Category Archives: Terrorism

UPDATE II: ‘Absolute Invulnerability for America Means Absolute Vulnerability For Others’

Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Middle East, Propaganda, Republicans, Russia, Terrorism

Truth is truth no matter who propounds it (and why, pray tell, am I forced to repeat this no-brainer year-in and year-out?). The next statement is immutably true—even profound—although Americans will first look at the man who uttered it, and will denounce his wise words, given that he is not a member of the DC duopoly and the comitatus that props these Demopublicans up (i.e., the “the sprawling apparatus … that encompasses not only the emperor’s household and its personnel … but also the ministries of government, the lawyers, the diplomats, the adjutants, the messengers, the interpreters, the intellectuals”).

Via Eurasia Review:

“’The Americans are obsessed with the idea of ensuring their absolute invulnerability – a thing, I would point out, that is utopian and achievable neither from a technological nor a geopolitical standpoint.
And herein lies the problem. Absolute invulnerability for one means absolute vulnerability for all the others. It is impossible to agree with this perspective.’
Addressing the unrest in the Arab world, Putin said Russia would not permit a ‘Libyan scenario’ to take place in Syria, where he said Moscow wanted to see an immediate halt in violence and a national dialogue to resolve the crisis.
He defended the decision by Russia and China to veto a resolution earlier this month pushed by Washington and its European and Arab allies that Moscow said would have opened the door to foreign military intervention in Syria.
Russia in particular faced blistering criticism that ‘bordered on hysterical’ from Western countries for its decision, Putin said, adding that Moscow strongly hoped the United States and others would not resort to force in Syria without UN approval.
Referring more widely to the Arab Spring, Putin said that efforts backed by the United States and the West to bring about ‘democracy with the help of violent methods’ were unpredictable and often led to precisely the opposite result.

UPDATE I (Feb. 28): Finally, China stands up to the ludicrous Hildebeest:

“The United States’ motive in parading as a ‘protector’ of the Arab peoples is not difficult to imagine,” it said in a commentary. “The problem is, what moral basis does it have for this patronising and egotistical super-arrogance and self-confidence?”
“Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy,” it added.

UPDATE II (March 4): “Putin [has] said the main problem is that the United States wants ‘to acquire complete invulnerability’ through missile defense. He also mentioned Washington’s refusal to provide written guarantees that the system will never be aimed at Russian territory.” [RT]

The Dynamics of Entrapment

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Intelligence, Law, Terrorism

Singing from the same hymn-sheet, the Left and the Right did a little jig today: The brilliant FBI had gone and caught us one of dem Arab terrorists, looking to kill us because of our freedoms.

Or did it really?

Before you rejoice with the FBI and the unquestioning Candy Crowley (CNN) and Megyn Kelly (FoxNews), do read on. As I’ve already documented, “the FBI often entraps pliable dolts (to better serve their political masters). The seven Miami-based men who were accused of ‘concocting a plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower’ come to mind. They were illiterate and probably borderline retarded.”

Such Psyops (psychological operations) had ensnared the simpletons who were going to explode the Bronx synagogue, and the “terror ring” tembels who were convinced (by FBI) that shooting a Stinger missile at a fighter plane was in the cards for them.

If a “U.S. agents – running two separate, world-wide sting operations worthy of a James Bond movie – received thousands of dollars in down payments,” then, voila, we have a terror plot, never mind that the agents set the sting up; seeking out fools to entrap.

Most recently, the brilliant and brave FBI and DEA entrapped Mansour Arbabsiar and Ali Gholam Shakuri. I read the court complaint. It had “more twists than a serpent’s tail, but none led conclusively to Teheran, unless Teheran is code for ‘Surveillance State USA.'” “That indictment was the kind of cloak-and-dagger that belongs in an episode of ‘The Unit,’ not in the courts of a civilized country.”

What amazes me repeatedly about American journos is that not one—giggly-girl, “keeping-them-honest” Anderson Cooper; are you listening?—has probed the legality of setting swarthy simpletons up and then nabbing them in a so-called terrorism sting.

You just know that each of these FBI targets is a low-IQ, poor sod, ripe for the taking, who happens to be too stupid to even know that this is how the FBI rolls. You can be sure that “legit” terrorists would never be ensnared this way.

“The federal criminal complaint against the” latest “suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack.” (FoxNews)

It would be cheaper for the taxpayer, who’d be spared paying for the FBI’s sadistic games, to deport illegal aliens than set them up.

UPDATED: Here Comes The Bomb (Casus Belli)

Barack Obama, Homeland Security, Iran, Journalism, Media, Military, Technology, Terrorism, War

More war is on its way—and sooner than you think.

For the last week or so, the president’s most loyal lap dogs—America’s brain-dead broadcasters—have been beating the drum for an urgent need, identified by- and acted on by the Pentagon: “to develop its largest bomb because officials believe [the current arsenal] is not capable of destroying Iran’s fortified underground facilities.”

That acts of war and elections often coincide should come as no surprise. It’s unfortunate, but electability in fin de siècle America still hinges on projecting bully power around the world—an American leader has to aspire to “protect” borders and people not his own, and if they refuse his advances, he should be prepared to bomb them to kingdom come.

Having used the American military to particularly great political effect—the barefaced Barack Obama is preparing to blast Iranians with something even “better” than the BLU-82.

This flaccid, coward of a politician is intent on shoring up his commander-in-chief credentials so as to seduce a militarist America for the second time. The Pentagon, under the president who has perfected the art of state assassination, is working on a “13.6 ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).” It “is the deepest penetrating ‘bunker buster’ currently in the U.S. arsenal, designed to take out fortifications built by Iran to hide their alleged nuclear weapons. (Via The DailyMail Online.)

UPDATE (Feb. 1): “Spy Chief Sees Iran Threats in U.S”:

The U.S., “spy chief James Clapper” “has concluded that some Iranian officials, probably including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ‘are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States as a response to real or perceived actions that threaten the regime,’ according to an assessment provided by Mr. Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence.”

Clapper’s claptrap evidence is here, detailed in my “Is A-Jad (Ahmadinejad) The Fall Guy For The AG (Attorney General)?”

[It’s]…the kind of cloak-and-dagger that belongs in an episode of “The Unit,” not in the courts of a civilized country. To entrap the two defendants, Mansour Arbabsiar and Ali Gholam Shakuri, assistant US attorneys relied on Title 18 of the United States Code. Sections in this “versatile” law were used to ensnare domestic diva Martha Stewart (for fibbing to the Feds about a recipe, not for insider trading).

Rand Paul Manhandled

Homeland Security, Regulation, Relatives, Republicans, Rights, Ron Paul, Terrorism, The State

I far prefer Ron Paul’s strident response to the TSA’s assault on Rand Paul than the son’s watered-down words. To CNN’s Erin Burnett, Rand said, essentially, that the TSA folks were good people bogged down by inflexible rules. He followed up with special pleading.

It is not the first time special interests—House and Senate representatives, for example—suggest a system of sectional privileges and rights, based on professional need and proximity to power. Patrick Smith, the author of Salon’s “Ask the Pilot,” has implied that because of his professional position, he should be entitled to “preferential, alternative checkpoints for pilots.”

Such cloistered concerns typified a 2,000-strong, flight attendant’s union, which has been fielding tons of complaints from its members, who were, nevertheless, none too concerned for their customers, the manhandled passengers.

Noelle Nikpour, contributor to Mr. Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel, is another. Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategist who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh as they scurry to their important appointments.

Rand seems to have joined these special-case pleaders in asking for wavers for frequent fliers who’ve been willing to share more personal data with the goons of the TSA.

I prefer the Ron Paul presidential campaign’s “strongly worded statement Monday afternoon, blistering the TSA for its practices”:

“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe,” it said.