Charlie Hebdo Massacre, France - War on Terrorism - Free Press & Mass Surveillance & Fascism

#Assange and #Snowden are not to blame for Paris bloodbath. Sat Jan 10 18:19:36 UTC 2015 In today’s Daily Mail, “Sir” Max “I have always loved Israel” Hastings claimed that me and Mr. Snowden are responsible for the bloodbath in Paris: “Traitors… Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping”. That a state security vampire like Hastings has pounced on the still warm corpses strewn about Paris is as grotesque as it is predictable. Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret services are no exception to this rule. Currently the French security state has tried to present the killers as super villains in order to hide its own incompetence — something the media has been only too willing to aid and abet. The reality is the Charlie Hebdo killers were bumbling Keystone terrorists, no-hopers, who crashed their car, left their ID, co-ordinated over the phone and swiftly died. To lose nearly two dozen people to them is unforgivable. That double digits were killed is no mark of super powers. A single idiot can do it. In Australia’s Port Arthur massacre, a man with the IQ of 66, literally an idiot, shot 58 people over the course of several hours—because he was armed with an AR-10 semi-automatic and his victims were not. The tragedy in Paris is another example of where competent targeted surveillance, not mass surveillance, was needed. The attackers were well known jihadis. This is not a case of needing to collect a global interception haystack in order to find a needle. The alleged needle in question, Cherif Kouachi, had already been convicted of terrorism offences and served 18 months in prison for it. Both brothers were already on terrorism lists. Far from hiding messages under rocks or using encryption, the alleged conspirators communicated hundreds of times before and during the attacks — on regular phones. The offices of Charlie Hebdo had received many death threats and had been firebombed in 2011 a week after publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The French mass surveillance system is already one of the most pervasive; its primary purpose, like all such systems, is geopolitics. Mass surveillance addiction doesn’t come for free. In France it thieved skilled human and financial resources from targeted monitoring of obvious—the front of the Charlie Hebdo building and people walking out of prison with a terrorism conviction in one hand and numerous jihadi contacts in the other. Yesterday French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said “There was a failing, of course” on French television, “That’s why we have to analyse what happened.”. Valls is right, Hastings is not. So conspicuous is the failure in the Charlie Hebdo killings that serious questions must be asked. Cherif Kouachi had previously been involved in furthering the Sunni insurgency in the Levant. Were the brothers protected by the French services as part of French adventurism in Syria, Libya and elsewhere—as a conduit to funnel money, guns and militants into Africa and the Middle East? Were the brothers protected because they were witting or unwitting informers? Were the brothers protected in order to conduct a mediagenic, budget-boosting arrest seconds before the attack began — but the attack was moved forward? Why was the security architecture of the Charlie Hebdo building so poor? How is it that semi-automatic weapons found their way into France and into the hands of known jihadis? And most of all why has France’s crazed Sunni adventurism in Syria, Libya and other parts of Africa been tolerated despite the inevitable destabalization, radicalization and blowback? https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html ASSANGE SOURCE - Twitter. Couldn't resist copying this over.  Nice response to Max Hastings' assertion in Daily Mail, which (in my opinion) could also serve as a notice to others trying to shift blame away from the issue of long-standing Western & European government policies and practices -- including imperialism, colonialism and interventions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) --  which I believe are some of the factors at the root of the Islamic extremist violence that Europe is experiencing. Disturbances caused in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for large movements of people from their homelands, which leads to issues associated with identity, religion and culture, resistance to assimilation versus assimilation, and difficulty integrating a clash of cultures, identity and values, which is exploited by nationalists, fundamentalists and extremists in host countries and elsewhere, for political and other gain. This is just my overall impression at the moment, based on my limited knowledge at this time. In an article in Haaretz, I found it interesting that the 'free press' as a whole, are clubbed together as Assange and Snowden supporters. The Haaretz article starts off with a statement posing as question.  It questions: (a) whether 'closer state surveillance' could have prevented the Charlie Hebdo massacre and, if so, it asks: (b) would the 'free press', who have supported Snowden and Assange (presumably the free press as a whole, because the author is not referring to specific publications or journalists), feel like crap (implication), if 'closer state surveillance' could have prevented the massacre (which is contentious, given that experts in that field argue that mass surveillance is *not* the answer, that it is a hindrance and that targeted surveillance is required).  Article Haaretz strikes me as casting very subtle aspersion on free press, as well as Assange and Snowden,  as figures supporting or representing freedom of press (Assange) and freedom from mass surveillance (Snowden & Assange). The Haaretz article also characterises Charlie Hebdo publication as follows: The target can, in Charlie Hebdo, be seen as a kind of marker of the ideology of secular France. That's quite sweeping statement to make about a satirical magazine, even if it is couched in 'can ... be seen' terms. So satire has become a representation or symbol of 'ideology' and this 'ideology' is depicted as a prevailing one in secular France, so presumably the target of Islamist extremist violence is the 'ideology' of  'secular France', is the gist of that sentence? Difficult for me to come to grips with the statement because I don't see the content of a satirical magazine as being a representation of secular cultural 'ideology'; rather, it is (in my view) social or political comment made by the originators of the material, who are entitled to a voice in society that values freedom of expression. The article continues: The big question in the wake of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo is whether the slaughter will bring France out of its corner in the war on Islamist terror. France has seen some appalling crimes – including attacks against Jews – that could be linked, broadly, to the global war against Islamist terror. ... the Internet appears to capture gunmen shouting "Allahu Akbar"("God is greatest" in Arabic) – all eyes will be on France to see what happens next. It’s not that France has been entirely out of the fight on Islamist terror. A few hours before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Agence France Press reported that the Charles de Gaulle, the aircraft carrier that is the flagship of the French fleet, would be deployed to the Gulf to take part in operations against the Islamist State. France, though, has always seemed to hang back a bit. Gurfinkiel calls this a “tradition,” with the French authorities “hoping to know more” by leaving hostile elements at large in France while keeping an eye on them. That starts to look like a risky strategy in an era of so-called “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. [Gurfinkiel, referred to above, is "Michel Gurfinkiel, a Paris-based pro-Israel journalist"] The focal point seems to be the "global war against Islamist terror" but there are a number of factors beyond that which are not discussed (eg corporate imperialism in the Middle East, the arming of 'moderate'-designated 'rebels', the regime changes in the Middle East that the West is responsible for (eg Libya and, now, pushing for a regime change in Syria), which can be viewed as actually fostering Islamist terror organisations in the region (and, by extension, extremism in regions beyond). The article states: The press has sought largely to stay neutral in the global war on terrorism or has tilted against the hawkish camp. and that view of the supposedly 'neutral' (and/or anti 'war on terrorism') press, is then linked to the original question/statement regarding the position of the press (in light of what amounts to the earlier Assange and Snowden negative association), tied in with the supposed antidote that 'could' have prevented the massacre:  'closer state surveillance'. So the agenda here is to accuse the press of not supporting 'war on terrorism' by (a) not supporting mass surveillance (and by extension, a police or a totalitarian state solution, and therefore large-scale violation of civil liberties) and, presumably, (b) accuse the press of not putting 'war on terrorism' promotional spin on the news; as well as pointing out how lax France tends to be, before committing to military intervention in regions beyond its borders, in addition to dragging its feet implementing law enforcement type controls within its borders.  Therefore, it could be seen as an article perhaps lobbying for pro totalitarian and interventionalist action by (a) France and (b) the press (who is expected to support this). I think that's a reasonable inference to make, but this is just my impression of what I read in Haaretz and I am new to looking at politics, so this is an amateur point of view.  Someone else may see the article and this whole scenario entirely differently.  Here's the Haaretz article headline and link: Will the Charlie Hebdo attack bring France out of its corner in the war on Islamist terror? And how will the free press feel, after it supported Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, if it discovers that closer state surveillance could have foreseen the Paris massacre? By Seth Lipsky | Jan. 7, 2015 | 7:58 PM | 5 Final word on the conclusion (below): But what position will the newspapers take after having expressed support for Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, if it turns out that this attack could have been foreseen by more aggressive collection and mining of the metadata? Thought it was clever to raise a 'question' (but really make a statement) at the beginning of an article and reinforced at the end, kind of 'tarnishing' Snowden and Assange (and the press freedom and freedom from surveillance push), without getting one's hands dirty by bothering to construct an argument that aggressive collection of metadata (mass surveillance) is a proven extremist violence preventative measure (see William Binney, who argues otherwise). Getting back to the Assange post, I'm going to have to pass on the attack 'moved forward' proposition, because I simply cannot believe that this happened.  Way too hard to believe that whoever is running intelligence in France would protect these these guys and, effectively, become a co-conspirator plotting a staged media event that went wrong. On the other hand, CIA were involved in bombing attacks in Italy (Operation Gladio), so anything's possible, and the idea can't be totally ruled out, I suppose. Not sure why there's no mention of the rocket launcher (unless it was a false initial report).  The report that these guys had a rocket launcher blew me away.  Anyway, I thought this might be of interest.  Too bad I can't articulate my impressions clearly. ......................................................................................... LINKS *  Sir Max Hastings Journalist, foreign correspondent, editor. Cousin:  war hero, MI6 operative (Stephen Hastings) August 2014: Hastings one of 200 public figures / signatories to a letter to The Guardian opposing Scottish independence. *  Plan Vigipirate France's national security alert system.  Created in 1978. Regularly gets updated whenever there's 'terror bombing campaigns' in France. The fact that this alert system was introduced in the late 70s, gets updated and continues to be required in France, surely poses some questions related to French foreign policy.  * Daily Mail Article:   "MAX HASTINGS: Why the liberals who defended traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools" DAILY MAIL EXTRACTS: The price of living in an open society, with the precious freedoms we take for granted, is that all of us, great and small, are vulnerable to attackers consumed by hatred for our culture, its values, and manifest superiority to those from which they come. Globalisation places a disturbing number of such people in our midst, rather than far away in Somalia or Iran. Ummm, I somehow don't think that those who take to enacting terrorist activities merely do so because they hate our manifest cultural superiority.  While 'globalism' did get a mention, what's missing is corporate imperialism combined with geopolitical imperialist ambition. Jihadism, he says, represents a response to ‘the challenge of a secular, urban civilisation that threatens to destroy their traditional values and beliefs’ Yes, but does this pertain to all fundamentalist extremists in all circumstances, or is this just a facet of the fundamentalist extremism?  Also, why is the West arming extremists -- eg currently arming and training Syrian 'moderate rebels', and the West is known to have armed and supported the Mujahadeen. Our principal weapons against terrorists are not tanks, Typhoon fighter jets or warships, but instead intelligence officers using electronic surveillance. Much cant has been peddled recently about the supposed threat to liberty posed by government eavesdropping on our lives. Here we go again.  Another pusher of mass surveillance, which has been given a legal nod in Britain, anyway. I'm starting to get the impression that those who argue for mass surveillance are just closet fascists demanding a totalitarian state -- not because totalitarian mass surveillance is going to prevent terrorist attacks, but because it serves the purposes of those in power. In truth, Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping. Don't know why Assange has been dragged into the 'electronic eavesdropping' alerting of mortal enemies argument; it was Snowden who released the NSA mass surveillance information rather than Assange (although Assange is opposed to mass surveillance). Seeing that mass surveillance didn't even prevent the Boston bombing (which the Russians warned the Americans about), we can give the mass surveillance cheering routine a rest:  mass surveillance is not effective.  But its a great tool when it comes to political assassination:  see General Petraeus. Public safety demands a perpetual balancing act between collective security and the rights of the individual. And it is terrific for surveilling members of the 'free press'.  Also, you'll hear a lot about 'safety' and 'national security' when it comes to government trying to erode civil liberties. Old Max goes on to talk about WWII situation (has anyone declared WWIII yet?), and plays a accompanying violin, romantically depicting brutal wartime assault on civil liberties as:  50 million British people against Hitler.  Yeah, Max, all well and good in WWII Britain, but there's been no declaration of WWIII to justify the gross violations perpetrated by Western totalitarianism. This is the most disgusting war-drums propaganda piece ever. What this guy wants is a totalitarian state and, quite possibly, seeing he would have insider knowledge, that state is perhaps really preparing for outright war (rather than 'war on terrorism'). Here's a reminder of pre-WWII Britain: British Union of Fascists Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet Leader of British Union of Fascists Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. Looks like fascism tends to precede war.