SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday at the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Global Security Forum, John Brennan, Director of the US' Central Intelligence Agency, spoke about the recent bombings in Paris. In what many commentators took as a reference to Edward Snowden, but could instead refer to the Church Committee, Brennan predicted that finding the attackers will be more difficult than it would have been, had intelligence services been left unchecked:
In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand-wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.
I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.
[...]
There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult both technically as well as legally for intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it.
Brennan's complete remarks are available in video via C-SPAN.
[Additional coverage after the break]
- Politico
- Politico
- Foreign Policy
- Daily Mail
- Jerusalem Post
- Guardian
- Time
- Time
- RT
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS News
- Newsweek (limited access; requires Javascript)
- Breitbart News
- Democracy Now!
- Reason blog
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:05PM
CIA Chief: Terrorists Harder to Find, Because of Leaks, Reforms
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists. If the government's capabilities are declining, I have less reason to be scared.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:53PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/former-us-military-intelligence-chief-we-knew-something-like-isis-was-coming-2015-8?op=1
Thanks Obushma, your Republicrat policies are really working well!
But this whole reaction is entirely following a pre-written script. What they say and demand was as predictable as a holywood summer action flick:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/11/paris_attacks_b.html
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:29PM
given that the US government is in part responsible for the growth, and arming, of ISIS
Obama told Saudis and the rest of the anti-Iranian clique in the Middle East to NOT arm ISIS and the rest of the "freedom fighters" in Syria. So I don't know, but maybe US is not exactly responsible for arming ISIS. Though US is always the convenient scapegoat.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:50PM
Well, whatever Obama says, but the director of Abrams tanks-R-us must surely be very happy with his profit these last few years:
some 40-odd to one side...
ISIS Captures Hundreds of US Vehicles and Tanks in Ramadi from Iraqis [military.com]
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Iraqi-army-losing-Abrams-tanks-so-easily [quora.com]
some 170-odd to the other side ...
US Selling Another 170 M-1 Abrams Tanks To Iraq After ISIS Captured 40 Last Summer [zerohedge.com]
Translation: Daesh is very happy with their tanks, and would like to procure some more.
Now I don't know much about tanks, but apparently these are the most modern ones in the world.
What's next, sell some to the Wahabbi's in Saudi Arabia to use after their weakening autocracy has collapsed?
Military-industrial complex >> Obama.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:16AM
Hmm. Does bring to mind that article awhile back where the tank factory was building a successor to the Abrams and the Army was all, "The hell are you talking about? Our tanks are fine. We don't need any new ones."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:50PM
There were warnings that taking out Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East and bring about the rise of even less friendly regimes. If you want to point a finger, point right at the invasion of Iraq by the US.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:35PM
Spot on. I wasn't smart enough to envision ISIS, certainly not smart enough to paint any details of what it has become. But, I was among those who wrote letters to GWB before the invasion, warning of destabilizing the region further.
Of course, everyone said that we were going to build a nation. What nonsense - there are no nations in the region, because it is inhabited by tribal people. Tribalists have no loyalty to kings, presidents, parliaments, or anything else. Tribalists only bow to the most ruthless dictator for the moment, while plotting how to take his place.
Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, was almost the perfect ruler for the region. Assad is cut from the same cloth.
Had we succeeded in toppling Assad, today Syria would be entirely under ISIS/ISIL/Daesh control.
I say, "Thank God for Putin!" I wish we had a leader of his caliber. Unfortunately, there are none in sight.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:37AM
You are a brave man to say that openly, and I applaud that. As someone living in a country which only gained its independence from the USSR 24 years ago, I'd be appreciative if you didn't encourage our bear neighbour too much.
I highly recommend, at least as a starting point for further reading and discussion, /The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom/ by Adam Curtis. (There are 3 active torrents of the 3 parts we grabbed from kat, A8254654411F03A13E086F625863273C44634A44 9B53C8306AD9A4F2DD6B7A98896A7D09027FED90 117805357FC5D621486B61A6DCDDC9581C84E414, we're still seeding them.) It's chocka full of interesting historical snippets, although some of the analyses and logical deductions (in part 3 particularly) I completely disagree with. The insight into modern Russia and Putin was very interesting. In essence, Putin being in power, and thus the threat he is to my domicile's continued existence, was the US's fault too. Gee - thanks Bush (senior)!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:01PM
Downloading - thank you for the links.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:41PM
Tribalists do have a loyalty: to their tribe, which is another way of describing a really really extended family. That kind of loyalty is not unusual, nor is it non-existent in the US - many Irish-Americans still identify with the Irish in Ireland, for example, even to the point of supporting the IRA.
But you're right that the British and French made huge mistakes when drawing up the map of the region: If you compare this map [vanityfair.com] based on current cultural differences and boundaries, or this map [wikimedia.org] by T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia) to the map that they actually drew, it seems like the British diplomats who drew the maps were completely, obviously, disastrously wrong. Which isn't surprising, given the many other massive strategic mistakes made by all the players after World War I.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:38PM
Yes, there were warnings. If only we had listened!
—Dick Cheney [c-span.org] (36:15 into the video)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:48PM
If you want to look at reasons why none of the Arab forces were willing to join Dubya in the fight against Iraq, you only have to look at the broken promises made by Aitch Dubya to the southern Iraqi's and Kurds.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:34PM
Obama told Saudis and the rest of the anti-Iranian clique in the Middle East to NOT arm ISIS...
Are you suggesting the Saudis listen to Obama, or anyone else that doesn't have their best interests at heart? Saudis have their own agenda.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:36PM
Are you suggesting the Saudis listen to Obama, or anyone else that doesn't have their best interests at heart? Saudis have their own agenda.
I'm simply saying that you can't pin Syria problems and ISIL in general on USA. There is plenty of blame around, but it's not "America did it!". Not this time.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:03AM
There's a word for telling people to not do what you're actively doing yourself - hypocricy. And when it comes to matters like this, the word "stupidity" comes to mind too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:54PM
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists.
Logical conclusion considering you are more likely to be killed by the government (or hell, even a family member) than by a terrorist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:33PM
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists.
Logical conclusion considering you are more likely to be killed by the government (or hell, even a family member) than by a terrorist.
Even if they don't kill me, they are the ones who daily violate the right to life, liberty, and property around here. Yes, terrorists are scary, but most of the oppression is committed by the ones crying they can't stop terrorists.
My thinking is a lot like Muhammad Ali's: "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?" "My enemy is the white people, not the Viet Cong ... You're my opposer when I want freedom. You're my opposer when I want justice. You're my opposer when I want equality. You won't even stand up for me in America because of my religious beliefs, and you want me to go somewhere and fight, when you won't even stand up for my religious beliefs at home." A lot has changed since his day, but the ones I see most often threatening life liberty and property are still here local, not on the other side of the globe.
(BTW, Ali said "religious beliefs," but I don't discriminate between religious beliefs and other beliefs. Liberty is liberty, regardless of your reason, justification, or creed.)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:29PM
From the Commander-In-Chief:
The US does not make good decisions "based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34859604 [bbc.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:35PM
I am no fan of the man, but I agree with him wholeheartedly here.
I saw this earlier today: 6 Reasons to Welcome Refugees after Paris [fee.org].
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:39PM
Quite the opposite reaction from me. How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?
BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:56PM
Well, I don't believe in "we," so we should each be able to make our decision on that.
BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.
That's actually addressed as point 1 in the link I posted, but nobody ever reads those. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:54AM
Gotcha! I did click the link. I did read your link. As stated, I disagree with it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:35PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:51PM
How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?
I apologize profusely for being born male. It's entirely my fault. Women and children are inherently more valuable than me. Male children will become worthless once they reach some arbitrary age, though.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:24AM
You're looking at it inside out, upside down, and backwards all at the same time. Women and children are of no value on the battlefield. Unless, of course, you need a human shield, like so many Muslim fighters do.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:44AM
Women and children are of no value on the battlefield.
Not necessarily true.
But I know that I wouldn't want to be sent to some battlefield merely because I'm male and past some arbitrary age. Don't they have the option of getting in as well, or is that simply blocked off for them?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:36AM
Serious answer? Historically, a lot of women have had major roles on the battlefield, but they seldom get any recognition. Children? Like most women, they are simply innocent bystanders and victims. It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children. For the most part, women and children on the battlefield are of very little if any value.
Call me a chauvinist, but the best roles for most women in regards to warfare are in support. Intelligence analysis, medical services, logistics, records keeping, planning strategy and tactics. Women aren't generally great in combat, for the same reasons we don't see women in professional football.
If you decide that I'm a chauvinist, be aware that I'm not one who would bar women from fighting. If the woman in question can pass minimum requirements for strength, stamina, agility, etc etc, she's more than welcome to bear the burden. Just PLEASE don't argue that the diminutive, petite little things who can't hold a rifle steady should be on the front lines. That argument borders on insanity.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:45AM
It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children.
I don't value women or children any more than I value men.
And I'm not arguing that we should send women and children to the battlefield, but that we shouldn't force men out into the battlefield while allowing women and children in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:38AM
Would you let them choose which side they'll join, or would you suggest one to them, that in your mind best represents "their country"? Would you ask these untrained soldiers to fight for Bashar al-Assad's government? For the Islamic State? Or for that elusive faction that opposes Assad but also opposes IS? If you tried to choose sides for them, don't you think they'd go against your wishes? Certainly I would be inclined to do so, if my request for asylum were rebuffed in the manner you propose. I would also form a resentment against your country, even as the rest of my family sought refuge there. Would my family members, who you accepted because they were children, females, or old men, agree with your disposition of me, your attempt to turn me into a warrior, or could they become ungrateful? Suppose I fought for the side you asked me to, and died heroically. Would they be proud that I died a hero's death, or would they rather I still lived?
Suppose these males, who didn't want any part of the war, decide that, now that their families have been broken up, they may as well kill after all—and just start shooting at whoever's in range, Ft. Hood [wikipedia.org] style? You want to put unmotivated men with rifles into a war where poison gas, jet fighters, bombers, and tanks are being used. I notice you didn't mention training, nor resupply. Come to think of it, you didn't mention ammunition—I'm assuming you'd provide them with a bullet or two? If they chose to fight, what chance would they have and how much difference could they make? The rational things for them to do would be to promptly desert or surrender.
Speaking of rationality, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said [un.org] "there is no military solution to the crisis—not in Syria or anywhere else."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:13PM
Good questions and silly questions all bundled together. Cool.
Yes, of course, they get training. The same sort of training our soldiers get before going to war as part of an infantry company. Yes, they get ammo to go with those rifles. Yes, the get resupply. And, I prefer they serve any force in the field, so long as it is not Daesh. They can join the Kurds, the Yazidi, Assad, any force that has boots on the ground, and fights against Daesh. I'm not choosy.
As for breaking up families - whoop-ti-do. The family is already broken up, not through my doing. I have a man, a wife, and 1 to 12 children standing in line. Where's Grandma? Grandpa? (That's two each, of each - four persons.) Where are all the aunts and uncles, cousins, second cousins, etc ad nauseum? I am merely encouraging that man to go back and fight for his family, and providing him the means to fight.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:17PM
Instead, the US makes bad decisions based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks. The existence of mass surveillance, the TSA, etc. is proof of that. We know he doesn't oppose all of that (the so-called "Freedom act" still allows the mass surveillance to continue, so it is no reform), so I am not sure why he is saying that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:53PM
You trust the purpose of the government more than I do. I would put it "It makes decisions that citizens consider bad and uses hysteria as a justifier."
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:43PM
I wasn't merely speaking of the government. You have more trust in the ignorant majority than I do. From what I see, not very many people genuinely care about freedom. If safety can be used successfully by the government to justify violating the constitutional and our fundamental liberties, that means many people do not value freedom.