Jump to content
GeniusAtWork

Тероризам: узроци, последице и има ли лека

Recommended Posts

 

Nema kraja ovome izgleda...

 

 
Više ljudi je ranjeno vatrenim oružjem u talačkoj krizi u Rubeu, gradu na severu Francuske na granici sa Belgijom, javlja Rojters.

 

Izgleda je ovde neka pljacka u pitanju i da nisu teroristi. Mada nosaju kalasnjikove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Важан проблем.

 

Mass Surveillance Isn’t the Answer to Fighting Terrorism

 

It’s a wretched yet predictable ritual after each new terrorist attack: Certain politicians and government officials waste no time exploiting the tragedy for their own ends. The remarks on Monday by John Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took that to a new and disgraceful low.

 

Speaking less than three days after coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed 129 and injured hundreds more, Mr. Brennan complained about “a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists.”

 

What he calls “hand-wringing” was the sustained national outrage following the2013 revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, that the agency was using provisions of the Patriot Act to secretly collect information on millions of Americans’ phone records. In June, President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act, which ends bulk collection of domestic phone data by the government (but not the collection of other data, like emails and the content of Americans’ international phone calls) and requires the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make its most significant rulings available to the public.

 

These reforms are only a modest improvement on the Patriot Act, but the intelligence community saw them as a grave impediment to antiterror efforts. In his comments Monday, Mr. Brennan called the attacks in Paris a “wake-up call,” and claimed that recent “policy and legal” actions “make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging.”

 

It is hard to believe anything Mr. Brennan says. Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did. In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had. And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data. Even putting this lack of credibility aside, it’s not clear what extra powers Mr. Brennan is seeking.

 

Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers livedonly hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists. As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

 

In fact, indiscriminate bulk data sweeps have not been useful. In the more than two years since the N.S.A.’s data collection programs became known to the public, the intelligence community has failed to show that the phone program has thwarted a terrorist attack. Yet for years intelligence officials and members of Congressrepeatedly misled the public by claiming that it was effective.

 

The intelligence agencies’ inability to tell the truth about surveillance practices is just one part of the problem. The bigger issue is their willingness to circumvent the laws, however they are written. The Snowden revelations laid bare how easy it is to abuse national-security powers, which are vaguely defined and generally exercised in secret.

 

Listening to Mr. Brennan and other officials, like James Comey, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one might believe that the government has been rendered helpless to defend Americans against the threat of future terror attacks.

 

Mr. Comey, for example, has said technology companies like Apple and Google should make it possible for law enforcement to decode encrypted messages the companies’ customers send and receive. But requiring that companies build such back doors into their devices and software could make those systems much more vulnerable to hacking by criminals and spies. Technology experts say that government could just as easily establish links between suspects, without the use of back doors, by examining who they call or message, how often and for how long.

 

In truth, intelligence authorities are still able to do most of what they did before —only now with a little more oversight by the courts and the public. There is no dispute that they and law enforcement agencies should have the necessary powers to detect and stop attacks before they happen. But that does not mean unquestioning acceptance of ineffective and very likely unconstitutional tactics that reduce civil liberties without making the public safer.

 

Извор: nytimes.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Најгора последица, о којој се нажалост врло мало говори, је што властодршци ову (уосталом као и сваку) трагедију користе да још више потисну грађанска права, покрену и разбуктају ратове и поробе своје народе.

 

And here we go... :(

 

RANCE, November 29, 2015– Ahead of planned United Nations climate talks, the French government is utilizing emergency laws put in place after November’s Paris terror attack to hold climate activists under house arrest.

Immediately after the November terror attacks, the French government declared a state of emergency based on a rarely used 1955 law that allows the state to conduct warrantless searches of private property, impose curfews, restrict public gatherings and movements of people, confiscate weapons at will and take over the press.

Legal activist Joel Domenjoud said he had been served with a restraining order describing him as a “principal leader of the ultra-left movement,” a title he disputes, only a couple hours after a judge refused to hear an appeal against the ban on the climate demo Domenjoud had petitioned for. A neighbor informed Domenjoud that a swam of police were lined up the stairs waiting for him to arrive home.

 

 

http://truthinmedia.com/france-emergency-anti-terror-laws-to-confine-activists/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
21daoud-blog427.jpg
Kelly Blair
 
Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.
 
Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.
 
The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born jihadists. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of Islamist Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.
 
One might counter: Isn’t Saudi Arabia itself a possible target of Daesh? Yes, but to focus on that would be to overlook the strength of the ties between the reigning family and the clergy that accounts for its stability — and also, increasingly, for its precariousness. The Saudi royals are caught in a perfect trap: Weakened by succession laws that encourage turnover, they cling to ancestral ties between king and preacher. The Saudi clergy produces Islamism, which both threatens the country and gives legitimacy to the regime.
 
One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense transformative influence of religious television channels on society by accessing its weak links: households, women, rural areas. Islamist culture is widespread in many countries — Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania. There are thousands of Islamist newspapers and clergies that impose a unitary vision of the world, tradition and clothing on the public space, on the wording of the government’s laws and on the rituals of a society they deem to be contaminated.
 
It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.
 
All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since ISIS is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to jihadism when the influence of Fatwa Valley and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?
 
Is curing the disease therefore a simple matter? Hardly. Saudi Arabia remains an ally of the West in the many chess games playing out in the Middle East. It is preferred to Iran, that gray Daesh. And there’s the trap. Denial creates the illusion of equilibrium. Jihadism is denounced as the scourge of the century but no consideration is given to what created it or supports it. This may allow saving face, but not saving lives.
 
Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books.
 
The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.
 
Извор: nytimes.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why a 'war' on terrorism will generate yet more terrorism

 

Неке општепознате „занимљивости“ из чланка које политичари веома ретко спомињу када говоре о тероризму покушавајући да оправдају орвеловске мере које спроводе.

 

2: Besides, the threat is already inside. The 2005 terrorist attacks in London were carried out by British citizens, the Boston Marathon attack was perpetrated by a US citizen... and the Paris attacks appear to have been carried out mainly by French citizens. Every country on earth has its angry young men.

 

4: Defeating Isis won’t make terrorism go away. Aside from Isis, there is Nigeria’s Boko Haram. Before Isis, there was al-Qaida and before that there was Hezbollah and Hamas... and before that there was Abu Nidal, Black September and various other PLO factions. And it’s not just Islam. Right-wing extremists in the United States still kill more people than jihadis. The 2011 attack in Norway — which left 77 people dead — was carried out by a single far-right terrorist. Since 2006, more than half of all deaths in terrorist attacks in the west have been caused by non-Islamist “lone-wolf” attackers.
 
5: Terrorism (in the west) remains a relatively minor threat. Between 2000 and 2014, only 2.6% of terrorism victims in recent years lived in western countries.
 
8: Terrorism is a problem to be managed. We can’t “win” a “war” against terrorism or terror or terrorists any more than we can “win” a war on crime or drugs or poverty. But we can adopt sensible policies to reduce the risk and damage caused by terrorist attacks, such as funding moderate Muslim organisations. If we’re creative in our approaches, we can find ways to make terrorist attacks a little harder to carry out successfully, and make successful attacks less rewarding to those who carry them out.
 
Извор: theguardian.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

То је огроман проблем. Пре свега због "рата против дроге" који је довео до милитаризације полиције. Пуно се о томе расправља.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Придружите се разговору

Можете одговорити сада, а касније да се региструјете на Поуке.орг Ако имате налог, пријавите се сада да бисте објавили на свом налогу.

Guest
Имаш нешто да додаш? Одговори на ову тему

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Све поруке на форуму, осим званичних саопштења Српске Православне Цркве, су искључиво лична мишљења чланова форума 'Живе Речи Утехе' и уредништво не сноси никакву материјалну и кривичну одговорност услед погрешних информација. Објављивање информација са сајта у некомерцијалне сврхе могуће је само уз навођење URL адресе дискусије. За све друге видове дистрибуције потребно је имати изричиту дозволу администратора Поука.орг и/или аутора порука.  Коментари се на сајту Поуке.орг објављују у реалном времену и Администрација се не може сматрати одговорним за написано.  Забрањен је говор мржње, псовање, вређање и клеветање. Такав садржај ће бити избрисан чим буде примећен, а аутори могу бити пријављени надлежним институцијама. Чланови имају опцију пријављивања недоличних порука, те непримерен садржај могу пријавити Администрацији. Такође, ако имате проблема са регистрацијом или заборављеном шифром за сајтове Поуке.орг и Црква.нет, пошаљите нам поруку у контакт форми да Вам помогнемо у решавању проблема.

×
×
  • Create New...