duminică, 22 noiembrie 2015

FRANȚA A DECOLAT DE LA ORLY ȘI A ATERIZAT LA BATACLAN.


Nicolas Sarkozy: „Islamul este știința, progresul, finețea, modernitatea.”
Bernard Cazeneuve: “Cea mai bună apărare contra terorismului sunt musulmanii francezi.”
“Revenirea terorismului în Franța vi se datorează” – Manuel Valls, în urmă cu câțiva ani, către parlamentarii de dreapta din Adunarea Națională.

Mai întai au fost atentatele teroriștilor palestinieni contra “obiectivelor” evreiești, apoi cauza Islamului a monopolizat totul. O trecere în revistă a atentatelor comise de musulmani în Franța, sau cum s-a ajuns de la 3 răniți la 130 de morți. Sau, altfel, de la “explozii misterioase” la “evenimente” izolate fără nicio legătură cu Islamul.
13 ianuarie 1975. Teroriștii din Frontul de Eliberare al Palestinei, dirijați de teroristul Carlos, trag cu un lansator de rachete aupra unui avion al companiei El-Al, ce decola de pe aeroportul Orly. Este atins un avion iugoslav, 3 răniți.
19 ianuarie 1975. Carlos revine la Orly însoțit de 2 teroriști palestinieni. Atacă aeroportul și ia ostatici. Teroriștii cer un avion care să-i transporte la Bagdad; 21 de persoane sunt rănite.
20 mai 1978. Teroriștii palestinieni atacă la Orly birourile companiei El-AL – 4 persoane ucise, trei dintre ele fiind teroriști.
3 octombrie 1980. O bombă de mare putere explodează lângă sinagoga de pe strada Copernic din Paris – 4 persoane sunt ucise și 22 rănite. Serviciile secrete germane înformează Parisul că grupul de teroriști era format din 5 indivizi veniți din Liban. Autoritățile și presa franceză preferă să acuze extrema – dreaptă.
9 august 1982. Restaurantul Jo Goldenberg de pe strada Rosiers din Paris este atacat de un grup de teroriști. Aceștia mitraliază clienții și aruncă grenade în restaurant. Își continuă apoi cursa prin cartierul evreiesc, la bordul unei mașini, mitraliind trecătorii. Bilanțul atentatului: 6 morți și 22 de răniți. În 2011, justiția franceză a identificat drept responsabilă a atentatului, organizația Fatah – Consiliul Revoluționar Abou Nidal.
25 iulie 1995, data primului atentat islamist din Franța. Grupul Islamic Armat (GIA) algerian atacă gara Saint- Michel – Notre – Dame. O bombă explodează într-un tren oprit în gară. În “misterioasa explozie”, cum califică atentatul televiziunea France 2, mor 8 oameni și 117 sunt răniți. Președintele Jacques Chirac și premierul Allain Juppe se deplasează la locul atentatului. GIA a mai organizat în cursul anului 1995 înca 7 atentate în Franta, soldate numai cu răniți nu și cu morți.
3 decembrie 1996. O butelie de gaz umplută cu explozibil este detonată într-un tren aflat în gara Port Royal din arondismentul 5: patru morți și 91 de răniți. Emirul Antar Zouari – șeful GIA – revendică atacul.
Martie 2012. La Toulouse și Montauban, “lupul singuratic” Mohammed Merah împușcă 3 soldați și 4 civili (3 copii mici). Islamistul Mohammed Merah este ucis de trupele RAID pe 22 mai 2012.
Decembrie 2014. Vineri, 19 decembrie, într-un video de propagandă al Statului Islamic, un jihadist cagulat se adresa în franceză musulmanilor din Hexagon: „Faceți să explodeze Franța! Faceți-o bucăți! Zburați-le capetele acestor necredincioși. În același mod în care ei le împiedică pe surorile noastre să poarte niqab-ul, zburați-le capetele! Fie cu o piatră, fie cu un cuțit. Urmați exemplul fratelui nostru Mohamed Merah. Omorâți-i acolo unde îi întâlniți, nu-i lăsați să trăiască în pace!”
Sâmbătă, 20 decembrie, Bertrand „Bilal” Nzohabonayo – născut și crescut în cartierul musulman La Rabière din Tours – intră în comisariatul din Joué-les-Tours înarmat cu un cuțit. Strigând “Allah Akbar” apucă să taie cu un cuțit trei politiști. Este doborât de colegii acestora.
Duminică, 21 decembrie, la Dijon, Nasser – mamă algeriană, tată marocan – se suie la volanul mașinii și mergând prin centrul orașului intră pe trotuar și calcă, conform fatwa Statului Islamic, cât de mulți necredincioși poate. Strigă în timpul acesta “Allah Akbar”.
Tot duminică, la Toulouse, doi cagulați aflați la bordul unui Mini-Cooper furat, intră deliberat într-o mașină a poliției; mașina era parcată. Patru polițiști sunt răniți.
Procurorul Dijonului declară că “evenimentul” de duminică seara nu este un act terorist, iar premierul Manuel Valls se grăbește să afirme că între “evenimente” nu există nicio legătură!
Ianuarie 2015. La Paris, pe 7 ianuarie, un comando jihadist atacă redacția Charlie Hebdo (15 morți și mai multe persoane grav rănite). Procurorul Republicii, Brigitte Lamy, asigură că este vorba de “un act izolat”. Pe 8 și 9 ianuarie, intră în acțiune Amedy Coulibaly – soldatul Califatului. Un alt “caz izolat”. Normal, fără nici o legătură cu celelalte atentate. Ucide mai întâi o polițistă aflată în misiune, rănește grav un agent rutier și un practicant de jogging și execută cu sânge rece 4 evrei francezi într-un magazin evreiesc. Toți teroriștii trebuiau să se afle în inchisoare la data comiterii atentatelor, dar fuseseră eliberați înainte de termen de justiția franceză! Toți teroriștii se aflau în evidența serviciilor secrete franceze!
23 Iunie 2015. Teroristul musulman Sid Ahmed Ghlam o ucide în Villejuif (Val-del Marne) pe profesoara de fitness Aurélie Châtelain. Aceasta se luptă cu teroristul care vroia să-i ia mașina, iar Sid Ahmed Ghlam se împușcă accidental în picior. Este nevoit să apeleze serviciul de urgență și este arestat, nemaiputând să-și atingă obiectivul: atacarea catedralei Sacre Coeur și a TGV-ului. La înmormântarea eroinei Aurélie Châtelain, nu participă nici președintele, nici primul ministru, nici ministrul de interne!
26 iunie 2015. Islamistul Yassin Salhi pătrunde cu mașina într-o uzină de gaz industrial, încercând s-o arunce în aer. Pompierii sosiți la fața locului găsesc agățat de grilajul de protecție un cap de om! Îl încadrau, fluturând, două drapele negre ale Statului Islamic! La câteva zeci de metri depărtare, o mașină distrusă și lângă ea corpul decapitat al unui bărbat: patronul lui Yassin Salhi. Teroristul este imobilizat de pompieri. Are 35 de ani, căsătorit, tatăl a 3 copii. Capul unei familii “normale, discrete”. Membru al mișcării salafiste era și el, ca și ceilalți teroriști, în evidențele serviciilor de informații franceze!
Noiembrie 2015. 8 teroriști islamiști provoacă la Paris o adevărată hecatomba umană într-un lanț de atentate perfect coordonate și pregătite. 130 de morți și câteva sute de răniți reprezintă bilanțul celui mai mare atentat din istoria Europei. Franța a decolat de la Orly și a aterizat la Bataclan.

The Myth of the Suicide Bomber

After reading The Logic of Suicide Terrorism--It’s the Occupation, Not the Fundamentalism by Robert Pape, the main idea that we come away with is that suicide bombers are real, very real indeed. Though we were promised a revelation of the logic, these questions remain:
If the purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die, but to kil
l and to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society, why do they die?
If the purpose of the suicide bomber is to end the occupation of his country, why is the suicide tactic not as old as war and territorial occupation itself?
If the purpose of the suicide bomber is to end the occupation of his country and to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society why are the targets so disparate and scattered, without a clear relatio
n to the occupation?
Why are suicide bombings publicized before any proof is brought by investigation?
For me these questions underline the illogical nature of suicide bombings. I believe to find logic you have to see the suicide bomber as a fabrication of the Zionists for their own purposes:
  • To demonize Islam
  • To make Muslims look stupid, fanatical, and murderous.
  • To create worldwide terrorism that they can claim has nothing to do with Israel, but everything to do with Islam.
  • To attack those who think themselves to be allies, but are not, e.g. America, Spain, Britain.
  • To shift the blame for any bombing Zionists perpetrate onto the Muslims, simply by calling it a suicide bombing.
  • To control public opinion in favor of Israel as the most grieved victim of terrorism.
  • To justify apartheid in Israel.
  • To justify war in the Middle East with the spoils of war accruing to themselves, while the costs are borne by their “allies”.
So it's not the fundamentalism, it's not the occupation, it's not suicide, it's not a guerrilla tactic, it's the timeless strategy of the Jews working to advantage themselves on their journey toward dominion.
Israel Uses the Myth as a Cover to Attack "Allies"
[Israel uses the suicide bomber myth as a cover] to attack those who think themselves to be allies, but are not, e.g. America, Spain, Britain.
In 1983 Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon. The US and France had peacekeeping forces in place near the Beirut airport. The US had a naval presence off the coast. Early one Sunday morning, simultaneously, both the French and American Marine barracks were bombed. The story was that a truck had come at high speed through a gate and exploded, killing hundreds of Marines. As the two bombings were simultaneous one wonders why so little is said about the French barracks especially if we are to think there were simultaneous “truck bombs”; it would have been a neat trick.
Suicide was not mentioned in the original reports, in 1983, but in the twentieth anniversary reports the bombing of the US Marine barracks was said to have been done by a “suicide bomber”, and elsewhere the words “terrorist suicide bombing” were used. So by 2003 a simple bombing had become a suicide bombing. I think that change is significant.
Using Professor Pape’s logic of suicide terrorism applied to the situation in Lebanon we should wonder why the occupying Israeli force was not targeted rather than the French and Americans who were on the periphery as peacekeepers. Just because a target is handy does not make it strategically worthwhile. If the planning was so tight that simultaneous truck bombs could hit these two marginal targets, why not use that expertise and tonnage to hit the one perfect target?
The Israelis had prior knowledge of a truck being outfitted to carry a very large bomb but did not warn the Americans.(déjà vu) This was reported by Mossad operative, Victor Ostrovsky in his book By Way of Deception. The odd thing about this story is not that the Israelis neglected to warn the Americans, but that they could even imagine that the Americans would be the target rather than themselves. Why would they think that? The Israelis use the deception of admitting some knowledge as a way of deflecting suspicion away from themselves as perpetrators. In this case the admission of prior knowledge reveals more than disregard, it reveals an inconsistency that makes me believe they were the bombers.

Israel's Suicide Bomber Myth is an Organic Process With Three Components: Reality, Fantasy and Purpose
[KingKangaroo:] If Israel did invent the suicide bomb, why did they wait so long to use the tactic at home?
The invention of a myth does not happen in a meeting of the Knesset, nor does it come out of the imagination of one person or a think tank. It is an organic process that is a mix of reality, fantasy, and purpose.
A good example of this organic process is the example I gave earlier of the bombings in 1983 of the US and French military barracks at the Beirut airport. I believe it was Israel that carried out the attacks. The Israelis did not want the US and France to inter-meddle in Israel’s attack on the Palestinians who had fled to Lebanon. The US and France were their allies, so an attack could not be seen to come from the Israelis. The bombing was done under the pretense that two truck bombs were detonated simultaneously as they ran into the barracks. Of course the trucks, if there were any, were demolished, and the drivers, if there were any, were blown up. The story of who did the bombing was in the hands of the Israelis who fabricated the whole thing to cover themselves.
So the Israelis had the purpose to make their meddlesome allies leave. The reality was the bombing, and the fantasy was the fabrication that hid the truth. Today this would be called a “suicide bombing” in 1983 it was not. You can see that it is only the characterization that has changed, not the action.
I do not know the event that marks the beginning of the suicide bomber myth. Bombings can be made suicidal retroactively, making it even more difficult to pinpoint its beginnings. One thing I can say with confidence is that it was not an actual suicide that prompted the new formula, but almost serendipitously the Israelis found the suicide twist to their terrorism myth to be very useful..
The primary use of the suicide bomber myth is to demonize the Palestinians. Israel had fought three successful wars against the inhabitants of Palestine in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The Palestinians had been disarmed, dispossessed, and forced into refugee camps in Gaza, Jordan, and the West Bank. After 1973 what the Israelis had on their hands was akin to Indian Reservations in the US, but with millions of people in the small territory. This did not satisfy the Israelis who wanted the whole lot to move into neighboring countries leaving Israel to the Israelis.
The injustice and inequality of this situation was too obvious for the Israelis to pursue their goals without condemnation by the world. It was pathetic to listen to Israelis whine about being threatened by the awful Palestinians who wanted to “push Jews into the sea”. It was necessary to make these rag-tag Palestinians look menacing, dangerous, and fanatical to justify Israel’s continued expansion and relentless punishment of these defeated people.
Blaming the Palestinians for terrorist actions, like the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes at Munich, was Israel’s original ploy, but ambitious actions like that were costly and difficult. Gradually the elaborate terrorism of Abu Nidal gave way to the modest but equally effective suicide bomber. The purpose of making the Palestinians look wantonly murderous, unpredictable and fanatical is realized by this myth, justifying all manner of retribution and Israel’s continued expansion. This organic process goes on. As we speak, the myth of the Palestinian suicide bomber is taking on its new form in London; as it has in Madrid, Kenya, Tanzania, New York and other farflung places -wherever the Jews find it useful.
The Fairy Tale Blocks Serious Questions
The moment people stop believing in the suicide bomber fairy tale, the sooner they'll start to ask some serious questions.
Remember how we all used to believe the holocaust tales? There are all those pictures, all that testimony, all those books written, all those memorials built. It is in textbooks and encyclopedias. It is taught in school.
Can't we handle the possibility that the "Islamic fundamentalist, suicide bomber" may also be a lie? We should look at everything with the same skepticism we developed in dealing with the holocaust myth, especially those things that come from the same source.
Israel is Attacking Muslims AND the West--The Two Should be Allies Against Israel
It is the modus operandi of the Jews to stand aside while their enemies fight one another. It is well known that the Jews consider Muslims their enemy, but most white people in the world do not see themselves as the enemy of the Jews, when in fact they are. Why are we in Iraq? Is that really our battle?
A comparison can be made of WW I and II in which Europe was invited to self-destruct. Where were the Jews in those fights that benefited them beyond all others? Why is it that the Jewish banking interests fund both sides of a conflict? They come out of these terrible wars richer and more powerful while the power of the white world was diminished.
After the Russian Revolution and WW I, Jewish/Communism was triumphant and ready to conquer Europe. All of Europe had been weakened by WW I. The threat of Communism called for an alliance of Europe against the onslaught. It was not to be because Jewish influence on Churchill and Roosevelt made impossible the only sensible alliance of all Europe against Stalin.
Now the white world is being told that our enemy is Islam. Watch out.
Treason and the Myth
[Mariner:] Since the U.S. Intel people know this - IF the Israelis masterminded the bombing of the Marine Barracks - they know it and are engaged in Treason by not making it known.
A fine example of such treason is the case of the USS Liberty. Knowledge went beyond Intelligence all the way to LBJ who gave the order for the rescuers to turn back.
The Intifada is Real and Justified, Not to Confuse with the Suicide Bomber Fable
Of course the Palestinian resistance is real and thoroughly justified. It is the fabricated "suicide bomber" that I seek to discredit. The myth is used to make the Palestinians and Muslims look stupid and effete. It is also the method by which they are set up as patsies for every act of terrorism Israel chooses. The forty foot high security wall replete with guard towers was justified by the myth of the “suicide bomber”. Don’t confuse this cheap fable with the true courage of real people.
It is Very Hard and Rare to Overcome Survival Instinct and Commit Suicide
[MrSpock:] The suicide bomber as a fabrication of the Zionists? How? Who dies?
Muslims, and sacrificial others. Part of what makes the "suicide bomber" preposterous is that no important Jewish target has ever been hit.
Suicide is absolutely unnatural; it is an aberration in creatures whose instinct is to survive. It is not easy to override that instinct. It is so contrary to instinct that stories of suicide for a cause are few and always make us marvel: the samurai who falls on his sword as penance for a loss in battle, the kamikaze pilot who knows he goes to certain death, the Roman who prefers death by his own hand to the humiliation of being killed by his enemies. There have been Christian and Buddhist martyrs who use suicide as a demonstration of belief and/or protest. All these are distinct from the unwilling martyrdom of dying in conflict.
The fact that suicide for a cause is so exceptional in our history is one thing that makes me question the burgeoning phenomenon of the “Muslim suicide bomber”. The Japanese Kamikaze pilot is understandable as a cultural phenomenon with roots in the concept of the samurai, but again, this is so exceptional that we look in awe on those whose sense of duty is so strong. Can we find a similar antecedent for this peculiar type of martyrdom among Muslims in these last fourteen centuries, keeping in mind the difference between dying in battle and an intentional suicide? I don't think so.
Are there any other instances of intentional martyrdom in all our history that have been met with such cruel derision and mockery as the “Muslim suicide bomber” of our time? Doesn’t such a reaction by itself make this case extraordinary?
That suicide for a cause is anti-instinctual, exceedingly rare, and when found, traceable
 to its cultural antecedents, makes me very skeptical that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such cases would spring forth quite suddenly in a people, no matter what the provocation.

Professor Pape tries to avoid the question of religion in his article because he wants us to think that the occupation of territory in the Middle East is sufficient to cause this phenomenon. It cannot be. And Gabor would like to make the case for Islam as the sufficient cause of suicide bombing, and that cannot be either, for many of those purported to be suicides are not religious.
As for the Palestinian family whose son or daughter is said to have been a suicide bomber, are they not very much like families everywhere whose children die in battle? They desperately want to see that the death meant something, had some good in it. That is not hard to understand. Also familiar to all are the leaders who praise the dead, speaking of their heroism. It keeps up morale.
Neither of us has access to evidence for or against suicide bombings and cannot hope to prove anything one way or the other. What I have tried to do is look at it historically, psychologically, and rationally. I stand by my assertion that the “Muslim suicide bomber” is a myth. As you said about the Muslims, “They don't deny the suicide bombers, they are trying to explain it.” I am trying to explain it too, it needs a lot of explaining.
The Vulgar 72 Virgin Myth [Has No Basis in Islam]
[Judson:]...[the parents] desperately want to see that the death meant something, had some good in it. That is not hard to understand
How many times have you heard an American bring up the idea that suicide bombers are motivated by the thought of 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven? What audacious and gratuitous cruelty, how heartless, how vulgar. Is that what they would like to say to the parents of a son or daughter who has been killed in the struggle against the Zionists? And how much more horrible is it to think that they were not suicides but homicides? Americans should keep their smutty fantasies to themselves.
The Suicide Bomber Never Really Hurts the Enemy
[grizzle:] No important Jewish target has ever been hit. Kind of like the IRA isn't gunning for the queen and family.
Not quite. Take the example that is in this morning’s news:
A suicide bomber blew himself up among a group of teens near a shopping mall in the seaside city of Netanya on Tuesday, killing himself and two others in the second such attack since a truce was declared five months ago. ...The blast went off shortly before 7 p.m. near the Sharon Mall in Netanya. Police said a preliminary investigation indicated the bomber blew himself up among a group of teenagers crossing a busy intersection.
Unidentified teenagers crossing a street is not an important Jewish target. But this is typical for bombings in Israel. The victims are often not even Israelis, let alone important Israelis. Reports of victims and damage are deliberately vague, merely giving an impression, not facts or pictures. Asian and South American workers, other Palestinians, and what seems to be a favorite target - Russian immigrants are the usual victims.
After thinking carefully about suicide as a tactic and putting yourself in the place of a person contemplating this ultimate sacrifice – how would you choose a target to make your death worthwhile - useful to force an end to the occupation of your country? Would you blow yourself up in a shopping mall toy store, the entrance to a super market, a bus stop, near a hitchhiking post, in a restaurant frequented by foreigners, outside a shopping mall? It may not be possible to get through the security to hit the Knesset while in session, but surely you could come up with something better than a mall toy store.
The pathetic nature of the targets reinforces the idea that Muslims are stupid. But for me it reinforces the doubt that Muslims are suicide bombers.
The Suicide Hijacker--Similar Myth
[grizzle:] Palestinian vs Israeli is not 9/11 or 7/7. I doubt Muslims were involved in the latter two, unless they were the non-religious CIA shill type.
I do not believe that Muslims were involved in 9/11, but wasn't the notion of the suicide bomber the direct antecedent of the suicide hijacker? I believe there were no hijackers involved in 9/11. But for all those who buy the hijacker scenario the preparation they have been given to believe that Muslims have no qualms about suicide leads directly to the conclusion that Muslims must be the culprits.
Palestinian vs. Israeli is not 9/11, 7/7, 3/11, USS Cole, Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, the shoe bomber, Beslan school, suicide bombings in Iraq, etc. If they are not Palestinian vs. Israeli, perhaps the Israeli part of the equation is what should be examined. The Israelis invented and perpetuate this myth, complete with the bombed-out bus tour of Europe and the US. It is not hard for them to come up with these tales, just think for a moment about the absolutely Byzantine concoctions provided by very ordinary Jews as they manufacture their holocaust tales.
Muslims Did Not Use Suicide as a Method in Previous Wars
[MrSpock:] So the person believes that he won't really die, only go "to another place". Isn't that what all religion is all about? Of course it is. Muslims just happened to "activate" this belief in a larger than average percentage.
Islam has been around for 1400 years. Is suicide a religio-cultural tradition? Looking only at history in the last 150 years can you point to suicide as a method of fighting the enemy? The French experience with Muslim terrorists in Algeria had its bombers, but no suicide bombers. The English experience in fighting the Arabs in 1918 in Iraq was fierce, but no suicide bombers. Israel has been fighting the Palestinians since 1948, where are the Muslim suicide bombers in those years between 1948 and 1985? If it were a religious predilection it would not have made a sudden appearance in Israel within the last twenty years. Islam is a worldwide religion, fighting battles in places far from the Palestinian conflict – before 1985 where were the Muslim suicide bombers outside of Israel?

In addition, it is the case that many of the so-called suicide terrorists are not religious. How can a religion induce a person to commit suicide with the promise of honor in heaven if that person is not a believer?
You agreed with my statement “Suicide is absolutely unnatural; it is an aberration in creatures whose instinct is to survive. It is not easy to override that instinct.. But just to add another dimension to our survival instinct, think of what you know about mothers. Is it not the case that protection of her young is primary? It is not difficult for us to imagine a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, we can understand that. But can we imagine a mother of two small children ready to commit suicide for a cause? A mother would not have the inducement of “72 virgins waiting on the other side” as Muslim haters mockingly cite.
Getting involved in a case by case dispute over hundreds, possibly thousands of these reports is not possible for us. I am just not willing to accept at face value the reports of suicide bombers coming out of the Middle East for all the reasons I have discussed. I do not have to present an alternative explanation for every death that has been attributed to a suicide bomber to cast doubt on the stories. It would be akin to disputing the six million figure for the holocaust by examining each of the six million. The story can be undercut in other ways. I have tried to do that.
Embarrassing Reality Check

Robert Pape
Ph.D., Chicago, 1988 
Major Areas of Interest: 
Selected Publications: 
- The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" in APSR (2003); 
- Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War; 
- "Explaining Costly International Moral Action: Britain's Sixty-Year Campaign against the Atlantic Slave Trade" (with Chaim Kaufmann) in International Organization (1999).

Robert A. Pape is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago specializing in international security affairs. His publications include Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Cornell 1996), "Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work," International Security (1997), "The Determinants of International Moral Action," International Organization (1999). His commentary on international security policy has appeared in The New York Times, New Republic, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, as well as on Nightline, ABC News with Peter Jennings, and National Public Radio. Before coming to Chicago in 1999, he taught international relations at Dartmouth College for five years and air power strategy for the USAF's School of Advanced Air power Studies for three years. He received his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago in 1988 and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Betta Kappa from the University of Pittsburgh in 1982. His current work focuses on the effect of technological change on conflict and cooperation among major powers and the theory and practice of suicide terrorism.
Impatient says: When suicide terrorism is exposed as a hoax won't all these accolades be a little embarrassing? I mean, really - The Theory and Practice of Suicide Terrorism? I''m afraid it is worse than being an expert in Gender Issues and is right up there with Holocaust Studies. Passé doesn't quite describe how it will look when the truth is known.
Epilogue by Cyte
The Koran states that the punishment for murder is execution unless the survivors waive it. The punishment for suicide is eternal Hell and there is no way out.
I once met a suicide-promoting cleric in an Arab country and listened to him for a while. He was not an Arab, but he wanted to look like one. He spoke like one. He coordinated with local intelligence and the Mossad. And nobody touched him. He talked to young men about suicide. He was a suicide talk trainer. The boys talked about suicide and were all incarcerated, but the Israeli myth of the suicide bomber was born.
I don't think that there are suicide trainers, but suicide-talk trainers. I believe that videos declaring intent to go on a suicide mission are staged under drugs or under torture.
===============
Liberty Forum poster "impatient" presented compelling arguments on this thread that the suicide bomber is a myth and cannot exist in reality. "Impatient" refuted professor Robert Pape's research on the subject. I have only weaved his comments together and added section headings, an epilogue and a few comments between square brackets.
Cyte

vineri, 20 noiembrie 2015

In the Wake of Paris: Release the 28 Pages Now!

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/20/in-the-wake-of-paris-release-the-28-page

Just hours after terrorists staged an assault on the Paris offices of the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo and killed a dozen people, former U.S. Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) joined House of Representatives Members Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and representatives of the 9/11 families, in a Capitol Hill press conference, convened to demand the immediate release of the 28-page chapter from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, which documented the role of the Saudi Royal Family in financing the hijackers.
Sen. Graham's words are even more profound and timely today, in the wake of the Nov. 13 Paris massacres by Islamic State-allied butchers. Graham told the standing-room only crowd:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are unaware of the consequences of their government's actions. Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the Federal government has read all the other documents that have been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis' position would be, if they knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew what they had done, and they also observed that the United States had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism, throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And second, they have supported their religious fervor, with financial and other forms of support of the institutions which were going to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions have included mosques, madrassas, and the military. Al-Qaeda was a creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a cause-it is a consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia, and if it is crushed, there will be another institution established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have been that we have tolerated this succession of institutions,-violent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this morning in Paris.
Sen. Graham was absolutely right on Jan. 7. His words now take on even greater significance, as the entire world is still in shock over the Friday events in Paris, and the prospect that it can happen again.
It Can Happen Again
ISIS has already issued a new threat of similar blind terror attacks, this time targeting Washington, D.C. and other American cities. The Russian government, after a careful investigation, has concluded, as of Nov. 17, that the Metro Jet plane that blew up over Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, was downed by a terrorist bomb planted on board. ISIS has claimed credit for that atrocity, in which 224 people were killed. ISIS also took credit for a pair of suicide bombings in southern Beirut on Nov. 12, which killed and wounded hundreds of innocents.
Sen. Graham is absolutely right. ISIS is a consequence of Saudi promotion of Wahhabism and violent jihadi terrorism. To be more precise, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Nusra Front and other terrorist groupings are products of an Anglo-Saudi alliance, most publicly associated with the Al Yamamah arms-for-oil barter deals between London and Riyadh. Al Yamamah created an offshore slush fund for terrorism that directly fed Al Qaeda, from the start of that sinister deal in the 1980s.
The shock of the Paris attacks has forced the Obama Administration, for the moment at least, to abandon its hate campaign against Russia and President Putin, and at least formally accept the urgency of collaboration with Moscow to crush the Islamic State.
Now it is time for a reckoning with the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that has been steering the growth of the global jihadist apparatus, through decades of funding and logistical support.
It is time to release the full 28 pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11. The release of those 28 pages should be the start of a thorough, top-down investigation into the role of the Saudi Monarchy in promoting global terrorism, starting with full disclosure of the Saudi role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Time for a Reckoning
Congress must not tolerate one more moment of White House cover-up of those 28 pages. The Joint Inquiry was a legislative branch investigation, and the Congress has total authority to release the 28 pages, whether the White House goes along or not. The 1971 U.S. Supreme Court unanimous ruling in the case of then-Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), who placed the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record under the "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution, makes clear that Congress has the Constitutional authority to declassify those pages immediately.
While it is known that those pages provide details of how the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate supported at least two of the 9/11 hijackers upon their arrival in California, and how then-Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin-Sultan provided funds to the two hijackers, the pages clearly contain other vital details and leads on the full scope of the Saudi regime's backing for the 9/11 killers.
Had the full scope of the Saudi Monarchy's bloody hands behind 9/11 come out at the time, no American President could have gotten away with the coddling of the Saudis that has been the hallmark of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, post-9/11. To this day, President Obama openly praises the Saudis for their role in the "coalition" fighting ISIS. Even if he had committed no other impeachable acts, this President's shameless coverup of the Saudi hand behind global jihadist terrorism, itself rises to the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that warrant immediate impeachment proceedings.
If there is to be any justice for those who died in 9/11, who perished aboard Metro Jet, who were brutally murdered in Paris and in southern Beirut, the full complicity of the Saudis must be exposed publicly, now.
Otherwise, as Sen. Graham so presciently warned, Al Qaeda and ISIS may be formally crushed, but the underlying disease will resurface in a new and more virulent form in no time at all.
Release the 28 pages now!





Intensify Calls for Releasing the 28 Pages



Nov. 16 (EIRNS)-What needs to become a torrent of dissent is so far, only a
trickle. Two articles on Nov. 14 call for the release of the censored 28 pages of the
Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. These are the pages which
incriminate the Anglo-Saudi axis behind the attack. Bills in the Senate and House
demand the chapter's declassification and publication. Their release, now, would
explode all the flawed assumptions underlying U.S. failed Middle East policy.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel has demonstrated conclusively-including by his own
practice with the Pentagon Papers in 1971-that any Senator or Representative can
discuss their contents in Congress with impunity.



Seasoned investigative reporter and editor Robert Parry writes in Consortium
News, entitled, "Can Obama Level With the American People?" Parry speculates
whether the shock of the Paris attacks will cause "President Barack Obama and
other leaders [to] finally level with the American people and the world about what
the underlying reasons for this madness are? Will Obama explain how U.S. 'allies'
in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, have been fueling this
Sunni extremism for years? Will he dare recognize that Israeli repression of the
Palestinians is a major contributing factor, too?" Getting to the heart of the
argument, he says, "On a practical level, will Obama finally release those 28 pages
from the congressional 9/11 report that addressed evidence of Saudi support for the
hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in 2001?"



Parry also raises the August 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus, which
Obama "hastily blamed on Assad's regime," along with the Ukraine crisis of 2014,
including what we know about "the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17."



Daniel Lazare also zeros in on Saudi subversion with his article in Consortium
News Nov. 14, "How Saudi/Gulf Money Fuels Terror." Because of the refusal to
identify the Saudi hand in U.S. policy, Lazare says, " 'Terrorism' is a well-nigh
meaningless word that obscures and confuses more than it illuminates. The 9/11
attacks led to a 'global war on terror' and, simultaneously, to a vast cover-up
concerning those who were actually responsible for the deed....



"Strangest of all," he says, "is what has happened to a 28-page chapter in an
earlier joint Congressional report dealing with the question of the Saudi complicity.
While the report as a whole was heavily redacted, the chapter itself wound up
entirely suppressed. Although Obama promised 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser shortly after taking office to see to it that it was made public, it remains under
wraps."



Such cowardice creates a breeding ground for right-wing extremists, à la Jean-
Marie Le Pen in France, and Donald Trump in the U.S. "The more the Western
alliance and its Gulf 'allies' insist on spreading chaos in the Middle East," he
concludes, "the more xenophobia and right-wing reaction will be the upshot in
Europe and the United States."

British Labour Leader Corbyn: Ask Saudi Arabia Who Funds ISIS


Nov. 16 (EIRNS)-In an interview with Sky News, British Labour Party Leader
Jeremy Corbyn asserted that serious questions have to be asked about the way the
ISIS "has received weapons, has received money, has been able to sell oil, to export
it, and the role that other countries have played in this." Specifically, he said, Saudi
Arabia should be asked about who is funding ISIS and who is arming it.
Corbyn was also critical of Turkey's role in bombing Kurdish positions in Syria
of the People's Protection Units (YPG), when these have been crucial in combatting
ISIS.


Corbyn welcomed agreements reached regarding the Syrian crisis at last
Saturday's meeting in Vienna, and emphasized that the solution to that crisis must
be political rather than military, the Independent reported today. "In the long run,
there has to be a much wider political settlement in the whole region and in the
Middle East, otherwise we're going to get more of this as time goes by."

-###-

The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178, http://www.larouchepac.com and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee

marți, 17 noiembrie 2015

A Most Convenient Massacre


What a difference a single massacre can make!

By Dmitry Orlov


November 17, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -  Just a week ago the EU couldn't possibly figure out anything to do to stop the influx of “refugees” from all those countries the US and NATO had bombed into oblivion. But now, because “Paris changed everything,” EU's borders are being locked down and refugees are being turned back.

• Just a week ago it seemed that the EU was going to be swamped by resurgent nationalism, with incumbent political parties poised to get voted out of power. But now, thanks to the Paris massacre, they have obtained a new lease on life, because they can now safely embrace the same policies that a week ago they branded as “fascist.”

• Just a week ago the EU and the US couldn't possibly bring themselves admit that they are utterly incompetent when it comes to combating their own creation—ISIS, that is—and need Russian help. But now, at the après-Paris G-20 summit, everybody is ready to line up and let Putin take charge of the war against terrorism. Look—the Americans finally found those convoys of tanker trucks stretching beyond the horizon that ISIS has been using to smuggle out stolen Syrian crude oil—after Putin showed them the satellite photos!

Am I being crass and insensitive? Not at all—I deplore all the deaths from terrorist attacks in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, and in all the other countries whose populations did absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment. I only feel half as bad about the French, who stood by quietly as their military helped destroy Libya (which did nothing to deserve it).

Note that after the Russian jet crashed in the Sinai there weren't all that many Facebook avatars with the Russian flag pasted over them, and hardly any candlelight vigils or piles of wreaths and flowers in various Western capitals. I even detected a whiff of smug satisfaction that the Russians got their comeuppance for stepping out of line in Syria.

Why the difference in reaction? Simple: you were told to grieve for the French, so you did. You were not told to grieve for the Russians, and so you didn't. Don't feel bad; you are just following orders. The reasoning behind these orders is transparent: the French, along with the rest of the EU, are Washington's willing puppets; therefore, they are innocent, and when they get killed, it's a tragedy. But the Russians are not Washington's willing puppet, and are not innocent, and so when they get killed by terrorists, it's punishment. And when Iraqis, or Syrians, or Nigerians get killed by terrorists, that's not a tragedy either, for a different reason: they are too poor to matter. In order to qualify as a victim of a tragedy, you have to be each of these three things: 1. a US-puppet, 2. rich and 3. dead.

Also, you probably believe that the terrorist attacks in Paris were the genuine article—nobody knew it would happen, and it couldn't have been stopped, because these terrorists are just too clever for the ubiquitous state surveillance to detect. Don't feel bad about that either; you are just believing what you are told to believe. You probably also believe that jet fuel can melt steel girders and that skyscrapers collapse into their own footprints (whether they've been hit by airplanes or not). You can certainly believe whatever you like, but here are a couple of easy-to-understand tips on telling what's real from what's fake:

1. If it's fake, the perpetrators are known immediately (and sometimes beforehand). If it's real, then the truth is uncovered as a result of a thorough investigation. So, for instance, on 9/11 the guilty party were a bunch of Saudis armed with box cutters (some of whom are, paradoxically, still alive). And in Paris we knew right away that this was done by ISIS—even before we knew who the perpetrators were. And when that Malaysian jet got shot down over Ukraine, we knew right away that it was the Russians' fault (never mind that on that day the Ukrainians deployed an air defense system, and also scrambled a couple of jets armed with air-to-air missiles— against an enemy that doesn't have an air force). Note, however, how we still don't know what happened with the Russian jet over Sinai. That case is still under investigation—as it should be. If it's real, officials stall for time and urge caution while scrambling to find out what happened. When it's fake, the officials are ready to go with the Big Lie, and then do everything they can to make it stick, suppressing what shreds of evidence can be independently gathered.

2. If it's fake, than you should also expect cute little touches: designer logos for publicity campaigns ready to launch at a moment's notice, be it “Je suis Charlie” or that cute little Eiffel Tower inscribed in a peace symbol. There weren't any props to go with the Russian jet disaster—unless you count that tasteful Charlie Hebdo cartoon of a jihadi rocket having anal sex with an airliner. There might also be a few traditional titbits designed to feed a media frenzy, such as a fake passport found lying next to one of the perpetrators—because when terrorists go on suicide missions they always take their fake passports with them. The people who are charged with designing these events lack imagination and usually just go with whatever worked before.

We should certainly expect there to be more fake massacres of this sort—whenever the political situation becomes sufficiently fraught to call for one—because at this point ready-to-go jihadi terrorist cells are something of a sunk cost and can be deployed very cheaply and effectively. Of course we should grieve for the victims, but there is something far more important at stake than mere human lives, which are, deplorably, becoming cheaper with each passing year. We should grieve for the truth.



Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related to "potential economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States," something he has called “permanent crisis” - http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk

See also -
Syrian Passport by Stadium Stolen or Fake, A.F.P. Reports: Agence France-Presse is reporting, citing a source close to the investigation, that the passport bore the name of Ahmad al-Mohammad, a soldier in the Syrian Army who was born in 1990 and died months ago.

duminică, 15 noiembrie 2015

Atentatele de la Paris au început la New-York, în 11 Septembrie 2001

La prima vedere, Angela Merkel, în primul rând, apoi ceilalți lideri vest-europeni care au fost impunători în părerea că valurile de refugiați arabi trebuie primite și diseminate de-a lungul, de-a latul și prin colțurile statelor membre ale UE, au comis o imensă eroare, pe care acum ar regreta-o năprasnic. Este, însă, ridicol să ne imaginăm așa ceva. Să vedem de ce!Sâmbătă, imediat după încheierea reuniunii Consiliului pentru Apărare Națională, președintele Francois Hollande a declarat: „Ceea ce s-a produs ieri în Paris şi în zona Saint- Denis este un act de război şi, în contextul războiului, trebuie să luăm deciziile adecvate. Asistăm la un act terorist comis de Statul Islamic împotriva unei ţări libere. Un act de o barbarie.” Cu alte cuvinte, Hollande spune că la „un act de război” îndreptat împotriva țării, Franța se consideră în fața unui „casus belli” și va răspunde ca atare, prin angajare plenară a militarilor francezi împotriva Statului Islamic. De semnalat că acest gest al Franței, țară membră a NATO, poate atrage după sine punerea în practică a articolul 5 al Tratatului Atlanticului de Nord: „Părțile convin că un atac armat împotriva uneia sau a mai multora dintre ele în Europa sau în America de Nord va fi considerat ca un atac împotriva tuturor și în consecință, dacă se va produce un asemenea atac armat, fiecare dintre ele, exercitând dreptul său individual sau colectiv la autoapărare, recunoscut de articolul 51 al Cartei Națiunilor Unite, va da asistență Părții sau Părților atacate, prin luarea în consecință, individual și concertat cu celelalte părți, a acelor măsuri ce vor fi considerate necesare, inclusiv folosirea forței, pentru a restaura și a menține securitatea zonei Nord- Atlantice.” Adică, aceleași consecințe ca și cele de după 11 septembrie 2001, când o coaliție NATO a intervenit militar în Afganistan. Această variantă ar rezolva, precum bila măiastru zvârlită, care dărâma mai multe popice, nu doar o țintă, ci mai multe. Prima, o intervenție NATO cu arme întrunite, nu doar aero, ar tranșa definitiv problema Statului Islamic. A doua, ar lua „caimacul” rușilor, care deja au repurtat succese notabile în Siria. A treia ar stinge carbunele aprins în zonă de americani și scăpat ulterior din mâna cu degetele bășicate de arsuri. Ar mai fi și alte aspecte, dar să ne rezumăm doar la cele ce pot fi considerate importante.

Privite lucrurile prin această prismă, devine lesne de înțeles și poziția aparent halucinantă de până acum, a unor țări membre ale UE, din categoria „Lux”, cu privire la încurajarea migrației arabe din zonele de conflict către Europa, mai mult, impunerea „cotelor obligatorii”. Populațiile Continentului ar privi cu maximă satisfacție o asemenea intervenție militară, care ar înăbuși perspectivele sumbre ale islamizării Europei. Deja agențiile de știri anunță că printre atentatorii de la Paris există un individ ajuns pe Continent recent, odată cu valul migrant. Astfel, legătura dintre invazia arabă care a înspăimântat Europa și atentatele de la Paris a fost făcută.
Dacă lucrurile stau așa, înseamnă că, din pricina legăturilor cauzale anterioare, apariția Statului Islamic, inflamarea dramatică a situației din teritoriile pe care le-a ocupat, poftirea insistentă, cu brațele deschise, în Europa a milioane de refugiați arabi și atentatele de la Paris sunt parte ale aceluiași Scenariu. Dacă nu cumva, printr-un șir dialectic ceva mai lung, de tip cauză-efect, acest Scenariu nu a început chiar în 11 Septembrie 2001.

miercuri, 8 aprilie 2015

Hunting Humans by Remote Control

Drones seemed to come out of nowhere, sexy as the latest iPhones and armed to kill. They were all-seeing eyes in the sky (“a constant stare,” as drone promoters liked to say) and surgically precise in their ability to deliver death to evildoers. Above all, without pilots in their cockpits, they were, in terms of the human price of war (at least when it came to the lives that mattered to us), cost free. They transformed battle into a video-game experience, leaving the “warriors” – from pilots to generals – staring at screens. What could possibly go wrong?
As it happened, so much went wrong. It often proved hard for the drone operators to tell what exactly they were seeing on those video feeds of theirs and mistakes were regularly made. In addition, drones turned out to kill with a remarkable lack of discrimination, while putting whole rural populations that fell under Washington’s robotic gaze into a state of what, if they had been American soldiers, we would have called PTSD. Worse yet, as recent events in Yemen indicate, drones proved remarkably effective weapons not in staunching terror outfits but in spreading terror, and so became powerful recruitment tools for extremist groups.  In rural societies repeatedly attacked by the grimly named Predators and Reapers, the urge for revenge was apparent.
Drones were, that is, terror instigators.  Everywhere they were sent by the last two administrations to pursue campaigns of “targeted killing” (i.e. assassination) and “signature strikes” (on suspicious patterns of “behavior” on the ground below, as judged by video from thousands of miles away), extremist groups have grown, societies have fragmented, and things have, from Washington’s point of view, gotten worse. In the process, they turned the White House with its secret “kill list” and its “terror Tuesday” meetings into a den of assassins, the CIA into assassination central, and the president into an assassin-in-chief. The drones even took an unexpected tollon their pilots waging a theoretically cost-free war.
From the point of view of drone proponents, one curious thing did go right, however – not in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or Somalia, but here at home. Even though Americans in multiplexes had for years sided with human rebels against the inhuman gaze of robots on the prowl, they now backed the robots, as opinion pollsshowed, in part because their reputation here remained remarkably untarnished by their dismal and destructive track record in the distant backlands of the planet.
Now, another kind of “gaze,” another form of “constant stare,” has fallen on the drone and it comes from the least robotic of places.  In his new book, A Theory of the Drone, French philosopher Grégoire Chamayou has taken a fresh look at the radically new form of warfare wreaking havoc on fundamental human categories, whether of war, legality, or sovereignty. It’s a fascinating effort to deal with a weapons and surveillance system that turns out not to have arrived out of the blue at all. Today, TomDispatchoffers a taste of Chamayou’s original approach, presenting two early chapters from his book on how the drone entered our world and transformed the classic “duel” between warriors into a “hunt” in which an all-seeing, lidless eye-in-the-sky searches out distant humans below as its “prey.” In the meantime, the warriors of the past are, as Chamayou writes, morphing into the executioners of the twenty-first century. It couldn’t be a grimmer tale of post-modernity. Tom
Manhunters, Inc.

How the Predator and Extra-Judicial Execution Became Washington’s Calling Cards
By Grégoire Chamayou

The following is slightly adapted from chapters two and three of Grégoire Chamayou’s new book, A Theory of the Drone, with special thanks to his publisher, the New Press.
Initially, the English word “drone” meant both an insect and a sound. It was not until the outbreak of World War II that it began to take on another meaning. At that time, American artillery apprentices used the expression “target drones” to designate the small remotely controlled planes at which they aimed in training. The metaphor did not refer solely to the size of those machines or the brm-brm of their motors. Drones are male bees, without stingers, and eventually the other bees kill them. Classical tradition regarded them as emblems of all that is nongenuine and dispensable. That was precisely what a target drone was: just a dummy, made to be shot down.
However, it was a long time before drones were to be seen cruising above battlefields. To be sure, the idea dates back quite a while: there were the Curtiss-Sperry aerial torpedo and the Kettering Bug at the end of World War I, and then the Nazi V-1s and V-2s unleashed on London in 1944. But those old flying torpedoes may be considered more as the ancestors of cruise missiles than as those of present-day drones. The essential difference lies in the fact that while the former can be used only once, the latter are reusable. The drone is not a projectile, but a projectile-carrying machine.
It was during the Vietnam War that the U.S. Air Force, to counteract the Soviet surface-to-air missiles that had inflicted heavy casualties on it, invested in reconnaissance drones nicknamed “Lightning Bugs,” produced by Ryan Aeronautical. An American official explained that “these RPVs [remotely piloted vehicles] could help prevent aircrews from becoming casualties or prisoners… With RPVs, survival is not the driving factor.”
Once the war was over, those machines were scrapped. By the late 1970s, the development of military drones had been practically abandoned in the United States. However, it continued elsewhere. Israel, which had inherited a few of these machines, recognized their potential tactical advantages.
In 1973, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), facing off against Egypt, ran up against the tactical problem of surface-to-air missiles. After losing around 30 planes in the first hours of the Yom Kippur War, Israeli aviation changed its tactics. They decided to send out a wave of drones in order to mislead enemy defenses: “After the Egyptians fired their initial salvo at the drones, the manned strikes were able to attack while the Egyptians were reloading.” This ruse enabled Israel to assume mastery of the skies. In 1982, similar tactics were employed against the Syrians in the Bekaa Valley. Having first deployed their fleet of Mastiff and Scout drones, the Israelis then sent out decoy planes that were picked up by enemy radar. The Syrians activated their surface-to-air missiles, to no effect whatsoever. The drones, which had been observing the scene from the sky, easily detected the positions of the antiaircraft batteries and relayed them to the Israeli fighter planes, which then proceeded to annihilate them.
The drones were used for other purposes as well:
“Two days after a terrorist bomb destroyed the [U.S.] Marine Barracks in Beirut in October 1983, Marine Commandant Gen. P.X. Kelley secretly flew to the scene. No word of his arrival was leaked. Yet, across the border, Israeli intelligence officers watched live television images of Kelley arriving and inspecting the barracks. They even zoomed the picture in tight, placing cross hairs directly on his head. Hours later, in Tel Aviv, the Israelis played back the tape for the shocked Marine general. The scene, they explained, was transmitted by a Mastiff RPV circling out of sight above the barracks.”
This was just one of a series of minor events that combined to encourage the relaunch of American drone production in the 1980s. “All I did,” confessed Al Ellis, the father of the Israeli drones, “was take a model airplane, put a camera in it, and take the pictures… But that started an industry.”
At this point, however, the drones were simply machines for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. They were just eyes, not weapons. The metamorphosis came about almost by chance, between Kosovo and Afghanistan, as the new millennium began. As early as 1995, General Atomics had invented a new remote-controlled spy plane prototype, the Predator. Despite its disquieting name, the beast was not yet equipped with claws or teeth. In Kosovo, where it was deployed in 1999, the drone limited itself to filming targets and illuminating them by means of lasers, allowing the F-16 planes to strike.
But it would take a “‘different kind of war’ to make the Predator into a predator.” No more than a few months before September 11, 2001, officers who had seen the Predator at work in Kosovo had the idea of experimentally equipping it with an antitank missile. Writes Bill Yenne in his history of the drone, “On February 16, 2001, during tests at Nellis Air Force Base, a Predator successfully fired a Hellfire AGM114C into a target. The notion of turning the Predator into a predator had been realized. No one could imagine that, before the year was out, the Predator would be preying upon live targets in Afghanistan.”
Barely two months after the outbreak of hostilities in Afghanistan, George Bush was in a position to declare: “The conflict in Afghanistan has taught us more about the future of our military than a decade of blue ribbon panels and think-tank symposiums. The Predator is a good example… Now it is clear the military does not have enough unmanned vehicles.”
The Principles of Manhunting
“Individual will research and incorporate current manhunting experiences and procedures in order to provide an educational forum for manhunting issues… Must possess a SECRET level clearance and be able to obtain a TOP SECRET/SCI security clearance.” 


– Job description for a special operations manhunting program analyst in an advertisement published by the military contractor SAI in 2006

In 2004, John Lockwood set up a website called Live-Shot.com. The idea was at once simple and innovative. By subscribing online for a few dollars, the Internet surfer could become a “virtual hunter.” Thanks to a camera fixed to a mobile forearm, itself connected to a remote control device, one could, without stirring from home, shoot live animals let loose for the occasion on a ranch in Texas.
When it made the news, there was a rush to condemn it. The editor-in-chief of the magazine Outdoor Life, acknowledging the profound “ethical problems” that such a venture presented, set out a fine definition of what hunting meant for him: “To me, hunting isn’t just about pulling the trigger on an animal. It’s about the total experience… Hunting is about being out there, not about pulling the trigger with the click of a mouse.”
A Wisconsin lawmaker took up the theme, giving the definition a strangely environmentalist twist: “To me, hunting is being out in nature and becoming one with nature.” Even the extremely conservative National Rifle Association expressed its opposition, joining with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in an unusual alliance: “We believe that hunting should be outdoors and that sitting in front of a computer three states away doesn’t qualify as ‘hunting.’” A Houston police officer was even more adamant, saying, “It’s not hunting. It’s killing… Someone gets a computer and pushes a button and something dies for no reason.”
Lockwood protested, claiming that his foremost purpose had been to allow handicapped people who were passionate about hunting to indulge in their favorite pastime and mentioning an American soldier in Iraq who had thanked him for offering such a fine opportunity, saying that he had no idea when he might be able to go hunting again. But it was all in vain. Hunting online was forbidden. Lockwood, disappointed, tried to salvage his scheme by suggesting that his clients should fire at cardboard targets representing Osama bin Laden. However, his intended Internet audience shifted to other, no doubt more exciting, online pleasures, and the little venture that had seemed so promising collapsed.
The triggers of moral indignation are quite mysterious sometimes. While the virtual hunting of animals was almost universally condemned as scandalous, the remote-controlled hunting of human beings was at the same moment taking off without any of those same people making any objections.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, George W. Bush had predicted that the United States would embark upon a new kind of warfare, “a war that requires us to be on an international manhunt.” Something that initially sounded like nothing more than a catchy Texas cowboy slogan has since been converted into state doctrine, complete with experts, plans, and weapons. A single decade has seen the establishment of an unconventional form of state violence that combines the disparate characteristics of warfare and policing without really corresponding to either, finding conceptual and practical unity in the notion of a militarized manhunt.
Reaping the (Human) Prey
In 2001, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had become convinced that “the techniques used by the Israelis against the Palestinians could quite simply be deployed on a larger scale.” What he had in mind was Israel’s programs of “targeted assassinations,” the existence of which had recently been recognized by the Israeli leadership. As Eyal Weizman explains, the occupied territories had become “the world’s largest laboratory for airborne thanatotactics,” so it was not surprising that they would eventually be exported.
But one problem remained. “How do we organize the Department of Defense for manhunts?” Rumsfeld asked. “We are obviously not well organized at the present time.” In the early 2000s, the U.S. military apparatus was not yet ready to roll out on a worldwide scale the sort of missions that normally are assigned to the police within a domestic framework: namely, the identification, tracking, location, and capture (but in actual fact the physical elimination) of suspect individuals.
Within the United States, not all the high-ranking officers who were informed of these plans greeted them with enthusiasm. At the time, journalist Seymour Hersh noted that many feared that the proposed type of operation – what one advisor to the Pentagon called “preemptive manhunting” – had the potential to turn into another Phoenix Program, the sinister secret program of murder and torture that had once been unleashed in Vietnam.
Of course, there was the additional problem of how to legally justify these hybrid operations, the enfants terribles of the police and the army. At the levels of both warfare theory and international law, they seemed to be conceptual monstrosities. But we shall be returning to this point.
In any case, a new strategic doctrine became necessary. Researchers set about defining the “manhunting theoretical principles” that could provide a framework for such operations. George A. Crawford produced a summary of these in a report published in 2009 by the Joint Special Operations University. This text, which set out to make “manhunting a foundation of U.S. national strategies,” in particular called for the creation of a “national manhunting agency,” which would be an indispensable instrument for “building a manhunting force for the future.”
The contemporary doctrine of hunting warfare breaks with the model of conventional warfare based on concepts of fronts and opposed battle lines facing up to each other. In 1916, General John J. Pershing launched a vast military offensive in Mexico in an unsuccessful attempt to lay hands on the revolutionary Pancho Villa. For American strategists who cite this historical precedent as a counterexample, it was a matter of reversing polarity: faced with the “asymmetrical threats” posed by small mobile groups of “nonstate actors,” they should use small, flexible units, either human or –  preferably – remotely controlled, in a pattern of targeted attacks.
Contrary to Carl von Clausewitz’s classical definition, the fundamental structure of this type of warfare is no longer that of a duel, of two fighters facing each other. The paradigm is quite different: a hunter advancing on a prey that flees or hides from him. The rules of the game are not the same. “In the competition between two enemy combatants,” wrote Crawford, “the goal is to win the battle by defeating the adversary: both combatants must confront to win. However, a manhunt scenario differs in that each player’s strategy is different. The fugitive always wants to avoid capture; the pursuer must confront to win, whereas the fugitive must evade to win.” The hostile relationship now boils down, as in a game of hide-and-seek, to “a competition between the hiders and the seekers.”
The primary task is no longer to immobilize the enemy but to identify and locate it. This implies all the labor of detection. The modern art of tracking is based on an intensive use of new technologies, combining aerial video surveillance, the interception of signals, and cartographic tracking. The profession of manhunters now has its own technocratic jargon: “Nexus Topography is an extension of the common practice of Social Network Analysis (SNA) used to develop profiles of HVIs… Nexus Topography maps social forums or environments, which bind individuals together.”
In this model the enemy individual is no longer seen as a link in a hierarchical chain of command: he is a knot or “node” inserted into a number of social networks. Based on the concepts of “network-centric warfare” and “effects-based operations,” the idea is that by successfully targeting its key nodes, an enemy network can be disorganized to the point of being practically wiped out. The masterminds of this methodology declare that “targeting a single key node in a battlefield system has second, third, n-order effects, and that these effects can be accurately calculated to ensure maximum success.”
This claim to predictive calculation is the foundation of the policy of prophylactic elimination, for which the hunter-killer drones are the main instruments. For the strategy of militarized manhunting is essentially preventive. It is not so much a matter of responding to actual attacks but rather of preventing the development of emerging threats by the early elimination of their potential agents – “to detect, deter, disrupt, detain or destroy networks before they can harm” – and to do this in the absence of any direct, imminent threat.
The political rationale that underlies this type of practice is that of social defense. Its classic instrument is the security measure, which is “not designed to punish but only to preserve society from the danger presented by the presence of dangerous beings in its midst.” In the logic of this security, based on the preventive elimination of dangerous individuals, “warfare” takes the form of vast campaigns of extra-judiciary executions. The names given to the drones – Predators (birds of prey) and Reapers (angels of death) – are certainly well chosen.

Read more by Tom Engelhardt

GOOGLE TRANSLATE
Oamenii de vanatoare de control de la distanță
Gregoire Chamayou și Tom Engelhardt

Trântorii părea să vină de nicăieri, sexy ca cele mai recente iPhone și înarmați pentru a ucide. Ele au fost atotvăzător ochi în cer ("o stare constantă", ca promotori drone plăcea să spună) și chirurgical precis în capacitatea lor de a livra moarte la răufăcători. Mai presus de toate, fără piloți din cockpit lor, ei au fost, în ceea ce privește prețul uman de război (cel puțin atunci când a venit la viața pe care au contat la noi), gratuit. Ei transformat luptă într-o experiență video de joc, lăsând "războinicii" - de la pilot la generali - holbezi la ecrane. Ce ar putea merge rău?
Așa cum sa întâmplat, atât de mult a mers prost. De multe ori s-au dovedit greu pentru operatorii drone pentru a spune exact ceea ce vedeau pe hrănește cele videoclipuri cu a lor și greșeli s-au făcut în mod regulat. În plus, drone sa dovedit aucide cu o remarcabilă lipsă de discriminare , punând populația rurală întregi care au intrat sub robotizate privirea de la Washington într- o stare de ceea ce, dacă ar fi fost soldați americani, ne-ar fi numit PTSD. Mai rău încă, în calitate de evenimentele recente din Yemen indică, trântorii s-au dovedit deosebit de eficiente arme nu în staunching tinutele teroare, dar în teroare, și așa a devenit instrumente de recrutare puternice pentru grupuri extremiste. În societățile rurale repetat atacate de Predators încruntat numit și Reapers, nevoia de răzbunare a fost evidentă.
Trântorii au fost, că este, instigatori teroare. Peste tot au fost trimise de ultimele două administrații să continue campaniile de "ucidere vizate" (de exemplu, asasinat) și "lovituri semnătură "(pe modele suspecte de" comportament "pe teren de mai jos, așa cum judecat de video de la mii de kilometri distanță), grupuri extremiste au crescut, societățile au fragmentat, și lucrurile s-au, din punctul de vedere al Washingtonului, ajuns mai rău. În acest proces, au transformat Casa Albă cu secretul "său lista ucide"și la reuniunile sale" teroare marți "într-o peșteră de asasini, CIA în asasinat centrală, iar președintele într-un asasin-șef . Dronele au luat chiar o taxă neașteptat pe piloții lor duce un război teoretic gratuite.
Din punct de vedere al susținătorilor drone, un lucru curios sa dus drept, însă - nu în Pakistan sau Afganistan sau Irak sau Yemen sau Somalia, dar aici, la domiciliu. Chiar dacă americanii în multiplexuri au avut de ani de zile fețe cu rebelii omului împotriva privirea inuman de roboți la panda , au susținut acum de roboți, așa cum sondajele de opinie au arătat, în parte pentru că reputația lor aici a rămas remarcabil untarnished de istoricul lor sumbre și distructiv în în backlands îndepărtate ale planetei.
Acum, un alt fel de "privirea", o altă formă de "stare constantă", a căzut de pe drona și vine de la cel robotizate de locuri. În noua sa carte, o teorie a Drone , filozof francez Grégoire Chamayou a luat un aspect proaspăt la radical noua formă de război ravagii pe categorii fundamentale ale omului, dacă de război, legalitate, sau suveranitate. E un efort fascinant de a face cu un sistem de arme și supraveghere care se dovedește a nu fi ajuns din senin, la toate. Astăzi, TomDispatch oferă un gust de abordare originală Chamayou lui, prezentând două capitole anticipate din cartea sa despre modul în care drona a intrat lumea noastră și a transformat clasic "duelul" dintre Warriors într-o "vânătoare", în care o-seeing toate, lidless ochi-in the-sky caută în om la distanță de mai jos ca sa "pradă". Între timp, războinicii din trecut sunt, așa cum scrie Chamayou, morphing în călăi ai secolului XXI. Nu putea fi o poveste mai grava post-modernitate. Tom
Manhunters, Inc. 
Cum executare Predator și extrajudiciară a devenit Tonuri de Carduri Washington 
Prin Grégoire Chamayou

Următoarele este ușor adaptată din capitolele doi și trei de noua carte Grégoire Chamayou lui, o teorie a Drone , cu mulțumiri speciale pentru editorul său, New Press.
Inițial, cuvântul englezesc "trântor" a însemnat atât o insectă și un sunet. Nu a fost până la izbucnirea primului război mondial II-lea, care a început să-și asume un alt sens. La acea vreme, ucenicii artilerie americani a folosit expresia "trântorii țintă" pentru a desemna mici avioane controlate de la distanță la care au drept scop în formare. Metafora nu sa referit numai la dimensiunea de aceste mașini sau BRM-BRM a motoarelor lor. Trântorii sunt albine de sex masculin, fără ace, precum și în cele din urmă celelalte albine-i omoare. Tradiție clasică le privite ca embleme ale tot ceea ce este nongenuine și indispensabilă. Asta a fost exact ceea ce o dronă țintă a fost: doar un fals, făcut să fie doborât.
Cu toate acestea, a fost o lungă perioadă de timp înainte de drone ar fi văzut de croazieră câmpuri de luptă de mai sus. Pentru a fi sigur, ideea dateaza de mai mult timp: s-au torpila aeriană Curtiss-Sperry și Bug Kettering, la sfârșitul primului război mondial, iar apoi naziste V-1s și V-2 dezlănțuite pe Londra, în 1944. Dar aceste torpile de zbor vechi pot fi considerate mai mult ca stramosii rachete de croazieră decât ca cele de drone de astăzi. Diferența esențială constă în faptul că, în timp ce fostul poate fi folosită o singură dată, acestea din urmă sunt reutilizabile. Drona nu este un proiectil, dar o mașină de transport de proiectil.
Acesta a fost în timpul Războiului din Vietnam care US Air Force, pentru a contracara rachetele sovietice sol-aer, ce a fost provocate pierderi grele pe el, a investit în avioane de recunoaștere poreclit "Bugs Lightning", produse de Ryan Aeronautica. Un oficial american a explicat că "aceste RPVs [vehicule pilotate de la distanță] ar putea ajuta la prevenirea aircrews să devină victime sau prizonieri ... Cu RPVs, supraviețuirea nu este factorul de conducere."
Odată ce războiul sa terminat, aceste mașini au fost casate. Până la sfârșitul anilor 1970, dezvoltarea dronelor militare a fost practic abandonat în Statele Unite. Cu toate acestea, a continuat în altă parte. Israel, care a moștenit câteva dintre aceste mașini, recunoscut avantajele lor tactice potențiale.
În 1973, Forțele de Apărare Israeliene (IDF), cu care se confruntă în afara împotriva Egiptului, a fugit împotriva problema tactic de rachete sol-aer. Dupa ce a pierdut aproximativ 30 de avioane în primele ore ale Yom Kippur război, aviația israeliană a schimbat tactica sale. Ei au decis să trimită un val de drone, în scopul de a induce în eroare apararea inamicului: "După ce egiptenii tras salvă lor inițială la drone, greve echipaj au reușit să atace în timp ce egiptenii au fost reîncărcare." Acest lucru a permis Ruse Israel să-și asume stăpânirea de cerul. În 1982, tactici similare au fost folosite împotriva sirienilor din Valea Bekaa. Având în primul desfășurat flota lor de Mastiff și Scout drone, israelienii apoi trimis avioane momeală care au fost recepționate de radar inamic. Sirienii activat rachetele sol-aer, pentru nici un fel de efect. Dronele, care au fost cu respectarea scena din cer, a detectat cu ușurință pozițiile bateriilor antiaeriene și le transmise de avioane de luptă israeliene, care apoi procedat pentru a le anihila.
Dronele au fost utilizate în alte scopuri, precum:
"La două zile după o bombă teroristă a distrus [US] Cazarma Marine în Beirut, în octombrie 1983 Marine comandantul generalul PX Kelley a zburat în secret la locul faptei. Nici un cuvânt de sosirea sa a fost scurgeri. Cu toate acestea, dincolo de graniță, ofițerii de informații israeliene vizionat imagini de televiziune în direct de Kelley ajuns și inspectarea cazarmă. Ei zoom chiar imaginea în strânsă, plasarea firele de păr cruce direct pe capul lui. Câteva ore mai târziu, la Tel Aviv, israelienii redate banda de șocat Marine generalul. Scena, au explicat, a fost transmis de către un Mastiff RPV circling din vedere mai sus barăci. "
Aceasta a fost doar una dintr-o serie de evenimente minore care a combinat pentru a încuraja relansarea producției drone americane în anii 1980. "Tot ce am făcut", a mărturisit Al Ellis, tatăl drone israeliene ", a fost să ia un model de avion, a pus un aparat de fotografiat în ea, și să ia imaginile ... Dar, care a început o industrie."
În acest moment, însă, dronele au fost pur și simplu mașini de inteligență, supraveghere, recunoaștere și. Erau doar ochii, nu arme. Metamorfoza a venit despre aproape din întâmplare, între Kosovo și Afganistan, ca a inceput noul mileniu. Încă din anul 1995, General Atomics a inventat un nou prototip controlate de la distanță plan spion, Predator. În ciuda numelui său neliniștitor, fiara nu a fost încă echipate cu gheare sau dinți. În Kosovo, unde a fost desfășurată în 1999, drona sa limitat la filmarea obiective și luminoasă lor prin intermediul unor lasere, permițând F-16 avioane de grevă.
Dar ar lua o "" alt fel de război "pentru a face Predator într-un pradator." Nu mai mult de câteva luni înainte 11 septembrie 2001, ofițerii care au văzut Predator la locul de muncă în Kosovo a avut ideea de experimental aceasta echipare cu o rachetă antitanc. Scrie Bill Yenne în istoria sa de drona, "La 16 februarie 2001, în timpul încercărilor la Nellis Air Force Base, un Predator tras cu succes o AGM114C Hellfire într-o țintă. Noțiunea de a transforma Predator intr-un pradator a fost realizat.Nimeni nu ar putea imagina că, înainte de anul a fost afară, Predator ar fi pradă pe obiective vii în Afganistan. "
Abia două luni de la izbucnirea ostilităților în Afganistan, George Bush a fost în măsură să declare: "Conflictul din Afganistan ne-a învățat mai multe despre viitorul nostru militar mult de un deceniu de panouri panglică albastră și think-tank simpozioane. Predator este un exemplu bun ... Acum este clar armata nu are suficiente vehicule aeriene fără pilot. "
Principiile de Manhunting
"Individual va cerceta și să includă experiențe și procedurile manhunting circulante, în scopul de a oferi un forum educațional pentru problemele manhunting ... trebuie să posede un clearance nivel SECRET și să fie capabil de a obține o autorizație de securitate STRICT SECRET / SCI." 

- Descrierea postului pentru o operațiuni speciale manhunting program de analist într-un anunț publicat de către contractant militar SAI în 2006

În 2004, Ioan Lockwood înființat un site web numit Live-Shot.com. Ideea a fost în același timp simplă și inovatoare. Prin subscrierea on-line pentru câțiva dolari, surfer Internet ar putea deveni un "vânător virtuale." Datorită un aparat de fotografiat fixate pe un antebraț mobil, se conectat la un dispozitiv de control de la distanță, s-ar putea, fără agitare de acasă, trage animale vii lăsa liber pentru ocazie, la o fermă din Texas.
Când a făcut știri, a existat o grabă să-l condamne. Redactorul-șef al revistei Outdoor Life, recunoscând profunde "problemele etice", că un astfel de risc prezentat, stabilit o definiție amendă de ceea ce a însemnat de vânătoare pentru el: "Pentru mine, vânătoarea nu este doar despre trăgând de declanșare pe un animal. Este vorba despre experiența totală ... Vânătoarea este despre a fi acolo, nu despre trăgând de declanșare cu un click de mouse-ului. "
Un parlamentar Wisconsin a preluat tema, oferind definiția o poftă de mâncare ciudat ecologist: ". Pentru mine, vânătoare este în curs de afară în natură și de a deveni una cu natura" Chiar extrem de conservatoare Asociatia Nationala Rifle și-a exprimat opoziția față, aderarea cu Societatea Americana pentru Prevenirea Cruzimii la animale într-o alianță neobișnuit: "Noi credem că de vânătoare trebuie să fie în aer liber și că stând în fața unui computer trei state departe nu se califică drept" de vânătoare. "" Un ofițer de poliție Houston a fost chiar mai de neclintit, spunând "Nu e de vânătoare. Este omoară ... Cineva devine un calculator și îl împinge pe un buton și ceva moare pentru nici un motiv. "
Lockwood protestat, susținând că scopul lui în primul rând a fost de a permite persoanelor cu handicap care au fost pasionat de vânătoare a se deda la distracție lor preferat și menționând un soldat american în Irak, care a avut ia mulțumit pentru a oferi o astfel de oportunitate amendă, spunând că el nu a avut nici o idee, atunci când el ar putea să meargă la vânătoare din nou. Dar totul a fost în zadar. Vanatoare on-line a fost interzis. Lockwood, dezamăgit, a încercat să salveze sistem său sugerând că clienții săi ar trebui să tragă la ținte de carton reprezentând Osama bin Laden. Cu toate acestea, publicul său Internet destinate mutat la alte, fără îndoială mai interesant, plăceri on-line, iar micul societatea în care a parut atat de promitator sa prăbușit.
Cele declanseaza de indignare morală sunt destul de misterios uneori. În timp ce vânătoarea virtuală de animale a fost aproape universal condamnat ca scandalos, vânătoarea de la distanță controlate de persoane a fost la același moment de decolare, fără nici acelorași persoane care fac obiecții.
În perioada imediat din 11 septembrie George W. Bush a prezis că Statele Unite vor îmbarca pe un nou tip de război ", un război care ne cere să fie pe o vânătoare de oameni internațională." Ceva care inițial suna ca nimic mai mult decât o prinde Texas cowboy slogan a fost transformată de atunci în doctrină de stat, complet cu experți, planuri, și arme. Un singur deceniu a văzut instituirea unei forme neconvenționale de violență de stat, care combină caracteristicile disparate de război și de poliție fără într-adevăr corespunzătoare, fie, găsirea unitate conceptuală și practică în noțiunea de vânătoare de oameni militarizată.
Culegerea (Human) Prey
În 2001, secretarul american al Apararii, Donald Rumsfeld a devenit convins că "tehnicile folosite de israelieni împotriva palestinienilor ar putea fi destul de simplu desfășurate pe o scară mai largă." Ceea ce el a avut în minte a fost programele Israelului de "asasinate vizate," existența din care au fost recent recunoscut de către conducerea israeliană. După cum explică Eyal Weizman, din teritoriile ocupate a devenit "cel mai mare laborator din lume pentru thanatotactics aeropurtate", deci nu a fost surprinzător că vor fi în cele din urmă exportate.
Dar într-o problemă a rămas. "Cum putem organiza Departamentul Apararii pentru vânătoare de oameni?", A întrebat Rumsfeld. ". Suntem în mod evident nu sunt bine organizate în momentul de față" La începutul anilor 2000, aparatul militar american nu a fost încă gata să se rostogolească pe o scară mondială genul de misiuni care în mod normal sunt atribuite la poliție într-un cadru intern: anume , identificarea, urmărirea, localizarea și capturarea (dar în realitate eliminarea fizică) a persoanelor suspecte.
În Statele Unite, nu toate de rang înalt ofițerii care au fost informate cu privire la aceste planuri le întâmpinați cu entuziasm. La acea vreme, jurnalistul Seymour Hersh a menționat că mulți se temeau că tipul propusă de funcționare - ceea ce consilier la Pentagon numit "manhunting preventiv" - a avut potentialul de a transforma într-un alt program Phoenix, programul secret de sinistru de crimă și tortură, care a avut dată a fost declanșat în Vietnam.
Desigur, există și problema suplimentară a modului de a justifica din punct de vedere aceste operațiuni hibride, Enfants de Terribles ale poliției și armatei. La nivelurile de teorie război și de drept internațional, păreau să fie monstruozități conceptuale. Dar vom reveni la acest punct.
În orice caz, o nouă doctrină strategică a devenit necesară. Cercetatorii stabilit cu privire la definirea "manhunting principiile teoretice", care ar putea oferi un cadru pentru astfel de operațiuni. George A. Crawford a produs un rezumat al acestora într-un raport publicat în 2009 de către Universitatea Operațiuni Speciale mixt. Acest text, care a stabilit pentru a face "manhunting o fundație de SUA strategii naționale", în special numit de crearea unei "agenții naționale manhunting", care ar fi un instrument indispensabil pentru "construirea unei forțe manhunting pentru viitor."
Doctrina contemporan de vânătoare pauze război cu modelul de război convențional bazat pe concepte de fronturi si liniile de luptă opuse care se confruntă până la celălalt. În 1916, generalul John Pershing a lansat o vastă ofensivă militară în Mexic într-o încercare nereușită de a pune mâna pe revoluționar Pancho Villa. Pentru strategi americani care citează acest precedent istoric ca un contraexemplu, a fost o chestiune de inversarea polaritatii: se confruntă cu "amenințările asimetrice" reprezentate de mici grupuri mobile de "actori nestatale", ei ar trebui să folosească unități mici, flexibile, fie om sau - preferabil - controlate de la distanță, într-un model de atacuri.
Contrar definiție clasică Carl von Clausewitz, a structurii fundamentale a acestui tip de război nu mai este cea a unui duel, de doi luptatori care se confruntă reciproc.Paradigma este destul de diferit: un vânător avansarea pe o pradă care fuge sau ascunde de la el. Regulile jocului nu sunt aceleași. "În competiția dintre două combatanți inamici", a scris Crawford, "scopul este de a câștiga bătălia prin înfrângerea adversar: ambele combatanți trebuie să se confrunte pentru a câștiga. Cu toate acestea, un scenariu vânătoare de oameni diferă prin aceea că strategia fiecare jucător este diferit. Fugarul vrea mereu să evite captura; urmăritor trebuie să se confrunte pentru a câștiga, în timp ce fugarul trebuie să se sustrage de a câștiga. "Relația ostil reduce acum în jos, ca într-un joc de-a v-ați ascunselea, la" o concurență între hiders și solicitanților. "
Sarcina principală nu mai este de a imobiliza inamicul, ci de a identifica și localiza-l.Aceasta implică toată munca de detectare. Arta modernă a de urmărire se bazează pe utilizarea intensivă a noilor tehnologii, care combină supraveghere aeriană video, interceptarea semnalelor și de urmărire cartografic. Profesia de manhunters are acum propria sa jargon tehnocratic: "Nexus Topografia este o extensie a practica obișnuită a analizei rețelelor sociale (SNA) utilizat pentru a dezvolta profile de Hvis ... Nexus Topografie harti forumuri sau medii sociale, care leagă indivizii împreună."
În acest model individul inamicul nu mai este văzută ca o verigă într-un lanț ierarhic de comandă: el este un nod sau "nod" introdus într-o serie de rețele sociale. Pe baza conceptelor de "Război bazat pe rețele" și "operațiuni bazate pe efecte", ideea este că prin orientarea cu succes noduri cheie, o rețea inamic poate fi dezorganizat la punctul de a fi practic distrus. Cele geniu din această metodologie declară că "vizează un singur nod cheie într-un sistem de luptă are doua, a treia efecte, n-ordine, și că aceste efecte pot fi calculate cu precizie pentru a asigura succesul maxim."
Această afirmație a calcul predictiv este fundamentul politicii de eliminare profilactic, pentru care dronele vânător-ucigaș sunt principalele instrumente. Pentru strategia de manhunting militarizat este, în esență preventiv. Nu este atât de mult o chestiune de a răspunde la atacuri reale, ci mai degrabă de a preveni dezvoltarea amenințărilor emergente prin eliminarea timpurie a agenților lor potențiale - "pentru a detecta, descuraja, perturba, reține sau distruge rețelele înainte de a putea dăuna" - și la face acest lucru în lipsa oricărei amenințări directe, iminent.
Motivul politic care stă la baza acestui tip de practică este cel al apărării sociale.Instrument de ei clasic este măsura de securitate, care este "nu este conceput pentru a pedepsi, ci doar pentru a păstra societate de pericolul prezentat de prezența ființelor periculoase în mijlocul ei." În logica acestei garanții, bazat pe eliminarea preventivă a persoanelor fizice periculoase , "război", ia forma unor campanii vaste de execuții extra-judiciare. Numele date dronele - Predators (păsările de pradă) și Reapers (Angels of Death) - sunt cu siguranță bine alese.
Grégoire Chamayou este un savant de cercetare în filosofie la Centrul National de la Recherche Scientifique din Paris. El este autorul o teorie a Drone (extras de mai sus) și vânătoare de oameni: O istorie filosofică. El locuiește în Paris.
Urmează TomDispatch pe Twitter alături de noi pe Facebook . Check out cele mai noi Dispeceratul Cartea, Rebecca Solnit lui Men Explicați Interese Mine , și cel mai recent cartea lui Tom Engelhardt, a Shadow Guvernul: Autoritatea de Supraveghere, Secret Wars, și un stat de securitate globală într-o singură superputere mondială .
Drepturi de autor 2015 de Grégoire Chamayou. Acest fragment a apărut inițial în O teorie a Drone publicat de The New Press. Reprinted aici cu permisiune.

Cititi mai multe de Tom Engelhardt