.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: mustang6000
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 581

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - US officials 'sold nuclear secrets'

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    Mack Bolan
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 13, 2007
    Posts: 379

    PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:44 am Reply with quote

    US officials 'sold nuclear secrets'


    A WHISTLEBLOWER has made extraordinary claims about how corrupt US government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.

    Sibel Edmonds, 37, a former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency's Washington field office.

    She approached London's The Sunday Times last month after reading about an al-Qa'ida terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

    Ms Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

    Among the covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington. The agents sold the information to black market buyers including Pakistan.

    The name of the official, who has held a series of top government posts, is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

    However, Ms Edmonds said: "He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives."

    She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials, including household names, who were aiding foreign agents.

    "If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you would see very high-level people going through criminal trials," she said.

    The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort.

    However, rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain's Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.

    Ms Edmonds - a fluent speaker of Turkish and Farsi - was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. Her previous claims about incompetence inside the FBI have been well documented in the US. She has given evidence to closed sessions of Congress and the 9/11commission but many of the key points of her testimony remain secret.

    She decided to divulge some of that information after becoming disillusioned with the US authorities' failure to act.

    One of Ms Edmonds's main roles in the FBI was to translate thousands of hours of conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets that had been recorded covertly by the agency.

    A backlog of tapes had built up, dating back to 1997, that were needed for an FBI investigation into links among the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets. Before she left the FBI in 2002 she heard evidence that pointed to money laundering, drug imports and attempts to acquire nuclear and conventional weapons technology.

    "What I found was damning," she said. "While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the Government were shielding what was going on."

    She said the Turks and Israelis had planted "moles" in military and academic institutions that handled nuclear technology.

    Ms Edmonds said there were several transactions of nuclear material every month - the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers.

    "The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States," she said.

    They were helped, she said, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities.

    These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.

    In one conversation, Ms Edmonds heard the official arranging to pick up a $US15,000 cash bribe. The package was to be dropped off at an agreed location by someone in the Turkish diplomatic community who was working for the network.

    The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's spy agency.

    "I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2 1/2 years. There are almost certainly more," Ms Edmonds said.

    The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

    Ms Edmonds was later to see the scope of the Pakistani connections when it was revealed that one of her fellow translators at the FBI was the daughter of a Pakistani embassy official who worked for General Ahmad. The translator was given top-secret clearance, despite FBI protests.

    Read rest of article:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23014339-26397,00.html
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:30 am Reply with quote

    This is also why multiculturalism (MC) and runaway immigration are terribly dangerous to USA. MC encourages immigration of people working for other nations' interests, much like illegal Mexicans work for Mexico in sending some 22 billion dollars back home under Mexican government guidance and assistance at border training stations that also produce illegal immigration DVD lessons. Any New York politician dares not betray Israeli Likud's AIPAC lobby that controls politics in New York state, for example. Giuliani and the Clintons are in AIPAC's pocket, for example. A vote for them is a vote for Israeli interests, since there are more Jews in NY than Israel.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:39 am Reply with quote

    Graviton wrote:
    Any New York politician dares not betray Israeli Likud's AIPAC lobby that controls politics in New York state, for example. Giuliani and the Clintons are in AIPAC's pocket, for example. A vote for them is a vote for Israeli interests, since there are more Jews in NY than Israel.


    The Jews own your country no matter who you vote for, sorry.


    Last edited by Teller25 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:27 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    The Jews own your country no matter who you vote for, sorry.


    Jews don't own it, and the ones who do have power among them do not represent the overwhelming majority. Yet the small minority has immense funding and well-placed associates.

    More people need to realize that Jewish political power of AIPAC is only a small minority, and does not represent the large majority of the spectrum of beliefs among Jewish people as a whole.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/alterman
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:01 pm Reply with quote

    Millions have died due to genocide in different parts of the world every decade specially in Africa, but unlike the Jews, Africans do not control American economy, nor finance the Presidential campaigns so Bush is forced every year to pretend feeling pain and crying for those Jews who were killed in WWII.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_israel_holocaust

    "Twice, I saw tears well up in his eyes," Shalev said.

    In the memorial's visitors' book, the president wrote simply, "God bless Israel, George Bush."

    "I wish as many people as possible would come to this place. It is a sobering reminder that evil exists, and a call that when evil exists we must resist it," he said.--- WHAT???

    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:26 pm Reply with quote

    Millions did not die in a decade in Africa from systematic, industrial slaughter like those faced by Jews in the Holocaust. They mostly died from starvation brought on by rivals, as well as disease among those displaced from the fighting.

    The truth is that they are all too many chiefs who would rather see their own people rot than to get their massive corruption cut in Africa from foreign assistance. Sending foreign aid often intensifies this greed among tribal chiefs. The worst motivation for genocides in Africa is from tribes competing for great wealth over newly resources such as precious metals and diamonds, and therefore who will control them, as seen in the Tutsi versus Hutu slaughters of eastern Africa.

    No, they are not the same.

    Jews died simply for being Jews. If you ever read Hitler's table lectures he emphatically stated the primary motivation for killing Jews because of their starting Judeo-Christianity values that changed the order from pseudo-Darwinism -- since Darwinism is based on natural selection, not politically motivated removal -- competition for domination that ignores and overcomes the weak with killings to benevolent pacificism and higher morality so ferociously hated by Nietzsche.

    This following of Nietzsche also underscored Hitler avoiding sexual contact with women, since he found it as a weakness to find love of women also bitterly scorned in Nietzsche's writings about the so-called Uebermenschen -- despite the fact that Nietzsche only found contact in women prostitutes until he contracted syphillus that drove him mad and hateful of women.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:32 pm Reply with quote

    Graviton wrote:

    This following of Nietzsche also underscored Hitler avoiding sexual contact with women, since he found it as a weakness to find love of women also bitterly scorned in Nietzsche's writings about the so-called Uebermenschen --


    I thought that the reason for that was simplerÖ
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,564899,00.html


    Iím just saying that they should also go to Hiroshima, Nagasaki or any other of the cities they turned into ashes killing civilians during WWII only for being Japanese .
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:33 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Iím just saying that they should also go to Hiroshima, Nagasaki or any other of the cities they turned into ashes killing civilians during WWII only for being Japanese .


    This is completely false. It was NOT because they were Japanese, and not anything like Hitler's view.

    This moral equivalence deception of yours is inexcusable, lacking historical accuracy, and untruthful. The Japanese themselves made genocide common military business in killing anyone in occupied countries who did not serve as slaves or whores for the soldiers:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/killcomp.htm

    More:

    http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/killgame.htm

    http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/bloodrds.htm

    http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/nmintro.htm

    The destruction of Japan was based on multiple reasons, including the fact the Japanese fought repeated battles to the last man, killing themselves before being taken prisoner. It also was a quick method to destroy Japan before the Russians could attack and seize significant control, therefore losing all of Japan to communist control.

    I will gather Hitler's table discussion document excerpts showing details about Hitler's views and make them available as soon as I have time to process them.

    Also, The Guardian is a terrible source of historical analysis, due to immense bias of its staff against the United States and its immense foreign influence that recently led to great controversy under the Bush administration.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:32 am Reply with quote

    Grav is right about everything here except Nietzsche.

    Nietzsche abhorred German militarism and saw Germany's future as being a cultural force. The writings of Nietzsche were abused and twisted by Hitler to mean something completely different to what he was saying.

    Nietzsche did not loathe women. Well, not at first. His unrequited love for Serbian beauty Lou von Salome led him to the prostitutes who gave him syphilis, which led to his madness. He later mistook a horse for the aforementioned von Salome and throw his arms around it in public! Apparently he caught syphilis the first time he had sex which is a rotten bit of luck....!

    I did my Philosophy thesis on Nietzsche's theory of language, by the way.

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:36 am Reply with quote

    I have also studied Nietzsche, even in Kieler German dialect of Also Sprach Zarathustra, the original language form of publishing for some of his documents. This was among many of his other writings I have read and analyzed.

    Yes, Nietzsche (FWN) did abhor women from the idea if Western civilization. Keep in mind that FWN spun a new world and new vision of morality (principally a total lack of it!). This is based on social Darwinian survival of the fittest --which is crackpot when applied to social human studies that many incorrectly call "science" -- in a brutal, savage new order of both sexes, and totally without love or friendship among the fittest to survive. I am basing this not on Nietzsche's twisted, savage praise of women who live under the whip of ever-dominant, so-called supermen. This lack of equity is hateful of women, based on Western civilization, civilization which FWN hated deeply.

    What better way to scorn Western civilization than to turn it upside down and savage and then call it supreme and praiseworthy? Innate supremacy of men over women is a denigration of women, a hateful practice.

    Again, it's the twisted world of FWN and other followers locked into a fantasy of overrun social Darwinism that dominated social science of the middle Victorian era to the end of WW2. I can quote others, especially such silly, arrogant philosophers and popular writers who really can'ty be considered genuine toffs of their times, for their lack of vision of truth as well as their ideas of national self-supremacy that infected pop philosophy. Even silly Bertrand Russell proposed laws in the UK only allowing breeding within social classes. HG Wells and others also fell into this deluded fantasy of quack social Darwinism. Communists also bought it as much as European fascists of the 30s and 40s, yet without the nationalism, since communism and other forms of wider socialism are a world mission.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:18 pm Reply with quote

    Nietzsche was not a social Darwinist, eg see

    Nietzsche's Anti-Darwin by John S Moore
    11th annual conference of the Friedrich Nietzsche Society, Emmannuel College Cambridge,8th September 2001.


    http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/darniet.htm

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1515
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:45 pm Reply with quote

    Please send other information when you find it. This is interesting.

