There has been talk that Furlong was bragging or boasting to several people about his operation, and here I think is where he initially went wrong if this is actually true. The first rule of Fight Club is what?

(Requires Windows Media Plugin For Firefox to see Videos Or View Using Internet Explorer Browser)

The operation started out innocently enough, with Eason Jordan and Robert Pelton trying to get a web site off the ground called afpaxinsider.com, which was a site they used for getting their messages out. The funding was supposed to use Mike Furlong as the payment gateway between the military and Eason Jordan. However that did not materialize or they were not paid according to plan. This set off a chain of events that culminated with the leak to the New York Times by an unnamed CIA or Pentagon source spilling the entire operation out into the open. There have been many different sides to the equation concerning Robert Pelton and Eason Jordan. Some have claimed that it was Pelton and Jordan that spilled the beans to the press. And at first after reading the NYT article I even thought and wrote the same thing. However it appears that this may have been in error or a misdirection on the part of the NYT in their story arc.

They used a number of unnamed sources and sources who wished to remain anonymous. Eventually we read in the story that Pelton and Jordan were part of the sourcing, but were contacted literally at the last minute for comments, which they did their level best to tell their side of the story before it went to press. However the NYT already had the piece written and just added their comments by tacking it on, yet, when one reads the piece it easily shows that in fact these guys seemed to be the only sources for the story, when in fact all they were used for was a follow up source to back up the original hidden or anonymous source, which still so far has not been named but has been said to be a CIA officer or possibly a Pentagon officer. I can say this, leaking classified documents is a still a crime in the United States, and one would suspect that this was a severe violation of military protocol and or CIA protocol. So far though, no investigation of the source of the leak has yet materialized or even been called for.

What is clear, is that someone was definitely annoyed enough with Mike Furlong for operating, and the source decided to run to the press exposing classified information instead of handling the matter privately. I would assume that the source also had authorization from high up the food chain to leak such data, less charges be drawn up against him for leaking such data to a media outlet as was the case with Valerie Plame. And we all know how the Valerie Plame issue turned out, with Scooter Libby being blamed for Dick Cheney leaking the classified intelligence on her being a CIA officer. This case is no different, and no matter how you spin it, Mike Furlong saw a duty and decided to risk his own ass, and those that worked for him on the front lines, to do a job that others in government were not happy with because it wasn’t his turf, and because Furlong was a private contractor and no longer a part of the club.

So what started out as being good has now been leaked to the world, and those who were a part of it are now playing cover your ass. Dewey Clarridge who was discussed here as being part of it now looks like he will soon be sacrificed on the alter of death right alongside Mike Furlong. So let’s see how this operation looks using a few video clips.

Mike Furlong tries to sell the military on the idea:

All goes well. Eason Jordan starts imagining stories from the bush being told on the afpax.com web site. The stars in his eyes made in the image of dollar signs to the tune of millions of dollars flowing in for a web site.

Furlong runs over to Pelton and gets him interested in it, even though Pelton was partnered with Eason Jordan.

Furlong eventually reneges on the original deal to pay Jordan and Pelton which sets Pelton down to the wire:

Jordan gets really pissed off and starts coming apart at the seams and plotting destruction in his mind against Furlong for diverting the money to an unknown operation.

The CIA or the Pentagon gets pissed off that Furlong is out working on their own turf and decides to lose their own ethics and spill the beans. Of course those that spill the beans have nothing to worry about, as they have that magical get out of jail free card. Everything to them is a gray area, it has never been black and white, even though it really is black and white. No, to the intelligence agencies, and even the military, everything is a gray area. Your Government at work:

Now things get murky, because there are no more ethics, even though ethics is what keeps things in line. The CIA cannot claim that Furlong was doing unethical work when they leaked internal memos to the media, which has been unethical since intelligence agencies and spies started working in the field.

Now the double cross comes into play. It is of course an interesting ethical question to those who leaked information concerning the operation that Furlong was doing. And one would have to assume that there were some queasy moments to be had when thinking of the art of the double cross.

This is how it is. You can’t trust anyone, not even your own government. They will lie, cheat, steal and burn anyone they feel is not part of the program or should not be a part of the program.

If you think the government or the CIA or Pentagon has a heart in these matters, and will see right and wrong and try to balance it, think again. The government, the CIA, the Pentagon, have no heart. So when you go crying to them that they are not playing fair and should have a heart, expect this response.

Most of the players in this story are now going to have to pay the price in some form or another. The one lone guy who has not gained much attention, Dewey Clarridge, who so far has escaped scrutiny, will probably soon end up like this, mark my words, the buzzards are already circling over him:

Pauly, won’t see him no more..Bring the Cannoli.

As for Mike Furlong, I am sure people will try and put him into a corner and make him sing and pay the hard price for his loyalty to the homeland. Probably will see him like this:

In the end what we have learned is this business has no ethics, trust or camaraderie. It just doesn’t exist. The more people try and spin the idea that the intelligence business is filled with a bunch of James Bond types who run around the globe with the full backing of the government is pretty much all bullshit. The truth, which shall set you free, is that you cannot trust anyone, no matter who they are. Situational Ethics also demand that the end justifies the means, therefore,  trust yourself and maybe you will live long enough to see old age, if not, good luck.

In a story by The New York Times entitled “Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants,” we at first see a supposed covert operation run by Mike Furlong, who has a career in psychological ops or psy-ops, being blown by unnamed officials and anonymous sources. Mike Furlong has a long list of accomplishments detailed here. It seems he was running another in a long line of covert assassination/intelligence operations which has now been exposed or blown up in the press. What the New York Times article exposes is that in the business of freelance intelligence contracting there is no trust, never should be any trust, and anytime trust is afforded, that trust can and often will be betrayed. I think that Mike Furlong and this long cast of characters could learn a lesson on how to handle all future operations, and that is, never use your own name in any operation. Names are for idiots and fools. This news story highlights almost everyone in the operation, and as such, everyone that was involved, even remotely, now has the death knell pallor over future operations in their name.

How about doing this next time:

I think you will find that at the very least that future operations will not easily be exposed if you follow the above guidelines when operating.

Let’s get down to the article itself and see if we can find any issues with it.

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan  and Pakistan  to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

I would be interested in who these officials are that you are using that reported to you. But, so far so good I guess.

It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

Please, private contractors are illegal? I guess those that work for Blackwater now XE are illegal. They spy, gather intelligence, work the streets, and basically do what they want in war zones. At any rate, OK, they are illegal.

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

Tarnish the man before he is even charged. OK, that happens all the time. As for him being shut down, I highly doubt he will ever be shut down. Just reassigned.

Even in a region of the world known for intrigue, Mr. Furlong’s story stands out. At times, his operation featured a mysterious American company run by retired Special Operations officers and an iconic C.I.A. figure who had a role in some of the agency’s most famous episodes, including the Iran-Contra affair.

Oh the intrigues, the Casbah, the dark alleys with the hint of shadows running about doing business with mysterious companies run by spec ops and iconic CIA officers, please.

The allegations that he ran this network come as the American intelligence community confronts other instances in which private contractors may have been improperly used on delicate and questionable operations, including secret raids in Iraq and an assassinations program that was halted before it got off the ground.

First the Mossad looks bad, now the freelance community gets its day in the sun.

“While no legitimate intelligence operations got screwed up, it’s generally a bad idea to have freelancers running around a war zone pretending to be James Bond,” one American government official said. But it is still murky whether Mr. Furlong had approval from top commanders or whether he might have been running a rogue operation.

And explain why it is a bad idea to have freelancers running around? Oh, I guess you mean because articles like this come out showing how bad freelance operations are put together and run.

This account of his activities is based on interviews with American military and intelligence officials and businessmen in the region. They insisted on anonymity in discussing a delicate case that is under investigation.

Now the truth comes out. Our sources for this story are limited to questionable motives or shall I say dubious motivations. Could it be Money? Publicity? Someone got mad and decided to spill the so called beans?

Mr. Furlong has extensive experience in “psychological operations” — the military term for the use of information in warfare — and he plied his trade in a number of places, including Iraq and the Balkans. It is unclear exactly when Mr. Furlong’s operations began. But officials said they seemed to accelerate in the summer of 2009, and by the time they ended, he and his colleagues had established a network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose job it was to help locate people believed to be insurgents.

Informants indeed. Seems like Mike Furlong ended up getting informed on himself.

Government officials said they believed that Mr. Furlong might have channeled money away from a program intended to provide American commanders with information about Afghanistan’s social and tribal landscape, and toward secret efforts to hunt militants on both sides of the country’s porous border with Pakistan.

And your proof of this is? Also, which government officials are you referring to here, in other words, who are these officials?

Some officials said it was unclear whether these operations actually resulted in the deaths of militants, though others involved in the operation said that they did.

Some officials and “others” said. Have you seen how Fox News uses the tag “some people say?” No?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would often boast about his network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan to senior military officers, and in one instance said a group of suspected militants carrying rockets by mule over the border had been singled out and killed as a result of his efforts.

OK, which military officials said that Mr. Furlong boasted about anything? This article sounds very suspicious, almost like someone at the New York Times is trying to use a smear campaign here directed at one guy by so called “anonymous sources” or “those people” or “others” disguised as “officials.” I can’t wait for the reveal.

In addition, at least one government contractor who worked with Mr. Furlong in Afghanistan last year maintains that he saw evidence that the information was used for attacking militants.

And this evidence comes from?

