The Iranian Foreign Legion and phase I

At this point the ceasefire package outlined by Rich Lowry at NRO and available elsewhere is problematic as it addresses the non-Nation of Hezbollah (I like my spelling more and am used to it... go figure). The very first problem is that there is no way to hold Hezbollah ACCOUNTABLE nor, indeed, get them to properly sign-on to such an accord. This legitimacy of address further bolsters the Iranian attempt to legitimize their Foreign Legion in Lebanon called Hezbollah. By the act of attempting to address a non-State actor via the UN, the legitimacy of that actor is now *recognized*. Thus the rise of the curtain in ACT II starts with Iran gaining from aggression via proxy.

Secondly, with the Lebanese government continuing to support Hezbollah as a 'political party', their legitimacy on that front, as a non-ruling party with minority representation, is now given the visibility EQUAL to that of the Nation within which it resides. By continuing to assert the legitimacy of rebellion and not countering it properly, Hezbollah has been given clear go-ahead, in the past, to act autonomously to the Nation of Lebanon. Instead of denying further legitimacy to Hezbollah, this ceasefire, if *agreed* to by Hezbollah then gives them full standing as a *legitimate* player in the Middle East as Iran's proxy army.

By not supporting the full withdrawal of internal and external recognition of Hezbollah as a legitimate actor upon the stage of Middle Eastern politics, the UN and all signatories to this cease fire have decided to bestow upon a terrorist organization with political front and full backing by a separate and non-signatory State the imprimatur of legitimacy. Hezbollah may freely put their Nation of residence at peril, undermine its political system freely, ignore UN mandates and, generally, continue on with what it was doing and make a mockery of the entire charade. This ceasefire, instead of affirming the legitimacy of Nations to be the SOLE representatives of their people has, instead, offered full rewards for any non-State group that makes its presence painful to gain such recognition with no undo consequences to it, save loss of life which they use to their benefit and that of their paymasters in Iran.

I do mourn the loss of life of the innocents on all sides and those that are the legitimate and legal defenders of their Nation. Others I care *not* about as they are illegitimate under the Nation State system and are undermining that entire system with this agreement. Make no mistake about it, such a ceasefire and recognition is a loss by the entire civilized world bowing to terrorism and legitimizing it as a valid tool AGAINST themselves.

Many will point to all the wonderful words about 'disarming' this Foreign Legion and ensuring that Lebanon as a Nation has sole purview over itself without outside interference. And its lackluster Army has proven itself incapable of doing this and the UN sponsored military may defend 'itself' but take NO ACTION against attacks going around/through/over its mandate area. The correct view of this is that the UN is now putting up hostages to be held at the mercy of Hezbollah that will be used as shields if Hezbollah *agrees* to the ceasefire. And once these troops are in-place, Hezbollah can then stage ANOTHER incident and increase the loss of life internationally and start up its propaganda filming of THOSE deaths and show how 'bad Israel is' for killing these 'peacekeepers'.

UNIFIL was unable to stop Hezbollah from re-arming and this mandate is little different from THAT one. Without the right to enforce a non-militarized zone and police it, and by the inability of Lebanon to do the same, there are zero guarantees against Hezbollah re-arming, reinforcing itself, putting in larger stores and generally learning on how to stop an Israeli assault the NEXT time they start up hostilities. And this time they will ensure many, many, many more deaths of 'innocents' to be publicized widely with much red splashed on blue helmets to prove the point.

I am doubtful as to what the UN can actually do as seen by its track record: Srebrenica, Rwanda, $1 UN girls in the Congo, Failure to condemn Sudanese slavery, UN Bosnian sex trade and trafficking in human beings, UN sex trade in Bosnia and Kosovo, UN forced prostitution in Bosnia, UN forced prostitution of teenagers in Bosnia, Blue helmet babies abandoned in Liberia, DNA testing called for UN sexual abuse scandals reaching U.N. operations in Congo, Liberia, Burundi, Haiti and other parts of the world, Hezbollah bribery of UN forces in Israeli kidnapping (you know, the one that STARTED this recent war), UNIFIL unable to keep the peace, Hezbollah co-locating at UNIFIL sites for launching rockets, UN calls for 'restoring calm' in Timor-Leste where it has peacekeepers (shouldn't they be, you know, KEEPING THE PEACE?) and let us not forget the UN Oil For Food scandals.

"What happens in the Security Council more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving." -- Jeanne Kirkpatrick

Sounds familiar: same tune, different day and venue.

Needless to say the rumors of the collapse of the Ehud Olmert government in Israel are rife after his mishandling of this entire affair. Unable to make a decision to protect his Nation and now signing onto an agreement that gives Hezbollah more legitimacy behind which it can hide and use that as ammunition to 'justify' its attacks against Israel. This is Transnational Progressivism at its worse:

The key concepts of transnational progressivism are:

Groups are what matter, not people. You are "Black" or "Christian" or "Mexican" or "Afghan" or "Sunni", you are not yourself. You also don't get to choose your group; it's inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won't change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn't important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what's important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It's not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it's actually a status that grants extra political power. "Victimhood" isn't a cult, it's a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic "dominant" culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A "winner take all" system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations.

Now, lets use this as a checklist, shall we?

Groups are what matter: Well Hezbollah has gotten the big checkmark on that one via this ceasefire! They matter as MUCH as a legitimate Nation State now. Thank you to all the folks at the UN and the diplomatic community on a global scale for helping that along and making your jobs much harder... probably a job security thing... right up to the moment your Nation falls because of your hard work. Better luck next life.

Fairness in equality of result: Hezbollah gets left as a legitimate force in the field and recognition and so gain in this checkmark also! Yes, instead of outlawing their 'political' party, recognizing them as terrorists and calling on the international community to REPUDIATE them, Hezbollah now gets fairness in result and treatment as a legitimate player at the UN. My thanks just continue to rush at the same sources.

Being a victim is politically significant: And if you can engineer the media to show your victimhood and ignore the fact that you are VICTIMIZING innocents, all the better! Oh a big double-ultra plus checkmark on this one for certain. Thank you to the MSM and editorially blind outlets and European 'moral equivalency' on this!

Assimilation is evil: A minority party now 'wags the dog' of a Nation State. Why assimilate if you can do THAT *and* get applause for doing so and recognition? Huge checkmark on non-assimilation and the supremacy of groups over Nations here. Thanks to all of the folks at the UN, EU and diplomatic community of all stripes, my Nation *not* excluded.

Ideal democracy is proportionate to numbers in groups, not individuals: Hezbollah looks to rule southern Lebanon. By remaining a legitimate party, they assert control over that area in absence of the Lebanese Army or UNIFIL doing anything to disarm them. The Lebanese Army *still* gets this task and UNIFIL *still* gets to be onlookers. If you hadn't noticed Hezbollah has proven resistant to BOTH and has undermined BOTH. They assert supremacy over their territory without regard to the actual Nation they are in. One People, One Party, One Hezbollah. So long as they remain a political faction able to exert control in that area, they have this box checked off also.

National identity is evil: Notice that Hezbollah no longer claims to be purely Lebanese. They are now fully armed and supported by Iran with help from Syria. Hezbollah IS no Nation and asserts no National Sovereignty, but the control of the strong over the weak. Hezbollah does not NEED to integrate and be Lebanese anymore. And this is *endorsed* by the ceasefire agreement. Check this one off also.

All in all this ceasefire is a strike against Western concepts of National Sovereignty and a huge victory for Transnationalists of the Progressive and Terrorist varieties. They BOTH win with this erosion of the system of Nation States in this agreement. This is NOT the road to Peace in the Middle East.

It is the road to legitimizing Empire in the name of Caliphate.

And also the road to ending the rights of the Individual as Empires care *not* about those.