    I believe our main difference is from perspective. My perspective is from a historical view, not a philosophical one. Historians weigh philosophical writings through the influence and effects they generate or inspire in trends, even if they blend with others to influence civilization. True historians see little value in general philosophy itself when there is no broader effect ideas inspire or exploit.

    Though I am not a professional historian, I am an expert in specific areas of history. However, I live in a community with many professional historians who influence me as well as challenge.

    I admit have contempt for general philosophy, compounded by the fact that the weirdest, highly impractical, archaic/obsolete, as well as naive ones appear to get the most applied attention throughout history. Just as in art, much of the undeserved value of it comes through some sort of suffering or eccentricity of the artist, as well as the skilled vehicle of marketing it.

    General philosophy is also riddled with politics, appeals to artful, abstract emotions, and pure hypothetical model. Therefore there is no practical, wide, philosophy community effort to arrive at greater truth building on facts other than to examine general philosophical writings as isolated works of some sort of literary art, and how they are spun. Sometimes the irrationality of politics borrows and often dreadfully misuses ideas that should remain nothing more than academically hypothetical.

    Pure science is completely different, since it incorporates the strict scientific method as a test of ideas, as well as demands it, and not pop cultural appeal that draws influence from general philosophy.

    We must be careful of many articles where business invades publishing interests. Many authors attempt to break into new ideas to get them recognition and therefore citations "just for being different." Yet I also find many humanities highly faulty, especially in psychological arenas that don't even grasp the most fundamental aspects of mental health and behavior: morality's connection with psychosomatics.

    An example is the bitter needling and sometimes arrogant threats going on in evolutionary psychology that has ferocious battles over spin of definitions, and often trivial ones. Fighting over definitions within these fields cause terrible problems if not laughable ones. I saw an article some years ago in the Wall Street Journal of professors in evolutionary psychology angrily calling each other insulting names in papers. I need to dig this up and show you how it escalated to email threats that invoked an FBI response. I often laugh at some humanities (including history) departments calling themselves scientists (while they use not true scientific method) when such are shaken by greedy political camps and near cults of personality among popular professors fighting it out. They frequently have a terrible problem that anyone openly disagreeing with them totally negates all their research ... stunning Narcissism.

    Many people in academia spin social Darwinism, which in simple terms is applying Darwinism to human social (broad human interaction) trends and behavior. This does not mean that Darwin was a socialist, which implies an economic theory.

    Social Darwinism is at its most basic behavioral philosophy of the "weaker" (less aggressive, less ambitious) portion of society to be pushed aside if not suppressed for the dominant and more assertive elements. Broader social Darwinism is politically levered, yet not spun on moral versus amoral issues emphasized by Nietzsche.

    Yet both ideas do heavily overlap despite some major disagreements, and both follow along parallels that easily mix the already unacceptable and unreasonable (1)motivations and (2)results of both general ideas. These bases are therefore related by these 2 connections.

    Nietzsche, if anything, was pseudo-anarchic in political belief, for lack of moral structure that defines Western civilization, where no moral system applies to a small group of "supermen" who are then most fit to rule. However, any anarchic model fosters eventual demand in crisis for restoration of civil order through a small elite, coinciding between social Darwinists and Nietzscheans. Notice how brutal systems of autocracy, including fascism and communism rise out of civil crises.

    Among Nietzscheans there is no innate supremacy of a particular group of people, but a new concept of amorality (that becomes immoral according to civilization) applied to supremacy of some over many weaker others.

    We almost must recognize that Darwinism had the broadest influence on political and social studies -- which any natural scientist would refuse to call social sciences, because they simply do not invoke any true scientific method in research, which again would cause furious reactions and hostile disagreements from the social studies/humanities fields -- of the late Victorian era to the end of WW2. Wealthy and academic British society was also infected by it since it served nationalist interests dominating Europe in those times.

    We also must be careful about what we call social Darwinism, because it was a relative of Charles Darwin who is most credited with this idea growing out of Darwin. Yet Charles Darwin saw its popularity rise and he his self bought the ideas of social Darwinism, I believe largely because it raced into infective popular attention suiting the feelings of the neo-industrial period.

    Recall also that Marx and Engels sought to create a a new economic and social theory "that would rock the world," called communism. They sought selfish glory in the feelings that attracted similar attentions to Nietzsche and Darwin at the time.

    Nietzschean philosophy also fit into the popular cultural attraction of this identical model of kitsch integrating into popular political beliefs. His rise in popularity (lacking quality like many other popular beliefs that die out in decades) after his death was met with relatives and former friends taking advantage of this rise.

    I have much more to say but I do not have time now. More later ....
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1693
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:32 am Reply with quote

    As I understand this thread is experiencing the bug that restricts post lengths. I have moved to the political area to hopefully remedy this
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.13 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::