<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Kommentarer till Hur undviker man att bli spårad av FRA?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/</link>
	<description>En kärleksförklaring till Internet sedan 1997 // Nikke Lindqvist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:52:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Av: Fredrik Fegerley</title>
		<link>http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/comment-page-1/#comment-7498</link>
		<dc:creator>Fredrik Fegerley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lindqvist.com/b/?p=873#comment-7498</guid>
		<description>How to organise a major terrorist scare

        By Gavin Gatenby, Possum News Network
        15 August 2006

        How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s
        currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a
        few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with
        virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little
        confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks:

        1. The politicians don’t want to know

        Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it
        is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their
        very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations
        operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal
        things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical –
        things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed.
        If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly
        deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous,
        uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite
        clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues
        are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and
        economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the
        national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking
        ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature.

        2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis

        Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage
        specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead
        security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the
        line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall
        threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the
        timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder
        at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to
        contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin
        their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol.

        3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved

        When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and
        sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the
        head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking
        credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll
        automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition
        parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and
        patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media
        and the state apparatus will fall into line.

        4. “Prove that we lie”

        Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted”
        something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you
        haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early
        stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s
        already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The
        majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
        Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an
        easy gig.

        5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part

        Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary.
        All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order
        those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t
        even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the
        addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find
        some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives,
        or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve
        created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be
        able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up”
        the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a
        verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be
        leaked to selected journalists (see below).

        6. Feed the chickens

        Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum.
        There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing
        investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In
        place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small
        leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from
        politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are
        carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic
        “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re
        totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details
        are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story,
        your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll
        establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the
        public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve
        already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust
        the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the
        charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it
        would be prudent to put them away.

        7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists

        No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of
        being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the
        allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics
        junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer
        for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you
        on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their
        credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more
        ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing.

        8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups

        Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that
        your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with,
        al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the
        not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since
        evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still,
        unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the
        CIA or MI6 or Mossad.

        It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur
        because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the
        “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in
        the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory,
        terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three
        integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to
        discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they
        spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour
        the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives
        made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula.
        Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All
        you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and
        had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a
        mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing
        explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least
        one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that
        they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in
        travelling overseas.

        The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to
        international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public
        fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is
        actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to
        these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by
        patriotic simpletons.

        9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent

        Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and
        if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that
        ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting
        key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your
        victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done
        its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get
        little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in
        such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will
        be lost in the next big scare.
        Good luck, and have fun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How to organise a major terrorist scare</p>
<p>        By Gavin Gatenby, Possum News Network<br />
        15 August 2006</p>
<p>        How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s<br />
        currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a<br />
        few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with<br />
        virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little<br />
        confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks:</p>
<p>        1. The politicians don’t want to know</p>
<p>        Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it<br />
        is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their<br />
        very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations<br />
        operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal<br />
        things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical –<br />
        things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed.<br />
        If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly<br />
        deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous,<br />
        uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite<br />
        clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues<br />
        are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and<br />
        economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the<br />
        national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking<br />
        ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature.</p>
<p>        2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis</p>
<p>        Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage<br />
        specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead<br />
        security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the<br />
        line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall<br />
        threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the<br />
        timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder<br />
        at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to<br />
        contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin<br />
        their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol.</p>
<p>        3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved</p>
<p>        When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and<br />
        sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the<br />
        head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking<br />
        credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll<br />
        automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition<br />
        parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and<br />
        patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media<br />
        and the state apparatus will fall into line.</p>
<p>        4. “Prove that we lie”</p>
<p>        Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted”<br />
        something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you<br />
        haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early<br />
        stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s<br />
        already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The<br />
        majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.<br />
        Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an<br />
        easy gig.</p>
<p>        5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part</p>
<p>        Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary.<br />
        All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order<br />
        those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t<br />
        even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the<br />
        addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find<br />
        some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives,<br />
        or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve<br />
        created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be<br />
        able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up”<br />
        the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a<br />
        verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be<br />
        leaked to selected journalists (see below).</p>
<p>        6. Feed the chickens</p>
<p>        Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum.<br />
        There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing<br />
        investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In<br />
        place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small<br />
        leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from<br />
        politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are<br />
        carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic<br />
        “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re<br />
        totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details<br />
        are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story,<br />
        your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll<br />
        establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the<br />
        public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve<br />
        already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust<br />
        the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the<br />
        charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it<br />
        would be prudent to put them away.</p>
<p>        7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists</p>
<p>        No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of<br />
        being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the<br />
        allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics<br />
        junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer<br />
        for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you<br />
        on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their<br />
        credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more<br />
        ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing.</p>
<p>        8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups</p>
<p>        Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that<br />
        your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with,<br />
        al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the<br />
        not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since<br />
        evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still,<br />
        unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the<br />
        CIA or MI6 or Mossad.</p>
<p>        It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur<br />
        because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the<br />
        “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in<br />
        the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory,<br />
        terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three<br />
        integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to<br />
        discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they<br />
        spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour<br />
        the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives<br />
        made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula.<br />
        Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All<br />
        you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and<br />
        had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a<br />
        mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing<br />
        explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least<br />
        one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that<br />
        they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in<br />
        travelling overseas.</p>
<p>        The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to<br />
        international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public<br />
        fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is<br />
        actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to<br />
        these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by<br />
        patriotic simpletons.</p>
<p>        9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent</p>
<p>        Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and<br />
        if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that<br />
        ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting<br />
        key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your<br />
        victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done<br />
        its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get<br />
        little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in<br />
        such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will<br />
        be lost in the next big scare.<br />
        Good luck, and have fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Av: Fredrik Fegerley</title>
		<link>http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/comment-page-1/#comment-38291</link>
		<dc:creator>Fredrik Fegerley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lindqvist.com/b/?p=873#comment-38291</guid>
		<description>How to organise a major terrorist scare

        By Gavin Gatenby, Possum News Network
        15 August 2006

        How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s
        currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a
        few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with
        virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little
        confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks:

        1. The politicians don’t want to know

        Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it
        is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their
        very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations
        operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal
        things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical –
        things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed.
        If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly
        deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous,
        uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite
        clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues
        are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and
        economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the
        national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking
        ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature.

        2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis

        Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage
        specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead
        security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the
        line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall
        threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the
        timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder
        at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to
        contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin
        their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol.

        3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved

        When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and
        sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the
        head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking
        credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll
        automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition
        parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and
        patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media
        and the state apparatus will fall into line.

        4. “Prove that we lie”

        Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted”
        something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you
        haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early
        stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s
        already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The
        majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
        Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an
        easy gig.

        5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part

        Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary.
        All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order
        those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t
        even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the
        addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find
        some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives,
        or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve
        created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be
        able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up”
        the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a
        verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be
        leaked to selected journalists (see below).

        6. Feed the chickens

        Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum.
        There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing
        investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In
        place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small
        leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from
        politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are
        carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic
        “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re
        totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details
        are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story,
        your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll
        establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the
        public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve
        already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust
        the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the
        charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it
        would be prudent to put them away.

        7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists

        No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of
        being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the
        allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics
        junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer
        for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you
        on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their
        credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more
        ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing.

        8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups

        Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that
        your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with,
        al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the
        not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since
        evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still,
        unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the
        CIA or MI6 or Mossad.

        It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur
        because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the
        “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in
        the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory,
        terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three
        integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to
        discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they
        spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour
        the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives
        made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula.
        Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All
        you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and
        had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a
        mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing
        explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least
        one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that
        they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in
        travelling overseas.

        The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to
        international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public
        fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is
        actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to
        these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by
        patriotic simpletons.

