Month: February 2018

About Month: February 2018

Subscribe Feeds

Esmond Bradley Martin, anti-ivoorhandel activist vermoord………..

Posted on by Alex

In het BBC World Service nieuws van 12.30 u. (CET) vandaag, het bericht dat Esmond Bradley Martin, een anti-ivoorhandel activist is vermoord in Kenia…… Eerder werkte Martin voor de VN, waar hij zich ook met de bestrijding van de ivoorhandel bezig hield.

Dr. Esmond Martin speaking on May 5, 2008 in Washington, DC

Esmond Bradley Martin documenteerde de (illegale) handel in ivoor, o.a. door het bezoeken van zwarte markten waar ivoor werd verhandeld in landen als Laos, China en Vietnam, waar hij onder meer in het geheim foto’s maakte en prijzen van ivoor vastlegde.

Mede door het werk van Esmond Bradley Martin heeft China de import van ivoor verboden. (onlangs had Avaaz alweer het gore lef te stellen dat dit succes, het verbod op ivoorimport in China, hoofdzakelijk te danken is aan het werk van haar organisatie……. Avaaz doet dit keer op keer als een zaak wordt verboden, waar zij als één van de vele organisaties een petitie tegen voerden……. Ach ja het is dan ook lucratief een dergelijke organisatie op te zetten, althans voor de top van die organisaties……..)

Esmond Bradley Martin is schandalig genoeg bepaald niet de eerste activist die tegen de ivoorhandel werkte en werd vermoord…….. De politie in Kenia houdt het op een ordinaire roofoverval, echter als je ziet hoeveel mensen er al zijn vermoord, die zich verzetten tegen deze barbaarse handel, rijst de vraag of de Keniaanse politie gelijk heeft met haar constatering…… ( de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden)

Voor meer berichten over ivoorstroperij, klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

Zie wat betreft Avaaz ook:
‘Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie’ aan…..‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar andere Avaaz manipulaties)

Esmond Bradley Martin, anti-ivoorhandel activist vermoord………..

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

In het BBC World Service nieuws van 12.30 u. (CET) vandaag, het bericht dat Esmond Bradley Martin, een anti-ivoorhandel activist is vermoord in Kenia…… Eerder werkte Martin voor de VN, waar hij zich ook met de bestrijding van de ivoorhandel bezig hield.

Dr. Esmond Martin speaking on May 5, 2008 in Washington, DC

Esmond Bradley Martin documenteerde de (illegale) handel in ivoor, o.a. door het bezoeken van zwarte markten waar ivoor werd verhandeld in landen als Laos, China en Vietnam, waar hij onder meer in het geheim foto’s maakte en prijzen van ivoor vastlegde.

Mede door het werk van Esmond Bradley Martin heeft China de import van ivoor verboden. (onlangs had Avaaz alweer het gore lef te stellen dat dit succes, het verbod op ivoorimport in China, hoofdzakelijk te danken is aan het werk van haar organisatie……. Avaaz doet dit keer op keer als een zaak wordt verboden, waar zij als één van de vele organisaties een petitie tegen voerden……. Ach ja het is dan ook lucratief een dergelijke organisatie op te zetten, althans voor de top van die organisaties……..)

Esmond Bradley Martin is schandalig genoeg bepaald niet de eerste activist die tegen de ivoorhandel werkte en werd vermoord…….. De politie in Kenia houdt het op een ordinaire roofoverval, echter als je ziet hoeveel mensen er al zijn vermoord, die zich verzetten tegen deze barbaarse handel, rijst de vraag of de Keniaanse politie gelijk heeft met haar constatering…… ( de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden)

Voor meer berichten over ivoorstroperij, klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

Zie wat betreft Avaaz ook:

‘Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie’ aan…..‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar andere Avaaz manipulaties)

Studie wijst op risico tumoren door mobiel telefoongebruik……

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Mensen heb staan dubben of ik dit bericht wel moest brengen, proeven op ratten tonen verband aan tussen mobiele telefoongebruik en tumoren. Ach het is eigenlijk al heel lang bekend dat zo’n ding continu aan de kop houden gevaarlijk is…..

