AC Re: Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

          ".....when the CIA led a coup d'etat in Chile...." Fail! The CIA is a completely separate organization to the NSA, and SFA to do with the GCHQ.

          1. Bernard M. Orwell

            Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

            Do you really think the CIA has no relationship with the NSA?

            Naïve.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re; boring Bernie Re: RE: AC Suckerdog Looking forward to seeing this

              "Do you really think the CIA has no relationship with the NSA?...." Nope, but the original poster tried to claim that the NSA and GCHQ had directly killed thousands with drones, which is obviously wrong. Try again!

              "....Naïve." Yes, you are.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Looking forward to seeing this

      Yeah. It's worse than climate change.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Well, as anyone who has read my comments on the whole NSA expose can tell...

    I've never been a big fan of the NSA and their self-appointed and completely opaque role atop data access in the U.S. and the world. So I will watch this documentary with a high degree of sympathy.

    What's more concerning is listening to the description of Glenn Greenwald's conversion from bemused skeptic to tinfoil-hatted paranoid (and I say that in the best sense, as that is now pretty much where I am) in the space of a week.

  4. Zog_but_not_the_first

    State of the Union

    An excellent summary of things by a man ahead of his time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  5. Rol Silver badge

    Looking to the future.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious our friends in IT are busily creating the "peoples internet" One which has anonymity at its core and one that will prove impossible to survey en masse.

    Sadly I can only assume it is just a matter of time before such endeavours are classed as terrorist assisting and outlawed. The right to intercept communications and electronic files will no doubt find its way onto the statute books and then that will be that, we'll be owned by the state, that is in turn owned by commerce which hasn't got the moral fibre to give a shit whether it's machinations take us on the road to oblivion or not.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Looking to the future.

      We don't need complete anonymity however at present we have the opposite - maximum data stealing

      A scientific analysis of the TOR darknet this year discovered that 50% of the traffic was criminals & perverts, whilst 50% was people trying honestly to protect their correspondence from their government

      The state, well nearly all states, have already written the intercept laws into the statute books, they did this in the mid to late 1990's when they just lied that the data was to be used for police & lawful use, when in fact it has been used purely for spying purposes.

      "road to oblivion" - that seems to be the US state departments' job at present, starting a nuclear war with NATO - bordering countries.

      Whilst the communications spooks' work would probably allow all of us, spooks included, to enjoy serfdom not oblivion in future times., assuming state dont win the 'n-booby prize' with their projects.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Looking to the future.

      >> our friends in IT are busily creating the ...

      1. They are also creating the means to break the security and forge sources and targets.

      2. The best seem to work for various government and pseudo government departments.

      3. It could be argued that our IT friends are responsible for the extraordinary scale of financial failures in a highly automated market, for the barbarism of remote means of killing "enemies", for the surveillance tools and the enhanced propaganda tools and for the wonderful tools for manipulating photographs, films and reports to distort or emphasise "points of view" and evidence.

      I am sure that most of them either do not realise their role or honestly believe that it is necessary and right.

      I do not mean that all government-employed or industry-employed IT people are in the worng - far from it. But the fact is that they are just as good at IT as those outside that environment, though often better provided with tools to do their work. Many, of course, are spending spare time working on Linux or BSD or some pet project giving "free" software to the hoi polloi.

  6. WalterAlter
    Devil

    So where is the actual HQ of these rogue operations?

    Who are the unofficial clandestine camouflaged stealthy customers for all this NSA data?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq9yjt_JbWs

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    One sided

    "...which makes Citizenfour a completely one-sided documentary..."

    It is a delight to see something have the balls to portray something accurately - it *is* one sided in real life after all!

    Too many movies these days feel the need to paint every plot and character as having an equal mix of good and bad - modern writers would have Hitler as a loveable but flawed rogue, or Mother Teresa as a racy temptress.

    1. DocJames

      Re: One sided

      Mother Teresa as a racy temptress.

      No, she was a hateful woman. She refused to accept pain relief for the dying in the institutions she ran. Many people suffered due to her actions. And although I doubt she was the reason the money disappeared, the donations to her orphanages, hospices etc far outweigh the amount of money that has been spent on them.

      She was evil. Don't hold her up as an exemplar of good.

      OTOH, I completely agree with the rest of your post, so I don't know what icon to use...

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: One sided

        Did you know she was a borderline atheist when she died?

  8. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    The Meme Genie is out of the Bottle and Mad as Hell*, Real Smart,

    Virtually Invisible and Practically Almighty?!.

    His passionate idealism and determined commitment make him appear young and almost naïve, but his position is calmly and intelligently argued, so that you begin to wonder if it’s your own cynicism that greets such apparent sincerity with scepticism. …. Brid-Aine Parnell

    Methinks for the perps wilfully abusing systems for their own personal apolitical advantage, it be the blissful ignorant apathy and convenient lack of inquiring intelligence of the masses, [which is now rapidly and rabidly being globally/universally addressed], is that which the tale and film show tells.

    Cynicism and scepticism suggest far too strongly and incorrectly that there be much thought used to phish and phorm a valid accurate and valuable opinion based upon questionable elements of the truth which are being cynically concealed and/or not being fully revealed. Hide the truth and you be a sworn enemy of the free state and a captive controller of a mined mind command, and that creates all sort of increasing emerging problems ......

    The Challenge of Going Dark

    Technology has forever changed the world we live in. We’re online, in one way or another, all day long. Our phones and computers have become reflections of our personalities, our interests, and our identities. They hold much that is important to us.

    And with that comes a desire to protect our privacy and our data—you want to share your lives with the people you choose. I sure do. But the FBI has a sworn duty to keep every American safe from crime and terrorism, and technology has become the tool of choice for some very dangerous people.

    Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem. We call it “Going Dark,” and what it means is this: Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority. We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.

    We face two overlapping challenges. The first concerns real-time court-ordered interception of what we call “data in motion,” such as phone calls, e-mail, and live chat sessions. The second challenge concerns court-ordered access to data stored on our devices, such as e-mail, text messages, photos, and videos—or what we call “data at rest.” And both real-time communication and stored data are increasingly encrypted..... http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course

    * Mad as Hell

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: The Meme Genie is out of the Bottle and Mad as Hell*, Real Smart,

      And here's someone else stating the bleeding obvious, and realising there be struggles and losing battles for waging to try and come to terms with real and virtual terrain teams who are better not engaged and classified as foe to be opposed and competed against, rather than recognised as a distant learned friend to be lavishly supported and encouraged to perform better for the greater benefit of all lowly mankind than has ever been thought possible before ........

      The Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) Cyberculture and Personnel Security project addresses a looming concern for personnel security: how computer technology and participation in cyber environments is changing which and how information and activities should be evaluated during employee vetting and workforce management. Security-minded organizations are broadly aware that society is being affected by new devices, and are putting policies into place to deal with the constantly changing environment, but the present project takes a different approach by focusing on understanding the long-term implications of these changes. The systemic changes brought about by technology might make obsolete some of the basic assumptions about what needs to be considered during personnel security investigations and adjudications. This research indicates that personnel security may face new behaviors of concern that occur in cyberspace but spill over into real life. In addition, cyberspace expands the range of counterintelligence concerns, such as through activities that increase the disclosure of personal information. The present report is the first in a planned series of related reports. It outlines both the major concerns and the state of knowledge prior to conducting additional research. This information is of interest to all members of the personnel security community, including policy planners, investigators, adjudicators, and employees. In addition, a second independently released report entitled “Cyber Culture and Personnel Security: Report II - Ethnographic Analysis of Second Life,” is based on empirical data and begins to address some of the unknowns. ... James A. Riedel, Director, Defense Personnel Security Research Center, 20 Ryan Ranch Road, Suite 290, Monterey, CA 93940

  9. deadlockvictim Silver badge

    The NSA vs Ebola, IS etc.

    The NSA is a chronic problem for us all and, for most of us not an acute problem. God help us should NSA and friends become an acute problem and the spectre of 1984 becomes reality.

    Ebola and IS are very acute problems for some and, for most of us not an acute problem. Like the NSA and friends, they have the potential to make the lives of all of us a misery (and short at that).

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: The NSA vs Ebola, IS etc. and other APTly ACTive Plays

      Hi, deadlockvictim,

      With particular and peculiar regard to the likes of a present and/or future situation hosting of ....

      The NSA is a chronic problem for us all and, for most of us not an acute problem. God help us should NSA and friends become an acute problem and the spectre of 1984 becomes reality.