        9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent

        Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and
        if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that
        ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting
        key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your
        victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done
        its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get
        little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in
        such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will
        be lost in the next big scare.
        Good luck, and have fun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How to organise a major terrorist scare</p>
<p>        By Gavin Gatenby, Possum News Network<br />
        15 August 2006</p>
<p>        How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s<br />
        currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a<br />
        few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with<br />
        virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little<br />
        confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks:</p>
<p>        1. The politicians don’t want to know</p>
<p>        Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it<br />
        is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their<br />
        very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations<br />
        operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal<br />
        things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical –<br />
        things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed.<br />
        If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly<br />
        deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous,<br />
        uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite<br />
        clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues<br />
        are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and<br />
        economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the<br />
        national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking<br />
        ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature.</p>
<p>        2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis</p>
<p>        Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage<br />
        specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead<br />
        security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the<br />
        line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall<br />
        threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the<br />
        timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder<br />
        at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to<br />
        contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin<br />
        their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol.</p>
<p>        3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved</p>
<p>        When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and<br />
        sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the<br />
        head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking<br />
        credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll<br />
        automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition<br />
        parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and<br />
        patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media<br />
        and the state apparatus will fall into line.</p>
<p>        4. “Prove that we lie”</p>
<p>        Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted”<br />
        something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you<br />
        haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early<br />
        stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s<br />
        already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The<br />
        majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.<br />
        Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an<br />
        easy gig.</p>
<p>        5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part</p>
<p>        Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary.<br />
        All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order<br />
        those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t<br />
        even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the<br />
        addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find<br />
        some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives,<br />
        or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve<br />
        created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be<br />
        able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up”<br />
        the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a<br />
        verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be<br />
        leaked to selected journalists (see below).</p>
<p>        6. Feed the chickens</p>
<p>        Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum.<br />
        There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing<br />
        investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In<br />
        place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small<br />
        leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from<br />
        politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are<br />
        carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic<br />
        “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re<br />
        totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details<br />
        are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story,<br />
        your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll<br />
        establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the<br />
        public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve<br />
        already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust<br />
        the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the<br />
        charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it<br />
        would be prudent to put them away.</p>
<p>        7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists</p>
<p>        No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of<br />
        being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the<br />
        allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics<br />
        junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer<br />
        for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you<br />
        on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their<br />
        credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more<br />
        ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing.</p>
<p>        8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups</p>
<p>        Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that<br />
        your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with,<br />
        al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the<br />
        not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since<br />
        evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still,<br />
        unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the<br />
        CIA or MI6 or Mossad.</p>
<p>        It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur<br />
        because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the<br />
        “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in<br />
        the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory,<br />
        terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three<br />
        integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to<br />
        discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they<br />
        spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour<br />
        the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives<br />
        made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula.<br />
        Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All<br />
        you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and<br />
        had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a<br />
        mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing<br />
        explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least<br />
        one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that<br />
        they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in<br />
        travelling overseas.</p>
<p>        The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to<br />
        international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public<br />
        fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is<br />
        actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to<br />
        these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by<br />
        patriotic simpletons.</p>
<p>        9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent</p>
<p>        Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and<br />
        if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that<br />
        ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting<br />
        key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your<br />
        victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done<br />
        its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get<br />
        little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in<br />
        such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will<br />
        be lost in the next big scare.<br />
        Good luck, and have fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Av: BlackCat</title>
		<link>http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/comment-page-1/#comment-7497</link>
		<dc:creator>BlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lindqvist.com/b/?p=873#comment-7497</guid>
		<description>Att skicka runt en massa mail mellan oskyldiga mailservrar är kanske lite elakt. Om nu försvaret så hemskt gärna vill läsa all epost är det väl enklare att helt enkelt forwarda alla mail som kan tänkas innehålla känslig information (aka spam) till tex registrator@defence.ministry.se eller annan lämplig adress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Att skicka runt en massa mail mellan oskyldiga mailservrar är kanske lite elakt. Om nu försvaret så hemskt gärna vill läsa all epost är det väl enklare att helt enkelt forwarda alla mail som kan tänkas innehålla känslig information (aka spam) till tex <a href="mailto:registrator@defence.ministry.se">registrator@defence.ministry.se</a> eller annan lämplig adress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Av: BlackCat</title>
		<link>http://www.lindqvist.com/hur-undviker-man-att-bli-sparad-av-fra/comment-page-1/#comment-38290</link>
		<dc:creator>BlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lindqvist.com/b/?p=873#comment-38290</guid>
		<description>Att skicka runt en massa mail mellan oskyldiga mailservrar är kanske lite elakt. Om nu försvaret så hemskt gärna vill läsa all epost är det väl enklare att helt enkelt forwarda alla mail som kan tänkas innehålla känslig information (aka spam) till tex registrator@defence.ministry.se eller annan lämplig adress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Att skicka runt en massa mail mellan oskyldiga mailservrar är kanske lite elakt. Om nu försvaret så hemskt gärna vill läsa all epost är det väl enklare att helt enkelt forwarda alla mail som kan tänkas innehålla känslig information (aka spam) till tex <a href="mailto:registrator@defence.ministry.se">registrator@defence.ministry.se</a> eller annan lämplig adress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

