The Cost of Endless War Since 9/11

Posted with permission and written by Rory Hall, The Daily Coin

 

 

 

If it were just Federal Reserve Notes that were stolen that would be one thing, but the fact of the matter is we have happily handed over our freedom, individual sovereignty and our national identity. Currently, as a people and as a nation, we are completely lost.

 

For those that remember, Donald Rumsfeld announced on 9/10, you know the day before 9/11, that the Pentagon, the Pentagon that Rumsfeld had been overseeing for years, could not account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars - then you know he and the Pentagon accountants are nothing more than thieves. How do you lose 2.3 trillion of anything? You don’t. You either knowingly give it to someone or you steal it. Either way, you know exactly where 2.3 trillion “widgets”, dollars or grains of sands were placed.

 

Now we learn the Pentagon has spent 3 times more than was originally estimated on the never ending un-Constitutional war. The un-Constitutional invasions of Libya, drone strikes on Yemen and the absolute destruction of Iraq have cost us a lot more than trillions of dollars. If we just focus on the spending for a minute, we see that our country should be the shining city on the hill, but instead, we are the indebted cesspool of corruption and war criminals.

 

Let’s not forget that “ISIS” was trained, armed and funded by the CIA - you know, another group of warmongers that we the tax payers are responsible for paying – read here, here and here for starters to learn about the CIA’s role in the formation of ISIS.

 

THE COST OF WAR FOR THE U.S. TAXPAYER SINCE 9/11 IS ACTUALLY THREE TIMES THE PENTAGON’S ESTIMATE

The United States military has spent more than $5.6 trillion on conflicts since 2001, more than three times the Pentagon’s actual estimate, according to a new study.

The Department of Defense reported earlier this year that it had spent around $1.5 trillion on conflicts, including putting putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, air raids in Syria and Iraq to battle the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and a drone campaign and raids against extremists in Pakistan.

But that figure appears to underplay the real cost of war for the American taxpayer, at least according to the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University. It puts the total cost at $5.6 billion, or $23,000 per taxpayer.

The Pentagon’s initial estimate put the taxpayer cost at $7,740 per person for the conflicts since the Al-Qaeda-hatched 9/11 attacks in New York that killed almost 3,000 people.

“War costs are more than what we spend in any one year on what’s called the pointy end of the spear,” the study’s author, Neta Crawford, told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported its findings.

“There are all these other costs behind the spear, and there are consequences of using it, that we need to include.”

A picture taken on July 9 shows smoke billowing following an airstrike by the U.S.-led international
coalition forces targeting the Islamic State (ISIS) group in Mosul, Iraq. AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP/GETTY

The image above represents what used to be a neighborhood where families lived, worked and prayed. It is now nothing but a pile of rubble with bodies strewn about like so many bricks or pieces of meaningless nothing. The warmongers want more death, like what you see above, because it means more profits for them. More of our tax dollars move out of our accounts and into these murderers" accounts. Look at that image of what used to be a neighborhood. What have we become?

 

Newsweek article continues:

 

The study examines not only the money spent by the Pentagon but also the State Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security, for resources dedicated to the “war on terrorism.”

The total costs include financial support for allies in the battle against extremist groups, mostly from eastern Europe, such as Croatia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, and a trillion dollars added for the care of veterans who may have received injuries in the conflicts.

The U.S. has spent 16 years in Afghanistan, a conflict that is set to continue with President Donald Trump announcing in September an expansion of the U.S. military presence there to battle the Taliban and ISIS.


The U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011 after a decade of occupation but has continued to support and advise Baghdad’s troops. The U.S. airforce has led a coalition of international forces to conduct air raids against ISIS and wrestle back large tracts of territory from the group in western and northern Iraq.

However, the study does not consider U.S. military assistance outside of these countries against ISIS, such as Tunisia, the Philippines or Egypt. Source

These funds represent death and destruction, not peace and prosperity. Look at the image above. This is what we have become and the warmongers want more, always more.

 

Will it ever end? Will we ever see a return of humanity to our country? We will ever see a return of the rule of law, morals or a sense of decency? The black hole our country has slipped into seems to be engulfing the landscape and unless we can slow this out-of-control runaway train we are going to continue moving into the darkness never to see Light again. Is this who we are; is this who we have become?

 

 

Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.

 

 

 

The Cost of Endless War Since 9/11

Posted with permission and written by Rory Hall, The Daily Coin

 

The "War On Terror" Has Cost American Taxpayers $250 Million A Day For 16 Years

Authored by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

The U.S. government has spent a staggering $1.46 trillion on wars abroad since September 11, 2001, according to the Department of Defense’s (DoD) periodical “Cost of War” report. As International Business Times reports, this amounts to $250 million a day for 16 years consecutively.