Dit werd overigens fel bestreden door de mobiele telefoonmaffia, dus de makers van smartphones en de netwerk aanbieders……….

Lullig dat daar nu weer dieren voor zijn opgeofferd, puur en alleen omdat er een aantal wetenschappers zijn, die wel wilden verklaren dat al deze claims berusten op lariekoek……. (het zou me verbazen als deze ‘wetenschappers’ niet zijn te linken aan die tele-maffia)

Dr. Joel Moskowitz of UC (universiteit van Californië) Berkeley klaagde het California Department of Public Health (CDPH) aan voor het niet informeren van de consument over de richtlijnen tot veilig gebruik van de smartphone, zoals: -zorg dat de telefoon niet in de buurt van je bed ligt, -verwijder de koptelefoon als deze niet in gebruik is en -verminder het streamen van video en audio op de smartphone (bij vasthouden van de telefoon, dan wel deze in de buurt van het lichaam houden tijdens het streamen van inhoud). Let wel: dit zijn interne richtlijnen van het CDPH!

Als reactie op deze aanklacht heeft het CDPH bij monde van dr. Karen Smith de consument voorgehouden de smartphone op minstens een armlengte van het lichaam te houden en de telefoon niet in de broekzak te stoppen, waarna Smith opmerkte dat het CDPH niet gelooft dat het gebruik van de smartphone kankerverwekkend is, maar dat de wetenschap op dat gebied evolueert………….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Jezus wat een bedrieger!

Verdomd, je zou de telefoonmaffia, overheidsinstanties, wetenschappers die lobbyen voor de tele-mafia en verantwoordelijke politici strafrechtelijk moeten vervolgen voor deze ronduit misdadige gang van zaken! (en vervolg ze civiel >> dikke schadevergoeding voor slachtoffers, al is natuurlijk moeilijk aan te tonen wat de oorzaak van een hersen- of andere tumor is, hoewel sommige tumoren overdadig voorkomen bij smartphone gebruikers……….)

Gebruik je verstand en zorg ervoor dat je niet continu zo’n ding in de hand hebt, dan wel aan je hoofd houdt. Je zal verrast zijn hoe snel je zonder deze apparaten echt contact legt met anderen, ook in het openbaar vervoer en op straat, bovendien scheelt het botsingen met objecten of mensen (of dat nu lopend, fietsend of met de auto is, al zijn de gevolgen daarvan dan wel weer heel verschillend….).

Trouwens, dit zet (zoals zojuist al even aangestipt) alweer extra vraagtekens bij het overheidsbeleid op dit soort zaken…… Ach ook dat is niets nieuws, de centen gaan nu eenmaal mijlenver voor de volksgezondheid, zoals telkens weer blijkt……. Snap werkelijk niet waarom er nog mensen op de gangbare politieke partijen stemmen, één zootje bedriegers!! (zelfs de SP past haar ideologie aan, als het deel kan nemen aan een bestuur) Alleen de Partij voor de Dieren is nog een gunstige uitzondering, de grote vraag is of dit zo zal blijven als de politici van deze partij in besturen terechtkomen…….

New
Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Tumors in Male Rats

February
3, 2018 at 12:00 pm

Written
by Derrick
Broze

(AP) — A
new report from the U.S. government is likely to create further
debate regarding whether or not cellphones and other mobile devices
pose a cancer risk to humans. According to a draft report from
researchers the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP), male
rats exposed to high levels of radiation similar to that emitted by
cellphones developed tumors in the tissue surrounding their hearts.
The report also found that female rats and mice exposed to the same
amount of radiation did not develop tumors. Reuters first
reported on the release of the preliminary report.

Reuters reports:

“However,
NTP scientists and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were
quick to say the findings could not be extrapolated to humans and
that current safety limits on cellphone radiation are protective.

The
10-year, $25 million studies – the most comprehensive assessments
of health effects and exposure to radiofrequency radiation in rats
and mice to date – do raise new questions about exposure to the
ubiquitous devices.”

The
NTP study involved exposing rats and mice to higher levels of
radiation for longer periods than is typically experienced by the
average cellphone user. Researchers also exposed the entire body of
the rats and mice to this high dose of radiation. The report
concluded that cellphones typically emit lower levels of radiation
than the maximum allowable level. Interestingly, John Bucher, a
senior scientist with NTP, told Reuters that
the tumors seen in the studies are “similar to tumors previously
reported in some studies of frequent cellphone users.”

