No... just really busy.
My 18-year-old just graduated high school this weekend, and we had a house full of company (with more to come later in the month). Lots of work around the homestead, plus just "work" and there is little to no free time.
However, since my commute is (roughly) two hours and twenty minutes long each day, I have ample time to listen to some amazing podcasts on my shiny new iPhone. The one I'm embroiled with now is called "The History of Rome" and the link for it can be found on our favorites section.
Since listening through the beginning of the Julio-Claudian era of Roman history, though... I have pondered our website quite a bit. We used the term "Triumvirate" to describe ourselves at the top, but since that early time we have added a member, and then had two "fall off the face of the earth" (ahem, Jambo,cough). Technically, we are now a "Biumvirate" which is what Octavian and Antony were once Lepidus was reduced to insignificance in 36 BC. We all know how that "Biumvirate" ended up, so I'd love to see Jambo return and contribute as part of the consular Bund members and get our posts back on pace to at least break the 50 mark by years end.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Starting "somewhere"...
I've been following the NSA "PRISM" fall out and an interesting quote turned up. James Clapper, the NID (National Intelligence Director) who in today's world outranks the DCI (Director Central Intelligence), in proximity to the POTUS at least, was being interviewed on NBC and Andrea Mitchell asked a basic question, "Why use such a large vacuum?" She of course refers to the collection of "all material", be it all Verizon numbers and conversations, all yahoo emails, etc, as asserted by Snowden via the UK Guardian. His answer was essentially a throw away line, but it got me thinking.
ANSWER: "Well, you have to start somewhere."
Well, that's kind of the point to the question, isn't it? You're not starting "somewhere", you're starting everywhere. But consider if he had named that somewhere. What if he were to say, you need not worry, we're only collecting data on you if you meet certain criteria - you're Muslim, your male age 18-45, and you've emigrated from one of 15 hostile countries from North Africa to the Near East. "Racist!" would have been the cry; conversations about profiling; the WWII Japanese internment camps conversations begin; here comes the ACLU; enter American-Muslim activist groups like CAIR, etc, etc, etc. This is the world we live in today where 56% of Americans, in a Pew Research poll out today, approve of massive data collection (known as "metadata") by the NSA if the justification is "the war on terror." However, what would those same opinion polls be if we narrowed that collection to only those nations PRODUCING our adversaries in the war on terror? You see? Better to go after "everyone" than be accused of being "hostile" towards one group in particular! This reminds me of the 70 year old Irish grandmother being patted down by TSA. I mean, really? Is Al Qaeda recruiting retired Colleens now? That's the world we live in - better to offend "everyone" than someone. Targeting everyone is just doing your job, targeting someone is "hate." Consider how much more effective these programs would be in preventing terror if rules of politically correct engagement didn't apply. Is that the wink and nod game that 56% of Americans are playing? Are we saying, "Ok, ok you have to go after everybody (in air quotes), but we know who you mean."...?
In the end one thing is for sure. You can't unmake this technology. In fact the best we may be able to do is require that a warrant be attained prior to any domestic law enforcement agency viewing it within the context of a criminal procedure against you. But I highly doubt the collection will cease. In the future it will have have to factor in to your vote for President the way "Do you want his finger on the button?" used to. Opposing politicians and their surrogates will ask, "Do you want HIM to have access to all your info?" Maybe for Fourth Amendment guardians that's fatalistic, but it's probably more realistic than we'd all like to admit.
ANSWER: "Well, you have to start somewhere."
Well, that's kind of the point to the question, isn't it? You're not starting "somewhere", you're starting everywhere. But consider if he had named that somewhere. What if he were to say, you need not worry, we're only collecting data on you if you meet certain criteria - you're Muslim, your male age 18-45, and you've emigrated from one of 15 hostile countries from North Africa to the Near East. "Racist!" would have been the cry; conversations about profiling; the WWII Japanese internment camps conversations begin; here comes the ACLU; enter American-Muslim activist groups like CAIR, etc, etc, etc. This is the world we live in today where 56% of Americans, in a Pew Research poll out today, approve of massive data collection (known as "metadata") by the NSA if the justification is "the war on terror." However, what would those same opinion polls be if we narrowed that collection to only those nations PRODUCING our adversaries in the war on terror? You see? Better to go after "everyone" than be accused of being "hostile" towards one group in particular! This reminds me of the 70 year old Irish grandmother being patted down by TSA. I mean, really? Is Al Qaeda recruiting retired Colleens now? That's the world we live in - better to offend "everyone" than someone. Targeting everyone is just doing your job, targeting someone is "hate." Consider how much more effective these programs would be in preventing terror if rules of politically correct engagement didn't apply. Is that the wink and nod game that 56% of Americans are playing? Are we saying, "Ok, ok you have to go after everybody (in air quotes), but we know who you mean."...?
