February 28, 2005
Canada's role in electronic warfare
Feb. 28 - Startling article by Judi McLeod and David Hawkins in Canada Free Press about Canada's hidden, media-ignored role in electronic warfare.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Weapons of electronic intelligence and electronic warfare are where the nation of Canada holds the cutting edge.Pretty routine stuff, until we get here:Through an intricate series of subsidiaries and sub-contractors, leading back to the blind trust running his Canadian Steamship Lines company, Prime Minister Paul Martin is still at the epicenter of that cutting edge.
In the development and design of Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for military aircraft, Canada maintains a first-place role.
IAPs are published instructions to pilots, specifying a series of aircraft maneuvers that must be executed for the aircraft to transition safety from an en route driving final approach, when flying by instruments.
In addition to CMC and BAE selling flight simulators in the global marketplace, Lansdowne's project managers also conduct something called "Lessons Learned" or what the Americans would call, "Red-Team Analysis" for NORAD's war games--including the simulations carried out on, and just prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.Read this through to the end, where the question is posedIrrefutable proof that NORAD was conducting "simulation experiments" at the same time as the attacks, exists.
It was alleged confusion from these war game simulations that gave the NORAD commanders the convenient (and at the time, credible) excuse to order all U.S. Air Force military bases to "stand down" when they were about to scramble jets to escort or shoot down the alleged hijacked aircraft that nearly one hour later, crashed into several buildings.
Explaining the 9/11 collapse of NORAD command, control, communications and intelligence (C31 war-room) systems, the 9/11 Commission report cited a failure of imagination where no one (in America, at least) conducted "Red Team"--analysis as seen through the eyes of the enemy on how to convert hijacked jets into fuel-laden, precision-guided, un-intercepted missiles. (See www.9/11 Commission Report).
It now appears that project managers for the then-Paul Martin-owned Lansdowne Blind Trust Company were conducting Red-Team Analysis, in support of Canada’s participation in NORAD’s 9/11-style war games–but they just didn’t happen to share their web-enabled war-room insights with Canada’s allies in America.
The 9/11 Commission claimed that prior to September 11, 2001 no one was looking for possible telltale indicators that may have aroused suspicion. Indicators, such as prospective Arab-speaking terrorist group members using the CSL blind trust concealed behind Lansdowne to buy advanced flight simulators from companies such as CAE in Montreal, or flight-training lessons from corporate giants, such as Bombardier, which operates the NATO flight-training schools in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
Is CanadaÂ’s role in the ongoing attacks on the American-led "Coalition of the Willing", one of counter-counter terror?Please note that I'm sharing this with you all as I re-read it. It seems incredible.
Posted by: Debbye at
03:16 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Break this down to me. Not sure what to make of this.
Posted by: Dex at February 28, 2005 03:44 PM (kO17P)
2
Nor do I! Very, very strange.
Posted by: Debbye at February 28, 2005 04:06 PM (HNlk3)
3
I would need a lot more than what the author presents to believe that Canada deliberately played a part in preventing the hijacked planes from being shot down. First off, they could not have been shot down in pre-9/11 America. If US forces had been successful in preventing the attacks thusly, Bush would have been under impeachment within weeks for 'needlessly' sacrificing innocent lives. The terrorists were able to execute their plan because it had never been done before. Blackglasses in one of his previous avatars informed us that America's 'cowardly' passengers stood by on the doomed planes and did nothing. Of course it was not cowardice, as the unsuccessful attempt proved, but previous experience in dealing with hijackings that misled authorities into believing that no action was the safest action.
I think it is wise to not count on Canada in any issue relating to US security. Canada is counting on being widely seen as a zero and not worth attacking. It may work, it may not. What remains to be seen is how many Canadians will continue to sign on to an image that would have been embarrassing to previous generations. It is hard to believe now that Canada once fought along side Britain, Australia and the United States to defend and promote democracy. Now it chooses not only to avoid the conflict as much as possible but to also openly lampoon those efforts and the oppressed people who even now are awakening to the possibility of freedom in their time in the Middle East.