The contractor, Robert Young Pelton, an author who writes extensively about war zones, said that the government hired him to gather information about Afghanistan and that Mr. Furlong improperly used his work. “We were providing information so they could better understand the situation in Afghanistan, and it was being used to kill people,” Mr. Pelton said.

Robert Pelton, Ok.

He said that he and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive, had been hired by the military to run a public Web site to help the government gain a better understanding of a region that bedeviled them. Recently, the top military intelligence official in Afghanistan publicly said that intelligence collection was skewed too heavily toward hunting terrorists, at the expense of gaining a deeper understanding of the country.

Which top military intelligence official are you referring to? I take it the website you are referring to is AFPAX.com created March 12th 2008 and set to expire on the same day in 2011. Let’s look at the meta keywords for it just to see what it says:

AfPax Insider,blogger,safety net,Praedict,news,blog,analysis,news online,breaking news,exclusive,video,transcripts,interviews,insights,scoops,blunders,Afghan government,Children,Corruption,Exclusives,Journalists,Kidnapping,Pakistani government,Photo Gallery,Refugees,Reports,Sectarianism,Shia,Taliban,Transcripts,U.S. Military,Video,Weaponry

Interesting it notes ‘BLUNDERS” as a keyword.

Instead, Mr. Pelton said, millions of dollars that were supposed to go to the Web site were redirected by Mr. Furlong toward intelligence gathering for the purpose of attacking militants.

Well, it seems the truth finally emerges. Money that was supposed to be paid to run the website, which numbered in the millions, was somehow not directed to the site as first agreed.

In one example, Mr. Pelton said he had been told by Afghan colleagues that video images that he posted on the Web site had been used for an American strike in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan.

This is what gets me. Had to be money, just had to be about money. Someone thought he was going to make millions and instead got sidetracked. Oh those sidetracks..

Among the contractors Mr. Furlong appears to have used to conduct intelligence gathering was International Media Ventures, a private “strategic communication” firm run by several former Special Operations officers.

Interesting.

Another was American International Security Corporation, a Boston-based company run by Mike Taylor, a former Green Beret. In a phone interview, Mr. Taylor said that at one point he had employed Duane Clarridge, known as Dewey, a former top C.I.A. official who has been linked to a generation of C.I.A. adventures, including the Iran-Contra scandal.

And the ship starts to sink. Message to Taylor, it’s called “No Comment.” Now Dewey is involved.

In an interview, Mr. Clarridge denied that he had worked with Mr. Furlong in any operation in Afghanistan or Pakistan. “I don’t know anything about that,” he said.

Dewey to the rescue. He starts to try and plug the holes in the sinking ship and plays the trump card of all intelligence operations, it’s called “I don’t know anything about that..” or “I know NOTHING!!!”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Some American officials contend that Mr. Furlong’s efforts amounted to little. Nevertheless, they provoked the ire of the C.I.A.

Some American officials say the world is coming to an end. Some American officials say they have recently seen Elvis. Some American officials is not good enough. Name names or get off this smear campaign soapbox.

Last fall, the spy agency’s station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, wrote a memorandum to the Defense Department’s top intelligence official detailing what officials said were serious offenses by Mr. Furlong. The officials would not specify the offenses, but the officer’s cable helped set off the Pentagon investigation.

OK, so you are telling me that your source is the CIA station chief in Kabul?

In mid-2008, the military put Mr. Furlong in charge of a program to use private companies to gather information about the political and tribal culture of Afghanistan. Some of the approximately $22 million in government money allotted to this effort went to International Media Ventures, with offices in St. Petersburg, Fla., San Antonio and elsewhere. On its Web site, the company describes itself as a public relations company, “an industry leader in creating potent messaging content and interactive communications.”

So, Furlong paid a private company to help build the Afpax.com website and stack it with relevant content in the hopes they could offer news and reports from the front lines?

The Web site also shows that several of its senior executives are former members of the military’s Special Operations forces, including former commandos from Delta Force, which has been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks to track and kill suspected terrorists.

So, they cannot have jobs in any company without it being said to be a CIA cover company? Or do you expect guys like these to never have jobs in the private sector because of what the company would look like after they were employed?

Until recently, one of the members of International Media’s board of directors was Gen. Dell L. Dailey, former head of Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s covert units. In an e-mail message, General Dailey said that he had resigned his post on the company’s board, but he did not say when. He did not give details about the company’s work with the American military, and other company executives declined to comment.

Heads are rolling, but not because of screw ups, rather because they don’t want to be seen as involved. It does show you how these companies operate though. They keep their mouths shut.

In an interview, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top military spokesman in Afghanistan, said that the United States military was currently employing nine International Media Ventures civilian employees on routine jobs in administration, information processing and analysis. Whatever else other International Media employees might be doing in Afghanistan, he said, he did not know and had no responsibility for their actions.

Layoff notices are probably already in the pipeline. We regret to inform you that your services will no longer be required. Thank you for your help.

By Mr. Pelton’s account, Mr. Furlong, in conversations with him and his colleagues, referred to his stable of contractors as “my Jason Bournes,” a reference to the fictional American assassin created by the novelist Robert Ludlum and played in movies by Matt Damon.

Is this real?

Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would occasionally brag to his superiors about having Mr. Clarridge’s services at his disposal.

Mr Furlong’s credentials.

AWARDS AND HONORS
Legion of Merit
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Joint Service Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster
Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Joint Service Achievement Medal
Exceptional Public Service Award, Secretary of Defense
Outstanding Service Award, U.S. Special Operations Command

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
Combat and Expert Infantryman badges
Ranger Tab
Army Master Parachutist Badge
Pathfinder Badge
British Jump Wings

The idea for the government information program was thought up sometime in 2008 by Mr. Jordan, a former CNN news chief, and his partner Mr. Pelton, whose books include “The World’s Most Dangerous Places” and “Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror.”

So, allot of twisted story telling here. Will make for a good update.

They approached Gen. David D. McKiernan, soon to become the top American commander in Afghanistan. Their proposal was to set up a reporting and research network in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the American military and private clients who were trying to understand a complex region that had become vital to Western interests. They already had a similar operation in Iraq — called “Iraq Slogger,” which employed local Iraqis to report and write news stories for their Web site. Mr. Jordan proposed setting up a similar Web site in Afghanistan and Pakistan — except that the operation would be largely financed by the American military. The name of the Web site was Afpax.

The crux of the story soon to materialize. But first we had to get Furlong out in the open, while protecting the media people involved. No, they are saints. Saints I tell you.

Mr. Jordan said that he had gone to the United States military because the business in Iraq was not profitable relying solely on private clients. He described his proposal as essentially a news gathering operation, involving only unclassified materials gathered openly by his employees. “It was all open-source,” he said.

Business not profitable in Iraq? OK. Must be that all those private clients in Iraq are now suddenly dead broke or just plain dead. But I get it, profits before pleasure or ideology.

When Mr. Jordan made the pitch to General McKiernan, Mr. Furlong was also present, according to Mr. Jordan. General McKiernan endorsed the proposal, and Mr. Furlong said that he could find financing for Afpax, both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pelton said. “On that day, they told us to get to work,” Mr. Pelton said.

Saddle up and move em out…Lock and Load.

But Mr. Jordan said that the help from Mr. Furlong ended up being extremely limited. He said he was paid twice — once to help the company with start-up costs and another time for a report his group had written. Mr. Jordan declined to talk about exact figures, but said the amount of money was a “small fraction” of what he had proposed — and what it took to run his news gathering operation.

You see this is the basis of this entire article. It is payback by someone you see. And somebody had to pay.

Whenever he asked for financing, Mr. Jordan said, Mr. Furlong told him that the money was being used for other things, and that the appetite for Mr. Jordan’s services was diminishing.

Diminishing as in your worthless, now drop and give me twenty Jordan..

“He told us that there was less and less money for what we were doing, and less of an appreciation for what we were doing,” he said.

No love for Jordan and Pelton. No love…You’ve lost that lovin feeling…

Admiral Smith, the military’s director for strategic communications in Afghanistan, said that when he arrived in Kabul a year later, in June 2009, he opposed financing Afpax. He said that he did not need what Mr. Pelton and Mr. Jordan were offering and that the service seemed uncomfortably close to crossing into intelligence gathering — which could have meant making targets of individuals.

Everyone is a target it seems. Even the guys purported to be on the right side, if there is such a thing.

“I took the air out of the balloon,” he said.

You got that right…So where else to go?

Admiral Smith said that when he turned down the Afpax proposal, Mr. Furlong wanted to spend the leftover money elsewhere. That is when Mr. Furlong agreed to provide some of International Media Ventures’ employees to Admiral Smith’s strategic communications office. But that still left roughly $15 million unaccounted for, he said.

“I have no idea where the rest of the money is going,” Admiral Smith said.

And you never will have any idea..Case closed, a smear campaign over who’s in charge or who’s got the money. Next time no names, and if they ask for money:

Jihad Jane decided one day to go try and collect the money for the hit, but was so inept as to stumble all over herself without a shred of intelligence afforded half assed homegrown terrorists, who actually go out and buy arms, make bombs, and come up with clear agendas to bomb the living crap out of targets in the United States. Jihad Jane had none of these attributes, and as a clear case of utter stupidity she posted her ravings, her requests for support, and her email addresses on YouTube, Dailymotion and a variety of other video and social networking sites, all trying to come up with a plan to kill a guy who had the significance of a flea. Not only that, but she had been visited prior by the FBI asking her questions about her activities in this lunatic plot, in which she then denied even knowing anything about it to them.