A statement
from the American Cancer Society said
the findings of the studies are inconclusive. “For example, the
newly released results show little indication of an increased risk of
tumors or any other health problems in mice exposed to RFR,” the
ACS wrote. “Also, the male rats exposed to RFR in the study lived,
on average, significantly longer than the male rats who were not
exposed. The reasons for this are not clear.”

The
ACS also noted that the study has not yet been peer reviewed by
outside experts. Peer review is expected in March. Dr. Otis Brawley,
chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, called the
evidence for association between cell phones and cancer “weak”,
pointing to an apparent lack of higher cancer risk in humans. “But
if you’re concerned about this animal data, wear an earpiece,”
Brawley stated.

The
US Food and Drug Administration released a statement affirming their
support of the current safety limits as “acceptable for protecting
the public health.”

To
be clear, this is not the first time studies examining the dangers of
radiofrequency devices such as cellphones and microwaves have caused
controversy. Studies in both Australia and India have
found that men who use their cellphones most often had lower sperm
counts than those who used cellphones less often. In addition, in
2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for
Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation emitted by
cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

There
are also studies which have concluded there is no risk of cancer or
other illnesses from the radiation released by cellphones.
An 18-month
study from Denmark compared
cancer rates in 360,000 cell phone users to adults without cellphone
subscriptions and found no connection to brain or spinal cord tumors.

More
recently, in late 2017 it was revealed that the California Department
of Public Health had issued internal guidelines on how to reduce
exposure to cellphone radiation. The guidelines included keeping the
phone away from bed at night, removing headsets when not on a call,
and reducing streaming of audio or video on cellphones. The
guidelines were released to the public as the result of a lawsuit
filed by Dr. Joel Moskowitz of UC Berkeley. Moskowitz sued the
California Department of Public Health
after they failed to release information about potential dangers of
cellphones back in 2009. “Currently
we’re not doing a good job in regulating radiation from these
devices. In fact, we’re doing an abysmal job,” Moskowitz
told CBS San Francisco.

In
response to the release of the guidelines Dr. Karen Smith of the
California Department of Public Health recommended users keep the
cellphone “at least arm’s length away from your body” and not
carrying the phone in your pockets. Smith said the CDPH does not
believe cell phones are carcinogens, but rather, “that the science
is evolving.”

Derrick
Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the
Lead Investigative Reporter forActivistPost.com and
the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com.
Follow him on Twitter.
Derrick is the author of three books: The
Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and
Spirituality and Finding
Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1, Finding
Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2 and Manifesto
of the Free Humans.

By Derrick
Broze / Republished
with permission / Activist
Post / Report
a typo

Posted on by Alex

Van Los Angeles Times

YouTube will start labeling videos that receive government funding

FEB 02, 2018 | 2:55 PM
Afbeeldingsresultaat voor YouTube will start labeling videos that receive government funding
YouTube has had to address criticism that it hasn’t done enough to police its site for propaganda, conspiracy theories and harmful content. (Danny Moloshok / Associated Press)
In another bid to quell criticism that its platform is overrun with misinformation, YouTube said Friday that it would start labeling news broadcasters’ videos that receive at least some government or public funding.
The move comes a year after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailed how Russian state broadcaster RT racked up hundreds of millions of views on YouTube promoting Kremlin propaganda.
YouTube yanked RT from its list of premium channels marketed to advertisers in October amid growing congressional pressure. The Russian broadcaster, which produced a wealth of reports critical of Hillary Clinton and promoted the viewpoints of figures such as Julian Assange, was the first news organization to surpass 1 billion views on YouTube in 2013.
RT did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to RT, state and public broadcasters such as PBS and New China TV will see notices directly below their videos, above even their titles, YouTube said.
Links to the broadcasters’ Wikipedia pages will also be included below their videos.
PBS said it was misleading for YouTube to include the broadcaster in the initiative, saying it suggested the U.S. government had influence over its editorial content.
“PBS and its member stations receive a small percentage of funding from the federal government; the majority of funding comes from private donations,” the broadcaster said in an emailed statement. “More importantly, PBS is an independent, private, not-for-profit corporation, not a state broadcaster.
YouTube’s proposed labeling could wrongly imply that the government has influence over PBS content, which is prohibited by statute.”
PBS said it was conducting discussions with YouTube to address its concerns.
It’s impossible to know if such disclosures would have limited RT’s influence in the past, experts say. But they still welcomed YouTube’s move as a way to improve media literacy.
“It’s a small but not insignificant step,” said Bret Schafer, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian influence networks over social media.
“The connection between RT and the content it publishes on YouTube has often been less than transparent,” he added. “This, in theory, would help solve that problem.”
YouTube, which is owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., is resistant to legal oversight of its content. But it has made efforts to police its platform after a year in which the company was criticized for surfacing conspiracy theories, hoaxes and inappropriate content directed at children.
Starting last year, the company said it tweaked its algorithm to ensure more established news sources surfaced in search results in the wake of breaking news. The change was made after a slew of conspiracy theories surfaced on
YouTube moments after the Las Vegas mass shooting in October.
“News is an important and growing vertical for us and we want to be sure to get it right,” wrote Geoff Samek, senior product manager for YouTube News in a blog post Friday.
Google, like Facebook and Twitter, is slowly coming to grips with its role in the Russian campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. Forced to testify on Capitol Hill, the tech giants have since pledged to promote more trusted news sources and have disclosed more data on Russian-controlled accounts.
The three companies would much rather stay out of the business of editorial oversight. Doing so could bring them closer to being labeled media companies rather than platforms — a critical distinction that largely absolves them of liability over the content and activities that appear on their products.
By promoting transparency measures instead, the firms can argue it’s up to their users to decide what to watch and read.
“The principle here is to provide more information to our users, and let our users make the judgment themselves, as opposed to us being in the business of providing any sort of editorial judgment on any of these things ourselves,” Neal Mohan, YouTube’s chief product officer, told the Wall Street Journal.
Facebook announced last month that it would let its users determine which news sources are trustworthy. The social network had previously employed curators to cherry-pick news for its users, a strategy that was abandoned after the company was accused of omitting conservative viewpoints.
Editorial judgment could be more trouble than it’s worth, in the eyes of Silicon Valley. Deciding what’s acceptable content is fraught with risk during today’s political climate — and ever harder now that news sites that previously would have been dismissed outright, such as Alex Jones’ Infowars, have gained mainstream notoriety.
But transparency alone won’t stop the spread of propaganda and misinformation given the complexity of policing platforms with billions of users accessible to
almost anyone in the world.
“The nature of an open platform means we never know what trends or moments are going to arise next,” wrote YouTube’s Chief Executive Susan Wojcicki in a blog postThursday addressing the rash of objectionable material on her platform.
Data compiled by the Alliance for Securing Democracy show Russia’s influence campaign remains active on social media.
The group says Russian-linked influence networks on Twitter continue to promote hashtags such as #releasethememo, a reference to the House
Intelligence Committee’s controversial memo on the Russia inquiry disclosed to the public Friday.

Follow me @dhpierson on Twitter
Posted on by Alex

It Sure Sounds Like the US Is Actually Going to Bomb North Korea

February 1, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Written by James Holbrooks
(ANTIMEDIA) — During his first State of the Union address on Tuesday, Donald Trump pledged the United States would continue its “campaign of maximum pressure” against North Korea. Meanwhile, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece written by the man who was, until recently, set to become the U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
Victor Cha, a professor at Georgetown University and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, had reportedly passed all U.S. security checks, and South Korea had signed off on him.
It was expected — and for the government in Seoul, hoped — that Trump would soon formally nominate Cha for Senate approval. But over the weekend, it was reported that the White house informed Cha he was no longer being considered for the post.
Sources say the move was motivated by Cha’s disagreement with the Trump administration’s policy on North Korea. In particular, these sources say, the would-be ambassador took issue with the White House considering a preemptive strike against the Hermit Kingdom.
Writing for the Washington Post on Tuesday, Cha stated that the answer to the North Korean question “is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike.”
Rather, Cha wrote, there are options available to address the threat “without escalating into a war that would likely kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Americans.”
Cha, who previously served in the administration of George W. Bush, wrote that he expressed his concerns over North Korea policy while he was being considered for the Seoul ambassadorship.
The Georgetown professor went on to question the logic of the “bloody nose” strategy, meant to shock leader Kim Jong-un and make him think twice about his nuclear ambitions:
“If we believe that Kim is undeterrable without such a strike, how can we also believe that a strike will deter him from responding in kind? And if Kim is unpredictable, impulsive and bordering on irrational, how can we control the escalation ladder, which is premised on an adversary’s rational understanding of signals and deterrence?”
Cha noted that on any given day, there are around 230,000 Americans in South Korea and another 90,000 in neighboring Japan. He pointed out that if North Korea were to retaliate against a preemptive strike, those citizens “would most likely have to hunker down until the war was over.”
He also noted that unlike Japan, South Korea lacks sufficient missile defense systems to counter a barrage of artillery from the North, meaning Americans there, as well as millions of South Koreans, would be vulnerable:
“To be clear: The president would be putting at risk an American population the size of a medium-size U.S. city — Pittsburgh, say, or Cincinnati — on the assumption that a crazy and undeterrable dictator will be rationally cowed by a demonstration of U.S. kinetic power.”
Regardless of such warnings, Trump remained adamant that the Kim regime poses a substantial threat to the U.S. while speaking before Congress on Tuesday. After claiming his administration has been tough on authoritarian nations, Trump zeroed in on North Korea in his State of the Union Address:
“But no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea. North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear missiles could very soon threaten our homeland. We are waging a campaign of maximum pressure to prevent that from ever happening.”
Continuing, the president suggested the U.S. “need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and to our allies.”
This aspect of the president’s State of the Union Address — Trump’s focus on the character of North Korea as opposed to the country’s nuclear weapons program — already has some speculating that the White House may be preparing for actual war.
Writing for The Atlantic, Peter Beinart noted that Trump’s telling of the story of Otto Warmbier, the American arrested in North Korea who died shortly after his return to the U.S., as well as that of North Korean defector Ji Seong Ho, may have been an attempt to “rouse moral indignation” ahead of the outbreak of war.
Writing for The Intercept on Wednesday, Jon Schwarz made a different connection. He pointed out that in Trump’s speech, many of his stated justifications for war with North Korea were “frighteningly familiar” to those given by President George W. Bush during the lead-up to war with Iraq in 2003.
Further, a source speaking to Anti-Media on the condition of anonymity with knowledge of U.S. Naval activities told us preparations have begun for military conflict in East Asia over the coming months.

Dr. Strangelove, auteur van de laatste herziening van beleid nucleaire wapens in VS………

Posted on by Alex

Who Let Dr. Strangelove Write the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review?

February 3, 2018 at 7:18 am
Written by Julia Conley
(COMMONDREAMS) — The Pentagon’s official outline for its use of nuclear force was denounced as “radical” and “extreme” by prominent anti-nuclear weapons groups when it was released Friday afternoon—confirming peace advocates’ worst fears that the Trump administration would seek to expand the use of nuclear force.
“Who in their right mind thinks we should expand the list of scenarios in which we might launch nuclear weapons?” asked Peace Action in a statement. “Who let Dr. Strangelove write the Nuclear Posture Review?”
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for the development of smaller warheads that the military believes would be seen as more “usable” against other nations.
“In support of a strong and credible nuclear deterrent, the United States must…maintain a nuclear force with a diverse, flexible range of nuclear yield and delivery modes that are ready, capable, and credible,” reads the report, which serves as the first updated document the U.S. has released regarding its perceived nuclear threats since 2010.
In addition to “diversifying” its nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon notes that it will seek to “expand the range of credible U.S. options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack,” raising concerns that President Donald Trump will argue for the use of nuclear force as a deterrent—a significant departure from previous administrations which saw nuclear weapons as an option only for retaliation.
“The risk of use for nuclear weapons has always been unacceptably high,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). “The new Trump Nuclear
Doctrine is to deliberately increase that risk. It is an all-out attempt to take nuclear weapons out of the silos and onto the battlefield. This policy is a shift from one where the use of nuclear weapons is possible to one where the use of nuclear weapons is likely.”
Derek Johnson, head of Global Zero, called the NPR “a radical plan written by extreme elements and nuclear ideologues in Trump’s inner circle who believe nuclear weapons are a wonder drug that can solve our national security challenges.”
“Trump’s insistence that we need more and better weapons is already spurring countries to follow in his footsteps,” he added. “Nuclear arms-racing is a steep and slippery slope; we’d do well to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union, whose collapse was accelerated by its unsustainable nuclear ambitions.”

Posted on by Alex
Via Stan van Houcke overgemoen van Disobedient Media artikel van 26 januari (o.a. ook op Zero Hedge geplaatst.)” 3 feb /////////////////////////////////

Dutch ‘Cozy Bear’ Farce Does Not Show DNC Emails Were Hacked By Russians

Yesterday saw the publication of an English language version of an article written by Huib Modderkolk by Dutch news site the Volkskrant, titled “Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia’s interference in US-elections.”
The article explains how Dutch intelligence agency AIVD were monitoring “Cozy Bear” (APT-29) as far back as 2014, and states that a year later the intelligence agency witnessed an attack against the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“That’s how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents. It won’t be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes.”

However, despite all the above assertions, there was no major leak of documents related to the DNC in 2015. The emails that were released in 2016 were acquired earlier that same year – so, it’s not clear what it was the AVID saw “happening before their very eyes” so early on.
Of course, it’s unsurprising to read on and discover:

“The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous.”

The article is already introducing ambiguity between Dutch and US-based sources and, of course, those sources want to be anonymous and are not attributed to the agencies or organizations they are affiliated with.
This is then followed by a statement that may create complications for those wanting to see accountability on what they suspect to be FISA abuses. The article relates:

“It’s also grounds for the FBI to start an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump.”

The article also claims that the US intelligence community made their “high confidence” assessment on the back of AIVD’s intel:

“Three American intelligence services state with ‘high confidence’ that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party. That certainty, sources say, is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years.”

While it’s true that the Grizzly Steppe joint analysis report from December 31, 2016, does mention APT-28 and APT-29, much of the referenced material there comes from what was reported by CrowdStrike, Fidelis, etc in relation to their efforts to investigate in 2016 .
However, in the intelligence community assessment (ICA), the document that actually contains the majority of the conclusions (released on January 5, 2017) doesn’t even cite the APT group (“Cozy Bear”/APT-29).
Understandably, there’s no mention of AIVD but it’s extraordinary not to make a reference in the document to the APT group if certainty for assessments was derived in relation to it.
It’s also strange to make a reference to MH17 without actually explaining it’s relevance for context:

“The Dutch hacker team spends weeks preparing itself. Then, in the summer of 2014, the attack takes place, most likely before the tragic crash of flight MH17. With some effort and patience, the team manages to penetrate the internal computer network. The AIVD can now trace the Russian hackers’ every step. But that’s not all.”

Putting that oddity aside, we’re then told the following:

“The Cozy Bear hackers are in a space in a university building near the Red Square. The group’s composition varies, usually about ten people are active. The entrance is in a curved hallway. A security camera records who enters and who exits the room. The AIVD hackers manage to gain access to that camera. Not only can the intelligence service now see what the Russians are doing, they can also see who’s doing it. Pictures are taken of every visitor. In Zoetermeer, these pictures are analyzed and compared to known Russian spies. Again, they’ve acquired information that will later prove to be vital.”

We could question how they knew, remotely, where different IPs were on the network in relation to the CCTV. One may also wonder how it’s known that the IP traced there wasn’t just a botnet relay (University networks are often targeted). Another issue is in regards to whether there was any consequence from comparing photos with known Russian spies, but this was all in 2014 – so none of this even relates to the DNC being hacked.
The article continues, explaining that the state department was targeted in November 2014 – which was reported on by the mainstream press at the time.
Then, we get to this section of the text:

“Access to Cozy Bear turns out to be a goldmine for the Dutch hackers. For years, it supplies them with valuable intelligence about targets, methods and the interests of the highest ranking officials of the Russian security service. From the pictures taken of visitors, the AIVD deduces that the hacker group is led by Russia’s external intelligence agency SVR.”