I once admired Canadians. I had a typical American view of them as a hardy lot, having created a nation in a harsh climate. And although they never made much of an effort towards freedom and independence for themselves, they always seemed willing to defend it for others. Very admirable in a way. But watching Canada's treatment of its Jewish population, the selling out to anti-Semitic thugs at Concordia and its incredibly hateful inclusion of Al-Jazeera in its heavily regulated broadcasting group has exhausted my efforts to 'understand' just what Canadians mean when they point to tolerance as one of their proudest achievements. It is just not justifiable. It is more like tolerance for intolerance and it lends itself to accusations of collaboration with the thugs who threaten secular governments, gay and womens rights and democracy.
Sorry for the rant.
Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 02:06 AM (EzNXf)
4
mikem's rant is simply amazing for its utter contempt for fairness and freedom.
He somehow equates the "tempest in a teapot" at Concordia University in Montreal with the deadly violence of the Middle East, rather than see it for what it is, a case of some students getting carried away with a cause.
And mikem should be far more careful in who he accuses of "anti-semitism". That facts are that Arabs are also a semitic people, like the Jews, and right now one of the most anti-Semitic persons on the planet is Emperor George Bush II, on whose orders, well over 98,000 "semites" have perished, mostly civilians, women and children.
Islamic terrorism is like a fire, if you remove fuel and oxygen, the fire will go out. In this fight against random terror directed at civilians, women and children, there is no option but to take out the fuel and oxygen from the terrorist movements around the world. There are many good places to start, beginning with a much upgraded finance system in the United States which would do well to emulate the Canadian example in the banking system.
Another is to tightly regulate "offshore" charities and "NGOs" that should be not only registered at the United Nations, but also "regulated" and "audited" at the UNHCR in Geneva.
Posted by: Joe Green at March 01, 2005 02:56 AM (5dXW9)
5
Hehe, I guess MikeM is back to his "Canadians hate jews because they question Israel" argument. There's a difference between anti-semetism and calling out the horrible practices of the Israeli government towards Palestine... Enough said.
My argument is and remains that the Middle East should be completely ignored... Sure they're backward, and the only people that matter are the ones with bombs who oppose the U.S. and Israel and will always overshadow those who want freedom and democracy (who may well be a majority)... If I were in charge, I would put a huge fence around the trouble spots... Let them stew in their backwardness... When they realize how much better off the rest of the world is, they'll eventually see that they should change their ways and we open a dialogue.
(As for the normal arguments. 1) NO ignoring them won't lead to us getting nuked... The only weapons they have are the ones we [including Russia and China too] have given them.
2) NO the Palestinians are not more evil than the Israelis... They are severely oppressed and overwhelmed in an imperial sense... And yes, 3 times more Palestinians have been killed than Israeli's... )
This is how the Cold War was won... The U.S. and NATO didn't challenge the Soviets militarily (although there were covert ops and proxy-wars, but not on a grand scale.)... The Russians changed over the course of generations who eventually realized the Marxist teachings were failing and their economic structure couldn't compete with the West forever.
(And no, Reagan didn't win the Cold War... Giving Reagan credit is like saying the guy who put the top stone on the pyramid built the whole thing... Reagan deserves credit for accepting Gorby's overtures though. Even if it did take Nancy's astrologer to give him the courage. hehe)
- The new reformed, non-offensive and trying not to get banned Mother Figure. (who isn't blackglasses or joe green or anybody else)
Posted by: The Mother Guy at March 01, 2005 03:18 AM (Ojo2r)
6
Oh Canada... Joey shows his flag with his racist attitude toward multiple actors in the Middle East.
"tempest in a teapot" Yeah, that's what the Democrats said about civil rights when they controlled the South in America. Next you'll be assuring me that "our Jews are very content". Sorry, that's not what we read down here and your preference for the All Jew Hating All the Time network belies any protest that you wish to make. Canada is selling her soul and hoping that her tolerance of anti-Semitism will buy her peace. Like I said, it may work. Many french bought a few extra loaves of bread by handing over their Jewish neighbors to their Nazi allies. (Until liberation, when the entire french population became members of the resistance) The french have learned to embrace their 'sophistication', maybe Canadians will too.
Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 05:13 AM (EzNXf)
7
Poor mikem, just cannot stand the thought that Israel would be held to the same international standards as everybody else. I guess he just cannot stand the idea that Israel would be accepted as a country like all the others.
The rant however is quite extra-ordinary because its not clear which "All Jew Hating All the Time network" he is talking about. Is it the CBC or the Global network that Zionist Izzie Asper built?
Or is there something inaccurate about referring to the late Mr. Asper as a Zionist because he in fact strongly supported the State of Israel.
I think that mikem has a permanent inferiority complex, perhaps from seeing too many war movies. Maybe its time for Mikey to join the modern age and cut the victim crap. There was a Holocaust, it killed millions, but mikem was not one of them.
And indeed as far as Holocausts go, the attrocities committed by the Nazi against the Jews were of the same order as the attrocities committed by Stalin against the Ukrainians in the 1930s with his Collectivization Program. Stalin of course did not do this by himself, he had lots of help, starting with one Mr. Golonovich, head of the NKVD.
What ever gave mikem the idea that semites like Saddam, Golonovich and Sharon are incapable of mass murder, crimes against humanity, and other attrocities too numerous to mention in this type of forum?
Posted by: Joe Green at March 01, 2005 10:51 AM (5dXW9)
8
"that Israel would be held to the same international standards as everybody else."
This is to laugh and you deliver the punchline like a natural. No surprise.
Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 12:14 PM (EzNXf)
9
Mikem: The Canada you referred to in your first post existed 50 or 40 or even perhaps 30 years ago but large scale immigration from non-traditional (i.e. European - no matter whether western, central or eastern) has changed the face of much of Canada. Post WW II immigrants from Europe fled the effects of fascism and communism and could appreciate the efforts of western democracies in freeing them. Latter day immigrants bring a different perspective which in some cases is a "chip on the shoulder" attitude against former colonial powers or against the United States. Since the Liberals have been in power most of the time post WW II, most immigrants have arrived under Liberal governments and have an affiliation for the party. The Liberal Party at the same time is shameless in sucking up to whatever ethnic group will help keep it in power. If the last comment seems over the top, remember the photograph of Paul Martin attending a Tamil fundraising in Toronto a few years ago where the banner of the Tamil Tigers was in open display. When questioned about this by opposition parties, the Liberals simply screamed "racism".
Re: The Mother Guy:
The Cold War wasn't won by the simple economic conversion of former communists to a market economy. It was won by the economic collapse of the Soviet Union when it became evident to everyone (at least in the Soviet block) that the system was rotten to the core and was unsustainable. Once it became evident the emporer wore no clothes, the entire system fell apart. Although I thought little of Reagan at the time, I now give him credit for keeping the pressure on the Soviet Union.
I also disagree with your assertion that NATO and the U.S. didn't challenge the Soviets militarily. I very much remember the protests and debate over the development and deployment of advanced weaponry like cruise missiles, intermediate range missiles, etc. I'm sure you will also remember the left wing's opposition to this deployment including protests and scenarios of all out nuclear war, nuclear winter, etc.
Posted by: John B at March 01, 2005 12:22 PM (ju7Wp)
10
Your first post is perhaps full of some of the most bizzare conjecture i have ever seen. Nothing like painting people with broad strokes, no?
It also smacks of the "we need the RIGHT KIND of immigrants" arguments that i would expect a National Front member to make, but I won't say that was your intent.
Besides, Canada and the US successfully assimilate most immigrants within 1-2 generations. It's simply wrong to say that such ideas would still remain while most are firmly part of the middle class.
RE: The Cold War
Most academics and historians (without a politcal axe to grind) would agree that the Soviets ended the Cold War on their own terms. Reagan did very little. In fact, some speculate that his bellicose rhetoric slowed reforms for a few years by giving creedence to the beliefs held by the hardliners in the Party.
Most people would agree that the spirit of reform began in the 1960s and 1970s under the rule Kruschev and Breznev(not even close to being spelled right). In the 1970s a Soviet "middle class" began to emerge in an environment that was
no where near as oppressive as the Stalinist era (but Czechs and Slovaks may disagree here). It was the Soviets who kept the pressure up, not Reagan.
In fact, Gorbachev made several good faith moves without Reagan pressuring him- not because he was intimidated by the US military and government(Soviet archives show they worried little about SDI and thought it an unworkable idea)but because he was moving with the spirit of political reforms that was already a part of Soviet society. I should also note that in all likelihood, the Soviets didn't really want an end to communism, but wanted to develop a reformed and "friendly" Soviet Union.
Reagan had nothing really to do with the collapse, and put little pressure on the USSR, save for funding CIA operations in Afghanistan.
As for the NATO argument, you have made several bizzare points re: nuclear war. You seem to be impliying that people who disliked the Euromissiles and feared nuclear annihilation were, as a unifed whole, ardent supporters of the USSR and anti-American, Anti-NATO is quite frankly baffling and sounds like something from a John Birch Society pamphlet. It also sounds like the "you don't support the Iraq war, you hate a)Our Troops b)Freedom or c) Support Saddam Hussein" argument. I'm sure you will be in agreement with me when i say that such a point of view is ridiculious.
Also, by saying "all out nuclear war" is a scenario, I am assuming you are talking about was the Reganite belief that the US could expect to fight and win a nuclear war.
In all seriousness, I highly doubt ANYONE would win a full scale nuclear exchange, regradless of what Kenneth Waltz has said in the past. Once the missiles fly, what's to stop you from going all out?
Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 04:17 PM (Ojo2r)
11
Typical. Dismissing the CW regarding Reagan's role in the fall of the Soviet empire (even blaming Reagan for its persistence) with an unsupported and baffling "most studies and historians"...
Well, I guess that leaves the subject moot now.
Joey/BG has spoken.
Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 04:50 PM (EzNXf)
12
Blackglasses:
I assume you are responding to my post above. One of the points I made suggested the policy of the left (as demonstrated by the Liberal party) is to shout "racist" whenever someone points out their pandering to various ethnic groups. Please note that I am not suggesting that recent immigrant groups should be excluded from the political process but, as shown by my Tamil fundraising example, the Liberals go far beyond this.
Your post states "It also smacks of the "we need the RIGHT KIND of immigrants" arguments that i would expect a National Front member to make" just proves my point. When the LLL's disagree - throw a racism charge at their opponents.
Most immigrants are assimilated within a couple of generations but it will be interesting to see how Canada's multiculturalist approach pans out. Most of the immigrants I referred to have arrived since the 1970's and whose children are now entering adulthood.
The Soviets ended the Cold War on their own terms? Some terms. Let's see - the disolution of the Soviet empire, life expectancy plumetting, the armed forces crumbling (leaving rotting nuclear submarines in the Arctic), the Baltic states leaving - as did Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc. I expect you will next tell us the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended the WW I on its own terms too.
Posted by: John B at March 01, 2005 06:42 PM (ju7Wp)
13
If you were to look on a National Front Site (A Contiential European on, not an English one- those guys are skinhead nuts) you will see that what you said is similar to their own beliefs. You should not be offended if a party hold similar opinions as you. It's just the National Front.
As for multiculuralism, Canada talks big, but it still assimilates towards English, French and the idea of Middle Class values. They throw token funds to groups through Heritage Canada, but to say that we are truly "multicultural" is a misnomer.
As for "pandering" to ethnic groups, do not both the Republicans and Democrats make speeches to "ethnic" agencies? Why did Bush and Kerry spend so much time talking to Cuban expatriates in Flordia. about the evils of Castro. Would that not be considered a form of "pandering"?
Also, saying the Canadian Liberal Party is "The Left" is very very very funny. Do you even know what that term means?
I stand by my Cold War assertions. The Soviet Union let itself dissolve on its own terms. It did not send tanks to crush the sepatrist States (like they did in 1956). The country just ceased to exist. Also, i thought it ended between 1989-1991. Doesn't that mean George I ended it, not Reagan?
Reagan did very little. In 2 generations when most of the partisian hacks that drive political discourse now are dead or retired, my opinion will not seem as "controversial" to you.
Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 07:21 PM (Ojo2r)
14
Hhaha, Mikem says "all historians" are wrong, but once again ignores the details at hand.
Brilliant argument Mr. MikeM Hannity/Coulter/Limbaugh
Posted by: MOM at March 01, 2005 07:29 PM (Ojo2r)
15
Oh, so now you've gone from citing "most historians" to "all historians"? You have a limitless supply of 'supporting' info these days.
Posted by: mikem at March 02, 2005 12:02 AM (EzNXf)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0279, elapsed 0.2072 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1339 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.1339 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