The newly released version, published by the Federation of American Scientists’ Secrecy News blog, spans war-related activity from the September 11th terrorist attacks through mid-2017.

According to the report, despite the fact that the war on terror is still ongoing rapidly to this day, Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2011) and Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2014) account for the vast majority of the cost, amounting to more than $1.3 trillion collectively.

It must be noted that this analysis only covers direct war-related expenses and is certainly on the lower side of such estimates of the cost of American wars to date. For example, in 2014, a report from Congress’ nonpartisan research arm found that the government had already shelled out over $1.6 trillion for the war on terror. That estimate would amount to approximately $337 million per day every single day for that 13-year period.

Last year, a report released by Dr. Neta Crawford, professor of political science at Brown University, found that spending by the United States Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs since 9/11 was even higher, reaching almost $5 trillion.

That being said, the DoD’s recent report mainly covers the costs of military operational costs, support for deployed troops, and transportation of personnel and equipment. It does not include the expense of veterans’ benefits for troops who served in these wars. The cost of veterans’ benefits alone is projected to be somewhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion. The total also notably does not include “non-DoD classified programs” such as those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency, which, as we know, has a significant budget of its own.

Further, war zones where the U.S. military has been actively engaged in recent years, such as Libya and Somalia, did not even receive specific mentions in the report. If $250 million a day for a 16-year period already sounds far too much to be spending on death and destruction, one can be assured that the true financial cost of the war on terror is, in reality, much higher.

As International Business Times explained, the war on terror has become America’s costliest war since World War II:

“According to the Congressional Research Service, the only war in U.S. history to cost more than the Global War on Terror is World War II, at more than $4.1 trillion in present dollars. Direct war-related expenses from the Vietnam War cost $738 billion in today’s dollars.”

As StockBoardAsset.com reports, glancing at the American empire, there are nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. 

To maintain this global force,  the US Senate approved a $700 billion military bill this year. The amount eclipses $549 billion military spending cap established by 2011 Budget Control Act. More evidence fund flows are increasing, as the narrative is being set with America’s next enemy in the crosshairs.

France: New Anti-Terrorism Law Takes Effect

Authored by Soren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

• The new law authorizes prefects to order the closure of mosques or other places of worship for a period of up to six months if preachers are deemed to express "ideas or theories" that "incite violence, hatred or discrimination, provoke the commission of acts of terrorism or express praise for such acts."


• French police and intelligence services are surveilling around 15,000 jihadists living on French soil, Le Journal du Dimanche reported on October 9. Of these, some 4,000 are at "the top of the spectrum" and most likely to carry out an attack.


• Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, Le Figaro revealed on October 26.

French President Emmanuel Macron has formally signed a new counter-terrorism law which gives prefects, police and security forces wide-ranging powers — without the need to seek prior approval from a judge — to search homes, place people under house arrest and close places of worship. The measure also authorizes police to perform identity checks at French borders.

The new law, adopted by the French Senate on October 18, makes permanent many of the previously exceptional measures imposed under a two-year-old state of emergency, which was introduced after the jihadist attacks in Paris in November 2015. That state of emergency was slated to expire on November 1.

During a signing ceremony at the Élysée Palace on October 30, Macron said the compromise measure strikes the right balance between security and respect for civil liberties. Hardliners counter that the new law does not go far enough, while human rights groups complain that it will leave France in a permanent state of emergency.

The new law — Law to Strengthen Internal Security and the Fight Against Terrorism (Loi renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme) — consists of seven main parts:

Security Zones. The new law gives prefects, the top government official in each of France"s departments or regions, the power to designate public areas and sporting or cultural events, including music concerts, that are deemed to be at risk of terrorism, as security zones. The law authorizes police to search all persons or vehicles attempting to enter such areas or events. Anyone refusing to submit to such searches will be denied access.

 

Closing Places of Worship. The new law authorizes prefects to order the closure of mosques or other places of worship for a period of up to six months if preachers are deemed to express "ideas or theories" that "incite violence, hatred or discrimination, provoke the commission of acts of terrorism or express praise for such acts." Violations are punishable by six months in prison and a fine of €7,500 ($8,750). Opponents of the law argue that "ideas" and "theories" are subjective and therefore open to abuse.

 

House Arrest. The new law authorizes the Minister of the Interior to confine suspected Islamists, even those who are not accused of a specific crime, to the town or city of their domicile. Any individual for whom there are "serious reasons to believe that his or her conduct constitutes a particularly serious threat to public security and public order," may be placed under house arrest — without the prior approval of a judge — for a period of three months, renewable for additional periods of three months to a maximum period of one year. Individuals subject to such confinement will be required to report to their local police station once a day. Alternatively, individuals may be placed under mobile electronic surveillance. The Minister of the Interior may also prohibit individuals from being in direct or indirect contact with certain persons, named by name, who are believed to pose a threat to public security. Violations of the measures are punishable by three years in prison and a fine of €45,000 ($52,500).

