Tag Archives: al Qaeda

Exploiting Emotions About Paris to Blame Snowden, Distract from Actual Culprits Who Empowered ISIS, by Glenn Greenwald

From Glenn Greenwald at informationclearinghouse.info:

Whistleblowers are always accused of helping America’s enemies (top Nixon aides accused Daniel Ellsberg of being a Soviet spy and causing the deaths of Americans with his leak); it’s just the tactical playbook that’s automatically used. So it’s of course unsurprising that ever since Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing enabled newspapers around the world to report on secretly implemented programs of mass surveillance, he has been accused by “officials” and their various media allies of Helping The Terrorists™.

Still, I was a bit surprised just by how quickly and blatantly — how shamelessly — some of them jumped to exploit the emotions prompted by the carnage in France to blame Snowden: doing so literally as the bodies still lay on the streets of Paris. At first, the tawdry exploiters were the likes of crazed ex-intelligence officials (former CIA chief James Woolsey, who once said Snowden “should be hanged by his neck until he is dead” and now has deep ties to private NSA contractors, along with Iran–obsessed Robert Baer); former Bush/Cheney apparatchiks (ex-White House spokesperson and current Fox personality Dana Perino); right-wing polemicists fired from BuzzFeed for plagiarism; and obscure Fox News comedians (Perino’s co-host). So it was worth ignoring save for the occasional Twitter retort.

But now we’ve entered the inevitable “U.S. Officials Say” stage of the “reporting” on the Paris attack — i.e., journalists mindlessly and uncritically repeat whatever U.S. officials whisper in their ear about what happened. So now credible news sites are regurgitating the claim that the Paris Terrorists were enabled by Snowden leaks — based on no evidence or specific proof of any kind, needless to say, but just the unverified, obviously self-serving assertions of government officials. But much of the U.S. media loves to repeat rather than scrutinize what government officials tell them to say. So now this accusation has become widespread and is thus worth examining with just some of the actual evidence.

One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Marathon. How did the multiple perpetrators of those well-coordinated attacks — all of which were carried out prior to Snowden’s June 2013 revelations — hide their communications from detection?

This is a glaring case where propagandists can’t keep their stories straight. The implicit premise of this accusation is that The Terrorists didn’t know to avoid telephones or how to use effective encryption until Snowden came along and told them. Yet we’ve been warned for years and years before Snowden that The Terrorists are so diabolical and sophisticated that they engage in all sorts of complex techniques to evade electronic surveillance.

By itself, the glorious mythology of How the U.S. Tracked Osama bin Laden should make anyone embarrassed to make these claims. After all, the central premise of that storyline is that bin Laden only used trusted couriers to communicate because al Qaeda knew for decades to avoid electronic means of communication because the U.S. and others could spy on those communications. Remember all that? Zero Dark Thirty and the “harsh but effective” interrogation of bin Laden’s “official messenger”?

To continue reading: Exploiting Emotions About Paris to Blame Snowden

Look Back in Anger, by Doug Nolan

Doug Nolan eviscerates a commentary in The Wall Street Journal from mainstream economists Alan S. Blinder and Mark Zandi. From Nolan at creditbubblebulletin.blogspot.com:

October 16 – Wall Street Journal (Alan S. Blinder and Mark Zandi): “Don’t Look Back in Anger at Bailouts and Stimulus…”

Logic dictates that the size of any stimulus be proportional to the expected decline in economic activity—which was enormous in the Great Recession. The Recovery Act and other stimulus measures were costly to taxpayers, and thus much-maligned. But the slump would have been much deeper without them. The Federal Reserve has also come under attack for its unprecedented actions, especially its quantitative easing or bond-buying programs. Yet QE lowered long-term interest rates and boosted stock and housing prices—all to the economy’s benefit. Yes, QE has possible negative side-effects, but for the most part they have yet to materialize. Policy makers who botched the regulatory job before the crisis and shifted to fiscal restraint prematurely in 2011 can hardly be considered flawless. Yet one major reason why the U.S. economy has outperformed the plodding European and Japanese economies is the timely, massive and unprecedented responses of U.S. policy makers in 2008-09. So let’s get the history right.

Getting “history right” has been a CBB focal point From Day One. In last week’s media barrage, Dr. Bernanke repeatedly stated that fiscal policy had turned contractionary – (or at best neutral) suggesting that fiscal stringency was a key factor in the Fed sticking with ultra-loose policies. In Friday’s WSJ op-ed, Blinder and Zandi write: “Policy makers who botched the regulatory job before the crisis and shifted to fiscal restraint prematurely in 2011.”

Since the end of 2007, outstanding Treasury Securities (from Fed’s Z.1) have increased $8.302 TN, or 137%. As a percentage of GDP, outstanding Treasuries almost doubled to 83% (from 42%) in seven years. By calendar year, Treasury borrowings increased $1.302 TN (8.8% of GDP) in 2008, $1.506 TN (10.4%) in 2009, $1.645 TN (11.0%) in 2010, $1.138 TN (7.3%) in 2011, $1.181 TN (7.3%) in 2012, $858 billion (5.1%) in 2013 and $736 billion (4.2%) last year.

In nominal dollars, Federal expenditures increased from 2007’s $2.933 TN, to 2008’s $3.214 TN, 2009’s $3.487 TN, 2010’s $3.772 TN, 2011’s $3.818 TN, 2012’s $3.789 TN, 2013’s $3.782 TN and 2014’s $3.897 TN. Federal expenditures spiked during the crisis and remain about a third above 2007 levels.

“US Post Smallest Annual Budget Deficit since 2007” was a Thursday WSJ headline. “The deficit declined 9% from the prior year to $439 billion—around 2.5% of gross domestic product and below the average the U.S. has run over the past 40 years.”

I remember all too clearly the jubilation that surrounded federal budget surpluses in the late-nineties. Supposedly, a disciplined Washington had made tough choices and finally put its house in order. There was even talk of Treasury completely paying off its debts. It was, however, all a seductive Bubble Illusion. In particular, receipts were inflated by Credit excess-induced capital gains taxes (on inflating stock and asset prices) and booming incomes (especially tech and finance related!). Actually, it all seemed obvious even at the time. It didn’t make sense to me that the Fed and analysts were so prone to misinterpreting underlying dynamics.

Blinder and Zandi: “Yes, QE has possible negative side-effects, but for the most part they have yet to materialize.”

There are myriad deleterious side-effects, and anyone paying attention would agree that many have begun to materialize. One prominent consequences of Federal Reserve rate manipulation has been the loss of the markets’ ability to discipline policymaking. How does it ever make sense to allow politicians access to years of virtually free “money”? Ominously, despite Treasury paying basis points to service a large chunk of our outstanding debts, the federal government is still running significant deficits. While outstanding Treasury debt has increased almost 140% in seven years, 2014 interest payments were up only 8% from 2007 (to $440bn). Government social payments, on the other hand, were up 48% from 2007 levels to $1.897 TN.

To continue reading: Look Back in Anger

War on Islamic State: A New Cold War fiction, by Nafeez Ahmed

From Nafeez Ahmed at middleeasteye.net:

The Islamic State group is little more than the proxy bastard child of a New Cold War that looks set to escalate

Russia is bombing “terrorists” in Syria, and the US is understandably peeved.

A day after the bombing began, Obama’s Defence Secretary Ashton Carter complained that most Russian strikes “were in areas where there were probably not ISIL (IS) forces”.

Anonymously, US officials accused Russia of deliberately targeting CIA-sponsored “moderate” rebels to shore-up the regime of Bashir al-Assad.

Only two of Russia’s 57 airstrikes have hit ISIS, opined Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in similar fashion. The rest have hit “the moderate opposition, the only forces fighting ISIS in Syria,” he said.

Such claims have been dutifully parroted across the Western press with little scrutiny, bar the odd US media watchdog.

But who are these moderate rebels, really?

Moderate al-Qaeda

The first Russian airstrikes hit the rebel-held town of Talbisah north of Homs City, home to al-Qaeda’s official Syrian arm, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the pro-al-Qaeda Ahrar al-Sham, among other local rebel groups. Both al-Nusra and the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs) in Homs City, which is 12 kilometers south of Talbisah.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that as part of “US and Turkish efforts to establish an ISIS ‘free zone’ in the northern Aleppo countryside,” al-Nusra “withdrew from the border and reportedly reinforced positions in this rebel-held pocket north of Homs city”.

In other words, the US and Turkey are actively sponsoring “moderate” Syrian rebels in the form of al-Qaeda, which Washington DC-based risk analysis firm Valen Globals forecasts will be “a bigger threat to global security” than IS in coming years.

Last October, Vice President Joe Biden conceded that there is “no moderate middle” among the Syrian opposition. Turkey and the Gulf powers armed and funded “anyone who would fight against Assad,” including “al-Nusra,” “al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),” and the “extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world”.

This external funding enabled Islamist factions to systematically displace secular Free Syria Army (FSA) leaders, culminating in the rise of IS.

In other words, the CIA-backed rebels targeted by Russia are not moderates. They represent the same melting pot of al-Qaeda affiliated networks that spawned the Islamic State in the first place.

To continue reading: War on Islamic State: A New Cold War fiction

Cancel Hope, Cry Havoc, by Robert Gore

The snap is coming. We’ve all had days where disappointment and frustration mount until a minor provocation triggers a hugely disproportionate reaction. You blow up at your spouse or kids, kick the dog, slam doors, or shout at the television; you make an ass of yourself and feel immediately embarrassed and ashamed. Societies, too, have their breaking points, and by all indications we’re getting close. The catalyst may be seemingly trivial, but it will be the camel’s spine-snapping straw after a decades-long cumulation of presumption, pretense, ineptitude, lies, and corruption in high places.

The explosion won’t be because of any diminution of ignorance: average citizens paying more attention to politics, economics, and world affairs and newly enraged, vowing to change things. Rather, decisions and actions made by remote, unaccountable powers will impinge upon their lives in ways that finally become intolerable. As circumstances are reduced, dreams deferred or destroyed, lives permanently upended, and loved ones senselessly killed, many will conclude they have nothing to lose. They’ll take actions beyond what are piously termed the permissible bounds of free expression. Crying havoc, they will let slip the dogs of riot, revolution, anarchy, and war. Looking back, the wonder will not be that they did so, but that it took them so long.

The Middle East and northern Africa have already snapped. The refugee stream into Europe is a result of US government failure. Ignoring the Sunni-Shiite schism that has defined the region for centuries, the US has blundered into various conflicts, supporting both sides, sometimes simultaneously, and conjuring a side that doesn’t exist: moderates whose passion is not their Islamic sect, but rather plurality, democracy, and human rights (“Not the Biggest Kid on Every Block,” SLL, 9/28/15). In Syria this fanciful Thomas Jefferson brigade, a product of the fervid imaginations of US neocons and their media toadies, was going to take out Bashar Assad, always the real goal of the US and its Sunni allies, then take out Sunni ISIS, the goal of US ally Shiite Iraq and US enemy Shiite Iran. All sides would be happy as a new era of peace, inclusion, and freedom dawned in Syria.

In reality, Thomas Jefferson brigades in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and now Syria haven’t worked out well for the US (“The Pentagon’s Syria Debacle,” by Philip Ewing and Austin Wright, SLL, 9/18/15, and “US-trained Division 30 rebels ‘betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria’,” by Nabih Bulos, SLL, 9/23/15). They have no commitment to the values of our illustrious founding father, except in some instances slavery (“The Rape of Afghanistan,” by Justin Raimondo, SLL, 9/23/15). US policymakers know this; they’re looking for puppets, not statesmen. However, to quote Vladimir Putin: “[w]ho’s playing who here?” Obviously the US has been played, and hard. Now, hundreds of thousands of refugees, rejecting perpetual war and terror, are voting with their feet.

Putin understands the game and has come down on the Shiite side, supporting Assad in Syria, allying with Iran, and bolstering beleaguered Iraq. The balance of power in the Middle East has been decisively altered; the Shiite nations now have their Russian big brother watching out for them. If Russia, Iran, and Iraq make short work of ISIS—not a sucker bet—the US will look even more foolish and venal that it already does, but there will be one silver lining: it should diminish the refugee flow from Syria.

Which would be a good thing for Europe. While the snap there has yet to come, the branch is breaking. The European Union’s governing institutions have become, in the way governments do, sclerotic bureaucratic monstrosities run by unaccountable elites. The Greek soap opera illustrates the EU golden rule: the country with the gold (Germany) gets to make the rules. In any welfare state there is always a fissure between those who make and those who take, and Greece has turned it into a chasm. The recent election in Catalonia, a referendum in support of independence from Spain, reflects the growing sentiment among the more prosperous: We’re getting screwed! The welfare state has become an unaffordable luxury, further strained by the refugees. Growth, never robust, has slowed to a crawl. Despite more debt from over-indebted governments—which the ECB has monetized while suppressing interest rates—deflation and contraction are taking hold. Sky high youth unemployment rates and rigid labor markets offer little hope for the younger generation.

The US knows all about immigration problems, over-indebted government, and unaffordable welfare state programs. Somehow a period in which real incomes are lower than they were in 2000, the poverty rate has increased, the labor force participation rate has dropped to its level in 1977 (before women entered the labor force en masse), and total US debt is at a record has been christened a “recovery.” If it is a recovery it has been tepid, a few tweaks of seasonal adjustments and price indexes away from being a continuation of the recession that began in 2008.

Old people are getting screwed by Fed-promoted microscopic interest rates. Their labor force participation rate is the only one that has bucked the trend, increasing as they cancel retirement and fill Walmart and McDonald’s jobs to keep the wolves at bay. Young people are getting screwed, burdened with college debt and a job market that throws off jobs waiting tables, crafting caffeinated concoctions, and tending bar, but not the kinds of higher paying positions that would require their degrees and allow them to pay their debt, start families, and buy houses. They are waking up to who’s on the hook for massive government debts and unfunded liabilities. Anyone younger than fifty with a three digit IQ also understands that their receipt of promised benefits is “problematic,” which is powers-that-be speak for “bend over.”

Destroy people’s hopes for a better life and you make riot, revolution, anarchy, and war inevitable. There is no way to predict which spark sets off which conflagration, but the world’s $200 trillion-plus debt load will provide abundant kindling. It’s hard to hold out much hope for the future when your future has been mortgaged. What we are seeing now—the refugee crisis, commodity collapse, financial perturbations, Greece, China, Catalonia, the rise of Putin, the US’s Syrian fiasco, Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders—are mild pre-tremors before a massive seismic shock. When the big one arrives, upended political orders in Washington, Ottawa, Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, Riyadh, Berlin, Brussels, Paris, London, and Brasilia are conceivable aftershocks. Few of their billions of long-suffering victims will mourn the fates of powers that be who become powers that were. Now unthinkable, judicial proceedings, disgrace, imprisonment, and even worse will be the order of the day.

TOO GOOD TO IGNORE

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

US-trained Division 30 rebels ‘betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria’, by Nabih Bulos

Yet another triumph for US policy in Syria (see Lies, Damnable Lies, and Syria, SLL, 9/19/15). From Nabih Bulos at telegraph.co.uk:

Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria immediately after re-entering the country.

Fighters with Division 30, the “moderate” rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.

Division 30 was the first faction whose fighters graduated from a US-led training programme in Turkey which aims to forge a force on the ground in Syria to fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

A statement on Twitter by a man calling himself Abu Fahd al-Tunisi, a member of al-Qaeda’s local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, read: “A strong slap for America… the new group from Division 30 that entered yesterday hands over all of its weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra after being granted safe passage.

