TBR News April 9, 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, April 9, 2017 “Now firmly in the hands of the militants, Trump is playing a game he thinks he understands but does not.

The bloated American military, the immense and vicious CIA, the DHS lusting for more domestic control, all are after increased Congressional funding and to get this, they need excuses.

That the money they demand comes from helpless taxpayers is of no interest to them, only that the cash rolls in.

And parallel with their needs is another group that also demands more and more taxpayer money.

This is what Eisenhower warned was the military/industrial complex.

Corporations who benefit from war scares and a resultant flood of taxpayer monies are also in favor of heightened anxieties.

And more money.

Of course none of them actually want a war that could result in serious damage to their offices, homes, families or businesses but they keep pushing up the levels of confrontation to the point where, like the assassination of the Austrian Archduke in 1914, matters escalate entirely out of control and death and, worse, economic destruction comes upon them.”

Table of Contents

• Domestic insurgency by the DoD
• Syrian President Assad’s allies say U.S. attack crosses ‘red lines’
• Here We Go Again! US Air Strikes in Syria Cross Russian ‘Red lines’ and Risk Escalation to Nuclear War
• Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump?
• America owes China $1tn. That’s a problem for Beijing, and Trump knows it
• Counterfeiting significant to China’s overall economy
• US Navy group headed towards Korean Peninsula – US official
• Shadow Brokers hackers release NSA hacking tools to punish Trump for ‘abandoning’ his base
• 59% of Germans disapprove of US strike on Syrian airbase – poll
• Like Obama, Only Worse:Trump’s Ill Thought-Out Battle Against Islamic State
• Jihadists in America
• Uzbek suspect in Swedish attack sympathized with Islamic State: police

 Domestic insurgency by the DoD

April 9, 2017

by Harry von Johnston PhD

he Department of Defense (DOD) defines domestic insurgency as “an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.” Simply put, a domestic insurgency is a struggle between a non-ruling group and their ruling authority. Domestic insurgents use political resources, to include the increased use of the media and international opinion, as well as violence to destroy the political legitimacy of the ruling authority and build their own political legitimacy and power. Examples of this type of warfare range from the American Revolution to the previous situation in Iraq. The conflict itself can range from acts of terrorism to the more conventional use of the media to sway public opinion. Whatever form the insurgency takes, it serves an ideology or political goal.

Some of the motivating factors in the current politico/sociological situation are:

Massive and continuing unemployment in all levels of American business and industry. Only those who are technically proficient, i.e. in fields of computer science, are employable. Another point of contention is the huge influx of illegal foreign immigrants and the perception that these prevent Americans from obtaining work and also are perceived as draining the national welfare rolls. Also, a growing functional illiteracy in the American public, which has sharply diminished the reading of newspapers and increased the popularity of the Internet with its brief “sound bites.”A growing public perception of both disinterest and corruption on the part of National and State legislators has caused massive disillusionment on the part of the people. The recent revelations that the American (and foreign) public is closely watched and spied upon by governmental organs at the behest of the President has created a very volatile and very negative attitude towards any and all official programs.

An insurgency is defined as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict It is a protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken government control and legitimacy while increasing insurgent control. Political power is the central issue in an insurgency.

Each insurgency has its own unique characteristics based on its strategic objectives, its operational environment, available resources, operational method, and tactics For example, an insurgency may be based on mass mobilization through political action or the FOCO theory. Insurgencies frequently seek to overthrow the existing social order and reallocate power within the country.

The goal of an insurgency is to mobilize human and material resources in order to form an alternative to the state. This alternative is called the counterstate. The counterstate may have much of the infrastructure possessed by the state itself, but this must normally be hidden, since it is illegal. Thus the counterstate is often referred to by the term “clandestine infrastructure.” As the insurgents gain confidence and power, the clandestine infrastructure may become more open, as observed historically in communist regions during the Chinese Revolution, in South Vietnam after the North Vietnamese 1972 Easter Offensive, and in Colombia in the summer of 1998.

Successful mobilization provides active and passive support for the insurgency’s programs, operations, and goals. At the national level, mobilization grows out of dissatisfaction by some elite members with existing political, economic, or social conditions. At the regional level, members of an elite have become marginalized (that is, they have become psychologically alienated from the system), and have established links with followers by bringing them into the counterstate. At the local, district and province-levels, local movement representatives called the cadre address local grievances and do recruiting. The cadre gives credit to the insurgent movement for all local solutions. Loyalty to the insurgent movement is normally won through deeds but may occur through appeal to abstract principles. Promises to end hunger or eliminate poverty may appeal to a segment of the population, while appeals to eliminate a foreign presence or establish a government based on religious or political ideology may appeal to others. Nonetheless, these promises and appeals are associated with tangible solutions and deeds.

What are the root causes of a domestic insurgency? For a domestic insurgency to flourish, a majority of the population must either support or remain indifferent to insurgent ideals and practices. There must be a powerful reason that drives a portion of the populace to armed opposition against the existing government. Grievances may have a number of causes, such the lack of economic opportunity, restrictions on basic liberties, government corruption, ethnic or religious tensions, excessivly large number of illegal immigrants, especially those from Central America who clog national welfare rolls and are perceived to take jobs from entry-level Americans,or an unassimilitable religious and ethnic minority such as the Muslims who are seen to harbor domestic terrorists. It is through this line of thought or ideal that insurgents attempt to mobilize the population.

Syrian President Assad’s allies say U.S. attack crosses ‘red lines’

April 9, 2017

Reuters

A joint command center made up of the forces of Russian, Iran and allied militia alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al Assad said the U.S. strike on a Syrian air base crossed “red lines” and it would now respond to any new aggression and increase their level of support to their ally.

“What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” said the statement published by the group on media outlet Ilam al Harbi.

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi. Editing by Jane Merriman)

 Here We Go Again! US Air Strikes in Syria Cross Russian ‘Red lines’ and Risk Escalation to Nuclear War

April 8, 2017

by Gilbert Doctorow

AntiWar

My days as apologist for Donald Trump’s backsliding on his electoral campaign promise of a new direction in foreign policy are over. From being the solution, he has become an integral part of the problem. And with his bigger than life ego, petulance and stubbornness, Commander-in-Chief Trump is potentially a greater threat to world peace than the weak-willed Barack Obama whom he replaced.

Trump has ignored Russian calls for an investigation into the alleged chemical gas attack in Idlib province before issuing conclusions on culpability, as happened within hours of the event. He has accepted a narrative that is very possibly a false flag produced by anti-government rebels in Syria, disseminated by the White Helmets and other phony NGO’s paid from Washington and London. He ordered the firing of 50 or more Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian Government air base in Homs province, thereby crossing all Russian “red lines” in Syria.

Until this point, the Kremlin has chosen not to react to all signs coming from Washington that Trump’s determination to change course on Russia and global hegemony was failing. The wait-and-see posture antedated Trump’s accession to power when Putin overruled the dictates of protocol and did not respond to Obama’s final salvo, the seizure of Russian diplomatic property in the U.S. and the eviction of Russian diplomats. The Russians also looked the other way when the new administration continued the same Neocon rhetoric from the tribune of the UN Security Council and during the visits of Vice President Pence, Pentagon boss Mattis and Secretary of State Tillerson to Europe.

However, the missile attack in Syria is a game changer. The pressure on Vladmir Vladimirovich Putin to respond in kind is now enormous.

Putin has a cool mind and we may anticipate that the Russian response will come at a time of his choosing and in a manner that is appropriate to the seriousness of the US offense. Look for this before the end of the month.

In the meantime, we who have been hoping for a change of direction, for the rooting out of the Neocons and Liberal hawks directing the Deep State should drop what we are doing, and help form a grass roots political statement that Donald Trump and the political establishment will hear loud and clear. A mass letter-writing campaign to Congress and the White House? A march on Washington?

One way or another, the White House must be told that arranging foreign policy moves out of purely domestic calculations, such as likely happened yesterday puts the nation’s very existence at risk. Acting tough, striking out at Russia and its allies, is not the way to form a coalition to pass a tax reform act. The same may be said of an alternative reading of the missile attack yesterday: that it was intended as a message to visiting Chinese President Xi that should there be no joint action to restrain North Korea, the United States will act alone and with total disregard for international law. Either logic in the end is a formula for suicide.

Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump?

In just three months, those who vowed to oppose the president are eating out of his hands. Applauding his Syria missile strikes only emboldens him to go further

April 9, 2017

by Owen Jones

The Guardian

So now we know what it takes for an unhinged, bigoted demagogue to getwin liberal applause: just bypass a constitution to fire some missiles. It had seemed as though there was consensus among those in the anti-Trump camp. This man was a threat to US democracy and world peace. The echoes of 1930s fascist leaders were frightening. “This republic is in serious danger,” declared conservative writer Andrew Sullivan on the eve of Trump’s triumph. That this megalomaniac “pussy-grabbing” ban-the-Muslims ex-reality TV star would soon control the world’s most lethal military arsenal was chilling. Opposition would be uncompromising, a reflection of the Republican intransigence that Barack Obama faced from day one.

It has taken less than three months for these illusions to be shattered. A man widely castigated as a proto-fascist only needed to drop bombs without observing due process.

Let’s examine what is being said about Trump now. A press he denounced as liars and “enemies of the people” are eating out of his hands, tiny or otherwise. “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” cooed CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria in response to the bombing. Trump “reacted viscerally to the images of the death of innocent children in Syria,” declared Mark Sandler in the New York Times. The original headline on that article, since amended? “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”

So the man who once bragged to a baying audience that he would tell five-year-old Syrian refugees to their faces that the US would not offer them safety, is now driven by his heart. Touching indeed. The “moral dimensions of leadership” had penetrated Trump’s Oval Office, declared the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. MSNBC’s Brian Williams described the missile launches as “beautiful” three times in the space of 30 seconds.

In Britain, liberal and conservative columnists alike, plus Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians applauded the raid. Trump is now showing leadership, apparently. Leadership is shown by a man widely feared to be a) unhinged b) demagogic and c) authoritarian, dropping bombs in defiance of his country’s democratic process. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, is savaged for querying whether a military escapade led by Trump will succeed where all other Middle Eastern military adventures have failed.

Those who critique Trump’s unilateral assault on Syria are portrayed as heartless in the face of the gassing of little children, just as opponents of war in Iraq and Libya were demonised as indifferent to those murdered and tortured and persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Muammar or Gaddafi. Let’s be clear. The gassing of those Syrian children, and the unspeakably sickening deaths that they suffered, is a despicable crime. President Assad is a blood-soaked tyrant who has slaughtered countless Syrians with his barrel bombs, and deserves to spend his final days rotting in a jail cell. Vladimir Putin, too, is caked in the blood of Syrian and Chechen children alike. If I genuinely thought Donald Trump was the plausible saviour of Syria’s children, then I would reconsider my position.

The history of western military intervention in the Arab world is of bloody failure. Remember Libya, and how this time things would be different, before the country descended into a violent quagmire overrun by Islamist militia? Those applauding his latest intervention are saying, implicitly or otherwise, that this time will be different. And who will apparently buck the trend of failed, bloody US military interventions in the Arab world? Trump.

There are two plausible outcomes to his raid. One, it was purely symbolic. This, currently, seems most likely. His administration gave the Russians notice, who alerted Assad’s forces. Syrian military casualties were minimal, and bombing raids from the targeted military base have now resumed. In that case, it was a meaningless slap on the wrists, mostly designed for a domestic American audience at a time when the president has disastrous polling numbers. The other is that this marks the beginning of a further escalation of US involvement in Syria’s intractable civil war. That will mean entrusting Trump to spearhead deepening military involvement in a war which has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. How palatable are both options?

Good on Trump, some liberal pundits say, but he lacks strategy. In Syria, that is true. He has no strategy there. But let’s not pretend for a second that a man who defeated both the Republican and Democratic party machines is lacking in strategy. He has proved adept at winning power, and now he will amass it – with the help of this applauded military excursion.

Trump is now emboldened. The pundits are applauding him, his critics have praised him, his appalling approval ratings will surely edge up. Further military action – by a man who has repeatedly bragged about disrespecting the norms of war – will surely follow. He bypassed the constitution this time, and will be praised for it, so why shouldn’t he next time? And if war comes with North Korea, what will the liberal pundits do? Some will cheerlead him all over again. “Where’s your compassion for the suffering of North Korea?” will be their cryto silence opposition, just as it was with Iraq and Libya. We had the Ronald Reagan Democrats, now the Trump liberals will emerge. Others will say, no, we backed the bombing of Syria, but this new war is different, this is too far.

Too late. They will have legitimised one extra-constitutional military intervention, their subsequent opposition will look as pathetic as it will be hypocritical. A man who backs torture and castigated his predecessors for not stealing Iraq and Syria’s oil is being rehabilitated by the liberal pundits: as a man of compassion, a man of strength, with the resolve that Obama apparently lacked.

A wartime martial presidency may then be born, cheered on by some liberals who once decried Trump as a possible American Mussolini. Well fine: it was liberal Italy that handed Mussolini the keys, after all. History shows that war presents the ideal opportunity for the authoritarian-minded to amass, consolidate and concentrate power. Dissent can be more easily portrayed as treachery; jingoism sweeps the nation, boosting the popularity of the ruler; critics fall into line; constitutional norms can be disregarded at a time of national crisis.

What happened in Syria cannot be divorced from what is happening in Iraq and Yemen. In Mosul, at least 150 civilians perished in a Trumpist bombing raid – one of the deadliest US raids since the calamitous Iraq invasion. That’s more than perished in Assad’s gas attack in Khan Sheikhun, even if the American weapons that slaughtered them are legal.

Dozens were killed by a US strike against a school in Syria last month, largely unmourned by Trump’s new apologists, as were the 30 civilians killed in Trump’s failed Yemen raid in January, children among them. There are children in Yemen too, you know, and they are being slaughtered by US- and UK-backed Saudi warplanes. Trump’s liberal apologists won’t cry for them or even acknowledge their existence: they are, apparently, unpeople, rather than kids clutching teddy bears as western-backed bombs rain on their heads.

How naive some of us were. Yes, some of those liberals were cheerleaders of George W Bush as he launched an invasion of Iraq which plunged the country – and the region – into blood and chaos. They learned their lesson, though, right? I mean, Trump almost makes a bloodstained Bush look like a paragon of decency in comparison – surely they won’t legitimise his war machine too and laud him to boot?

One of the main objections to Trump was that he was unstable, impulsive, with authoritarian instincts, and would disregard constitutional norms. This has turned out to be true, while being applauded by his erstwhile detractors for doing so, emboldening him to go further. Yet “I’m no fan of Trump, but …” will be the battle cry of his erstwhile detractors. Still, the children of Syria will die, just as they will die in Yemen and Iraq and elsewhere. History will ask: how did this man become president? And how did he maintain power when he did? Look no further than the brittle, weak, pathetic liberal “opposition”. The US deserves better, and so does the world.

America owes China $1tn. That’s a problem for Beijing, and Trump knows it

The leaders shared steak in Florida, but the stakes in trade talks are much higher for China, which would struggle to find a better export market

April 9, 2017

The Guardian

Forget the warm handshake. Take with a pinch of salt Donald Trump’s talk of his “very, very, great relationship” with Xi Jinping. The idea that Washington has ceased to harbour deep suspicions of Beijing just because the presidents of the world’s two biggest economies shared pleasantries over steak in Florida is fanciful.

Xi will certainly be hoping Trump’s cordial welcome was for real, because China has much more to lose economically from a trade war than America does. This might sound counter-intuitive given that Beijing can deploy the economic nuclear option if Trump makes good on his campaign pledge to slap whopping tariffs on Chinese imports. The US owes China more than $1 trillion and Xi could send America’s economy into a tailspin by sanctioning a dumping of US Treasury bonds.

But the problem with nuclear missiles is that they are never really intended to be fired, and if they are, there are no winners. Sure, China could cause enormous damage to the US, but only by damaging itself.

Indeed, the US-China relationship is a classic example of the old saw: if you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a trillion dollars, the bank has a problem. Trump holds the important cards and it is simply a case of whether he wants to play them.

As Brian Davidson of the US’s Fathom consultancy has pointed out, the Chinese leadership is keen to avoid the social and political unrest a trade war with the US would inevitably bring. Beijing’s willingness to pump the economy full of credit to finance unprofitable investment demonstrates its determination to avoid a sharp rise in unemployment.

China depends on the US in a way the US does not depend on China. Nearly 4% of China’s GDP comes directly from exports to the US, while the equivalent figure for the US is less than 1%. There are several other countries that could provide the US with the manufactured goods it gets from China, but China would have real trouble finding an alternative to the US as an export market.

Trump has expressed in blunt, often bellicose, terms his unhappiness with the way China conducts its trade, but according to Davidson he has a point. “The US position in these trade negotiations is strengthened by international trade law, and by China’s systematic violation of obligations under World Trade Organisation rules. The US has scope to open, and win, lawsuits against China at the WTO, a point not lost on both leaders.”

Xi clearly hopes that Trump can be talked down from the aggressively anti-Beijing stance he adopted on the campaign trail, and arrived for his talks armed with a few vague promises about future Chinese investment in the US. This is not going to be enough to satisfy Trump, who has made action on America’s $350bn a year trade deficit with China a touchstone of his presidency. It was a coincidence that the Florida tête-à-tête took place on the night the White House launched airstrikes on Syria, but the message will not have been lost on the Chinese president: Trump’s impetuosity makes him hard to read.

Beijing has been left guessing about what it will actually take to stop Trump slapping a 45% tariff on all Chinese exports. The answer is that it will probably require Xi to remove the barriers that make it hard for hi-tech US companies to export to China. Even then, there is likely to be some US protectionism in sectors – such as steel – that are politically sensitive in the rust-belt states that carried Trump to victory.

There will be less talk in the months ahead of China “raping” the US, but that simply means the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has learned from one of his predecessors, Teddy Roosevelt, to speak softly and carry a big stick.

Counterfeiting significant to China’s overall economy

by Susan Headley

Coin World

The counterfeiting of general goods and infringement of intellectual rights (such as software piracy) in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) comprises a significant portion of China’s overall economy. Consider these facts:

– In 2006, an estimated 8 percent of China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was generated from counterfeiting.

– The PRC’s own State Council Research and Development Center estimated that there were $19 billion to $24 billion worth of counterfeit goods flooding China’s economy in 2001.

– Brand owners estimated that 15 to 20 percent of all well-known brands in the PRC are counterfeit.

– Up to 80 percent of all worldwide counterfeiting is done in China, according to some estimates.

– In 2005, U.S. Customs seized $93 million worth of counterfeit and infringing goods, nearly 70 percent of which came from China (and this is only what Customs actually caught entering the country, which is probably a small percentage of the total).

– The manufacture of counterfeits is primarily centered in the two southern Chinese provinces of Fujian and Guangdong.

On the financial scene, the rising price of gold is drawing a frenzied horde of investors and as more and more use the precious metal for investment, the price continues to rise.

There is one very serious flaw in this process, a flaw that has more to do with human nature than anything else. Once the hedge funds were the darling of those with extra money and they rushed to invest with the same zeal that the goldbugs are now grabbing gold but like the hedge funds, most of which were pure fraud, the gold market also has its flaws, the most serious one of which is the indisputable one that at least fourteen Chinese firms are pouring out an incredible flood of entirely faked coins, both bullion and numismatic.

Counterfeiting foreign gold is not illegal in China and, as usual, the Chinese government has turned a blind eye to illegal acts that enrich their economy.

By laser-cutting dies from original pieces, the counterfeiters are able to produce coins that are visually almost perfect but because they are Chinese, the makers are determined to increase their profits by adulterating the contents of the coins.

The hundreds of examples of fakes, to include American and foreign coins and, most interesting, various gold bars supposedly coming from prestigious Swiss banks, are made of less than pure gold and silver and to offset the lighter color of adulterated gold, the fakes are then plated with 24k gold for the proper rich color.

However, there is the pleasing bit of information that the fakes, being made of less pure gold and silver, always weigh less than originals. It is estimated that there are millions of dollars in fakes now circulating in the United States, the Middle East and gold-hungry India. If and when the knowledge of the massive counterfeiting efforts becomes public, many greedy collectors will do what they should have done, and been doing, and that is to weigh their holdings, coin by coin.

The fakes always weigh less than originals and can easily be detected with a cheap digital scale. It is also to be noted that the Chinese forgers are now making coins that show honest wear, that are not UNC but only VG+ so that a collector seeing what appears to be a used coin believes that it is genuine. Just weigh it and see, children, weigh it.

Neither my opinion nor that of an “expert” means a thing. Just weigh the suspect piece, that’s all. What such a discovery of massive fraud is going to do to the gold market is anyone’s guess but those fortunate, and prudent, enough to have the real thing will see their own investments increase in value because their worth can easily be proven. A piece of obvious advice: Do not buy gold or silver coins, ever, unless and until you weigh them before buying. A digital scale is cheap (less than $25.00) and well worth the investment.”

US Navy group headed towards Korean Peninsula – US official

Amid growing concerns over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, Washington has deployed a Navy carrier group near the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang has conducted five nuclear weapons tests despite growing criticism.

April 9, 2017

DW

US President Donald Trump seeks to build up a presence in the region and boost US defenses against North Korea.

The USS Carl Vinson super carrier was ordered to sail from Singapore toward the Korean Peninsula as part of what the US Pacific Command described as a “prudent measure to maintain readiness and presence in the Western Pacific.”

“The number one threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,” US Pacific Command spokesman Dave Benham said. “We feel the increased presence is necessary.”

On board alongside a host of fighter jets are also said to be two guided-missile destroyers and a guided-missile cruiser.

The decision to allocate naval reserves off the Korean Peninsula comes after Trump and South Korea’s acting President Hwang Kyo-Ahn spoke by phone on Saturday. The two leaders reportedly agreed to remain in close contact over the South’s troublesome neighbor.

North Korea has stirred panic across the region through its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang has carried out five separate nuclear tests – two of them last year – while satellite imagery appears to suggest that it could be preparing a sixth.

Just last week, the North launched several ballistic missiles into the East Sea near the coast of Japan.

The US has estimated that the hermit country could be less than two years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

Trump has threatened military action against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime. In an interview this week with the Financial Times, he warned that the US would be prepared to act unilaterally on North Korea. That threat appeared all the more palpable later this week, after the US launched a barrage of Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian air base in Shayrat in the early hours of Friday morning.

North Korea denounced the US military intervention in Syria, calling it an act of “intolerable aggression,” adding that it justified the nation’s nuclear interests.

Trump and his national security aides held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida this week. The US president reportedly pushed his Chinese counterpart to rein in North Korea and do more to curb its nuclear ambitions. China is one of just very few countries that maintain relations with its secluded neighbor.

Shadow Brokers hackers release NSA hacking tools to punish Trump for ‘abandoning’ his base

April 9, 2017

RT

Hacking group Shadow Brokers has released the password to a trove of NSA exploits in what they say is a form of protest against President Donald Trump for going back on his campaign promises, and warning the president, “Don’t forget your base.”

The shadowy group first emerged last August and released hacking exploits used by the NSA’s Equation Group, which included vulnerabilities in firewall products, and a list of IP addresses the NSA had exploited, which the group released at a later date.

Shadow Brokers released passwords to the rest of the exploits on Saturday, in a move they described as a protest against Trump, who they say has “abandoned” his base by going back on many promises made on the campaign trail.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has confirmed that the leak included authentic NSA software. The leak doesn’t contain the entire spy tools library, Snowden tweeted.

However, he added that “NSA should be able to instantly identify where this set came from and how they lost it. If they can’t, it’s a scandal.”

Back in August, The Intercept used unreleased documents from Snowden to confirm the Shadow Brokers’ exploits were authentic.

The files appeared to be from up to late 2013, after Snowden had revealed the NSA’s spying reach. They included code to exploit unknown security flaws in CISCO hardware.

The password provided by Shadow Brokers unlocks the hacking tools, which include servers belonging to companies and universities which are allegedly used to deploy malware, according to researchers who have examined some of the documents. WikiLeaks tweeted the dump includes “hacking attacks on EU states, Russia, China, Japan and South East Asia.”

Shadow Brokers listed some of the reasons they were unhappy with Trump in a Medium blog post:

“Goldman Sachs (TheGlobalists) and Military Industrial Intelligence Complex (MIIC), cabinet, #2 — Backtracked on Obamacare, #3 — Attacked the Freedom Caucus (TheMovement), #4 — Removed Bannon from the NSC, #5 — Increased U.S. involvement in a foreign war (Syria Strike).”

The group also criticized Trump for launching the cruise missile strike against Syria, saying: “Whose war are you fighting? Israeli Nationalists’ (Zionist) and Goldman Sachs’ war? Chinese Globalists’ and Goldman Sachs war? Is not looking like you fighting the domestic wars, the movement elected you to be fighting.”

The group earlier attempted to auction the “best files” for more 1 million Bitcoin, but abandoned the plan in January.

The post seemingly lends clues as to the identity of the group. “Did you know most of theshadowbrokers’ members have taken the oath ‘…to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…’.” it reads. “Yes sir! Most of us used to be TheDeepState everyone is talking about.”

While the Shadow Brokers were accused of being Russians, several NSA insiders earlier told the media that signs pointed to it being someone within the NSA.

59% of Germans disapprove of US strike on Syrian airbase – poll

April 9, 2017

RT

Almost 60 percent of the people in Germany say the US strike on a Syrian airbase earlier in the week was the wrong thing to do, according to a poll commissioned by Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

The poll, ordered by the media outlet and conducted by Emnid-TNS company, asked respondents about Washington’s decision to launch Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian airfield.

The survey revealed that 26 percent approved, and 59 percent disapproved of the attack on the military site.

The majority of the respondents, 80 percent, also think that no more strikes should be made on Syrian territory. Only nine percent would welcome further US attacks on the country.

The US said the bombardment was in response to a suspected chemical gas attack in Idlib, which Washington claims Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government were responsible for.

A total of 59 Tomahawk missiles launched from American warships hit Shayrat airfield, where it is alleged that Syrian planes with chemical weapons took off.

The Bild am Sonntag survey also found that 40 percent of Germans fear that the strike can provoke military conflict between Russia and the US, while 53 percent do not believe it is a possible outcome.

Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has voiced concerns over the escalation of tensions between Moscow and Washington, Bild reports, citing the minister.

Gabriel also called for international experts to help conduct an investigation into the alleged chemical weapons assault.

“It is important that the UN and experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) gain immediate access and can carry out their investigation without hindrance,” – he told Bild newspaper in the interview.

Russia has also advocated sending professionals to investigate, saying that it is “the only way to receive and present to the whole international community any objective evidence on the alleged presence of poisonous substances.”

The German foreign minister said that the alleged chemical attack was a “barbaric act” and that it was plausible that the Syrian president was behind it, though he did not provide any evidence to support the allegations.

Damascus has denied all allegations, saying that the Syrian military hit a warehouse where terrorists could have produced and stored chemical materials.

Moscow also pointed out that Syria has eliminated its stockpiles of chemical weapons, which was confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Like Obama, Only Worse:Trump’s Ill Thought-Out Battle Against Islamic State

The current U.S. strategy for fighting the Islamic State isn’t working. On the contrary, the poorly planned approach is preparing fertile ground for the terrorist organization’s later return.

April 5, 2017

by Christoph Reuter

Spiegel

The idea was to send out a strong message: The Free World stands together in the fight against Islamic State (IS). Which is why representatives from 68 countries met for an anti-IS coalition summit in Washington on March 22.

Since that meeting, though, things have been oddly quiet. Few announcements have been made and, above all, there is no plan. Some participants complained afterward that the meeting had been poorly planned. But how could it have been? In January, almost the entire leadership of the U.S. State Department resigned and President Donald Trump has yet to replace them.

Meanwhile, a growing number of reports have emerged of U.S. bombings in both Syria and Iraq in which dozens of civilians are believed to have been killed. On March 17 in Mosul, up to 200 people are thought to have lost their lives. Such is the result of Trump’s announcement that would give the military greater latitude: More bombs are now falling, but there is still no plan in place for how to defeat the terrorists following the predictable fall of the Islamic State-held cities Mosul and Raqqa.

The organization that came to be known as Islamic State was already destroyed once before under a different name. That was prior to 2010. But it experienced rebirth and there is concern that another resurrection could be in its future. The “caliphate,” the territory currently controlled by IS, will soon fall. But fertile soil is already being prepared for the next monster, an “Islamic State 2.0,” which will likely return to operating underground. And one reason for this, beyond their mere cruelty, is that many of the groups in the anti-IS coalition are actually hostile to one another and are likely to resume fighting following the victory over IS.

Trump, who had actually wanted to do things completely differently than his predecessor, is now continuing Barack Obama’s Middle East policy. Except that he is doing a worse job of it. He is pursuing all sorts of goals that contradict each other. First, in Syria, he wants to fight IS side-by-side with Russia and, by extension, Iran. Second, in Yemen, Trump has identified Iran as the primary enemy and wants to increase support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in their bombing campaign against the Shiite Houthi rebels. Trump’s reasoning: Iran must be contained. But the better place to do that would be Syria, given that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is organizing the ground war for dictator Bashar Assad.

Third, the U.S. is providing air support to the Shiite militia advance into Mosul. These militias have already established their first bases in the liberated eastern half of the city under Iranian leadership after driving hundreds of thousands of Sunnis out of the provinces, killing thousands and razing entire villages.

No Plan, No Logic, No Nothing

There is no plan, no logic, no nothing — at least not on the part of the Americans. Even under the aegis of Obama, it was unclear which goals the U.S. was pursuing in the midst of the murderous upheavals taking place in the Arab World. IS, which Obama dismissed as a group of amateurs at the beginning of 2014, would be declared the world’s greatest enemy only three-quarters of a year later. Instead of fundamentally considering the global threats that could emerge from the ignored war in Syria, Washington only wanted to intervene in a way that wouldn’t require much of an intervention. Islamic State was to be fought, but nothing else was to be touched. So the Pentagon’s emissaries told the rebels it would be best if they pointed their guns at Islamic State and nothing else.

But that didn’t work. Instead, the flexible Kurdish troops aligned with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which operates with the same leadership and command structures as YPG in Syria, offered in 2015 to fulfill the Americans’ wishes. From then on, they received weapons and air support and were praised in Washington as a strong fighting force. That, in turn, encouraged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to resume the war against PKK and to invade Syria. Now the U.S. special forces are in the bizarre situation of having to prevent their two allies from fighting each other along the path to Raqqa.

The primary driver behind Islamic State’s rise isn’t first and foremost the power of its radical ideology. It thrives on anarchic conditions and the cruelty of its local opponents, which provides IS with a core constituency, Sunni Muslims. It wouldn’t be difficult to defeat IS if you could pull that rug of support out from under them — if Sunnis living in the areas between Raqqa and Mosul had the choice of living in peace without having to fear Assad’s bombs in Syria or the Shiite militias in Iraq. To make that possible, however, the West needs a clear vision that goes beyond short-term military victories and focuses on the root causes of the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in the region.

What we are seeing instead is countries bombing without strategy from the air and, on the ground, an ever-increasing number of parties to the war who are officially opposed to IS but which are, in fact, fighting for their own goals. And that means a golden age for IS. It’s not for nothing that its official motto is “lasting and expanding.”

Jihadists in America

April 9, 2017

by Harry von Johnston PhD

The international communities with large Muslim populations have been secretly meeting to agree upon corrective steps to deal with this problem. The commission is called ‘Energy Control Commission’  and its members are: The United States, India, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy.

This commission has been meeting on a monthly basis in Copenhagen since July of 2008. Its sole purpose is to address the flood of potentially dangerous Muslims into Western countries.

A good deal of intelligence material has surfaced in which telephone and internet communications between various Muslim activist groups point very clearly to deliberate infiltration of non-Muslim countries with the double goal of overwhelming the native populations with numbers and threats of physical violence.

Muslim groups are strongly anti-Christian and are most especially vindictive towards any country that has engaged in military action against any Muslim country. The United States is considered a prime target for infiltration and domestic terrorism while Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden and France are also high on activist terrorist lists.

The general agreement between all parties is that Muslims cannot remain in basically Christian countries because of their often-stated desire to not only take over these countries by population increase but also by the on-going threat of terrorism. At this time, the Commission has taken into account the death of Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi, and if sufficient Western control can be obtaioned,  Libya can now be opened up as a designated ‘Country of Welcome’, When this happens, mass deportations of Europe, and America’s, Muslims will begin.

This Islamic Diaspora will be implemented by a joint team of multi-national military personnel using aircraft and shipping that has already been allotted.

Jihad

The usual translation of jihad as ‘holy war’ is misleading; ‘exertion ‘or ‘struggle’ is more accurate: “A general injunction to strive in the way of God”

As a movement for the establishment of Muslim governance, Islamic radicalism was born in the 1920s with the creation of an organization of Egyptian origin known as the Muslim Brotherhood. From the outset, Islamic radicalism opposed not only colonialism, but also Western modernism and non-Islamic Arab governments. The radicalization process intensified with the formation of the State of Israel and the movement itself gradually internationalized, facilitated by the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Gulf War, to the point of reaching its current dynamism.

• Hizballah (or Party of God,) Shia, Egyptian, and pro-Iranian, operational since the 1980s;
• Hamas or Islamic Resistance Movement
• Palestine Islamic Jihad, both Sunni, operating in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank since the late 1980s the former and since the late 1970s the latter
• Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Sunni and Algerian, in existence since the early 1990s,
• Salafi Group for Call and Combat; al-Jihad or Holy War
• al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya or Islamic Group, both Sunni and Egyptian, formed in the late 1970s
• Abu Sayyaf Group, Sunni and southern Filipino, a spin-off of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front since 1991
• Harakat ul-Mujahidin or Movement of Islamic Fighters
• Jaish-e-Mohammed or Army of Mohamed
• Lashkar-e-Tayyba or Army of the Righteous
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a coalition of Islamic militants from Uzbekistan and other Central Asian states.

Besides aiming at the creation of an Islamic theocratic government in their own country or even in their geopolitical area, all of the above-listed aggregations share one or more of the following char-acteristics: a dual structure, overt, on the one hand, for political action, religious ministry, proselytizing, fundraising, and social assistance, and covert, on the other hand, for terrorist initiatives; hatred for Israel; the presence of representative organs abroad; terrorist action beyond their own national boundaries; and holy war without quarter against the infidel at the universal level. Some of these groups have enjoyed or still enjoy to this day forms of support from sponsor states governed by either theocratic or secular regimes. Iran has been supporting Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad and is accused by Egypt of supporting also Holy War and the Islamic Group.

Sudan has granted asylum to Holy War, the Islamic Group, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad, which exploit-ed it as an operational base. Algeria has charged Sudan with support-ing the GIA. Syria has been assisting on its own territory Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad and allows them, as well as Hizballah, to use the Bekaa Valley in Lebanese territory. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan utillizes the Iranian radio system to broadcast propaganda. India accuses Pakistan of assisting Islamic terrorist organizations that operate in Kashmir.

Other forms of assistance, primarily financial, issue from private benefactors aware or unaware of supporting domestic and international terrorism, given the dual structure utilized by several of these groups, which, thanks precisely to their dual structure, respond to a socio-economic void unfilled by government or society in many Third World countries. This aspect increases popular following and the relative danger posed by Islamic radicalism.

The most radical Islamic activists, in order to wage holy war against the infidel, have given birth to an international network, not to be confused with the mild concept of ummah that unites the Muslim faithful in the conviction of belonging all to one nation, that is, the nation of Islam. The internationalization of Islamic radicalism draws its origins from the Afghani resistance against the Soviet Union, followed by a further resistance conceived as a struggle against the American and Western occupation of the holiest places of Islam and against West-ern polluting of the Islamic world, nefariously allowed by local regimes viewed as corrupt.

In this context, a series of well known events has taken place: the constitution in the late 1980s of al-Qaida, or The Base, as an umbrella for coordinating, training and supporting various subordinate, semi-autonomous, and autonomous organizations dedicated to holy war at the global level; the training in Afghanistan of approximately 11,000 militants, who subsequently either fought in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and Dagestan or returned to their respective countries to conduct an internal struggle or took up residence in the West to set up operational and logistical cells; the issuance of numerous anti-Western fatwas or religious decrees, among which stands out the one of February 1998 undersigned by representatives of al-Qaida, Holy War (Egypt), Islamic Group (Egypt), Jamat-ul-Ulema (Pakistan), and Jihad Movement (Bangladesh), in which all Muslims are called upon to kill Americans and their allies, civilians as well as military, wherever possible; the creation of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders; the fine tuning, until the recent Western military intervention in Afghanistan, of a triad consisting of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan; and about twenty anti-Western terrorist attacks that culminated in the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon

The main mission of all Jihadists is the overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.

Muslims in the United States

Once very small, the Muslim population of the US increased greatly in the twentieth century, with much of the growth driven by rising immigration and conversion. In the last decademore people from Islamic countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades.

Recent immigrant Muslims make up the majority of the total Muslim population. South Asians Muslims from India and Pakistan and Arabs make up the biggest group of Muslims in America at 60-65% of the population. Native-born American Muslims are mainly African Americans who make up a quarter of the total Muslim population. Many of these have converted to Islam during the last seventy years. Conversion to Islam in prison, and in large urban areas  has also contributed to its growth over the years. American Muslims come from various backgrounds, and are one of the most racially diverse religious group in the United States according to a 2009 Gallup poll.

A Pew report released in 2009 noted that nearly six-in-ten American adults see Muslims as being subject to discrimination, more than Mormons, Atheists, or Jews. Modern immigration

There is no accurate count of the number of Muslims in the United States, as the U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on religious identification. There is an ongoing debate as to the true size of the Muslim population in the US. Various institutions and organizations have given widely varying estimates about how many Muslims live in the U.S. These estimates have been controversial, with a number of researchers being explicitly critical of the survey methodologies that have led to the higher estimates.

Others claim that no scientific count of Muslims in the U.S. has been done, but that the larger figures should be considered accurate. Some journalists have also alleged that the higher numbers have been inflated for political purposes. On the other hand, some Muslim groups blame Islamophobia and the fact that many Muslims identify themselves as Muslims, but do not attend mosques for the lower estimates.

According to a 2007 religious survey, 72% of Muslims believe religion is very important, which is higher in comparison to the overall population of the United States at 59%. The frequency of receiving answers to prayers among Muslims was, 31% at least once a week and 12% once or twice a month. Nearly a quarter of the Muslims are converts to Islam (23%), mainly native-born. Of the total who have converted, 59% are African American and 34% white. Previous religions of those converted was Protestantism (67%), Roman Catholicism (10%) and 15% no religion.

Mosques are usually explicitly Sunni or Shia. There are over 1,209 mosques in the United States and the nation’s largest mosque, the Islamic Center of America, is in Dearborn, Michigan. It caters mainly to the Shi’a Muslim congregation; however, all Muslims may attend this mosque. It was rebuilt in 2005 to accommodate over 3,000 people for the increasing Muslim population in the region.

In many areas, a mosque may be dominated by whatever group of immigrants is the largest. Sometimes the Friday sermons, or khutbas, are given in languages like Urdu or Arabic along with English. Areas with large Muslim populations may support a number of mosques serving different immigrant groups or varieties of belief within Sunni or Shi’a traditions. At present, many mosques are served by imams who immigrate from overseas, as only these imams have certificates from Muslim seminaries. The influence of the Wahhabi movement in the US has caused concern.

Muslim Americans are racially diverse communities in the United States, two-thirds are foreign-born. The majority, about three-fifths of Muslim Americans are of South Asian and Arab origin, a quarter of the population are recent converts of whites and indigenous African Americans, while the remaining are other ethnic groups which  includes Turks, Iranians, Bosnians, Malays, Indonesians, West Africans, Somalis, Kenyans, with also small but growing numbers of white and Hispanic converts.

A survey of ethnic comprehension by the Pew Forum survey has shown that 37% respondents viewed themselves white(mainly of Arab and South Asian origin), 24% were Africans and White converts in the ratio 2:1, 20% Asian (mainly South Asian origin), 15% other race (includes mixed Arabs or Asians) and 4% were of Hispanic descent. Since the arrival of South Asian and Arab communities during the 1990s there has been divisions with the African Americans due to the racial and cultural differences, however since post 9/11, the two groups joined together when the immigrant communities looked towards the African Americans for advice on civil rights.

Remembering the fact that Arabs are generally counted among Whites and majority of Arabs in U.S. are Christians; the more accurate figure would be 65-70% South Asians and Arabs in the ratio 1:1 to 2:1 (includes mixed Arabs and Asians which comprise a significant 25% of the total Asian population) 20-25% Blacks belonging to traditional and Nations Of Islam sect and 4% were of Hispanic descent. Only about a quarter of the Arab American population is Muslim. The 2000 census reported about 1.25 million Americans of Arab ancestry. Contrary to popular perceptions the condition of Muslims in U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in this country, the large Indian American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels that exceed those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. The five urban areas with the largest Indian populations include the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area as well as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

The 10 states with the largest Muslim populations are California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Ohio, and Maryland. 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.

Uzbek suspect in Swedish attack sympathized with Islamic State: police

April 9, 2017

by Simon Johnson, Niklas Pollard and Johan Ahlander

Reuters

STOCKHOLM-An Uzbek man suspected of ramming a truck into a crowd in Stockholm, killing four people, had expressed sympathy for Islamic State and was wanted for failing to comply with a deportation order, Swedish police said on Sunday.

Thousands gathered in the spring sunshine near the site of Friday’s attack to show support for those killed or injured when a hijacked beer delivery truck hurtled down a busy shopping street before crashing into a store and catching fire. The Uzbek man was arrested several hours later.

“The suspect had expressed sympathy for extremist organizations, among them IS,” Jonas Hysing, chief of national police operations, told a news conference, using an acronym for the ultra-hardline militant group.

Two of those killed were Swedes, one was a British citizen and the other from Belgium, Hysing said of the attack, which echoes the earlier use of vehicles as deadly weapons in Nice, Berlin and London. Those attacks were claimed by Islamic State, but there has been no such claim yet for the Stockholm assault.

The Stockholm suspect, aged 39 and from the Central Asian republic of Uzbekistan, applied for permanent residence in Sweden in 2014. However, his bid was rejected and he was wanted for disregarding a deportation order, Hysing said.

Police had been looking for him since Sweden’s Migration Agency in December gave him four weeks to leave, but security services had not viewed him as a militant threat.

Sweden’s prosecution authority said a second person had been arrested on suspicion of having committed a terrorist offence through murder, but police said they were more convinced than ever that the Uzbek man was the driver of the truck.

Another five people were being held for questioning after raids and police said they had conducted about 500 interviews.

Police across the Nordic region went on heightened alert after the attack and in neighboring Norway police set off a controlled explosion of a “bomb-like device” in central Oslo on Sunday and took a suspect into custody.

FLOWERS AND DEFIANCE

Although nine of the 15 people injured remained in hospital, two in intensive care, Stockholm began to return normal on Sunday with the removal of police barricades along the Drottninggatan street where the attack took place.

Hundreds of flower bouquets covered steps leading down to the square next to where the truck ploughed into the Ahlens department store, with more piled up under boarded-up windows.

Only yards from the scene, thousands of people gathered in the Sergels Torg square in a show of unity as heavily armed police stood guard and a police helicopter hovered overhead.

“I want to show I’m not afraid to go out,” Eva Udd, a 55-year-old nurse who had joined the demonstration with a friend, said. “I usually never go to things like this, but this just felt so very important.”

Husam Kranda, a Libyan living in Sweden for the past five years and now working as translator, was among the multi-ethnic gathering which underlined Stockholm’s cosmopolitan inhabitants.

“We believe it’s our duty to come here and show our support for the Swedish society,” he said.

“I know it’s a difficult time, there is a lot going on within Swedish society and internationally. But today is not about that, it’s about showing support for our neighbors and our beloved ones.”

He was joined by his wife from Uzbekistan, Irana Mamedova.

“I really feel ashamed [of] that man, because this country give him everything, this country give him peace,” she said of the Uzbek suspect. “He is a monster.”

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, addressing a Social Democratic party conference in the western city of Gothenburg, said Sweden would never be broken by acts of terror.

“We will hunt down these murderers with the full power of Sweden’s democracy. There will be no compromises,” he said.

Sweden, a nation of 10 million inhabitants, has long taken pride in its tolerant liberal society and been among the world’s most welcoming nations to immigrants.

But some Swedes are having second thoughts after more than 160,000 people, many from Syria, applied for asylum in 2015.

The Ahlens store canceled a planned half-price sale of smoke-damaged goods and apologized after a storm of protest on social media that this would be disrespectful to the victims.

(Additional reporting by Johan Sennero, Johannes Hellstrom, Helena Soderpalm, Olof Swahnberg and Daniel Dickson, and Temis Tormo and Philip O’Connor for Reuters TV in Stockholm, and Julia Fioretti in Brussels; writing by Simon Johnson, Alister Doyle and Niklas Pollard; editing by Mark Heinrich and Alexander Smith)