Qaeda Plot Leak Has Undermined U.S. Intelligence
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.
Danger! Danger! Narrative fallacy ahead!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative...
None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path?
Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, aren't the ones leaking.
I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.
I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?
They are usually pretty intense and I can't help but feel some respect for people that can keep their composure in those sort of situations, but one thing I always keep on noticing is that in the descriptions of the videos and in the dialog recorded in them, the opposing force is almost always described as "Al Quaeda". Now, ignoring the fact that "Al Quaeda" is hardly known for wearing uniforms, in many of the videos the opposing force cannot even be seen by the soldiers in the video.
I certainly don't blame them for shooting back, there is nothing else you could or should do in that sort of situation, but what makes them so sure it is Al Quaeda? Couldn't it be "angry goat farmer who owns a rifle"? Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Does "Al Quaeda" mean anything more than "people who shoot at us"?
Maybe they really do exist, but it seems clear to me that at the very least many of the actions attributed to it by the 'boots on the ground' are associated loosely at best.
Yes. It's like "Kleenex" for tissues. As with Kleenex, the fact that it's overused doesn't mean there isn't a genuine brand.
Yeah, anything called "aspirin" is still going to be acetylsalicylic acid, and anything called "Al Quaeda" is still shooting at us and needs to be shot, but do these names really signal any deeper sort of affiliation anymore?
Why is it something that's so hard to believe? The precedent for a highly organized, inter-national underground group exists (Mafia, Triads, etc). The precedent for states funding such groups exists (just look at the U.S.'s history of funding militant political groups around the world!) What's so hard to believe about the combination of the two?
Maybe what makes it unbelievable is that the existence of Al Qaeda is incompatible with a particular world view, one that rejects the need for anti-terrorist military action and the international surveillance networks that support such action. It would sure be convenient if Al Qaeda were just a fiction.
My fear and suspicion however is that "Al Quaeda" has become a term that is applied whenever there are "people, who happen to be Muslim, who shoot at 'us'."
That may not seem like something that is worth worrying about, but I think it is. When we apply the term loosely like that we aren't just applying a term carelessly. When we do that, we are attributing all the past crimes that we associate with that name to the people that we are calling "Al Quaeda", whether they had any involvement in those past crimes or not. We are further creating a situation where "Al Quaeda" can appear from nothingness, with no connection to previous "Al Quaeda".
Hypothetical example of why I think this is dangerous: If we (for whatever reason) invade Malaysia, and Malaysian Muslims start shooting at us because we have invaded their country. The moment we apply the "Muslim who shoots at us? that is Al Quaeda" logic, those Malaysian Muslims then, in the eyes of the general public, inherit the crimes of Al Quaeda (say, 9/11). All of a sudden we aren't in Malaysia for "whatever reason", but because those darned Al Quaeda (you know, those "9/11 guys") are there, and they must pay for their crimes.
That's possibly true, but that isn't necessarily a problem.
I think an uncomfortable reality that westerners will have to eventually come to grips with is that militant Islam is a problem. Now, I don't believe it poses an existential threat to western liberal democracies, but it's an incredibly powerful unifying banner for culturally regressive movements all over the world. I do believe that these movements are a threat to progress in the countries in which they operate. If calling it all "Al Qaeda" gives us the wherewithal to combat it, that's not a bad thing, especially when those groups take up the banner.
As a university student in Bangladesh during the independence war in the 1970's, my dad had high hopes for the country. Over time, he has become bitterly disappointed by the country's cultural regression. Instead of seeing secular democracy flourish, as intended by the original constitution, the country is seeing Islamization. Women are putting on head scarves and extremist Wahhabi madrassas are sprouting up and terrorists are starting to operate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh. When my family lived in Bangladesh in the late 1980's, it was poor and full of crime, but the most you worried about was violent protestors at labor strikes, not organized, armed terrorists.
There is something happening in the world and you can't wish it away.
But sometimes, it's not your responsibility to fix. I mean, at some point, you have to let the Bangladeshis fix Bangladesh, the Somalis fix Somalia, the Afghans fix Afghanistan and the Iraqis fix Iraq. I don't think it's up to America to go in and intervene where-ever we see Western values being violated. Not only do we not have the resources to do that, but, in many cases, we don't even have the moral authority to intervene. A lot of the time the reason the country is as screwed up as it is, is because we, the West, screwed it up. I mean, all these countries are the way they are because of Western interventions. It was the West that drew the borders of Pakistan and East Pakistan. It was the West that drew the borders of Afghanistan and tried to impose its vision of civilization on a locale that simply does not want such a thing. It was the West that drew the borders of Iraq, and it was the West who kept Saddam Hussein in power, as a balance against the revolutionaries in Iran (which itself was another creation of the West). And now you're saying that the West has an obligation to go in and fix these places? Please. The world would be grateful if Europe and America intervened less, not more.
The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports.
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda.
No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance.
First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?)
Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.)
The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda.
I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.
You can search somebody and generally reasonably determine if they are a North Dakotan. Can you say the same of Al Queada? Are there literally "card carrying members" of Al Queada?
If that is your contention then I may assume that you dismiss the plethora of government and media reports which state that this is the case on the basis that such reports are untrustworthy.
Ok.
But then why do you trust the government issued ID that indicates that someone is from North Dakota? And how do you know that these people that claim to be from North Dakota are not in fact government stooges that are meant to deceive you?
My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.
It's really the same argument you're making. Perhaps there are Al Qaida affiliated cells that are only Al Qaida affiliated in name and ideology but do not receive funding or orders from anyone else.
In any case there are people that identify as being members of Al Qaida (Al Qaida proper or affiliated groups).
I don't see what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organizations and a heterogeneous group of organization that have a shared ideology.
I think this is what you're saying that Al Qaida is but I don't see how this distinction is significant for any intent or purpose.
Simply put: there are established and agreed upon ways of determining whether somebody is a member of North Dakota; it isn't an association that can be created retroactively or without proof.
Furthermore, I can claim that I am North Dakotan, but I simply am not. I can claim it as much as I want, but it doesn't make it true. With Anonymous or Al Qaeda? Claiming membership seems to be all that is required.
I'm interested to hear your response to the other part of my argument. That is, what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organization and a heterogenous group of organizations with a shared ideology?
Specifically why this concerns me I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6471710
Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous".
Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.
(A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis.
(B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes?
(C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it.
(D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.
(D) I'm still entirely unconvinced they give a rat's %$# about liberties. Seems much more likely they want us out of their territory more than anything else.
Now My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.
Awesome, Inspire has a 2600 how-to section.
This is of course all Snowden's fault.