Security experts say that OperationUSA, a coordinated online attack against banking and government websites slated for May 7, is a serious threat. As a result, organizations should be upping their distributed-denial-of-service attack mitigation strategies to guard against the attacks, which are being coordinated by the hacktivist group Anonymous.

Experts advise that call-center staff should be educated about DDoS attacks, in case customers call in about online outages or experience difficulty accessing accounts. And network and security teams should actively monitor Internet traffic on May 7 and take steps to block specific IP addresses.

Anonymous has said the attacks are being waged because of perceived social and political injustices. In an April 21 Pastebin post, it states: "Anonymous will make sure that this May 7th will be a day to remember. On that day Anonymous will start phase one of operation USA. America, you have committed multiple war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and recently you have committed war crimes in your own country."

Below is the profane-ridden #OpUSA press release from anonymous hackers N4m3le55 cr3w, posted to Pastebin on April 21:

#OpUsa

"Greetings Obama and USA citizens. We are the N4m3le55 Cr3w. Anonymous will make sure that's this May 7th will be a day to remember. On that day anonymous will start phase one of operation USA.

America you have committed multiple war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and recently you have committed war crimes in your own country. You have killed hundreds of innocent children and families with drones, guns, and now bombs. America you have hit thousands of people where it hurts them, now it is our time for our Lulz. For this you shall pay.

Middle East- and North Africa-based criminal hackers are preparing cyberattacks this week against the websites of high-profile U.S. government agencies, banks and other companies, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The attacks, dubbed #OpUSA, for Operation USA, will begin Tuesday, the department said in a warning bulletin circulated to the private sector last week. The bulletin was first obtained and posted online by blogger and cybercrime expert Brian Krebs.

The attacks are called for in the name of Anonymous, the leaderless coalition of hackers whose trademark Guy Fawkes mask has become a global symbol for their anarchistic spirit.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, was given a sharp dressing-down by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a warning that Russia would not tolerate further Israeli attacks on Damascus and would respond.

Putin did not say how, but he did announce he had ordered the acceleration of highly advanced Russian weapons supplies to Syria.

Israeli Debkafile's military sources disclosed that the Russian leader was referring to S-300 anti-air systems and the nuclear-capable 9K720 Iskander (NATO named SS-26 Stone) surface missiles, which are precise enough to hit a target within a 5-7 meter radius at a distance of 280 kilometers.

In his phone call to Netanyahu, the Russian leader advised the prime minister to make sure to keep this in mind.

The Syrian Army killed a large number of foreign terrorists, including Jordanian and Saudi nationals, in the suburb of the coastal city of Latakia in the Western parts of the country on Tuesday.

According to FNA dispatches, the Syrian army destroyed several terrorist bases in Reef (outskirts of) Latakia, including Salma, Tartiah and Kafar Delbeh villages, killing two Jordanian terrorists and several Saudi snipers.

During the army operations in al-Dareh and Borj al-Ahrash, a number of foreign terrorists, including the notorious Saudi terrorist, Masha'al al-Saleh, were killed.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011 with organized attacks by well-armed gangs against Syrian police forces and border guards being reported across the country.

No universally applied principle justifies the Israeli attack on Damascus. Only self-flattering tribalism does that

On Sunday, Israel dropped massive bombs near Damascus, ones which the New York Times, quoting residents, originally reported (then evidently deleted) resulted in explosions "more massive than anything the residents of the city. . . have witnessed during more than two years of war." The Jerusalem Post this morning quoted "a senior Syrian military source" as claiming that "Israel used depleted uranium shells", though that is not confirmed. The NYT cited a "high-ranking Syrian military official" who said the bombs "struck several critical military facilities in some of the country's most tightly secured and strategic areas" and killed "dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace", while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that "at least 42 soldiers were killed in the strikes, and another 100 who would usually be at the targeted sites remain unaccounted for."

Israeli defenders claim that its air attack targeted weapons provided by Iran that would have ended up in the hands of Hezbollah. Obama officials quickly told media outlets that "the administration is fully supportive of Israel's airstrikes". Indeed, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy noted: "Keep in mind the Israelis are using weapons supplied by us." There is, needless to say, virtually no condemnation of the Israeli assault in US media or political circles. At this point, the only question is how many minutes will elapse before Congress reflexively adopts a near-unanimous or unanimous resolution effusively praising Israel for the attack and unqualifiedly endorsing all past and future attacks as well.

Because people who cheer for military action by their side like to pretend that they're something more than primitive "might-makes-right" tribalists, the claim is being hauled out that Israel's actions are justified by the "principle" that it has the right to defend itself from foreign weapons in the hands of hostile forces. But is that really a "principle" that anyone would apply consistently, as opposed to a typically concocted ad hoc claim to justify whatever the US and Israel do? Let's apply this "principle" to other cases, as several commentators on Twitter have done over the last 24 hours, beginning with this:

Nima Shirazi @WideAsleepNima

If Syrian planes bombed Israel's Ramat David Airbase because it houses US-supplied weaponry, what would the appropriate Israeli reaction be?
3:00 PM - 4 May 2013

As more and more studies demonstrating the corrosive effect of psychopathy on government, finance, and business emerge, researchers have begun to explore how our society itself has been molded in the psychopaths' image.

Now, one of those researchers, Stefan Verstappen, shares his insights on psychopathy in modern culture.

This is the GRTV Feature interview on Global Research TV.

Kathryn Bigelow's Osama bin Laden revenge-porn flick Zero Dark Thirty was the biggest publicity coup for the CIA this century outside of the actual killing of Osama bin Laden. But the extent to which the CIA shaped the film has remained unclear. Now, a memo obtained by Gawker shows that the CIA actively, and apparently successfully, pressured Mark Boal to remove scenes that made them look bad from the Zero Dark Thirty script.

The CIA's whitewashing effort is revealed in a cache of documents newly released under a Freedom of Information Act request about the CIA's cooperation with Bigelow and Boal. The documents include a 2012 memo - initially classified "SECRET" - summarizing five conference calls between Boal and the CIA's Office of Public Affairs in late 2011.

"The purpose for these discussions was for OPA officers to help promote an appropriate portrayal of the Agency and the Bin Ladin operation," according to the memo. (Hundreds of pages of CIA documents about the film were released last year; the memo obtained by Gawker was approved for release late last month.)

During these calls, Boal "verbally shared the screenplay" for Zero Dark Thirty in order to get the CIA's feedback, and the CIA's public affairs department verbally asked Boal to take out parts that they objected to. According to the memo, he did.

A tiny tip of the vast subterranean network of governmental and intelligence agencies from around the world dedicated to destroying WikiLeaks and arresting its founder, Julian Assange, appears outside the red-brick building on Hans Crescent Street that houses the Ecuadorean Embassy. Assange, the world's best-known political refugee, has been in the embassy since he was offered sanctuary there last June. British police in black Kevlar vests are perched night and day on the steps leading up to the building, and others wait in the lobby directly in front of the embassy door. An officer stands on the corner of a side street facing the iconic department store Harrods, half a block away on Brompton Road. Another officer peers out the window of a neighboring building a few feet from Assange's bedroom at the back of the embassy. Police sit round-the-clock in a communications van topped with an array of antennas that presumably captures all electronic forms of communication from Assange's ground-floor suite.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), or Scotland Yard, said the estimated cost of surrounding the Ecuadorean Embassy from June 19, 2012, when Assange entered the building, until Jan. 31, 2013, is the equivalent of $4.5 million.

Britain has rejected an Ecuadorean request that Assange be granted safe passage to an airport. He is in limbo. It is, he said, like living in a "space station."

"The status quo, for them, is a loss," Assange said of the U.S.-led campaign against him as we sat in his small workroom, cluttered with cables and computer equipment. He had a full head of gray hair and gray stubble on his face and was wearing a traditional white embroidered Ecuadorean shirt. "The Pentagon threatened WikiLeaks and me personally, threatened us before the whole world, demanded that we destroy everything we had published, demanded we cease 'soliciting' new information from U.S. government whistle-blowers, demanded, in other words, the total annihilation of a publisher. It stated that if we did not self-destruct in this way that we would be 'compelled' to do so."

"But they have failed," he went on. "They set the rules about what a win was. They lost in every battle they defined. Their loss is total. We've won the big stuff. The loss of face is hard to overstate. The Pentagon reissued its threats on Sept. 28 last year. This time we laughed. Threats inflate quickly. Now the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department intend to show the world what vindictive losers they are through the persecution of Bradley Manning, myself and the organization more generally."

Did you hear the one about part of a Boeing 767 wing and thick rope found wedged between two buildings a block away from the site of the old World Trade Center in Manhattan? No, this isn't a joke - they really did claim last week to find a chunk of one of the hijacked aircraft flown into the Twin Towers over 11 years ago on 9/11. Not only that, it was discovered at 51 Park Place, Lower Manhattan, site of the planned Islamic community center. Talk about "catapulting the propaganda"... or maybe that should be 'lowering the propaganda into place'?...

Coming on the heels of the Boston Drill/Bombings on Patriots' Day last month, as well as a 'ricin poisoned letters' scare that transported us all back in time to that crazy week in September 2001 when letters laced with anthrax were sent to politicians, the spectre of the 9/11 attacks looms large as ever over the U.S. and much of Western civilization.

"9/11 was an inside job," is by now a familiar mantra in the small but active alternative online community. It has even found its way into the mainstream, despite years of ridicule and the heavy presence of COINTELPRO types derailing efforts to investigate and publish the truth of what happened on 9/11.

So, was it really an 'inside job'? Certainly, there is evidence that Israeli intelligence and elements in the U.S. government colluded to cover-up what really happened and used the event for their own gain. We know that prior to 9/11, certain high-level members of Bush Jr.'s administration dreamed of 'a new Pearl Harbor', the catalyst for expanding American hegemony.

But does that necessarily mean they orchestrated it? What about the evidence for 9/11 being an 'outside job'? Many anomalous aspects of the attacks that day have been overlooked. This week we invited Dr. Judy Wood on the show to discuss the compelling evidence she has gathered and analysed in her book Where Did the Towers Go?, pointing to some form of 'exotic technology' may have been responsible for destroying the World Trade Center on 9/11.

In the second part of the show, we tried to look at 9/11 from a broader perspective with Lisa Guliani, former internet-based political talk show host, political writer and SOTT.net editor. As you'll soon discover, however, even over 11 years later, it's no easier today to get a coherent discussion going about Israel and the NeoCons' role in 9/11... can we conclude that 9/11 as a psy-ops has successfully neutralized the so-called 'Truth Movement'?

Running Time: 03:00:00

Download: MP3