What’s interesting about this is that the US intelligence community has attributed APT-29 and APT-28 to the FSB and GRU, not the SVR (which actually would have made more sense). The only time they mention the SVR in the JAR or ICA reports was about separate activity relating to 2010.
Going further into the article, past the grossly familiar repetition of “undermining our democracy” hyperbole from Chris Painter, who expresses dismay that Russia would target politicians in the US, Volkskrant reports:

“In return, the Dutch are given knowledge, technology and intelligence. According to one American source, in late 2015, the NSA hackers manage to penetrate the mobile devices of several high ranking Russian intelligence officers.”

So here we return to an anonymous American source connected to the NSA, conceding that the NSA had hacked Russian intelligence officials in 2015. What did they learn from this?

“They learn that right before a hacking attack, the Russians search the internet for any news about the oncoming attack. According to the Americans, this indirectly proves that the Russian government is involved in the hacks.”

The one thing I’d inquire on here is whether the searches were genuinely specific to those attacks or whether Russian intelligence officials frequently search for hacks/leaks relating to America that may have been inferred as a causative correlation. With no examples cited, it’s difficult to assess whether it’s significant or a false-positive.
Continuing on, we are offered a speculative statement from another nameless source towards the conclusion of the text for no apparent reason. The final lines of the work address a topic with no direct connection to the rest of the story, but is nonetheless spewed out as follows:

“Another source says it’s ‘highly likely’ that in return for the intelligence, the Dutch were given access to this specific American information. Whether any intelligence about MH17 was exchanged, is unknown.”

If you think it’s odd that MH17 gets cited again, without cause or reason, you’re not alone (I know a few others have noticed this too).
As the article heads towards it’s conclusion, no reference to any technical details regarding the DNC being hacked is provided and there is no evidence cited that actually bolsters the hacking allegations we’ve already heard regarding the DNC.
Instead, we skip ahead to Clinton and Trump:

“After her defeat in November 2016, Clinton will say that the controversy about her leaked emails are what cost her the presidency.”

Clinton’s leaked emails (as opposed to those from the DNC finance staff and John Podesta) actually came from an FOIA request.

“President elect Donald Trump categorically refuses to explicitly acknowledge the Russian interference.”

That’s probably because:
The article continues:

“It would tarnish the gleam of his electoral victory. He has also frequently praised Russia, and president Putin in particular. This is one of the reasons the American intelligence services eagerly leak information: to prove that the Russians did in fact interfere with the elections.”

And yet, despite all the resources at their disposal and a dragnet they maintain that catches all traffic in and out of the US, American intelligence services have been unable to provide any definitive proof supporting their assessments and have relied on assessing questionable evidence produced by a private-sector company that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacking of DNC emails while the DNC repeatedly rebuffed offers to assist and requests to investigate from intelligence agencies.
Finally, this evidence-lacking spin-fest of an article, devoid of any new evidence relating to the DNC having its emails acquired by unauthorized parties, concludes with:

“This has led to anger in Zoetermeer and The Hague. Some Dutchmen even feel betrayed. It’s absolutely not done to reveal the methods of a friendly intelligence service, especially if you’re benefiting from their intelligence. But no matter how vehemently the heads of the AIVD and MIVD express their displeasure, they don’t feel understood by the Americans. It’s made the AIVD and MIVD a lot more cautious when it comes to sharing intelligence. They’ve become increasingly suspicious since Trump was elected president.”

It’s disappointing, I’m sure, to hear AIVD “don’t feel understood” by the Americans. However, as Suzie Dawson pointed out, AIVD appear to be far from impartial and independent (even though the article gives that impression). In fact, it appears, from past leaks, that AIVD acts as a second-tier Third Party partner of the NSA and has had multiple points of contact available for the NSA to communicate with them ever since 2013.
Whether or not this is a deliberate effort to ‘gas-light’ us from one of the NSA’s international partners or not, one thing is for sure, the Volkskrant article contains nothing new or significant relating to the DNC being hacked or any details directly related to the emails being acquired.

For more reasons why the Volkskrant article is fake news, be sure to check out Suzie Dawson’s article too.

Advocaten pleiten terecht voor het verwijderen van Saoedi-Arabië uit de UNHRC……

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Een gotspe dat de reli-fascistische dictatuur Saoedi-Arabië deel uitmaakt van de Mensenrechtenraad van de Verenigde Naties (UNHRC)……… Een staat waar vrouwen nog een dikke derde plaats bekleden in de maatschappij, een staat waar de doodstraf middels onthoofding wordt uitgevoerd in het openbaar, de staat waar vrouwen worden gestenigd vanwege ‘overspel’een staat waar je alleen door kritiek op de koning dictator of de islam voor jaren in de gevangenis verdwijnt en op de koop toe wordt gemarteld middels geselingen dan wel stokslagen…….

De mensenrechtenadvocaten, Ronald Dixon en Ken Macdonald, deden afgelopen woensdag een oproep aan de VN. Dit n.a.v. een groot aantal arrestaties in S-A van mensenrechtenactivisten

Lawyers
Call to Remove Saudi Arabia From UN Human Rights Council

February
1, 2018 at 9:28 am

Written
by Middle
East Monitor

(MEMO) — Two
British human rights lawyers yesterday called on
the UN General Assembly to suspend Saudi Arabia’s membership to the
UN Human Rights Council.

Lawyers
Rodney Dixon QC and Lord Kenneth Donald John Macdonald accused Saudi
Arabia of committing serious human rights violations, including the
arrest of dozens of dissidents.

The
report said Saudi dissidents and bloggers were arrested
in September last
year and kept in unknown places.

The
report said the arrests are very secretive and it is difficult to
know details about them, such as the identities of those detained or
the charges against them.

Reuters has
recently quoted sources as saying that Saudi Arabia sentenced human
rights activists Mohammed Al-Otaibi and Abdullah Al-Atawi to 14 years
and seven years in prison respectively.

The
Kingdom accused the activists of establishing a human rights
association about five years ago and publishing reports and
information on media and social media networks about the situation in
Saudi.

Creative
Commons / Middle
East Monitor / Report
a typo

Orgaandonatie onderwerp van ‘humor’ op Radio1

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Radio1 heeft ‘s morgens al sinds een paar jaar een ADHD ratel, die regelmatig over de Nederlandse taal zwetst, dit in het onderdeel ‘Het Taalteam’ (dat wordt geleid door de vervelende Frits Spits die zichzelf schreeuwerig voordoet als een twintiger……).

Zo ook afgelopen woensdag: rond 10.50 u. stemde ik per ongeluk af op de zender, daar ik een ongelofelijke hekel heb aan dit oeverloze geouwehoer. Nu bleef ik toch even ‘hangen’ daar het onderwerp ‘orgaandonatie’ was.

De ratel, ene Jan Beuving vond het, struikelend over z’n woorden, wel passend een ‘grap’ te maken over orgaandonaties en hij stelde dat de vergadering in de Eerste Kamer zolang duurde dat sommige senatoren een orgaandonatie nodig hadden……….

Ach op Radio1 kan alles, zolang je maar doet wat je wordt voorgeschreven en daar staat blijkbaar niets in over misselijke en uiterst misplaatste ‘grappen’…… (‘grappen’ die overigens met de regelmaat van een klok worden gemaakt op Radio1!)

Gadver!!!

Dennis Edwards 3 februari 1943 – 1 februari 2018

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Alweer een geweldige artiest dood, Dennis Edwards, voorzanger van The Temptations sinds 1968, overleed afgelopen donderdag.

Met Edwards richtte de groep zich op psychedelische soul, destijds ook wel aangeduid als black underground. De groep heeft zeker ook betekenis gehad voor de strijd van de gekleurden in de VS tegen het racisme in de VS (al is die strijd zelfs nu, schandalig genoeg, nog lang niet gestreden…….)

      1968

Een foto van Edwards uit 1968.

Dennis dank je wel voor jouw mooie muziek! Muziek die gelukkig zal blijven bestaan, ofwel intussen al klassiek.

Hier nog wat muziek van The Temptations met Edwards:

‘Cloud Nine‘ (album)

‘Masterpiece‘ (album)

‘Take a Look Around‘ (album)