But stupidly not but a month or so later, she willingly answered email questions from a total stranger speaking in very clear English about her plans, her intent, and her desires to commit to jihad. As usual, the FBI watched her the entire time, and as such she was not even considered a real threat, even though the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force had evidence of her activities, as she had been already tracked, ridiculed, photographed and complained about by several anti-terrorist internet forums and internet snoops and investigators, who liken themselves as detectives helping the cause of the good old USA in their quest to just say no to terrorists and terrorism. Some of these investigators had tracked her down for months by following (dailymotion has now removed her account) her net breadcrumbs she left everywhere with her picture all over the sites, along with all of her jihadist videos she posted from various sites who wanted to get their videos up, but for some reason kept getting banned when they put them up.

So, it seems as if she failed miserably to even get anything off the ground, and was tracked, under surveillance, and monitored around the clock, as the FBI waited for her to commit overt acts in furtherance of her conspiracies. Then they let her continue her lunacy with boarding a flight to Sweden and encamping herself amongst the supporters of Lars Vilks, all in furtherance of the Justice Departments war on terror. Yes friends and neighbors, Jihad Jane, accessories not included, was finally arrested last year in October, and her indictment was just unsealed yesterday March 9th 2010, after they arrested all the other small time lunatics and morons associated with her. Yes, the war on stupidity goes on, with the United States Justice Department rolling out to the press the so called dark side of the internet, all to show that this dark side does in fact exist, as if none of us knew, and in fact, the Lawdogs are all over it.

I mean they couldn’t have had a better case handed to them now could they? Let see shall we? She posted her rants all over YouTube and Islamictube. Asked for money on YouTube, expressed a desire to kill someone on YouTube and in emails, and basically told everyone that emailed her account about her plans. Hrmm, seems like an easy cut and dried copy and paste case. Yet, we are made to believe that this is some major terrorist case, major because she was off her medication or needed some, and fancied herself as something more than her drab life had left her to deal with. So, she decided to launch a crusade against some trivial figure and she got busted for it, and we are asked to believe that the FBI and Justice Department should be congratulated for such a major take down as Jihad Jane?

Give me a break please….She handed the case to the Feds and BEGGED to be prosecuted for it, and they then complied with her request. She is no more a terrorist than Barbie and Ken are terrorists. She has mental issues, and the federal government turned her into a cause celeb for homegrown terrorism, and also to show that no matter where you go, there they are.  I think the US Attorney’s office should be ashamed that they had to stoop so low as to go after this woman whom they already had enough evidence on. They should have directed her to a psychiatrist and offered to get her on some medication. But no, we can’t have any of that at Justice. No, we have to pump up the volume first, so we can then parade them out into the limelight and show that we are in fact closing down every terror network wherever it exists, no matter how large or how trivial or small it is.

OK, so let us look at her indictment and see the mistakes that are very evident.

The VIOLATIONS

• 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (conspiracy to provide a/k/a “JihadJane” : material support to terrorists – 1 count)
• 18 U.S.C. § 956 (conspiracy to kill : in a foreign country – 1 count)
• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statement to : government official – 1 count)
• 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (attempted identity theft : – 1 count)

OK, now a look at her mistakes, and they are about as short as her charges.

Mistakes

• On or about June 20, 2008, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” posted a comment on YouTube (an information and video sharing website) under the username “JihadJane,” stating that she is “desperate to do something somehow to help” the suffering Muslim people.

OK, mistake number one. I think it is common knowledge that government agents troll the YouTube channels and other forums and look for comments on them from people who post they want to help causes that are at least in the United States considered to be illegal. And of course they will be interested in someone called Jihad Jane posting she wants to help a Muslim cause, and desperate to help at that. Message to would be jihadists, don’t post comments on YouTube or any other such sites or forums to help anyone or any cause, especially do not appear to be desperate to help, and at the same time using a nick called Jihad Jane. Might as well have used a nick called Osama Bin Laden. Hell, if you are desperate to go to jail be my guest. However let me say this, there are at least 10,000 websites out there with an equal or greater number of would be investigative people on them looking for just this type of posting, and it is a wonder that you didn’t have 10,000 people email you that minute trying to get you involved in a conspiracy while they called up the FBI looking for reward money for a job well done.

• On or about December 8, 2008, Unindicted Co-Conspirator (“CC”) #1, a resident of a South Asian country (whose full e-mail address is known to the Grand Jury), sent an electronic communication to defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” stating CC #1’s desire to wage jihad and become a “shahed” (martyr).

• On or about December 9, 2008, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” sent an electronic communication to CC #1, replying that she also desires to become a martyr.

INTENT established. I am sure the phone call to the FBI was very quick.

• On or about March 22, 2009, CC #3 sent electronic communications to defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” directing her to commit murder, and saying, “go to sweden . . . find location of [Resident of Sweden, hereafter referred to as “RS #1”] . . . and kill him . . . this is what i say to u.”

OK, case firmly established with intended victim identified. Easy as pie, emails are already being monitored, and the case is proceeding very well. Intervention anyone? I guess we don’t really try to intervene these days as summarized in this post here. We want to intervene, and we should intervene, but instead we need a perp walk and a federal case to establish that the FBI and Justice Department are not sitting on their collective asses. Just say No to Terror.

• On or about July 1, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” posted or caused to be posted an online solicitation for funds to support terrorism.

OK, lunacy established. Easy case also established. NEXT CASE PLEASE !!!!!

• On or about July 8, 2009, CC #4, a resident of the United States (whose full e-mail address is known to the Grand Jury), posted or caused to be posted an online solicitation for funds to support terrorism on behalf of defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” stating, “I write this message on behalf of a respected sister The sister has been in touch with a brother . . . [who] has appealed for urgent funds stating that his resources are limited. . . . [T]he sister has provided me proofs that have confirmed that the brother is . . . true . . . . I know the sister and by Allah, all money will be transferred to her. The sister will then transfer the money to the brother via a method that I will not disclose.”

Revolutionmuslim.com perhaps? If he isn’t busted right along with her, hrmm…

• On or about July 17, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” falsely told agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she had never solicited funds for terrorism, had never made postings to a terrorist website, and had not used the on-line username “JihadJane.”

OK, so she now knows she is under surveillance in July 2009, and has been identified by her postings via her IP address that goes along with each post she makes on various websites, up to and including YouTube. Does she quit? Nope. Does she get worried? Nope. Does the FBI decide to call it a day and take her to the nearest psychiatric hospital for evaluation? Nope. Just the facts, and only the facts. They are not interested in stopping it here, nope, they want a case, and by George it they will have that case come hell or high water. Just say No To Terror.

• On or about August 11, 2009, CC #4 forwarded a questionnaire to defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” in which CC #4 asked another woman about her beliefs and intentions with regard to jihad. In his questionnaire, CC #4 stated that the “most important” questions are: “Are you a European citizen and do you live in Europe? If not, then do you have any traveling restrictions if you ever wanted to travel to Europe? Do you have a European passport?” CC #4 concluded his questionnaire by stating, “The reason why I am not providing much information as to why I am asking the above mentioned information from you is due to security. . . . Also if you have any contacts to other sisters[ ](only the ones whom you extremely trust…!!!), please forward this message to them.”

This above should raise several red flags to you would be jihadists. Getting a questionnaire asking you questions about personal things is akin to establishing intent, nationality, methods of travel, travel restrictions if any, and what kind of passport you have. And if you just so happen to know any other morons that are down with the cause, the FBI would like to know by having this email forwarded to those morons too. You see the FBI needs all the morons they can get in a federal case, the more the better in cases like this. You see, it’s all about the war on terror via the war on morons and moronic behavior. Just say No To Terror.

• On or about August 23, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” traveled to Europe with the intent to live and train with jihadists, and to find and kill RS #1.

And this was her mood, and thus her plans after getting a visit from federal officials in July. Do I need to stress here she was a moron? Or does this federal case establish that already?

• On or about August 23, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” knowingly took the United States passport of K.G. without his permission in order to provide it to the “brothers.”

Well, might as well throw in identity theft charges to the mix, as it will add two years to the case which will have to be served after the original sentence has been served.

• On or about September 3, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” performed online searches regarding RS #1 and his location.

I guess the message here is that the FBI likes to watch. So, the FBI knew she was doing all of this and just let it all go on? I am sure Lars Vilks was protected enough to not even worry over the plot itself, which was reduced to amateur hour after the case was established in 2008.

• On or about September 8, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” joined an online community hosted by RS #1 and became a “citizen” of RS #1’s artists’ enclave in Sweden.

I have to ask, why let her get this close to the guy? Or was it that the FBI and Justice Department had to show real intent here? I mean they had her under a microscope, so they could have stepped in at any time and put an end to it, but for some reason they let it all unfold. Can I say Case Happy? Promotions? Pats On The Back? Perp Walks with that we are serious about fighting terrorism look on all their faces? You can’t seriously tell me that at any time these federal agents were worried in the slightest about Jihad Jane now can you? I will bet a dollar they were laughing their assess off while salivating on those promotions within the department. Yes, just say No To Terror.

• On or about September 30, 2009, defendant COLLEEN R. LAROSE, a/k/a “Fatima LaRose,” a/k/a “JihadJane,” sent an electronic communication to CC #3, stating that LAROSE considers it “an honour & great pleasure to die or kill for” CC #3, and pledging that “only death will stop me here that i am so close to the target!”

No, I would say you are as about as close to a jail cell as you can get. Time to close the loop and wrap it up. She was arrested shortly thereafter. Wow, such high drama, such intensity, such bullshit. Is this the best that can be done to show the war on terror or the war on morons is being won? This is about the 5th case of morons that have been busted on what has been termed high profile terror cases, and all they are when you look at them are loser cases made by morons who are in a league with other morons, who couldn’t or wouldn’t know how to commit an act of flushing the toilet, much less blowing something or someone up. Jihad Jane had no money, and subsisted on wire transfers from the so called brothers, half of whom were probably informants, to fund her stay in Sweden, pay her smallish hostel type rent, and fund her lunatic fringe emails back and forth between other morons who wanted and or begged to be caught, or were working with the FBI in trying to establish a major case, which was nothing more than a moronic attempt at being something other than a complete and utter moron. Jihad Jane a terrorist? No. A Moron? Yes. The FBI and Justice Department overly aggressive and looking for headlines on a slow news year? Yes.

Federal Agents +1

Terrorists -2

Windows Media Player Plugin For Firefox Required To View Video or Use Internet Explorer 8

Indictment Download Link Download

Deception is defined as:

• Misleading; being dishonest.

The Synonyms of deception are thus defined as:

• Betrayal
• Cheat
• Deceit
• Double-Dealing
• Falsehood
• Fraud
• Hypocrisy
• Insincerity
• Lying
• Treachery
• Treason
• Trickery
• Untruth

Therefore the Mossad has a philosophy of being an agency that prides itself on betrayal, being misleading and dishonest, cheating, deceitfulness, double-dealing and spreading falsehoods, frauds, hypocrisy and being insincere with others, having a penchant for lying, treachery and treason, and being involved in trickery, as well as being untrue to those who become involved with them. I ask those who question trust in such agencies if they can safely say that they could in fact trust such an agency or the people involved in it?

A number of people have said on another blog that trust is a major issue in the Mossad and other agencies, and that if that trust was betrayed by the heads of those agencies then they would surely fall apart almost overnight. I counter with only the facts, and those facts are that the Mossad has a philosophy that undermines all trust by way of their own motto “through deception thou shalt wage war.” I will also include a few quotes I picked up from reading an excellent study called: Inviting or Avoiding Deception through Trust, which will be appended at the end of this article for further reading.

Goffman (1959) noted that trust makes us prone to being duped and misled. Ekman (1996: 806), who notes: “Trust makes one vulnerable to being misled, as usual levels of wariness are reduced and the benefit of the doubt is routinely given.”

In other words, the more we trust, the more we accept the vulnerability of being duped or misled. How many times have I seen trust given only to be rewarded with betrayal? Plenty. And not only have I been misled, but others more qualified than me have been duped as well. I will now point out a number of examples of trust being given and trust being betrayed.

HEADS OF STATE

Richard Nixon; betrayed by John Dean, his own counsel and attorney in the cover-up of the Watergate scandal.

President Clinton; betrayed by Monica Lewinsky one of his many mistresses in a scandal that plagued his administration.

President Mel Zelaya of Honduras; betrayed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Shannon. President Zelaya was never restored to his office, and was forced by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Shannon into signing an peace accord that was supposed to restore him to his office within a week after it was signed. However, the deal was never followed through by the coup regime plotters, and eventually after elections were held giving the Presidency to Pepe Lobo, President Zelaya was flown out of his country to the Dominican Republic where he now resides.

INTELLIGENCE AGENTS

Valerie Plame; betrayed by Scooter Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Robert Hanssen; betrayed the FBI, and for 22 years sold secrets to the Russians.

Aldrich Ames; betrayed the Central Intelligence Agency by selling secrets to the Russians. The information Ames provided led to the compromise of at least 100 U.S. intelligence operations and to the execution of at least 10 U.S. sources. He ultimately gave the Soviet government the names of every American agent working in their country.

Dmitri Polyakov; betrayed by Aldrich Ames while he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In the mid-1980s, Major General Dmitri Polyakov was the highest ranking figure in Soviet military intelligence (GRU) giving information to the CIA. He was executed in 1988 after Ames exposed him.[10] Many agree he was the most valuable of the assets compromised by Ames. A CIA official said of Polyakov, “He didn’t do this for money. He insisted on staying in place to help us.”

Sergey Fedorenko; betrayed by Aldrich Ames. Sergey Fedorenko was a nuclear arms expert assigned to the Soviet delegation to the United Nations. In 1987, Ames was assigned to handle him, and Fedorenko betrayed information about the Soviet missile program to Ames. The two men became good friends, hugging when Fedorenko was about to return to Moscow. “We had become close friends,” said Ames. “We trusted each other completely.” Ames was initially hesitant to betray his friend, but soon after handing over the majority of the information decided that he would also betray Fedorenko because to “do a good job” for KGB he should really tell them every secret he knew.

Kim Philby; betrayed British Intelligence. In 1963, Philby was revealed as a member of the spy ring now known as the Cambridge Five, along with Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross. Of the five, Philby is believed to have been most successful in providing classified information to the Soviet Union.

Hammam Khalil Abu Mallal al-Balawi aka Abu Dujana al-Khurasani; betrayed the Central Intelligence Agency resulting in 7 CIA officers being killed in Khost Province. The suicide bomber who killed seven Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors and a Jordanian intelligence officer was a double agent the CIA had recruited to provide intelligence on senior al Qaeda leadership, according to current and former U.S. officials and an Afghan security official.

Oleg Penkovsky; betrayed the Soviet Union and the GRU. He informed the United Kingdom and the United States about the Soviet Union placing missiles on Cuba, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

BUSINESS LEADERS

Bernie Madoff; betrayed the trust of tens of thousands of investors. In March 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 felonies and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Madoff said he began the Ponzi scheme in the early 1990s. However, federal investigators believe the fraud began as early as the 1980s, and the investment operation may never have been legitimate.

Enron; betrayed stockholders, investors and employees. Many executives at Enron were indicted for a variety of charges and were later sentenced to prison. Enron’s auditor, Arthur Andersen, was found guilty in a state court, but by the time the ruling was overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court, the firm had lost the majority of its customers and had shut down. Employees and shareholders received limited returns in lawsuits, despite losing billions in pensions and stock prices.

Andrew Fastow of Enron; betrayed Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay CEO and Chairman of the board of Enron. On October 31, 2002, Fastow was indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston, Texas on 78 counts including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. On January 14, 2004, he pled guilty to two counts of wire and securities fraud, and agreed to serve a ten-year prison sentence. He also agreed to become an informant and cooperate with federal authorities in the prosecutions of other former Enron executives in order to receive a reduced sentence.

Reed Slatkin, Earthlink Co-founder; betrayed investors out of 593 million dollars. Earthlink co-founder and Scientology minister Reed Slatkin posed as a brilliant investment advisor for A-list Hollywood residents and corporate bosses. Working out of his garage, Slatkin cheated the rich and famous out of roughly $593 million, creating fake statements referring back to fake brokerage firms to prove his mettle. He fed the Church of Scientology with millions of his winnings. In 2000, the SEC caught wind that Slatkin wasn’t licensed, and busted the scheme.

Michael Eugene Kelly; betrayed investors and schemed retirees and senior citizens out of $428 million. He offered them timeshare investments in Cancun hotels that he called “Universal Leases.” The timeshares came with rental agreements promising investors a nice fixed rate of return. Most of his victims used their retirement savings, thinking they would get solid, low-risk returns. The SEC says that “more than $136 million of the funds invested (came) from IRA accounts.” Kelly, meanwhile, bought himself a private jet, racetrack, and four yachts. Kelly was arrested in his hospital room at the Mayo Clinic on December 22, 2006 just before he was about to be discharged to return to one of his homes in Cancún, Mexico. In pretrial services, Kelly claimed that he earned $55,000 a year and had only $48,000 in assets. In spite of this claim, Kelly offered a private jet, four yachts and race track as collateral at his detention hearing. He was denied bail and remanded to the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago. Kelly attempted to avoid indictment by arranging a plea agreement that included paying restitution to the victims. On 14 May 2008, Kelly pled not guilty to 14 counts of fraud and was remanded in custody.

CHURCH FRAUDS

William Pierre Crotts of Baptist Foundation of Arizona; betrayed over 11000 investors and church goers out of 585 million dollars. William Pierre Crotts, who was president of the Baptist Foundation of Arizona, and Thomas Dale Grabinski, the group’s former chief legal counsel, were each convicted of three counts of fraud and one count of conducting an illegal enterprise in a scheme that lasted decades and cheated 11,000 investors across the country of about $585 million.

Gerald Payne of the Greater Ministries International church; betrayed investors and church members of over 500 million dollars. Gerald Payne used Bible-speak to cheat its flock out of $500 million. Starting in the early 1990s, the church, led by gun-toting minister Gerald Payne, offered worshipers investments in gold coins. Payne then created an investment plan that would “double the ‘blessings’ that people invested” by funneling money towards the church’s fake precious metals investments. $500 million later, the Feds caught Payne, but most investors never got their money back.

Isaac I. Ovid; betrayed church members in an affinity fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged seven leading members of a church in Queens, N.Y. for orchestrating a fraudulent investment scheme that targeted mostly elderly parishioners. The seven individuals defrauded investors of more than $12 million by making numerous misrepresentations, including promises of returns as high as 75 percent, to encourage them to invest in two hedge funds — the Logos Fund and the Donum Fund. Instead of investing the money as promised, the defendants misappropriated millions of dollars to furnish their own lavish lifestyles with purchases of luxury cars, jewelry, clothing, meals, and expensive foreign travel.

Jim Jones; betrayed his entire church membership resulting in all their deaths. The greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001, the tragedy at Guyana also ranks among the largest mass suicides in history. One of those who died at the nearby airstrip was Leo Ryan, who became the only Congressman murdered in the line of duty in the history of the United States.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Sammy “The Bull” Gravano; betrayed his boss John Gotti. Originally a mobster for the Colombo crime family, and later for the Brooklyn faction of the Gambinos, he was part of a conspiracy within the family to murder Gambino boss Paul Castellano. Gravano played a key role in planning and executing Castellano’s murder; other conspirators included John Gotti, Angelo Ruggiero, Frank DeCicco and Joseph Armone. The conspiracy would elevate Gravano’s position in the family to underboss under Gotti, a position he held at the time he turned informer. He was the highest-ranking member of organized crime ever to turn informer. His testimony drew a wave of Cosa Nostra members to become informants.

Henry Hill; betrayed Jimmy Burke and Paul Vario. Hill chose to become an informant to avoid a possible execution by the Mafia or going to prison for his crimes; his testimony led to 50 convictions.

Joseph Valachi; betrayed the secrets of the Cosa Nostra and Vito Genovese. Although Valachi’s disclosures never led directly to the prosecution of many Mafia leaders, he was able to provide many details of its history, operations and rituals, aiding in the solution of several uncleared murders, as well as naming many members and the major crime families. His testimony, which was broadcast on radio and television and published in newspapers, was devastating for the mob, still reeling from the November 14, 1957 Apalachin Meeting, where state police had accidentally discovered several Mafia bosses from all over the United States meeting at the Apalachin home of mobster Joseph Barbara. Following Valachi’s testimony, the mob was no longer invisible to the public.

Frank Calabrese Jr.; betrayed his own father in the Family Secrets case. Frank Calabrese Junior, son of Frank Calabrese Senior is the most recent member of the Mafia to turn in his fellow mobsters. In a case that involved the unsolved murders of over 18 people in the 1970’s and 1980’s Frank Calabrese Jr wore a secret recording device and recorded his father telling him about all the murders he was involved in. While the two of them were in jail together, Frank Jr decided to help the FBI keep his father in jail.

As we have seen trust is something that can be broken. It is not something that leads to success, rather it is something that usually leads to failure. Overall, trust is allowing yourself to become vulnerable to the dictates of others. A few random quotes follow:

Vulnerability is a precondition for trust: that is, the trustor can always be harmed in principle, but in reaching a state of trust, the trustor no longer expects to be harmed.

Deception also requires standards of truth and honesty from which a deceiver deviates. This deviation has to make a difference; it must have the potential to cause (or prevent) damage to a vulnerable other. The precondition of uncertainty – especially in the sense of asymmetric information – enters the picture because deception would not be an issue if all actors possessed the same knowledge and were able to know with certainty who will (try to) deceive whom, when, where, and how. Moreover, actors have to have a choice as to whether they deceive the other party in a dyadic relationship, as well as whether to trust the other party or suspect deception.

Overall, when actors trust they accept the possibility of being deceived and the impossibility of completely avoiding deception and its desirable or harmful outcomes.

Overall, if trust opens the door to potentially harmful deception, this makes trust appear foolish and dangerous

Trust does not rest on objective certainty but on “illusion”. It rests on the fiction of a reality in which social uncertainty and vulnerability are unproblematic.

Trust always involves a leap of faith, and hence goes beyond “good reasons,” which opens the door to deception.

Trust is not irreversible or unconditional; the leap of faith turns into a lapse of faith when the trustor recognizes deception and unfulfilled expectations.

What is clear is that it is better to not trust when harm to yourself can occur. At the end of the day it is better to trust yourself, and trust in your own precision when operating outside of the normal boundaries of society.

(Requires Windows Media Plugin For Firefox to see Videos Or View Using Internet Explorer Browser)

In the end it is every man for himself. That has been proven many times. When dealing with state actors, things are much the same as when dealing with non-state actors or freelance, and that is that trust is something that only fools operate on. Betrayal is always in the background waiting for a time to strike. Trust has always been a vulnerability that is best left to operators who wish to believe in obligation, the rules of the road, camaraderie, and a willingness to believe that they cannot be betrayed because somehow they have risen above it.

Trust always boils down to how do you know to believe in it. You will always find yourself asking how do you know. In the end, you will know, and on that day the answer will be clear. Trust is for fools playing a fools game.

wp08-1trust

The first report I will delve into is written by Michael Jacobson from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In this report he talks about the flip side of terrorism, those that drop out of it or quit organizations that support or commit terrorist acts. It is a very interesting report, which will also be included at the bottom of this article as an attachment for further reading. I will highlight key points he makes concerning radicalization, and his claims on how to prevent people from getting involved in terrorist activities in an attempt to pick apart his analysis, if that is at all possible. His credentials are as good as they come, so one would assume that picking apart his report will be very hard to accomplish. I think after reading it however there are several areas he misses the boat on, and I will attempt to clarify where I think he is off base.

His first point states;

There is growing recognition that capturing or killing every terrorist is not a realistic strategy and that we need to spend more time exploring the radicalization process—what motivates people to become extremists in the first place.

I agree. There needs to be a change in policy here. However when you or those you support continue with a policy of selling the public on committing acts such as the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai as righteous or as being required, then I do not think that the United States can stand above the fray and say that there is a better way and we are now going to follow it. You can say it, but you need to follow through and actually commit to a better strategy rather than just voice it. Actions speak louder than words correct? I realize that so far the United States has not been implicated in the assassination in Dubai, however it does look like it was a Mossad sponsored operation, which the United States government supports, and even if it wasn’t a Mossad operation, but an operation carried out by several interconnected agencies, it has the makings of governments all over it. In a way it almost reminded me of the bungling idiots at the Watergate Hotel in the 1970′s.

A wide variety of triggers, ranging from the strategic to the petty, have ultimately led to their disillusionment. The most common factors include concerns about the organization’s direction, goals, or hypocrisy; disappointment with the reality of life in a terrorist or extremist group; and a feeling of being mistreated or undervalued.

I think this sums up why people start on the trail to radicalization in the first place. You can change these words around a little and see why people become criminals or get involved in acts that do in fact lead them down the path towards radicalization, gang life, thug/drug life, and living outside the boundaries of a normal society. They become disillusioned in life at what they perceive as a no way out situation for them. The loss of work, the loss of home, family, friends, associations and so forth. All of these things are now going on in the United States. The people then start suffering, then they start thinking about why, and eventually they come to believe that the system is a rigged game with them the loser. And eventually they start thinking that all they believed in prior was somehow just a lie. The latest episode in Austin Texas at the IRS building is evident of this growing homegrown problem. This problem doesn’t just affect the poor or those in the gang life or those perceived as threats by affiliation in certain groups, it affects those normal every day guys you see at work or walking down paved streets in the suburbs. And I think there is the reality of the problem. They cannot be identified easily, because they are supposedly one of us.

My question here is this. If we continue to see the decline of the middle classes, just how long will it be before we have a hundred or even a thousand of these people seeing that the only way out is death and going out in a ball of flames, attacking what they see as the reason for the demise of their normal life? And therein lies the real threat. It isn’t some jihadist on the loose, nor is it some Muslim group that will be easily identified with bungled operations that you have to worry about. Rather it will be the very people you do not see, nor would think capable of such acts that you need really to worry about. Those people who perceive the real enemy as those responsible for giving away billions of dollars to the banks and financial companies to make them whole, while they alone bore the brunt of the collapse. How many people does this add up to right now? Millions? And out of those millions how many of them are just a step away from losing it and doing something about it?

I will now go into the heart of your assessment on how to prevent future terrorists, even though I think you are completely missing the boat on where it will come from and why. It really isn’t an Arab or Muslim you need to worry about in my opinion, it is your every day Joe who goes to work every day doing a good job, which then gets downsized by some large corporation where the executives are making millions in bonuses, which then lays him off after years of hard work so they can get larger bonuses for doing so.

The recommendations given here can be broken down into three broad areas: public messaging, partnerships with nongovernmental actors, and counter-radicalization program development.

Public Messaging

Undermine leadership: “Naming and shaming,” or undermining terrorist and extremist leadership, should be one part of the U.S. government’s counter-radicalization approach. It is vital to craft messages that significantly detract from the authority and credibility of these leaders and call into question the strategic direction of their organizations.

I think we have seen what shaming accomplishes at Abu Ghraib. I think of how the United States military treated prisoners and shamed them, which was a gross miscarriage of justice and also a stain on the military itself. This naming and shaming idea did in fact “not” work, and was counterproductive to say the least. I know that you could point out that maybe this is not what you meant, but I see it that way so I state that here as a way to say that this part of the program will never work. You cannot stand yourself up as a government above everyone else and say that because you stand on top of the mountain that somehow naming and shaming anyone beneath you will suddenly work. If you tell me that XYZ company is a group of idiots I will probably not believe you at first, but would rather need to see them myself as idiots before I come to the conclusion that they were in fact idiots. Just because you stand up on Television and name and shame doesn’t mean dick to me or anyone else. All you are doing here is standing on top of a mountain and proclaiming that only you and the government you support is right, and because of that I should believe in you and what you are saying. I think that approach “might” work with simpletons, but it won’t work for the educated masses.

Publicize that leaving is possible: It is not well known that, in many cases, members can leave terrorist and extremist groups without being harmed. The United States and its allies should do a better job of publicizing the cases of people who have successfully left so that those on the inside will realize that withdrawing is an option.

And go where? Are you not forgetting why the person joined the group in the first place? Usually because he had no other options or nowhere else to go, or no reason in which to stay where he was. Often it is this overriding factor that keeps people in the group. That lack of a place to go back to is what will keep them involved. Leaving is usually the last option, and one would have to truly be having doubts about the course and direction of the group before he will decide it is in his best interests to leave. And what exactly do you offer for them to leave? In other words, what you are saying is that they get to go back to poverty, lack of work, no family life or support that suits them, or worse, prison, because they were involved in a group deemed a terrorist group by the powers that be, and now need to pay the price for those associations. Those are not options to leave a group. This is key here, in that you have to have a program set up for deprogramming each individual, and at the same time reintroduce him back into the society that he abandoned. However at this date how many programs offer the would be jihadist a way back to a normal society without severe repercussions for joining the group in the first place? In other words you offer nothing but a return to what he originally left.

Demonstrate the hypocrisy of terrorist groups: An effective counter-narrative should demonstrate the hypocrisy of terrorist and extremist groups. The suffering of civilians, including other Muslims, at the hands of terrorists should be one part of this counter-narrative. Terrorists are increasingly involved in a variety of criminal activities, and painting them as common criminals may also help demonstrate the impurity of their ideology.

This thought process about painting a group or a resistance effort as petty criminals will not work. You cannot tell someone that resists for a cause he believes in is akin to being a petty criminal. Those who go into such groups are often in them because they see the foreign policy of governments up close and personal. In some areas of the world they see entire families and friends and associates wiped out by drone missiles from above. In other countries they also live in such abject poverty that they see no way out other than to join the fight or resistance effort in their own communities in what they see as an attack on their way of life. They see what you represent as the enemy of all. The education that you had, and the upbringing that you received is foreign to them. They do not live with the attitude of “if you can’t beat them join them,” but rather they live by the code “if you can’t join them beat them.” Remember those who educate them are those who control them. If you deny people basic life, education, a chance to get out from the poverty, the corruption, and the us against them way of life, you will not win their hearts and minds. You will only play whack a mole for an eternity. Because as long as there is intense poverty and a no way out scenario for people, you will have the ability to recruit and radicalize those very people who suffer with that poverty and hopelessness.

Do they see your way of life as something to aspire to? Or do they see your way of life as something to avoid and destroy? Are they not just wanting to bring you down to their level of life to see what it is they go through in life? Also, can you say that your way of life is better? And should your morals and way of life transcend boundaries and cultures and become the de-facto way to live for everyone else? In other words what makes your way of life better? They see your way of life and fight it. Why? And whether that be on religious grounds or because they see your way of life being more corrupt, they fight to avoid becoming just like you. They fight a country that sets itself up as the moral gatekeeper of how life should be for everyone else. They see how large corporations work. They see those same corporations supporting death squads, building weapons of mass destruction and using those same weapons against them; while you stand above them and claim that countries who manufacture said weapons should be taken down because of it. But for some reason it is OK for you to possess them, but not others.

They see how these same corporations and banks control access to money and education, and decide the economic situation in their own country. They also see how those corporations abuse the workers and those they employ by moving around the globe in search of cheaper labor to produce those goods which are then sold back to consumers in the United States at extremely higher prices than what it cost to produce them. They also get abused while working for said corporations, and as soon as they complain they are fired or worse – wiped out. They see how the system is set up, and view it as a rigged game against them. This is how it starts for them on the road to radicalization. You cannot then paint them as common criminals when the very people they are fighting are perceived as even bigger criminals, who in fact get away with criminal acts because they are too big to fail. This is the system they see as worthy of fighting, and to then paint their resistance to that system as being petty actually draws them closer to radicalization, because they see how the system is actually rigged against them.

No, I do not believe that this is a strategy that will work. To them they are fighting everything you are about. Most of them already know there is no way out. And unless you can come up with a strategy that gives everyone on a global basis a chance at life, and give people equality, not only in the workplace, but a chance at seeing that your way of life is actually better for them in the long run, then you will not have a strategy that will work to stem the tide of radicalization. You have to stop this outpouring of money to big corporations that are classed as too big to fail, and start dealing out that money to those that supported your ideologies in the beginning. The people, whom the government is supposed to be by and for need those dollars. They need to stay in their homes, they need to keep their jobs or obtain them if they have no job. They need help, and every day you support too big to fail and not them, is another day you have a potential candidate for radicalization on your hands.

Challenge al-Qaeda’s ideology: The United States should continue to exploit and amplify existing ideological divisions within terrorist and extremist organizations and widen the gap between extremists and their followers and potential recruits. It should highlight voices critical of al-Qaeda, particularly former high level members and ideologues, even though the United States may still take issue with some of their views.

You can’t expect to use those who have changed their ideas or views because you caught them or imprisoned them and have any credibility here. Granted the views expressed by some groups are in fact wrong. But they do not see it that way. They see this as a battle to the death. And death for them means paradise. You cannot counter paradise with those who have been deprogrammed, because those that have been deprogrammed are not credible in the eyes of those who have not been deprogrammed. They are seen as aliens, people who have been caught and cast out. They know the game of torture that the United States and other countries use, and they know that a mind can be changed by such methods, therefore those who have come out and or changed or talk about that change are not usually credible to those who are still in the group. And no matter how you highlight them or drag them out to rally those still in, you will not stem the tide or the reasons for radicalization until you change first. It will take a radical change in the way the system is set up to be able to even begin transitioning the current upward tick towards radicalization, downward.

And since the system seems to be going over a cliff, I highly doubt that you are going to stem the tide by getting only a few out. Those that remain in the group or those that lead them will gladly send those who do not truly believe in the cause on their way out, because they only want those that are dedicated and totally committed to the cause to stay in. Those that leave or want to leave are not considered good long term candidates for complete radicalization, therefore losing them is not that big of a deal to those organizations. And those who have changed during their terms of incarceration are usually changed because they are put through programs designed to get them to change. Again, the system has to change first before you can even start stemming the tide of radicalization. And right now the entire system is going through a radicalization of its own with too big to fail, so I seriously doubt things will get better as this change continues with those that “have”, and those that have not. And with those that “have” increasing their wealth by destroying those that have not, the trend towards more radicalization will continue unabated. If this trend does continue, expect even more radicalization at home and abroad, with the threats increasing at home by those you would never think about, which are those that had, and now have not.

Focus on the reality of life as a terrorist: Another key aspect of encouraging defections should be a focus on the reality of terrorist life. If people are joining because the terrorist lifestyle seems glamorous or because they believe they are fulfilling some larger purpose, demonstrating the reality—such as the bleak conditions in terrorist training camps—will help to dispel these myths.

Again you miss out on the reality by making this claim here. You are comparing a few recruits who have left that had a good life at home or a life that was not harsh, to those that live in abject poverty the likes of which you have never even witnessed outside of Television. Those few you cite as references are not the whole, but rather small pieces of the whole, whom probably were indoctrinated about jihad but because they never suffered or had a life living with death raining down on them daily, never really understood the struggle against oppression and repression by foreign based invaders, or what they see as foreign based imperialists who are in their country to divide and conquer. The reality is that those who live under such suffering are not going to just up and leave because camp life is hard, because they are committed to a cause or causes that you truly do not understand, and because of that lack of understanding, you are never going to be able to tell them that life in a camp is bad or that it is harsh or more harsh than they were led to believe. They could care less about that, and more often than not life in a training camp is going to be infinitely better than the life they currently have.

You can’t take a few recruits who lived better all their lives and expect them to know struggle or the real struggle or even the resistance and how hard it is going to be to resist, and then expect them to all of a sudden be credible to others about life in a camp not being very glamorous or nice or even adventurous. Those that are impoverished all their lives and see death raining down on them from above and lose family members, friends, brothers and sisters on a daily or weekly basis are not going to give two shits for how life in the camp is. All they will care about is that they are asked and allowed to be a part of the struggle against what they perceive as their enemy who has taken such an adverse role in their lives. All they want is to be a part of that struggle. They could care less about glamor or life in the camps or the adventure of life as a terrorist, which is word that was made up in the United States. To them it is called the resistance, terror doesn’t enter into it. If you rain death down on people, expect it to rain back on you at some point, and that is how they see it. They do not see it as terror, they see it as payback.

What you are saying here in this statement is a “suits” perception of what brings people into jihad, and very few see it as glamorous, at least those that are deeply committed to it. The only people who would even think it was glamorous are those that watch movies or James Bond. Those who are deeply committed are that way because they see you as the enemy, and an enemy that needs to be defeated, and that is their cause. They see how the game is rigged, and they see only one way to change that, which is to change the rules by challenging those rules and you to a match to the death, with them always coming out on top. You cannot defeat them because they see paradise at the end of the battle, and as long as they believe in that they will continue to fight you and win on their terms. To them they win when they die in the battle or the fight. To you, you lose when you die. How can you defeat that?

Find the most effective messenger: Governments are seldom the most effective messengers for encouraging terrorists and extremists to turn their backs on the cause. Former terrorists and extremists are obvious candidates for the job.

Deprogrammed informants are usually not going to be listened to. Therefore this premise falls flat. And the reasons that governments are not effective at delivering a message or any message, is because they are too busy lying to those they are supposed to serve to be believed for anything but more of the same. They have lied for so long that no one will believe them – ever. So next best thing you believe is to use deprogrammed and brainwashed former terrorists to change peoples minds? I think a better practice would be to just quit lying, and do it often enough to where people start believing in government again. However that will take decades upon decades to accomplish. I think it will take a generation or two before people start believing in government again if you start now by trying to renew faith in government.

You also have to offer something better than brainwashed former this or former that to sway opinions in the resistance. And I don’t speak from a standpoint of the few who have left and changed their minds on their own. I speak about the many who have suffered the hardships for generations from governments who come to either occupy their lands or destroy and then occupy them. You have to change your methods first before anyone is going to believe the few whom have been deprogrammed. And this also speaks volumes about governments credibility here. You already know you are not credible, so you don’t even try because you have no faith in your own system. And what is worse is that you know that if your system has no credibility, then a few brainwashed former fighters are not going to change anyone because they have no credibility either. Therefore those you send out are seen as having no credibility because they were changed by a system that has no credibility.

Involve families: The families of terrorists and extremists— in particular, wives and parents—can have an important role to play in trying to persuade their relatives to leave, and stay out of, these organizations. They should be an integral element in any counter-radicalization program.

I agree with this premise. However in the United States families are now being torn apart by the grand design of the corporate giant. In other countries this has been going on for a very long time, and only now does it hit in the heart of the so called homeland. How can you stand by and watch too big to fail and then say that families will be able to control those in their family circle who would be radicalized? Those who are seeing this family destruction in the United States are not just going to sit idly by and watch this destruction and just walk away from radical thoughts. Most see that the system is against them, and they see it as a no win proposition for them in the homeland. Those groups outside of the United States who offer change or a chance to get some payback are now in a better position to obtain more recruits for jihad against the system because of this lack of caring on the part of those who control that system. So as long as you continue down this path of destroying the middle classes and continuing to enslave other lower classes, you will find even more people open to discuss movements and struggles, and eventually resistance groups will develop against those that they see as oppressors. And since no changes are indeed forthcoming to make life better for them, and life is now seen as probably getting worse for them, you will now have more people allied against you than before. Add to that the increased amount of information available on the internet, and you have the makings of a disaster on your hands. Is it possible that more and more people will start to see themselves as part of an effort to resist what they see as wrongs committed against them, and commit to a more radical approach to right these perceived wrongs? I think so.

Develop additional non-law-enforcement mechanisms to address radicalization: Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the main U.S. resource for individuals who have concerns about potential radicalization. The government should therefore work with communities to develop alternative, non-law-enforcement mechanisms at the local level, both governmental and
nongovernmental, to deal with radicalization. This is an area in which a number of European countries, particularly the Netherlands, are ahead of the United States, and the U.S. government should look abroad for ideas as it develops its own mechanisms.

So, trust an agency that is built on a gun culture to win the day? Trust an agency that is built to only address the concerns of the people when it reaches a certain level to warrant their attention? I think not. I also do not think that strategy will work because they would be swamped with millions of calls over small things that would not really warrant an investigation, much less their attention. The FBI has only so many resources, and a limited budget to deal with the issues of the day. Community involvement is a good theory, but in practice the last time it was thought about was when you had Operation TIPS, and that was an effort to turn every citizen into informants for the government against their own neighbors. It didn’t last very long, and was soon shelved in favor of other methodologies.

Again the system has to change first, and this is not happening at all. Matter of fact the system is becoming more and more aggressive in its “borg” like mentality to control everyone and everything in their orbit. From the installation of massive surveillance systems, to controlling all movements into and out of the United States, and even control over the entire financial system – and thus the entire economy. Add to that a plethora of Fusion Centers around the country data mining everything written or said across the entire spectrum of communications, and you have an atmosphere of distrust in government that can cause massive volatility if things ever do get out of hand. I do not think at this point in time that there is any real trust in the government itself. It has turned into an us against them type of system, with them being the winners so far economically and financially. Where does this lead to? Rich against poor? A two class system perhaps, with the rich employing the poor at reduced wages that they will be happy to even get? We only have to look at life in Central America for what is coming soon to the United States to see how it will eventually be. And life in Central America right now is not very nice either. In this type of system how do you think you can apply the above tactics to avoid radicalization of the people?

Create a counter-radicalization forum: Government leaders should establish a “counter-radicalization forum” so that policymakers and practitioners from around the world can compare notes and best practices. One of the functions of this forum should be to conduct comprehensive assessments of all aspects of the radicalization process, including withdrawal from terrorist and extremist groups. As governments develop counter-radicalization programs, they should use the results of their studies to determine what is likely to work.

I think you have that already. It is called a Fusion Center. This is where data is scraped and analyzed. I do not know if you then extrapolate that data to form a consensus or if you just store it for now for later analysis. But on the surface this is a good idea as long as you agree that the system itself has been in the wrong longer than the radicalization process has been wrong to fight against it. You have to agree that the system itself is wrong first, and the way people feel now is that it is rigged against them. That is a huge reason why groups are formed in which to fight it. Because human nature says that when you see something wrong you fight that wrong and change that wrong into a right. Therefore the more people feel wronged by a system, the more they will organize to fight it. It is when hopelessness comes into play that violence is then produced as way to change things that the people have been unable to change by more traditional methods such as voting for change you can believe in. The more hopeless people feel, the more open to radicalization they become. And if you know this already, and allow this hopelessness to continue and grow, then what does that say about your system of government and what is in store for the people that are now governed by it down the road?

Customize counter-radicalization programs: It is clear that an effective counter-radicalization program cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach. The more a program can be personalized, the better its chance of success. In designing individually tailored programs, it is essential to understand why a person was first attracted to the terrorist or extremist cause, since there is often a link between what makes people join and why they choose to leave.

The essential reasons people join a cause is to fight what they perceive to be the enemy or right some wrong they wish to correct. And in many cases that enemy is you or your government or your way of life. Therefore those reasons are known already. Tailoring an approach to get people out would cost how much if you had to get millions of people out? This is not cost effective. It might be for a few people, if a few people was all you had to deal with. However you are dealing with a global issue, and not just one nation, but a global crisis, and because it is a global crisis, and ongoing everywhere you look, I think the costs for such a program would be better spent on changing the way the system now operates.

Give people a chance to live outside of poverty. Give people work and an education, and something that will occupy their time which gives them hope for a better day ahead. Why spend billions on some shadow government plan that is meant for the chosen few to be deprogrammed, when you can change the way you operate by getting rid of corruption in the system? Instead of rewarding corporate greed and too big to fail corporations, you bring those corporations into line, forcing them to spend those billions that they raided the taxpayers for on the taxpayers themselves. Of course this will never happen, thus your program so far is doomed to fail, because there is never going to be a day in the sun for anyone, as it is obvious that life is becoming more and more dark as the days grow long. Greed, and the attainment of money as a god is now the way life is for those that have. Therefore radicalization against that way of life will continue unabated by those that have not or by those that had – and now have not.

Focus on prisons: While prisons have often been viewed as incubators for radicalization, the U.S. government should also view them as incubators of opportunity. Examples abound of people who went into prison as extremists and came out with far more moderate views. The United States should focus on developing comprehensive counter-radicalization programs for those serving time in prison and encourage its allies to do the same.

Spoken like someone who has never viewed life inside of a prison. Prisons are incubators of hate, fear, and despair. Only made worse today by budget shortfalls and a need to reduce meals, caloric intakes, and increase punishment time with federal sentencing guidelines. I have yet to view many extremists who have left prison better off than when they went in. Most have established ties to radical gangs and various criminal organizations that they were forced to join in order to reduce the potential for personal injury while inside. In other words, they joined gangs and criminal organizations in order to protect themselves from being preyed upon by those who were stronger than them inside. The only ones who come out changed for the better are those that are old and infirm or those that have no more fight in which to give, thus they retire and live out their remaining few years watching the grass grow. The younger ones come out more skilled at crime, and more organized than when they went in.

The system has almost no chance at changing these people, partly because programs to support them upon release do not exist any longer. When an inmate comes out of prison today he finds that jobs are not available for him, places to live are even harder to find, and hope usually evaporates almost overnight. Gangs then enter back into the picture as a way for them to survive. Radicalization comes when he changes his stance from a criminal one to a political one, and thus the process of radicalization is then complete. The only way you are going to change prisoners is if you give them hope and work when they are released. However since normal society has few if any opportunities to work as of present, I highly doubt a prisoner will stand up ahead of the long line for work. It is a good thought and theory, but in practice this does not work, and will not work because there is no money to support it, and will never work because society does not give second chances anymore. Thus once convicted, always convicted.

Target vulnerable cell members: Not all members of terrorist or extremist networks are equally committed to the cause. Those who are wavering could be extremely helpful to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials as they attempt to determine which terrorists might be induced to switch sides. The United States and its allies should take advantage of these potentially vulnerable group members.

This has already been tried in the gang life, and doesn’t work out to well for those who are flipped or turned or wavering. Those who try usually wind up dead for their efforts. And this is not when they first try, this is usually after they help the government. Governments use informants, and after they are done with them the government throws them back out on the street and leaves them for dead. The government and law enforcement could give a rats ass about those who inform, whether they be extremists, would be terrorists or otherwise. Usually they use them for what they can get from them, and then throw them away for the next guy in line they are after. The above statement is pure fantasy land. Your premise is based upon the government actually caring about those that are wavering or are ready to get out or turn against others. They don’t. They never have. They use them and then grind them up into dirt and throw them out. Those guys usually end up alone, afraid, and with a reputation that they informed. And usually this winds up with their eventual demise.

In conclusion, I think your report is based upon a desire to effect change in the way things are presently done. That alone signifies that positive change “might” be forthcoming. However as society crumbles around us we see that positive change is not something that people can trust in nor believe in. And because of that, I do not hold out much hope for any of your programs taking hold. You have to change first, and this is virtually impossible. Therefore things will only get worse as we all march to our doom.

PolicyFocus101

There are several methods that have been discussed already. 1. They managed to social engineer their way into getting the victim to open the door. 2. They used a door lock programmer to gain entry prior to the victim arriving back at his hotel room. No matter how it happened there is rather an easy way to gain entry for the team itself. And this is where assassination tools come in handy. Sometimes it is the easiest method as opposed to the sophisticated one that is used. And while we do know the team did in fact try to reprogram the lock, we do not know if this was successful or not. This is where we need the sophistication of someone who knows his trade, and also is one of the foremost experts in the world on lock picking and entry methods. That person is known in the trade as The Key, or Barry Wels.

(Flash Video Player Plugin Required To See Videos)

Click here to view the embedded video.

In this video below we see how Barry Wels gains entry into a hotel room. It looks rather easy to do, and in fact this could have been the fallback method used if the door lock programmer they probably brought along failed. You will also note the way to protect yourself from such a method being used against you while you are in a hotel. While hotel door locks seem to be secure, according to Barry Wels, they are not that secure, and can be opened using a variety of methods. One of which would be to actually rent a room at the hotel and take the backup lock out of the door and build a master key around it. According to Barry Wels, one could in fact do this very thing;

This could point to the fact a lot of electronic hotel door locks have a mechanical override. Most of the time there is a mechanical lock mounted under the handle of the door that can be opened with a master key. In some cases the lock is even hidden under a sticker or label, but in most hotels I visited there is a lock present in case the electronic lock fails (in some countries it is not legal to rely only on the electronics). I know that in some hotel locks a mechanical opening is still recorded by the electronics in the lock and will end up in the log files. To get hold of the masterkey, one could rent a room in the same hotel and simply (for an intelligence agency that is) take the mechanical lock out the door, take it apart and make the master key based on the now known pin length. (Or if you believe the myth, ‘they’ already have done all the fieldwork and collected the mechanical master keys to all important hotels in advance anyway)

Another method which seems very easy to use is the method shown by Barry Wels in the video below;

Click here to view the embedded video.

Barry Wels has also described this same method could in fact be used to put a chain back on the door from the outside. If this was in fact a tool that was used to place the chain on the door, could it stand to reason that this same entry method was used to gain entry into the room itself? Barry Wels quotes on his website how this method could in fact be used and said this:

Another way to open some hotel doors would be to simply go under the door and grab the handle from the inside using a special tool. As you can see in this video, it is not so difficult. And the tool used to go under the door is even available in a ‘government only’ version. This version can easily been taken apart into small segments but is only sold to government agents.
And I suggest a slightly modified tool like the one on the video was used for the finishing touch of the murder. To make it look like a natural death, they locked the chain on the inside of the door.

Barry Wels goes on to say that while he was giving a presentation at the IT-Defense security congress Germany, some of the attendees were unable to make the presentation, and in fact he had to use a mobile phone to record the process used so he could show it to these people in an emergency presentation when they arrived in Germany later on.

It is all a funny coincidence as the video of the tool was just shot a couple of weeks ago when Han Fey and I did a presentation at the famous IT-Defense security congress Germany. It is a congress where we always meet lots of interesting people and always get a lot of invitations to give more presentations and/or workshops. We were originally invited to just do some hands on workshops and teach people the basic locksport/lockpicking skills, as well as a few simple opening techniques like shimming doors etc. But when some of the conference speakers missed their plane, we were asked to give an ‘emergency presentation’ to fill the gap. And as we do not like to give the same presentation twice, we shot some video (using a mobile phone) on the spot late at night about the door opening tool (and how to protect yourself against it) and inserted it into a compilation of existing presentations. Originally I did not intend to release the video as it shows me opening a door, but in this case I make an exception.

Another tool that was used by the assassination team was encrypted cell phones, which were used to communicate instructions back and forth between the assassination team members and their control center. This technology, which is not in general use by the public, was in fact in 2008 only sold to governments and the military, even though the general public could have obtained such technology and used it. One such company that sells this technology to governments and the military is CryptoPhone, which is another company that Barry Wels also is involved with, and was in fact partially founded by. In this video below, Barry Wels talks about the technology used, along with its applications, such as encrypted text messaging and voice encryption, and also who buys such technology, and in fact, who needs to use this technology today and also why they need to use it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As we can see above, professionals have the ability to gain entry to things that normally we would not think of. What this also says above is that governments probably use people like Barry Wels for intelligence and information, as well as technology for encryption of voice and text messages and other things the general public is not readily aware of. No doubt the governments involved, if they were actually involved in the assassination, probably used methods such as the ones that Barry Wels describes above, and in fact may even employ people such as him to give presentations at various conferences around the globe. Barry Wels has been to many conferences, both in Germany, Israel, and around the globe. People like him are in demand globally, and I am sure it pays very well to know what he knows.

The final question is, do governments employ methods such as what Barry Wels teaches? And if they do, it stands to reason that everyone should be aware that their own security can be easily penetrated and rendered obsolete.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Mistakes

1. Using passport names of real people not connected with the operation.

2. Airport arrival without disguises in play thus showing your real faces.

3. Not anticipating the wide use of surveillance cameras in Dubai.

4. Checking into several hotels prior to checking in at the target hotel thus bringing suspicion on your entire operation.

5. Checking into the same hotel that the last person on the team checked into in order to change disguises.

6. Not anticipating the reaction that the local police had upon discovery of the crime, and their subsequent use of surveillance cameras in showing your entire operation to the world in order to send you a message that such actions or activities will not be tolerated on their soil.

7. Not anticipating the use of surveillance camera footage being posted on YouTube, thus showing everything about your operation right down to your faces and use of disguises to the masses around the world.

8. Using 11 people for a job that one person could have done without all the negative attention to the operation. For example, it could have been as simple as a robbery on the street with a subsequent shooting to cover it all up for what it really was.

9. Using too much sophistication in the operation showing it to be a high level intelligence/hit operation, as opposed to a simple matter using one person to carry out the assignment who was either used as a cutout or an expendable person which was then eliminated after the job was completed, thus covering all your tracks without one shred of evidence leading back to the original order for the hit.

10. Arriving too close to the date or time of the hit. Had the team arrived a few weeks earlier they could have established a presence in the city – thus seeing all the problems associated with carrying out said assignment – thus calling it off or having a counter plan whereby something else could have been tried elsewhere or in another country.

11. And to take everything to 11 points, not even noticing (which many on your team did in fact notice) all the surveillance you were under, and not calling the entire thing off because of it, and because you failed to see all of your mistakes made so far and then not calling it off because of them.

That makes it a hit of immense stupidity carried out by immensely stupid people who shouldn’t even be allowed to run nor be involved in said operations. The person who hired the team is probably now thinking of just how he can clean up said operation, which leads to the next issue, which is what comes next for the team itself.

Forward Options

With the benefit of hindsight those in charge now have scant few options left. Too many people on the team are now in full view worldwide. And while a few bald headed people on the team could grow hair and change appearances, one has to wonder if that will be enough to get away with it? And getting away with it means that they have to get away with it for life or for the life of the team members of which many on the team are relatively still young. So where does one go forward in this operation to clean it up without anyone leading back to the person giving the orders? It is assumed that if any of the team members are caught that they will give up everyone else on the team, especially since most of them were connected in some way or another throughout the entire operation and thus knew each other. Therefore, since most of them on the team are probably isolated at the present time at a safe house one has to wonder if another team has or will be dispatched to get rid of the original team? And if so, what does this mean for the lone members of the team now? Especially since they also know this, and they can see the media coverage all over the operation and them personally. And this is speaking if this was a freelance operation, not a state sponsored one. State sponsored teams have different options, and freelance operations have different parameters.

You would have to know that each team member probably now fears for his or her own safety because of all the screw ups. And blame doesn’t go around very easily in circles such as these. Rather it is usually known that each member of the team is personally responsible for his or her own screw ups, and mistakes are usually never tolerated on such operations. Therefore each team member is now a potential target for a cleaner elimination than the one prior. And on such a clean up operation each team member would probably be dispatched in a vat of acid so that no one will ever be able to identify that team member ever again. If this is pretty much the only way to clean up the operation before one of them gets caught, then it stands to reason that each of them knows that the only way to stay alive now is to either run for the rest of their lives or turn themselves in to police in Dubai or some other safe country; whereby they can spill the beans on everything that happened thus ensuring that they at least have a small percentage of a chance at living. Granted, the minimum sentence in Dubai for premeditated murder is usually around 15 years hard labor. And in Dubai that could be a fate worse than death. Then of course they would have to worry over the repercussions from the leaders of that operation from getting to them after they are released. And since the original target was accused of doing something wrong to them in 1989, it stands to reason that Israelis do not forget. Thus upon release from such as hellish place as a Dubai prison one would know that they probably do not have that long to live either. Therefore it looks as if the original team is probably not long for this world, and in fact there is probably nothing any of them can do about it.

The end result is probably death to the people on the team, which I find ironic. They live by the sword, and now will probably die by the sword; which is the exact type of justice they meted out to Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

And what happens to the person who ordered the hit? Is his or her screw up going to be tolerated or will he or she also be terminated for incompetence after the original team is terminated?

Only time will tell how it will all turn out. The lessons that come out of this operation are many, but one of them I can see here is that we now live and breathe in a society that is constantly under surveillance, and no matter what you are doing or where you are doing it you are probably under the watchful eye of someone somewhere who can piece together your entire movements at any time they wish to do so. This type of society will make any type of operation in the near future very complex and difficult to accomplish tasks that used to fly under the radar easily.