On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:49 PM, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Viktor Larionov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As a comment to Gadi's story: it's not nice to accuse anyone if it's still >> not clear who's behind all this and what is really happening. >> > > It would be great for the U.S to take down the .ge sites while Russia > is attacking Georgia in a ground conflict, as it ramps up U.S's > ambitions for an offensive cyber command. > > They already cyber false flagged Estonia to get money support > politically and public acceptance for the big U.S cyber command to get > built in the first place. > > Now that the big U.S cyber command has been given the go ahead because > of the Estonia cyber false flag, they've got to keep reasons in the > media that the U.S cyber command is still a good idea.
u mean the cyber command that was just cancelled and told to stop? > > Russia gets all the blame for the .ge cyber attacks and U.S get to > keep the politicians and the public sweet about the ongoing need for > the big U.S cyber command and "legitimate" reasons for its existence. > > I couldn't think of a better time for U.S to do a bit of cyber false > flagging, than is when another country invading another, while keeping > U.S cyber ambitions afloat politically and publically. > > Remember, U.S need to keep the idea of ground conflict and cyber > attacks as the same thing in the eyes of the public and the > politicians or the idea of the U.S cyber command doesn't float. > > In reality, proper government-led cyber attacks wouldn't target web > sites, this is purely an attention seeking exercise to highlight the > ongoing need for the U.S cyber command. > > In reality, proper government-led cyber attacks are invisible to the > public, as they are targeting specific government and military stuff > that the public and politicians don't get a chance to know about. Its > a classic media whoring exercise to take out web sites, as taking out > websites has no real cyber operational value apart from a bit of media > whoring. > > I don't think it was Russia, but Russia have been framed by the U.S. > who need to keep the ideology of a U.S offensive cyber command afloat > and OK'd as the next president and its administration take over, so > that "cyber" gets full funding and the attention of Obama or McCain. > > Watch this video by Marcus Sachs at Black Hat 2008 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSUPTZVlkyU, he talks about, how are we > going to get the next president's attention in the transition period > in the first 100 days of Obama or McCain getting into the White House > and to take "cyber" seriously? > > Now by this video it seems that Marcus Sachs > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Sachs is trying to say we need a > cyber false flag attack in the first 100 days that Obama or McCain get > into the White House to make sure "cyber" is fully funded and that > cyber offensive operations are fully OK'd for the next four to eight > years. > > "We want to get the attention of the next administration as they are > coming in" --Marcus Sachs. marcus sachs is a media wh0reing bloehard. he seems he is in the right place at the right time. what has he done besides run his mouth? > > He talks about the first two months or 100 days of the next presidency > is crucial in getting the attention of the president and its > administration. > > Is this a hidden message here by Marcus Sachs about a Die Hard 4.0 > scenario false flag attack being planned? he wouldnt know if it bit him in the ass. > > He said also in the video, when Bush was coming in, the powers that be > got their attention with 9/11 and that "cyber" got distracted, and now > he is basically saying when Obama or McCain come in that the U.S > government under world are planning a cyber 9/11. he said something about the first 100 days and shit before bush got elected too. u could say the same thing every 4 yrs. > > It seems that Marcus Sachs is frustrated that 9/11 got all the > attention last time, and now the powers of be are going to make sure > "cyber" takes up the main agenda this time around. > > How are they going to get the attention of the next presidency to get > "cyber" fully funded and taken seriously is anyones guess, but I fear > the worst and that we must keep our eyes and ears open for any false > flagging and other suspicious looking cyber security incidents, so we > are better prepared to call out "false flag" at the earliest > opportunity. marcus is trying to get a government appt to lead the us cyber command. this is called 'dick sucking' _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/