There is no terrorist threat: The feds want you to think there is, compliant media goes along

[kpete]

FRIDAY, AUG 9, 2013 07:08 AM PDT
There is no terrorist threat: The feds want you to think there is, compliant media goes along
"Chatter" from "affiliates" causes a "crisis," while media reports nonsense generated to justify NSA surveillance

..............

After a week of ghost stories about an imminent but vaporous plot on the part of an al-Qaida “affiliate” — this is the big new word — it is hard to decide which is more disheartening: 1) The White House’s blithe if clumsy deployment of factoids, 2) the supine complicity of the media (and this, frankly, is my choice), or 3) the willingness of honorable liberals and capital-D Democrats to go along with the show simply because Obama is maestro and one stays with Obama no matter what he does.

Nothing can be said for certain as to what prompted the State Department to close more than 20 embassies and consulates in the Middle East and North Africa last Sunday, and this is by design. But it is no excuse not to raise the possibility that Americans are eating a summer salad of nonsense served to justify objectionable surveillance practices now coming in for scrutiny.

Now we find that al-Qaida was not on the run after all. It has fragmented, and this is where all the “affiliates” come in. There are said to be enough affiliates to keep the NSA supplied for years. In this case, intelligence picked up a telephone conversation (those incautious Islamists) between a powerful giver of orders in Pakistan — from the decapitated, fragmented al-Qaida — and an underling in an affiliate in Yemen. The alleged command was to attack.

The rest is smoke. No what, no when, no where.




.........................
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/09/there_is_no_terrorist_threat_the_feds_want_you_to_think_there_is_compliant_media_goes_along/

[CJCRANE]

1. The problem is that social networking

does mean that these people can find each other and communicate very easily.

I don't advise you to do it but if you go on to a certain popular social networking site and put in certain search terms you'll be surprised at you can find.

Whether it's by accident or design that it's not policed or whether it helps to monitor these groups, I don't know.

[HiPointDem]

3. yeah, terrorists use facebook to coordinate their deeds. cause they're such masterminds.

[CJCRANE]

4. Many of them are not too bright.

It goes with the territory.

Do you trust facebook?

[HiPointDem]

5. i don't trust facebook at all, & neither does any terrorist with actual ties to any real level of

threat.

facebook is nothing more than a honeypot for wanna-bes without any connection to actual terrorist groups.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, if they're not too bright, then what the hell are we spending billions of dollars

to try to catch them for?? Just go look at the social media sites where they hang out, and nail them. Simple.

They can't have it both ways. Either we are dealing with a threat the likes of which the world has never seen before, or they are a bunch of idiots who know they are being watched and don't have the collective IQ of a two year old. Which is it?

[CJCRANE]

37. I agree.

After terror attacks we usually find out that there were warnings ... and now we know it's even worse, in that the intelligence agencies can snoop into every type of communication, so their excuses about not having enough information ring hollow.

[Scootaloo]

33. Keep telling yourself that

They're just crazy people with beards who go into an apoplectic froth at the thought of bald eagles and apple pie, right?

I'd like to see you maintain, organize, and carry put plans with a clandestine network among a variety of often-rival criminal and militant groups throughout several nations. Me, I can barely string two sentences together to make a paragraph.

Well... actually... it's a rhetorical statement, okay?

[Th1onein]

6. Ohhhh! So I'm safe from them collecting and storing my emails and phone conversations, then?

Because I don't own a Facebook account?

FAIL.

Repeal the Patriot Act!

[CJCRANE]

9. I'm talking more about overseas radicals.

Also, I didn't say that I support the Patriot Act or TIA.

It's just a fact that people all over the world link up for various reasons good and bad.

[Th1onein]

10. Right, you are talking about overseas radicals. But they are spying on non-radicals, Americans, and

anyone and everyone, radical or not. That's what I'm talking about, and it's what you should be talking about, too. Not Facebook. Facebook is voluntarily; you don't have to join; you don't have to feed it information about yourself.

They are stealing our information. Period.

Repeal the Patriot Act!

[ChangeUp106]

2. I don't think many people take these "threats" seriously anymore anyway

We've had so many over the past 12 years

[Whisp]

7. until the next time.

Then there will be bawling and tearing hair out about how ineffective a CiC Obama is for not keeping the complaining sorry asses safe.

[Maedhros]

22. Obama's lack of political courage is no excuse

for allowing unconstitutional surveillance programs to continue.

[tridim]

31. If, "Fuck you Republicans for opposing Obamacare" isn't good enough for you, nothing is.

Obama has more political courage than any American president in American history, at least since Lincoln.

To deny that is to deny the reality that we elected A BLACK MAN FOR PRESIDENT. Twice.

[NuclearDem]

32. You mean the conservative plan he offered up after not fighting for single payer?

[tridim]

39. No I mean Obamacare, that helps 30 million poor Americans get health care...

For the first time in their lives.

I know neo-DU, Libertarians and Republicans can't stand that fact, but that's political courage for you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. I think that the answer is "Yes," but he doesn't want to admit it.

[Maedhros]

41. I'm referring specifically to the notion

that Obama must allow the NSA program to continue because Republicans and other jingoists will criticize him if he abolishes the program and a terrorist attack occurs. That, by itself, is no excuse for allowing the program to continue: if Obama has the courage of conviction that discontinuing the NSA blanket surveillance program is the right thing to do, then there is no reason for him not to do it.

I think it more likely that he approves of the NSA program.

I am making no statement on his political courage, or possible lack thereof, with regard to other programs or issues.

[CJCRANE]

44. If I were Obama

and knowing what I know, I would keep up the blanket surveillance too.

[Maedhros]

47. All indications are that the blanket surveillance is not effective at preventing terrorist attacks.

Certainly it didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombings, and multiple sources have questioned the notion that the program has stopped other attacks:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/01331123543/yet-another-claim-how-nsa-surveillance-saved-us-terrorists-falls-apart-under-scrutiny.shtml

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/the-fact-that-mass-surveillance-doesnt-keep-us-safe-goes-mainstream.html

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40869.html

Even NSA Director General Keith Alexander has walked back his initial claims on the efficacy of the program:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/26/nsa-director-softens-claims-about-survei

The results of the program simply do not justify its impact on our Constitutional freedoms.

[Zoeisright]

56. You didn't answer the post.

And BTW, do you have access to FBI files and intelligence?

No?

Thought not.

[stevenleser]

59. See #26 below. It looks like we have a pattern here. nt

[Maedhros]

64. All indications are that the blanket surveillance is not effective at preventing terrorist attacks.

Certainly it didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombings, and multiple sources who are knowledgeable of the subject (e.g. Binney) have questioned the notion that the program has stopped other attacks:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/01331123543/yet-another-claim-how-nsa-surveillance-saved-us-terrorists-falls-apart-under-scrutiny.shtml

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/the-fact-that-mass-surveillance-doesnt-keep-us-safe-goes-mainstream.html

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40869.html

Even NSA Director General Keith Alexander has walked back his initial claims on the efficacy of the program:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/26/nsa-director-softens-claims-about-survei

The results of the program simply do not justify its impact on our Constitutional freedoms. Citing hypothetical knowledge that Obama might have is not a strong argument.

And mocking me with the ROFL smilie doesn't make your argument any stronger, either.

[stevenleser]

68. Based partly on media articles whose reports on this latest threat you don't accept as the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-alert-highlights-potent-threat-posed-by-al-qaedas-yemen-affiliate/2013/08/06/9a5afab8-fee2-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html

Terrorism alert highlights potent threat posed by al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate

When the Sept. 11, 2001, plot was hatched, Nasir al-Wuhayshi was serving as Osama bin Laden’s personal assistant in Afghanistan. A half-decade later, after a daring break from a Yemeni prison, Wuhayshi became the architect of the al-
Qaeda affiliate that experts say poses the biggest threat to the United States.

Yet the man at the heart of a terrorism alert that has shut down U.S. embassies in the Muslim world and elsewhere has managed to keep a strikingly low profile in the West. That is likely to change, experts say, as Wuhayshi uses his growing stature to urge the loose network of cells that subscribe to al-Qaeda’s ideology to place greater emphasis on planning attacks on the West, rather than focusing on domestic enemies.

[Maedhros]

70. Your link doesn't reference the NSA program.

My point is that blanket surveillance by the NSA doesn't stop terrorism. The WaPo article discusses the AQAP threat, but doesn't link it to the surveillance program.

Not following your argument here.

[stevenleser]

72. I never said that they did. I said you accept WP as truth in one case and not in another.

I stand by that.

[Maedhros]

73. I don't refute the article in your link, it's just not on-topic with respect to the NSA program [n/t

[stevenleser]

75. As this newest dodge goes, you get a 3 out of 10 for subtlety. Your scores are going down. nt

[Maedhros]

77. I'm responding to you in good faith.

Enough of the childish mocking, ok?

[sabrina 1]

27. There WILL be terrorist attacks, we've just had one, in Boston, remember? The are

as old as history itself and will continue to be. Countries have never used them before to violate the rights of all of their own citizens.

Instead of taking that attitude you just took, it's easy to state reality, with (see Boston) or without these draconian surveillance programs, we will experience terrorist attacks.

Now that that is clear, since we can't stop them or even minimize them, do we want to add to the terror by having to look over our shoulders, risk this info being used against Politicians and others, also?

NO, is the answer. And to fear 'blame' for something you are in no way responsible for, is just plain childish.

[WinkyDink]

38. You misunderstand the term and meaning of "Commander in Chief."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

78. Damned if he does and damned if he don't

He has the Cheneys breathing down his neck saying that he is too weak and then 'us lot' complaining that he's spying on old ladies knitting.

[hobbit709]

8. Kabuki theater, dog and pony show, Potemkin village is what it should be called.

It's got nothing to do with terrorism but all to do with getting a compliant population for control by the new security state.

[snappyturtle]

80. +1 nt

[pnwmom]

11. Tell that to the people at the Boston marathon. n/t

[millennialmax]

12. And all the perpetrators of mass shootings who should've been monitored

way before they walked into a building full of innocent people.

It seems that not ENOUGH people are being scrutinized.

[Cronus Protagonist]

20. Because it worked so well in that case?

Obviously it didn't. So where DOES it work? Other than against normal Americans who are NOT terrorists?.

[pnwmom]

79. It didn't "work" because the surveillance is NOT as all-encompassing as many people here believe.

But it did work in that it allowed them to quickly figure out after the fact if there was a larger plot and more plotters involved, which they needed to do if they wanted to prevent related future attacks.

[pnwmom]

83. What does that have to do with other plotters? The bombers they did know about

were on the loose, so they asked people to stay indoors while they chased them around.

[WinkyDink]

40. You mean the victims of both the bombers and NSA incompetence? WE WERE WARNED.

[Corruption Inc]

13. It's a propaganda push to get the populace emotionally charged

No rational thinking allowed.

[valerief]

14. How can there be a terror threat? What's the color code? nt

[Maedhros]

24. Here you go:

h/t to RC (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=559291)

[valerief]

30. Ha! Badda bing! nt

[BlueManFan]

15. To Quote Will McAvoy, "We weren't so scared...."

[BlueManFan]

16. And Before The Inevitable Conniptions Start Of COURSE I know he's a fictional character

but the way he said it on "The Newsroom" was pained and moving.

[Recursion]

17. None at all? Really?

Keep in mind I'm about to move into embassy housing in South Asia; this is a pretty important question for me.

[Maedhros]

26. I'm sure embassy employees and their families receive briefings on the possible dangers

involved, especially with respect to embassies in more unstable countries.

[stevenleser]

58. As question dodges go, I rate that a 4 on a 1-10 scale for subtlety.

If you had thrown in a few phrases like "authoritarianism" or "DLC", you might have gotten a 5.

Of course, you could have answered the question... particularly since a fellow DUers safety is at issue. If you feel strongly enough that this terror alert is bogus, you should tell that person this is what you believe.

It's not so easy when there is an actual person whose life could be affected by what you tell them, is it?

[Maedhros]

62. I don't see it as a dodge.

The poster was making a claim that because he himself was planning on residing in a South Asian embassy, a nationwide alert about embassy threats needed to be sounded to the public at large. My point is that notifying persons en route to embassies in dangerous regions can be (and probably is) accomplished via briefings by the State Department to those persons.

His claim does not support a nationwide terror alert.

[stevenleser]

66. The poster asked plainly if there was no truth to these latest alerts. You dodged that.

You're criticizing the President for issuing the alert, but you don't feel confident enough in your opinion to even tell one anonymous DUer that you think this latest alert in particular is bogus.

That's the difference between Presidential responsibility, and internet discussion forum blathering.

[Maedhros]

74. I thought I explained my position well. YMMV. [n/t]

[stevenleser]

76. As did I. nt

[Recursion]

82. Ah. I was reading kpete's OP differently

I thought he was saying, specifically, that the administration was playing politics with embassy security.

[tridim]

42. Neo-DU are experts on International terrorism. You didn't know that?

[NuclearDem]

46. Apparently more so than the administration

Some of us actually remember how the CIA arming Islamic militants on the other side of the world gave us al-Qaeda in the first place. The administration doesn't apparently.

Neither do they seem to understand how blowing up innocent people and supporting their respective dictators kicks extremist recruitment into overdrive rather than stopping it.

[tridim]

49. The President knows more than any single person on Earth.

Period.

[NuclearDem]

51. If I didn't know you were such a die hard supporter, I could swear that's a joke

[tridim]

54. I'm a Democrat who supports our Democratic President on a Democratic forum. I voted for him twice.

Why does that shock you?

What's your point?

Why are you here?

[NuclearDem]

55. Because it's a huge fucking leap from "I support Obama"

To "he knows more about counterterrorism than anyone on the planet." Hell, I generally support him and I find that patently absurd. There are people who spend their whole professional careers studying extremism and terrorism, and I highly doubt the president knows more than they do on the issue. And had he listened to those people, we wouldn't be playing out a redo of Operation Cyclone in Syria.

I'm here because I stand for principles, not personality.

[tridim]

57. Psst.. The President is also the most powerful person on Earth.

Did you sleep through civics class?

[NuclearDem]

61. I thought the "sleep through civics class" meme was only pulled out

in the need to show how the President is in fact not all powerful?

And please, if you're being sarcastic, add the tag. I can't actually believe somebody truly believes the crap you're spewing here.

[truedelphi]

18. The American Public is just one month and one day shy of

The Twelfth Anniversary of the day when so many in the public decided that physic laws did not apply to a major event.

And that to think about what real physics means would be to become unpatriotic, so they abandoned common sense and accepted absurdity.

And since the event which required their abandoning basic physics meant that they had to blame someone for the loss of over three thousand people, they bought into the idea of these nasty terrorists. Somehow many Americans even accepted the absurd idea that a war against the Iraqi people should follow that event, even though the Iraqi people had nothing at all to do with the list of suspects that were named as being complicit in the event. (If the Powers that Be wanted a war against a nation based on the nationality of those named suspects,w e should have been attacking Saudi Arabia.)

Of course, the Congress critters accepted the Official Story mostly because they were getting kickbacks and also, due to the revolving door between the MIC/Surveillance society and their voting history, they will never have to worry about employment should they ever leave Congress.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. So now we will have the media claiming the media isn't doing it's job?

Wanna bet this wouldn't be the case if Romney had won?

[hrmjustin]

21. I wish the Governemnt would be more careful with terror threats.

Whenever there is an alert it gets scary riding the subways. I hope they remember that the next time they do an alert.

[99Forever]

25. Yessir.

Same old wag the dog song and dance. You'd think with the hundreds of billion$ they milk us out of, they could come up with a better grade of lies.

"Intelligence agencies," my ass.

[quinnox]

28. K&R, knew it was fishy the moment I heard it

It was funny watching all the apologists try and persuade all of us to take it "deadly" seriously, though. Jesus. I love it when some are so out of it they resort to Bush-like fear tactics.

[DevonRex]

29. The successor to Bin Laden told the head of AQAP to blow up the embassy.

That conversation was intercepted. This also means that al-Zawahiri is trying to assert dominance and control over AQAP. My money is on AQAP. Unfortunately, while Bin Laden was exiled and since his death, a fairly young and smart guy in AQAP run an effective organization.

The good thing is that in other areas, AQ has declined.

[ucrdem]

34. But somebody killed Ambassodor Stevens last September 11

and it wasn't Barack Obama. So like it or not there's a threat.

[Cryptoad]

35. Yet Nobody questions why ,,,

Snowden has not produced anything but speculation about any illegal acts of the NSA.

I can remember the Good ole Days when Democrats could tell the difference between conjecture and Fact!

[PDJane]

36. I agree that there is no terrorist threat. They're not actually doing as much overseas as they are

following citizens. It's not to do with terrorism so much as it an excuse to suppress dissent.

[Scurrilous]

43. Bush ignored credible threats.

Look what that brought us.

[Maedhros]

48. And you ignore credible arguments.

Let's see how far that gets you.

Do you ever actually post arguments, rather than one-liners?

[tridim]

50. His argument is a fact, and thus credible by definition.

WTF is your point?

[Maedhros]

67. That he simply posted one sentence: "Bush ignored credible threats."

Which is true, but irrelevant to the argument at hand unless he can show that there are credible threats which the NSA surveillance program has neutralized/will neutralize. All indications are that the blanket surveillance is not effective at preventing terrorist attacks, hence the notion that eliminating the program would be "ignoring credible threats." Were Scurrilous interested in making a serious argument, he would have provided some evidence to back up his claim rather than living up to his user name and simply dropping a one-liner.

Here are some links to credible persons who believe the NSA program is not effective:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/01331123543/yet-another-claim-how-nsa-surveillance-saved-us-terrorists-falls-apart-under-scrutiny.shtml

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/the-fact-that-mass-surveillance-doesnt-keep-us-safe-goes-mainstream.html

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40869.html

Even NSA Director General Keith Alexander has walked back his initial claims on the efficacy of the program:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/26/nsa-director-softens-claims-about-survei

The results of the program simply do not justify its impact on our Constitutional freedoms.

[whttevrr]

45. It's congress' summer vacation...

Gotta keep the rabble occupied.

[bowens43]

53. yes we are being lied to again.

[LittleBlue]

60. Amazing how there isn't even a credible shred of evidence

supporting these supposed threats. Only government proclamations. And predictably, nothing happened.

[stevenleser]

63. "Only government proclamations"... as opposed to? Are we waiting for Chomsky/Greenwald/Common

Dreams/Infowars confirmation?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/07/al-qaeda-conference-call-intercepted-by-u-s-officials-sparked-alerts.html

Exclusive: Al Qaeda Conference Call Intercepted by U.S. Officials Sparked Alerts
by Eli Lake, Josh Rogin Aug 7, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
It wasn’t just any terrorist message that triggered U.S. terror alerts and embassy closures—but a conference call of more than 20 far-flung al Qaeda operatives, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report.

The crucial intercept that prompted the U.S. government to close embassies in 22 countries was a conference call between al Qaeda’s senior leaders and representatives of several of the group’s affiliates throughout the region.

130806-ayman-al-zawahri-lake-tease
This file image from video the AP obtained Feb. 12, 2012, from the SITE Intel Group, an American private terrorist threat analysis company, shows al-Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in a web posting by al-Qaeda's media arm, as-Sahab.

The intercept provided the U.S. intelligence community with a rare glimpse into how al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, manages a global organization that includes affiliates in Africa, the Middle East, and southwest and southeast Asia.

Several news outlets reported Monday on an intercepted communication last week between Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda’s affiliate based in Yemen. But The Daily Beast has learned that the discussion between the two al Qaeda leaders happened in a conference call that included the leaders or representatives of the top leadership of al Qaeda and its affiliates calling in from different locations, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. All told, said one U.S. intelligence official, more than 20 al Qaeda operatives were on the call.

[Life Long Dem]

65. So let me get this straight

After Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the drone strikes in Pakistan "there is no terrorist threat"?

Well that's good to know. Write this one down for job well done - President Obama.

[Rex]

69. LOOK...we have always been at war with

someone, somewhere. Someone out there always wants to kill us! You cannot expect me to know if you eat corn or perhaps has a fetish for egg carts and piano wire! I trust my Mc Govt to make those important disiccions!

Don't you love America anymore for it's freedoms kpete, why be so selfish with yours!?

[Warren DeMontague]

71. There is SO a terrorist threat! RIGHT HERE!

Just ask the NSA!