zenpundit.com

{ by Charles Cameron — including the curious case of the Covenant of Security ]
.

Michael Kenney, on the recommendation of John Horgan:

Lots of reports in the media about London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt’s “membership” in al-Muhajiroun, but this is not how network activists understand membership in al-Muhajrioun. For them it is about “intellectual affiliation,” gaining the ideological and practical knowledge they need to be competent activists. ALM is full of rotating recruits. These people come in, get exposed to the network’s ideas, radicalize to different degrees, and then often leave after a certain period of involvement, typically lasting months or years. Some leave b/c they don’t accept ALM’s interpretation of the Covenant of Security, which forbids attacks in UK, as long as their lives and livelihoods are protected. Butt may have believed that the Covenant no longer applied to him in the UK, allowing him to engage in violence in his home country. This is not ALM’s position on the Covenant, though activists emphasize this is each individual’s decision.

Here’s a description of the Covenant of Security, from a long-ago Daniel Pipes piece about the Covenant and al-Muhajiroun, titled Does a “Covenant of Security” Protect the United Kingdom?:

According to Sifaoui, it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [a loudmouth pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here. Ironically, then, the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathisers in the UK actually makes British people safer, while the full brunt of British-based terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries.

Michael Kenney, more:

To learn more about al-Muhajiroun, please see my JCR article with @steve_coulthart and Dom Wright, Structure and Performance in a Violent Extremist Network:

This study combines network science and ethnography to explore how al-Muhajiroun, a banned Islamist network, continued its high-risk activism despite being targeted for disruption by British authorities. We analyze news reports, interviews, and field notes using social network analysis and qualitative content analysis to test hypotheses pertaining to network structure and performance. Our analysis suggests that the activist network’s structural properties had important implications for its performance during three separate time periods. What began as a centralized, scale-free-like, small-world network centered on a charismatic leader evolved into a more decentralized “small-world-like” network featuring clusters of local activists connected through multiple bridges. This structure allowed the activist network to engage in contentious politics even as its environment became increasingly hostile. We conclude by discussing the implications of al-Muhajiroun’s small-world solution for scholars and policy makers.

[ by Charles Cameron — Eric Trump & voices in the uncanny valley ]
.

First, here’s Eric Trump saying the Democrats are “not even people”:

Now, for an exact comparison, here’s what “not even people” sound like, when they speak those same words:

Listen to the gaps, Eric, the lapses of emphasis.

Artificial human voices will no doubt improve: at this point they’re easily discernible. They sound uncanny.

Dems don’t sound like that.

[ by Charles Cameron — this will surely encourage Comey to be forthcoming on Thursday ]
.

From Clapper‘s stunning speech at the Australian National Press Club:

Comaring Watergate with the current crisis:

I lived through Watergate. I was on active duty then in Air Force, I was a young officer. It was a scary time. It was against the backdrop of the post Vietnam trauma as well which seemed, at least in my memory, amplified as a backdrop, amplified the crisis in our system with Watergate. I have to say, though, I think you compare the two that Watergate pales really in my view compared to what we’re confronting now.

Sources of concern:

I am very concerned about the assault on our institutions coming from both an external source — read Russia — and an internal source, the President himself.

Paranoia and the dossier:

Clapper said he sensed “extreme paranoia” in Trump during his interactions with the new president, and lamented Trump’s stance toward the U.S. intelligence community in particular.

*

“Then President-elect Trump disparaged the intelligence community’s high-confidence assessment of the magnitude and diversity of this Russian interference that I just described by characterising us as Nazis,” he said.

“This was prompted, I found, I realised later, by his and his team’s extreme paranoia about and resentment of any doubt cast on the legitimacy of his election which, of course, our assessment did.”

*

Clapper claimed that when he called Trump to talk about intelligence, the president asked him to disavow the controversial intelligence dossier that claimed Russia had compromising material on Trump.

“I tried, naively as it turned out, to appeal to his higher instincts by pointing out that the US intelligence community that he was about to inherit is a national treasure in our country and that the people in it were committed to supporting him and making him successful. Ever-transactional, he simply asked me to publicly refute the infamous dossier which I couldn’t and wouldn’t do,” Clapper said.

Clapper said he sensed “extreme paranoia” in Trump during his interactions with the new president, and lamented Trump’s stance toward the U.S. intelligence community in particular. Clapper claimed that when he called Trump to talk about intelligence, the president asked him to disavow the controversial intelligence dossier that claimed Russia had compromising material on Trump.

“His subsequent actions, sharing sensitive intelligence with the Russians and compromising its source, reflect either ignorance or disrespect and either is very problematic.”

Firing Comey:

“Certainly the whole episode with the firing of Jim Comey, a distinguished public servant, apart from the egregious inexcusable manner in which it was conducted, reflect complete disregard for the independence and autonomy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our premiere law enforcement organisation.”

Trustworthy in the Administration:

He observed there were people in the administration who could be trusted – nominating Jim Mattis, the defence secretary, John Kelly, the homeland security chief, and HR McMaster, the national security adviser. “They have understanding and respect for our institutions,” he said.

Smoking gun:

“Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don’t know the answer to that. I think it’s vital, though, we find that out.

Upcoming Comey testimony:

Mr Clapper pointed to the possibility of further damaging revelations when James Comey, the former FBI director sacked by Mr Trump, gives evidence on allegations of Russian interference in US politics before a congressional hearing Thursday, Washington time.

“I think it will be very significant to see both what he says and what he is asked about and doesn’t respond to,” said Mr Clapper.**

**

My sources and more:

It is to be regretted that neither a complete video nor a complete transcript of this major speech is readily available as yet, except perhaps in Australia. I have made this compilation as well as I coud, working from some of the following sources:

The Australian, Trump administration ‘pales’ compared to Watergate

Sydney Morning Herald, US-Australia bond transcends transitory occupant of White House

Huffington Post, Oz, Former U.S. Intelligence Chief Just Unleashed On Donald Trump

News.com.au, Former US intelligence chief ranks watergate less of a scandal

Guardian, James Clapper says Watergate ‘pales’ in comparison with Trump Russia scandal

ABC, Oz, Donald Trump’s alleged Russia links will dwarf Watergate scandal

[ by Charles Cameron — shd be obvious, but useful to know in the battle for hearts and minds, buddhism! ]
.

Hearts and minds, hearts and brains — tell me, heart, are minds and brains the same?

**

Sources:

The National, Pat Kane: To stop terror we must look into the hearts of Jihadis

Lion’s Roar, Buddhist researchers find actual link between heart, mind

[ by Charles Cameron — a matter of visual rhetoric, NYT’s Trump and Magritte ]
.

I’m intuiting that these two graphical representations somehow use the same visual logic to achieve their ends:

**

If I was more alert in some semi-defined sense, I’d be able to diagram them in a manner similar to that which Douglas Hofstadter uses to diagram the conceptual working of MC Escher‘s hands drawing hands —

— another brilliant ouroboros, for those who are keeping count!

**

How does “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:” fit into this (Escher) picture?