Schneier on Security

SmokingHot • October 3, 2014 11:41 PM

@RocketDude

Wow, that is a very interesting story:

Board members Topper Birney and Laurie McCaulley, contacted for this story last week, said they were unaware of the monitoring program and the board was not briefed. The city system web site contains no operational information on SAFe, but displays a logo and lists three staff members. Those include two security officers and consultant Chris McRae.

McRae’s Linked-In profile lists him as a former FBI agent. His full bio lists him as a Montgomery police officer who joined the FBI and then worked as an investigator for TVA and later the Alabama Attorney General. He began consulting with Huntsville City Schools in January.

Good example of some whacky “cops” with a bit of “Jack Bauer” wannabe bullshit in their blood.

Reminds me of the Ferguson morons all decked out in military regalia. What a bunch of wannabe knuckle draggers. Find these boys a brown shirt, and they are all set to go.

Obviously this sad, wannabe cop dork never had a call from “the NSA”. That is my take, anyway.

These backwards hicks probably made up the gang they busted up too. Besides listing “FBI” on his linkedin resume. Did they even call to check if such a loser ever really worked for the FBI?

If the story is not entirely fake, it did not get much news coverage, and the writing hardly cited any credible sources. Maybe another Shatter case. Journalists making crap up.

But, amusing. I wouldn’t put it past some hick wannabe making up some ludicrous resume and actually getting a job as a “security official” at some school. 😛 Lol.

SmokingHot • October 7, 2014 2:58 PM

On the “SM” post above, that is mine, posted before noticing I did not complete my nick.

SmokingHot • October 10, 2014 11:03 AM

From another thread, as it was going off topic and someone complained.

@Skeptical

My assertion Skeptical was responding to:

@Smoking: Right now, because of the extraordinary power the US has: the US is really the primary instigator of instability in the Middle East, however. It is obvious that this will cause severe problems there. And they already have caused severe problems there, problems they are refusing to own up to.

Skeptical’s summa:

This is completely wrong. Were the US not a presence in the Middle East you’d have severely greater tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and much greater likelihood of a broad regional war.

Datapoint number one backing up the summary.

As to “causing problems” let’s get real about ISIL and the US for a moment. The US invaded Iraq, did not provide sufficient forces to occupy in the early years, and allowed an insurgency to spark and then burst into flame.

But in 2007 the US changed strategy. It provided substantially greater resources and embarked upon a different counterinsurgency approached – and it worked. The Shi’ite militias were cowed, and al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated.

That is basically the US line. “Line” as in what some loser dude gives a woman in a bar. Something memorized, something untrue. “Line” as in this is Tier 1 (very low level) diplomatic prattle. Diplomatic prattle is not the truth of the matter. It is about as truthful as some crappy commercial, and people take it as seriously.

More importantly, no one actually believes this line. Maybe the people saying it have some faith in it. But, no Middle Eastern nation of note believes it.

Like any lie, there is some truth to it. Where “any lie”, means any low level, ‘often repeated’ diplomatic prattle.

The truth is simple, in the aftermath of a colossal series of mistakes (Iraq did not have either WMD nor ties to terrorism, the predicted lack of resistance was totally wrong, and the capabilities of the US to rebuild and manage the nation were next to nil): well, the US finally was able to have the political impetus to do the Surge — The Surge ™.

The Surge, far from being any great stroke of genius as it is presented: was simply what was necessary and not done in the first place.

The scenario could not have been more brainless in scope: the US simply did not send in enough troops in the first place to handle the area. On the battlefield, if you send in too few troops you can lose severely. On the other hand, sending in a surplus of troops can help ensure security.

Not quite as technical nor ingenious as “flanking”.

Please note the sarcasm here.

All of this is far from the entire picture. It is far from the picture, at all.

The reality is the US went into Iraq and from start to finish screwed the country up. Not only did they turn the population against any and all infidels, non-Muslims in general, they did all they could to destabilize the country, in general. Including firing enormous numbers of military and police and then not providing them any chance of legitimate work. Which is a big reason for the problem.

There are a lot of points anyone can make on the many ways the US screwed up the region, but frankly, this is all very low level information that is very well available to everyone.

No one should be talking on this matter if they are unaware of it.

Not dismissing these issues, or even freely bringing them up and then dismissing them is patently dishonest. If I go in to buy a couch from someone and there is a gigantic stain on it, and the sales person does not mention it, but talks up the couch — I probably would not bother to tell them about the stain. I should not need to. There it is, right there.

An honest salesperson goes, “Look, I know about the stain, we both see it, and here’s the deal here, this is why we are giving you fifty percent off the price of the couch. It is not anything bad, just was a discoloring from the factory.”

Even if he were lying about the origin of the stain, I – or anyone – might be a bit more persuaded.

Brenner? Anyone? War profiteering? Anyone? Among so many other issues…

Perhaps the US withdrew a bit too soon. But the corruption which was permitted to erupt within Iraqi Security Forces, and Maliki’s other actions, completely alienated the Sunni population, which provided the remnants of AQI, harboring in the chaos of Syria, with opportunities to find new openings with the Sunni tribes of Anbar and beyond.

These were choices made by Maliki, and the Iraqi Government. They were choices that Iran permitted, if not encouraged. And they are reaping what they have sown.

Maliki was supported by the US, and vetted by the US. That is one problem with that line you are giving.

Another problem with that line is: the US knew that Iraq was naturally divided into three provinces. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. The Kurds had been promised their province way back in the early twentieth century by Westerners, and never got it.

This is a major reason why some of them have turned to terrorism.

Cheney’s memo from the first Gulf War on “why not to go to Baghdad”:

If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/10/dick_cheney_dove.html )

This was before Cheney went to work for Halliburton.

Iraq is important to Iran like Mexico is important to the US. Moreso, Iran has Shia through out the western region of the Middle East, and cutting them off from that support is something Iran would take seriously.

Further, Iraq has key Shia religious sites, and Iran is the Shia mother country.

But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that to not separate the country into the three provinces meant you would have Iraq ruled by Shia, if you were to give them Democracy. Not by Sunnis. Not by Kurds.

From Google: Iraq is 60-65% Shia. 15-20% Sunni. 27% Kurd.

Saddam was token Sunni and had a history of difficulties with Kurds and Shia alike. This difficulty, believe it or not, may have had some repercussions with the population. It probably also did not help that the US was sanctioning and bombing Iraq for many years even before the war.

As for withdrawal, the US never should have been there in the first place.

The US line on Iran is they are the bad guys. Their diplomacy with Iran is non-existent. It is provocative and it aims to alienate them. This helps make them defensive and desperate.

The major problem here is the US is deep in bed with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni. This would be not unlike if the US was deep in bed with the Tea Party, but tried to say kind words about the Democratic Party. They would not and do not. They say nasty things and act rude, to help bolster their Saudi and general Sunni backing.

It is clear from their perspective they can not be friends with both Iran and Saudi Arabia at the same time.

Yes, the US isolated Assad. Along with most of the rest of the planet. If you recall how the Syrian civil war started, and how Assad has conducted it, you’ll see why.

I was obviously speaking of how the US had isolated Assad before the protests.

I am aware of “the line” on this story. Assad was a horrible dictator, and the poor Sunnis simply wanted more freedom. They wanted Democracy and television and American goods. They wanted human rights. It had nothing to do with their religion. Which is radical.

At some juncture, it is argued Assad got more serious and did very bad things. Such as indiscriminate bombing, and it is even asserted that he may have used chemical weapons.

True or not, probably true, Assad was alienated, isolated, desperate, and defensive. This is exactly what one would expect to happen with Iran. Or Russia. Or China. If they are treated in the sort of manner the US treats her targets.

The fact is: the US is deep in bed with Saudi Arabia and so the Sunnis. They therefore have had no choice but to be opposed to Shia, and be for Sunni.

Debates were had before US direct involvement. The concern was links to terrorism and Al Qaeda among the rebellious. The US went ahead.

Consider, the US is extremely hedonist in the eyes of Sunni. That is a very tenuous relationship when it comes to the core population. With the upper leadership, they have much benefits. Friends with benefits. But they have to be mindful of their constituency. Or they could rise up and depose them.

These were not just major complaints of Al Qaeda, but they are deep complaints from the religious Sunni population, in general. Over the years.

So, brownie points to the US to help the Sunnis take Syria for them.

Of course, this helped Al Qaeda of Iraq rise. They changed their name to ISIL, and after taking the rebellion by storm, took the Sunni province of Iraq.

Someone might say, “Wait a minute, you said above Iraq did not have ties to Al Qaeda”. And this is well known, both the claims of these ties, and the fact that they did not. No, Al Qaeda of Iraq was created as a resistance movement because of the US occupation.

The US has been refusing to intervene more substantially in Syria’s civil war for years now. It has been a topic of ongoing debate and discussion. Indeed the current argument between Turkey and the US is that Turkey wants to expand the coalition’s intervention to include measures that are clearly aimed at Assad, and the US is refusing to do so. So the idea that the US never stops to ask why it should intervene in another country is nowhere near the truth of the matter.

They are wise not to do so. For one thing, I am hearing it violates international law. Though international law, clearly, has no teeth.

A bigger reason, of course, has been because of the “aiding and abetting terrorists” concern.

But they went ahead and did it, anyway. And now you have that entire region and the region of the Sunni province of Iraq owned by US created terrorists.

I can understand the desperate need to not go all the way to Assad. Because whomever displaces Assad displaces the peace treaty Israel has with Syria. Hamas is Sunni, of course. So, like with disposing of Saddam, or disposing of Qaddafi, there is a sure fire guarantee of truly causing severe problems in the Middle East by empowering Israel’s greatest enemies.

And calling Iran one of three components of the “Axis of Evil” did not help in any of that, either.

Which is telling a nation, “Hey, get desperate, get scared, because we are coming for you”. That does not make them seek out nuclear weapons to protect themselves, or in anyway destabilize them.

Of course, there is another issue here: Hezbollah and other Shia groups versus Sunni groups. All out Middle Eastern religious war. Stoked and hottened by the US of A.

Why did the US not separate Iraq into three provinces? Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a bulwark against Iran. Saudi Arabia needed some serious cajoling to get behind deposing of Saddam. This is one reason why Rumsfeld reported in his recent expose documentary he did not even hear the second Gulf War was an official “go” until he had a meeting with Cheney and the lower level Saudi Arabian official.

The US would definitely shy away from taking credit for destroying a key Middle Eastern peace treaty and enabling, greatly, Hamas. Too many Americans regard Israel fondly.

SmokingHot • October 11, 2014 11:40 AM

@Skeptical

You are consistently misunderstanding what I am saying.

Looking at your response, I see some reasons “why” you are doing this.

For instance, for the invasion, you condemn, and you blame this almost entirely on the Neo-Cons.

And you condemn the collapse of Iraq, and you blame this almost entirely on Maliki.

That, is the meat and substance of where I disagree with you.

That I mentioned anything positive about Maliki and the US’s relationship meant you would hyperfocus on that. Clearly, there were also problems.

Maliki was not a puppet. He viewed Iran as a good enough neighbor. He served the Shia whom he represented. This was why I brought up the demographics of Iraq, which is much more important here. And this is why I brought up the unwillingness of the US to divide Iraq into three provinces.

The US basically wanted very unfair representation of the Sunni minority in Iraqi government. They also wanted no good relations between Iraq and Iran. Both of these are entirely hypocritical and unfair expectations.

You can focus in on “real” problems, missing the forest for the trees, if you want. This will continue to persuade your own self. The net effect of this is, ‘the US Government is good and noble, as capable as Heaven and her angels’, but… ‘the problem is always someone else, be it politicians in the US or politicians abroad’.

The net effect is you keep a message you see as appealing to people in US Government. And it is. It speaks to the crowd there on what they want to hear.

If you want to “prove” your rhetorics on the Neo-Cons, you certainly have enough ammo out there for that. Likewise, if you want to “prove” your rhetorics on Maliki, and how he is almost entirely at fault, you also can find plenty of ammo for that. Not as much as for the Neo-Cons, because for the Neo-Cons you have the Democratic Party who worked for you there on that and continue to. Whereas, on Maliki, it is not quite as biased, but biased still.

You are intelligent. You are well read. But, you are biased, and this is the fault in your thinking. Your returns are reflexive, they are defensive. You are prejudiced towards the people who work on behalf of the US Government.

This reminds me of a discussion I was having with my friend. How women will justify the behavior of men regardless of how terrible they are. Men can do the same thing, of course. If the woman is beautiful enough. It won’t matter how many guys she sleeps around with if she is so much higher league then the guy — he will still be her stomping rug.

So, where is the persuasion there? It is impossible. I can even point out your girlfriend is dressed like a skank and is riding around town with her Saudi Arabia lover, her Sunni lover — but this would not make a difference for you. You well know the US Government is all over the Sunnis and so biased. She has made the Sunnis and Saudi Arabia her man. And you love her and hope she will love you anyway.

But this is not to be.

From this angle, my angle, the US Government disliked Maliki and could not see the situation in Iraq because the US Government was viewing it through the eyes of her lover, the Sunnis. Likewise, with the Neo-Cons.

This remains a relatively covert affair. I mean, it is entirely out in the open, and everyone knows it, but it remains an affair. It is an adulterous relationship. Not that they are married to anyone else, rather very ignored. But they have had pretensions of at least liking to marry someone else and something else.

Some of these pretensions are such things as “human rights”, “justice”, and “liberty”.

If this sounds like “someone else’s” tune, it is because it is very well known to be “someone else’s” tune.

“In God we trust”.

More like, “in Allah, baby, anything for you, I trust”.

So, yes, Maliki was irretrievably bad, because he could view Iran as a friend, as the US views Saudi Arabia and Sunnis as a lover. And the Neo-Cons were a convenient scapegoat, though the Democrats went along with the war easily enough. While giving out there some meaningless words, pretensions of skepticism, just enough to keep the crowds at bay.

None of this is fooling anyone. Not anyone that matters. The US could not be more happy to be working with a coalition of Sunni groups. It is like a first date. Unfortunately, they have not considered their lover from a skeptical viewpoint.

And no wonder the US has been so bold on her first date to talk down Iran, because she knows how much Sunnis hate Iran. But the Sunnis do not love her. She is just some throwaway skank to them. Someone to sleep with, so they can control her. And use her fine military prowess to achieve their objectives.

The end result is obvious. Sunni objectives met in Iraq. Sunni objectives met in Syria. Sunni objectives met in the wider Middle East. Al Qaeda and ISIL may be uncomfortable bedfellows, like all of them with the wider Sunni population, or so it may seem. But the sad reality is they are all of the same body. Hamas you can throw in there as well.

The message morphs and changes. There are the truly zealous and there are the less zealous. Zeal is not about reasoning. It is very often about foolishness. Emotion. And emotion is what Hamas, ISIL, and Al Qaeda represent in the Sunni body. Her mind may rebel, but her heart beats faster.