According to the NYT, a message from Al Qaeda
is the reason why so many embassies went on alert:
The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.
As I suspected would happen, we're seeing stories designed to emphasize the wonderful, heroic efforts of our noble NSA eavesdroppers, thereby justifying the great anti-Snowden campaign.
Remember the heightened terrorist "threat level" alerts throughout the 2004 campaign?
Remember how those orange alerts completely disappeared after the election? Same shit.
Back to the current story:
It is unusual for the United States to come across discussions among senior Qaeda operatives about operational planning — through informants, intercepted e-mails or eavesdropping on cellphone calls. So when the high-level intercepts were collected and analyzed this week, senior officials at the C.I.A., State Department and White House immediately seized on their significance. Members of Congress have been provided classified briefings on the matter, officials said Friday.
“This was a lot more than the usual chatter,” said one senior American official who had been briefed on the information but would not provide details.
Odd. Very odd. Any number of previous stories have established that the jihadis know full well that their communications are not secure. Even before 9/11, as you will recall, Al Qaeda referred to the great event as a "big wedding." Are we to believe that now -- after the Snowden revelations have everyone on the whole freakin' planet
talking about the NSA -- the jihadis have suddenly turned as chatty as a bunch of teenaged girls on the phone? No caution, no euphemisms, no nothin'?
Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.
Looks like I'm not alone in my cynicism.
I'm so cynical? Because there is increasing evidence that -- at least in certain parts of the world, on certain occasions -- the US has partnered up with Al Qaeda, or at least with whatever is left
of Al Qaeda.
Take Syria, for example. Despite all of the planted bullshit stories that have attempted to divert us from the truth, the world knows that the actual muscle behind the U.S.-backed Syrian rebellion is an Al Qaeda-related group called the Al-Nusrah Front
. You may recall this piece
from the London Telegraph:
The group is well funded – probably through established global jihadist networks – in comparison to moderates. Meanwhile pro-democracy rebel group commanders say money from foreign governments has all but dried up because of fears over radical Islamists.
The funding did not
come from "established jihadist networks," unless you want to interpret that phrase in a very ironic way
. The Obama administration has been backing the Syrian rebellion
, in which Al Nusah has been both the most effective force and something of a public-relations nightmare.
And now we learn that the same pattern has re-asserted itself in Afghanistan
. The following comes from Bloomberg
Supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have been getting U.S. military contracts, and American officials are citing “due process rights” as a reason not to cancel the agreements, according to an independent agency monitoring spending.
The U.S. Army Suspension and Debarment Office has declined to act in 43 such cases, John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, said today in a letter accompanying a quarterly report to Congress.
“I am deeply troubled that the U.S. military can pursue, attack, and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the U.S. government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract,” Sopko said.
Regarding the 43 cases of contractors with militant connections, Sopko said the Army should “enforce the rule of common sense” in its suspension and debarment program. “They may be enemies of the United States but that is not enough to keep them from getting government contracts,” according to the agency’s report.
George Wright, another Army spokesman, said by e-mail that cutting off the contracts based only on information from Sopko’s office “would fail to meet due-process requirements and would likely be deemed arbitrary if challenged in court.”
Sopko said the Army “appears to believe that suspension or debarment of these individuals and companies would be a violation of their due-process rights if based on classified information” or on Commerce Department reports.
Well, at least the government is willing to protect someone's
Maybe the granting of those contracts was linked to a request for a little favor...
"If you want the money, Mustapha, fine -- but you have to do something for us in return. Next time you're on the phone with your buddies, say something about a plan to blow up an American embassy. An embassy in -- oh, I dunno. Cairo. Jordan. Something like that. Speak very clearly. Not too fast. Our transcription software is still a little buggy..."