Tag Archives: War on Terror

Learning From The Chinese Social Credits System

Posted on by

China became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. American supported the move. There were a few reasons for admitting them to the organization. The first was the belief that there would be an economic gain for America when Chinese markets were fully open to Americans and vice versa. The other reason was the hope that through trade China would become more free under the influence of commerce with America. The economic gain was limited due to the manipulation of the Chinese currency by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and freedom has consistently been squelched in China by the CCP. Obviously, we had good intentions, but we were wrong. Instead of exporting freedom, we may be on the verge of importing their social credits system.

Yesterday The Hill posted an article with the following headline, “Coming soon: America’s own social credit system.”

The article reports:

The new domestic “War on Terror,” kicked off by the riot on Jan. 6, has prompted several web giants to unveil predecessors to what effectively could become a soft social credit system by the end of this decade. Relying on an indirect hand from D.C., our social betters in corporate America will attempt to force the most profound changes our society has seen during the internet era.

China’s social credit system is a combination of government and business surveillance that gives citizens a “score” that can restrict the ability of individuals to take actions — such as purchasing plane tickets, acquiring property or taking loans — because of behaviors. Given the position of several major American companies, a similar system may be coming here sooner than you think.

Last week, PayPal announced a partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to “investigate” the role of “white supremacists” and propagators of “anti-government” rhetoric, subjective labels that potentially could impact a large number of groups or people using their service. PayPal says the collected information will be shared with other financial firms and politicians. Facebook is taking similar measures, recently introducing messages that ask users to snitch on their potentially “extremist” friends, which considering the platform’s bias seems mainly to target the political right. At the same time, Facebook and Microsoft are working with several other web giants and the United Nations on a database to block potential extremist content.

The article notes:

The potential scope of the soft social credit system under construction is enormous. The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products. At what point does free speech — be it against biological males playing in girls’ sports, questioning vaccine side effects, or advocating for gun rights — make someone a target in this new system? When does your debit card get canceled over old tweets, your home loan denied for homeschooling your kids, or your eBay account invalidated because a friend flagged you for posting a Gadsden flag?

The article concludes:

Until and unless there is an organized pushback, our future could track with those of increasingly illiberal societies. Just last week, the British government announced its own version of a health social credit system. China’s system was announced only seven years ago. Considering the growth of algorithms and dependence on tech giants, the ability to track, censor and eventually punish ordinary citizens will be mindboggling by 2030. America’s descent into a 21st century Gilded Age directed by tech titans isn’t an inevitability. However, do you know anyone who would take a 5 percent Amazon coupon in exchange for a “call to action”? Or someone who would replace their Facebook profile picture to avoid being locked out? 

Peer pressure, trendy movements, and the ability to comply with the new system with the click of a mouse combine all of the worst elements of dopamine-chasing Americans. As it grows in breadth and power, what may be most surprising about our new social credit system won’t be collective fear of it, but rather how quickly most people will fall in line.

There are several problems with this other than the fact that it totally ignores the freedom and rights of Americans protected under the U.S. Constitution. Who defines extremism? Is extremism the belief in principles that were considered the norm only fifteen years ago–men in men’s sports, women in women’s sports, marriage between one man and one woman, etc.? We are heading down a dangerous path. I am personally aware of someone’s PayPal account being closed because the company became aware that she was in Washington, D.C. on January 6th. She was nowhere near the Capitol Building, but she was in the city. That is what we have to look forward to if we don’t stand up for our Constitutional rights.

 

I Don’t Know Whether To Laugh Or Cry

Posted on by

The War on Terror has reached the stage where Americans are asked not to travel abroad. Brussels has recently been in lockdown. France is nervous. Americans are wondering who is walking among them. The world has become a truly dangerous place. Well, there is a ray of sunshine in the works for Americans who live in New York City. Obviously, New York City was a target more than once in the past, and the fear is that it will be a target in the future. Fear not, Giovanni Gambino, a member of the Gambino crime family has offered to protect the city.

The American Thinker posted an article today about the offer. I am reminded of something I heard Joan Rivers say in an interview a long time ago.. She commented that when the Mob ran Las Vegas a handshake on a deal to appear there was all you needed. I am not praising the Mob, I am just noting that they take business seriously. There was also an incident of a New England blogger who hosted a weekly radio show. Da Tech Guy Blog is written by a friend in Massachusetts who hosted a radio show. At times conservative bloggers have been under attack physically (that is the reason my name does not appear on this blog). Someone called in and asked if Pete was worried about being physically attacked. His reply was very simple–“For some reason people seem reluctant to get into a grudge match with a Sicilian.” True.

Back to the article.

The American Thinker reports:

So word to the wise: if ISIS warriors would rather not wake up with a pig’s head in their bed, have hellfire visited upon them, be dismembered in a pork sausage factory, or prematurely meet 72 virgins after being dipped in a vat of boiling bacon grease, maybe the bloodthirsty should pick another neighborhood to carry out the commands of the Quran.

And in case ISIS is willing to gamble, there’s a track record both here and abroad to prove that unlike Barack Obama, if ISIS dares crosses the “red line,” the family will not hesitate to follow through on their word.

Taking that into consideration, in a city that overlooks the capital of Sicily, ISIS’s made men have decided that because of the threat of Mafia retaliation, the mountainous region of Palermo may not the best place to wage terrorist attacks or establish underground cells.

An Italian security official disclosed that out of fear of being eradicated by mob bosses, ISIS cells are afraid to enter certain areas such as “Sicily, Calabria, Puglia and Campania – including the city of Naples.”

I am not fond of this solution, but it is a reflection on the ineffectiveness of both local and national governments in dealing with ISIS. Admittedly, part of that failure is due to the limitations of the U.S. Constitution (which I have no desire to change), but part of that failure is due to people in power who refuse to admit that Islamic radicals are responsible for the current wave of terrorism.

The article further states:

A little closer to home, Gambino reminded the wary that “[t]he world is dangerous today” and reassured “people living in New York neighborhoods with Sicilian connections [that they] should feel safe.”  Rest assured Giovanni means it when he says, “We make sure our friends and families are protected from extremists and terrorists, especially the brutal, psychopathic organization that calls itself the Islamic State.”

Speaking of “brutal, psychopathic organizations,” in truth, the Mafia is just a more effective facsimile of the U.S. federal government.  Both entities extort money with the promise of protection.  The difference is that the Mafia is an organization that actually delivers on the promise.  

Hmmmm.

If It Looks Like A Duck…

Posted on by

The War on Terror has never been a conventional war. ISIS has moved it in that direction by actually taking over countries and attempting to govern them, but generally speaking the soldiers in the war on terror have been individuals. Sometimes they are people who have been through terrorist training, and sometimes they are simply people who have taken the violent scriptures of the Koran to heart. Because these terrorists often commit their crimes as individuals rather than in a group, they are harder to track down and stop. Sometimes the only barrier to a successful terror attack is the people at the scene of the attack. We saw that in Texas at the “Draw Mohammed” contest and recently on the train from Paris to Amsterdam.

Robert Spencer, a well-known expert on Islamism, posted an article at Frontpage Magazine today about the attack on the Paris to Amsterdam train. The article illustrates the Muslim principle of war called “taqiyya.” “Taqiyya” is defined as lying for the sake of Islam. It is permitted and encouraged in the Koran and the Hadiths (Koran 3:28 and 16:106). With that in mind, let’s look at the background of the assailant on the Paris train.

The article reports:

El-Khazzani (the attacker) is “dumbfounded” that he is being accused of being a terrorist? Any sane person should be dumbfounded that he is dumbfounded. A bearded, caftan-wearing Muslim carries a Kalashnikov, an automatic pistol, ammunition and a box cutter onto a crowded train in a country where the Islamic State has repeatedly called for lone wolf jihad attacks, opened fire with the Kalashnikov, and he is “dumbfounded” that anyone thinks he is a terrorist? How stupid does he think Western authorities are?

It gets even better. El-Khazzani claims that he found the Kalashnikov and the pistol in a park in Brussels. He claims that he only wanted to rob the people on the train because he was hungry.

The article reports the truth:

Here’s the reality. The Express reported that “a Spanish anti-terrorist official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed El Khazzani had lived in Spain until last year, moved to France then traveled to Syria where he is believed to have trained with ISIS before returning to France.” 

And a neighbor recalled: “He and his brother were very devout; they dressed like Afghans and all that, but I can’t believe this. He would sit with us while we smoked joints, you know? He didn’t smoke, but he didn’t mind that we did.” It also turns out that el-Khazzani and his brothers were “regulars” at a local mosque.

Most robbers don’t carry Kalashnikovs, automatic pistols and box cutters. Just sayin…

Thank God We Didn’t Feel That Way About The Nazis

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s latest speech about ISIS.The President stated, “Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida is gonna also require us to discredit their ideology, the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks. As I’ve said before, and I know our military leaders agree, this broader challenge of countering violent extremism. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas. A more attractive and more compelling vision.”

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm with words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam, we’re fighting terrorists who distort Islam and whose victims are mostly Muslims.”

First of all, when someone is chopping your head off, that may not be the time to debate their theology with them. Second of all, until you take the weapons away from ISIS, they will continue to kill people and chop their heads off. Third, it is in the basic tenets of Islam to kill infidels or those who do not believe in Islam.

The problem here is that Islam is not being distorted. What we are seeing is in accordance with the Koran. The following is a quote from the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin:

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate.

…The intention of sharia authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books which the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevent us from properly defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law–“the one organizing principle”–that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and shariah.

This is a battle for western civilization. We need to fight it. I don’t want to send troops to the Middle East, but I am willing to seriously bomb all areas ISIS controls. I am sorry for civilian casualties, but ISIS is killing the non-Muslim civilians. This is a time to use excessive force, not to discuss theology. If Muslims who do not want to establish the Caliphate want to stand with us, that is fine. Otherwise, they need to understand that we will not let them establish the Caliphate or continue to kill innocent people.

A Video That Explains Where We Are

Posted on by

I realize that this is not a short video, but it is a briefing by Stephen Coughlin, a man who is no longer allowed to brief our military because he is politically incorrect. Please watch it and understand that our country needs to wake up and realize that our government is not telling the truth. You can go directly to the video on YouTube.

I am currently reading Catastrophic Failure a book by Stephen Coughlin. I would strongly recommend the book to everyone who wants to be informed about the War on Terror.

The Unseen Cost Of A Litigious Society

Posted on by

This story has been sitting on my toolbar since Thursday. I didn’t want to write it because I don’t fully understand it and it is very complex, but it needs to be written.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article on Thursday entitled, “Power and Constraint — how the JAGs hijacked U.S. anti-terrorism policy.” The article deals with how our actions in fighting the war on terror have been hijacked by lawyers rather than being run by the military.

The article reports:

During the Bush years, we often heard from the left that the war on terror was changing America for the worse by undermining our values and our Constitution. These claims were mostly nonsense. But one portion of our system did take a hit — the concepts of civilian control of the military and the Commander-in-Chief as chief law interpreter for the executive branch. This was the handiwork of the JAGs.

We covered this development as best we could on Power Line, mostly by reporting on the work, and the preening, of Lindsey Graham, the JAGs men in Congress. However, until I read Jack Goldsmith’s book Power and Constraint, I didn’t know the half of it.

Mr. Mirengoff then excerpts a large portion of his review of the Book Power and Constraint to explain how the JAGs have influenced the way the war is being fought. I strongly recommend that you follow the above link to the Power Line article and read the entire article.

The article at Power Line concludes:

Goldsmith appears troubled by the military’s undermining of the President’s ability to interpret the law on behalf of the executive branch. He also recognizes that the injection of lawyers into battle harmed U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Ultimately, he is agnostic as to whether the harm is outweighed by the possible prevention of misguided polices and the blowback they would have caused.

Goldsmith’s agnosticism is understandable. Both sides of the cost-benefit equation are impossible to measure. But this much should be clear: our elected executive is responsible for making the cost-benefit decisions. His decisions may be subject to judicial review, but they should not be undermined or thwarted by military lawyers. It also seems clear that in war, including war on terrorism, the president should err in favor of defeating the enemy, rather than minimizing “blowback.”

As a relative of a soldier who served two tours in Afghanistan, I object to the current rules of engagement. I think it’s time we either fought wars or left situations alone. There really is no successful in-between path.

Enhanced by Zemanta