Racial profiling and Your rights

Utter the words "racial profiling" in reference to terrorism and all sorts of civil liberties folks come crawling out of the woodwork to complain about things like: institutional racism or prejudice, unfairness to minorities and we really should have some sort of National ID card and more x-rays at airports, it targets minorities unfairly, and so on and on. Far be it from me to really think that there are very few elderly, female terrorists running around airports... But beyond that, where are these fine folks when the public is GIVING its rights away?

We give our rights away?

Yes, we assuredly do. Let us take Education, for example. It remains a right solely belonging to the States and the People as it is NOT given to the Federal Government. You, the fine public and voters, have decided that you want less personal oversight and accountability for your tax dollars, and do not want to be bothered by actually having to *care* about your local school district and have handed that right and its responsibilities UP to the Federal Government. Which, by the by, is not entitled to it.

Now the waggling of fingers begin about 'general welfare' and such. Perhaps you have missed the point of the Constitution: the Preamble deals with YOU and NOT the Federal Government. The actual way that governing is to be handled at a Federal level and ensure accountability and that your rights are secured are the REST of the document. But the opening sentence is that statement about what We the People agree to do. You are one of the People if you are Citizen or have other legal right to be here. So when it comes to the 'general welfare' it is *YOU* that gets oversight on that. It is *YOUR* responsibility and *YOUR* right to handle it. When this gets passed FROM You to the Federal Government, You are giving up Your right to direct accountability for that thing.

Starting in 1980 the right to direct oversight and accountability of education funds for that portion of Your tax dollars allotted to same went into the Federal Bureaucracy. You kissed it away, or your predecessors did at least. All of that because President Carter thought it would be a 'good idea'. Now, where are all you Civil Rights folks on that one? Care to tell me *why* giving a Right like that away is such a 'good thing'? How We are made better as Individuals by this?

Ditto the above on Agriculture.

And Energy.

And NASA.

If you say, 'Well it is a problem too large for We the People to handle individually', what you are really saying is: 'I don't care enough about it to do anything with it on my own. Got a busy life. Let someone else handle it.'

If you try to invoke what is YOUR set of responsibilities by the Preamble, then the exact same 'general welfare' can be invoked for racial profiling and even toss in 'common defense' and 'establish Justice' and 'domestic Tranquility'. Really, handing a right away to government is indefensible when it is Yours to start with. Asking the government to secure the borders, protect the Nation, uphold the Laws of the Land should not be a hard problem nor threaten individual rights or liberty when done via due process.

Oh, and throwing in the 'slippery slope' of doom and gloom? Too late! Already on it!

I suggest clawing Your way back UP it, by recovering those things that You have already handed over to the Government because you don't care about them.

Do that *first* and I will start thinking about the 'slippery slope' and 'institutional prejudice' and other nonsense. When the Enemies of We the People will decide that We are being discriminated *against* by their trying to kill Us, then I will really listen to the arguments. Until they figure it out, then those that have fled those societies but still adhere to the religion and thinking that they are still IN that setting and want We the People to submit to it... even a couple of generations onwards... well why is there ZERO complaint about THAT discrimination?

Yes, do the hard work of recovering Your rights and convincing the Enemies that they are being unjust in their discrimination, and then, maybe, just maybe, I will listen to you.

Fictitious news and fictional reporters

The past couple of weeks have been an eye-opening event to those slumbering away actually expecting that what reporters are reporting are things that are really going on. Even worse the things that editors have been deciding upon have had less than expected editorial oversight. This post is not one to nit pick at this media outlet or that media outlet for this story or that photo or the other's video coverage, because, quite frankly, it is now a systemic problem that covers all media from online to video to text to still images. Reporting on news that is pre-censored, pre-selected and must adhere to a 'story' based conception has so poisoned reporters that actual news that is not a part of a story does *not* get covered. When we here from a newscaster wandering around in Lebanon about deserted villages and the lack of a 'compelling story', one must really shake their head in disbelief. They have just reported factual *news* and yet do not consider it worth *reporting upon*.

My previous posts on how the factual based reporting media of all stripes has lost their veracity in this doing, especially in the images area is not a 'code of ethics': it is a methodology for establishing credibility, veracity in reporting and offering up a larger scale context in which individual images and stories are reported. To establish the best way to achieve this requires stepping away from the story-based reporting media and moving to the actual data publication organizations that understand the needs to have information published in its original form so that anyone reviewing it may draw their own conclusions separated from all of the 'stories' being reported within that contextual timeline. Instead of welcoming openness in media review and giving venue to which media organizations may demonstrate their capability to actually and factually report *news*, we, instead, are treated to a disingenuous reaction that attempts to side-line or belittle the problem of fictionalized accounts of history being passed off as data based factual accounting of history. Even worse is the removal of contextual information, 'burying the lede', not reporting upon actual facts and then giving an understanding of what those facts actually mean: this is a problem not solely limited to the image based media and is also a major problem in standard text based reporting.

To blatantly mis-represent accounts, not indicate if reporters have been restricted in their ability to gather information by media 'minders', in not reporting that individuals have their passports held by partisans in a conflict, and in not reporting that events are clearly and unequivocally being staged FOR the media we are being treated to a wholly fictitious accounting of real and actual events. There is a disingenuous cry about the fact that even though those being shown are *not* the actual victims of a certain event, that there were, indeed, actual victims and does not one care about those? The absolutely simple, but not simplistic answer is: SHOW THEM. When corpses are paraded about in multiple areas at multiple times to be the victims of multiple events, one begins to question if there were ANY real victims at those happenings. If the 'reality based community' cannot understand that actual 'reality' must be put forth for the public to deal with it, then they should take up the banner of 'fiction based community' and relegate themselves to the critique of fiction as they have given up on actually caring about the 'real' part of 'reality' and prefer soothing misrepresentations for that actual reporting.

The credibility of the globe-trotting news organizations that send 'anchor' newsreaders to certain areas that are 'in the news' points to the exploitation of mere events for 'ratings'. High powered and compelling coverage does not require a news anchor to tell us what is happening, when a single video cameraman looking at events and just walking around and waving people off can tell the ENTIRE story from his perspective without saying a single WORD. During the Polish Solidarity movement, the most compelling thing I did to see those events was to turn OFF the sound and just watch the people involved. A good reporting of events that are compelling in and of themselves does not require a voice over, save if for translation. And even then intonations of voice and gestures tell much about what an individual is saying even when the words are not understood.

On a larger scale, this is slanting of coverage by misreporting and lacking context. What is even worse is that the context given by 'on the spot' reporters is often biased towards a 'story' and they do not bother to get out of the 'story' and tell about what the meaning of this event 'might be' from their perspective and what other things need to be considered. In the Western media the bias is so absolutely heavy that LOCAL foreign media are NOT used to help in the reporting save as a dire, last resort, and even then the need to talk over the reporting is highly prevalent. Of course most media outlets in authoritarian States are government controlled and, thus, less than reliable. However, when a Nation has a wide gamut of media sources and is relatively *open* then the reliance upon a western reporter for doing 'reporting' is something that strains credulity. If there are a goodly number of local sources of news, that have differing perspectives and viewpoints, then THOSE should be used to allow the local folks to tell their OWN story, which may not fit into a Western journalist's 'story' conception. From there one would expect analysis by media upon that swath of reporting to see how it fits together as a local context and then see why events take place and what reactions happen because of them. Iraq in particular has a wide variety of news sources and it is beyond my ability to believe that Western news organizations have not 'flooded the zone' with contractual agreements for video, reporting and news analyses from MULTIPLE outlets so as to paint a broader picture of what is happening there as a Nation, not just a series of pinpoint events. By using multiple sourcing and compiling a number of stories and reports with their own viewpoints a larger picture of why an event happened and what it means can be drawn and put into the context of local culture and understanding. For over 3 years this has been possible and yet I see ZERO large scale MSM 'news' organizations actually bothering to make the contacts for independent media in Iraq and, instead, give us a Western slanted viewpoint upon events. That is why I turn the sound off and do other things when any television source of 'news' talks about Iraq: they are lying by exclusion of local context and doing so willfully.

What this leads to is, of course, fictionalized 'news' that may or may not portray news events. So, to see how this should be handled, let us look at two FICTIONAL and well-known journalists. Yes, if you are going to report upon a fictional world, let us look at how fictional reporters handle themselves! Shocking, I know, but do bear with me, as this may seem to be in jest but is dead serious in its intent.

The first up is a hand-to-mouth existence photojournalist. He has problems in not being able to construct stories and, really, cannot even hold down a day job very well. In point of fact, he isn't a very good photojournalist, either, because he finds that he is partaking in the events as they are going to happen and *must* set up his cameras ahead of time for either movement based photo capture or remote triggering. And because the methods he use are temporary, he must ensure that if the camera becomes dislodged it will harm no one as it falls off of a skyscraper, and probably goes through a number of low cost cameras every year, while putting one or two high quality ones in very safe positions where they cannot be easily dislodged. As he takes part in the events the cameras with fixed field of view offer interesting shots of those events which he then takes to the local MSM outlet for processing. He, literally using film-based photography, does not see the photos before they are processed. Often it is junk. A few times, however, the editor finds a compelling shot... buys it... then adds editorial commentary to the photo caption to distort the actual reality of events captured.

First off, is that an ethical scenario for the photojournalist in question? Being a *participant* in an event and knowingly setting up a data capture system to record it may be of some questionable perspective. That said he knows that the actual events have NO set outcome and that he could very well end up in some form of 'street pizza' and his life ended. So his intent is not to 'stage' news but to capture something that is most likely to happen within the fields of view of the cameras he has arranged. Often events go otherwise and he is without photos and behind on rent, yet again. In point of fact, that is often his state of life. So while he knows where and within a timeframe an event might happen, he is left up to the whimsy of fate. He does a good job as a semi-pro to get good shots, but there are no guarantees as he is not behind the camera for those shots.

The editor, on the second point, is clearly slanting factual images from an event and miscaptioning that image to represent his editorial viewpoint. That is a fraudulent use of actual and factual data. So, while only a smidgen of blame may be placed upon the reporter, a whole lot of scorn should be heaped upon the editor and editorial board at that media outlet. And since the entire run of pictures is purchased, to keep it out of a competitors hands, the photojournalist has no other way to present the truth as he wishes to 'prove' the editor wrong on his viewpoint and hope to sway him back to ethical editorializing.

The second individual is a respected and honored 'reporter' and news caster. He is known for his factual reporting and seen as an industry paragon for that reporting. He is plain spoken, down to earth, truthful and unwilling to skew facts to fit an ideological agenda. Like the photojournalist above he often finds himself in news events and must report upon them at second hand, but he will usually not even do that and 'let the chips fall where they may' on his activities. He is part of a highly competitive news environment and one of his colleagues is the hard 'get the story' at all costs sort of investigative journalist who often puts herself on the line for her work. That said the entire news staff relies upon its guidance from the chief editor, and he adheres to the old school of reporting that the FACTS must tell the story, not the other way around.

Because the second individual in question here *also* does hard, investigative journalism, he is often missing for days, weeks or even months to ensure that the public gets the true story so that they may derive the truth from it. He knows that his activities are often a prime mover in events, but keeps that journalistic distance so as to fairly assess his own actions and present THAT to his editor for review. He is sometimes rebuked for being too hard on the prime actor and is told to change outlook and tone the story down. He will do so, knowing the editor is fair minded, and that the public's right to know of the unskewed facts is paramount. And for his deeper items, he does protect his sources, but informs individuals of where they were gotten from and his presence or lack of same. He does not report on those things he cannot reliably be seen as getting to, save for a rare time of communication from his prime actor persona. He dislikes that and feels it is unfair to be both actor in events AND reporter. And yet the editor, newsroom and public are *glad* to have those rare glimpses of one that they hold in high regard and who disdains the limelight save in times of the most dire threats to ALL.

Should we, the public, have entree into more of that 'other' life? The individual does have his right to privacy, even when being high profile, and because of his skills and abilities can easily outdistance mere paparazzi. He can and does lead a secluded, almost spartan life in his public persona and private. Yet the integrity of neither of them is questioned either due to the honesty of the reporting done on the public side, or the wish to remain *apart* from mere partisanship on the private side. Indeed, the public can be well satisfied that even a high profile figure deserves 'some' privacy and have the decency to honor that.

Are these fictional standards of conduct? The figures are fictional, but their viewpoints and how they view themselves is 'realistic' as is their commitment to their industry. Even across multiple decades, scores of writers and artists, these two journalists have been offering a singular viewpoint on news reporting... I stopped following both over a decade ago, but the lessons they taught by NOT talking about their work but taking it in stride was a massive one. In the era of 'do anything to get the story' journalism we are offered different visions of how to do that very thing and do so honorably *without* the need for staging, chicanery and outright lies. In point of fact those individuals and outlets that DID those things got much scorn and derision as they could not fairly present the news and help the public understand what they mean. Thus the standards of conduct are ones that are more than just merely 'realistic' as each of the individuals in their own capacity to give the public a fair and honest accounting of events and go through the vagaries of the editors in question.

And that is the point to this: reporters, even when in the Heisenberg situation of influencing events by their presence, must do their best to adhere TO the events and report upon them.

Rarely is an event 'the story': it is a part of a sequence of events leading up to that singular event, and then those pathways lead AWAY from the event being covered. Going after 'the story' requires in-depth background work, fact collection both by proxy and first-hand and, finally, analyzing the results so as to fit new events into that continuum and see if NEW things are influencing events.

Getting 'the story' is something known as: analysis.

Reporting upon events out of context and offering personal 'insight' without displaying he full suite of information necessary to form that 'insight' is passing off an event with superficial 'analysis' but no offering of a chain of reason or logic behind it. It is supposition. It is hearsay. It is rumor. It is *not* part of the fact of the event itself, save what it tells the public about that reporter's viewpoint.

This is no longer isolated incidents of a reporter here or there, but of entire news organizations and editorial boards deciding that the facts themselves are not saying enough and filling in that perceived empty space with their own viewpoints and analysis and offering *that* up as news. Events, however, often have many, many, many 'empty spaces' as the interests of humanity have many ways of doing things and acting. Reporting on only what is *known* and not offering conjecture or, even worse, not telling the context in which the reporting is taking place is a disservice to the public, either by omission or commission and BOTH are unethical by the standards of 'fictional' reporters. By not reporting on the conditions surrounding the reporting, by not telling of those pre-conditions that are necessary to 'get the story', and by offering nothing in the way of context, reporters are no longer 'reporting' the news but fabricating their viewpoints INTO the news.

As an individual I know I would be far better served by Peter Parker or Clark Kent *reporting* on events than their participation *in them*. And when the events are such complex ones as they are today, one would expect them to hang up their costumes and do their public duty to report the complex situations of the world so that the public can have an accurate idea of what is going on. Instead we have individuals putting on the costumes of reporters and giving biased and fabricated accounts and passing it off as 'news'.

Come back to us, Peter Parker and Clark Kent! The world desperately needs your honesty and integrity in news reporting.

About those incapable Iraqis...

Remember how the New Iraqi Army is just a bunch of 'do nothings', incapable of really doing anything and depending upon the MNF to 'always back them up'?




It look like they have had control over half their country handed over to them.



The MNF-Iraq briefing is here (better to download and read locally). It not only covers the turnover, but the recent concentration on Baghdad, success stories in thwarting attacks, finding out *how* the Jill Carroll kidnapping happened and some other fun things that have been going on.


Dear me! Do we know of any other group that likes to use these sorts of rockets? But those require a *real* Nation to supply them, hard to do them onesies-twosies in the basement. Is there a supplier of them locally?

Why yes, yes there is! I wonder if there is any connection between katyusha rockets discovered in Iraq and the Nation that likes to supply them?

Ah, yes. Well, there you have it. Absolutely and positively purely circumstantial. No fingerprints at all. Really! I mean, that would mean that Iran is trying to foment war in Iraq and put a Foreign Legion to work there.

To read what the rest of the MNF have been doing in the past few weeks you may want to actually, you know, visit their site to get some of these things known as FACTS. And get to see exactly *who* is being targeted... you know, do a bit of 'dot connecting' on your own and give up on the biased MSM. They can't even tell you what is being rebuilt there, but the good General in charge CAN.

Yes car bombings and terrorism is *awful*.

Misrepresenting and misrepresenting history by reporting ONLY that and giving it ZERO context is deceit at the very best and something coming damn close to treason at the worse if it is done with the knowing aid and assistance of the enemies of the United States. Luckily, that has not shown up so far yet.

The operative word: YET.

Bojinka II - The Atlantic Plot

In my Template of Terror posting I put forward the type and style of al Qaeda plot being derived from multiple sources including the WTC bombing and the NYC Landmarks plot, then added into after the failed Operation Bojinka plot which was the al Qaeda attempt to supplant Nation State coordination with home grown coordination. Bojinka failed because it was over-broad and the actors between multiple organizations were not used to working with each other and the complexity of the plot itself foiled them. al Qaeda hit upon the perfect plot template when Aum Shinrikyo performed their totally in-Nation, multi-actor, simultaneous release attack on the Tokyo Subways.

Still, al Qaeda has not given up its dreams of a much larger scale terrorist attack to go beyond the commuter train bombings in Madrid, the London Subway Bombings, and the recent Mumbai train bombings in India. The template type that al Qaeda uses, however, is one of long term development for effective payload delivery that is not easily detected. They examine target lists closely, determine the most effective method to attack them, and then carry out such attacks. Each of these functions is cell-based, so that the group doing targeting and attack methodology are hard to link up with the actual action groups, which are divided between supply and support functions and actual delivery functions. By using a distributed methodology the actual cross-linking of observation to procurement to delivery are 'compartmented' and discovery of a plot in any of its building stages is difficult to link up firmly to further activities. Indeed, one expects that al Qaeda will use surveillance on hundreds of possible targets before selecting a handful that have common weaknesses and can be effectively attacked in a coordinated manner.

The plan uncovered last night to go after approximately 6-10 jetliners crossing the Atlantic between the UK and US is an example of this being caught in the final stages of supply and preparation and 21 people are in custody. This type of planning, although it can be carried out by other groups, is one that is of broad characteristic type to Bojinka and looks to have a high level of coordination via intermediaries. Together these are typified by al Qaeda scope, plans and methodology and it is a prime suspect. It looks as if the perpetrators were to use a variant of 'mix in flight' protocol used for binary weapons in which two non-lethal components are mixed to produce a single, lethal component. To do this the two components could be carried openly via carry-on containers, innocuously mixed and the resultant mixture, be it toxic or explosive, used to bring down the airliner.

al Qaeda realized that the over-broad scale of Bojinka was a problem and scaled their attacks down to meet resources. That does not mean that they have given up on such large plans. It cannot be discounted that this is 'another' al Qaeda-like organization or a large scale State sponsored plot. After the initial actors are arrested and interrogated, if the evidence points to a supply and surveillance system which are separated and communicate at a higher level *only*, not via cell-to-cell contact which loses security, then al Qaeda nearly perfectly fits this bill: low cost surveillance, examination of good methodology to thwart security and then supply and final execution planning caught at the end stages.

This is a still developing operation at this point for the counter-terrorism folks in the UK and US and any other Nations involved. First analyses are almost always wrong, but the evidence for a higher level of coordination is present and now just awaits confirmation as to backers.