At the time of the attack on Charlie Hebdo worked and since article very much already appeared on the site on how to use the elite of the various disasters and terrorist events to the World Government to prepare, whether staged or not, and that such release is an important project completion more become more common, not only in the US but in Europe and will be affected, determined to finish the project shall concentrate my attention.
You might have read or heard on the news that the Saudi king has also planned attacks against European targets are cautioned ISIS explicitly threatened against French and American citizens with assassination.
Unfortunately, they are based on the Paris attack is not surprising and can be no doubt that this was not the last such case. However, reading the news on the main line news brought about the case "solutions" and on February 18 was convened global security summit it was time to grab a pen and point out the geopolitics pervasive insanity.
Taking into account the language used by the political elite behind the global security summit lies much more than just a war against Islamic terrorism. Putting aside the fact that the Islamic State, the US government has created Syria to destabilize and that Saudi Arabia openly finance some of the Islamic state linked Syrian terrorist fractions, you have to realize that regardless of its origin, the terrorist organization's very existence is an excuse for the and eliminate the need to create a situation similar to the situation on both sides of the ocean civil liberties.
Reading the Reuters man is no need to extend himself too much to find the message between the lines.
First, the peak is not necessarily focusing on "Islamic terrorism". The term itself is barely mentioned. The political spokesmen language changed and prefer to "extremism," the emphasis is laid, which will have far greater consequences. Although the power of the "terrorist" label is very freely suspended by enemies, the term "extreme" provides a much wider cover for governments against political opponents. Usually referred to as terrorists, who are trying to create in the population with a relatively large caliber assault initiative or at least the fear of planning. However, the "extremist" label ráragaszthatják almost anyone who is or will support initiatives, which is the main line as opposed to the current power gondolkozással opposite view. The US Attorney General nor the 'terrorism' nor the 'jihadi' words not used the announcement of the peak:
"All of our allies want to be convened to discuss how the world can be compensated in this violent extremism ..."
The "official" use the word "violence" can be both vision and action. The point is that the wording change is not an accident, with the aim to attract more target groups of the population look enemy, and not only focus on radical Islam. Terrorism provides a great excuse the power to declare war against everyone and anyone can enjoy. Remember, the main line media, national security and the number of police-state institution alkotmányvédőket also like to call it "extreme." Is it inconceivable that soon the believers in freedom is also accused of complicity?
The loop is tight. The EU has discussed the creation of a Passenger Name Record, which is nothing more than a central database, which is included in all EU citizens. I think that the no-fly lists are worried about? What if the ban would be determined on the basis of Internet posts, Facebook messages or blog posts, namely completely socially accepted as a measure? What do you say to all destinations would be recorded, and based on the available data bureaucrat sitting in a stuffy room (or possibly an algorithm) would decide that the suspect or whether or not they? It seems that the French are competent and equipped like the idea expressed by the leaders of "political union", there is concern that the security measures to be adopted in the summit will also import many other countries.
Reuters Article:
Bernard Cazeneuve French interior minister, said after the meeting of European interior ministers of the need to strengthen cooperation to thwart the jihadist attacks.
"We all agree that some travelers on the basis of objective criteria and taking into account the fundamental freedoms, but we need to introduce tighter controls, without, of course, that it would disrupt the cross-border movement," he said.
He said that Europe must urgently put in place for the Passenger Name Record (PNR), which would enable rapid sharing of information between Member States relating to the travelers.
"We are convinced that this device will need to keep track of those who have taken to terrorist command centers in the direction of, or coming from," he said, adding that the database is in the fight against serious crime also come in handy.
Unfortunately, we have less to worry about the trip. The primary objective of the current elite of freedom of speech (which by the French attack, referring to freedom of expression is restricted) and explicitly stated that the Internet is regarded as one of the primary risk factors, one of the oldest tactics streamlined dictatorship: Freedom or security? Pick me!
The French leadership that although freedom of speech is important, necessary in certain "exceptions" to limit the extreme views:
Necessary Cazeneuve, according to the Internet can continue on the freedom of expression platform, Europe must, however, take the fight to the web abuses that it can not use hate speech and anti-Semitic messages, distribute or vulnerable young people into violent action in recruitment.
"There is a need for closer cooperation between Internet companies to facilitate the removal of the meaning and content of all these events, which protects and supports violence and hatred," he said.
Who decides what constitutes "the protection of terrorism"? Who is the wise and benevolent ruler who decides what can we say about who and what is not? Will this be the leader or more and use the power to attack websites critical towards censorship fair? The consequences of such a legal precedent?
Will was called for a long amount of time that a site like what you're reading, entered on the "extremists" list? Would protect the freedom gyűlöletbeszéddé How much time?
Seeing that a few days after the freedom of speech organized march 54 people were arrested in the attack on Charlie Hebdo terms for "insulting expressions", probably not for long.
The White House has already warned that terrorist sleeper cells have been activated in the United States:
"I think it's a cause for vigilance and to ensure sufficient funding and cooperation with other secret service, national defense and intelligence agencies, be they British, French or German.
The French are good at this, as the Germans Britton. So we can be more active in areas that will help you find the terrorists and its follow-up, the people you communicate with. "(Source)
I understand that recent events and they generate, has seemingly become permanent fear as a result there is no need to justify the need for monitoring.
Of course it is only a matter of time before they appear on the deployment of troops in the response, as has already happened in France. Single violent attack resulted in 10,000 French troops and armed police deployed 5,000 extra French soil.
Some day millions of French marched in solidarity, but in what way? Still want more from the government, which is the cause of the problem? Still want more centralized power? The globalization of the security forces? Now that you have dug their graves, it is likely to have to lie ...
Source: alt-market.com, idokjelei.hu
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése