Featured Post


« Le comble du savoir-faire ne consiste pas à remporter toutes les batailles, mais à soumettre l’armée ennemie sans livrer bataille » (Sun...

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

The Stratfor affair is an israeli operation designed to prepare major false flag operations in the US, Europe and the Gulf arabic countries making it appear like iranian retaliations

Anonymous Hacked/WikiLeaks Released Stratfor Emails Were Stored On FBI Server

By Brit, 

Following yesterday's revelation that a key figure in the hacker collective LulzSec had actually been working for the FBI since mid-2011, the release of alleged informant Hector Xavier Monsegur's court documents reveal that the FBI had even provided him with a server, onto which data was transferred by the hackers.

The 71 pages of the prosecution's indictment make multiple references to a New York server provided to Monsegur by the FBI, which he made available to other alleged LulzSec/Anonymous hackers for the transferrance of hacked data - specifically, email data hacked from the private intelligence analysis firm Stratfor. It is this data which the whistleblower organisation WikiLeaks has recently started publishing.
In the indictment document Monsegur is referred to as "CW-1", whilst "HAMMOND" refers to his fellow alleged hacker, Jeremy Hammond. On page 13 of the indictment we learn that:

"...at or around the time the Stratfor hack took place, CW-1, at the direction of the FBI, provided to HAMMOND and his co-conspirators a computer server in New York, New York, which could be used to store data, and to which HAMMOND and his co-conspirators in fact transferred data."
Earlier on page 2, point 3c, of the indictment document we learn that:

"On or about December 19, 2011, a co-conspirator not named herein ("CC-1") uploaded data stolen from a Stratfor email database to a server located in the Southern District of New York."
In other words, the Stratfor emails currently being released by WikiLeaks, come from the cache of hacked emails transferred to the FBI's New York server - the very server provided to Monsegur, which he had been encouraged by the FBI to make available to his hacker associates. On page 13 of the document we further learn that:

"CW-1 did not further disseminate any data that HAMMOND or his co-conspirators stored on the New York Server."

This new information raises huge questions about the credibility of the WikiLeaks Stratfor emails. As it does not appear that the cache of emails was stored on a seperate, non-FBI owned server, it is reasonable to assume that the cache currently being published came directly from the FBI's New York server - in other words, it must have been the FBI themselves who released the cache of emails to WikiLeaks. At the very least, they must have been fully complicit in the release. Other than strategically releasing the emails for counterintelligence purposes, it is difficult to see why the FBI would allow them to be disseminated in such a way.

Even if the FBI were able to provide a plausible explanation for such a suspicious move, any emails incriminatory to the US government or its intelligence agencies would surely have been removed prior to the cache's release - and there was also a clear opportunity for the content of the emails to be modified or entirely fabricated by the FBI prior to their release. Such a scenario is supported by considering the latest Stratfor email to be publicised by the mainstream media - the supposed email from Stratfor’s vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, claiming that Bin Laden was not buried at sea, but was instead flown to the U.S. for cremation at a secret location. 

Such apparently revelatory "leaked" information serves as a perfect "limited hangout" to cover the blatantly absurd official story about last year's Navy Seals operation in Abbottabad. Bin Laden's supposed death has been widely ridiculed in the alternative media, due to the complete lack of evidence presented to support the US government's claims. Now, instead of focusing on the major issue of whether Bin Laden was really killed in the attack, the public has been directed to question a relatively minor aspect of the narrative - whether or not his corpse was dumped in the sea. 

If in the coming days and weeks we see the highly publicised release of more supposedly leaked emails, which either support or provide cover for the US government's narratives, then serious questions should be asked about the extent to which LulzSec, Anonymous, and WikiLeaks are simply being used by the intelligence services as useful dupes for the release of pro-government propaganda.


No comments: