The Many Problems With San Bernadino The Many Problems With San Bernadino
When nobody thought it could get any crazier (or more obvious) than the fake Sandy Hook massacre, along comes San Bernardino. It certainly doesn’t... The Many Problems With San Bernadino

When nobody thought it could get any crazier (or more obvious) than the fake Sandy Hook massacre, along comes San Bernardino. It certainly doesn’t take a Columbo to realize that the San Bernardino false flag is one screwed up case. Just how complicated and confounding this false flag ‘shooting’ is can be better comprehended by the many articles posted at the link below.

San Bernardino Mass Shooting and False Flag Operation Articles

The official FBI statements and their unusual posturing from the very beginning have left everyone scratching their heads. Obama’s pronouncements and strange responses have been particularly curious and puzzling. While Obama would have been very happy to see the 3 white American militiamen carry out the ‘mass execution’, he seemed too unhappy that the false flag was ultimately pinned on ISIS sympathizers.

Obama’s #1 MISSION: Take Away The Guns

The Millennium Report has been quite busy thinking about the many anomalies and inconsistencies throughout this inscrutable affair with no success in arriving at any reasonable conclusion(s). Then we were sent a highly credible and penetrating analysis by one of our readers.

The following narrative delineating a “false flag within a false flag” makes so much sense it even passes the Occam’s Razor test. The armchair analyst who wrote this exposé deserves full credit for their sleuthing and cogent presentation. It’s clear that a high-powered intellect and extremely intuitive heart-mind figured this one out, if it is in fact the real plot.

As a prep article for the excellent breakdown of San Bernardino posted below, the following link is offered as it provides both significant context and critical background info.

San Bernardino False Flag Operation Designed To Trigger More Gun Control

The Anonymous Patriots are to be highly commended for their excellent contribution to the understanding of government-sponsored false flag operations.

The Millennium Report

Caveat: A true American patriot would never kidnap a Muslim couple (ISIS-connected or otherwise) in the way suggested below. Only a faction under the control of the Zionist neocon cabal would conduct such a pre-emptive false flag operation.


San Bernardino: A Double False Flag

Commentary by Anonymous Patriots

The use of false flag events to trigger war or armed aggression has been used throughout all time—from the days of Nero to Sandy Hook. America is no longer just one nation of fifty states; it is two sub-nations fighting a bloody turf war between patriots who believe in the rule of law and Constitution and the globalists and their marionettes who wish to destabilize and turn America into the same no-border, no-culture mess that Europe has become. President Obama seems to be more interested in turning control of America over to international corporations through the TPP and other agreements that are non-constitutional and bent on chaos and the dismantling of constitutional American rights.

Homeland Security (the American SS), which is directly controlled by the Executive Branch is no longer a hidden secret government. It has come out of the shadows and is staging one false flag event after the next against the citizens of the U.S. Homeland Security controls FEMA and the ATF, two agencies that formerly conducted “black ops” activities within America. But on today’s geopolitical landscape, the all-out battle between international forces (aka theNew World Order) and faithful American Patriots from a variety of law enforcement agencies is in plain view for all to see. Through “federal authority”, many patriots believe that every false flag terror event since 911 has been carefully designed, operated, and filmed by what is no less than the “Federal Homeland Security Motion Picture” production company.

The evidence for two recent false flag terror events, Sandy Hook and San Bernardino, is so staggering that the poorly designed and executed plans were either created by idiots or the original plans were “upset” by insiders who commandeered the operation and turned it towards a different outcome.

For instance, at Sandy Hook a “policeman” was apprehended in the forest adjacent to the Sandy Hook school (which according to state educational records had been closed for a year) on the day of the supposed shooting, just before the event. Over fifty vehicles responded to this first call of “the policeman in the woods”, even before the Sandy Hook false flag 911 calls were made. This policeman, who surely saw how the event was being staged, was apprehended and released; although, we know nothing more about him. Could this policeman be an example of a new breed of “patriot insiders” (Patriots) who knows about the machinations of false flag terror events staged by our own government in order to terrorize its citizenry?

Do we again see possible evidence for patriot insiders foiling the intent of a government-sponsored false flag event in San Bernardino by creating a second false flag event on the same day that strategically moved the spotlight off of three white assailants who supposedly entered the Inland Regional Center to a husband-wife Muslim couple with a substantiated history of jihadist activity?

By simply opening our eyes to the possibilities of two different false flag events taking place on the same day by two separate groups — one with the agenda of limiting our gun rights (the Obama administration) and the other (Patriots) of indicting Homeland Security and other agencies for reckless immigrant vetting process — all of the strange pieces of information for the day begin to fit together coherently.

The SUV Problem

For instance, there have been nine different photos of the bullet riddled black SUV. Each picture is completely different and is pictured in at least three completely different locations. With the slightest bit of scrutiny, we can see with our own eyes different “scenes” where these pictures were taken.

There were also numerous pictures taken from unusual angles that indicate that the camera person was already staged to take pictures. One scenario reports that the black SUV was surrounded by numerous police cars and that 36 officers fired over 350 rounds into the car, yet not one police car camera caught a single image. Even the two videos from witnesses showing the “slow speed” chase of the SUV and were not from law enforcement. There have been no videos released of any shoot-out(s) of the SUV.

Who took the pictures of the various SUV “end results” of the so-called shoot-out? Especially since the photos have hundreds of incongruencies between them that cannot be rectified. For example:


In the first photos released, two bodies were in street clothes, with no apparent weapons near or on their bodies. Only one victim seemed to have a single bullet wound. Then another picture surfaced where one victim has been handcuffed, but with examination, one can see that it does not correspond to other pictures of the victims. The victims are clearly in two different ground locations.

In one of the first photos of the SUV, it is parked next to a large blue trash can that is in front of a fence the length of an empty lot. (Really? How many readers take their weekly trash can out that far beyond their driveway?) The trash can seems to be a “marker” of sorts for picture staging.

Other photos show the SUV next to a driveway, or a fire hydrant, or next to another gray SUV. In one photo the black SUV seems to have crashed into gray SUV near a street that was close to an overpass, just slightly beyond a street corner. At least three of these locations were separately named, described, and identified by the dispatcher. So, at the very least, there were three different black SUVs that were intercepted and then subsequently “shot-up.”


If we just look at the black SUV photos, we can see that in some pictures the hood is up and in others it is down; different windows are shot out; different tires are flat; some pictures have white police cars around them; and others have black police cars or multiple armored vehicles.

By simple examination of the photos, the press is either blind, stupid or happy to release evidence that is completely incoherent, misleading and a clear statement that they are complicit in reporting the story line they are given and not concerned with investigating the truth.san-bernadino-terrorist-vehicle

In two other videos of the black SUV, its emergency lights were flashing as it slowly pulled up to what seems to be a designated spot. You can hear the police report on the dispatcher channel that they are in pursuit of an SUV. Whereupon the driver “jumped from the vehicle and ran off.” This element was reported for two different SUV’s, one was at the scene near the blue trash can and the other was reported to be at an intersection.

In yet another incongruent picture of the SUV, we see a police officer standing near a black SUV that has not been shot up. He is bending over and looking in the front passenger side of the vehicle. He has his hand on his gun but it is not drawn. So clearly he isn’t feeling threatened about the situation at hand.

Campaign of Disinformation

Just the examples of the SUV incongruencies show clear evidence of a staged event. But the anomalies seem to be so of control that one wonders what else could have caused the original staged event to get so out of hand that a campaign of disinformation was needed to cover up what really happened.

Is it possible that some of the SUV pictures were taken by the Patriots inside agencies, or acting on their own, to create havoc and deflection from the original false flag event? Or could we be witnessing an inter-agency battle going on within our government for the preservation of our nation? Could one agency, perhaps the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be fully aware of another, perhaps Homeland Security-FEMA-Immigration, that has become an enemy within? And being sworn to protect the nation of internal and external enemies, these unseen Patriots are fighting a war unlike any we have seen before?

Is it possible that loyal Patriots are countering anti-citizen activities that are being conducted by agencies within our own government?

Recently, after the San Bernardino event, a CIA intelligence agent reported that virtually all terrorist false flag events are staged. Another report on the same day stated that an internal battle in the FBI splits the bureau into the 80% that are true patriots and 20% who have sold out to other forces in the government who wish to disarm all Americans.

It seems an unlikely coincidence that Obama’s gun control law was being voted on in Congress a day before an emergency drill-false flag operation in San Bernardino was scheduled. Imagine how different the story-line would have been that day if three white males, using automatic and tactical weapons, murdered unsuspecting citizens at a holiday party? Perhaps the administration supported the original false flag event so that anti-gun lobbying would have another “Sandy Hook” to support its efforts for more gun control.

Is it possible that a Patriots saw what was about to happen and turned it into a “double false flag” event that made the poorly organized, inexperienced, Muslim patsies into ISIS operatives? If this were so, these Patriot Americans turned the public tides from hating white gun owners into hating Muslim radicals. It would have only taken one Patriot to have implemented the plan to disrupt the original false flag operation, one Patriot that knew Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik had a sketchy background and could be used in the manner that they were.

False Flag Operation #1:

This one might have been run by government agencies that had an anti-gun agenda. This could be branches directly under White House control such as Homeland Security, CIA (using Israeli, Egyptian or Saudi agents), Department of Immigration, FEMA, ATF or other Federal agencies. The mission was to stage a false flag terror shooting (with concurrent drills in the area) a day before Obama and progressive lobbyists were trying to influence Congressional votes.

We have seen three witnesses report three white gunman with assault rifles entering the Inland Regional Center. Some witnesses even reported that they thought it was just one of the routine drills that had been taking place at Inland Regional. Still pending is whether any actual deaths or injuries occurred since there haven’t been any reliable news reports. We haven’t seen any coroner reports. And we have already seen numerous false reports which name so-called deceased as people who did not work for the Health Department that was sponsoring the employee event.

It was important that the gunmen be noticed as “white” because later, the anti-gun government proponents would suggest that good-old-boy, white male militia-types, were involved and Americans just aren’t safe. Thus, we need gun control as only the government can protect you!

Of course, they will never “find” the three white gunman because they were part of the staged event and after the total screw up of the events that day, they would be wise to remain in hiding. We hear from all of the witnesses outside of the building that the “three white men” did not even bother to wear masks.

At the very least, we need to demand verifiable death certificates issued by the coroner’s office. At Sandy Hook, there were never any death certificates issued and a state law was enacted to prevent anyone from making a Freedom of Information Act requesting death certificates of murder victims.

The many, many details that are incongruent in this event are explained once we see that there were two false flag activities in play that day.

False Flag Operation #2:

This one was run by true Patriots within the FBI or other agencies that could eventually control the investigative aspects of the day’s events—both false flags. The Patriots knew that false flag #1 was going to happen so false flag #2 was devised to upstage the attempt for the gun control agenda and place on the failures of the American immigration system.

On several occasions, we hear FBI Director James Comey indicate that immigrants/refugees are not properly screened and that the FBI does not have enough resources to monitor terrorists within the U.S. And why is it, by the way, that Congress keeps cutting the FBI funding? Without adequate funding how can the FBI monitor all of the poorly-screened refugees and immigrants pouring into our country?

The Patriots know the jihadist history of Farook and Malik. Clearly there is plenty of evidence that shows they had connections to terrorism and were being monitored by the FBI to some degree. So this Muslim couple is set up as patsies, who are guilty by association and perhaps related deeds, to take the fall for being the murderers.

As soon as false flag #1 goes into play, the Patriots go to Farook’s house and put the husband and wife in handcuffs in the SUV along with weapons, bombs, and all the evidence needed to convince everyone they were the killers. Malik’s supposed Facebook message about her new commitment to ISIS may have been done by her under force or by the person who came to her home. This message, sent during the time of the attack on the Christmas party supposedly confirms her current activity with a terrorist operation.

Once the Patriot has the couple in the vehicle he drives around until the police “see the vehicle driving slowly by Farook’s apartment.” Then, the SUV driver drives slowly for two miles, with the emergency lights flashing, back towards the crime scene at the Inland Regional Center. At a designated spot, the SUV stops and the Patriot (who is the driver) gets out of the vehicle, shoots into the air, and runs away, never to be pursued or caught. Supposedly at this point, the “terrorists”, who are handcuffed, shoot at the police. Law enforcement (36 police), believing the SUV to contain the shooters from false flag #1, open fire on the SUV. However, it is really not possible to tell whether the Muslim couple were shot in the SUV by police or ahead of time by someone else. The many and various pictures of the shoot-out scene were possibly staged before false flag #2 went into play.

The Farook Home Crime Scene

Another seemingly gross error concerning the case is the “crime scene” at the couple’s house (also called apartment by some accounts). The house was left unsecured after the FBI “investigated” the scene. Perhaps it was left unsecured because the false flag #2 planners within the FBI knew it was not a crime scene. It was a decoy so that media would find a list of so-called “taken items” from the FBI investigation. No one will ever know if these items were ever found in the Farook house.

Now that the crime scene has been riffled through by man and dog, it is tainted and can never be used for trial purposes. This, along with the slaying of Farook and Malik, leaves the entire matter without witnesses or evidence and makes the case essentially closed.

In the meantime:

Anti-gun government operatives can’t really tell the truth because they were staging false flag #1 for their anti-gun agenda and the “survivors” that were interviewed at the Inland Regional Center were crisis actors. Of course the president won’t be attending these funerals or acknowledging those who died because he knows that no one died in San Bernardino, just like at Sandy Hook.

Is this what Jade Helm was really about? It is logo says it all: “Controlling the human domain”. Are other Jade Helm and anti-citizen agencies ready to launch other false flags against us? Perhaps to create civil unrest, leading to martial law, and possibly a suspension of the presidential elections? If so, the evidence will make itself known to all of us over the next year.

Did you notice the United Nations markings on Jade Helm military trucks and vehicles this summer as they were crossing America? And, by the way, has anybody seen these vehicles go in the opposite direction since the Jade Helm exercise was supposedly over on September 15, 2015?

Final Word

Listen carefully to FBI Director James Comey and the other FBI spokespeople. They clearly say that this was an act of terrorism. But they don’t say it was “Muslim” or “ISIS” terrorism. Perhaps it is an insidious terrorism of the worst kind—our government terrorizing its own citizens through false flag events that are staged to coerce Americans to give up their guns, their liberty, and way of life to the globalists.

If any of this “false flag within a false flag” hypothetical argument is true, then God bless the Patriots that are working within our government to protect our country.








San Bernardino Shooting – Inconvenient Details Glossed Over by Corporate Press |

by Scott Creighton

One way you can tell a mass casualty psyop event is when the MSM deliberately gloss over inconvenient details of the official story like they’re not even there. It’s kind of like when the 9/11 Commission Report made the statement that they didn’t really care who financed the operation because “ultimately it’s of little significance”

Keep moving folks. Nothing too see here.

In the case of the San Bernardino shooting spree, there are a lot of inconvenient details. Glaring inconvenient details which scream to be flushed out by the phony “journalists” making big bucks working for the usual suspects… but they wont be.

1. Who bought the rifles? – First and foremost of these is the fact that the two guns that did the most damage in the attack were not owned by or purchased by either of the two patsies suspects.

“Farook purchased the handguns in California, police said. Someone else bought the rifles. Local and federal authorities haven’t elaborated on the purchases.” a “reporter” for the Huffington Post

One would think that if the desired outcome would be to keep assault weapons out of the hands of the “wrong” people, it would be important for the media to figure out just how these weapons got in those dead hands. But of course, one would be wrong.

The article written by the “reporter” for the Huffington Post goes on and on about high capacity magazines and armor piercing .223 rounds used at the scene. All of that is from those assault weapons. Which means the most crucial question to be asked might just be “who bought them the weapons and gave them to them?”

What reporters at the press conference got instead of answers to these important questions was the corporate run-around:

San Bernardino police didn’t immediately respond to request for comment on whether the attackers possessed the weapons legally in California. ATF declined to provide details about the weapons, referring inquiries to local police.” a “reporter” for the Huffington Post

It seems to me to be a rather important part of the story and for now all we are being told is the patsies suspects had these weapons and we don’t need to know the details about who owned them or how they ended up killing all these people.


2. Patsies Suspects Hid Their Crates of Bullets, Boxes of Bombs, Tactical Gear (and training?) and Killer Intentions from Family? – Like Adam Lanza and James Holmes before them, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik seemed like peaceful, normal folks just trying to live their lives before they suddenly turned into psycho killers… for no apparent reason.

“At the Islamic Center of Riverside, where Farook had worshipped until about two years ago, mosque director Mustapha Kuko described him as quiet, private and devoted to Koran study.

He knows that we believe that to take one life is to take all life. So for him to do the opposite of what we as Muslims believe … I don’t know,” Kuko said.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

Over at the LA Times, a whole pile of “reporters” write about how the Muslim Bonnie and Clyde successfully “hid” all their weapons and bad intentions from family, co-workers and friends and never once do the “reporters” seem to come to the conclusion that maybe they “hid” all these things so well… because they never had them until after the Gladio-styled event.

That Farook’s own mother had apparently sensed nothing wrongunderscored a feeling among investigators and acquaintances Thursday that the couple responsible for the massacre at a holiday party inside the Inland Regional Center scrupulously concealed their views, plans and a cache of weapons and explosives.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

Ah. See that? Since they obviously “hid” all of these things SOOOO successfully, that means they MUST have done it because it proves how “scrupulous” they are.

Talk about convoluted logic.

Not only did they hide their bad intent from family members, apparently they hid them pretty well from the FBI and the whole of Homeland Security as well.

“After a background check by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, she was granted a conditional green card last summer.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

The couple seemed very well adjusted to life here in the states and it makes sense seeing as how he was born and raised here.

They did all the typical things like wedding celebrations, baby showers, attended religious meetings every week… they were the picture perfect young married couple just living their lives in sunny California.

“The couple held a walima, a celebration after the wedding, at the Islamic Center of Riverside for people who couldn’t attend the Saudi ceremony. Ali said a few hundred people attended. The couple’s daughter was born in the spring and co-workers at the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, where Farook worked for five years as an inspector, said some of them had thrown him a baby shower.

An online baby registry in Malik’s name listed a large box of Pampers, Johnson’s safety swabs, a car seat and baby wash.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

This guy was so Westernized, his brother served in the Navy in the “Global War on Terrorism”

Farook got a bachelor’s degree in environmental health from Cal State San Bernardino in 2010. His older brother, Syed Raheel, who also attended La Sierra, joined the Navy immediately after high school. He served from 2003 to 2007 and was awarded two medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

The fact that none of this appears to serve as a red-flag to those “reporters” at the LA Times is quite remarkable. As was the case with both Lanza and Holmes, this is not a profile of mass murderers we are seeing develop and these reporters don’t seem bothered by that obvious fact in the slightest.

True to form, the glaring contradiction, the one thing that makes absolutely no sense to anyone even a war-mongering congress-critter, holds no sway on their near-religious faith in the official stories they are being told:

The idea of a new mother helping carry out a mass murder perplexed many. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who had a classified FBI briefing on the shooting Thursday, said leaving an infant for a suicide mission was “not something a woman would easily do.”

“So it’s going to be very interesting for me to see what her background was, what level of animus she had, because she had to have a considerable level,” Feinstein said.” some “reporters” from the LA Times

“Perplexing”? Uh… I don’t think “perplexing” quite covers it.

We are expected to believe that this couple, with this background, left some party they attended with people who attended their wedding celebration and threw them a baby shower… went home, kissed their brand new baby one last time, got suited up with their hidden cashe of weapons and tactical gear, WITH MASKS MIND YOU, and returned to destroy them all and then go out in a hail of bullets?


Absolute, unadulterated, industrial strength bullshit.

The reason they choose people like this for events like these is BECAUSE they would be the LAST people you would expect.

Why is that important?

Because when they start rounding up folks, it will always be the peaceful ones, the neighborly ones, the ones you would never suspect of being aligned with “ISIS” or whatever the boogieman is called when it starts.

They aren’t going to round up Bubba down the street with “Go ‘MERIKA!” bumper stickers on his NASCAR special edition Ford F-150. Bubba is what they want him to be. One of those guys who would be sitting around planning the shooting of the president, if they allowed him, back in 1963 because the damn “sooOoooOooocialist” was giving into Castro and had to be killed in order to save “Merika!”


3. What About Those Three Tall Athletic White Guys the Witness Saw Shooting People? (H/T dougross) – CBS News did an interview with a witness, Sally Abdelmageed, via the phone right after the attack. What she described was:

“three men, dressed in all black, military attire with vests on holding assault rifles and one of them opened up the door to building three… and he… opens up the door to building three and … he… starts to spray, shoot all over into the room… I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on (mask) and uh, from my view all I could see was a black hat (mask) and long sleeve shirt… black cargo pants with zippers on the sides, big puffy pockets, he had a huge assault rifle and extra ammo… I just saw three dressed exactly the same…. their skin tone looked white. They looked like they were athletic build. They appeared to be tall” Sally Abdelmageed

If you go to the CBS “News” website to view the interview, you may be out of luck. The video doesn’t appear to be working anymore. What a shock.

However, I found it on Youtube. You might want to download a copy of it since it seems destined for the memory hole.

Some might try to claim the “fog of war” effected Sally’s memory of the events. But she seems very specific in her description of the events and her story matches the official version in many ways.

We know a third individual was arrested after “fleeing” the scene. And we also know initial reports told us it was three assailants who attacked the center.

Her description of the “very large rifle” also fits the narrative.



The official story says the assailants wore black tactical gear and masks, what she describes as “hats” that kept her from seeing their faces.

However, aside from the fact that we are told it was two shooters and not three, what also doesn’t fit is this:



That is reportedly the body of Tashfeen Malik after it was dragged from the vehicle post shoot-out.

Notice she is neither male, athletic nor tall. Compare her body to those men standing nearby. Compare the length of her arms.

She is slight of build and short. Compare her body to the tire on the SUV. Compare her foot to the handles on the doors. She almost child-like in stature.

She is in a word… tiny.

How would the “fog of war” transform two people into three?

How would the “fog of war” transform this hobbit into a “tall, athletic man”?

It could not and would not.

Fact is, were Malik to have been one of the shooters, her miniature stature would have stood out. It would have seemed odd and out of place, the kind of thing that your memory would certainly hold onto.

Expect her witness testimony to be dropped down the memory hole. Expect Sally’s credibility to be attacked in public if it isn’t allowed to be forgotten by those of us out here still trying to get to the truth.


4. Logistics? – So we know the assault rifles, very military looking by the way… did not belong to the patsies suspects… and no one seems to care.

We also know the house they fled to “may or may not” have been where either of them lived and “may” have simply been a staging house for their big attack.

We also know the black SUV with Utah plates was a rental.

The guns? Someone else’s.

The hideout? Someone else’s.

The vehicle? Someone else’s.

You think that might raise some flags of interest in the MSM? Everything associated with this event seems to belong to someone other than the patsiessuspects?


5. What if?

What if (just saying now)… what if it was three guys shooting up that privatized business in California just like the witness said? They seemed to look military to her and it just so happens that the weapons used were military grade and don’t track back to the patsies suspects. After all, everyone admits they were wearing masks, right?

What if the shooters were able to escape the scene somehow (miraculously considering there was a drill taking place when this went down and the suspects were still able to leave without being chased by law enforcement) and went back to that house where they got out of the car, stuck a drugged up couple of patsiessuspects in the car and made an anonymous call to authorities telling them where they could be found?

What if one of them, waiting for the cops to show up, drives by the police outside the residence and guns the engine in order to make sure the SUV registered to someone other than the patsies suspects was followed?

What if after arriving at the predetermined location (where the thousands of police cars are waiting) the driver of the SUV jumps out, raises his hands, and “flees the scene” being arrested by authorities, later to be released due to demands from higher up?

And what if the drugged patsies suspects stirring around in someone else’s car with someone else’s guns and dressed in someone else’s tactical gear get shot up in a hail of bullets just as soon as that third man is out of the way?

Seems to me that the “what if” scenario I just presented makes a lot more sense than the newly wed first-time parents and well adjusted couple deciding out of the blue to kill their long-time friends and co-workers because they were “radicalized” on the internet by having a few contacts with low-level FBI suspects.

If you take the time to look at the inconvenient details of the case, a vastly different picture emerges, doesn’t it?

As a side note, take a look at this:

In Paris, we had reports of 3 tall athletic men dressed in military tactical gear, shooting up the streets and killing scores of people before somehow getting away from the scene in a black vehicle. Rented vehicle mind you.

They then killed a couple in a town house not that far away.

Radicalized people linked to “ISIS” was the story.

There had been a drill conducted that day.

In San Bernardino, we have a report of 3 tall athletic men dressed in military tactical gear, shooting up a building and killing scores of people somehow getting away from the scene in a black vehicle. Rented mind you.

Then they kill a couple in the street not that far away.

The claim is that they were radicalized on the internet.

There was a drill taking place at the time of the event.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern?





Now The FBI has waged war against apple (#ApplevstheFBI), by demanding a ‘backdoor’ golden key mechanism to access Farook’s work iPhone 5c




fbi-vs-appleFebruary 16, 2016 

A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

Answers to your questions about privacy and security

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts,our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

No comments so far.

Be first to leave comment below.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *