Tag Archives: terrorism

The Hidden Payoff in the Brussels and Paris Attacks, by Paul Rosenberg

From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

I don’t have any more secret information than you do. I don’t have access to any of the backrooms that matter, and I don’t get leaks from “informed sources.” I do, however, have experience with protecting data and with a variety of things “crypto.”

So, what I’m telling you now isn’t verifiable… but it’s very close to accurate.

The Missing Piece

When looking at the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels, we are impelled to look for explanations. And to do this, we generally rely on stories we get from mass-media corporations. We all know the news is worked over before it reaches us, but it’s really almost all we have, and the live video they show is probably actual live video. From these minimal facts, we fill in the gaps as best we can.

Some of us are quick to attribute these evils to our favorite secret cabal. Others blame government policies, clashes of cultures, and so on. None of these are necessarily wrong, but neither are they automatically right. To be believed, a theory needs evidence.

And in this particular puzzle, there is a missing piece. It doesn’t explain why the attacks happened (Muslim crazies, false flags, two more intel failures, whatever), but it explains a good deal of what’s happened from the moment of the attacks onward.

This missing piece happens to be something that Jonathan Logan, my associate at Cryptohippie, dubbed “Descartes’s Demon,” an automated manipulation system based on the combination of universal surveillance and big data. I explained the current state of this technology in issue #59 of my subscription newsletter and examined its implications in The Breaking Dawn. But I don’t have space to recap all of that here. So, at the risk of self-promotion, I really do suggest you read those publications.

As I’ve been warning for almost a decade now, this system is taking shape and will have massive effects. But more than that, Descartes’s Demon – this surveillance-and-big data-empowered manipulation system – is an intelligence agency’s grandest dream. With it, they can not only find their adversaries’ secrets, but they can misguide their opponents.

These systems of automated manipulation are true power in an intelligence environment. Therefore, we can be certain that all the big intel agencies want them and will use all their tricks to get them.

Furthermore, the difference between winning and losing in a competition between such systems is probably in the range of a few percent. And that injects a serious level of desperation into these agencies.

Put together, these facts lead to just one place: an arms race. And yes, by that I mean intel agencies scrambling to get the best system and the best data.

That’s why, in the aftermath of the recent attacks, we find the friends of intel agencies pushing for the things that support these systems. In France, we saw instant martial law, which involves a remarshaling of government assets. Again, I don’t have any backroom info, but I’d bet that a whole lot of French assets are moving toward mass surveillance and big data just now.

To continue reading: The Hidden Payoff in the Brussels and Paris Attacks

Muslims Are Standing Up To Extremism, by Dan Sanchez

Here’s a new and arguably valid perspective. From Dan Sanchez at antiwar.com:

Following every Islamist terror attack on a Western soft target, like the recent one in Brussels, we hear the same refrain from certain corners: “Why won’t Muslims stand up to Islamic extremism?” The rhetorical question is meant to imply its own answer: that Islam is unavoidably a religion of violence which impels its adherents to at least sanction terrorism, if not partake in it.

But the argument contains a false premise. Plenty of Muslims are standing up to Islamic extremism, both in word and deed. In fact, it is Muslims who are doing all the heavy lifting in this regard, while the chief contribution of the self-righteous Western powers has been to add to their burden.

First of all, Muslims have opposed extremism ideologically. This goes for Muslim leaders, including top clerics and such groups as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the 50-million strong Nahdlatul Ulama (NU).

It also goes for the general Muslim populace. The 2008 book Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think was, according to its publisher Gallup, “…based on six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have sizable Muslim populations. Representing more than 90% of the world’s Muslim community, it makes this poll the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind.” Gallup itemized several of the study’s conclusions, including the following:

“* Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable.
* Large majorities of Muslims would guarantee free speech if it were up to them to write a new constitution AND they say religious leaders should have no direct role in drafting that constitution.
* When asked about their dreams for the future, Muslims say they want better jobs and security, not conflict and violence.”

Moreover, according to a more recent Gallup article, “…Muslim Americans are the most likely of all religious groups to disavow military as well as individual or group attacks against civilians, with large majorities saying these are never justified.”

If only more Americans would disavow military attacks against civilians, instead of agreeing with apologists for carpet bombing (Ted Cruz) and targeting families (Donald Trump).

Muslims are also doing the lion’s share of standing up to extremists militarily. As an anti-statist, I do not endorse any military or act of war. But who else do you think is retaking towns and territory from ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, under Russian air cover, and to the chagrin of the U.S. State Department? What religion do you suppose is practiced by the foot soldiers in the Syrian army of Bashar al-Assad or the Iran-backed militiamen from Iraq and Lebanon? One is tempted to ask the Western laptop bombardiers lobbing this accusation whether actually standing in the line of fire to defend your homeland against heavily-armed foreign jihadis counts as “standing up to extremism.”

What makes the accusation particularly galling is that it is the accusers’ own governments that provided many of the bullets and shells that these moderate Muslims are dodging. For years, and especially since the Arab Spring, the U.S. and other Western governments have flooded the insurgencies being led by Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Libya with guns, artillery, and money. Furthermore, the West also arms and sponsors Saudi Arabia, while that extremist theocracy also backs Al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen, terror-bombs and starves civilians in Yemen, and finances radical madrassas around the world.

To contiue reading: Muslims Are Standing Up To Extremism

 

Lessons of Brussels, by Justin Raimondo

From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

The vicious attack on the Brussels airport and metro underscores the futility of focusing on the Syrian “Caliphate” as the epicenter of terrorism: as I’ve been saying in this space since 2001, the snake has no head. Both al-Qaeda and now ISIS are protean entities with a vast geographical spread, and what the Brussels attack – and, before it, the Paris attack – show is that they have successfully colonized Europe.

If the “Islamic State” proclaimed by ISIS was defeated and eliminated tomorrow, the terrorist and criminal networks that pulled off the Brussels attacks would still exist.

The population of Brussels is nearly 25 percent immigrants from Muslim countries, primarily Morocco and Algeria. And as it turns out the two brothers who were the core of the ISIS cell were habitués of the now notorious Molenbeek neighborhood, which consists primarily of the descendants of immigrants who settled there decades ago. Poor, and beset by petty crime, it is a pool in which terrorist recruiters fish with much success. The Syrian civil war has become a cause that attracts young toughs with no prospects, who are looking for some sense of meaning – and a way to express their alienation from the larger society in which they live. Molenbeek was also the base for those who planned and carried out the Paris attacks – it is, in effect, a general headquarters for ISIS to carry out its European operations. Salah Abdeslam, the chief planner of the Paris attacks, fled there and found sanctuary for four months before being caught.

In short, the problem of terrorism in Europe is an internal phenomenon, not something that comes from the outside. The Europeans imported it – and, as Germany’s welcoming of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the war-torn Middle East dramatizes, they are continuing to import it. Now they are living with the consequences.

In response, various right-wing populist parties have emerged in Europe that focus on stopping immigration from Muslim countries: in France, Britain, and Germany the rise of the anti-immigration movement has liberal elites in a panic. And yet these movements are for the most part exercises in futility, because that horse is already out of the barn. France, for example, is not going to deport the millions of North African Muslims who have lived in the country for a generation and more: they are French citizens. The same goes for Britain, and all the former empires of Europe whose colonial adventures brought in large numbers of the colonized. Now they are learning – too late – that colonialism is a two-way street.

What Brussels also showed is that the universal surveillance championed by the War Party as a necessary corollary of the “war on terrorism” would not have stopped the attacks: the ISIS cell consisted of two brothers, which not only ensured against infiltration but also made it next to impossible for any but the most intrusive surveillance to have had any effect. Indeed, the key to stopping the attacks was intelligence – which the Belgian authorities ignored. It turns out that Brahim el-Bakraoui had been deported from Turkey and the Belgians had been warned he was dangerous. They ignored the warning.

To continue reading: Lessons of Brussels

7 Strange Questions About The Brussels Terror Attacks That The Mainstream Media Is Not Asking, by Michael Snyder

From Michael Snyder at theeconomiccollapseblog.com:

The horrific terror attacks in Brussels, Belgium on March 22, 2016 are going to reverberate in our memories for years to come, and perhaps that was the intention. Terror attacks are designed to create fear and to get attention, and these attacks have definitely done both. On Tuesday morning, two huge explosions ripped through Zaventem Airport in Brussels as travelers were getting ready to board their morning flights. You can view some raw footage of one of the bomb blasts right here. Just a short while later, another huge explosion was reported at a metro station just yards away from the European Commission headquarters. At this point, CNN says that at least 30 people have died and about 230 people are wounded as a result of these bombings. But what was the real motive for these attacks? The following are 7 strange questions about the Brussels terror attacks that the mainstream media is not asking…

#1 Why would Brussels be such a prime target for terror attacks?

Most Americans don’t understand how important the city of Brussels is. For one thing, it is the headquarters of the NATO alliance, and defense ministers from 49 different nations met there last month to discuss a potential ground invasion of Syria.

Secondly, it is also the unofficial capital of the European Union. The following comes from Wikipedia…

“The European Union has no official capital, and no plans to declare one, but Brussels hosts the official seats of the European Commission, Council of the European Union, and European Council, as well as a seat (officially the second seat but de facto the most important one) of the European Parliament.”

Over the years Brussels has become a key symbol for European integration, so if you wanted to conduct an attack that the entire European Union would feel, Brussels would be a good choice. And many European leaders are already coming out and declaring that the attack on Brussels was an attack on Europe as a whole…

French President Francois Hollande said Tuesday’s attacks in Brussels that killed at least 26 people struck at “the whole of Europe”.

“Through the attacks in Brussels, the whole of Europe has been hit,” Hollande said in a statement, urging the continent to take “vital steps in the face of the seriousness of the threat”.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: “We are at war. Over the past few months in Europe, we have endured several acts of war.”

#2 Was Donald Trump right about Brussels?

During an interview with Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo earlier this year, Donald Trump specifically pointed to Brussels as an example of what he wanted to avoid in this country…

The Republican presidential front-runner said Brussels, the capital of Belgium, had been particularly transformed. Belgium has been home to a number of recent terror plots, and was linked to the November attack on Paris, France, that left 130 people dead.

You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now,” Trump continued. “You go to these different places. There is something going on.”

To continue reading: 7 Strange Questions About The Brussels Terror Attacks That The Mainstream Media Is Not Asking

Intervention Fail: Back to Libya, by Ron Paul

From Ron Paul at ronpaullibertyreport.com:

The use of the US military overseas seems to have become so commonplace that the Obama Administration can bomb a country with no Congressional input and very little media interest at all. Such was the case on Friday, when the US military killed some 49 people in a bombing run near Tripoli, Libya.

We had to bomb Libya, we are told, because Libya has become a hotbed of ISIS activity. The group has been moving training facilities into the country, taking advantage of the chaos. Ironically, it was five years ago this week that the “Arab Spring” uprising began in Libya — an uprising that was supported by US military force and led to the overthrow of the Libyan government and the murder of its leader, Gaddafi.

We were told that the US had to intervene to overthrow Gaddafi so that democracy and human rights could flourish, yet five years after the US-led intervention no one would argue that the country is better off. Instead of bringing Libya democracy, US intervention brought Libya ISIS. So now the US has to go back and bomb Libya some more to take care of ISIS.

Will this work? No. Logic tells us you cannot do more of what caused a problem and expect it to fix the problem.

As Middle East analyst Hillary Mann Leverett observed after Friday’s US attack on Libya, “the problem is, for each one of these targeted killings, what we have seen in the data that at least two more people sign up to join.”

The United States has made a habit of lecturing other countries about the need to follow the rule of law, yet this seems to be a matter of “do as we say, not as we do.” How else can we explain a US attack overseas with no Congressional input? Certainly there was no Congressional authorization for Friday’s bombing. The Administration claimed that its authority came from the 2001 authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. But ISIS did not even exist on 9/11. How can the 2001 authorization be twisted to include bombing Libya in 2016?

To continue reading: Intervention Fail: Back to Libya

He Said That? 2/12/16

From Mustaf Amin, a political leader of Levant Front, which has received US weapons and is one of the largest rebel alliances fighting Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah for control of Aleppo, Syria.

The rebels now have a responsiblity to change the way they fight. If we don’t get support from our allies in a major way, it will need to transform into guerrilla warfare.

The Wall Street Journal, “Rebels Switch to Guerrilla Tactics,” 2/12/16.

The article states that the rebels “have already started turning to guerrilla tactics such as assassinations, ambushes and hit-and-run attacks.”

If the Levant Front was a US enemy instead of an ally (and it may be, one can never tell in the Middle East) the US government and The Wall Street Journal would label their new tactics terrorism, not guerrilla warfare.

Saudi Arabia’s Phony War on Terror, by Brahma Chellaney

From Brahma Chellaney at project-syndicate.org

BERLIN – Containing the scourge of Islamist terror will be impossible without containing the ideology that drives it: Wahhabism, a messianic, jihad-extolling form of Sunni fundamentalism whose international expansion has been bankrolled by oil-rich sheikhdoms, especially Saudi Arabia. That is why the newly announced Saudi-led anti-terror coalition, the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, should be viewed with profound skepticism.

Wahhabism promotes, among other things, the subjugation of women and the death of “infidels.” It is – to quote US President Barack Obama’s description of what motivated a married couple of Pakistani origin to carry out the recent mass shooting in San Bernardino, California – a “perverted interpretation of Islam,” and the ideological mother of jihadist terrorism. Its offspring include Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and the Islamic State, all of which blend hostility toward non-Sunnis and anti-modern romanticism into nihilistic rage.
Support Project Syndicate’s mission

Saudi Arabia has been bankrolling Islamist terrorism since the oil-price boom of the 1970s dramatically boosted the country’s wealth. According to a 2013 European Parliament report, some of the $10 billion invested by Saudi Arabia for “its Wahhabi agenda” in South and Southeast Asia was “diverted” to terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

Western leaders have recognized the Saudi role for many years. In a 2009 diplomatic cable, then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified Saudi Arabia as “the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Thanks largely to the West’s interest in Saudi oil, however, the Kingdom has faced no international sanctions.

Now, with the growth of terrorist movements like the Islamic State, priorities are changing. As German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said in a recent interview, “We must make it clear to the Saudis that the time of looking the other way is over.”

This shift has spurred the Kingdom to announce a “crackdown” on individuals and groups that fund terror. But, according to a recent US State Department report, some Saudi-based charities and individual donors continue to fund Sunni militants.

From this perspective, Saudi Arabia’s surprise announcement of a 34-country anti-terror alliance, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh, is a logical step, aimed at blunting growing Western criticism, while boosting Sunni influence in the Middle East. But, of course, the alliance is a sham – as a closer look at its membership makes clear.

To continue reading: Saudi Arabia’s Phony War on Terror

Technology Is a Mysterious Enemy to Politicians, by Lucy Steigerwald

From Lucy Steigerwald at antiwar.com:

The most recent Republican debate for the 2016 election was unsurprisingly dominated by the shadow of terrorism and war. The Paris attacks that killed more than 130 people, plus the 14 deaths in San Bernardino, California seem to have brought about a new-old sentiment among Republicans. The year is now somewhere between 2001 and 2005 again.

One thing that has changed since the height of Bush-and-Cheney paranoia? Technology. The Internet is our lives like it wasn’t in the pre-iPhone days. And with great dependence comes great(er) government-induced fear-mongering.

Encryption is often the big boogeyman, a sentiment which Ohio Gov. John Kasich expressed at the debate. As always, details of who used what to plan what terrorist attack never seem to matter so much as frightening hypotheticals. The NSA’s dragnet spying is vital. We are in danger every moment one legal justification for that program is down, and we must bring it back. So said Sen. Marco Rubio at the debate, a point that is generally echoed by every candidate on stage except for Sen. Rand Paul (and Sen. Ted Cruz on a good day).

These presidential candidates are pandering to the right, powerful people. Feds constantly say they cannot afford to “go dark.” Meaning, they need on-demand backdoor access to servers and mobile devices and cannot let technology leave them powerless to spy and snoop.

Apple and Google have responded to the question of how much they should oblige law enforcement by taking the decision out of their own hands altogether. Full device encryption is standard on all Apple and Android devices sold with the current operating systems. The keys for this encryption is stored locally and not held by Apple or Google. That’s one way to get around certain requests, and it is a way that ticks off many of the people who are dying to be the so-called leader of the free world.

Former Hewlett-Packer CEO Carly Fiorina spoke critically about tech at the debate as well. (She also he told the vaguest Tom Clancy novel plot summary of all time about the time she happily shared technology with the NSA, so they could more easily implement the STELLARWIND wiretapping.) She may be the most adamantly anti-technology, anti-Fourth Amendment of the Republican candidates, speaking about the PATRIOT Act not in terms of its horrible legacy, but in terms of something nice that needs a serious tune-up in 2015. In her mind, government’s job is to keep pace with each new method of communication, or new technological toy. The idea that anonymity has value has not occurred to her. Not when terrorists are out there. And companies shouldn’t need to be forced to comply, they should do it anyway.

Naturally, the idea that cyber-terrorists are a serious threat but also the government needs to be able to force backdoor access into devices is one that government officials can hold flawlessly in their compartmentalized minds. Even if the latter would make life much easier for any malevolent hacker. And even if law enforcement still has many other options when it comes to snooping out data and communications.

To continue reading: Technology Is a Mysterious Enemy to Politicians

News Channels Are Terror Delivery Systems; Politicians Are Terror Exploitation Specialists, by Paul Rosenberg

From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

Terrorists need news channels and vice-versa. Politicians need terrorists and vice-versa. There’s a symbiosis between these three that works like this:

Terrorists create and feed off of fear.

News channels deliver fear to the masses.

Politicians use fear to get what they want.

Some people may object to these facts being specified, but they’re true just the same.

Private and Public Opportunism

In this symbiosis, we see the rapacious natures of both the public and private sectors. I’ll begin by picking on the private sector.

I believe deeply in free markets, but if the participants don’t bring morality and decency into their markets, plenty of ugliness will remain. Free markets, after all, are ad hoc mechanisms of interaction, and nothing more. A market contains only the morality that its participants carry into it.

Now, the truth is that mom-and-pop operations tend to be remarkably decent and moral. There are occasional exceptions, but they are exceptions.

Big commerce, however – and by that I mean the “pay politicians for laws and regulations” kind of commerce – tends to run after anything that brings in more money or pumps its stock. Such corporations seldom bring morality into their markets. And if governments try to enforce law in their markets, it’s a good bet that they can be paid off. (Where’s Jon Corzine these days?)

News channels are this second type of operation. Frightening stories are the engine of their profits. They scour the Earth for terrifying images and fearful possibilities. And then they deliver them to huge swaths of humanity, who have an innate weakness for such things. It’s like selling sugar donuts to the obese.

As for the public sector, these are the people who deliver various types of monopoly rights in return for “contributions.” Multi-billion dollar industries are devoted to this, after all.

Politicians are also the people who say, in their forthright moments, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

All of the above being so, we see this at the end of the line:

For news channels, terrorism means profits.

For politicians, terrorism means the steamrolling of dissent.

Terrorism furthers the goals of both these groups, and so they run greedily after it.

To continue reading: Terror Delivery Systems, Terror Exploitation Specialists

 

Did Saudi Arabia Just Clear The Way For An Invasion Of Syria And Iraq? by Tyler Durden

From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

And now, a further turn for the absurd…

While it’s still far from common knowledge among the Western public that Washington’s closest allies in the Mid-East are funding, arming, and otherwise enabling the Sunni extremists (including ISIS) battling for control of Syria and working to destabilize Iraq, the massacre that unfolded earlier this month in San Bernardino has managed to focus some much needed attention on the role Saudi Arabia plays in promoting extremism.

As we noted in the immediate aftermath of the California mass shooting, the fact that Tashfeen Malik spent 25 years in Saudi Arabia living with a father who, according to family members who spoke to Reuters, adopted an increasingly hardline ideology as time went on, underscores the fact that the puritanical, ultra orthodox belief system promoted by the Saudis is poisonous. That’s not a critique of Islam. It’s a critique of Wahhabism and the effect it has on the minds of those who are inculcated by Saudi culture.

Here’s an excerpt from “Saudi Arabia Is Underwriting Terrorism. Let’s Start Making It Pay,” by Charles Kenny:

For years since 9/11, U.S. and Western officials have mostly looked the other way at all this ideological support for extremism: Saudi oil was just too important to the global economy, even though many of these Saudi petro-dollars were underwriting repression at home and the growth of Salafist fundamentalism abroad.

This support for radicalism abroad should come as little surprise given that Islamic State is an ideological cousin of Saudi Arabia’s own state-sponsored extremist Wahhabi sect—which the country has spent more than $10 billion to promote worldwide through charitable organizations like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. The country will continue to export extremism as long as it practices the same policies at home.

More, from “Saudi Arabia: An ISIS That Has Made It,” by Kamel Daoud:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

Consider that, and consider the following headline from Reuters which surely qualifies as the most tragically ironic thing you’ll read all day: “Saudi Arabia announces 34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism”

That’s right ladies and gentlemen, you no longer have anything to fear from Sunni extremists because the undisputed king of promoting Sunni extremism is on the case. “The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations,” a statement from state-ruun SPA said.

But it gets better. Much better.

To continue reading: Did Saudi Arabia Just Clear The Way For An Invasion Of Syria and Iraq?