In the end one thing is for sure. You can't unmake this technology. In fact the best we may be able to do is require that a warrant be attained prior to any domestic law enforcement agency viewing it within the context of a criminal procedure against you. But I highly doubt the collection will cease. In the future it will have have to factor in to your vote for President the way "Do you want his finger on the button?" used to. Opposing politicians and their surrogates will ask, "Do you want HIM to have access to all your info?" Maybe for Fourth Amendment guardians that's fatalistic, but it's probably more realistic than we'd all like to admit.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Turn-key Tyranny
The source of the largest cache of classified materials released in US history has come forward. His name is Edward Snowden, a 29 year old privately contracted NSA technical analyst living in Hawaii, making a comfortable $200,000 a year. Now he's hold up in an undisclosed Hong Kong hotel. I just read the UK Guardian exclusive interview with him, available HERE. Just the preparation of leaving Hawaii in favor of Hong Kong is a fascinating read. He seemed authentically concerned about the growth of electronic surveillance, "turn-key tyranny" as he phrased it.
He also mentions that while he was growing more concerned by the year, with the targeting of foreign communications coming and going out of the US, that in 2007 he had great hope Obama's election would mark the reigning in of these programs. He laments that the opposite occurred. The domestic surveillance ramp up when into overdrive. So distraught was he, that he decided America could no longer wait on its leaders, quote "Sometimes being the first to act, is leadership." So he decided to be a whistleblower.
He goes on to address what is always my biggest concern about national security leaks - real people getting clipped. As a technical analyst (he put up firewalls to guard the secrets collected) he had access to asset names, locations, operations, and most of all the way these Intel collecting computer programs worked - how else would he be able to build systems to protect them, right? Well, he notes that he purposely released only the programs - how they worked, etc - and not actionable Intel so that no one got hurt. No specific names or locations. And he notes that's the difference between himself and other military leaks - these are systems that can be killed, not people.
The article contains within it a 12 minute video interview, which is also worth watching. In addition is his explanation on "Why Hong Kong?", something that piqued my curiosity as well. He does have a fatalistic attitude. He seems to have resigned himself to the fact that he doesn't ride off into the sunset on this one. He mentions the CIA station in Hong Kong, their ability to contract Triads, the possibilities and ways to get to him are endless, and he adds, "In the end if they want you, they will get you. You can not oppose them in any meaningful way." I realize that Hong Kong, in function if not in name, is independent of mainland China. It ranked #1 the last 7 years (by Forbes, if I remember that source right) in the world's best places to do business (read: least restrictive bureaucracy). However, with his treasure trove of information - from assets to programs - were I him, my biggest concern would not be the US. It would be being snatched up by the PLA (China) or FSB (Russia). I'm sure squeezing him for information would be enough to get some colonel promoted to general in either of those outfits.
What he describes, in a nut shell, is that the NSA is intent on collecting all communications, of every kind, and storing them. Then when and if an individual is flagged during an investigation (or mission) they can go back and reconstruct every aspect of his life. So technically the POTUS is correct in saying, "No one is listening to your phone calls or reading your emails." It's true. But all the info is there if they desired to. He hasn't addressed that.
Now here's my concern, philosophically, with this. There are many, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) NC among them, who say "I'm not doing any thing wrong, so I don't mind for a minute that the NSA has my Verizon phone number." I'll pass on lamenting what an absolute rube this guy is and focus on what any first year philosophy student worth his salt would ask - who decides what is "wrong?" Who decides what behavior gets you "flagged?" The IRS certainly had ideas on that, didn't they? What about an administration from now? Two administrations from now? Five? At some point could simply reading the wrong book get you flagged? It seems teaching the Constitution was enough to get you flagged with the IRS. And I say this as someone who vehemently defended the Patriot Act at its' inception. My only solace in looking back is that at no time did I ever (nor would I) agree to the NSA simply capturing the communications of every single American. "PRISM" can actually capture your "deletes." In other words, as I type this occasionally I decide to "backspace" and rewrite a sentence, as do we all, right? PRISM can produce the backspaced lines and words! I never argued for that on the back dock of the Grand, I can tell you that.
At any rate, I recommend the article, a fascinating read. Not to mention, given the high opinion we all have of our own IQ's, we're clearly in the wrong business - $200k at 29 years old, living in Hawaii??? Holy crap. Giving up that life, if nothing else, lends credence to his claims.
He also mentions that while he was growing more concerned by the year, with the targeting of foreign communications coming and going out of the US, that in 2007 he had great hope Obama's election would mark the reigning in of these programs. He laments that the opposite occurred. The domestic surveillance ramp up when into overdrive. So distraught was he, that he decided America could no longer wait on its leaders, quote "Sometimes being the first to act, is leadership." So he decided to be a whistleblower.
He goes on to address what is always my biggest concern about national security leaks - real people getting clipped. As a technical analyst (he put up firewalls to guard the secrets collected) he had access to asset names, locations, operations, and most of all the way these Intel collecting computer programs worked - how else would he be able to build systems to protect them, right? Well, he notes that he purposely released only the programs - how they worked, etc - and not actionable Intel so that no one got hurt. No specific names or locations. And he notes that's the difference between himself and other military leaks - these are systems that can be killed, not people.
The article contains within it a 12 minute video interview, which is also worth watching. In addition is his explanation on "Why Hong Kong?", something that piqued my curiosity as well. He does have a fatalistic attitude. He seems to have resigned himself to the fact that he doesn't ride off into the sunset on this one. He mentions the CIA station in Hong Kong, their ability to contract Triads, the possibilities and ways to get to him are endless, and he adds, "In the end if they want you, they will get you. You can not oppose them in any meaningful way." I realize that Hong Kong, in function if not in name, is independent of mainland China. It ranked #1 the last 7 years (by Forbes, if I remember that source right) in the world's best places to do business (read: least restrictive bureaucracy). However, with his treasure trove of information - from assets to programs - were I him, my biggest concern would not be the US. It would be being snatched up by the PLA (China) or FSB (Russia). I'm sure squeezing him for information would be enough to get some colonel promoted to general in either of those outfits.
What he describes, in a nut shell, is that the NSA is intent on collecting all communications, of every kind, and storing them. Then when and if an individual is flagged during an investigation (or mission) they can go back and reconstruct every aspect of his life. So technically the POTUS is correct in saying, "No one is listening to your phone calls or reading your emails." It's true. But all the info is there if they desired to. He hasn't addressed that.
Now here's my concern, philosophically, with this. There are many, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) NC among them, who say "I'm not doing any thing wrong, so I don't mind for a minute that the NSA has my Verizon phone number." I'll pass on lamenting what an absolute rube this guy is and focus on what any first year philosophy student worth his salt would ask - who decides what is "wrong?" Who decides what behavior gets you "flagged?" The IRS certainly had ideas on that, didn't they? What about an administration from now? Two administrations from now? Five? At some point could simply reading the wrong book get you flagged? It seems teaching the Constitution was enough to get you flagged with the IRS. And I say this as someone who vehemently defended the Patriot Act at its' inception. My only solace in looking back is that at no time did I ever (nor would I) agree to the NSA simply capturing the communications of every single American. "PRISM" can actually capture your "deletes." In other words, as I type this occasionally I decide to "backspace" and rewrite a sentence, as do we all, right? PRISM can produce the backspaced lines and words! I never argued for that on the back dock of the Grand, I can tell you that.
At any rate, I recommend the article, a fascinating read. Not to mention, given the high opinion we all have of our own IQ's, we're clearly in the wrong business - $200k at 29 years old, living in Hawaii??? Holy crap. Giving up that life, if nothing else, lends credence to his claims.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
My next "small step"...
My "small step"? Getting a new phone from the kids on my birthday. (Yes, I'm a year older... no big deal.)
My "Giant leap"? It's my first smart phone.
Yesterday I got my first iPhone. Its an iPhone 4, not the latest and greatest, but a nice phone and my first. I won't bore you with the experience of getting to know the device... I'm sure all of you have experienced it already (probably years ago).
I wanted to share just one aspect of the experience with you: podcasts.
I've never owned an iPod, and never utilized the mp3-feature on my past phones. I've seen a few podcasts online, but most were oriented solely towards fantasy football... very limited, in other words.
Yesterday, I discovered the wealth of material floating around out there as "podcasts" and I wanted to recommend one in particular.
Dan Carlin.
I've gotten a couple of episodes of his "Hardcore History" down already... and it is wildly entertaining! He does a "Common Sense" theme about American current events, and I'm sure they are just as good. Please, check him out and see what you think. I have a sneaking suspicion that his thoughts and comments will spark more than one discussion here at the Bund.
My "Giant leap"? It's my first smart phone.
Yesterday I got my first iPhone. Its an iPhone 4, not the latest and greatest, but a nice phone and my first. I won't bore you with the experience of getting to know the device... I'm sure all of you have experienced it already (probably years ago).
I wanted to share just one aspect of the experience with you: podcasts.
I've never owned an iPod, and never utilized the mp3-feature on my past phones. I've seen a few podcasts online, but most were oriented solely towards fantasy football... very limited, in other words.
Yesterday, I discovered the wealth of material floating around out there as "podcasts" and I wanted to recommend one in particular.
Dan Carlin.
I've gotten a couple of episodes of his "Hardcore History" down already... and it is wildly entertaining! He does a "Common Sense" theme about American current events, and I'm sure they are just as good. Please, check him out and see what you think. I have a sneaking suspicion that his thoughts and comments will spark more than one discussion here at the Bund.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
On Obama...
Years ago, when the Bund was still meeting under F Ryan's aluminum carport and Jambo's driveway, we discussed the Watergate timeline in depth. I hope you guys can recall that discussion, because I don't want to re-hash it all here.
In short, and assuming that we all understand the drama that was the 26 months of '72 -'74...
Had McCord not "blown the whistle" about hush-money and perjury during the initial break-in trial, and had the existence of the "tapes" made by the White House not become public knowledge, and had the Supreme Court not ORDERED the President to turn over all relevant material to the investigators (which led to the "Smoking Gun tape")... then I doubt very much that an impeachment would ever have succeeded, let alone a conviction by the Senate.
Nixon actively and with forethought broke the law, and there was ample proof to convict him. Thus, he resigned to avoid the conviction and was pardoned by Ford for ANY wrong doing that might have occurred while he was in office... known or unknown.
Obama has managed his White House more than poorly since his election in 2008... but without a whistle-blower of McCord's proportions and without proof of the caliber of the "Smoking Gun", nothing but falling approval ratings and less and less Congressional support will result from the "Obamagate" drama.
In short, and assuming that we all understand the drama that was the 26 months of '72 -'74...
Had McCord not "blown the whistle" about hush-money and perjury during the initial break-in trial, and had the existence of the "tapes" made by the White House not become public knowledge, and had the Supreme Court not ORDERED the President to turn over all relevant material to the investigators (which led to the "Smoking Gun tape")... then I doubt very much that an impeachment would ever have succeeded, let alone a conviction by the Senate.
Nixon actively and with forethought broke the law, and there was ample proof to convict him. Thus, he resigned to avoid the conviction and was pardoned by Ford for ANY wrong doing that might have occurred while he was in office... known or unknown.
Obama has managed his White House more than poorly since his election in 2008... but without a whistle-blower of McCord's proportions and without proof of the caliber of the "Smoking Gun", nothing but falling approval ratings and less and less Congressional support will result from the "Obamagate" drama.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Mime of Pennsylvania Avenue
Let me just get this straight on the trifecta of scandals engulfing the White House...
1.) The people now admitting to knowledge of the three year Inspector General query into the IRS targeting scandal now include the White House General Counsel (the Oval Office lawyer), the Secretary of Treasury, and the director (soon to be former) of the IRS. Yet according to Obama's own words and those of his Press Secretary Jay Carney (from today), the president was never informed and found out about it "in the press" only when the story broke.
2.) Erik Holder, the Attorney General of the United States (and Obama's personal friend), defended his actions - namely intercepting (spying on) the emails, text, and phone calls of 100 AP reporters - because the source they were trying to pin down was responsible for "the third most damaging national security leak since 1973", yet the AG never informed the president of the situation, and Obama found out about it only when the story broke. (an addendum to that scandal, it has grown to include the targeting of Fox News reporters)
3.) The president (plus the veep and SoS, I might add) claims he never knew of any enhanced security requests for outpost Benghazi. In addition, he last spoke to the Sec Def on 9/11/12 at 4pm, and did not speak to any member of the military apparatus the entire evening and made no decisions to ":stand down" or not, and only learned that such decisions were made the following day. In addition a White House representative, one "Mr. Phifer", went on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows two days ago and was repeatedly asked point blank, "Where was the President during the attack (situation room, oval, etc)?" Mr. Phifer refused to answer. No one knows or is willing say where the Commander-in-Chief was during thBenghazi asault. We can't even pin down the ROOM.
So in each scandal we don't know where the president was, what he was doing, or who he talked to, but what we definitely do know, iron clad, 100% is that he never heard of the scandals, never knew of the scandals, and never saw the scandals. In addition, he doesn't know anything about Fast and Furious, never heard of this Saudi who was swept away after the Boston bombings, and it wasn't him who came up with the "blame it on a video protest" story. He wants you to know he is not a crook because people deserve to know whether their preside .... err, wait, sorry, wrong president.
I want to remind you all that at this point in the Watergate scandal Nixon's approval ratings were still climbing and safely North of 40%. So ... how long before this glass house starts to crack?
1.) The people now admitting to knowledge of the three year Inspector General query into the IRS targeting scandal now include the White House General Counsel (the Oval Office lawyer), the Secretary of Treasury, and the director (soon to be former) of the IRS. Yet according to Obama's own words and those of his Press Secretary Jay Carney (from today), the president was never informed and found out about it "in the press" only when the story broke.
2.) Erik Holder, the Attorney General of the United States (and Obama's personal friend), defended his actions - namely intercepting (spying on) the emails, text, and phone calls of 100 AP reporters - because the source they were trying to pin down was responsible for "the third most damaging national security leak since 1973", yet the AG never informed the president of the situation, and Obama found out about it only when the story broke. (an addendum to that scandal, it has grown to include the targeting of Fox News reporters)
3.) The president (plus the veep and SoS, I might add) claims he never knew of any enhanced security requests for outpost Benghazi. In addition, he last spoke to the Sec Def on 9/11/12 at 4pm, and did not speak to any member of the military apparatus the entire evening and made no decisions to ":stand down" or not, and only learned that such decisions were made the following day. In addition a White House representative, one "Mr. Phifer", went on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows two days ago and was repeatedly asked point blank, "Where was the President during the attack (situation room, oval, etc)?" Mr. Phifer refused to answer. No one knows or is willing say where the Commander-in-Chief was during thBenghazi asault. We can't even pin down the ROOM.
So in each scandal we don't know where the president was, what he was doing, or who he talked to, but what we definitely do know, iron clad, 100% is that he never heard of the scandals, never knew of the scandals, and never saw the scandals. In addition, he doesn't know anything about Fast and Furious, never heard of this Saudi who was swept away after the Boston bombings, and it wasn't him who came up with the "blame it on a video protest" story. He wants you to know he is not a crook because people deserve to know whether their preside .... err, wait, sorry, wrong president.
I want to remind you all that at this point in the Watergate scandal Nixon's approval ratings were still climbing and safely North of 40%. So ... how long before this glass house starts to crack?
Friday, April 26, 2013
Lone Wolf My Ass...
I'm in an odd position... I have spent my adult life making fun of conspiracy theorists, almost as a sport (as have my cohorts on this site - but hey, everybody is good at something), yet there are alarm bells going off here that I just can't ignore.
"Self-Radicalized", "Lone Wolfs" (I'll resist the urge to explain why making that term plural is asinine), these are terms I keep hearing bandied about in the press. Even Vice President Biden said at the memorial yesterday that, "These two Jihadi-knock offs..." Wherever you turn it would seem that the administration and the press are trying to make a concerted effort to tell the public, "nothing else to see hear, these were idiot kids who read one too many web sites, move along." Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe it was these brothers that bombed the marathon, my "suspicions" lay in it ending with them alone. The following four points represent my case that they did not:
1.) THE SAUDI
Something simply doesn't seem right with this Saudi they had in custody prior to focusing on the two brothers. This man was the origin of John King's (of CNN) infamous "dark skinned man in custody" debacle when he was live with Wolf Blitzer. In fact, it was widely disseminated that there was a Saudi, at General Mass Hospital, under protective custody, being questioned immediately following the bombings. Then all references to that man ceased (in the press) and the Chechnyan man hunt geared up. Homeland Security Director Janet Neapolitano later testified before congress that the Saudi in question was never a person of interest, never a a suspect, and was simply questioned as a material witness to the bombings. The problem is that he was put on a "No Fly" list the day after the questioning. She responded to that by saying this was a simple precaution to ensure that the witness stayed within the United States why they questioned him. However, no other "witness" was barred from flying, and the no-fly lisitng occurred the day after his questioning concluded. In addition, his neighbors were interviewed for five hours, and his home searched for nine hours which led to multiple trash bags of evidence being removed. That's not speculation, that was witnessed. Stranger still, supporting documentation has now arisen that he was put on a "212-3(B)" form.
Understand, this form is the HIGHEST designation for an "armed and dangerous terrorist" that the US government assigns to an individual. All relevant security agencies must each sign off on it and in this case the Watch Commander (his name is on the above form, "W/C Mayfield") of NCT (National Counter Terrorism Center) initiated the document. Stemming from a 1965 immigration law it was enhanced under the Patriot Act, and given strict parameters for its use, namely a panel must consent to a name being added. Neapolitano has yet to explain why this occurred to this Saudi. Even if you believe material witnesses are all put on no-fly lists (which I don't), and that all witnesses have their homes raided (which I don't), or that the feds were simply "profiling" (which I don't), this designation absolutely does not happen on accident or as a matter of course. You can read more about this story HERE and HERE. Both The Blaze and Brett Baier of Fox News are looking into the story, as well as seven different congressman, including Rep Peter King (R) NY, who is chair of the Homeland Security Committee. And you'll note, at the bottom (if you click to enlarge) there is mention of a "prior event." So, a 212-3(B) level individual, with a prior "event file", just happen to be on site at the bombing? As Gotham City's Commissioner Gordon once said to a young Lieutenant, "You're a detective, you're not allowed to believe in coincidences."
2.) THE LEADER
This mother (of the two bombers), is a wholly awful individual whom, among other statements, made it clear that now that her eldest son is dead she doesn't care if here younger son is killed. I heard her say it... can you imagine? I know certain cultures put emphasis on the first born male of the family, but lady, come on. At any rate, she has repeatedly claimed the FBI set her sons up, they didn't do it, the FBI has been tracking the older brother for years, etc, etc. But today I heard something very interesting. She said the FBI interviewed her and warned her that they were "concerned" about her son, that he wasn't just sympathetic to Jihdaists, but quote, "Was becoming a leader." Now you can chalk it up to her being nuts, but certainly all FBI notes on these interviews exist. And if that was their real concern this begs a question, leading who?
3.) THE "TURKS"
During an interview with CNN, which you can watch HERE, Cambridge auto mechanic Gilberto Junior (he lived across the street from the brothers and was repairing one of their vehicles) said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the 19 year old brother) was wearing $900 shoes while visiting his repair shop just days after the bombings (note, the mechanic's friend noticed they were Louis Vatton shoes and asked how much he paid, Dzhokhar responded "$900"). Now understand, this interview was intended to get the story on the visit which occurred right after the bombings, and they got that. But what also happened, and what I don't think the CNN interviewer anticipated, was the little nuggets the auto mechanic also imparted, about the "friends" whom drove expensive cars and wore expensive clothing. Both the Boston Globe and the NY Times followed up with Junior (the mechanic), as he described an encounter he had with Dzhokhar regarding his friends once before. Dzhokhar told Junior that his friends (the ones dressed impeccably and driving expensive cars like "Porches and Range Rovers", according to Junior) were Turkish. Junior responded, "They don't look Turkish." Now what do you think of when you think "Turkish?" Perhaps a darker, Eastern looking individual? If they quote, "don't look Turkish", but clearly were foreigners, than - to me anyway - these guys sound like lock, stock and barrel Russians. That's my speculation, however. This is all made more significant when you understand (and this is fact, not speculation) that this family (including the brothers and the mother) were all, at various times over the past several years, on Food Stamps. The father, who moved back to Russia a year ago, has been interviewed (as you can imagine) by multiple sources and he claims he sent money to his sons whenever he could due to their financial difficulties. So how does a 19 year old kid, on welfare, afford $900 shoes? And by the way, the car Dzhokhar was picking up, was a 2007 Mercedes Benz. Something stinks - in terms of financing and aide - to high heaven here. Again I stress, I absolutely believe these two brothers are the bombers. But the idea that they were independent, and radicalized only by You Tube seems almost child like to me.
4.) THE TRIP
The elder brother (Tamerlan) traveled back to Chechnya from January to June of 2012. In national security circles there is a concept known as the "foreign fighter." You can read more about this concept and details of the Chechnya trip HERE. In essence this is when Westerners (natural born or naturalized immigrants) tune into Jihadist media to the point of traveling overseas with the intent of fighting in the active theaters of war there, whether it be the Near East, or North Africa. What tends to happen is they are trained and then convinced they can "serve Allah" better by going back "home" (to the US, Britain, etc) given they can more freely move about in their respective Western countries. In that light the 6 month trip to Russia seems to make more sense. Again, the lone wolf idea has holes - do they think he went to Chechnya to visit no one? To sit in solitude? To do an Australian style walk-about and get in touch with his Zen side? Ya, everybody knows that when you need some down time, some peaceful, quality time with yourself you go to sunny south Chechnya... right? That trip alone indicates outside help. I'd bet next month's rent that it was on this trip where Tamerlan learned to make these bombs. Zen-like peaceful reconnecting with one's self may not be an accurate description of the Russian vacation advertisements, but "bomb-making" IS a stop in the Chechnya tour guide handbook, if I'm not mistaken.
I have to once again stress, these guys, these terrorist Cechnyan brothers, did do the bombing. But in their claims that it was a "lone wolf" attack, and that these guys were "self-radicalized", or as the vice president contended "wannabe Jihadi's", both the press and administration are asking you to believe them, rather than your lying eyes. These aren't conspiracy sites. I'm giving you CNN, The NY Times, the Boston Globe, The Heritage Foundation, the mechanics own words, and yes, Glenn Beck's news orginization, The Blaze. But that site has the primary source documentation on the Saudi and no less than ten seperate, federal, cooberating sources. I loathe conspiracy theories, but boys and girls this lone wolf story just doesn't add up.
"Self-Radicalized", "Lone Wolfs" (I'll resist the urge to explain why making that term plural is asinine), these are terms I keep hearing bandied about in the press. Even Vice President Biden said at the memorial yesterday that, "These two Jihadi-knock offs..." Wherever you turn it would seem that the administration and the press are trying to make a concerted effort to tell the public, "nothing else to see hear, these were idiot kids who read one too many web sites, move along." Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe it was these brothers that bombed the marathon, my "suspicions" lay in it ending with them alone. The following four points represent my case that they did not:
1.) THE SAUDI
Something simply doesn't seem right with this Saudi they had in custody prior to focusing on the two brothers. This man was the origin of John King's (of CNN) infamous "dark skinned man in custody" debacle when he was live with Wolf Blitzer. In fact, it was widely disseminated that there was a Saudi, at General Mass Hospital, under protective custody, being questioned immediately following the bombings. Then all references to that man ceased (in the press) and the Chechnyan man hunt geared up. Homeland Security Director Janet Neapolitano later testified before congress that the Saudi in question was never a person of interest, never a a suspect, and was simply questioned as a material witness to the bombings. The problem is that he was put on a "No Fly" list the day after the questioning. She responded to that by saying this was a simple precaution to ensure that the witness stayed within the United States why they questioned him. However, no other "witness" was barred from flying, and the no-fly lisitng occurred the day after his questioning concluded. In addition, his neighbors were interviewed for five hours, and his home searched for nine hours which led to multiple trash bags of evidence being removed. That's not speculation, that was witnessed. Stranger still, supporting documentation has now arisen that he was put on a "212-3(B)" form.
2.) THE LEADER
This mother (of the two bombers), is a wholly awful individual whom, among other statements, made it clear that now that her eldest son is dead she doesn't care if here younger son is killed. I heard her say it... can you imagine? I know certain cultures put emphasis on the first born male of the family, but lady, come on. At any rate, she has repeatedly claimed the FBI set her sons up, they didn't do it, the FBI has been tracking the older brother for years, etc, etc. But today I heard something very interesting. She said the FBI interviewed her and warned her that they were "concerned" about her son, that he wasn't just sympathetic to Jihdaists, but quote, "Was becoming a leader." Now you can chalk it up to her being nuts, but certainly all FBI notes on these interviews exist. And if that was their real concern this begs a question, leading who?
3.) THE "TURKS"
During an interview with CNN, which you can watch HERE, Cambridge auto mechanic Gilberto Junior (he lived across the street from the brothers and was repairing one of their vehicles) said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the 19 year old brother) was wearing $900 shoes while visiting his repair shop just days after the bombings (note, the mechanic's friend noticed they were Louis Vatton shoes and asked how much he paid, Dzhokhar responded "$900"). Now understand, this interview was intended to get the story on the visit which occurred right after the bombings, and they got that. But what also happened, and what I don't think the CNN interviewer anticipated, was the little nuggets the auto mechanic also imparted, about the "friends" whom drove expensive cars and wore expensive clothing. Both the Boston Globe and the NY Times followed up with Junior (the mechanic), as he described an encounter he had with Dzhokhar regarding his friends once before. Dzhokhar told Junior that his friends (the ones dressed impeccably and driving expensive cars like "Porches and Range Rovers", according to Junior) were Turkish. Junior responded, "They don't look Turkish." Now what do you think of when you think "Turkish?" Perhaps a darker, Eastern looking individual? If they quote, "don't look Turkish", but clearly were foreigners, than - to me anyway - these guys sound like lock, stock and barrel Russians. That's my speculation, however. This is all made more significant when you understand (and this is fact, not speculation) that this family (including the brothers and the mother) were all, at various times over the past several years, on Food Stamps. The father, who moved back to Russia a year ago, has been interviewed (as you can imagine) by multiple sources and he claims he sent money to his sons whenever he could due to their financial difficulties. So how does a 19 year old kid, on welfare, afford $900 shoes? And by the way, the car Dzhokhar was picking up, was a 2007 Mercedes Benz. Something stinks - in terms of financing and aide - to high heaven here. Again I stress, I absolutely believe these two brothers are the bombers. But the idea that they were independent, and radicalized only by You Tube seems almost child like to me.
4.) THE TRIP
The elder brother (Tamerlan) traveled back to Chechnya from January to June of 2012. In national security circles there is a concept known as the "foreign fighter." You can read more about this concept and details of the Chechnya trip HERE. In essence this is when Westerners (natural born or naturalized immigrants) tune into Jihadist media to the point of traveling overseas with the intent of fighting in the active theaters of war there, whether it be the Near East, or North Africa. What tends to happen is they are trained and then convinced they can "serve Allah" better by going back "home" (to the US, Britain, etc) given they can more freely move about in their respective Western countries. In that light the 6 month trip to Russia seems to make more sense. Again, the lone wolf idea has holes - do they think he went to Chechnya to visit no one? To sit in solitude? To do an Australian style walk-about and get in touch with his Zen side? Ya, everybody knows that when you need some down time, some peaceful, quality time with yourself you go to sunny south Chechnya... right? That trip alone indicates outside help. I'd bet next month's rent that it was on this trip where Tamerlan learned to make these bombs. Zen-like peaceful reconnecting with one's self may not be an accurate description of the Russian vacation advertisements, but "bomb-making" IS a stop in the Chechnya tour guide handbook, if I'm not mistaken.
I have to once again stress, these guys, these terrorist Cechnyan brothers, did do the bombing. But in their claims that it was a "lone wolf" attack, and that these guys were "self-radicalized", or as the vice president contended "wannabe Jihadi's", both the press and administration are asking you to believe them, rather than your lying eyes. These aren't conspiracy sites. I'm giving you CNN, The NY Times, the Boston Globe, The Heritage Foundation, the mechanics own words, and yes, Glenn Beck's news orginization, The Blaze. But that site has the primary source documentation on the Saudi and no less than ten seperate, federal, cooberating sources. I loathe conspiracy theories, but boys and girls this lone wolf story just doesn't add up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