“They handed over a very large amount of ammunition and medium weaponry and a number of pick-ups.”

To continue reading: US-trained Division 30 rebels ‘betray US’

Putin: Friend or Foe in Syria?, by Patrick Buchanan

From Patrick Buchanan, at antiwar.com:

What Vladimir Putin is up to in Syria makes far more sense than what Barack Obama and John Kerry appear to be up to in Syria.

The Russians are flying transports bringing tanks and troops to an air base near the coastal city of Latakia to create a supply chain to provide a steady flow of weapons and munitions to the Syrian army.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, an ally of Russia, has lost half his country to ISIS and the Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaida.

Putin fears that if Assad falls, Russia’s toehold in Syria and the Mediterranean will be lost, ISIS and al-Qaida will be in Damascus, and Islamic terrorism will have achieved its greatest victory.

Is he wrong?

Winston Churchill famously said in 1939: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

Exactly. Putin is looking out for Russian national interests.

And who do we Americans think will wind up in Damascus if Assad falls? A collapse of that regime, not out of the question, would result in a terrorist takeover, the massacre of thousands of Alawite Shiites and Syrian Christians, and the flight of millions more refugees into Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – and thence on to Europe.

Putin wants to prevent that. Don’t we?

Why then are we spurning his offer to work with us?

Are we still so miffed that when we helped to dump over the pro-Russian regime in Kiev, Putin countered by annexing Crimea?

Get over it.

Understandably, there is going to be friction between the two greatest military powers. Yet both of us have a vital interest in avoiding war with each other and a critical interest in seeing ISIS degraded and defeated.

To continue reading: Putin: Friend or Foe in Syria?

For the State Blowback Is a Feature, Not a Bug, by Kevin Carson

From Kevin Carson, at antiwar.org:

Every year, we’re subjected to another round of mawkish, smarmy 9/11 memorial ceremonies whose main purpose is to maintain loyalty to the very national security state whose aggression brought the terror attacks of September 11 on us in the first place. It’s all part of an endless cycle, repeated over and over, dating back to the late ’70s. 1) Criminal, aggressive intervention overseas by the American national security state; 2) the ensuing destabilization from that intervention results in terrorist blowback to the people of the United States; 3) the leaders of the American state take advantage of the terrorist attack by waving the bloody shirt to manipulate the public into supporting a new wave of criminal aggression; which leads to 4) more blowback. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Al Qaeda came into existence in the first place because the United States, under President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, supported an Islamic fundamentalist uprising that destabilized the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan, and the Reagan administration subsequently backed the Mujaheddin guerrillas against the Soviet invasion. All this was for the sake of bogging the Russians down in their own “Vietnam” – a move in the “Great Game” that Brzezinski, even after 9/11, said was worth it.

Another contributing factor to 9/11 was Operation Desert Shield/Storm – a war entirely engineered by the Bush’s quiet encouragements to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait – which outraged many in the Islamic world by bringing American troops on the soil of Saudi Arabia, home country of the holiest sites of Islam.

9/11 was, in turn, a bonanza for the U.S. national security state. Using the terror attacks as a pretext, the American leadership was able to stampede Congress into rubber stamping the USA PATRIOT Act (a grant of police state powers comparable to those granted Hitler under the Enabling Act passed after the Reichstag Fire) and two foreign wars, along with a blank check to initiate other wars at will (used to legitimize Obama’s interventions in Libya, Syria and Kurdistan, among others). Right up to the present, anyone opposing new military actions by the United States, or suggesting that terrorist attacks of the past were blowback from previous US interventions, is labeled a defeatist or worse. As antiwar blogger Jennifer Abel put it (“Your Annual 9/11 Memorial Riddle,” Ravings of a Feral Genius, Sept. 11): “Q: What’s the difference between 9/11 and a cow? A: The government can’t milk a cow for 14 years and counting.”

To continue reading: For the State Blowback Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Statism, Rinse, Repeat…Collapse, by Robert Gore

Pick a perceived problem to which a government has intervened. There’s a stupidity cycle: the intervention makes the problem worse, which leads to more intervention, which makes the problem even worse, and so on. Statism, rinse, repeat. You may wonder: how long can a stupidity cycle persist before the problem that government has exacerbated gets so bad that there is a reckoning, or just plain collapse? Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable—2015 is offering the opportunity to view cyclical stupidity exhaustion on multiple screens. There’s also a feature you won’t see in conventional AV rooms: the screens are interrelated; what happens on one screen affects what’s happening on the others.

Start with the Middle East. The US government went to war in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. As with most government programs, that mission soon expanded, to regime change for despots the Bush administration found odious. The U.S military was instrumental in deposing Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and later, Libya’s Murammar Gaddafi. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s fundamentalist Shiite government were, and still are, on the neoconservative hit list. However, a not-so-funny thing happened on the way to reordering the Middle East. It grew more chaotic and deadly than when we started, each intervention amplifying the chaos and violence.

As part of this phenomenon, blowback has been amplified. Nobody would argue that the global war on terrorism has reduced terrorism. Al-Qaeda has been a growth stock. From humble origins in Afghanistan, it has gone multinational across the Middle East and Northern Africa, with various subsidiaries and spin-offs. One of the spin-offs, the Islamic State, governs large swaths of Syria and Iraq, and may be making inroads in Libya. Like any large enterprise, Al-Qaeda also has its competitors, who wreak their own havoc. More blowback: expanding terror, destruction, and death have created a flood of refugees who are rapidly overwhelming Europe’s capacity and willingness to aid them.

That flood shows no signs of ebbing because there are no signs the conflict that is causing it will abate any time soon. In the time-honored fashion of government stupidity cycles, conflict is escalating. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Russia, Iran, and the US all claim to be fighting the Islamic State in Syria. However, the first five all want to depose Assad, Russia and Iran are trying to protect him, and who knows what the hell the US is trying to do. The important point here is that the next escalation may be world war, which will collapse the escalation cycle, but not before countries are destroyed and millions die.

Regular readers of SLL are well aware of debt dynamics. In a fiat money world, debt expands ceaselessly until the dead weight of debt service outweighs the gains from production, consumption, and speculative activities. Private and public debt around the world have expanded at growth rates greater than underlying economic growth rates for decades.

With global gluts of natural resources and manufactured goods, debt for productive investment now produces negative returns, even though interest rates on most classes of debt are still at generational lows. The greatest percentage of debt has funded consumption, which generates no economic return to repay it. And as the margin-call month of August demonstrated, debt fueled speculation can only go so far. Sooner or later financial markets recognize the increasingly bleak economic realities generated by an increasingly debt-encumbered economy.

That’s even if central banks promise free money forever. In 1987, Alan Greenspan quelled a stock market crash by pouring Federal Reserve liquidity into the financial system, thus lowering short term rates. Since then, every significant financial disturbance has been met with liquidity injections—debt and financial asset monetization—and lower interest rates, not just in the US but across the developed world. Each cycle has required escalation: the injections have grown progressively larger, their real world effects progressively smaller, and interest rates have hit the zero rate floor.

The latest escalation was from the 2007-2009 financial crisis, but the recovery has been anemic, and many economic magnitudes have not regained levels attained before the financial crisis. The world is either on the cusp of or actually in economic contraction. The return from additional debt is negative and interest rates cannot go lower. In other words, governments and central banks no longer have even the smoke-and-mirrors tricks of expanding debt, debt monetization, and interest rate suppression to prop up economies and financial markets. Which means this next downturn will not be a downturn at all; it will be a vertiginous plunge orders of magnitude more severe than anything that has preceded it. Making up for lost time, so to speak.

Debt, rising taxes, and ever-expanding government have fueled an explosion in entitlement spending. Such spending, by reducing both the urgency of recipients to better their situations and the incentive of producers to produce and thus provide funding, actually increases the poverty and “unmet social needs” it was ostensibly meant to address. Debt, taxes, and expanding government retard economies. Properly measured, economic growth in Europe, the cradle of he welfare state, is almost nonexistent, even during so-called expansions, and the US is not far behind. Demands for public services and the sense of entitlement escalate even as public balance sheets and economies deteriorate.

Obamacare will almost certainly mark the apex of the entitlements stupidity cycle in the US, preceding fiscal collapse. When it comes, large swaths of the US population will be unable to provide for themselves and will clamor in vain for assistance from insolvent local, state, and federal governments. What will these unfortunates do? Quiet resignation and acceptance of their fate are not the odds on favorite, rather, we’re looking at unprecedented civil disorder, lawlessness, and widespread chaos.

Nothing happens in isolation; everything is interrelated. Imagine, if you have the intestinal fortitude, the interrelationships in a world embroiled in global war, economic depression, and the death of the welfare state. Those who invoke such visions are called apocalyptic. Is it apocalyptic, or does a straight line, logical analysis of ever escalating stupidity cycles yield the conclusion that we’re at the brink of collapse? Is this a mere pothole, or are we at the edge of an abyss the bottom of which we cannot see? Hope for the former, if you wish to delude yourself. Prepare for the latter if you don’t.

TIRED OF ANTIHEROES AND DYSTOPIA?

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Our Treasonous Foreign Policy, by Justin Raimondo

The US government has no idea what its doing in the Middle East. It is making many bad situations worse. Now it is contemplating lining up with what used to the bad guys—al Qaeda. Justin Raimondo on the insanity, from antiwar.com:

Al-Qaeda has a makeover – and now they’re the good guys

If you want to know why our “war on terrorism” has failed so miserably – if you want to understand how and why the harder we fight the more enemies we have to face – then read this recent piece in the Wall Street Journal on the evolution of the Syrian civil war, which opens with this startling query:

“In the three-way war ravaging Syria, should the local al Qaeda branch be seen as the lesser evil to be wooed rather than bombed?”

How can such a question even be conceived, let alone asked? After all, wasn’t the whole purpose of the nearly fifteen-year US military campaign in the region supposed to have been the eradication of Al Qaeda? Aren’t we being constantly reminded of the fact that another 9/11 may well be in our future if we don’t destroy “the terrorists,” denying them safe havens and pursuing them to the ends of the earth? And wasn’t it Al Qaeda that conceived, planned, and carried out the attacks that changed our world on that fateful September day?

Oh well, never mind that – don’t be so closed-minded! – because “This is increasingly the view of some of America’s regional allies and even some Western officials.”

As to how one could possibly justify a deal with such a devil, we are told that the Syrian war has killed 230,000 people, and 7.6 million have been forced to flee. The Journal is taking the numbers of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a pro-rebel group, as definitive, yet others put the figure lower, ranging from roughly 140,000 to 215,000 killed. Left unsaid (by the Journal) is who did all that killing, although the clear implication is that Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad is the culprit. And while Assad’s forces have done their share of slaughtering, they have suffered a little less than 85,000 dead, at this point. The rebels, on the other hand, have seen a little over 100,000 killed. To say nothing of civilians caught in the middle….

The assumption that we have to “do something” – even something so downright crazy as allying with Al Qaeda – in order to pull off a “humanitarian intervention” flies in the face of the facts. Both sides are mass murderers. I say both sides – as in two sides – in spite of the Journal‘s insistence that this is a three-sided war:

“The three main forces left on the ground today are the Assad regime, Islamic State and an Islamist rebel alliance in which the Nusra Front – an al Qaeda affiliate designated a terrorist group by the U.S. and the United Nations – plays a major role.

“Outnumbered and outgunned, the more secular, Western-backed rebels have found themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder with Nusra in key battlefields. As the Assad regime wobbles and Islamic State, or ISIS, gains ground in both Syria and Iraq, reaching out to the more pragmatic Nusra is the only rational choice left for the international community, supporters of this approach argue.”

How do we differentiate the “pragmatic” Nusra Front – the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda – from ISIS, otherwise known as the “Islamic State”? The adjective “pragmatic” gives us a clue: it’s a tactical difference, not an ideological one. They share the same ideology – a fanatical variety of Sunni fundamentalism, which seeks to take Syria back to the 12th century and eradicate all unbelievers – but differ on the means. And what does this strategic or tactical difference consist of? The Islamic State has declared its implacable hostility to the US, while, according to the Journal, the Nusra Front has allied itself with the Saudis, the Turks, and the Qataris in order to achieve their goals – and is now pressuring their Arab patrons to involve the United States.

The mind reels. But that’s nothing compared to this:

“‘It does say something when suddenly Nusra become a lot more tempting. It speaks volumes as to the severity of the situation,’ said Saudi Prince Faisal bin Saud bin Abdulmohsen, a scholar at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh. ‘At this point we must really differentiate between fanaticism and outright monstrosity.’”

If we’re differentiating between fanaticism and outright monstrosity, then one wonders which side of the equation the Saudis come out on. Here is a regime that routinely beheads unbelievers, which is carpet-bombing a defenseless country on its southeastern border, and which has been strongly implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If this isn’t “outright monstrosity,” then one wonders what would qualify.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/16/our-treasonous-foreign-policy/

To continue reading: Our Treasonous Foreign Policy

Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda, by Daniel Lazare

Just when you think that America’s Middle Eastern policy can’t get any more stupid, contradictory, and self-defeating, the government attains a new high. From Daniel Lazare, at consortiumnews.com:

After years of hemming and hawing, the Obama administration has finally come clean about its goals in Syria. In the battle to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, it is siding with Al Qaeda. This has become evident ever since Jisr Ash-Shughur, a small town in the northeastern part of the country, fell on April 25 to a Saudi and Turkish-backed coalition consisting of the Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham, and an array of smaller, more “moderate” factions as well.

Al Nusra, which is backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, is Al Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate. Ahrar al Sham, which is heavily favored by Qatar, is also linked with Al Qaeda and has also cooperated with ISIS. The other groups, which sport such monikers as the Coastal Division and the Sukur Al Ghab Brigades, are part of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army and are supposedly as anti-terrorist as they are anti-Assad. Yet they nonetheless “piggybacked” on the offensive, to use The Wall Street Journal’s term, doing everything they could to further the Al-Nusra-led advance.

American clients thus helped Al Qaeda conquer a secular city. But that is not all the U.S. did. It also contributed large numbers of optically-guided TOW missiles that the rebels used to destroy dozens of government tanks and other vehicles, according to videos posted on social media websites. A pro-U.S. rebel commander named Fares Bayoush told The Wall Street Journal that the TOW’s “flipped the balance of power,” giving the Salafists the leverage they needed to dislodge the Syrian army’s heavily dug-in forces and drive them out of the city.

With Syria charging the Turkish military with providing “logistical and fire support,” it appears that the rebels transported the missiles across the Turkish border, located less than eight miles to Jisr Ash-Shughur’s west. Whether the pro-U.S. factions or Al Nusra carried the TOW’s over is unknown. But there is little question as to the ultimate source.

In late 2013, Saudi Arabia went on a buying spree, purchasing more than 15,000 Raytheon anti-tank missiles at a total cost of more than $1 billion. The purchaseraised eyebrows since TOW’s are mainly useful against tanks and other armored vehicles, a threat that the Saudis have not had to face since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But now it all seems clear. Up in arms over supposed Shi‘ite advances in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, the arch-Sunnis of Riyadh purchased the missiles with the intention of transferring them to the Syrian Salafists in the hopes of reversing the Shi‘ite tide.

U.S. regulations prohibit such third-party transfers, yet so far Washington has not uttered a peep. U.S. policy is also to arm moderate rebels only on the condition that they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Yet the response in this regard has been nil as well.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/02/climbing-into-bed-with-al-qaeda/

To continue reading: Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda