What exactly was communicated (or not communicated) between the various intelligence agencies and executive branch in the months leading up to 9/11? How did Osama bin Laden spend the last ten years of his life? What scars remain from that horrific day? All this and more answered in this episode.
In Episode #39 dreht sich alles um Scheren und Messer. Wir sind nämlich thematisch im Friseurgewerbe angekommen. Ich habe mich mit Gunnar Thomsen von Meister Thomsens Kapperei getroffen. Er ist nicht nur ein sehr guter und angesagter Friseur, sondern dazu auch ein guter Freund. Wie schafft man es einen gutlaufenden und stylischen Laden in Münster zu etablieren? Wie geht man mit persönlichen Schicksalen um und behält dabei den Kopf über Wasser? Wir haben uns sehr auf der persönlichen Ebene getroffen. Warum? Weil wir Freunde sind. Hört gerne mal rein. Wir freuen uns drüber. Warum Gunnar ein Doppelleben als Gunnar und Meister führt, was man unter kapperesieren versteht, warum Gunnar wie ein Imbiss roch und was sein Geheimnis im Umgang mit Menschen ist, erfahrt ihr nur in dieser Episode des ESKALIERT PODCAST, produziert von STUDIO ESKALIERT. Supporter: Mein heutiger Supporter ist die LVM — Mit über 600 Kolleginnen und Kollegen macht die IT@LVM das Versicherungsunternehmen fit für die digitale Zukunft. Dabei setzen sie konsequent auf selbstentwickelte Lösungen, auf die neuesten Technologien und auf intensive Teamarbeit. Zukunft entsteht gemeinsam: Hier seid ihr von Anfang an dabei, wenn etwas Neues entsteht - und umgesetzt wird. Tradition trifft Moderne! Karriere mit der IT@LVM: Hier geht's zum Karriereportal. Timestamps: (4:54) Intro (5:09) PLOP! (7:03) Meister Thomsen (8:14) Unsere erste Begegnung (14:13) Selbst und ständig (18:07) Akademische Laufbahn (20:46) Der Flummi (24:38) Die Kapperei (30:42) Daily Soap (37:39) Immer gut drauf? (39:42) Kapperesieren (46:33) Empathie ist schmerzhaft (57:13) Oder-Fragen (1:02:22) Eskalationspotenzial Community: Ich freue mich über euer Feedback, eure Kritik und Anregungen. Natürlich freue ich mich auch über positive Bewertungen und Abos auf den Streaming Plattformen. Subscribe: Spotify Apple Google SoundCloud Deezer STUDIO ESKALIERT im Web: Website | Instagram
Pete and Scott are back for Episode 3 of their new show End of the Empire. In this episode, the two discuss Scott's debate at the Soho Forum against neoconservative Bill Kristol. They get into Scott's experience before, during and after the debate. And they discuss some of the points Scott wishes he had been able to bring up. Discussed on the show: Andrew Cockburn 1981 book The Threat Peter Arnett's interview with bin Laden Scott's interview with Coleen Rowley “The Other Afghan Women” (New Yorker) Endgame by Scott Ritter Wilson's War by Jim Powell Podcast Feeds: iTunes Spotify Amazon Stitcher iHeartRadio playerfm podcastaddict
Der Erfolg der #emobility steht und fällt mit der Lade-Infrastruktur. Angesichts der immer stärkeren Zulassungszahlen von Elektroautos, sind gerade hier die Versorger gefragt und bauen ihre Netze in einer noch nie da gewesenen Geschwindigkeit aus. Aber selbst bestehende Anlagen und Plattformen können optimiert werden!Das junge Smart-Grid-Unternehmen gridX zeigt genau das! In Kooperation mit E.ON entwickelte gridX eine innovative Technologie, die es ermöglicht, historische Ladedaten und Kundengewohnheiten automatisiert in die Ladeprozesse von Elektrofahrzeugen einzubeziehen und diese somit weiter zu optimieren.gridX stattete einen Bürostandort des Essener Konzerns E.ON bereits im vergangenen Jahr mit dynamischem Lastmanagement aus, welches nun mithilfe von künstlicher Intelligenz auf das nächste Level gehoben wird. Erste Testresultate zeigen, dass mit Hilfe des KI-basierten dynamischen Lastmanagements bis zu 30 Prozent mehr Energie für das Laden von Elektrofahrzeugen zur Verfügung gestellt werden kann – dadurch lässt sich die Anzahl der Ladepunkte an einem Standort ohne Netzausbau nahezu verdoppeln.Wir unterhalten uns mit den beiden Gründern, Andreas Booke and David Balensiefen, die uns einen Einblick in ihr Startup, aber auch ihre ganz persoenliche Entwicklung geben!Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.
Where and how did al Qaeda spread? As we continue our investigation, we discuss the Black Hawk Down Incident, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the first few attempts at the detention and assassination of Osama bin Laden and that time leaders of the Taliban had dinner with an oil baron in Sugar Land.
Werner war dieses Mal busy und so musste Tammy den Laden alleine schmeißen. Also rief sie ihren langjährigen Arbeitskollegen Carsten an. In dieser ungewohnten Interviewsituation, lernt man ganz neue Seiten von langen Bekannten kennen.
What do you really know about Osama bin Laden? This week we look at the first 35 years of America's, if not the world's, most infamous terrorist, covering the circumstances of his birth and childhood, his service in the Soviet-Afghan war and how his radical beliefs were shaped by the events and people around him. Also covered is the US' initial reaction to the emergence of bin Laden on their intelligence radars, the negotiation of Afghanistan's national identity after the Soviet withdrawal and the beginnings of the First Persian Gulf War. Part two coming within the next couple days!
Terrorism is the scourge of the era. It is a fearsome symbol conjuring up images of ferocious-looking, bearded men brandishing AK-47s. The media focus on the terrorism of official enemies like Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, and Zarqawi. After they were done away with, new demons appear to justify war and bloat the Pentagon budget. Be afraid of ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Be afraid of Yemen and Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Be afraid of all the jihadi groups that have mushroomed all over the Middle East. The notion that the U.S. and its allies engage in terrorism is simply not a topic for discussion. To scrutinize U.S. policy is verboten. The War on Terror goes on and on. Recorded at the University of Colorado.
As we approach the 9/11 anniversary, we sat down with journalist Peter Bergen, one of the leading experts on Osama bin Laden. I spoke with him about his fantastic book — “The Rise and Fall is Osama bin Laden.” We discussed why he believes we are safer today - 20 years after the terrorist attacks. What the exit from Afghanistan means for US security and why he believes that the real threat inside the US comes from radicalized domestic terrorists. He is one of the very few western journalists to have met Osama bin Laden.Peter Bergen:Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/peterbergencnnWeb: https://www.peterbergen.comYou can follow Jessica Yellin here:Instagram: instagram.com/jessicayellinTwitter: twitter.com/jessicayellinWebsite: NewsNotNoise.comNewsletter: newsnotnoise.bulletin.comSupport this work:patreon.com/NewsNotNoiseJessica Yellin is the founder of News Not Noise, a channel dedicated to giving you news with real experts and providing facts, not panic attacks. Jessica is a veteran of network news, traveling the globe, covering conflict and crisis. A former Chief White House Correspondent for CNN, she reported from around the world and won awards. Now, Yellin uses her voice to break down the news, calmly and clearly for you -- free of punditry, provocation, and yelling.
Benari Poulten arrived at Kandahar Air Force Base shortly after the killing of Osama bin Laden. In this episode, he describes the frustrations of fighting in America's longest war, returning home to a nation that seemed to forget it was going on, and finding purpose through sacrifice and service.
In the last episode of The Realignment's post 9/11 era foreign policy series, Peter Bergen, author of The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden and Vice President at New America, joins to discuss how Osama bin Laden's worldview, actions, and strategies defined the post-Cold War world and how he was ultimately undone by his inability to understand how the U.S. would react to 9/11, for good for ill.
On August 27, 2010, three CIA officers met with then-CIA Director Leon Panetta. Their secret session revealed a courier with deep Al Qaeda ties who had been tracked to a three-story, heavily protected fortress at the end of a dead end street in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Without ever having to say the name bin Laden, there exists a mutual understanding that finally, after nearly a decade, they may have just found the world's most wanted man. In Countdown bin Laden, celebrated journalist and anchor of "Fox News Sunday" Chris Wallace delivers a thrilling account of the final 8 months of intelligence gathering, national security strategizing, and meticulous military planning that leads to the climactic mission when SEAL Team Six closes in on its target. Wallace reveals new information collected from in-depth interviews with more than a dozen central figures—including Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the special operator who killed bin Laden. Personal accounts from families who fell victim to 9/11 and relatives of SEAL Team Six are brought to life in Wallace's narrative, published on the 20th anniversary of the most consequential terrorist attack in American history. Join us as Chris Wallace brings us fresh reporting about the race to apprehend and bring to justice the architect of 9/11. SPEAKERS Chris Wallace Anchor, "Fox News Sunday"; Author, Countdown bin Laden: The Untold Story of the 247-Day Hunt to Bring the Mastermind of 9/11 to Justice In Conversation with Kirk Hanson Senior Fellow and Former Executive Director, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on September 14th, 2021 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On this edition of Parallax Views, what is the legacy of Osama bin Laden and the "Forever Wars" that came after the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001? The Middle East Institute's James Dorsey, award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University, joins us to tackle that question as related in his article "Bin Laden's legacy probably surpasses his wildest dreams". James Dorsey is the the man behind the book, blog, and podcast The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer. We also discuss Afghanistan and what the future may hold for Afghanistan. We also discuss the Taliban, IS-K (Islamic State of Khorasan), al Qaeda, Iran, the possibility of Civil War and ethnic conflict in Afghanistan now that the U.S. withdrawal has been completed, changing perceptions about U.S. foreign policy, the Kabul airport attack, potential naivete of the Taliban, Caliphates vs. Afghan nationalism, the Pashtuns, Pakistan, the Afghans have had 40 years of war not 20, the lessons of Afghanistan, the loyalties of the Taliban, the shifting goals of the U.S. in Afghanistan during its military engagement there after 9/11, the question of the root causes of terrorism, the rise of the Quincy Institute and the push for the demilitarization of U.S. foreign policy, U.S. foreign policy as "in flux", where should U.S. foreign policy go from here, the cost of stability vs. the risk of change, human rights rhetoric vs. reality, bin Laden and the undermining of U.S. cohesion, identity politics, and much, much more. A note that this episode was recorded on 09/10/21.
I interview award-winning popular science writer Mary Roach about her new book Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law. It's a humorous look at the serious topic of human-animal conflict in an age of exploding population and global warming. Buy your very own copy of Fuzz. For more about Mary and her work visit MaryRoach.net. This was Mary's third appearance on American Freethought. Listen to her first two appearances here: 099 - Mary Roach (Packing for Mars) 250 - Mary Roach (Grunt) Plus: (Briefly mentioned in the interview) The snail darter--a tiny fish once on the endangered species list--is back in the news! Twenty years after 9/11: I look back at fact-versus-fiction in the root causes of the terrorist attacks, and assess our success after two decades of fighting the so-called War on Terror. Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Contact: email@example.com Support the Podcast: PayPal funds to firstname.lastname@example.org
Are You Using Encrypted Email Yet? Here's How! Security emails aren't something that most people think much about. Yet, they're becoming more and more important as the bad guys are monitoring us more closely to steal our information, and then there are advertisers. So, do you want them to see your stuff? [Automated transcript] Email is something that's been around now for quite a while. It was undoubtedly even before the internet standards came out. Many of the systems had a version of the email. I remember some systems back in the early. The seventies, late sixties that had an email functionality is something that we've always needed. Usually, it was for just communicating within a group. And then, in the early eighties, when I got on the internet, we could send email to people all over the world, and the email then looked a lot like it did. Now you net email, we use different types of addressing for, but basically, it's the same thing that we're used to today. Many of us have Gmail accounts. I have some Gmail accounts. I use them basically for throw-away stuff that I don't want to have tracked. I don't use Gmail for anything that I consider particularly important, because again, it's not saying. So now there are two types of security. Really. We need to consider, and I got an email from one of the listeners today. Who's on my newsletter? And he said, Hey, I love all of the stuff you put in the newsletter every week. It helps keep me updated on what's happening in cyber security and what things I need to know. But I'm reluctant to click on any of the links in your email because they're all trackers. I do that so that I know what the people who subscribed to the newsletter are interested in. So, for example, I see many people clicking on an email I sent out a few months ago talking about different emails, services, and which ones provide the most WhatsApp security. If a lot of people click on that, Then I know. Oh, okay. Great. People are interested in this. So I'll talk more about it on the radio show. I'll probably put something together for the newsletter so that they have it. It's like the example I've used for a couple of decades now, which is, Hey, if I'm looking to buy a car, I don't mind seeing a car. Because it gives me something to compare. If I'm looking to buy an F150, I don't want to see ads for the latest Chrysler minivan. I'd like to see ads for people who are competing to sell me a Ford pickup truck. Maybe some competitors, maybe Dodge gets in there with the Ram or Chevy. Their truck, but I wanted to focus in it. It just makes sense to me because I don't want to waste time on some shoes when that's not what I'm interested in and the person who's paying to show me this ad for shoes is wasting money and being a small businessman. I hate to see that I know what it's like. It gets really frustrating to be spending a lot of money on advertising. That really is not going in. So you have that type of a monitoring where the advertisers are looking at, what you are looking at, what you're searching for. They know the sites you're going to, they know you're interested in that. F-150. Make sense to you? It certainly does to me as well. So I don't have a big problem at all with a people collecting basic advertising information about me. It starts to go over a line. It's a little bit of a, an obscured thing, frankly, but it starts to go over the line where they're gathering all this information that could be useful for a bad. We don't want hackers to have the information. I want to have a hack free life. I don't want them going out there and finding information about me and, oh, I'm going to be on vacation. I'm going to be out of town for three weeks and unable to be reached. And so that gives them the opportunity to now go in via phishing campaign. Maybe try and get my CFO to write a check to somebody or, do something that's frankly, quite malicious. What do we do? How do we deal with that? What makes sense there? That's a really good question, frankly, and that line has to be drawn by you personally. I draw it as, I don't really care most of the time if someone knows. So here's what I do with my mail client. I turn off the automatic download of photos of pictures, and that way I can see the email. And if it's. Piece of spam, where I don't even want that spammer to know that I opened the email. They're not going to be able to find out because my male client is not downloading photos. The way it works is you as a marketer or as a spammer. In this case, you are giving a unique URL for that. So that unique URL. Now, if that photo's downloaded, tells you that almost certainly that person opened your email. What's a legitimate email address. You can spam it some more in the future, a little bit more about them. The same thing is true with my emails. For instance, if you sign up at Craig peterson.com/subscribe, and you get my weekly email. The training and all the other stuff, that's, all for free in there. You now are telling me when you open it, that you opened my email. Now, why would you want to tell me that? Why would you want to tell anybody that? Nowadays when it comes to email delivery, one of the things we have to face as businesses and as a marketer, who am I using? Mt. Is that you are great. Every email is scored. This has been true for a long time. SpamAssassin the software I've used for. I don't even know how long now, at least a decade, maybe two. And it looks at the content of the email. It looks to see how much of the email is a graphic. How much of it is using these types of words that are often used by spammers or. Maybe crazy marketers. So they will score that email. And if it's above a certain score, if it's accumulated too many bad points that email doesn't get delivered, we have a similar system. We have some real fancy stuff that we use ourselves and we use for our clients from Cisco that compares all of these emails that are being delivered worldwide, millions of the members. And learns from it and automatically blocks them for me, which is really great. But if I'm sending you emails, just like if you're on my email list, I'm going to send you an email at least one a week. Usually not more than two, but basically one email a week. It's not only scored on how my email reads the wording, the. But it's also scored on how old is my domain. Have other people reported my emails as spam and how many people have opened that email sites? Google track that. So if you're on Google, if you're using. It will come up and the email come up and Google says, okay, he read the email. Maybe he downloaded the photos. He was very interested in it. But if people are not opening the emails, you start to develop as a person sending an email, a low-risk. Lower and lower in this case, lowers is bad. Then the case of SpamAssassin hires bad. So what'll happen then is your emails will stop getting delivered. You don't want that. I put a lot of work into these emails. I send out every week. I usually have a number of tips, usually six to eight different ones in each email. I don't want that to go to waste. So if people are not opening my email. Then I'm going to automatically remove them after a period of time from my email list, because I don't want to send email to people who aren't going to open it, because if I do that sites like Google and many others are going to stop delivering my emails to everybody else, the people that do want it, just see how that works. So I am reliant on understanding if you open the. How can I tell? I can tell if you clicked on a link and I can also tell if you've downloaded any of the graphics that might be in that. Otherwise, I have to assume you're not opening that email. And if you're not opening that email, I don't want to send it to you because if I send it to you and you don't open it, it's going to slow down or completely stopped the delivery to other people within the. For instance, gmail.com. And this is true for any of the major mail vendors that are out there. And I don't want that to happen. So what I ended up doing, if you have an open them for awhile, I'll send you an email saying, Hey sorry to be bothering you here. But I wanted to make sure that you did want to get these emails or I'm going to automatically remove them. You might've had that from other people before then. The reason those emails are sent out isn't because I'm being snotty about it. It isn't because I'm upset that you subscribed and you haven't been reading the emails. It's because I don't want my email delivery to other people to be damaged because you have no pundit. Even though I do block images from being downloaded on my emails at the top of the email when I open it up and it has a little button that says load images. And if that email is from someone that I care about it, isn't from just some spammer that stole my email address or bought it from somebody else. If it's a legitimate email, I want to see, I click on that load images. So what happens now is the images in that email or downloaded the whoever sent me the email now knows that email was opened up and I don't also get kicked off for their list. Now, a few of you guys have complained about that with me, just not complained as much as said, why are you kicking me off of your email? I told you it's because you haven't been opened that. Oh, but I haven't opened them. You haven't. But if you turn off the load images on emails, then I don't know that you've been reading them and therefore you're going to automatically end up being re removed. When we come back, I want to talk about secure email providers. I'm going to compare some of them. And that came up this week because what was the number one secure email vendor out there? They no longer are. So we'll talk about that. It's all in the news. Visit me online. Craig peterson.com. You use email, everybody uses email, but which providers provide you with security and what do these different types of security actually mean to you? Of frankly? What is security? What is a secure email? There are a number of different secure email providers. And there are multiple ways of defining secure email nowadays. All of the email that I send and receive from my company and I send and receive for our client companies is incorrect. There something called TLS. That is basically it's the same as HDDP S it's you know, that secure VPN that set up. No, I don't want you to get confused with these VPM services. It has nothing to do. But if you go into your web browser and you look up in the URL bar, you'll see a little lock. It's typically on the left side of that bar, you click on it and it will come up and say, the connection is secure. What does that mean? It means that the data that you send from your browser. We'll get to that remote server in a secure fashion will be encrypted. So if it's intercepted the third party, won't be able to decrypt it. Now there's exceptions to this, but we'll just keep it nice and simple. When we're talking about email and the two email servers talking to each other, we're talking about the same sort of thing. If you send an email, you have an email provider. It might be my company, but it's not likely, right? Because we only deal with a certain number of small to medium businesses, but the email goes from you to a server. So let's say you're using Microsoft 365. So your email, as you're sending it to email@example.com that email. Goes from your browser or your email client over to the Microsoft 365 server. Now I understand there's different ways to do it. In fact, we don't do it quite this way. We always go through an intermediate server that we maintain that helps keep things secure, but the email goes over to Microsoft 365. And that first connection is probably a secured connection also by TLS. Now you're sending it to firstname.lastname@example.org. That was the two address in your email. So what happens next is it needs to find out who's handling the email for Craig peterson.com. It finds out, and then it says, A again, TLS session and encrypted session over to my email server. That encrypted session is much the same as what you have on your web browser. It is. Very hard, very unlikely that anyone in between can see your email. And then the email ends up on my server, whatever service I'm using for my server. And then it ends up at my client. It might be on my phone. It might be on my desktop. It could be anywhere. And again, that is using another encrypted session. There's different protocols that might be involved. For instance, I map S SMTP maybe there's TLS over SMTP, whatever. We're not going to get into all of those technical details before you guys all leave me because your eyes just glossed over, but there are a lot of ways to have that all encrypted. So just sending an email from your phone to email@example.com means it's going through a minimum. Four machines and each time it gets to one of these machines it's encrypted. That's hopeful, right? I'm going to knock on wood here because in reality, not every one of these points has encryption. Not every email service has that type of encryption, TLS, or other ones. What I want to talk about now is the secure email providers. If you have Microsoft 365 email, you can go to and Microsoft website and send and receive email there. Do your calendar there. You've seen that before. I've used that before, so you can do it all online on the web server. You can also do it on your client on whatever device you have. These secure email providers. I'm going to talk about right now as a rule are using a web front. So what is a secure email? Obviously the first step needs to be the connection from you to the server needs to be encrypted. And if you're using a web based encryption, which again is that HTTPS, which is the TLS nowadays. That is encrypted end to ended choosing public key encryption, the whole RSA patent. And it's just fascinating stuff. It was absolutely amazing what they were able to come up with. I love it. There is also the server itself, which needs to be secured somehow. And then how about the ultimate delivery to the third party? Now we use Cisco again. For our email filters, but that our Cisco server that we have for ourselves here in our very own data center located right here then server also handles emails for some of our other clients. So what happens now is if I want to send a secure email to somebody. Party. So I want to send it to somebody working at the bank or working at the repair shop, whatever it might be. All I have to do is in the subject line, just say secure and the Cisco email, server's going to notice that. And it is then going to send an email off to the recipient saying you need to come to this IP address. And it gives them a link and I, and grab your secure email. So in that way, I know it was delivered to curly because whoever the recipient is had to go to this secure site on this mail server that my company maintains. Okay. So that's another way of doing it. If you don't have the types of equipment that I have here in software that we use for small businesses, then there are still some options. The number one for quite a while has been proton mail, P R O T O N M a I L. And I wrote a big thing about that. You would have got that in my newsletter a few months ago. If you save those things, which you shouldn't do by the way, save them all, just do a search for proton mail in there, and you'll see my detailed explanation of what it is, why you might want to use it. Proton mail is located over in Switzerland. And of course, Swiss has some good privacy laws sodas, the European union, but that was their claim to fame. Hey, we are in Switzerland. We do not do log. We do have self-destructing messages and we have some real neat little features that you can use on your on your device. That's proton mail. It's been very good, but just this month, a Swiss court ordered proton mail to log the attachment. To their service. So now when I say attachments, what I mean is the IP address is the two addresses the, from addresses of any body that's using their service. No, they were specifically looking for this one individual. And so now they are doing some logging. They actually have to change their website. So that's a negative and we'll explain why that's a negative. And we'll talk about a couple of. I of the email services that are out there right now and what you can use, what you might want to use, what the costs are, so that you have a good idea. So stick around because of course we'll be right back. And I want to invite you right now to just take a couple of minutes, go to CraigPeterson.com and subscribe to the newsletter so that you get everything. You'll get my show notes every week. You'll get some of these free trainings I'm in trying to make it so that it's under three minutes to help you understand different concepts and things that are going on. Craig, Peterson.com/subscribe What are the features? These secure email providers are providing, what are the costs? Which ones might you want to consider? We're going to run through the top three right now. What are their features and why would you want to use them? We started talking a little bit about Proton Mail, some of the real basics here, and it is still the kind of 800 pound gorilla when it comes to secure email, finally they had to capitulate to the Swiss court because they are located in Switzerland. So just goes to show that even being Swiss doesn't mean that it is. Completely secured, then there's a difference too. I want to point out between having a government issue, a subpoena and a court order to have your information revealed. There's a big difference between that and a hacker who's trying to hack you and get into your life. So I think most of us understand that we need to be secure in our documents. We need to have that privacy is guaranteed to us from the constitution, but we also need to have one more level of security, which is okay. How. The hackers. So having a hack free life means you there's a lot of things that you have to be concerned about, email being one of them. So I'm not too worried about Proton Mail and the fact that they had a court order to. Provide IP addresses for a specific group of people. And it was a very small group and I can see that. I can agree with that. Proton Mail does have a free version. That's the one I have because I want to try it out. And it has a 500 megabytes of free. The storage, you can get up to 20 gigabytes and Proton Mail starts at $4 a month. It has end-to-end encryption, which is really important. Again, it means from you all the way to the recipient, all three of these that I'm going to talk about have end-to-end encryption. They also all have. Two-factor authentication. Remember when we're talking about two factor authentication, a lot of places try to pass off this thing where they send you a text message with a number in it. They try and pass that off as two factor authentication. Yeah, it is a type of two factor authentication, but it's not a. If you're already doing something like maybe you've got cryptocurrency, you are potentially not only under attack, but I'm very hackable. If you're using a text message in order to verify who you are. So that's an important thing to remember. Proton Mail has self-destructing messages, which is a very big thing, very positive. It tends to be expensive. Proton Mail being the 800 pound gorilla kinda dictates what kind of price they want to charge and they are on the more expensive. Side the web client is a little bit on the outdated side. It does not support pop three, which I doubt is an issue for any of you guys out there because nowadays the modern email clients aren't using. Anyways, any more now Proton Mail has PGP support. I use PGP, I have a built into my Mac mail and it allows me to send and receive and do end encrypted messages. And that's something you might want to look at a plugin that uses PGP or GPG, which is effectively the same. Which allows you to send and receive encrypted email using your regular email client. However, the person who's receiving it at the far end has to have that PGP client or GPG client as it is. So it might not be the best idea in the world to use that. I use it and I use it for. People within the organization that I know have PGP, because again, we're dealing with third parties information. We have clients and the clients trust us. So we have to be pretty darn careful with some of that stuff. So that's our first one, proton mail. It's something I've used. I know a lot of you are using it. I had so many responses to that email that I sent out to everybody talking about secure email and specifically proton mail. And you guys were all telling me, Hey, listen, I'm switched on I'm away from Google forever because Google is by far the least secure of anybody you could be using out there. Now, the next one is called top-down. Two U T a N OTA. So it gets just what Tatan call 10 town, tow hours, something like that, but a N O T a I'm sure you guys are gonna all send me pronunciation guides and it has again, a free version, one gigabyte. So twice as much as proton mail and it doesn't really offer quite as much storage, but it starts at a dollar 18 month. Down from proton mail's four bucks a month. It also has end to end. Encryption also has two factor authentication. It has an encrypted search function, a calendar function, and aliases. I use aliases not only for my hack free life, but I use aliases because I will. To use a different email address for pretty much everybody I'm dealing with. So these, this way to do that is with an alias. One of the problems here with top I, this is a German company. I bet you it's a German word. Somehow Tottan TOA is that it is injured. Germany is one of those 14 eyes countries. That means it's one of the 14 countries, large countries that share information about people online and spy on each other's citizens. See, that's how the government's gotten around it. The government have preclusions from monitoring citizens. So what did they do while they all get together, serve with the five eyes now once twenty-something eyes, but they're part of the 14 eyes agreement. So Germany, for instance, would spy on us citizens while they're in the U S. And the U S will spy on German citizens while they're in Germany and all over the world. Okay. So that's a negative, however, as a general rule, the European union has pretty good privacy laws, so you're probably safe. And then the third one, which is again, the third in my priorities here too, is called counter mail. Now it has. Interesting features, for instance, they have what are called Ram only servers. So the server boots up, obviously it has to boot off of some sort of a device, but once it's running, everything's in memory. So if that server loses power, it loses everything. Now that's an interesting thing to do and can be a problem if you're trying to store emails, right? It has men in the middle attack protection, which all of these due to one degree or another, but counter male makes that a kind of a big deal. They have a safe box and anonymous payment systems that you can use. And it starts at $3 and 29 cents a month. They have a four gig storage limit. They do not have a free version. So I liked this one counter mail, but I do use proton mail, at least for testing. Some mothers also rans here that allow you to send and receive encrypted mail. Secured mail is Zoho mail, Z O H O mail. The X, Y Z is another one post deal. So I've used Zoho before, by the way post geo P O S T E O. You might want to firstname.lastname@example.org and start mail. So there you go. Top three proton mail. That's still my recommendation. If you want some secure email and it'll cost you a bit, if you want cheaper, look at this T U T A N O T A. All right, everybody make sure you spend right now about a minute. Go to Craig peterson.com and sign up for my weekly newsletter and training. Is there no such an example of Silicon valley and they're a hoity toity attitude of fake it until you make it, or is it the reality of Silicon valley? What's happening out there? WeWork and others. Theranos. How many of you guys know about Theranos? They had a really great idea and it was started in 2003 by a 19 year old young lady named Elizabeth Holmes. That is pretty young, but her idea was why do we need to have a whole tube or more of blood in order to do blood? With the technology we have nowadays, we should be able to just use a drop of blood and be able to test for hundreds of diseases with just a pinprick of blood. It seemed pretty incredible at the time, but she was able to. Been a yarn that got a lot of people right into investing in her company. We're talking about nearly a billion dollars in capital that was put into their nose. How could she have fooled all of these people or was she fooling them? Was she doing what you expect to have done in Silicon valley? That is in fact the argument that her attorneys are using right now. She is on trial because this company Theranos was never able to produce and tests. They could just take out a drop of blood and run hundreds of tests on it. And there's a lot of evidence that has come out that has shown in fact, a great little documentary that I watched not little on her and the company Theranos. That showed that they had in fact, been taking vials of blood and using other people's equipment, not the Theranos equipment to do the valuations of the blood, to look for diseases, to look for things like vitamin D deficiency that is in fact, something that could have helped with this whole COVID-19 thing. A real quick and cheap check a vitamin D levels in your blood, but what happened? Elizabeth Holmes was really a great talker. She was able to convince a lot of people and a lot of businesses, including Walgreens to invest in her. Not only did she have Walgreens invest in her, but some of the biggest names that you can think of in the investing community, including Rupert Murdoch, he invested in fairness. Now her argument in her. At least her attorney's argument is, Hey, listen, we're not doing anything differently than any other Silicon valley company that's out there. It's this whole creed that they have of fake it until you make it. Is that legit. Is it just one more live from Silicon valley? There's a great article that was in Forbes, talking about some of these, what are called unicorns. These are companies that are startups and are taken under the wing by investors, starting with angels, and then moving into venture capitalist, actually, even before angel. Friends and family and moving into venture capitalist positions, and then eventually public companies, all of these businesses really required proof before they got any funding. So here's an example from Forbes, Airbnb. Obviously they, hadn't what we consider today to be a rather unique business model. But it had been tried before. The whole assumption was that people would rent rooms in their homes on this huge scale, but they didn't have any pre. They were the first to make it in this global trend, they built up this whole idea of becoming a hotelier yourself with your home. But when the founder, Brian Chesky tried to get angel capital, he did not get a dime. He had to prove that renters were interested and people were interested in renting out their homes and that he could pull them together. Once he proved that, then he was able to get the money and prove is you. To have a viable business. First, it's really rare that you don't have to, Facebook was started by Zuckerberg now, all of those stories, but the whole idea was having Harvard students connect with the. And then he expanded it to students and other universities and then expanded it to the world at large, his natural initial investors, like most or friends and family, people who give the money to you because they want to see you successful. Eventually here. Zuckerberg was able to prove it and get money from Silicon valley. And then VCs, I'm not getting into any of the ethics of how he did it or any of these other people that had Google. Google was started by these two Stanford students page and Brin, and they got angel capital from investors. And, but these investors were different than most the investors into Google, where people who were already very successful in the computer industry and could understand the ideas behind the algorithm and believed in page and Brynn and that they could grow this company. Microsoft. Again, another company that started with extremely questionable methods was started by gates. And now. They didn't have any VCs, either. They started by running programs for other people. They convinced IBM that they needed to license an operating system from Microsoft and Microsoft didn't even have the rights to, and then they went out and acquired it on a non-exclusive basis. IBM acquired it from Microsoft and non-excludable exclusive basis. Then they got VC money after they started to take off. Okay. Amazon was started by bayzos with funding from his family and small investors from Seattle. He got a VC from Silicon valley after he launched and was already earning thousands in revenues. Bezos had real proof. Walmart was started by Sam Walton with 25 grand from his father-in-law. He built this business and financing strategy and used his skills to become one of the world's most successful companies as he grew. We work. I don't know if you've seen these. There's a great documentary out there. And we work that I watched too, but again, like Elizabeth Holmes, he was a great guy at standing in front of a group and getting investors to put money. And he was even great at getting people to buy from. We work that he even started this whole, I think it was called wee life thing where he had people who would move into the building. That they were renting this office space from, and they'd all lived there. They all had their own little units and they'd get together every night and they'd eat together and have community and everything again, collapsed when they couldn't sustain the momentum. And it was like a Bernie Madoff thing where he needed more money coming in order to support it. And he got incredible amounts of money from this big Japanese investor. And then we've got Theron. Elizabeth Holmes. She failed when this investigative reporter questioned whether the technology really works, the investigative reporter said, Hey, can you really do hundreds of tests reliably with just a drop of blood? Why did this report, or even have to ask the question at all? How about all of these investors? Huge companies, my including medical field companies. How did all of them get built basically into spending about a billion dollars with her in an investor? It is a real problem. And it's a real question because ultimately what we're talking about is companies and Silicon valley thinking you fake it till you make it, who are bilking investors and everybody else out of it. Now you have to have a certain amount of that. No matter what the company is. Do you think. Faith in yourself. You've gotta be able to stand up and make a presentation to customer or to an investor, an angel investor or friends or family, whatever it might be, but how could you have sold value to customers and convince them? To pay the rent that's needed before you've even shown a profit. And that's a big question. Things have not changed in Silicon valley because of what we work did. And because of their failure, things have not changed because of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos and the major failure there. These people are investing money. They hope that two times out of 10, one times out of 10, they will actually make money from their investments. We're talking about the venture capitalists and they are jumping on all of these things that are, maybe. Quite legal. That was actually the pitch that was used by the founder of Uber. Yeah. We don't really know if this is quite legal or not, but we're going to let people use their own vehicles to drive their own cars, to pick up strangers and take them places. And it was obviously not legal, especially in big cities where they had laws about all of this. And then all of a sudden now Silicon valley. Really listening closely and say, oh, not quite legal. Okay. That means you are going to completely overturn the whole industry. And that means we could make a whole lot of money on you again, just the knee jerk. So we've got to be careful. The other side of the point and coin is the secret sauce, which is many companies are being careful to not disclose things for very good reason. They don't want an employee to leave and take with them. Their secrets. Look at the lawsuits that have been out there with Google and some of the other self-driving companies. You stole an executive, the executive brought all of this knowledge. Them. And maybe even some documents, this should not be legal. And now you've got the Biden administration issuing an executive order, trying to change this whole thing by saying, while you cannot lock people in to not disclosing or to your secrets or to not compete with you. How well to Silicon valley or any business anywhere. To keep their secrets, their secret sauce, the recipe to Coke. If you will, how are you going to keep it secret if you cannot hold people to these nondisclosure agreement? And so I think again, the Biden administration is going the complete. Wrong direction. I'm going to keep an eye on this whole Theranos thing, this trial that's going on. I didn't have an idea how it's going to turn out, but we do have to change the fake it till you make it. Ideology of Silicon valley. Hey, take a minute and sign up online. Get my free special reports and trainings. Craig peterson.com. Your cybersecurity strategist. It doesn't look like what's app is safe anymore. So what can you use if you want to have a conversation with someone, how many of you have a friend that's in China or Iran or Afghanistan or one of those other countries? I was warning about our friends at Facebook. Of course they've been buying competition and in fact, they're being sued right now because of that. And they have been going after these companies that look like they are going to eat Facebook's lunch and then they buy them for way more. The market value. So what are the founders supposed to do? If I was offered crazy money for my company, I'd sell it at the drop of a hat. Just like that. It'd be done. Thank you very much. WhatsApp is one of those apps. My Facebook and Facebook bought it, allegedly because it looked like it was going to be serious competition. So our friends at the federal government decided, okay, we'll let this one go and we'll let them know. When Facebook gets their hands on something, it's like Google, getting their hands on, what's going to happen. Ultimately Facebook is going to be using it in order to sell you things. I'm not against having these various websites that we use, online apps and other things going ahead and Colleen us a little bit. What about things we want things to mean might want that we don't even know we want because we don't know they're available. So there's a lot of good reasons from a marketing perspective for them to be able to find out what we're into. They used to be a little bit different than it is today, but not that much. I was in the. Oh, direct marketing business way back in the seventies. It was my second job, really. And I wrote software. That was part of this system that actually put all of our competitors in the country, out of business. Yeah. I wonder if they're still around. It's called marketing electronics of Canada. And let me see if it comes up. Eh, statistics and be okay, so it's not really around anymore. So they master gone out of business. But what we would do for our customers is we'd say, okay, so who should you mail to this? It was direct mail back in the day. And so when we get asked a business, we were in and so they'd say, oh, okay. How about we mail to what 40 year old men who maybe want to buy a pickup truck? So how would we do that? We would look for the magazines that 40 year old men were likely to be. We'd look for anything, the newspaper subscriptions, neighborhoods. It was a real big deal. When, of course the zip code came in. That's not what it is in Canada, but the postal codes came into place because then we could narrow it down based on neighborhoods. So we'd put all of this together and we'd say, okay if someone is getting this magazine, And they're definitely not getting that magazine, but they're getting this newspaper and they live in this part of town. Then we put all of that together and we did the duplicate eliminations and figured out exactly. Okay, this is who we want to be. And then we would do direct mail for the customer to all of those people. So it would be whatever it might be back in the day, it was Grolier encyclopedia was our, one of our customers and Columbia music. You remember, those guys was one of our customers and a few other places out there and we made pretty good money and the, it was pretty easy to do. But back then we were doing almost the same thing. This was what now? 40 plus years ago, as they are doing today. But Facebook of course has way more information. They don't just know what website you might be going to, which is the equivalent of which magazines did you subscribe to back in the day, but they all say. Are in the middle of your conversations, they know who your friends are. They know what your friends have bought. They know what your friends are interested in. So it's not that much different than it used to be, but it's more intrusive because now instead of only having one. A couple of hundred magazines Countrywide that people might subscribe to. We now have millions of websites that we're likely to go to. And we have the conversations, the listen in which frankly, I think is the worst part of all of them. So when they bought WhatsApp, there was a warning of by myself and others saying, be careful, Facebook's going to start to watch you on WhatsApp and Facebook. Good. No. That's never going to happen. There's an article that came out this week. Okay. It's absolutely amazing. This was from pro public. Who looked at the WhatsApp messaging platforms, privacy claims, WhatsApp of course offers quote end-to-end encryption and quote, which most people interpret means that Facebook who owns WhatsApp. Can neither read your messages nor send them off to law enforcement. So some of us are concerned that they're reading it and they're using it from Arcadena et cetera, which okay. I can see, that's a little bit of an invasive invasion of privacy, but it's nothing that hasn't been going on since the 1950s. And the other side of it is what happens if the bad guys get their hands on that information or law enforcement? It reminds me of the old days was stolen, remember stolen. And in his henchmen, they said, Hey, show me the person I'll show you the crime. And the reason he was able to say that is there's so many potential laws that you can bring. If you tell me the person's name, I'll dig into them and watch them, and we'll be able to accuse them of a crime and get them convicted and thrown in prison. So there's those of us who are worried about that potentially happening, then you might say it's not going to happen today. I think frankly, it well could happen today more than it could have, or would have happened just a few years ago, but it keeps getting worse and worse. So I get all. Stuff, but the claim to WhatsApp being safe to say anything on that. No one's monitoring you. No one can see what you're saying is basically false because what they've found a ProPublica is that Facebook employs about a thousand WhatsApp moderators whose entire job is reviewing WhatsApp messages. Now, about some of the censorship this has been going on at Facebook. This is not the same thing because in general, in Facebook, of course, everything is open and available for their computer systems to flag. The automated systems will see it and say, oh, okay. Yeah, this is bad. And they'll just shut you down and then maybe send it off for a person to review. What's happening here with WhatsApp is someone can flag a message that they have received at. Improper now that's where it starts getting to be a little bit crazy here, because with this loophole in WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption, now you don't have that to fall back on that they don't have it, that they can't read. The recipient of any of the WhatsApp messages can flag it once. Flag the messages copied on the recipient's device and sent as a separate message to Facebook for review. Now, the messages are typically flagged for the same reasons they would be on Facebook, but one of the things that's been happening. Is with this content moderation, people who have received the messages from people that they don't like are reporting these messages to Facebook. So they might be in, in a group. You typically is why it works happening. And in, within this group, there's people who are saying things that they just don't like. That is frankly a loophole. Absolutely a loophole. So it's not any different from someone receiving a message screenshot in it or shown their device to another person that's received. But now it's an automated process. Millions of teams every year have found that out too, with their disappearing videos on Snapchat. They don't all just disappear. And that's a problem we're having right now with WhatsApp. So what should you use? What could you use? The number one recommendation that I have for you guys is to use signal. You'll find it online. Signals available for every mobile device out there, pretty much it's available for most desktop operating systems and it is end to end encrypted. And the guy who wrote it who has Mr. Marlin spike has an odd name? He has done this because he wants people to have true privacy in their messages. So signal pretty good. WhatsApp, not so good. You might not want to use it, but by the way, it's huge in use. Hey, take a minute. If you haven't already sign up for my weekly show notes and my trainings that are in them, you'll get them absolutely free. Craig peterson.com. And if you had done that, you'd already know all about WhatsApp and signal and what type of email you should be using. Big data has strikes again in this time it's in Los Angeles. If you get pulled over by the police, would you give them your social media information, your email address, et cetera. Question mark? Huh? Here we go. LAPD has started doing something that most people are saying is unethical and may be illegal is well, they were sued the Los Angeles police department in order to. Some information out of the police department. Cause some people had been reporting things and the Brennan center for justice is what it's called, sued them. Okay. Now this is at the New York school of law. The NYU school of law, the Brennan center is, and they filed a public records request with LAPD and police departments from other major cities. And they were trying to find out what's going on. What kind of data are these police departments collecting and the LAPD resisted making these documents available? I guess that's a clue, right? And so they did ultimately provide over 6,000 pages of documents after the Brennan center. Sued the department. And one of these documents was a memo from the LAPD chief. His name was Charlie. Back in May, 2015. He said that quote one, completing. F I report officers should ask for persons shall social media and email account or information and included in the additional info box. Now, what they're talking about is a, basically a field contact or field interview form, and he was telling them that they need to get all kinds of information, basically anything they can, but more specifically, once or Twitter handle Instagram. Profiles. There's a spot on here for all kinds of information. I'm looking at the report right now. Who are the name your date of birth, your sex, your gang, your or your monitoring moniker? Yeah, not everyone's in a gang guys. And let's see field interview, incident number, the division detail. So the only thing, oh, and by the way, social security number as well. And if you're asking them for their social security number, it tells you they have to read this assess federal law requires that you be in. When asked for your social security number that must be provided for use and identification authority for required. This information is based upon field interview procedures operational prior to January 1st, 1975. Remember the social security number was only going to be used by the treasury department for. Income to verify that you'd been paying and would not be used by any other federal departments or state and local. In fact, it was illegal at the time. Anyways, I guess I'm rambling about this. Cause the social security number thing really upsets me because of. Everybody's collecting it and the bad guys have your social security number and it's being used as some sort of a university universally unique number. We call those UIDs IDs in the computer world, but it's not. And unlike a regular you ID that can easily be regenerated, they will not issue you in a new social security number. If your old one was stolen. It's really crazy. So it may be an unusual policy, even though the LAPD has been doing it for years. Let's see. So a lawyer in the burn-in centers, the library in national security programs wrote, he said, apparently nothing bars officers from filling out field interview forms for each interaction, they engage. On patrol, notably our review of information about the field information cards in 40 other cities did not reveal any other police departments that use the cards to collect social media data though. Details are spars, publicly available documents to try to determine if other police departments are channeling. I collect social media during the field interview were requested, but found that most are not very transparent about their practices. So I guess that's not too surprising. Here's where it starts getting more concerning for me anyways. And that is, they are feeding all of this information from these contact cards into a system that was developed by. Amazon. This is a system called plant Palentier. There you go. Palentier. And in fact, there was an open letter that was written by the staff at Amazon to Jeff. Bayzos asking bayzos to stop selling this technology to law enforcement. Okay. That's how bad it is. Here's an article from ARS Technica. Amazon staff have called on CEO, Jeff Bezos to stop selling facial recognition technology to law enforcement and government agencies. Do the book 10 channel that the tech is used to harm the most marginalized. Microsoft and Google also have done the same thing. Now you hear that and you say, that's really good, kudos to you. I'm glad that you are trying to stop this. And yet at the same time, these same employees don't seem to have a problem with selling this technology to the red, Chinese. At all, they don't seem to have a problem with it in some of these other countries that are using it for just terrible things. Further this letter that they wrote demanded that Amazon stopped selling their cloud services to data analytics from planet here. They have numerous government contracts involved in the operation of ISIS detention and deportation programs goes on and on. So what makes sense to you? The ACL you recently reported that Amazon's recognition facial technology is being sold to police departments. It can identify faces in photos and videos. Amazon pitched in as a way of identifying and tracking suspects. The issue that is raised here by the ECLU is the militarization of the police. How far can it go? Should it go? The targeting of activists and ISIS family separation policy. Now this was in 2018, just so that okay. So back in the day, of course, anything president Trump did was evil. And so this stuff they came out and said was evil. I haven't, I looked and I haven't got anything more reasoned about this. So for some reason, the Biden administration using this, isn't a problem LAPD using this apparently was a problem and continues to be a problem. Keep an eye out for it locally, because here's the other side of this whole thing they say. Are they being the police officer when they pull you over I need this information. I need to inspect your car. I need to search your person, et cetera. They may need to, but that doesn't mean that they have the. Legal right or constitutional right to do it. So typically the police only ask for things that they can constitutionally asked for, that they should ask for. And people, most people know they can refuse a search depending on the circumstances and they, but they don't because you're honoring the police officer. Going on from there honoring the police officer. I also mean that people are allowing the police to gather this information because of, again, the respect that giving to that police officer. And in fact, they apparently do. There's another study in this article that talks about that. It's a problem. We gotta be careful all of this data being fed into a big system that tracks us, that, the bad guys are going to get their hands on that data. Eventually. Hey, visit online Craig peterson.com and check out today's newsletter. You'll find in there links to this and all of today's stories. Do you remember when president Trump was trying to block Tik TOK, this Chinese social site that so many of us were using? Of course now that's all gone. That's all history. And there's another piece of news about them. Tik TOK is a social media site that really rose a like crazy. It is owned by 10 cent, which is a Chinese company. Now, as all companies in China are controlled by the socialists, the communist party of China, the CC CCC CCP. Remember those initials from back in the day. They are now being given access to location information about Americans, about all kinds of places in the United States, in photos, people's names, their locations, you name it. Through tick talk to Chinese government, the Chinese military, the people's liberation army as they call it. And we're giving all of this information voluntarily. So president Trump had a problem with that. Why should a Chinese company be allowed to track American citizens? Now at the time, took talk was quite popular and was growing in popular. Now we're seeing a news story from the BBC saying the tech talk has overtaken YouTube in the average watch time per user in the United States and the United Kingdom. YouTube is still the bigger video site. They have YouTube as far more users, they have far more video that's watched, but what we're talking about here is something that is specific, but it's still scary, which is the average us tick-tock user watches, more video than the average YouTube view. So if you're a marketer, maybe it's time to get on Tik TOK, but also right now, tick talk is really the younger generations. It's not the older folk. Okay. I expect that eventually just like Facebook started with the college students and it has now really grown to being a an over 40, even over a 50 year old web. At Facebook, the same thing will happen for Tik TOK, but we're getting concerned here because tic talk is upended the streaming and social landscape. With these small videos, it reminds me of how the goldfish, why is the gold fish or the happiest animal in the world? Because it only has a five second. That was just great from Ted lasso. I don't know if you've watched that show at all. That's one of these apple TV shows out there it's really it's really true because these Tik TOK videos are extremely short and the whole goal of it is to have something that's funny and they've had challenges and various other things that they've done too, but they have really gone crazy. Google has tried to counter tic talk. They've had their own little thing. Facebook's had their own little thing with these short videos, but this time spent metric that we're talking about here is from the monitoring from app Annie. That's the name of it. And it only accounts. Android phones because some of this monitoring cannot be done on I-phones. Okay. But it also does not include China where tech talk is a major app in over in China. It's called . I probably didn't pronounce that one quite right either, but it is a massive audience that they have out there and. I'm looking at all of the stat. It's just absolutely amazing. You can see those of course in the newsletter for today, but yeah. Live streaming apps Twitch. For example, viewers can purchase bits virtual currency and send them to cheer for streamers journal, live stream and stuff. This is an interesting business. Tik TOK has definitely taken it over. And we're seeing that that nobody's been able to really do anything. YouTube has it's Tik TOK clone called YouTube short. It was launched in may. This is a 62nd video clips, whole ideas. It's mobile first it's swipe up. Also out there with, I love this. This is ARS Technica, calling it a photocopier, which is what YouTube does, within an upstart video service comes along a Twitch, see YouTube gaming. Anyways, everybody's trying to get into it. No one's being successful at it yet, other than tech talk. And do we really want the red, Chinese having access to all of that? Think what's innovative. You've got GPS information coming from your smartphone. So they know exactly where it's taken. They know who you are. They know information about you as a user. I don't know. It gets scary. And then you think about what happened with the Wu Han lab and what escaped out of there. Could they use that? Might they use that home? My goodness on a very concerned. Okay. From Krebs on security, we have a warranty. For Microsoft users, attackers are now exploiting a windows zero day PLA. So this is a previously unknown vulnerability in windows 10 and many windows server versions. And what it allows them to do is seize control over PCs. When users open a malicious document or. A booby trapped website. There's currently no official patch for it, but Microsoft has released recommendations in order to help mitigate the threat. These mitigations aren't the best, frankly, but we'll see it affects what's called the Ms. HTML component of internet Exploder on windows 10 and many windows servers that are out there. And of course, internet Exploder has been deprecated. For use people should not be using it anymore. So for those of you who are still using internet Explorer, I've got two words for you from the famous Bob new heart, just an amazing guy. So here we go. Okay. Here you're there. That's from an old routine. I couldn't help, but think of it, but yeah, that's the bottom line. You need to stop using internet Explorer. It does not work well. It is bug Laden. Like most Microsoft software seems to be, and it is now under direct attack. So make sure that. Patch had Shirley patch off. And now I am in the middle of putting together. This is another bit of free content for everybody, but two things. One is a cyber health assessment that you can do yourself. And shall I show you how? And I'm going to have a course on that too. A paid course that gets into a lot more detail. But the basics is, I want you guys to understand that. And then the other thing is in the next 90 days, what are the things that you should do and can do to make your computers safer? Now, as usual, this is aimed at businesses, but works great for. Individuals for home users. And we'll see how this ends up going. But frankly, the zero day attacks are going to keep happening. They happen to Microsoft. They happen to apple. They happen to everybody, but they all release patches. The only one that you are going to have trouble with patches on is older versions of windows. And of course Android. What else do I have to say? Any older Android phone? Cause they lose support very quickly. So don't use those, but make sure patch Tuesday. All of those patches are installed from Microsoft and visit me online. Craig peterson.com. Make sure you sign up for my newsletter so you can get these coming up and more.
Batteriezellen made in Germany: Im Podcast Update spricht ZEIT ONLINE Autor Jonas Schulze über den Strategiewechsel der Autoindustrie. Außerdem hat der Bundestag heute entschieden, dass Nutzer von E-Autos künftig beim Laden mit Kreditkarte bezahlen können. Außerdem im Update: Bundesrat lehnt Streichung von Werbeverbot für Schwangerschaftsabbrüche ab. In Italien müssen künftig alle Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer nachweisen, dass sie gegen Corona geimpft oder getestet sind. Was noch? Mit bunten Kleidern demonstrieren afghanische Frauen gegen die Taliban. Moderation und Produktion: Susan Djahangard Mitarbeit: Alma Dewerny Fragen, Kritik, Anregungen? Sie erreichen uns unter email@example.com Weitere Links zur Folge: Bundesrat: Ladesäulen für E-Autos müssen Kartenzahlung ermöglichen (https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-09/bundesrat-elektromobilitaet-stromzapfsaeulen-kartenzalung-tranzsparenzregel-abgeordnete-verschaerfung ) Autobau: Im Jahr 108 nach Henry (https://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2021/04/autobau-elektroautos-microfactories-autoindustrie-zukunft) Schwangerschaftsabbrüche: Bundesrat lehnt Streichung von Werbeverbot für Abtreibungen ab (https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-09/bundesrat-werbeverbot-abtreibungen-streichung-abgelehnt-paragraf-219a) Paragraf 219a: Debatte um Schwangerschaftsabbrüche (https://www.zeit.de/thema/schwangerschaftsabbruch) Grüner Pass: Italien führt 3G-Pflicht für alle Betriebe ein (https://www.zeit.de/gesundheit/2021-09/italien-gruener-pass-italien-gruener-pass-verpflichtung-arbeitswelt-impfkampagne-roberto-speranzaarbeitnehmer-pflicht) Bunte Kleidung statt schwarzer Burka: So demonstrieren afghanische Frauen im Netz (https://www.rnd.de/panorama/bunte-kleidung-statt-schwarzer-burka-so-demonstrieren-afghanische-frauen-im-netz-JERRFCX3VZHTTA62YP32ZNMYHU.html)
Th 9/11 attacks were the deadliest terror attack in US history, but were bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda really responsible? Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli look at claims that other nations were involved or that it was an "inside job" by US officials or that there was a coverup.
On this week's podcast episode SOFREP Senior Editor and SOFREP Radio host Steve Balestrieri talks with Chris Wallace the host of Fox News Sunday and the author of the recently released book Countdown Bin Laden, the Untold Story of the 247-day Hunt to Bring the Mastermind of 9/11 to Justice. Chris Wallace's book details the 247-day hunt for the head of al-Qaeda after the CIA located the courier that he was using to communicate with his operatives around the world. Talking to Steve, Chris Wallace highlights the contrast between the bungled handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and the events at Kabul Airport with the series of successes that led to tracking down, positively identifying, and eliminating Osama bin Laden. In recounting these, Chris's book is a celebration of American capabilities. As Steve says, the hunt for bin Laden is a case study of everything going right. Chris relates how Rob O'Neill, the veteran SEAL Team Six who took out bin Laden, told him that it was a "one-way mission;" the uncertainties were just that many. As Steve points out, the book can be considered a historical thriller. Although we know the ending, this doesn't detract from the tension that the participants in the events felt. And through Chris Wallace's expert writing the reader feels the same tension. Chris also emphasizes how tracking down bin Laden became a top priority for President Obama, despite common perception. Nevertheless, the book isn't only about the operational aspects of the mission. It also portrays the emotional impact it had on the families of 9/11 victims. This is done by telling the story of New York police officer Jessica Ferenczy, whose fiancee was a NY City police officer killed during 9/11. Join us for another episode of SOFREP Radio with Steve Balestrieri and Chris Wallace and find out the process that led to this highly recommended book. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Th 9/11 attacks were the deadliest terror attack in US history, but were bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda really responsible? Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli look at claims that other nations were involved or that it was an "inside job" by US officials or that there was a coverup. The post The 9/11 Conspiracy (Inside job?; 9/11 truth; September 11 attacks) appeared first on SQPN.com.
It's been 20 years since the attacks of 9/11. Next month, we'll mark the 20th anniversary of the arrival of American troops in Afghanistan who toppled the Taliban regime and hunted down Osama bin Laden. Now, as American combat troops leave Afghanistan, we sit down with Craig Whitlock who has pieced together the secret history—warts and all—of America's war in a land long-called “the graveyard of empires.” Craig Whitlock is an investigative reporter for The Washington Post. He has covered the global war on terrorism for the Post since 2001 as a foreign correspondent, Pentagon reporter, and national security specialist. In 2019, his coverage of the war in Afghanistan won the George Polk Award for Military Reporting, the Scripps Howard Award for Investigative Reporting, the Investigative Reporters and Editors Freedom of Information Award, and the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for international reporting. He has reported from more than sixty countries and is a three-time finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
As the 20th anniversary of 9/11 approached Peter Bergen sought to reevaluate the man responsible for precipitating America's long wars with al-Qaeda and its descendants. Bergen produced the first television interview with bin Laden in 1997. He has had years to reflect on and study the man. In his new book The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden he captures all the dimensions of his life: family man, zealot, battlefield commander, terrorist leader, and fugitive. Join International Spy Museum Historian and Curator Andrew Hammond in conversation with Bergen about the many contradictions he finds in bin Laden and why his legacy lives on despite his failure at achieving any of his strategic goals. Bergen, a Vice President at New America, is the author or editor of nine books, including three New York Times bestsellers and four Washington Post best nonfiction books of the year. He is a national security analyst for CNN and has testified before congressional committees 18 times about national security issues. Thanks to exclusive interviews with family members and associates, and documents unearthed only recently, Bergen has used the knowledge he has gained in the intervening years to discover who bin Laden really was and why he continues to inspire a new generation of jihadists.
Like you, I've been STUNNED and HEARTBROKEN over how events in Afghanistan have unfolded during the past several weeks. Our pullout remains an open wound, especially after 13 of our brave service members were killed in a suicide bombing on August 26 outside the Abbey gate of Kabul's airport.
Anchor of FOX News Sunday Chris Wallace sits down with Trey Gowdy to discuss his new book, Countdown bin Laden: The Untold Story of the 247-Day Hunt to Bring the Mastermind of 9/11 to Justice. Wallace gives listeners a look inside the Situation Room the day bin Laden was killed, as well as his thoughts on the current state of political media, and his perspective on moderating the 2016 and 2020 presidential debates. Follow Trey on Twitter: @TGowdySC
On this edition of Parallax Views, the great Scott Horton, an inspiration for Parallax Views, the host of The Scott Horton Show, and the author of both Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terror, joins us to provide a down-and-dirty history lesson on the War on Terror and how neoconservative war hawks played right into bin Laden's hands in the aftermath of 9/11. Bin Laden, Scott argues, wanted the U.S. to react to 9/11 by getting involved in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, Scott says, was a "Vietnam 2.0" that would inevitably end the same way the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan ended. Who were the architects of these wars? We delve into the neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen and their enablers like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who gave us the decades long nightmare of the War on Terror in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. We talk George W. Bush, the waste of the War on Terror, why conservative, libertarians, and progressives should oppose wars and imperial hubris, the history of the neocons and their ex-Trotyskite roots, John Podhoretz, radical Islamists, Colin Powell, and much, much more!
The war in Afghanistan is over. In this episode, we document how and why the Biden administration finally admitted defeat in our 20 year attempt to create a new government in Afghanistan and we take a hard look at the lessons we need to learn. Afghanistan is a country in a far away land, but there are disturbing similarities between the Afghanistan government that just collapsed and our own. We'd be wise not to ignore them. Executive Producer: Rachel Passer Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD210: The Afghanistan War CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War How We Got Here Craig Whitlock. The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Patrick Tucker. August 18, 2021. “Trump's Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says.” Defense One. Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley. August 17, 2021. “Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.” FactCheck.org. Eric Schmitt and Jennifer Steinhauer. July 30, 2021. “Afghan Visa Applicants Arrive in U.S. After Years of Waiting.” The New York Times. Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh. December 9, 2019. “The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war.” The Washington Post. Mark Landler and James Risen. July 25, 2017. “Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals.” The New York Times. John F. Harris. October 15, 2001. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden ” Washington Post. The Evacuation: Those Left Behind William Mauldin. September 2, 2021. “Afghanistan Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Staff Left Behind.” Wall Street Journal. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni. August 29, 2021. “Series of U.S. Actions Left Afghan Allies Frantic, Stranded and Eager to Get Out.” The York Times. Sami Sadat. August 25, 2021. “I Commanded Afghan Troops This Year. We Were Betrayed.” The New York Times. Marjorie Censer. August 18, 2021. “US contractors rush to get former employees out of Afghanistan.” Defense News. Siobhan Hughes. August 18, 2021. “Afghanistan Veterans in Congress Trying to Prevent ‘a Death Warrant' for Helping America.” Wall Street Journal. Alex Sanz and Tammy Webber. August 18, 2021. “US friends try to rescue brother in arms in Afghanistan.” AP News. Seth Moulton. June 04, 2021. "Moulton, Bipartisan Honoring Our Promises Working Group to White House: Evacuate our Afghan Partners.” Contractors in Afghanistan Matt Taibbi. August 18, 2021. “We Failed Afghanistan, Not the Other Way Around.” TK News by Matt Taibbi on Substack. Jack Detsch. August 16, 2021. “Departure of Private Contractors Was a Turning Point in Afghan Military's Collapse.” Foreign Policy. Matt Stoller. July 15, 2021. “‘A Real S*** Show': Soldiers Angrily Speak Out about Being Blocked from Repairing Equipment by Contractors.” BIG by Matt Stoller. Lynzy Billing. May 12, 2021. “The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan? Tell That to the Contractors.” New York Magazine. Oren Liebermann. March 29, 2021. “Pentagon could open itself to costly litigation from contractors if US pulls out of Afghanistan this year.” CNN. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. “Comment Submitted by Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman.” [Regulations.gov(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations.gov). Aaron Mehta. Oct 25, 2016. “30 Years: William Perry — Reshaping the Industry.” Defense News. Jared Serbu. August 22, 2016. “DoD now awarding more than half its contract spending without competitive bids.” Federal News Network. 41 U.S. Code § 3307 - Preference for commercial products and commercial services. Money: Lost and Gained David Moore. August 23, 2021. “Lawmakers Benefit From Booming Defense Stocks.” Sludge. Lee Fang. August 20, 2021. “Congressman Seeking to Relaunch Afghan War Made Millions in Defense Contracting.” The Intercept. Anna Massoglia and Julia Forrest. August 20, 2021. “Defense contractors spent big in Afghanistan before the U.S. left and the Taliban took control.” OpenSecrets.org. Stephen Losey. April 16, 2021. “The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising.” Military.com. Eli Clifton. February 16, 2021. “Weapons Biz Bankrolls Experts Pushing to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan.” Daily Beast. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Lobbying, 2021. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Money to Congress. Laws S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 Sponsor: Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Status: Became Public Law No: 116-92 on December 20, 2019 H.R. 3237: Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 May 20 House Vote Breakdown Congressional Budget Office Score Law Outline TITLE IV: BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM Sec. 401: Amends the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expand eligibility to include Afghans who worked not only for the US Government for more than 1 year but also our allies as an off-base interpreter or if they performed "activities for United States military stationed at International Security Assistance Force (or any successor name for such Force). Increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to Afghan partners by 8,000, for a total of 34,500 allocated since December 19, 2014. Sec. 402: Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of state to jointly waive for 1 year (maximum 2 years with an extension) the requirement that Afghan partners eligible for SIVs get a medical exam before they can receive their visa. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to create a process to make sure Afghan SIV holders get a medical exam within 30 days of entry into the United States. Sec. 403: Allows the surviving spouse or child or employee of the United States Government abroad to be eligible for immigration into the United States if the employee worked for our government for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. It also expands entry permissions for Afghan SIV applicants in addition to those who have already been approved. This is retroactive to June 30, 2021. Policies for Visa Processing: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Policy Manual, Chapter 9: Certain Afghan Nationals U.S Department of State -- Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans - Who Were Employed by/on Behalf of the U.S. Government.” Audio Sources Gen. Mark Milley: "There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days." August 18, 2021 General Mark Milley: The time frame of rapid collapse that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks to months, and even years following our departure, there was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days. Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. These plans were coordinated, synchronized and rehearsed to deal with these various scenarios. One of those contingencies is what we are executing right now. As I said before, there's plenty of time to do AARs(After Action Reviews) and key lessons learned and to delve into these questions with great detail. But right now is not that time. Right now, we have to focus on this mission, because we have soldiers at risk. And we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk. This is personal and we're going to get them out. President Biden on Afghanistan Withdrawal Transcript July 8, 2021 Sound Clips 01:30 President Biden: When I announced our drawdown in April, I said we would be out by September, and we're on track to meet that target. Our military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31. The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way, prioritizing the safety of our troops as they depart 3:40 President Biden: Together with our NATO allies and partners, we have trained and equipped nearly 300,000 current serving members of the military, the Afghan national security force, and many beyond that are no longer serving. Add to that hundreds of thousands more Afghan national defense and security forces trained over the last two decades. 04:04 President Biden: We provided our Afghan partners with all the tools, let me emphasize, all the tools -- training, equipment -- of any modern military. We provided advanced weaponry, and we're going to continue to provide funding and equipment and we'll ensure they have the capacity to maintain their Air Force. 5:54 President Biden: We're also going to continue to make sure that we take on Afghan nationals who worked side by side with US forces, including interpreters and translators. Since we're no longer going to have military there after this, we're not going to need them and they'll have no jobs. We're [sic] also going to be vital to our efforts. they've been very vital, and so their families are not exposed to danger as well. We've already dramatically accelerated the procedure time for Special Immigrant Visas to bring them to the United States. Since I was inaugurated on January 20, we've already approved 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas to come to the United States. Up to now, fewer than half have exercised the right to do that. Half have gotten on aircraft and come commercial flights and come and other half believe they want to stay, at least thus far. We're working closely with Congress to change the authorization legislation so that we can streamline the process of approving those visas. And those who have stood up for the operation to physically relocate 1000s of Afghans and their families before the US military mission concludes so that, if they choose, they can wait safely outside of Afghanistan, while their US visas are being processed. 8:13 President Biden: For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months, or just one more year, I asked them to consider the lessons of recent history. In 2011, the NATO allies and partners agreed that we would end our combat mission in 2014. In 2014, some argued one more year. So we kept fighting. We kept taking casualties. In 2015, the same, and on and on. Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that just one more year of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution, but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It's up to the Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country. Others are more direct. Their argument is that we should stay with the Afghans and Afghanistan indefinitely. In doing so they point to the fact that we we have not taken losses in this last year. So they claim that the cost of just maintaining the status quo is minimal. 9:19 President Biden: But that ignores the reality, and the facts that already presented on the ground in Afghanistan when I took office. The Taliban is at its strongest militarily since 2001. The number of US forces in Afghanistan had been reduced to a bare minimum. And the United States and the last administration made an agreement that they have to with the Taliban remove all our forces by May 1 of this year. That's what I inherited. That agreement was the reason the Taliban had ceased major attacks against US forces. 9:55 President Biden: If in April, I had instead announced that the United States was going to go back on that agreement, made by the last administration, the United States and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, the Taliban would have again begun to target our forces. The status quo was not an option. Staying would have meant US troops taking casualties, American men and women back in the middle of a civil war, and we would run the risk of having to send more troops back in Afghanistan to defend our remaining troops. Once that agreement with the Taliban had been made, staying with a bare minimum force was no longer possible. 10:34 President Biden: So let me ask those who want us to stay: how many more? How many 1000s more Americans' daughters and sons are you willing to risk? How long would you have them stay? Already we have members of our military whose parents fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Would you send their children and their grandchildren as well? Would you send your own son or daughter? After 20 years, a trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of 1000s of Afghan National Security and Defence Forces. 2,448 Americans killed, 20,722 more wounded, and untold 1000s coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. 11:51 President Biden: Today the terrorist threat has metastasized beyond Afghanistan. So, we are repositioning our resources and adapting our counterterrorism posture to meet the threats where they are now: significantly higher in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 12:07 President Biden: But make no mistake, our military and intelligence leaders are confident they have the capabilities to protect the homeland and our interests from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from Afghanistan. We're developing a counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed at any direct threat to the United States in the region and act quickly and decisively if needed. 12:38 President Biden: We also need to focus on shoring up America's core strengths to meet the strategic competition competition with China and other nations that is really going to determine our future. 14:58 Reporter: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? President Biden: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops, 300,000. Well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. 15:45 President Biden: Do I trust the Taliban? No, but I trust the capacity of the Afghan military who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war. 18:07 Reporter: Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse President Biden: That is not true 18:53 President Biden: And I want to make clear what I made clear to Ghani, that we are not going to walk away and not sustain their ability to maintain that force. We are. We're going to also work to make sure we help them in terms of everything from food necessities and other things in the region. But there is not a conclusion that in fact, they cannot defeat the Taliban. I believe the only way there's going to be -- this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community -- the only way there's only going to be peace and secure in Afghanistan, is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and they make a judgement as to how they can make peace. And the likelihood there's going to be one unified government in Afghanistan, controlling the whole country is highly unlikely. 21:30 Reporter: Mr. President, how serious was the corruption among the Afghanistan government to this mission failing there? President Biden: First of all, the mission hasn't failed yet. 22:00 President Biden: There were going to be negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan national security forces, and the Afghan government that didn't come to fruition. So the question now is where do they go from here? The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. 23:20 Reporter: Mr. President, "speed is safety," as you just said in your remarks. Are you satisfied with the timeline of relocating Afghan nationals? Is it happening quickly enough to your satisfaction if it may not happen until next month at the end? President Biden: It has already happened, there have already been people, about 1000 people have gotten on aircraft and come to the United States already on commercial aircraft. So as I said, there's over 2500 people, that as from January to now, have have gotten those visas and only half decided that they wanted to leave. The point is that I think the whole process has to be speeded up -- period -- in terms of being able to get these visas. Reporter: Why can't the US evacuate these Afghan translators to the United States to await their visa processing as some immigrants of the southern border have been allowed to? President Biden: Because the law doesn't allow that to happen. And that's why we're asking the Congress to consider changing the law. President Biden Remarks on Afghanistan Strategy Transcript April 14, 2021 Sound Clips 00:38 President Biden: I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt -- the Treaty room in the White House -- the same spot where in October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls, that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon and made hallowed ground in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would never forget. We went to Afghanistan in 2001, to root out al Qaeda to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear, the cause was just, our NATO allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress. More than seven years later, in 2008 weeks before we swore the oath of office -- President Obama and I were about to swear -- President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged, mountainous region on the border of Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country. And that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan Government. I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that, we accomplished that objective. I said, along with others, we would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did. And we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment into form. And that's exactly what happened Osama bin Laden was gone. That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to Bin Laden a decade ago. And we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. Al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. With the terror threat now in many places, keeping 1000s of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdraw and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. 5:01 President Biden: When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all US forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited. That commitment is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government. And that means something. So in keeping with that agreement, and with our national interest, the United States will begin our final withdrawal beginning on May 1 of this year. 8:11 President Biden: You all know that less than 1% of Americans serve in our Armed Forces. The remaining 99%, we owe them. We owe them. They've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) High-Risk List Center for Strategic and International Studies Transcript March 10, 2021 Speaker: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Sound Clips 7:40 John Sopko: But right now, that state is under threat. In the wake of the February 2020 withdrawal agreement, all is not well. Compromise appears in short supply on either side. Taliban attacks have actually increased since the agreement was signed. Assassination of prominent officials, activists, journalists, aid workers and others have also increased, including an unsuccessful attack on one of the female members of the peace negotiating team. And the Taliban offensive on Kandahar city last October, as peace negotiations were ongoing, may well have succeeded, were it not for U.S. air support. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have achieved little for Afghanistan so far, and only time will tell as to whether the new Biden administration initiative will bear fruit. And the Afghan people's fears for its own government survival are exacerbated by the knowledge of how dependent their country is on foreign military and financial support. 12:56 John Sopko: Another equally serious threat to Afghanistan's stability has also largely been ignored as we focus on the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is the provision of last year's U.S.-Taliban agreement that stipulates that in addition to the departure of U.S. and coalition troops, or non-diplomatic civilian personnel: private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting service personnel also must leave the country by May 1. Should this come to passSIGAR and many others believe this may be more devastating to the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces than the withdrawal of our remaining troops. Why is that? Because the Afghan government relies heavily on these foreign contractors and trainers to function. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 there are over 18,000 Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan, including 6000 Americans, and 7,000 3rd country nationals, 40% of whom are responsible for logistics, maintenance, or training tasks. Now, it is well known that the Afghan security forces need these contractors to maintain their equipment, manage supply chains, and train their military and police to operate the advanced equipment that we have purchased for them. For example, as of December, the Afghan National Army was completing just under 20% of its own maintenance work orders, well below the goal of 80% that was set and the 51% that they did in 2018. So that's actually going down. The Afghan National Police were just as bad if not worse, undertaking only 12% of their own maintenance work against a target of 35% and less than the 16% that we reported in our 2019 high risk list. Additionally, and more troubling. The Department of Defense does train, advise and assist command air, or commonly called TAC air recently reported that since late 2019, they have reduced their personnel in Afghanistan by 94%, and that the military drawdown now requires near total use of contract support to maintain the Afghan Air fleet. They assess that quote “further drawdown in the associated closure basis will effectively end all in country aviation training contracts in Afghanistan.” Again, why is this significant? Why do we view this as a high risk? Namely because contractors currently provide 100% of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force, UAE 60 helicopters and CE 130 cargo aircraft and a significant portion of Afghans Light Combat Support aircraft. TAC air this January gave a bleak assessment, namely, that no Afghan airframe can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months in the absence of contractor support. 17:51 John Sopko: Continued funding for U.S. reconstruction programs aimed at promoting economic development, rule of law, respect for human rights, good governance and security for the Afghan people may be more significant, because it may be the primary lever left for the US and other donors to influence that country. It appears that even the Taliban understand Afghanistan's dire need for foreign assistance. Because, as one of the few commitments that the US had to make last year was, “to seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, with the new post settlement, Afghan Islamic government.” Now how much the donor community wishes to stay involved will of course depend on what that government looks like and how it behaves. Numerous officials, including then Secretary of State Pompeo and Ambassador Halley, have stated that the US will be able to advance its human rights goals, including the rights of women and girls with the Taliban by leveraging or conditioning this much needed financial assistance. But unfortunately, as SIGAR has long reported, even when conditionality involved only dealing with the Afghan government, donors do not have a stellar record of successfully utilizing that conditionality to influence Afghan behavior. 27:19 John Sopko: Today our report suggests the donor community should realize the Afghan government is focused on a single goal, its survival. Afghanistan is more dependent on international support than ever before. It may not be an overstatement that if foreign assistance is withdrawn and peace negotiations fail, Taliban forces could be at the gates of Kabul in short order. Hearing: A PATHWAY FOR PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN: EXAMINING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Subcommittee on National Security February 19, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Afghanistan Study Group officials: Kelly A. Ayotte, Co-Chair; News Corp Board of Directors since April 2017 BAE Systems Board of Directors since June 2017 Blackstone Board of Directors Boston Properties Board of Directors Caterpillar Board of Directors Board of Advisors at Cirtronics General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. (Retired), Co-Chair Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Lockheed Martin Board of Directors since February 2020 Nancy Lindborg, Co-Chair President and CEO of the David Lucile Packard Foundation Former President and CEO of the US Institute for Peace Former Assistant Administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at USAID During the mid-Obama years. Sound Clips 3:13 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I'd also like to take a moment to thank the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace for the support and expertise they provided to the study group during the course of its work. 3:23 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill Congress led by Senator Graham Senator Patrick Leahy and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of state foreign ops and related programs. They tasked the independent and bipartisan Afghanistan study group to quote, consider the implications of a peace settlement or the failure to reach a settlement on US policy, resources and commitments in Afghanistan. After nearly nine months of review and consultation with current and former US and Afghan government officials, allies and partners and other key stakeholders, the Afghanistan study group issued its final report earlier this month. 15:12 Kelly Ayotte: We recommend that US troops remain beyond may 1. We believe a precipitous withdrawal of US and international troops in May, would be catastrophic for Afghanistan, leading to civil war, and allow the reconstitution of terror groups which threaten the United States within an 18 to 36 month period. 15:41 Kelly Ayotte: Let me be clear, although we recommend that our troops remain beyond may 1, we propose a new approach toward Afghanistan, which aligns our policies, practices and messaging across the United States government to support the Afghan peace process, rather than prosecute a war. Our troops would remain not to fight a forever war, but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again, for terrorists who threaten the United States of America. 37:15 General Joseph F. Dunford: Do we need to increase forces if the Taliban don't accept an extension past the first of May, and if they then would re initiate attacks against US forces? and Chairman, we heard exactly what you heard. In the fall. What we were told by commanders on the ground in the department of fence was that 4500 US forces, in addition to the NATO forces that are there was the minimum level to address both the mission as well as protection of our forces in the context of the conditions that existed in the fall in as you've highlighted, those conditions have only gotten worse since the fall so in in our judgment 2500 would not be adequate. Should the Taliban re initiate attacks against the United States Hearing: Examining the Trump Administration's Afghanistan Strategy House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on National Security January 28, 2020 Witness: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Sound Clips 48:54 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command, all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success, and that goes up. 54:24 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time,be cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that onus, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 1:10:25 John Sopko: Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. Wartime Contracting Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs September 21, 2011 Witnesses: Charles Tiefer: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Clark Kent Ervin: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Sound Clips 1:11:30 Charles Tiefer: Our private security in Afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoffs to the Taliban. Our report has the first official statement that it's the second-largest source of money for the Taliban. Sen. Carl Levin: After drugs. Charles Tiefer: After drugs, that's right. 1:25:18 Clark Kent Ervin: It's critical that the government have a choice, and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable, organic capacity on the part of these three agencies to perform missions themselves, so the next time there's a contingency, the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in-house and the determination can be made whether it's more effective to do it either way, whether it's cheaper to do it either way. As we said at the inception, right now the government doesn't have an option. Contractors are the default option because they're the only option. President George W. Bush announces U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan October 7, 2001 President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: close terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. ** International Campaign Against Terrorism Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 25, 2001 Witness: Colin Powell: Secretary of State Sound Clip 27:00 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. Executive Producer Recommendations Elect Stephanie Gallardo 2022 Krystal Kyle and Friends. August 21, 2021. “Episode 35 Audio with Matthew Hoh.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
Este sábado se conmemoró el vigésimo aniversario de los atentados del 11 de septiembre en Nueva York y Washington. Todos los años es una fecha muy señalada en el calendario para los estadounidenses, pero este año era especial por dos razones. La primera era que se trataba de un aniversario redondo, veinte años exactos. La segunda que la guerra que siguió a los atentados, la de Afganistán, tocó a su fin hace sólo unos días en una debacle militar, política y diplomática como no se recordaba desde la década de los setenta con la retirada de Vietnam. El 11-S supuso el final de muchas cosas y el principio de otras tantas. Aquellos atentados son un vierteaguas en la historia del mundo actual. Nada volvió a ser lo mismo en la escena internacional. Estados Unidos quedó traumatizado por la masiva pérdida de vidas y humillado en su ser más íntimo por lo espectacular del atentado, a plena luz del día y realizado con aeronaves comerciales que habían despegado de aeropuertos estadounidenses. Nunca había sucedido nada ni remotamente parecido. El ataque no fue perpetrado por una potencia extranjera como había sucedido, por ejemplo, en Pearl Harbour en 1941, sino por una organización yihadista de límites un tanto difusos. No había, en principio, nadie a quien responder, pero el Gobierno de George Bush, que llevaba sólo unos meses en la Casa Blanca, no se podía quedar de brazos cruzados. Identificó el origen de la amenaza en el lejano Afganistán, gobernado en aquel entonces por los talibanes, un grupo de fundamentalistas islámicos que se había impuesto años antes en la guerra civil de aquel país. Dieron un ultimátum para que le entregasen a Osama bin Laden, un saudí señalado por el Pentágono como autor intelectual de los atentados. Los talibanes se negaron y EEUU intervino invadiendo el país y desalojándoles del poder. Año y medio más tarde la ofensiva continuaría por Irak, una ratonera de la que tardarían muchos años en salir. El desgaste militar, financiero y político que ocasionó la respuesta al 11-S está aún por cuantificar, pero ha sido inmenso. Los errores de apreciación y cálculo han sido numerosos. El país ha estado librando guerras interminables e infructuosas, pero eso no ha puesto fin ni al fundamentalismo islámico ni al resurgimiento de la yihad. Entretanto han emergido rivales como China que hoy suponen una amenaza real y directa para el poderío estadounidense. En La ContraRéplica: Robert Malone La falla de Valencia La muerte de Abimael Guzmán Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals
Author and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen joins us for a new installment of our "Full Bio" series. He discusses his new book, The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden, a biography of the man who helped orchestrate 9/11 and changed the course of American history forever.
Twenty years after Sept. 11, we're giving you a break from the money talk, and instead re-airing an interview we did back in 2017 with retired Admiral William “Bill” McRaven. If Bill's name sounds familiar, it's because he presided over the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Bill was the man who identified the body when it was flown back to Afghanistan and told President Obama that the U.S. finally had their guy. A few years later in 2014, the four-star admiral and 37-year Navy SEAL veteran delivered the commencement speech at his alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin (Hook ‘em Horns!). Little did McRaven know that his address, which spoke to how students could overcome challenges and change themselves, would become a viral hit with more than 10 million views online. In January, 2015 Bill became the Chancellor of the entire University of Texas system (retired 2018) and was encouraged to expand his commencement speech into a book, Make Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the World. Have a money question? Email us, ask jill [at] jill on money dot com. Please leave us a rating or review in Apple Podcasts. "Jill on Money" theme music is by Joel Goodman, www.joelgoodman.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Mike Morell was with President Bush on the morning of 9/11. He saw the President several times that day. Ten years later he was with President Obama for the bin Laden raid. He was former Acting and Deputy Director of the CIA. He comes from Ohio. For the rest, it's best if you hear Mike. “I believe that when we get to the end of the trail, we're going to find al Qaeda, and we're going to find an Osama bin Laden. I told him that I was so confident in that judgment that I would bet my children's future on it.”
On this edition of Parallax Views, it's the 20th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks that took down the World Trade Center buildings and damaged the Pentagon (another plane was headed for the White House but ended up crashing in Shanksville, PA). Questions remain, even after the 9/11 Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission, about the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the events of that fateful day. A lawsuit by the 9/11 victims' families is underway. Joining us to untangle the question of the Saudi connection to 9/11 is Dan Christensen of the Florida Bulldog (formerly the Broward Bulldog). Dan Christensen is an journalist who has been covering the story of 9/11 for some years now alongside Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, authors of The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11. As a Florida resident Dan covered the Sarasota, Florida connection to the 9/11 story. Specifically, he detailed the figure of Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his reported relationship to 911 hijackers Mohammad Atta and Marwan al-Sheh. Additionally, Dan has also covered the renegade FBI investigation known as Operation Encore. He has received redacted documents related to Operation Encore that relate to 9/11 and Saudi Arabia. In this conversation we cover all of that as well as the ways in which the FBI has seemingly stonewalled investigations into the Saudi connection to 9/11, the Southern California connection to 9/11 vis-a-vis the suspected Saudi agents Omar al-Baymoui, Musaed al-Jarrah, and Fahad al-Thumairy, Saudi Arabian diplomat Prince Bandar bin Sultan (nicknamed "Bandar Bush") and his subpoena by the 9/11 victims' families, Osama bin Laden, Biden's Executive Order calling for the review of 9/11 records to be declassified, the FBI, Sen. Bob Graham, the infamous "28 pages", Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaydah and Prince Bandar, the role of Congress in pushing the issues related to Saudi Arabia and 9/11, why the 9/11 victims' family lawsuit matters for society at large, state secrets, the secret pre-9/11 report on al Qaeda sleeper cells in America, the ongoing efforts to unveil the seeming connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and much, much more.
Twenty years after Sept. 11, we're giving you a break from the money talk, and instead re-airing an interview we did back in 2017 with retired Admiral William “Bill” McRaven. If Bill's name sounds familiar, it's because he presided over the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Bill was the man who identified the body when it was flown back to Afghanistan and told President Obama that the U.S. finally had their guy. A few years later in 2014, the four-star admiral and 37-year Navy SEAL veteran delivered the commencement speech at his alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin (Hook ‘em Horns!). Little did McRaven know that his address, which spoke to how students could overcome challenges and change themselves, would become a viral hit with more than 10 million views online. In January, 2015 Bill became the Chancellor of the entire University of Texas system (retired 2018) and was encouraged to expand his commencement speech into a book, Make Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the World. Have a money question? Email us, ask jill [at] jill on money dot com. Please leave us a rating or review in Apple Podcasts. "Jill on Money" theme music is by Joel Goodman, www.joelgoodman.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
As the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks approaches, a new biography traces Osama bin Laden's path from a shy, religious teenager to the leader of a global jihadist group dedicated to mass murder. Journalist Peter Bergen, who met the al-Qaida leader in 1997, says that a series of events kept pushing bin Laden "further and further down the path of radicalization." We also talk about conditions in Afghanistan after the U.S. troop withdrawal, and the chances that terrorist organizations will flourish there as al-Qaida did in the '90s. Bergen's new book is 'The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden.'Also, Justin Chang reviews the new Paul Schrader film 'The Card Counter,' starring Oscar Isaac and Tiffany Haddish.
We air the final installment of 'Full Bio' with Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst and author of the book The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. Today, we discuss how the Pentagon missed an opportunity to capture bin Laden, and how on-the-ground surveillance led to the discovery of his compound in Pakistan.
We discuss our experiences of 9/11 and the speculated psychology of Bin Laden. Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattleEmail: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contactGet merch: https://teespring.com/stores/psychology-in-seattleDr. Kirk's Cameo: https://www.cameo.com/kirkhondaInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/Discord: https://discord.gg/6QR4sE8x9KReddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/PsychologyInSeattle/Twitter: https://twitter.com/PsychInSeattleFacebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/Facebook Fan Page (run by fans): https://www.facebook.com/groups/112633189213033The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Journalist Peter Bergen has spent decades reflecting on the man responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Now, twenty years after that fateful day, he joins our commemoration series to provide insights into Osama bin Laden's life, his lasting influence, and the enduring War on Terror.
For nearly a quarter century, since he produced the first interview of Osama bin Laden, the threat of terrorism and its implications for national security has been the focus of Peter Bergen's prolific work. The most recent of his nine titles closes the book on bin Laden, charting his rise and fall and world that passed him by. Peter then turns his focus to today's world, the end of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and how foreign policy and counter terrorism may evolve in the years and decades ahead. Inside the ICE House: https://www.theice.com/insights/conversations/inside-the-ice-house
This year marks 20 years since 19 men hijacked four planes, driving two of the aircraft into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania, after several of the passengers fought back. The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and left 25,000 people injured and were organized by Osama bin Laden, who used his faith as justification for the attacks. Several days after September 11, 2001, President Bush addressed the country: These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule. The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race. Under the Bush administration, the US initiated the “War on Terror” which carried out a number of military inventions around the world to fight Islamic extremism, which included invading and occupying two majority Muslim nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, all of this political rhetoric and direct action had significant consequences for how the country and church engaged Muslims domestically and internationally.Thomas Kidd is the author of American Christians and Islam: Evangelical Culture and Muslims from the Colonial Period to the Age of Terrorism (Princeton University Press, 2008) and works at Baylor University where is a distinguished professor of history, the James Vardaman endowed professor of history and the associate director of Institute for Studies of Religion. His most recent book is Who Is an Evangelical?: The History of a Movement in Crisis. Kidd joined global media manager Morgan Lee and executive editor Ted Olsen to discuss how American evangelicals interacted with Muslim before 9/11 and what has changed since. What is Quick to Listen? Read more Rate Quick to Listen on Apple Podcasts Follow the podcast on Twitter Follow our hosts on Twitter: Morgan Lee and Ted Olsen Follow our guest Thomas Kidd Music by Sweeps. Quick to Listen is produced by Morgan Lee and Matt Linder The transcript is edited by Faith Ndlovu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Attempting to crash an aircraft into a building was not an entirely new paradigm. Despite Secretary Rice stating, “I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile” (Brush, 2002, para. 24), there had been numerous prior attempts to utilize aircraft in this manner (CNN, 2001). In addition, there had been a significant number of warnings suicide hijackings posed a serious threat. In 1972, hijackers of Southern Airways Flight 49 threatened to crash the airliner into Oak Ridge National Laboratory if a $10 million ransom was not paid (CNN, 2001). Copilot Johnson reported, “The demands at Knoxville were that if we didn't have the money by 1:00 that we'd crash into the nuclear reactor there” (CNN Transcripts, 2001, para. 151). The hijacked airliner was placed in a dive toward Oak Ridge, and was only pulled out of the dive at the last minute when Southern Airways agreed to pay $2 million to the hijackers (Allison, 2004). In 1974, S. Byck attempted to hijack a Delta Airlines DC-9 aircraft to crash it into the White House (Cohen, 2009). During the hijacking, Byck killed a security guard and the copilot before committing suicide after being wounded by police. Also in 1974, Private R. Preston stole an Army helicopter and flew over the White House and hovered for six minutes over the lawn outside the West Wing, raising concerns about a suicide attack (White House Security Review, n.d.). Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow (2003) conducted an exhaustive threat analysis for the World Trade Center. They concluded that an aerial attack by crashing an aircraft into the Center was a remote possibility which must be considered. Reports indicated Iran was training pilots to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings: “Trained aircrews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner into a selected objective” (Bodansky, 1993, p. 15). Senator S. Nunn was concerned terrorists would attempt to crash a radio-controlled airplane into the Capitol during a State of the Union address, possibly killing the President, Vice President, and all of Congress (Nelan, 1995). In 1994, four Algerian terrorists attempted to hijack Air France Flight 8969 (Air Safety Week, 1995). The group, identified as Phalange of the Signers in Blood, killed one of the passengers, planted explosives on the plane, and planned to crash the aircraft into the Eiffel Tower (Bazerman & Watkins, 2005). French police stormed the aircraft and stopped the hijacking. R. Yousef, the architect of the first World Trade Center attack, was associated with these Algerian terrorists (Lance, 2003). Another attempted airliner suicide hijacking occurred in 1994. Flight Engineer A. Calloway boarded Federal Express Flight 705 as an additional jump seat crewmember, intending to overpower the crew and crash the DC-10 aircraft into the Federal Express corporate headquarters in Memphis (CVR Database, 1994). Calloway attacked the flight deck crew with a hammer, inflicting serious, permanent disabling injuries to all three pilots (Wald, 2001). On September 11, 1994, F. Corder attempted to crash an aircraft into the White House (Wald, 2001). Experts had been concerned the White House was highly vulnerable to an attack from the air (Duffy, 1994). Former CIA director R. Helms expressed concern a suicidal pilot could easily divert from an approach to Washington to crash into the White House (Duffy, 1994). In 1995, FBI informant E. Salem revealed a Sudanese Air Force pilot's plot to bomb the Egyptian President's home and then crash an aircraft into the U.S. Embassy (Berger, 2004). Salem also testified about Project Bojinka, which, in addition to the aforementioned bombing of 11 American aircraft, included crashing an airplane into CIA headquarters. In addition to CIA headquarters, this second Bojinka wave was planned to target the Pentagon, an unidentified nuclear power plant, the Transamerica Building in San Francisco, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the World Trade Center, John Hancock Tower in Boston, U.S. Congress, and the White House (Brzenzinski, 2001). McNeil (1996) noted in 1996, Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 was hijacked and an attempt was made to crash into a resort in the Comoros Islands. At the last moment, the pilot overpowered the hijacker and ditched the fuel-starved airplane into the Indian Ocean near the coast. Of the 175 passengers, 123 died (AirSafe Journal, 2001). Also in 1996, M. Udugov, a Chechen leader, threatened to hijack a Russian airliner and crash it into the Kremlin (Cohen, 2002). In 1998, White House Terrorism Chief R. Clarke conducted a training exercise to simulate a Learjet intentionally crashing into a government building (Kaplan, 2004). Clarke considered the exercise unsatisfactory (Kaplan, 2002). In a 1998 briefing to the FAA, three terrorism experts were concerned terrorists would hijack airliners and crash into buildings in the United States (Fainaru, 2002). In 1998 the Kaplancilar terrorist organization had planned to crash an explosives-laden plane into the tomb of M. Ataturk, Turkey's founder (Anadolu Agency, 2006). The entire Turkish government was gathered at the mausoleum for a ceremony on the day scheduled for the attack. The plot was foiled and the conspirators were arrested shortly before execution of the plan (Anadolu Agency, 2006). In addition to actual aircraft suicide attacks, there were numerous predictions of these types of attacks. One such prediction was the script which showed an airliner crashing into New York in the 1980s movie Escape from New York (“Kamikaze Jet Hijacking,” n.d.). Another prediction was in the March 2001 pilot episode of the Fox series The Lone Gunmen, featuring a hijacked Boeing 727 used as a missile to crash into the World Trade Center (Killtown, 2009). In 1999, the British Secret Service MI6 provided the U.S. Embassy in London with a secret report on al Qaeda activities (Rufford, 2002). The report indicated al Qaeda was planning to use commercial aircraft to attack the United States. The report stated the aircraft would be used in “unconventional ways” (Rufford, 2006, para. 1). In a report prepared for the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, Hudson (1999) noted numerous terrorist threats, and specifically named bin Laden and al Qaeda: “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House” (p. 7). A 1999 keynote address at the National Defense University warned terrorists might attempt to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to attack buildings (Hoffman, 2001). Security consultant C. Schnabolk had remarked, in 2000, the most serious threat to the World Trade Center was someone flying a plane into it (Reeves, 2001).
We continue 'Full Bio' with Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst and the author of the book The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. Today, we discuss the 9/11 attacks, and what the Clinton and Bush administrations did and did not know before September 11, and what they did and did not do.
We air the next installment of "Full Bio" with author and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen, who discusses his new book The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden, a biography of the man who helped orchestrate 9/11 and changed the course of American history forever. Today, we will discuss how bin Laden exerted his influence in the 1990s, how he chose his targets, and his relationship with the Taliban. We'll also learn about the Gina Bennet, the first U.S. intelligence officer to recognize bin Laden as a lethal thread, and about the first time Bergen himself met with bin Laden.
Lawrence Wright is the author of The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 which won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction and was named one of Time's top 100 books of all time. In this episode, released just before the 20th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, Lawrence and Peter discuss the book and the lasting impact of that day. Lawrence reflects on his personal experiences on that day and how he was first drawn into reporting on the attacks. Lawrence then discusses in detail the history that led up to 9/11 which is really composed of two parallel stories. The first story is of the growing discontent in Muslim countries, the roots of Islamic radicalism, and how two extremists, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, joined forces to create the global terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. The second story is about how interpersonal and institutional conflicts between the FBI and CIA led to a massive failure in intelligence and resulted in multiple missed opportunities to predict and prevent the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Finally, they reflect on what we should have learned from 9/11 and the future of terrorism. We discuss: Lawrence and Peter recount their personal experiences on September 11th, 2001 [3:30]; How 9/11 changed the US into a security state and affected a generation [9:45]; Lawrence's early coverage of 9/11 and how he knew it was going to be “the story of our lifetime” [14:45]; Egyptian politics and the foundation of radical Islam [22:45]; Anwar Sadat's presidency, assassination, and the birth of the radical Islamic movement [33:00]; Aftermath of the Sadat assassination, and establishment of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan [50:15]; Osama bin Laden: Upbringing, involvement in the Soviet–Afghan War, and rise to celebrity status in Saudi Arabia [56:00]; How the Western intervention in Saudi Arabia impacted Arab nationalist's hatred of America [1:15:30]; Theorizing on the role of the religion in holding back Islamic states from making progress towards democracy [1:20:30]; Bin Laden's time in Sudan [1:32:30]; The CIA vs. the FBI: setting the stage for the failure of US intelligence [1:37:00]; The mistake by US intelligence of not taking the bombings of the US embassies and the USS Cole seriously [1:46:00]; Al-Qaeda in America: Losing the planners of the 9/11 attacks from our clutches and incompetence at the FBI and CIA [1:56:00]; Problematic policies in Europe, and a direct message warning of the 9/11 attacks [2:14:45]; The role of political infighting and personality conflicts that helped enable the 9/11 attacks and the lack of accountability [2:22:45]; What came of the 9/11 commission, the role of the Saudi government, and the trials of Ali Soufan [2:36:00]; Lessons from 9/11 and the future of terrorism [2:46:30]; and More. Learn more: https://peterattiamd.com/ Show notes page for this episode: https://peterattiamd.com/LawrenceWright Subscribe to receive exclusive subscriber-only content: https://peterattiamd.com/subscribe/ Sign up to receive Peter's email newsletter: https://peterattiamd.com/newsletter/ Connect with Peter on Facebook | Twitter | Instagram.
America isn't the victim of military and political incompetence. It's sabotage. Elites in the State Department and Intelligence community set this up in order to establish the world order they think works best. Wait till you see who is leading the Taliban government. It's Osama bin Laden on steroids. It's only 7 months and America under Biden is beating itself up like Jim Carrey's bathroom scene in Liar Liar. And yet I am hopeful. “But they will progress no further, for their FOLLY will be manifest for all to see.” ( 2 Tim 3:9)
America is approaching the 20th anniversary of 9/11, one of the darkest days in U.S. history. While the story has been told and retold each September 11th, there are always new perspectives to observe and learn from regarding this tragic day. Bill Hemmer joins to discuss his new Fox Nation special airing Sunday, September 5th called “The Lost Calls of 9/11.” Following the events of that day, a man in Houston, Texas purchased used computer equipment and when he took the machine home and plugged it in he was shocked to discover it contained 103 never-heard-before calls from a trading room floor just across the street from the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11th. Bill explains how the calls tell a story of Americans seeing an attack unfold before their eyes and the emotional calls of men and women calling their families and loved ones and how the withdrawal from Afghanistan sets the stage for terror to potentially return to that same region where Al-Qaeda hatched the 9/11 terror attack. A new Texas abortion law restricting the procedure six weeks after pregnancy has thrown the issue back into the national spotlight following the Supreme Court ruling to allow the ban to continue. The vote was 5-4. President Biden and many prominent Democrats have already spoken out against both the Texas law and the Supreme Court ruling, however, the five conservative judges who rejected the attempt to block this controversial law explained in their opinion that this decision is not an indication of whether the law itself is unconstitutional or not. The future of this Texas abortion ban is unclear as the Supreme Court will hear a Mississippi abortion case which will be the first abortion case considered by the High Court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. Host of Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace joins to discuss the details of the Texas abortion law and why the Supreme Court awaits the Mississippi case to make a significant decision on abortion rights. Later, Chris discusses the heavy political price President Biden can expect to pay for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and how it relates to his new book coming out September 7th, Countdown bin Laden, in which he details the thrilling 247-day manhunt to bring to justice the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Plus, commentary by former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland.
RUSH: I told you people yesterday and the day before of a movie, a mini-series running on ABC on September 10th and 11th, called The Path to 9/11 and I told you that I have the DVDs. I also told you because I am in touch — I am poor when I'm in New York — I do not have a DVD player. I don't. My apartment's got an old media room in it, it's got a laser disk player in it, but it doesn't have a DVD. Well, actually it has a DVD player in it, but the TV doesn't work. The projector does, and it's the only room in the house where there's a DVD player, and I can't watch DVDs on computers because I can't hear well through computer speakers. So I watched it. It's four hours. I have the DVDs right here. I'm holding them in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. I watched on the plane flight home last night. I watched part of the first one. I had to go to the airplane to watch it. I'll tell you, this is called being in touch with the average American. I couldn't watch a DVD at home. At any rate, let me just give you the upshot of this, because I've mentioned to you even without having seen it I know what it's about. The Path to 9/11 essentially chronicles everything we know that happened in the nineties that prevented the capture of Osama bin Laden. It indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/09/01/bill_clinton_personally_attempts_to_getabc_s_path_to_9_11_mini_series_recut/ Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Explosions outside Kabul airport, at least 3 American marines injured, many Afghans killed. Biden presidency implodes. Afghan translator describes 5-year-old girl dying in his arms. Taliban says bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11. Blinken admits the Taliban is in control. Biden has humiliated America, we are dependent on Taliban for the security of our citizens in Afghanistan. Sean Parnell calls on President Biden to retake Kabul, save American citizens, predicts Biden will withdraw, leave Americans and allies behind. The Biden presidency's epitaph could be written in the next 72 hours. President Trump will join Clay & Buck on deadline day, August 31st. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Peter Bergen about the US exit from Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, and his new book, “The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden.” They discuss the Neo-isolationist consensus on the Right and Left, the legitimacy of our initial involvement in Afghanistan, our ethical obligations to our Afghan allies, Biden's disastrous messaging, the weakness of the Afghan army, the advantages of the Taliban, the implications for global jihadism, the relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, how Osama bin Laden came to lead al-Qaeda, bin Laden's sincere religious convictions, our failure to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora, the distraction of the war in Iraq, the myth that the CIA funded al-Qaeda, bin Laden's wives, his years of hiding in Pakistan, his death at the hands of US Special Forces, and other topics. SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe. Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.