“Alexa, it’s Sunday and I feel like going to mass. Please find me a church”…You are now on a list…”What list?”…It’s not a good idea to protest…”But then I am inviting over some parishioners to watch football”…The smart meter is ready to determine how many will actually be present…The video cameras outside will get their license plates…
How Amazon will take over your house
By Erica Pandey
August 1, 2019
In recent years, Amazon has made a series of investments, acquisitions and R&D moves in the smart home industry. None seemed particularly consequential on its own, but with a real estate deal last week, Amazon appears to have captured first-mover advantage in one of the most important new industries on the planet.
Why it matters: With the deals, Amazon has taken a pioneering lead in what has come to be called “surveillance capitalism,” which includes some of the biggest businesses of the future, like 5G, autonomous vehicles and smart cities. Now, the behemoth, with its edge in this new economy, is positioned to explode its revenue.
“Amazon has entered the surveillance capitalism domain with a very big bang,” says Shoshana Zuboff, author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.” “Once you have this as your lens, and you look at Amazon, you will never look back.”
The company has “already got all of this behavioral data flowing every which way,” she says. “Now they’re thinking, ‘We can be a Google or a Facebook on top of what we’ve already got. Not only do we know what they know, but we know stuff that they don’t know. We don’t have to infer that you’re interested in a white T-shirt with a big rose on the chest. We actually know because you bought one.'”
Other tech giants aren’t “even in the same universe as Amazon,” says Amy Webb, founder of the Future Today Institute. “We’re talking about an entirely new ecosystem that is literally being born in front of our eyes.”
What’s happening: Amazon’s newest offering, a deal announced last week with Realogy, connects homebuyers to real estate agents and gives them $5,000 in smart devices and services when they close the deal. The huge upside for Amazon is unchecked access to the data-rich interiors of our homes.
On paper, Amazon is giving out cool stuff for free. But the company is alsogetting “extremely inexpensive access to record some of the most intimate parts of your life,” says Meredith Whittaker, co-founder of the AI Now Institute.
“There are hundreds of millions of marketing dollars that go into presenting these as sleek, convenience devices, but smart home is a misnomer. We’re really talking about a surveillance home” that feeds tech firms data that is far more personal and valuable than what is garnered from an Instagram like or an online purchase.
Speaking to Axios, Amazon says that its speakers and cameras can be turned off at will and come with lights that signal when they are recording. It also says customers can log onto portals and delete whatever they want.
Amazon is actually “ahead of the curve on transparency” compared to its rivals, says Adam Wright, an Internet of Things analyst at the International Data Corporation.
Still, there’s a chasm between what the company says it does and what is technically possible, Whittaker says.
And there’s more.
Amazon has rolled outEcho, its smart speaker, Ring, its camera doorbell, and dozens of other Alexa-enabled smart appliances. And Amazon is winning: about 70% of people who own smart speakers have Amazon’s devices, according to a recent report from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners.
It partnered with Lennar, the country’s largest homebuilder to put up houses that have internet “built into the walls and floors,” making them the perfect shells for smart devices from Alexa to Ring, reports CNBC. And these homes aren’t just for the rich. There are affordable versions being propped up in blue-collar neighborhoods. too, Webb says.
Amazon has also invested in Plant Prefab, a startup which constructs smart houses.
The result, per Webb, is “Amazon in literally every nook and cranny of our home because either it built us the home, or it has got devices in the home, or it helped sell us the home.”
This plays into Amazon’s hands because consumers are increasingly likely to buy into one stack of devices instead of a patchwork, says Wright. “There’s less friction, and the further you get into the Amazon ecosystem, the less likely you are to switch over to Google or Samsung or another competitor.”
Once Amazon has planted its flag in a house, there’s a lot it could do, experts say.
For example, emails obtained by Vice revealed that Amazon has teamed up with over 200 U.S. police departments in a partnership that — with owners’ consent — lets officers see which homes have Amazon’s video doorbell, Ring, and request footage from the owners of those devices. “Police do not need a warrant to ask for footage,” writes Vice’s Caroline Haskins.
Look for the company’s advertising business to keep pushing up against that of Google or Facebook as it gets smarter about predicting human behavior, says Zuboff. Amazon could also use the data it collects from conversations and movements inside customers’ houses to entice them to spend more money on its site by getting better at figuring out what they want to buy
On top of that, the company is wading into selling health insurance. Surveillance could theoretically reveal if a prospective insurance buyer has a pre-existing condition or mental health issues.
What to watch: Amazon is ahead, but “this isn’t a one-horse race yet,” Wright says. Google, for instance, is working with construction firms to pre-install its WiFi in new homes and set the stage for its devices.
“There’s only one allowed religion in China, and that’s secular socialism,” Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, tells National Review. “And the Church is the community party, the acolytes, its members, and their pontiff, Chinese president Xi Jinping himself.”
The good news is that our Mother of Managers, RED China, continues to franchise its “One World, One Dream” surveillance and control solution based on its own Golden Shield initiative which produces “Happy Populations and Consumers” that our actuarily our LRUs for predictable profit margin percentages.
Even though Hillary missed her moment again, Diane and her driver, Nancy, the FBI, DOJ, State, NSA, and “Central” have been very helpful.
On the downside, NAFTA and the TPP were exposed, however, the drug trade, human trafficking, and organ harvesting ventures are thriving. Others should implement the “Planned Parenthood” disguise.
Also, the Village Idiots have still not figured out the pretext and goal of Arab Spring, and we really cut it close with The Thing from 1890’s, SSN # 042-68-4425, fake war on Libya and used the crisis to expand our pretext of the Global War on Terror into Europe to ultimately benefit RED China’s loan sharking and total control blueprint.
Syria was never on the Arab Spring list, but we also turned it into an opportunity for “Sustainable Development Wherever the UN Goes or Doesn’t Go When It Ideally Should” with less people as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia etc.
Trump like Reagan has interrupted the implementation of the blueprint, but we have some plans and eventually one will work to get the implementation back on track as we are so very close. The good news is Americans are getting dumber by the minute as well as being crushed with debt while thinking their “schooling” is giving them the skill sets for financial success while we have put all the roadblocks in place to prevent that from happening thanks to all our puppets in the U.S. Congress. Eventually they will succumb to the bait of free stuff and be totally dependent on us.
Eventually, with the success of RED China’s “One World, One Dream” solution, we will be able to overcome any resistance to our plan via its built in hostage taking and extortion. RED China’s partnership with NSA and “Central” has made good use of this in America. We must continue on this path and someday very soon all will wake up from The Dream and realize it is not their Dream but our Dream and they will not be able to do anything about it when it becomes their nightmare for our benefit.
Once again, election seasons are coming up again, and we must focus on placing more Emirs into our future areas of control so that we can remove all aspects of resistance. We must make Eichmann proud!
Editors Note: Farming, Mining, and Management of The Human Kind : The pretext of altruistic endeavors that just suddenly become predatory and parasitic.
The Blueprint for RED China’s One World One Dream:
How Arab governments use cyberspace laws to shut down activism
Critical Arab voices are being silenced on Twitter, and laws across the Middle East are created to further this cause.
by Yarno Ritzen
25 Jul 2019
In this series of articles, Al Jazeera examines how Twitter in the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring.
Government talking points are being magnified through thousands of accounts during politically fraught times and silencing people on Twitter is only part of a large-scale effort by governments to stop human rights activists and opponents of the state from being heard.
For human rights activists, journalists, dissidents and free speech campaigners, social media has long been a double-edged sword, representing both the positive and harmful aspects of open communication on the internet.
On the one hand, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow activists the opportunity to spread their message, reaching an audience they could only dream of before the internet.
But on the other, the nature of open communication raises the risk of being followed, exposed or worse, as some governments increase their digital surveillance capabilities.
As a result, governments around the world are turning social media against their citizens.
China is the country where government control of the internet is by far the most egregious, but many countries in the Middle East are not far behind when it comes to using the internet against those who fight for a more open society, the annual Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House concluded.
Mohamad Najem, executive director at Beirut-based SMEX, a digital rights organisation focusing on issues related to freedom of expression, online privacy and safety, said social media movements had taken the Middle East by surprise and governments adapted relatively quickly, using social media against protesters and civil rights activists.
Over the last decade, SMEX has tracked how the use of social media platforms like Twitter, both by activists and governments, has changed.
“In 2011, access to these tools was still kind of new and governments underestimated them,” Najem told Al Jazeera.
Social media allowed people in the Middle East to voice their concerns and question those in power.
During the Arab Spring, protesters were able to organise on social media, a tool that connected their realities with the rest of the world.
But governments were watching, too, and continue to closely monitor.
“Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech,” Najem told Al Jazeera.
“The online sphere we used to go to in the Middle East to express ourselves, to talk about politics, has started to close down slowly because of all these regulations,” he added.
“People were prosecuted, thrown in jail, or they had to flee the country.”
To show what laws Middle East governments have introduced in recent years, SMEX launched Cyrilla, a website listing all proposed and passed legislation aimed at curbing free speech.
The database, which offers texts in Arabic and English and covers the entire region, shows clearly how digital liberties in the Middle East have come under attack.
Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech.
MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX
It also lists several countries outside of the Middle East, including Russia, Vietnam and Fiji.
“Across the Middle East, there is a large number of countries that have specifically instituted anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that contain vague prohibitions on free speech,” Jillian York told Al Jazeera.
York is the Berlin-based director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which aims to protect civil liberties in the digital world.
“Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Qatar; all these countries have instituted cybercrime laws and in most cases, the laws are vague – quite broad,” she said.
Recently, prominent Norway-based pro-democracy activist Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Palestinian who has been outspoken in his criticism of Saudi authority figures, made a plea for his safety after US intelligence agency CIA found a credible threat to his life from authorities in the kingdom.
El-Baghdadi is behind The Arab Tyrant Manual, which focuses on global authoritarianism and the struggle for democratic liberties in the Arab region. He is also a fellow at Civita, a leading liberal think-tank in Norway, where he sought asylum after he was forced to leave his home in the United Arab Emirates in 2015.
İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي
Spare a thought for all the dissidents, activists, journalists, and private citizens in the Arab world who get beaten, arrested, tortured, murdered without being passed tips and without being offered protection. They are the real heroes, and they are the real victims. Not me.
Governments in the Middle East have started using platforms such as Twitter as amplifiers, using both automated bot accounts and well-known social media influencers to promote state-approved messaging, Najem said.
So, while activist voices are being drowned out by government-approved messages, sometimes amplified by fake Twitter accounts, campaigners also risk being jailed or are forced to leave the country because of newly implemented cybercrime or “antiterrorism” laws.
Similarly, the Turkish government cracked down hard last year on Twitter users who used the platform to voice their criticism of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria, claiming they were spreading “terrorist propaganda”.
The UAE, meanwhile, made it a criminal offence to show support for Qatar in the ongoing GCC crisis, claiming people who did so violated the federal decree on Combating Information Technology Crimes, possibly facing a jail term from three to 15 years, and a fine not less than 500,000 dirhams ($136,000).
According to both Najem and York, it is not just governments that are to blame for the crackdown on activists.
Part of the responsibility falls on social media companies for failing to address the issue of automated propaganda accounts and willingly helping governments in the region.
“One of the challenges with companies like Twitter – and most tech companies – is that they are based in Dubai. This is an issue because this is a country that has no respect for human rights, which means they have no respect for digital rights either,” Najem told Al Jazeera.
“We have a problem that all these companies that are being used for free speech, such as Twitter, are based in the Gulf. These are countries that are not signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [giving everyone a right to freedom of opinion and expression] is not part of their mandate and freedom of expression is not something they care about.”
To add, York explained, the opaque deals these companies make with governments lead to more censorship, which is often hard to notice.
I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.
JILLIAN YORK, EFF
“Governments sort of wisened up and, due to a number of other factors, they began instead utilising these companies to do this censorship for them,” she said.
“This is a more palatable form of censorship for the people because they don’t notice what is missing. Instead of getting an error page when you visit a website like Twitter or Facebook, the content is just missing – it has disappeared,” she added.
“That has allowed these companies to continue to engage and grow in these markets while not being blamed for the censorship.”
York believes that these companies should be incredibly limited in how they regulate speech.
Another problem, she says, is that these companies consider the Middle East as a single monolithic entity and fail to look at the nuances between different countries.
“It’s very culturally ignorant to think that Lebanese people would want the same rules as the Saudis,” she said.
“To give a concrete example of this, search engine Microsoft Bing for years censored its results in the entire Middle East based on what Saudi Arabia asked them to censor.”
As a result, York explained, Bing instituted a blanket ban for certain keywords in the whole Middle East, so, for example, because Saudi Arabia wanted all mentions of the word “breast” removed from search results, people in Lebanon were not able to use Bing to search for “chicken breast”.
Meanwhile, accessing pornographic websites directly was still possible in Lebanon.
“So, I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.”
“These days they just do it, they don’t push back on it any more.”
Wael Abbas, an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, used to document police brutality in Egypt.
“It’s quite clear from Abbas’s case that he was being attacked by trolls on Twitter that he alleges were government paid, but we don’t know that for sure,” York said.
“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy.”
MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX
“Nevertheless, he was attacked by government supporters on Twitter, he fought back and then his account was shut down by Twitter, probably because he used language that was in their rules considered hate speech.”
Editor’s Note: RED China’s One World One Dream blueprint. First Tibet, then Xinjiang and elsewhere in RED China, then Taiwan, then America, and the rest of the world. S.U.A. has constantly warned about the goals of The Deep State in which RED China has been selected as the Mother of Managers for the world. And as what occurred with Hitler and the Nazis, some world governments remain silent or outright lie about it being a “Happy Place”.
The Deep State: “Using the Global War on Terror as a Pretext for Control”
“THOSE WHO RESIST WILL PERISH!”
Chilling undercover footage taken inside China’s most oppressive region shows it’s virtually impossible to escape the paranoid police state.
By Alexandra Ma, Business Insider
Jun. 30, 2019
Two journalists pretended to be travel bloggers to enter Xinjiang, the western Chinese province where police are intensely cracking down on the Uighurs, a mostly-Muslim ethnic minority.
They found themselves constantly tailed by both uniformed and plainclothes police officers, who made them delete photos on their devices and ordered locals to stop talking to them.
China’s ruling Communist Party regularly cracks down on online content and people deemed unsavory or destabilizing to the regime. This paranoia is particularly evident in Xinjiang.
A chilling new documentary created by two undercover reporters reveals the paranoia at the heart of China’s 21st-century police state in Xinjiang, the western frontier region where authorities are cracking down on millions of Muslims.
The VICE News Tonight documentary shows dozens of police officers lining the streets of Xinjiang and repeatedly questioning the journalists, who had posed as travel bloggers in order to enter the region.
The documentary — titled “They Come For us at Night: China’s Vanishing Muslims” — premiered Thursday night. It focuses on the plight of the Uighurs, a mostly-Muslim ethnic minority under intense surveillance and oppression by Beijing authorities in Xinjiang.
The documentary shows the journalists repeatedly being stopped on the street and forced to delete all the footage on their phones, even as they insisted that they were tourists snapping photos for their own leisure.
Despite the heightened security apparatus in Xinjiang, the region has continued to attract tourists, but authorities say they can only take photos of sidewalks and tourist sites.
At one point in the documentary, two police officers who appear to be in anti-riot gear are seen stopping the reporters from talking to two local men in Kashgar, a major city in the region. Those two men, ironically, had been praising local law enforcement.
“Individuals cannot accept interviews without government approval,” one police officer can be heard saying. “Especially in Xinjiang.”
Isobel Yeung, one of the VICE News reporters, told Business Insider: “I can’t even count how many times we were stopped. It didn’t help that I was constantly mistaken for a Uighur.”
“Their goal was to keep close tabs on us, to track our every move, and to try to ensure we didn’t take photos or video of anything the Communist Party of China considers sensitive,” Yeung added. “They didn’t know we were filming secretly.”
China’s distrust of the Uighurs permeates into daily life. Authorities require residents to place QR codes on knives— even for those used in the kitchen — so they can track whether they are being used as weapon.
While visiting a wheat dumpling stall, the VICE News reporters also noticed that an axe for chopping firewood had been chained to the ground in accordance with regional rules.
‘It does strange things to the mind’
China’s ruling Communist Party regularly cracks down on content and people deemed unsavory to the regime. It believes that by censoring content and, in some cases, detaining dissidents, it is maintaining political and social stability.
This paranoia is particularly evident in Xinjiang, with journalists having described being tailed by plainclothes officers — as many as six in the VICE News’s case. The country has hired more than 100,000 new police officers over the past two years alone.
Yeung, the VICE News correspondent, told Business Insider that being tailed by police “makes you paranoid to go places or say things.”
“It does strange things to the mind, to know that there are people watching and listening to your every move,” she said. “It makes you paranoid to go places or say things, even among my colleague and I and while in the comfort of our hotel rooms.”
“I can only imagine what living there would do to you.”
Good Morning Taiwan! Reeducating Taiwan’s Chinese.
A COMMON CORE CLASS FROM THOSE THAT KNOW BETTER.
‘Reeducating’ Xinjiang’s Muslims
By James Millward. NYBooks
February 7, 2019
She told the court how she had been transferred the previous November from her school to a new job teachingIn a courtroom in Zharkent, Kazakhstan, in July 2018, a former kindergarten principal named Sayragul Sauytbay calmly described what Chinese officials continue to deny: a vast new gulag of “de-extremification training centers” has been created for Turkic Muslim inhabitants of Xinjiang, the Alaska-sized region in western China. Sauytbay, an ethnic Kazakh, had fled Xinjiang and was seeking asylum in Kazakhstan, where her husband and son are citizens. She told the court how she had been transferred the previous November from her school to a new job teaching Kazakh detainees in a supposed “training center.” “They call it a ‘political camp’…but in reality it’s a prison in the mountains,” she said. There were 2,500 inmates in the facility where she had worked for four months, and she knew of others. There may now be as many as 1,200 such camps in Xinjiang, imprisoning up to a million people, including Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and especially Uighurs, who make up around 46 percent of Xinjiang’s population.Sauytbay’s testimony provided the first dramatic public evidence from a Chinese citizen of the expanding gulag in Xinjiang. But news of it has been emerging since 2017, thanks to remarkable reporting by Gerry Shih (now at The Washington Post) for the Associated Press and Josh Chin, Clément Bürge, and Giulia Marchi for The Wall Street Journal, as well as important early stories from other researchers and correspondents, including Maya Wang (Human Rights Watch), Rob Schmitz (NPR), and Megha Rajagopalan (BuzzFeed News). Especially important is the Washington, D.C.–based Radio Free Asia Uighur service, which has for years provided detailed, accurate coverage despite notorious controls on information in Xinjiang.At first, officials in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) denied there were any camps. Then state media briefly floated a story that 460,000 Uighurs from southern Xinjiang had been “relocated” to “jobs” elsewhere in the Xinjiang region. There have been no further announcements about that jobs program, and the explanation seems to have been dropped. When confronted at an August 2018 UN hearing by Gay McDougal, a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Chinese delegation denied that there were any “reeducation” camps, while admitting that there were “vocational education and employment training centers” and other “measures” to counter “extremism.” When pressed again at the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in November 2018, the PRC representative accused “a few countries” of “politically driven accusations” and repeated that the camps were simply providing vocational training to combat extremism.People outside Xinjiang first began to learn about the camps in 2017. Uighurs abroad grew alarmed as friends and relatives at home dropped out of touch, first deleting phone and social media contacts and then…ArticleThe World View:The future of Google Maps and Mapquest for getting directions to all the franchised “Happy Camps”
“GO RED CHINA! GO RED CHINA!”
New NSA data centers in Utah for all that data from Obamacare and … :
A Message To President Trump from MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.) with an Update on Murder and the Benghazi Cover Up!
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army, Ret.) was recently on Conservative Commandos Radio Show to discuss new information he has on Benghazi. Was there a stand-down order while the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex were under attack that night in 2012? Why didn’t the military send forces to attempt to help those Americans attack in Benghazi that night?
What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?
SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.
Important information on “Secretary of State” Hillary Clinton and the Department of State:
More VIP Revealing Facts on Benghazi! White House notified immediately! Assets available were told to stand down!
MG Paul Vallely and American patriots involved in communications during the Benghazi murders by omission and crime scene staging and the 13 hours and a Training Mission at the time are interviewed by Audrey Russo.
Diplomatic cables and much more were exposed for years prior!
EU Investigating Report of Massive Hacking on Diplomatic Cables
By Natalia Drozdiak
The European Union is investigating “a potential leak of sensitive information” following a report that hackers breached the bloc’s diplomatic communications network.
Using techniques similar to those used by an elite unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army, hackers downloaded cables over a period of three years, according to the report by the New York Times published late Tuesday.
In response, a spokeswoman for the European Council said Wednesday they were “aware of the allegations” and “actively investigating the issue.”
China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR
FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM
By Darren Pauli 18 Sep 2014
Sophisticated Beijing-backed hackers raided civilian organisations responsible for the movements of US troops and equipment 20 times in one year of which only two were detected by the responsible agency, an audit report has found.
Contractors underneath the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) agency were hacked a total of 50 times, which included less sophisticated attacks made by actors not identified by the US Government as being on China’s payroll.
The audit was conducted in the 12 months to June 2013 based on information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defense Security Services, Defense Cyber Crime Centre, and the US Air Force and 11 contractors.
Senate Armed Services Committee members said the intrusions were unacceptable and a sign of aggression on the part of Beijing.
“These peacetime intrusions into the networks of key defense contractors are more evidence of China’s aggressive actions in cyberspace,” committee chairman Senator Carl Levin said.
“Our findings are a warning that we must do much more to protect strategically significant systems from attack and to share information about intrusions when they do occur.”
Ranking member Senator Jim Inhofe called for a “central clearinghouse” for critical contractors to report possible hacks.
The audit found intrusions including the compromise or theft of email accounts, documents, passwords and code.
It also revealed a Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractor lost flight details, credentials and its email encryption key while systems on a TRANSCOM contractor ship were hacked multiple times.
The committee behind the report said TRANSCOM and its contractors lack a universal definition of what constituted a compromise.
It further criticised the reporting structure and said the FBI and Department of Defence knew but did not tell the Pentagon of nine separate intrusions of TRANSCOM contractors.
The committee updated its version of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to direct the Secretary of Defense to designate operationally critical contractors and impose tighter reporting requirements for breaches suspected to be pulled off by nation-states.
The audit findings follow the naming by the US Government of five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army it claimed were behind an eight-year hacking campaign against some American companies to steal commercially sensitive information. ®
“Chinese military cyber attacks revealed in the report included a contractor who was compromised between 2009 and 2010 and lost emails, documents, user accounts, passwords and source code, indicating the penetration gain broad access. ”
“From June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013, 50 successful intrusions were made into contractors’ systems, and of those, 20 were attributed to an advanced persistent threat (APT). But that wasn’t the most disconcerting finding, according to the report’s executive summary.
“Of those APT-linked intrusions, TRANSCOM was made aware of only two, a troubling finding given the potential impact of cyber intrusions on defense information and operations,” the report said.”
‘We could have been there’: Squadron member speaks out on stalled Benghazi response
By Fox News
May 12, 2016
His squadron got the alert: a “real world mission was going down.”
The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.
“There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi.
Only they were waiting for the order. It never came.
“The whole night we were told that we are waiting on a call,” he told Fox News.
This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night.
He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.
“I’m not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”
Namely, he said, that a team was ready to go that night to help protect Americans under fire in Benghazi – an account that runs counter to multiple official reports, including from a House committee, a timeline provided by the military and the controversial State Department Accountability Review Board investigation, which concluded the interagency response to Benghazi was “timely and appropriate.”
The source said: “I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day.”
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in that second wave. Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed in the initial attack on the main compound.
“We could have been there. That’s the worst part,” the source said.
The source who spoke with Fox News challenged the military claim that a re-fueling tanker wasn’t available. He said American jets routinely refuel by using what’s called a “hot pit maneuver,” which allows the jets to land and then get fuel without shutting off the engines.
Multiple sources say there were multiple locations available the night of the attack.
He said they were waiting on the call, though, through the night. The men say they didn’t truly learn about the mission they had missed until they returned home the next day from the airfield and saw the reports about the Benghazi attack on the news.
Many still don’t talk about the subject and some insist it has hurt morale within the squadron because “people know we were stationed there and didn’t respond.”
The same frustrations have compelled Mike, a former team sergeant for a military anti-terror quick reaction force, once known as the CIF, to talk.
“For some reason they were all shut down, and I think it leads back to a policymaker somewhere because nobody in the military is going to shut down an operation,” he said. On the night of the attack, Mike was at Delta Force headquarters in the U.S. monitoring the events as they happened.
“We had hours and hours and hours to do something … and we did nothing,” he said.
Despite the claim by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department that nothing more could have been done, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit recently revealed that Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash immediately offered assistance to the State Department on the night of Sept. 11, saying forces could move to Benghazi and “they are spinning up as we speak.”
Mike echoed that: “I know everything was spun up and nothing was done.”
He added: “At our level, we were doing everything we were supposed to be doing. At everybody else’s level above us, it was political.”
In June 2014, Delta Forces captured Abu Khattala, a man now charged in the attack.
Mike, though, said Khattala is a low-level operative and not one of the terror cell leaders. He said the U.S. could have collected intelligence leading to “bigger fish” had the U.S. acted sooner following the attack.
Meanwhile, while Democrats have called the House investigation into the Benghazi attacks a waste of time and money, committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., says his committee has uncovered new facts – but does admit they still are having issues finding witnesses.
“It’s been very frustrating,” Gowdy told Fox News.
In response to Fox News’ reporting, he also issued a statement saying it is “deeply troubling there are individuals who would like to share their stories, but have not because they are afraid of retaliation from their superiors.”
The two men who spoke with Fox News have not spoken with the committee.
Crime Scene Staging 101 : LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
Editor’s Note: From our great friend Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (ret) and our friends at WND.com (from 2014). With special thanks to The Citizens Committee on Benghazi and The Legacy National Security Group.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
The road to Benghazi = time and distance. En route. What to wear when visiting each city.
LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls
By James A. Lyons – – Monday, March 3, 2014
The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.
Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.
The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.
There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.
On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.
On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.
Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.
On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.
The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.
At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.
The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.
The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?
According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?
On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.
This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?
Based on numerous reports, the Obama administration and every organization in the chain of command knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack on the SMC.
Within hours, it was known that the attack was executed by Ansar al Shariah, which is a coalition of Islamic and Salafist rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
It should not be overlooked that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was tasked with supporting the U.K.-based Blue Mountain Security Group that had the contract from our State Department to provide security for the compound.
According to my source, who is a confidential informant for the FBI, the Blue Mountain Security Group is a cover company for MI-6. My source also told me that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade contract personnel were positioned near the compound the day of the attack and were ready to respond but never received orders to execute. Interesting.
My FBI confidential informant has also confirmed my assessment on the Lou Dobbs TV show in October 2012; namely, that this was an operation that went terribly wrong.
According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.
All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, appoint such a committee as called for by Resolution 36 put forth by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and restore integrity to the office of the speaker.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Editor’s Note: Weapons to the wrong groups, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, fore a reason…to keep it going…and…
China to deploy troops to fight alongside Assad in Syria
By: The Middle East Monitor
China is planning to send troops to Syria to aid President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, according to the New Khaleej.
According to informed sources, the move comes as China becomes increasingly concerned with the presence of Islamic militants in the East Turkestan region, who have been sighted aiding opposition groups in Syria.
Last week, during a meeting with Syrian Presidential Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised the regime’s efforts at tackling the fighters from the Islamic East Turkistan Movement.
The Syrian regime has also claimed that some 5,000 fighters of Uyghur origin, an ethnic Muslim minority that Chinese authorities regularly accuse of terrorism, have arrived in Syria, illegally passing through Southeast Asia and Turkey.
The sources said that the Chinese Ministry of Defence intends to send two units known as the “Tigers of Siberia” and the “Night Tigers” from the Special Operations Forces to aid Syrian government troops.
This is not the first time Chinese troops have crossed into Syria; in 2015 the Syrian regime permitted some 5,000 soldiers to enter its territory as allied forces and stationed them in the Western region of Latakia. Chinese military advisors were also among the deployment, as well as naval and aerial assets.
China is one of the five veto-wielding powers of the UN Security Council and, along with Russia, has used its power on more than one occasion to protect the interests of the Syrian regime.
Russian support has given the government an upper hand in the six year-long civil war, especially as the battle against Daesh comes to an end.
More than half a million people are believed to have been killed since 2011, the vast majority by the Assad government and allied forces. The regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians and prevented aid from reaching those affected on the ground. UN officials further estimate that some ten million people have been displaced as a result of the fighting.
“President Obama is a threat to our country,” Donald Trump told me in a recent interview.
He’s right. Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America.
His stubborn insistence on resettling so-called “refugees” from Syria threatens to Balkanize our country and subvert it from within. The president is willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism. He is gambling with our lives.
Obama’s resettlement plan is replete with lies and progressive propaganda. At first, the administration said it only wanted 10,000 refugees to enter the country. Now, the White House is openly talking about allowing 250,000 per year.
In fact, the president recently announced that his goal is an “open-ended” refugee resettlement effort — meaning millions could be allowed to flood our country.
Moreover, who are these refugees? The answer is simple: They are predominantly young Muslim men. In Europe, nearly 80 percent of the migrants pouring into countries, such as Germany, Sweden and France, are Muslim males in their teens and 20s. In other words, they are the very profile of potential Islamic Jihadists.
Yet, while Europeans are waking up to the civilizational invasion taking place, our morally arrogant liberal elites continue to peddle the fiction that only “widows and orphans” will be allowed to enter.
The administration also claims that the Muslim Syrian refugees are the “most thoroughly screened and vetted category of travelers” who can come into the United States.
That is another lie. For the Obama regime and its media allies are deliberately leaving out one salient fact: We do not pick the asylum-seekers, the United Nations does. In particular, it is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that selects which refugees can be settled within our country.
It is not the State Department, Homeland Security or even the White House that chooses the refugees, but an anti-American leftist bureaucrat and a global Islamist organization.
Mr. Guterres is a self-described “socialist,” who champions open borders and repopulating First World nations with Third World peoples as part of a radical internationalist agenda to redistribute wealth. From 1999 until 2005, he was the president of Socialist International, a global network of over 160 Marxist and far-left-wing parties active in about 100 countries. Their goal: “one-world government” through unlimited immigration.
The OIC is an international Islamic body that consists of 57 Muslim nations. It has deep links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s founding charter openly espouses the expansion of Sharia Law and defends what it calls “legitimate Jihad.” In other words, it is an Islamist front group.
Think about this: Obama is entrusting the security of Americans — enabling the very “refugees” who could be coming to a town or community near you — to U.N. leftist globalists and radical Islamists. His policy is not only irresponsible and reckless; it borders on the criminal.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has already boasted it has infiltrated the waves of Muslim migrants with thousands of Jihadists.
In the Paris attacks, which killed 130 and wounded over 350 persons, ISIL made good on its threats: One of the terrorists managed to enter France posing as a “refugee” with a fake Syrian passport.
As Investor’s Business Daily reports, what Islamists are engaging in is what they call “hijra” — immigration Jihad. The aim of radical Muslims is to invade and conquer Western lands through mass migration.
“Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world,” Ann Corcoran, the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said in an interview with IBD.
“He said they were obliged to do so — and that’s exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of the U.N.”
The Boston Marathon terrorist bombings should have taught Americans the folly of welcoming “refugees” from Muslim hotspots. The Tsarnaevs were from Chechnya. They were allegedly “screened” and “vetted.”
Yet, this did not stop them from blowing up pressure cooker bombs at the finish line, murdering four innocent civilians and wounding over 260 — dozens of them maimed and crippled.
Their massacre was part of a larger war against the West to establish a global Islamic caliphate.
We are about to drink from a poisoned chalice. Obama is deliberately — and dangerously — bringing in an army of Muslim migrants. Like the Tsarnaevs and in France, some of them are bound to be Islamist butchers.
It is collective suicide masquerading as compassion. Americans must block his Trojan horse before it’s too late.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at WorldTribune.com and the host of “The Kuhner Report” weekdays 12-3 pm EST on WRKO AM-680 in Boston.
Be Sociable, Share!
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.