Leaked Snowden Docs Show Canada's "False Flag" Operations 202
An anonymous reader writes Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and The Intercept show the extent to which Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) cooperates with the NSA — and perhaps most interestingly details CSEC's "false flag" operations, whereby cyberattacks are designed and carried out with the intention of attribution to another individual, group or nation state. The revelations come in the midst of Canadian controversy regarding the C-51 anti-terrorism bill.
No wonder the Canadian Flag... (Score:4, Funny)
is covered in blood red with nine swords as the logo.
'In Canada's Interest' Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like outsourcing labour to from the US so that a third party catches flack for it should it go south. Canada, who basically has few natural enemies, could end up with a kick me sign on its back because of this.
Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's doubleception. canada could have blamed some other party after getting caught for trying to frame other party.
now, framing individuals? that's war talk.
I just wish other countries would already learn up and stop sending anyone into usa for being prosecuted for cybercrime. the fuck anyone can know who they framed or whatever, just as excercise...
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, this.
As soon as US law enforcement started using parallel construction (otherwise known as perjury with permission) ... nobody in the world should ever trust a damned thing claimed by US law enforcement.
They can, and will, lie and manipulate their data to make all sorts of things look true.
I'm afraid it's never going to happen, but claims by a US law enforcement agency should b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking too hard. Harper wants to sell stuff, primarily oil. The US is the biggest customer. If they keep getting into wars, they're an even bigger customer! So helping them kick over hornets' nests is good for everyone!
I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
This has happened before, it's one of the reasons why CSIS exists and is no longer under the umbrella of the RCMP and why an investigative committee exists which examines all CSIS actions. I expect the same to happen to CSEC, it may take a few years but it'll happen.
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes Candide, nations all around the world have spies that are performing espionage so you can be expect to be disappointed by every nation on earth larger than Monaco, Andorra or Lichtenstein (though I'm not so sure about the last three either...).
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The message that 98% of the voters send with their vote for incumbent political parties says that they do accept it. If people intend to resist, they need to show it.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Publicly stating on /. that we do NOT approve is insufficient?!?
Re: (Score:2)
You could also attempt to signal your disapproval of the degradations performed by oxidation in the atmosphere by refusing to breathe.
Do let us all know how that works out for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Monaco is so chock full of spies you could cross the country, leaping from spy-car to spy-car without ever touching the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. With a wingsuit it might well be possible. There are a couple of bloody big hills overlooking Monaco.
Ok, can confirm: Optimal glide path for a wingsuit is 2.5:1. So stand on Tete de Chien (height 450m if you believe English Wikipedia, or 550m if you believe French wikipedia, so lets assume halfway: 500m). Jumping from there gives you approximately 1.25km distance under optimal conditions before you reach sea level.
Assuming you can land on the sea (and someone's survived landing on cardboard boxes), ass
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes Candide, nations all around the world have spies that are performing espionage
There is a pretty big difference between performing espionage and doing a false flag operation.
A false flag operation actively tries to destabilize the relationship between other nations. (Or in the case when you use your host nation as a target, to trick the own population to accept certain infringements on freedom/democracy.)
Neither case is really something where you can say "boys will be boys" and move on. The first case leads to a lot of hate and distrust between nations, the second case is treason.
Re: (Score:2)
A false flag operation actively tries to destabilize the relationship between other nations. </quote>
No a false flag operation plays on the friendship of two nations to allow a third to collect information. A and B are friends, A does not like C. C sends an agent claiming to be from B. The agent is thus able to collect the information on/from A because A thinks he is from B. That is
Re: (Score:3)
No a false flag operation is pretty much any operation where one of its principle objectives is the miss-attribution of the action to another party.
Suppose Bob hates Alice, and Bob also hates Ted who does not care about Alice one way or the other but similarly despises Bob. Ted might attack Bob under the flag of Alice, in hopes Bob will go to war with Alice. Bob will consume his resources fighting with Alice; perhaps to Ted's economic advantage or maybe so Ted can attack a further weakened Bob later.
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
No, a false flag merely attempts to disguise itself as coming from another source ... that's it.
What you specifically use it for isn't part of the definition.
Pretty much any reason you can think of why it is advantageous to make people think it was someone other than you is why you might run a false flag.
You're both assigning arbitrary constraints to a false-flag, and those constraints simply don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The present topic is specifically offensive false-flags. It doesn't matter whether you're using someone else's flag so you can sneak in and do harm, or because you specifically want to frame the third party, either way it's going to damage the original relationship. The story implies it's the latter type anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the present story basically says they were "designed and carried out with the intention of attribution to another individual, group or nation state" ... as in, anybody but you.
That is the definition of all false flag operations.
But for some reason a bunch of people are trying to arbitrarily define false flag in a specific context. I'm saying that's mostly meaningless drivel by people who are trying to arbitrarily define false flag in a specific context.
Yes, it's a false flag operation. Those have been
Re: (Score:2)
No, Candide, these practices are NOT new, nor are they in any way different from the espionage nations & kingdoms & city-states have been engaging in since mankind began to write on papyrus & clay tablets.
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:5, Funny)
I'm ready to believe it was all USA, posing as Canada posing as other countries, on its "double false flag" operations.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm ready to believe it was all USA, posing as Canada
That's my theory for Stephen Harper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every nation will spy to the best of it's ability and within the limits of it's self interest.
This has been true since the beginning of recorded history.
The fact that people find this shocking is what is so bizarre to me. The original heroes of computer science where spying. Bletchley park's function was to spy. You spy in wartime to win you spy in peacetime to prevent war.
Re:I'm disappointed in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keyhole is still ongoing and it has been very useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada is a "five eyes" country. I expect the same from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. They and the US work quite closely in the world of intelligence.
I'm disappointed in you. (Score:3)
Five Eyes (Score:2)
But I thought Canada was better than that
Really, why [wikipedia.org]? We were talking about Echelon here more than fifteen years ago.
Hosers.
(sorry)
Re: (Score:2)
It was, but that was some time ago.
False Flag Plots.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the very opposite to what you want to run in a true democracy. If you must lie through your teeth to keep your own electorate in the dark, simply because you fear that the action(s) you are about to take would not be sanctioned by a well informed populous, then it's time to stop calling your country a democracy and start owning up to the fact that you live in and operate a dictatorship.
Perhaps not as bad as most dictatorships out there, but it can be a very slippery slope..
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. Lying to your populace saves you a bundle on domestic policing expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.
I've lived in 3 Anglosphere countries and 2 non-Anglosphere countries. I'm a native English speaker from the UK.
Having experienced life outside the Anglosphere I'm puzzled why it is that virtually all the English speaking nations are so fucking retarded in so many ways. Its not just the dumbass self-defeating 'espionage' its also the amazing pedantry, prudishness, squeamishness etc, the obsession with poop jokes. Almost all the adults in these cultures seem, by external standards, to be like large schoolchi
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.
I've lived in 3 Anglosphere countries and 2 non-Anglosphere countries. I'm a native English speaker from the UK.
Having experienced life outside the Anglosphere I'm puzzled why it is that virtually all the English speaking nations are so fucking retarded in so many ways. Its not just the dumbass self-defeating 'espionage' its also the amazing pedantry, prudishness, squeamishness etc, the obsession with poop jokes. Almost all the adults in these cultures seem, by external standards, to be like large schoolchildren.
I've also lived outside the angloshpere, every single nation has huge glaring problems that people simply ignore because it's part of their culture.
There's no real way to say which one is better, both have their advantages and drawbacks. You may be able to get away with more things in Thailand than the UK, but in Thailand you'll always be a second class citizen, accepted only because you have enough money to live there without working. Any fight between you and a Thai will result in the Thai winning rega
they all play this game (Score:5, Insightful)
world governments to USA in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"
world governments to USA in private: "everything is coming along nicely"
world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"
world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in private: "so how soon can we have NSA style abuses to add to our extensive portfolio of abuses?"
americans should complain loudly about the NSA
but the rest of the world, you should clean up your own fucking house, your government is feeding you manufactured NSA outrage as a distraction while it does the same
Re:they all play this game (Score:5, Insightful)
In Canada's case they've barely even bothered to feed outrage. Harper clearly wants to cooperate with the U.S. national-security establishment and doesn't care to even hide it.
Re:they all play this game (Score:4, Interesting)
Canadian government mails out leaflets "you support us, or the terrorists".
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
Toet's mailout asks "What do you think?" and requests people check off one of the following options:
* I agree with my MP Lawrence Toet. We must take additional action to protect Canada from terrorism.â
* I disagree. Terrorists are victims too.
Re: (Score:2)
I reply to these polls with a write-in tertiary option: GFY
Re: (Score:3)
Excerpted from The Intercept (Score:5, Informative)
Linky [firstlook.org]:
The document suggests CSE has access to a series of sophisticated malware tools developed by the NSA as part of a program known as QUANTUM. As The Intercept has previously reported, the QUANTUM malware can be used for a range of purposes – such as to infect a computer and copy data stored on its hard drive, to block targets from accessing certain websites, or to disrupt their file downloads. Some of the QUANTUM techniques rely on redirecting a targeted person’s internet browser to a malicious version of a popular website, such as Facebook, that then covertly infects their computer with the malware.
According to one top-secret NSA briefing paper, dated from 2013, Canada is considered an important player in global hacking operations. Under the heading “NSA and CSEC cooperate closely in the following areas,” the paper notes that the agencies work together on “active computer network access and exploitation on a variety of foreign intelligence targets, including CT [counter terrorism], Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Mexico.” (The NSA had not responded to a request for comment at time of publication. The agency has previously told The Intercept that it “works with foreign partners to address a wide array of serious threats, including terrorist plots, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign aggression.”)
Notably, CSE has gone beyond just adopting a range of tools to hack computers.
According to the Snowden documents, it has a range of “deception techniques” in its toolbox. These include “false flag” operations to “create unrest” and using so-called “effects” operations to “alter adversary perception.” A false-flag operation usually means carrying out an attack but making it look like it was performed by another group – in this case, likely another government or hacker. Effects operations can involve sending out propaganda across social media or disrupting communications services. The newly revealed documents also reveal that CSE says it can plant a “honeypot” as part of its deception tactics, possibly a reference to some sort of bait posted online that lures in targets so that they can be hacked or monitored.
Pretending to be a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't "behaving" like a terrorist exactly the same as "being" a terrorist?
Limited 'show' here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This just affirms doubts concerning the US claims of North Korean hacking Sony Pictures or any-given-hullabaloo about cyber attacks.
Perhaps it's all a deception to achieve some political end?
Or perhaps Snowden and Russia, et. all are trying to undermine our trust in the supreme integrity of our not-to-be-quesitoned leaders :)
Re: (Score:2)
Cyberattacks (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is just one reason why I'm always incredibly dubious that cyber-attacks "coming from China" etc. are used as potential justification for retaliation. This is entirely different to "proved originating from", where China etc. could just be an unfortunate third-party, a plant, or deliberately infiltrated to further some other countries ends with a cyberattack that DOES come from their country even if they don't know it.
Sorry, but you cannot go to war on the basis of what packets travelled over the Internet. It's just too damn unreliable and unaccountable that you can't do such things.
And yet all the first-world nations are saying that such things could be "just cause" for doing exactly that.
If your military systems are THAT bad that you can even get into anything at all from the ordinary Internet, it's your own fault.
How slowly is he leaking? (Score:2)
Excellent! (Score:2)
I kind of love the reasoning... (Score:2)
"Hey terrorists are scary and we need new laws, so lets commit terrorism so we can make these new laws!" XD
Oh, Canada...
While I think this 'Spy vs Spy' ... (Score:3)
... shit is funny, I want to be in on the joke.
We need more whistle blowers.
Super powers are aiding each other and snooping on each other and throwing 'false flags' all behind our backs.
That doesn't make it easy for us to make informed decisions.
It's 'Government by the government for the government'.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff. And basicly we as a culture doesn't want to accept that reality.
If you want the liberty without people spying on you, you will need to be brave enough as an overall population to say, I am willing to accept the Risks to our safety so we can have our liberty. Or if you want to stay secure, we as a population will need to say, We want to be safe, and are willing to trade our liberty for it.
America like to say Land of the Free and Home of the brave. You need to be brave and accept the risks to be free. The more we cower in fear that the popular bad guys of the time will get us, either being the native americans, british, anarchist, communists, terrorists... The more liberties we lose. Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
I would rather be less safe and free.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather be less safe and free.
Often you dont have to give up essential liberty for essential safety. The key is in also being an accepting society. It becomes harder and harder for a malicious person to hide when the average person does not feel the need to hide a lot of details about themselves (please note, this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" argument, its about people feeling secure to be themselves without the fear of societal judgement).
The problem is, politicians know that fear sells. So they use fear to get through wha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
where you will be 100% safe
Sounds like you've never been to prison.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That argument only works when replying to an extremist. For example someone who never met a regulation he liked. Someone who wants to move the 'slider' a bit one way or the other, not so much.
In cases like this where the 'safety' is far from established but the cost to freedom is shown (even if a few steps out), it's even less appropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.
You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.
For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.
First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.
A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it would be more detrimental to their efforts if they stopped king neckbeard from posting than if they allow him to continue when the general populous doesn't care or considers him paranoid. Kinda like how CSIS monitors all the file upload sites but doesn't report people for copyright infringement (they talked about having to sift through episodes of glee).
Incidentally these silly little freedoms, to talk in a voice that isn't heard, to buy and share entertainment, and the ability to choose a Jesus fis
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that has been the US mantra. You have a freedom of speech. But the thing is, you don't. Post of slashdot does not matter at all and where the speech matters, there it is viciously prosecuted. And if you did nothing wrong, well, everybody did something wrong. But even if you did not, who will question the authorities when they said they found a HDD full of child porn on your computer? Or that they find out you were enabling payment system for drug dealers? You will get railroaded and it won't even look
Re: (Score:2)
" They just need to nab the few leaders of any of such effort, jail them on drug charges and are done with it. Or would you want to say that you mean to do some action beyond the words? No. You won't."
Wow that is down right scary... maybe you should not not post such things or you might get busted...
That is just it name any leader" that has had that happen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I know how the story goes. I name people, then you say that is exception, so I name 3 more, you say that means nothing, it is still rare, so I name more and you say that well, Russia is still worse. There is always going to be some argument with you that will make it seem like everything is just fine. I don't care. If you are a troll, it won't stop you from trolling, if you are really a concerned citizen, you can do your own research and you will trust that more than you'd trust me here anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I promise not to do that. Please name some names, if you really believe what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are several links that are public knowledge. I know some cases personally, which I don't want to mention because I don't want to get associated with them publicly. There is more than 200 names in these lists:
http://www.thejerichomovement.... [thejerichomovement.com]
http://www.voxfux.com/features... [voxfux.com]
https://denverabc.wordpress.co... [wordpress.com]
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-... [amnestyusa.org]
I am not even including any of the whistleblowers or the Guantanamo prisoners in this list. But both of those categories are political prisoners.
Re: (Score:2)
That's good stuff. I'm glad I asked and I'm glad you shared those links.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a bit more background on defending and prosecuting political prisoners, I would suggest to read this article from Harvard Law:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu... [harvard.edu]
Those links are also very interesting read:
http://www.pjvoice.com/v52/520... [pjvoice.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What activist has been subjected to that treatment that you know of?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought that those who want security over liberty live in fear. They are afraid all out of proportion to actual threat and that illogical cowardice is hoisted upon the rest of us. Fingers twitching on gun triggers and shaking in the darkness of fear is no way to live life.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, freedom is pretty well defined even in contexts of two or more people, it's just a whole lot more difficult to enforce (and study) than a "Crusoe" economy [wikipedia.org] since there's literally nothing that one person can do by themselves to violate one's rights.
The addition of another person to the Crusoe economy is how economists study the origin of natural rights. Crusoe's welfare could improve because of comparative advantage; or it could fail, say, if he were attacked.
Society is basically adding a bu
Re: (Score:2)
I hope people aren't basing their studies on freedom based on a work of fiction. If you're going to do that, why not pick Lord of the Flies?
Or if you want to base it on reality, Black Like Me.
Just because it's difficult to study, doesn't mean 'absolute freedom' doesn't/can't exist.
There is no such thing. Everyone is constrained in what they can do. You might want to fly like Superman, but physics and biology say it's not going to happen. Or you might want to lgo to a live Beatles concert. Nature kind of limits your freedom to.
"Absolute" is a very dangerous word.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope people aren't basing their studies on freedom based on a work of fiction. If you're going to do that, why not pick Lord of the Flies?
Or if you want to base it on reality, Black Like Me.
It's an analogy. Come on now.
It's the same thing when physicists think about cats in boxes with poison, or spherical cows. It settles fundamental questions.
There is no such thing. Everyone is constrained in what they can do. You might want to fly like Superman, but physics and biology say it's not going to happen. Or you might want to lgo to a live Beatles concert. Nature kind of limits your freedom to.
"Absolute" is a very dangerous word.
I can get sufficiently close to flying to satisfy my desires, thank you very much.
No one was ever talking about omnipotence. We mean liberty.
Out of all the choices a person could make, what is the subset of things that are right to do? One person on an island, everything. Two people on an island, less than everything, but still well-defined. Person A can
Re: (Score:2)
It completely misses the aspect of positive freedoms. The conditions that maximise the negative freedoms (that is, rights to have others NOT do something) are often dismal for the positive freedoms. For example, Crusoe had it made as far as people not telling him he could not shout obscenities at 3 A.M. But reading whatever he wants? A bit hard when nobody is writing anything he can get to.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like those terms, the distinction between "negative" and "positive" freedoms tends to be a way of explaining people's mis-use of the terms.
They're properly called liberty and entitlement, respectively. And they're mutually exclusive.
e.g. Crusoe can't be forced to stop reading, nor can he force others to provide him something to read (especially hard to do when those people don't exist, as you point out).
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement is a word used mostly by people who don't believe in positive rights. For example, do you have a positive right to defend yourself or is it an entitlement?
Note that entitlement would be an acceptable term for positive rights except for the unwarranted negative connotation it has been given of late.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a trade I for one don't care to make. But this isn't just spying, this is creating fake attacks against our nation to make people THINK they are unsafe and trade away their liberty to the very groups that present the only real threat to it!
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone says this until one of their loved ones is killed in a terrorist attack. It's so easy to be brave until it happens to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly no. One reason so few people die to terrorist incidents is that there's a lot of time and effort expended on preventing and mitigating against them.
A sensible balance is needed. There is a risk, it does need to be addressed, but it doesn't justify ubiquitous surveillance, blanket restrictions on movement, prevention of free speech or extrajudicial punishments.
Safe from false flag? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of these false flag ops is to make the world APPEAR to be less safe than it really is. The attacks you see, are actually your own side! So the tradeoff security vs liberty, APPEARS to require a lot less liberty.
That Sony Hack evidence makes no sense, so now I wonder if one of the 5-eyes did it to market these new cyber laws that will legalize their actions. Laws like C51
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.
We are past the point of merely saying anything. We are to the point where only an outright civil war will stop our slide into a Totalitarian Police State.
Re: (Score:2)
People generally understand that just fine. The problem is, various groups seem to be trying very hard to influence the majority's perception of the ideal tradeoff. They're doing that by misrepresenting the danger.
Re:Spies are sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where the fuck you been, but people have been saying that since the Patriot Act was rammed through congress and signed by Bush.
Take a look around you. People are over 9/11. They've internalized the fact that you're more likely to die of auto-erotic asphyxiation than by the hands of a terrorist. Hell, you're way more likely to be killed by a conceal/carry goofball who thinks more guns equals less crime or some half-bright "Oath Keeper" with more ammo than brains than you are by some Muslim extremist. People put up with the militarized barneys every fucking place because they've got fucking guns. But every time I fly or go to a basketball or hockey game, I hear plenty of voices say, in no uncertain terms, that this is bullshit and they're tired of this phony security theater. Yeah, we'll take the risk.
Further, they're also tired of the phony security theater that says that having a bunch of US military propping up a corrupt drug lord in Afghanistan or rattling sabers at anybody who represents a political inconvenience to Bibi Netanyahu is in any way keeping the US safer. People got the memo that the entire security/intelligence/military apparatus of the United States exists only to perpetuate itself. We haven't fought a war for US security or liberty in the lifetime of anyone alive today.
Maybe somewhere, there's some huddled neo-con think tank where they're quaking in their boots over every brown person who resides in an oil producing region, but other than that, yeah, we'll take the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they forgot:
People who bury their heads in the sand, drown when the tide comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff.
Wrong. If you're not paying attention it's easy to lose both at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
B..but...that's a conspiracy theory (Score:2, Interesting)
Just remember this next time they use silly words like "conspiracy theory" as if the term means something that doesn't happen.
Conspiracy theories like... US funded pro- and counter insurgencies....
False flag attacks...
Rigged elections...
etc.
They happen and they're quite well documented. The government attempts to ridicule the evidence, but in the end they are the ones who look idiotic.
Take this recent hilarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]