      Methinks it is they who are psychotically delusional and aspiring to be lord and master of all that is purveyed and portrayed who have major disruptive, destructive, self-defeating problems ...... for they no longer control the master pass keys to the Great Game being played.And there be a whole new generation of revolutionary renegade rogue players seeking command in the madness and mayhem which is existing and resulting ........ and which may or may not be remotely virtually controllable and control by ......... well, let us just realise they and/or that which would program novel codes and nobly deliver such beta futures and marketable derivatives for the Live Operational Virtual Environments of Clouds Hosting Advanced Operating Systems, be always best stealthily regarded and invisibly cloaked in the alienating mantel of A.N.Others.

      And here be a short revealing read on the likes of a problem child without a clue as to what to do next to remain relevant and in command and control of forces and sources ....... http://cryptome.org/2014/10/spy-reform-theater.pdf

      The FBI, GCHQ, NSA, CIA, SIS, FSB, MSS etc etc etc though, are all confronted and challenged with the same problematic opportunity, which for them to have any possible chance of their being an HyperRadioProActive part of the constructive and creative resolution of the enigmatic dilemma with absolutely fabulous fabless solutions, requires them to be bold and brave and smart enough to engage with what are probably best left simply classified Advanced Anonymous Autonomous Systems Players.

      And El Reg, are you content with just reporting to the IT Crowd on such matters and NEUKlearer HyperRadioproActive Bomber Runs, or would you like to try practically leading everything with IT Control Leverage and the wholesale universal capture and reconfiguration of human perception?

      Simple easy to follow instructions will be supplied, so don't be worried about not knowing what needs to be done in that field of expertise and expert tease. :-)

      And that is a genuine offer which tests more than just Registered systems for evidence of SMARTR IntelAIgent Life to Phish and Phorm Realities and Dare Win Win with the Cheat that is Instant Immortal Death for Eternal Peace and Immaculate Tranquility.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The NSA vs Ebola, IS etc. and other APTly ACTive Plays

        Well said sir!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is no such thing as AQ

    Al Qaeda does not exist. It never has. There is no terrorist organisation calling itself that. There is no central command for terrorist operations. There is no international conspiracy of terror.

    OBL didn't use the words "Al Qaeda" until long after 9/11 when he realised that the US had decided to coin the phrase and label him with it. This made it useful propaganda for his tiny band of misfits.

    The following documentary was made by the BBC using the Panorama and NewsNight production teams. It was aired once then made to vanish. It is banned in many countries. It reveals the historical truth and shows how we engineered the whole chabang to suit a neocon political agenda. It contains not only historical and hard evidence, but also frank admissions from those involved.

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL23D767AC3632389B

    Stop listening to the lies you're being told.

    Watch. Learn.

    1. deadlockvictim Silver badge

      Re: There is no such thing as AQ

      Hmmm. I think that you are wrong.

      On the evening of September 11, I remember colleagues in the pub surmising that Al Qaeda were to blame. My guess is that Al Qaeda groups were not organised in the same way, say, that the IRA was organised.

      I'll have to go watch said documentary though.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There is no such thing as AQ

        Did you find it an interesting watch in the end?

        The term "Al Qaeda" was indeed in use prior to 9/11 - as far back as 1975, I believe, but it was a phrase used by the CIA to refer to their database of international terrorists and was not in use by any known active terrorist group at the time. the AQ moniker was adopted by OBL post-9/11 once he realised the extent to which the west had become afraid of the name.

        There are some pretty frank interviews in that footage where this is fairly clearly admitted.

        I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary, however, as I found the documentary very surprising.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: AC Re: There is no such thing as AQ

          "....the AQ moniker was adopted by OBL post-9/11 once he realised the extent to which the west had become afraid of the name....." Very easily debunkable male bovine manure. Osama bin Ladin was using the name Al Quaeda in 1988, long before 9/11:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Formation_and_structuring_of_al-Qaeda

          When Bill Clinton finally got up the gumption to hit at Al Quaeda he used cruise missiles fired at their Afghan bases, and the press releases of the time mention Al Quaeda. Again, long before 9/11 (Clinton had long since been replaced as POTUS by Bush Jnr by 9/11).

  11. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Do you realise that the ...

    NSA has satellites that receive radio frequencies from VLF through EHF on real-time from all parts of the globe?

    The US base at Menwith Hills, Yorkshire, where these real time downloads occur is exactly opposite the NSA Pine Gap US near Alice Springs, Australia.

    Tome the British government stopped all this unnecessary snooping.

    At least we can whisper face-to-face or use infra-red.

  12. tony2heads
    Big Brother

    As William S Burroughs said

    sometimes paranoia's having all the facts

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021