DHS Cyberstorm IV: "KILL INTERNET" drill using fake "Anonymous" Red Cell 3/31

[Scancast]

Operation Global Blackout - Anonymous To Take Down Internet 03/31/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjM5KTajAKg

Links -

Operation Global Blackout (YouTube Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE9rUC6vriY

Operation Global Blackout (Story In Print)
http://investmentwatchblog.com/march-31-operation-global-blackout-hackers-intend-to-shut-down-entire-united-states-could-be-executed-in-as-little-as-15-minutes/#.T3UT2GHy_i4

Operation Global Blackout (Story In Print / Backup)
http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in-national/operation-global-blackout-will-anonymous-shut-the-internet-down

 

[shipgeek]

Operation Global Blackout - Anonymous To Take Down Internet 03/31/2012

How can "anonymous" so powerful to be able to take down the whole Internet?

"anonymous" = CIA?

 

I smell a rat.

[Femacamper]

How can "anonymous" so powerful to be able to take down the whole Internet?

"anonymous" = CIA?

 

I smell a rat.

Yeah, pretty much...

[shipgeek]

Yeah, pretty much...

I would have thought so. An "entity" that can bring down the Internet has to be government related/sponsored.

[Dig]

NLE 12 Cyber Exercise to take down Internet using "Anonymous" as a Red Cell false input
http://securitynotes.asdwa.org/2012/03/02/nle-12-cyber-exercise/
March 2, 2012 by Bridget O'Grady

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA are collaborating to host NLE 12.  This year’s exercise will have a cyber focus and will be “played” in FEMA Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5 during the spring and summer of this year.  Some impact or connection to the Water Sector is also expected.  NLE 12 will consist of four main exercises:

1.  Information Exchange – a discussion-based event to evaluate information sharing within the Federal cyber community.

2.  Cyber Incident Management – addresses the National Cyber Incident Response Plan.

3.  NLE Capstone/Cyber Physical Effects – examines challenges related to managing a cyber event with physical consequences and national security implications.

4.  Continuity Exercise – evaluates the continuity, devolution, and reconstitution capabilities of Federal departments and agencies during a cyber security incident.

[Dig]

Fact Sheet: Cyber Storm III: National Cyber Exercise
http://www.dhs.gov/files/training/cyberstorm-iii.shtm

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) held Cyber Storm III (CS III), a comprehensive and dynamic cybersecurity exercise from September 27 through October 1, 2010. Cyber Storm is the DHS’ capstone national-level. This biennial event represents the Nation’s most extensive cybersecurity exercise of its kind and is an element of ongoing efforts to assess cybersecurity preparedness; examine incident response processes, procedures, and information sharing mechanisms; and identify areas for improvement - absent the consequences of an actual incident.

This national-level exercise included participation from eight Cabinet-level departments, 13 states, 12 international partners, and 60 private sector companies and coordination bodies. Together, these entities participated in the design, execution, and post-exercise analysis of the largest, most comprehensive government-led, full-scale cyber exercise to date.
Objectives

CS III's objectives were designed to assess the Nation's response capabilities to cyber incidents. The assessment has informed our preparedness and resiliency planning, thereby strengthening the Nation's capacity to respond to a cyber incident. The exercise's specific objectives were to:
Identify and exercise the processes, procedures, relationships, and mechanisms that address a cyber incident;
Examine the role of DHS and its evolving National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP);
Assess information sharing issues;
Examine coordination and decision-making mechanisms; and
Practically apply elements of ongoing cyber initiatives, such as the Cyberspace Policy Review and findings from past exercises.
Exercise Mechanics

Cyber Storm III was a distributed exercise that allowed players around the world to participate from their office locations. The exercise control center was located at a DHS facility in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The scenario progressed as players received "injects" via e-mail, phone, fax, in person, and exercise Web. Exercise play simulated adverse effects through which the participants executed their cyber crisis response systems, policies, and procedures.

The exercise gives the cyber incident response community a safe venue to coordinate and practice plans, response mechanisms, and recovery tasks. Most importantly, the exercise provided participants with the opportunity to learn about their strengths and areas for improvement. Participants are incorporating those observations into operations helping to reduce cyber risks to the Nation.
Scenario

To create the CS III scenario, NCSD organized a Scenario Team, leveraging the engagement and technical expertise of participating operators. In collaboration, DHS and exercise participants developed CS III’s core scenario conditions and advised further scenario customization efforts throughout the planning process. The Scenario Team contributed to coordinated scenario development, creating a forum to vet, discuss, and achieve consensus on core scenario conditions to be applied to participating organizations.

The use of core scenario conditions as the basis for all targeted attacks ensured the exercise represented a comprehensive national and internationally Significant Cyber Incident. In developing these specifics, team members incorporated CS III goals and objectives, previous exercise findings, and previous observations into scenario design-while adhering to the exercise construct.

During CS III, players responded to a series of simulated, targeted attacks, resulting from compromises to the Domain Name System (DNS) and the Internet chain of trust (i.e., validity of certificates and Certificate Authorities [CAs]). Because of the reliance on DNS and the chain of trust for a wide range of Internet functions, transactions, and communications, the adversary challenged players’ ability to operate in a trusted environment, complete trusted transactions, and support critical functions. In addition, the adversary used these compromises to carry out a variety of targeted attacks against private-sector companies, select critical infrastructure sectors, public-sector enterprises, and international counterparts. The scenario construct ensured all exercise players felt the effects the core scenario created.
Participants

Cyber Storm III included participation from eight Cabinet-level departments, 13 states, 12 international partners, and 60 private-sector companies and coordination bodies. Participation focused on the information technology (IT), communications, energy (electric), chemical, and transportation critical infrastructure sectors and incorporated various levels of play from other critical infrastructure sectors. In addition, CS III included the participation of states, localities, and coordination bodies, such as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), and international governments to examine and strengthen collective cyber preparedness and response capabilities. During the exercise, the participant set included 1,725 CS III–specific system users.
Authorities

Cyber Storm III addressed the Training and Exercise requirements found in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 “National Preparedness.” Coordinated under DHS’ Cyber Exercise Program (CEP), it supports the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace by exercising the national cybersecurity response. It also exercised the interim version of the National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) and operations at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC).
Applying Lessons Learned

The Department is applying the CS III observations to further strengthen the Nation’s cybersecurity preparedness and response mechanisms. To capture all relevant information in the Final Report, DHS is working in close partnership with public and private sector stakeholders. In addition to the CS III Final Report, many participants developed their own internal summary and observation reports.
Final Report

CS III’s Final Report reviews the purpose, scope, planning and execution, scenario and the significant observations of the exercise.

Read the Cyber Storm III Final Report July 2011 (PDF, 36 pages - 748 KB)

[Dig]

CYBER STORM III FINAL REPORT July 2011
http://www.cyberwarzone.com/cyberwarfare/cyber-storm-iii-final-report-july-2011
Posted on 12. Mar, 2012 by siavash

The National Cyber Exercise: Cyber Storm (CS) is the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) capstone national-level cybersecurity exercise and represents the Nation’s most extensive
cybersecurity exercise effort of its kind.

Cyber Storm is a Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Tier II exercise focusing on federal strategy and policy.

The Department’s National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) sponsors the exercise to improve the capabilities of the cyber incident response community; encouraging the advancement of public–private partnerships within the critical infrastructure sectors and strengthening relationships between the Federal Government and partners at the state, local, and international levels.

CS III included participation from 8 Cabinet-level departments, 13 states, 12 international partners, and approximately 60 private-sector companies and coordination bodies. Participation focused on
the information technology (IT), communications, energy (electric), chemical, and transportation critical infrastructure sectors and incorporated various levels of play from other critical
infrastructure sectors.

Together, these entities participated in the design, execution, and postexercise analysis of the largest, most comprehensive Government-led, full-scale cyber exercise to date.

Participants exercised their ability to prepare for, protect from, and respond to cyber attacks and execute current national cybersecurity plans and capabilities. Players responded to simulated attacks according to established policies and procedures. No actual networks were targeted or affected during the exercise.

Participants successfully executed CS III between September 27 and October 1, 2010, at player locations across the United States and
internationally, with the main Exercise Control (ExCon) cell located at U.S. Secret Service  (USSS) Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

[Dig]

CYBERSTORM IV PLANNED TO SIMULATE TAKEDOWN OF INTERNET BY THE "ANONYMOUS" CIA CONTROLLED RED CELLS
PLAN WILL USE THE "ANONYMOUS" RED CELLS AS PATSIES WHILE WILLIAM LYNN III WILL CONTROL LOGISTICS AND TIMED PRECISION DISRUPTIONS
MEDIA OUTLETS WILL REPORT ONLY APPROVED NARRATIVES BY JANE LUTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ANYONE LEAKING THIS CLANDESTINE PLAN WILL BE ADDED TO THE NDAA ASSASSINATION LIST
ANYONE MENTIONING THE WORD "CONSTITUTION" DURING THE EXERCISE WILL BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY SWARMS OF UAVS
Cyber Storm: Securing Cyber Space
http://www.dhs.gov/files/training/gc_1204738275985.shtm
Cyber Storm, the Department of Homeland Security’s biennial exercise series, provides the framework for the most extensive government-sponsored cybersecurity exercise of its kind.

Congress mandated the Cyber Storm exercise series to strengthen cyber preparedness in the public and private sectors. Securing cyber space is the National Cybersecurity Division’s top priority.

Cyber Storm participants perform the following activities:
Examine organizations’ capability to prepare for, protect from, and respond to cyber attacks’ potential effects;
Exercise strategic decision making and interagency coordination of incident response(s) in accordance with national level policy and procedures;
Validate information sharing relationships and communications paths for collecting and disseminating cyber incident situational awareness, response and recovery information; and
Examine means and processes through which to share sensitive information across boundaries and sectors without compromising proprietary or national security interests.

Each Cyber Storm builds on lessons learned from previous real world incidents, ensuring that participants face more sophisticated and challenging exercises every two years.

Cyber Storm III: September 2010

Cyber Storm III built upon the success of previous exercises; however, enhancements in the nation's cybersecurity capabilities, an ever-evolving cyber threat landscape and the increased emphasis and extent of public-private collaboration and cooperation, made Cyber Storm III unique.

National Cyber Incident Response Plan
Cyber Storm III served as the primary vehicle to exercise the newly-developed National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) - a blueprint for cybersecurity incident response - to examine the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and other key elements of the nation's cyber incident response and management capabilities and use those findings to refine the plan.
Increased Federal, State, International and Private Sector Participation
Administration-Wide - Eight Cabinet-level departments including Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and Treasury, in addition to the White House and representatives from the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Eleven States - California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, as well as the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) - compared to nine states in Cyber Storm II.
12 International Partners - Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom - compared to four international partners in Cyber Storm II.
50 Percent More Private Sector Partners - We will have 60 private sector companies played in Cyber Storm III, up from 40 in Cyber Storm II; several will participate on-site with DHS for the first time. DHS worked with representatives from the Banking and Finance, Chemical, Communications, Dams, Defense Industrial Base, Information Technology, Nuclear, Transportation, and Water Sectors as well as the corresponding Sector Coordinating Councils and ISACs to identify private sector participants.
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
Cyber Storm III represented the first opportunity to test the new National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) - which serves as the hub of national cybersecurity coordination and was inaugurated in October of 2009.
More on Cyber Storm III

Cyber Storm II: March 2008
Involves 5 countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States); 18 federal cabinet-level agencies (Department of Defense, State Department, Department of Justice, etc.); 9 states (Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, Delaware, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia); and over 40 private sector companies (Juniper Networks, Microsoft, McAfee, Cisco, NeuStar, The Dow Chemical Company, Inc., PPG Industries, ABB Group, Air Products & Chemical Inc., Nova Chemical, Wachovia, etc.);
Affected 4 infrastructure sectors including chemical, information technology, communications and transportation (rail/pipe) and used 10 Information Sharing and Analysis Centers;
Exercised the processes, procedures, tools, and organizational response to a multi-sector coordinated attack through, and on, the global cyber infrastructure;
Allowed players to exercise and evaluate their cyber response capabilities to a multi-day coordinated attack and to gauge the cascading effects of cyber disasters on other critical infrastructures, shaping response priorities; and
Exercised government and private sector concepts and processes developed since Cyber Storm I, requiring great interaction and coordination at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels.
More on Cyber Storm II

Cyber Storm I: February 2006
First government-led full-scale cyber exercise;
Included over 115 organizations, including federal, state and local governments, and the private sector;
Featured four sectors: information technology, communications, energy and transportation (air); and
Allowed participants to respond to a variety of cyber and communications degradations and simulated attacks against critical infrastructures and to collaborate at the operational, policy and public affairs levels.
More about Cyber Storm I

[Scancast]

IMPORTANT UPDATE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0gkU3gemDE

THIS MAY BE A FALSE FLAG OPERATION AFTER ALL! HEADS UP!

[Effie Trinket]

http://www.ijocc.org/agenda/

Agenda

DAY ONE: COMMAND COMPETENCIES

Day one of the conference will take an academic look at what makes a good commander and what type of management is needed in emergency situations, including the psychology of command and control.

Keynote:

Interoperability: the vital link

Keynote speaker: Detective Chief Superintendent Michael Hallowes, Head of Strategic Operations, National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA)

Michael Hallowes
Detective Chief Superintendent
Head of Strategic Operations
Interoperability, Olympic Coordination & Protective Services
National Policing Improvement Agency

Session one: Defining Critical Command: People, Processes and Technology*

This session will take an academic/philosophical look at what is command? What is control? What are the important characteristics of the person in charge – are they a commander, a controller, or a co-ordinator/facilitator? The session will consider different approaches to management and leadership and their application to emergency situations. It will address how civil contingencies and disaster situations differ from ‘normal’ conditions and how the management of emergencies may therefore need to differ from day-to-day processes and procedures.

Speaker presentations will put forward the different models of leadership that might be suitable for a Gold Commander, and then discuss the merits and pitfalls of each one. What should/does make the ideal Gold Commander?
Session two: The psychology of command and control

This session will look at the unique psychological factors that come into play during civil contingencies and disaster situations. What pressures does this put on those involved that they may not be used to, or experienced in coping with? How does this affect the ability of those involved to respond to and manage the situation and what implications does this have for command and control? This session will also look at the effects on the public as well as the responders.

Session three: Transportable solutions in command and control

What can lessons identified from one type of crisis teach us about the management of another? This session will look in particular at the lessons learned from humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects in developing countries and will ask: Are we utilising experience gained in such situations to build capacity for responding to future emergencies? Do we have sufficient mechanisms for knowledge capture to ensure that experience gained is not lost?


Session four: Command and control in practice

This session will bring the day ‘back to Earth’ following the more academic discussions of the morning and early afternoon. How do we ensure that command and control issues identified are put into practice? How do you exercise adequately for command and control? Once all the issues from the previous panels have been identified, how can these be harnessed to ensure that emergencies are managed as efficiently as possible? How do you ensure commanders are qualified and will rise to the challenge on the day?

DAY TWO: CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL COMMAND AND CONTROL

Day two will take a look at international issues in command and control, including cross-jurisdictional command within the UK, across the EU and internationally.


Session one: Regional vs local ownership

This session will ask whether a top-down or bottom-up approach is the best way to manage emergencies? Without a top-down approach, how do you maintain national standards and interoperability, but is such an approach too distant?

The session will look at specific case studies within the UK and internationally on issues such as procurement, exercising and mutual aid. It will address the recommendations for upper-tier local authority ownership mentioned in The Pitt Review; the introduction of regional fire control centres; and the ability/need for one region to carry on as normal when an emergency is going on next door to ensure that the situation does not escalate.

Session two: Command and control across international borders

This session will look at recent case studies that have required international co-operation or that would have benefited from much greater international co-operation. It will look at the lessons identified and how these might be taken forward.

This session will consider a number of case studies and what they can teach us, including: the Channel Tunnel fire – co-ordination between France and England as case study; Haymarket/Glasgow Airport bombs – police jurisdiction between England and Scotland; UK Border Agency – operations overseas that ‘export’ the UK border to France, Belgium etc; Litvinenko case – detection of Po-210 trail across Europe and contacting potentially affected individuals
Session three: International systems for command and control

This session will look at large-scale information management systems for international command and control and consider the importance of inter-operability between nations; the security issues arising from this; and what can be done to improve interoperability in the future.

An issue relevant to this is the money available from the EU; the UK is one of the biggest under-bidders for EU grant money. The session will therefore look at the grant programmes available and how UK organisations and agencies can benefit.

Case studies considered will include NIMS and its use in multinational exercises such as CyberStorm IV; Should there be an international standard for information management systems? The EU Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) – how the MIC supports co-ordination and facilitates assistance.
End Keynote: The Future of Command and Control

This session will look at the issues raised over the previous day and the morning session and will look ahead to the issues that need to be recognised and addressed in the future (particularly before the 2012 Olympics).
______________

http://www.midwestreliability.org/01_about_mro/board_of_directors/presentations/7e.NERC%20CIPC%20Highlights.pdf

[Ambriel]

Oh FOR f**kS SAKE!!!

I will say it, it will prolly get me kicked from POP but IDK anymore....

I AM A MEMBER OF Anonymous.

I have been a member of Cult of the dead cow for over 15 years.  I will tell you now that WE in the circles I run in DISAVOW this and have no plans to participate.

[SUPREMEMASTER]

Oh FOR f**kS SAKE!!!

I will say it, it will prolly get me kicked from POP but IDK anymore....

I AM A MEMBER OF Anonymous.

I have been a member of Cult of the dead cow for over 15 years.  I will tell you now that WE in the circles I run in DISAVOW this and have no plans to participate.

If that is the case then this will purely be a false flag coordinated by certain black ops hacker organizations or U.S. Cyber Command, IF the Internet actually stops working properly tomorrow.

[Effie Trinket]

This is an absolute must read article:

http://thedailybell.com/3742/Assange-and-Anonymous-Acting-as-Predicted
Assange and Anonymous As Elite Helpers?
Thursday, March 29, 2012 – by Staff Report


"Anonymous Supposedly Plans to "Kill" the Internet on March 31 ... Planned DDOS campaign against DNS is meant to highlight piracy legislation issues. Al Gore may have finally met his match. While members of Anonymous aren't planning on inventing the internet, they are planning on destroying it – supposedly ... The DDOS campaign is expected to target the world's 13 domain name servers (DNSs), that allow the public to use the internet by translating human legible text-string URLs into machine-readable IP addresses. If the attack indeed materializes and if the DNS servers are all taken down, the Mayan apocalypse could come early -- the internet could blink offline. – DailyTech

Dominant Social Theme: We're fighting against the power!

Free-Market Analysis: Julian Assange wants to run for public office in Australia, his home country, and Anonymous wants to destroy the Internet, temporarily anyway. We are not surprised. Once more, it would seem, Anonymous is acting as a friend of the powers-that-be. More toward the bottom of the article.

Some background ... The Internet is like the Gutenberg Press before it. During the era of the Gutenberg Press, the social order was overturned. The Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment rolled like waves over Europe and America.

While history – real history – is admittedly a foggy occupation, it would seem that in the modern era, history is shaped by the competing forces of elite control and communication technology. When the Gutenberg Press came along, it had an explosive impact on the Way the World Worked.

People read books and the result was the reestablishment of logic and science – and a growing discontent with the Catholic Church, which was evidently and obviously misrepresenting the Bible.

The elites of the day fought back by trying to get ahead of public discontent. Instead of letting the Gutenberg Press take its course, the elites apparently supported the inevitable social upheaval by apparently funding both Martin Luther and John Calvin.

These two religious visionaries helped split up the Roman Catholic Church, which was apparently to the advantage of some controlling elites. But in the end, it seems obvious that the elites could not entirely control the forces that the Gutenberg Press had unleashed.

The elites of the day apparently encouraged war and social chaos. They seem to have helped fund Oliver Cromwell, who overthrew England's royal system, and tried to use people's burgeoning discontent to shape society in a certain way.

We know they were not entirely successful because of the creation of first the US confederation and then the United States of America. It would take several wars over nearly 150 years to even begin to turn the tide against freedom and individual human action.

The 20th century was the apogee of the modern elite's success. Using dominant social themes, the power elite of the modern era was able to frighten citizens in the West into giving up power and wealth to globalist facilities. The elites dream of global government and a global money.

But as what we call the Internet Reformation proceeds apace, the ability of the elites to counteract it is looking as hopeless now as back when the Gutenberg Press was being confronted and its manifestations manipulated.

Human beings – naked apes – tend to use tools to their fullest extent over time. Why wouldn't this historical trait hold true as well for the Internet?

In the 21st century, the Internet has done tremendous damage to elite memes of social control. Everything from global warming to the so-called war on terror to the real, tested efficacy of vaccines has come under attack.

By allowing people to read source material for themselves, the Internet has eviscerated many of the controlling myths of the day in much the same manner as the Gutenberg Press exploded myths propounded by the Roman Catholic Church some 500 years ago.

And we think we can see the same power elite manipulations today as then. War, economic upheaval and outright repression are the chosen tools of power elite pushback. But still the Internet Reformation rolls on, in our view.

The result is a massive subterranean conflict. In order to martial support for their perspectives, the elites have, in our view, begun cultivating a number of false flag facilities. Among the most prominent recent ones may be Julian Assange and Anonymous.

The parallels to Luther and Calvin would seem somewhat clear. The idea is to create a controlled opposition that rolls back the truth-telling of the Internet by confusing the larger message.

When the Assange/WikiLeaks phenomenon first began we wrote a series of fictional stories that might have applied to him, indicating the possibility he was part of a controlled opposition. The same goes for Anonymous. The first story was "Comes a Blond Stranger," followed by some further commentary in "Truth About WikiLeaks?"

We also predicted that Assange would run for public office. We did this by using the career of other modern "controlled opposition" figures as a blueprint. Sure enough, we now read the following, courtesy of InfoWars:

Wikileaks founder and accused sex offender Julian Assange wants to turn his notoriety into a job with the Australian government. He has announced he will run for the Australian senate as a "libertarian."

Assange says the United States is in "serious decline" and will lose its super power status over the next few years. In response, Assange believes the average Australian should be taxed more and the money spent on defense and intelligence.

He says his political model is Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian prime minister who sold himself as a free market Thatcherite but instead increased government taxes and spending. He supported U.S. foreign policy and Indonesia's annexation and occupation of East Timor which led to over 100,000 deaths.

Assange's political philosophy seems to be based on the un-libertarian concept of government force, although he told The Age he is a defender of liberty and "the right of citizens... to live lives free from state interference."

Meanwhile, Anonymous continues to pursue what we consider somewhat doubtful protests. In fact, if Anonymous DOES succeed in destabilizing the Internet, it will likely only upset people.

It won't necessarily make them reflect on the world's growing authoritarianism. It may make them look with more skepticism at the alternative media movement that Anonymous is supposedly aligned with.

More ominously, even, it will feed into the elite meme that the Internet is a dangerous and unpredictable place, one that needs to be rigorously controlled and scrutinized. Anonymous, within this context, has just reaffirmed its place as a great argument for SOPA and increased Internet censorship generally. Coincidence?

Well ... who actually knows what Anonymous is? There have been allegations all along that the group was in a sense a controlled opposition because its targets were almost invariably private enterprise. And recently, it was revealed that the FBI had "turned" one of its leaders, who is now facing a trial and jail.

Ironically, Anonymous plans its project to as a PROTEST of SOPA! Here's how the group puts it: "To protest SOPA, Wallstreet, our irresponsible leaders and the beloved bankers who are starving the world for their own selfish needs out of sheer sadistic fun, On March 31, anonymous will shut the Internet down."

Will Assange win election to the Senate? Will Anonymous shut down the Internet? We submit the bigger question is: Who is actually in charge and why are they making the moves they are making? The elite uses dominant social themes – false-flag promotions – to manipulate people into going along with global government. The Internet Reformation stands athwart that.

Conclusion: Each individual must make up his or her mind as to the validity of this paradigm and all the conclusions that flow out of accepting such a vision or rejecting it. Assange and Anonymous will then be seen within the context of these perceptions – for better or worse."
__________________________
One of the key poster comments from the above site:

Back in 2009, Homeland Security announced it was looking for hackers. "General Dynamics Information Technology put out an ad last month on behalf of the Homeland Security Department seeking someone who could "think like the bad guy." Applicants, it said, must understand hackers' tools and tactics and be able to analyze Internet traffic and identify vulnerabilities in the federal systems. And in the Pentagon's budget request submitted last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates hung out his own help-wanted sign, saying the Pentagon will increase the number of cyber experts it can train each year from 80 to 250 by 2011."

Click to view link

I also find it perhaps more than coincidence that the 2012 FEMA Nat'l Level Exercise centers around cyber-terrorism. "Cyber Incident Management/Virtual Effects: This exercise will examine the coordination and communication processes between public and private stakeholders in response to a significant cyber incident. This will include examining challenges related to managing a cyber event with national security implications." and "NLE Capstone/Cyber Physical Effects: This functional exercise will examine challenges related to managing a cyber event with physical consequences and national security implications." Click to view link

FedBizOpps is even in on it with a solicitation of bids for "vendor" for NLE 2012. More details on their site: Click to view link

Could there be a connection?

Personally, I think that Anonymous, Assange, the Occupy Movement, Hillary's movement and the feds are all intertwined and may lead to a false flag that will lead to the use of the new EO 13603 (Nat'l Defense Resources Preparedness) to play out. Time will tell.

[supermegaman]

so Anonymous is basically the internet Al-Queda as far as the elite want you to believe.  Something bad on the internet happens, it's Anonymous' fault.  Identity stolen, it's Anonymous.  Bank account hacked, it's Anonymous.  Internet goes down or power grid knocked out, it's Anonymous.  They're the catch-all bait, the new boogey man on the block to get the public in a panic to push in new oppressive legislation as fast as they can.  Never mind that Anonymous is run and directed by the CIA covertly and that real members would never shut down major systems like that. 

[Effie Trinket]

so Anonymous is basically the internet Al-Queda as far as the elite want you to believe.  Something bad on the internet happens, it's Anonymous' fault.  Identity stolen, it's Anonymous.  Bank account hacked, it's Anonymous.  Internet goes down or power grid knocked out, it's Anonymous.  They're the catch-all bait, the new boogey man on the block to get the public in a panic to push in new oppressive legislation as fast as they can.  Never mind that Anonymous is run and directed by the CIA covertly and that real members would never shut down major systems like that.  

Yup, the entire military industrial complex was already pre-emptivley exposed on this entire issue YEARS AGO.  It's too bad more people don't read this forum, because if they did, they would be 100% immune and unafraid of their bullsh*t cyber boogeymen, and instead correctly pointing the finger at the real terrorists--the defense contractors, intel agencies, and globalist corporate dictatorship conglomerates like the AFCEA and NCOIC who are spin-offs of Bilderberg/Club of Rome.

[Ambriel]

so Anonymous is basically the internet Al-Queda as far as the elite want you to believe.  Something bad on the internet happens, it's Anonymous' fault.  Identity stolen, it's Anonymous.  Bank account hacked, it's Anonymous.  Internet goes down or power grid knocked out, it's Anonymous.  They're the catch-all bait, the new boogey man on the block to get the public in a panic to push in new oppressive legislation as fast as they can.  Never mind that Anonymous is run and directed by the CIA covertly and that real members would never shut down major systems like that. 

That's it in a nut shell.

Like the al cia duh of the interwebz.  you can't really put names or faces with a group like they can't put names or faces with AL CIA DUH unless it benefits them.

The people on here should know that by now, as you stated.  I am not here to promote the collective.  I am just stating what I know.

[shipgeek]

Operation Global Blackout - Anonymous To Take Down Internet 03/31/2012

If their goal was to cut off the Internet worldwide I will say Epic Fail.


 

My internet is 100% good and going in my part of the world - 5/5 all day.

[SUPREMEMASTER]

This entire psy. op. must have been a distraction.

We knew the actual anonymous wasn't going to do this...

But we actually thought that it might be carried out.

This entire thing was to distract everybody, but from what?