 

Search and Seizure. The new law authorizes a prefect to ask a judge for a warrant to search the home of anyone suspected of posing a threat to public security. The individual being searched may be detained for up to four hours if he or she represents "a threat of particular gravity for security and public order" and has "habitual contact to persons or organizations with terrorist aims" or supports and adheres to ideas inciting to such acts. The law also authorizes police to seize any documents, objects or electronic data at the place being searched.

 

Radicalized Public Servants. A civil servant working in fields related to national security or defense can be transferred or even dismissed from the public service if he or she is found to hold beliefs that are "incompatible with the exercise of his or her duties." Soldiers can also be discharged for similar motives.

 

Electronic Surveillance and Data Collection. The new law authorizes the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Transport to collect the telephone and email communications of suspicious individuals "for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offenses and serious crimes." The law also allows security services to access travel information, including from travel agencies, about airline and maritime passengers. Data collection "shall exclude personal data that may reveal a person"s racial or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, political opinions, trade union membership, or data relating to the health or sexual life of the person concerned."

 

Border Checks. The new law authorizes police to conduct warrantless identity checks at more than 118 border areas and 373 airports, seaports and train stations, as well as the surrounding areas up to a radius of 20 kilometers. This encompasses 28.6% of French territory and 67% of the French population, according to Le Monde. Critics say this includes many mainly immigrant suburbs and could lead to harassment of ethnic minorities.

Macron insisted that the new law will allow authorities to combat terrorism "without abandoning our values and principles" and that it will enshrine "full and permanent respect for France"s constitutional order and traditions of liberty." He also pledged to review the law in two years and to make any changes deemed necessary.

Pictured: Police patrol the Champs-Élysées in Paris after a terrorist attack on April 21, 2017, in which one police officer was killed and another wounded. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigration National Front party, criticized the law for being too weak:

"This law is a scam, it is a sub-state of emergency, we will not vote for this harmful text. It will be even less effective than the state of emergency because it is less applicable. This text does not address either the specific Islamic dimension of terrorism or the Islamist ideology that has declared war on us."

Civil rights groups, by contrast, complained about what they have described as a "normalization of emergency powers." Human Rights Watch wrote:

"The law takes elements of emergency practices — intrusive search powers, restrictions on individuals that have bordered on house arrest, closure of places of worship — that have been used abusively since November 2015, and makes them normal criminal and administrative practice. It does all this in a way that weakens the judiciary"s control over and ability to check against abuse in the way the new counterterrorism powers are used by prefects, the Interior Ministry"s appointed delegates in each region."

Amnesty International echoed these concerns:

"Rather than ushering in a period of restored freedoms and civil liberties, the legislation threatens to do the opposite by embedding a raft of repressive measures into ordinary law."

The new law has encountered little resistance from the public. A September 26 poll conducted for Le Figaro found that 57% of respondents said they were in favor of the new law; 62% of respondents said the measure will infringe on civil liberties; 85% said it would improve their security.

More than 230 people have been killed in jihadist attacks in France since January 2015, when Islamic radicals attacked the headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris.

The latest fatalities occurred on October 1, when a 29-year-old illegal immigrant from Tunisia stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille. The man, identified as Ahmed A., was using seven different identities and had a long history of petty crime. He had been arrested just days before the attack for shoplifting, but those charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence. It remains unclear why he was never deported.

French police and intelligence services are surveilling around 15,000 jihadists living on French soil, Le Journal du Dimanche reported on October 9. Of these, some 4,000 are at "the top of the spectrum" and most likely to carry out an attack.

Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, Le Figaro revealed on October 26.

Foreign Affairs Mag Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media

Submitted by Mike Miles, journalist, writer and book author

Foreign Affairs Magazine Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media

Is Foreign Affairs magazine advancing “domestic terrorism” because it could help remove alternative media, and even jail editors and writers or worse. The recent article is entitled “Should We Treat Domestic Terrorists the Way We Treat ISIS? What Works—and What Doesn"t.” It begins as follows:

The mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night has again raised fears about terrorism. There’s much we don’t yet know. The Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed the attack, but the FBI claims that there is no international terrorism link. The attacker, Stephen Paddock, was 64 years old and white, fitting a stereotype of a right-wing terrorist more than a jihadist one. And he may just be a crazy nut. But regardless of Paddock’s particular pathology, the situation highlights how the United States treats similar forms of violence differently depending on the nature of the perpetrator.  

Many commentators have already demanded that we make a case for domestic terrorism including such prominent Youtubers as Philip DeFranco. He runs a website of some six million and offers mildly libertarian commentary. But perhaps he doesn’t understand that he may eventually become a victim of what he wants to invoke. There are many such well-meaning people who quite possibly misunderstand what is happening

How about PropOrNot? This outfit lists around websites “friendly” to Russia and in total includes many of the major alternative websites in the country. Those who run the website say they believe these sites provide propaganda for Russia. 

A recent reading of PropOrNot seems to reveal that the site may have reduced some of the finger-pointing. It says that it does not “censor.” However it continues to list websites nonetheless. The Washington Post drew information from PropOrNot long ago when it was trying to paint alternative websites as Russian sympathizers.

Interestingly, the recent shooting in Las Vegas didn’t make much sense to some people because neither the shooter nor people shot fit into known patterns of terrorism – or so we are told. But what if the real reason to shoot so many people was at least in part to create support for domestic terrorism?

It is surely “conspiratorial” to ask such a question and certainly it must seem far-fetched. On the other hand some commentators have pointed out that there may have been at least two shooters on two separate floors. 

The main point here is that the determination to assault the alternative media seems to have taken a big step forward with this article in Foreign Affairs magazine. No new legislation may be needed, according to the article. The FBI simply needs to go after people who are supposedly questionable.  Sooner or later this could include the alternative media.

Here’s a quote from the end of the article that back-peddles from some of its more Draconian observations about what the FBI could easily do once people supposedly began to make a fuss about “terrorism” on America’s shores:

… Legislation should factor in counterterrorism measures we don’t want as well as ones we do. … The language should be tightly worded and subject to regular legislative oversight—the definition of a foreign terrorist organization is broad, and any domestic legislation should focus heavily on the threat or use of violence and be regularly reviewed to ensure that changes in group behavior are reflected.

And another quote:

The right-wing threat in particular is comparable to that of jihadist violence at home, and similar resources should be allocated to addressing it. The FBI and DHS should create larger offices dedicated to domestic groups and otherwise develop their intelligence presence.

Will the FBI really be subject to “legislative oversight” and be “regularly reviewed.” The people suggesting this supposed advancement are, at the top, possibly some of the most powerful and wealthy people on the planet. This project may not be bound by constraints any more than the current investigation into Trump is being adequately constrained. And it may be happening sooner rather than later.

Of course maybe Congress has dropped legislative authority to create a well-funded group of reporters that will “expose” the alternative media in the US and perhaps abroad. On the  other hand, the move to concentrate on domestic terrorism and then to heighten the battle against the alternative media seems like it could be advancing in earnest. It is certainly possible that the alternative media read by tens of millions is ready to repel the FBI and other forces that could be trying to remove it. But what if it is not?

UK Embraces Pre-Crime - Brits Face 15 Years In Prison For Watching "Terrorist Material"

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The UK’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, is the latest bureaucrat to highlight the increased global trend of governments going completely insane.

Her latest plan is to threaten the British population with up to 15 years in prison for the crime of watching “terrorist material.” Yes, you read that right.

The Guardian reports:

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.

 

A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.

The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

The UK is clearly embracing pre-crime here, since it’s clear someone watching terrorist propaganda in the privacy of their own home does not harm anyone else.

Thus, this is a victimless crime, and as I’ve maintained on many occasions, I do not believe such a thing exists. If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.

What the UK is arguing here is that watching “terrorist material” increases the likelihood of someone committing a violent terrorist attack in the future. So you’re actually being punished for what you might potentially do in the future.

This is pre-crime and it’s totally insane. 

Beyond that, we can pretty much guarantee that the definition of “terrorist material” will expand over time to whatever politicians don’t want the rabble exposed to.

But it gets worse still. Here’s what Rudd had to say about her government’s demented crusade against technology itself.

Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right.

She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.

It’d be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Australian City Council Halts Construction Of Synagogue Over Fears That ISIS Could Target It

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

People living in the West have given up a lot to satisfy their government’s concerns over terrorism. Here in the US for instance, our right to privacy in our homes, on our persons, and especially in our communications, has essentially died since 9/11. Everything we say on our phones or search on the internet is catalogued by the NSA without a warrant, we can’t fly on an airplane without being groped and prodded by TSA agents, it’s now fairly common to be forced through police checkpoints many miles away from any border.

The US isn’t alone in this regard. Across the board, every Western nation has sacrificed essential freedoms in the name of combating terrorism. The only difference is that unlike in the US, most Western nations have sacrificed more speech related freedoms rather than privacy (though all Westerners have lost both rights to some degree). This is especially true in Europe and Canada, where expressing right wing opinions or criticizing Islam is now considered a hate crime, and is believed to be an invitation for more terrorist attacks.

Australians however, seems to be close to losing their right to practice any religion they want. That’s what the Jewish community in Sydney learned recently when they tried to build a synagogue. Residents and city council members decided to not let the structure come to fruition because they feared it would invite terrorist attacks.

The temple was to be built in Bondi, a short walk from Australia’s famous Bondi Beach. But locals worried that the space would pose a security risk to nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians. As evidence of that threat, the council pointed to the synagogue’s own design, which included setback buildings and blast walls. They also said the design would have an “unacceptable impact” on the street and neighbourhood.

“A number of residents agreed with the contentions … and provided additional evidence against the development of the site,” the council said in a statement.

And on top of that, the courts complained that the building’s design would only protect the worshipers inside.

But the court sided with the council. In its decision, the court explained that western countries are under threat from Daesh, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and that the potential of an attack in Australia is considered “probable” by government officials. The court also noted that the designs would serve only to protect those inside the building, not those outside.

You know the West is slipping into collectivist madness, when you can’t construct a building that is only designed to protect the people inside of it from an external threat. That would be like saying that you’re not allowed to own body armor because it doesn’t protect bystanders from gunfire. (Oh wait, body armor is highly regulated in Australia and most people who aren’t cops, soldiers, or security guards can’t own it? Color me shocked.) But worst of all, the refusal to let this synagogue be built is nothing more than an admission that the terrorists have won.

“The decision is unprecedented,” Rabbi Yehoram Ulman told news.com.au. “Its implications are enormous. It basically implies that no Jewish organization should be allowed to exist in residential areas. It stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity in Sydney and indeed, by creating a precedent, the whole of Australia, and by extension rewarding terrorism.”

It’s such a big win for terrorism that I doubt any terrorist organization ever expected to have these results. Here’s a country of 24 million people that has lost less than 10 people to terrorism over the past 20 years. They all died at the hands of Islamic radicals, who are known to despise Judaism. Sydney’s response is to prevent a Synagogue from being built in a vain effort to prevent more terrorist attacks. The city is doing exactly what Islamic terrorists want them to do, and these terrorists barely had to lift a finger.

If this kind of moral weakness isn’t overcome in the West, then our freedoms will not survive the next generation.

UK: 23,000 Terrorists And Counting

Authored by Denis MacEoin via The Gatestone Institute,

• Theresa May herself is also not entirely to be trusted in this area. Despite her calls for no tolerance for extremism, she has recently been widely criticized for blocking publication of a major report into foreign funding of extremist Muslim groups.


• For years now, radical preachers, terrorist recruiters, and fundamentalists who openly hate this country, its democratic values, and its tolerance for all faiths, have walked British streets, campaigned on university campuses, and converted and radicalised young men and women.


• What seems not to be understood about "the religion of peace" is that "peace" comes only after the entire world has been converted to Islam so that a "Dar al-Harb", the "Abode of War," will no longer even exist.


• Since the beginning of March, 17,393 people have been listed as terror suspects. — French Senate report: "Prevention of Radicalism and Regional Authorities", April 2017.

On May 26, four days after the major terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, British intelligence officials stated that they had identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in the UK, all of them considered potential terrorist attackers. According to The Times,

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a "residual risk".

The two terrorists who have struck in Britain this year — Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, and Khalid Masood, the Westminster killer — were in the pool of "former subjects of interest" and no longer subject to any surveillance.

A police officer stands guard near the Manchester Arena on May 23, 2017, following a suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist who murdered 22 concert-goers. (Photo by Dave Thompson/Getty Images)

The report adds that the two men who beheaded British soldier Lee Rigby in London, in 2013, had been known to the security services, just as Abedi and Masood were, but had been dropped to low priority.

David Anderson, QC, the former reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, noted concerns in his 2015 report about the "speed with which things can change" around suspects and "the difficulties in knowing how best to prioritise limited surveillance resources". Senior police have also spoken of the difficulty in identifying the triggers that might "reactivate" extremist behaviour.

Others had expressed similar concerns about how the jihadi ideology, based in radical religious belief, is so intensely ingrained that it never leaves individuals and may easily reactivate a desire to commit atrocities.

Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office, told The Times that the existence of a database of thousands of potential attackers clearly indicates just how serious the threat has become: "This reveals the scale of the challenge from terrorism in the 21st century," he said. "Never has it been more important to invest in intelligence-led policing."

One problem is that the police and MI5 lack enough resources to investigate any more than 3,000 suspects at a time, leaving the other 20,000 free to pass without surveillance and under the radar. According to a report issued this year by Her Majesty"s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), and detailed in The Guardian, budget cuts to the police forces in England and Wales have left law enforcement inadequately prepared:

In a stark message about the current state of policing, Zoë Billingham, Her Majesty"s Inspector of Constabulary, said the "disturbing" practices did not apply to the majority of forces but the watchdog could see the problems spreading if action was not taken.

"We"re leading to a very serious conclusion regarding the potentially perilous state of policing," she said. "It"s a red flag that we"re raising at this stage. A large red flag."

Ironically, this austerity-produced situation stands in stark contradiction to comments by one of the country"s leading security experts:

Anthony Glees, head of security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, said: "To have 23,000 potential killers in our midst is horrifying. We should double the size of MI5, as we did in World War Two, and expand the number of intelligence-led police by thousands. We can"t go on as if this wasn"t happening."

In April, as Islamic State was facing defeat in Mosul and Raqqa, a small national study found that many young British Muslims believed that jihadists returning from Syria to the UK should be given a "second chance" and should "reintegrate" within society. This is estimated to be around 800 or 850 individuals. One person interviewed argued that:

When people feel isolated and angry because they are not being treated with respect and if they go out and fight in Syria and when they come back there is no help, then I promise you, you will see more terrorism because these young people will think why should I do anything when my own Government don"t care about me.

That appears to be a threat that ignores completely what sorts of crimes returnees may have committed abroad. As such individuals do return, they may well add significantly to the list of potential terrorists living in a country they had already found occasion to hate. In 2016, "the Government admitted [that] just 14 of nearly 400 returnee fighters have been jailed, raising fears the rest are living off the radar and may be vulnerable to radicalisation."

Adam Deen of London"s anti-radical Quilliam Foundation stated that:

What is important here is that the more Isis are under siege and the more territory they"re losing, the more they"re going to channel their efforts and energies into terrorism," he said in an interview with The Independent.

Those individuals that have managed to get back into the country will be activated or will be conspiring to commit some kind of terrorist act. That"s a major concern.

Britain is not alone in facing such potential threats, but it may have the largest population of potential terrorists.

There is confusion in Germany, for example, as to how many such individuals there are. According to a report from the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), the number of suspects is on the rise, but they list only 657 people as capable of carrying out an attack, alongside another 388 "relevant persons" who might lend assistance to perpetrators. Separate information, however, from the country"s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz), stated that the number of radical Salafists in Germany had risen from 8,350 in 2015 to 10,100 in 2016 (with 680 classified as "dangerous"), and that hundreds of jihadis entered among the more than one million migrants welcomed into the country during the two previous years. Overall, however, the same agency estimates that 24,400 Islamists are active in Germany, a figures similar to that of the UK.

Things are little better in France, which, according to Gatestone author Yves Mamou, has a large but never-quantified Muslim population of at least six million. In April 2017, the French Senate published its "Prevention of Radicalism and Regional Authorities" report, showing that since the beginning of March, 17,393 people had been listed as terror suspects. As in Britain, French authorities said that not all suspects are being constantly monitored; smaller numbers are investigated at regular intervals.

In May, the general secretariat of the international police organization, Interpol, published a list of Islamic State fighters who were thought to have already returned to Europe and may be planning suicide attacks in different countries:

Interpol has circulated a list of 173 Islamic State fighters it believes could have been trained to mount suicide attacks in Europe in revenge for the group"s military defeats in the Middle East.

The global crime fighting agency"s list was drawn up by US intelligence from information captured during the assault on Isis territories in Syria and Iraq

European counter-terror networks are concerned that as the Isis "caliphate" collapses, there is an increasing risk of determined suicide bombers seeking to come to Europe, probably operating alone.

The situation in the UK is, in some ways, the most alarming, not only because of cuts to the police budget. Cuts have also been made to the security and intelligence services, even more sharply since the June general election. Prior to that, on June 4, Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a speech the day after the London Bridge attack. Her speech included strong promises to tackle terrorism by introducing fresh measures to strengthen existing legislation.

While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say "Enough is enough".

She even named the ideological basis for the attacks:

while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.

This was progress. Three days after that, May presented proposals for fresh legislation to clamp down hard on Islamic extremism. They included amendments to Britain"s 1998 Human Rights Act, which protects potential terrorists; tougher Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures based on a 2011 Act, but in 2016 only used for six individuals; more deportations of suspects, and longer prison sentences, even though much radicalization takes place in prisons.

That was one day before the June 8 general election. May, overly confident that she would win handily and increase her majority in parliament, led a disastrous campaign that left her with a much reduced majority, forcing her to make an alliance with Northern Ireland"s controversial Democratic Unionist Party. Tim Worstall, writing for Forbes magazine, wrote:

"It would be both reasonable and fair to say that Theresa May has just run the worst British election campaign of modern times... Theresa May has in fact achieved something that no one in modern times has managed, to start a general election campaign 20 percentage points up and then arrive without even a parliamentary majority for her party. There simply isn"t anything to compare with this in the annals".

To make matters worse, the Labour party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, came close to winning the election and performed considerately better than anyone might have thought a month earlier. Corbyn and his increasingly far-left party had been considered unelectable. Now, they were a force to contend with in the House of Commons.

Corbyn is the last person to be entrusted with Britain"s security. Addressing a Stop The War Coalition conference in 2011, he told the crowd: "I"ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983". He has also opposed the UK"s involvement in all foreign wars: Sir Gerald Howarth, the former Tory defence minister, said: "Jeremy Corbyn has opposed every British military intervention and represents complete capitulation and weakness". He refused for many years to condemn IRA terrorism, preferring to condemn the British army posted there. He called terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbullah his "friends"; refused to denounce them as late as 2016, and only said he regretted his support for them after heavy pressure was put on him.

Since the election, Labour has made it clear that it opposes any changes in current human rights legislation, and claims that terrorism can be tackled through the laws presently in force. Given the strains the British government is now under, especially with weak negotiations for Brexit and May"s increasing unpopularity even within her party, the strong opposition within parliament is certain to weaken further attempts to block radicalism and terrorism, particularly where action against both involves (as it inevitably will) Muslims from various ethnic minority groups.

There has already been vehement opposition to the government"s core anti-radicalization program, Prevent, with schoolteachers, students, and others claiming it snoops on Muslim communities. Within the Labour party, Corbyn"s radical followers in the Momentum Movement are already planning to force the deselection of members of parliament who oppose Corbyn, unless the such MPs "get on board" by wholeheartedly supporting the leader and his far-left policies. As this takes place, the hard left will strengthen its grip on parliament and make it even more difficult for strong new legislation to be passed.

Theresa May herself is also not entirely to be trusted in this area. Despite her calls for no tolerance for extremism, she has recently been widely criticized for blocking publication of a major report into foreign funding of extremist Muslim groups. Following an enquiry commissioned by May"s predecessor David Cameron, the report was due for publication in 2016, but is unlikely now to be revealed for public scrutiny because it is deemed too "sensitive". The sensitivity derives from Saudi Arabia being exposed as a major financier of Islamic extremism worldwide, yet May and the UK government depend heavily on selling arms and other things to the Wahhabi kingdom.

According to the London-based Henry Jackson Society, in its short report on foreign funding of extremism,

The foreign funding for Islamist extremism in Britain primarily comes from governments and government linked foundations based in the Gulf, as well as Iran. Foremost among these has been Saudi Arabia, which since the 1960s has sponsored a multimillion dollar effort to export Wahhabi Islam across the Islamic world, including to Muslim communities in the West.

In the UK this funding has primarily taken the form of endowments to mosques and Islamic educational institutions, which have in turn played host to extremist preachers and the distribution of extremist literature. Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK"s independent Islamic schools.

A number of Britain"s most serious Islamist hate preachers sit within the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology and are linked to extremism sponsored from overseas, either by having studied in Saudi Arabia as part of scholarship programmes, or by having been provided with extreme literature and material within the UK itself.

If the British government itself prefers to cover up such ties, opting to rescue its trade balance at the cost of endangering the lives of its own citizens, our concern for the future security of the country deepens immeasurably. The UK, like much of Western Europe and Scandinavia, stands at a crossroads. For years now, radical preachers, terrorist recruiters, and fundamentalists who openly hate this country, its democratic values, and its tolerance for all faiths, have walked British streets, campaigned on university campuses, and converted and radicalized young men and women. Sometimes they have been watched, but almost none has been deported, almost none has been imprisoned, and almost none has been singled out, due to the pretense that "Islam is a religion of peace". In Islam, the whole world is divided into two parts" the Dar al-Islam [Abode of Islam] and the Dar al-Harb [Abode of War]. What seems not to be understood about "the religion of peace" is that "peace" comes only after the entire world has been converted to Islam so that a "Dar al-Harb", the "Abode of War," will no longer even exist.

Theresa May"s promise of tightened legislation to protect the British public was the right response to three major recent terror attacks. Yet fall-out from the election and May"s own wish to protect Saudi Arabia from scrutiny are likely to guarantee that the serious measures we so much need may never be implemented. When there are further attacks and more people die, who will step forward to give us the protection we need? Or by then will it be too late?

UK Cops Issue Simple Advice For British Tourists To Survive A Terrorist Attack: "Run!"

British tourists are being urged to watch a new safety video on how to survive a terrorist attack ahead of their summer breaks. The four-minute clip issued by counterterrorism police depicts a firearms attack unfolding at a hotel.

And the message is simple - Run, Hide, Tell!

Just over two years ago, 30 Britons were killed in a terrorist shooting rampage at a resort in Sousse, Tunisia. Seifeddine Rezgui walked off the beach and through the Imperial Marhaba hotel, systematically shooting dead holidaymakers. RT reports that police have emphasized there is no specific intelligence that UK holidaymakers will be targeted this summer, but said the film is part of a general campaign to raise public awareness...

Detective Chief Superintendent Scott Wilson, national coordinator for the Protect and Prepare strategy, told the Press Association that the chances of being caught up in a terrorist incident are “still low” but “sadly we have seen atrocities that take place in the UK and abroad.”

“It is important that everyone stays alert and knows what to do if the worst was to happen.

“As we saw in Tunisia in 2015, any westerner is likely to be a target anywhere in the world,” he added.

“We want people to think of this in the same way they do the safety films airlines show before take-off.

“They don’t expect anything bad to happen but it is a sensible safety precaution to show people what to do.”

The video encourages people to first run to a place of safety if possible, leaving belongings behind and bringing others with them.

If there is no place of safety, they should hide by barricading themselves in and turn their phones to silent.

As soon as it is safe, they should alert authorities by using the local emergency number, which is 112 in EU countries.

Facebook's Little Ethics Problem

Authored by Ruthie Blum via The Gatestone Institute,

• Facebook has been aiding abusers of human-rights -- such as China, Turkey, Russia and Pakistan -- to curb the freedom of expression of their people.


• "On the same day that we filed the report, the "Stop Palestinians" page that incited against Palestinians was removed by Facebook... for "containing credible threat of violence" which "violated our community standards." On the other hand, the "Stop Israelis" page that incited against Israelis, was not removed. We received a response from Facebook stating that the page was "not in violation of Facebook"s rules."" — Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of The Israel Law Center.


• According to Darshan-Leitner, Facebook"s insistence that it cannot control all the content on its pages is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. After all, its algorithms are perfectly accurate when it comes to detecting users" shopping habits.

There is a problem at Facebook. On May 8, the social media platform blocked and then shut down the pages of two popular moderate Muslim groups -- on the grounds that their content was "in violation of community standards" -- without explanation.

Had these pages belonged to the radicals who incite followers to violence, however, the move would have been welcome, and would have corresponded to Facebook"s Online Civil Courage Initiative, founded in Berlin in January 2016, to "challeng[e] hate speech and extremism online," in the effort to prevent the use of social media as a platform for recruiting terrorists.

The pages that Facebook shut down, however -- Ex-Muslims of North America, which has 24,000 followers; and Atheist Republic, with 1.6 million -- do nothing of the sort. In fact, they are managed and followed by Arabs across the world who reject not only violence and terrorism, but Islam as a religion.

This, it turns out, is precisely the problem.

Angry Islamists, bent on silencing such "blasphemers" and "apostates," troll social media and abuse Facebook"s complaint system. It"s a tactic that works like a charm every time, as conservative and pro-Israel individuals and groups -- whose posts are disproportionately targeted by political opponents and removed by Facebook for "violating community standards" -- can attest. As in most of those cases, the pages of the former Muslims were reinstated the next day, after their administrators demonstrated that the charges against them were false.

The president of Ex-Muslims of North America, Muhammad Syed, who is originally from Pakistan, complained about the practice in an open letter to Facebook, and demanded that the company do more to protect former Muslims from online harassment by Islamists:

"Ironically, the same social media which empowers religious minorities is susceptible to abuse by religious fundamentalists to enforce what are essentially the equivalent of online blasphemy laws. A simple English-language search reveals hundreds of public groups and pages on Facebook explicitly dedicated to this purpose [enforcing blasphemy laws online] -- giving their members easy-to-follow instructions on how to report public groups and infiltrate private ones."

Syed also started a Change.org petition, calling on Facebook to "prevent religious extremists from censoring atheists and secularists." According to the website Heat Street, which broke the story, there are many other secular Arab groups that have been similarly flagged by religious Muslims on social media.

For its part, Facebook continues to claim that the sheer volume of material it deals with every day makes it virtually impossible even for its algorithms to distinguish accurately between posts that violate its own "community standards" and those that do not.

This claim has been refuted by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of Shurat HaDin - The Israel Law Center, who has been engaged in a billion-dollar class action lawsuit against Facebook for failing to prevent or halt anti-Israel incitement on its pages. Darshan-Leitner decided to put her premise to the test at the end of December 2015, by creating two fictitious Facebook pages -- "Stop Palestinians" and "Stop Israelis" -- and posting hate-filled comments and clips on each.

For two days, from December 28-30, Darshan-Leitner"s organization continued to increase the level of incitement on both pages. For example, a post on the "Stop Israelis page" featured an anti-Semitic cartoon and the phrase "death to all the Jews." Simultaneously, a post on the "Stop Palestinians" page read, "Revenge against the Arab enemy. Death to all the Arabs."

At this point, according to Darshan-Leitner, Shurat HaDin reported both pages to Facebook and requested that they be removed.

"Facebook was very quick to respond to our reports," she said on a YouTube video.

"On the same day that we filed the report, the "Stop Palestinians" page that incited against Palestinians was removed by Facebook. Facebook sent us a response stating that the page was removed for "containing credible threat of violence" which "violated our community standards." On the other hand, the "Stop Israelis" page that incited against Israelis, was not removed. We received a response from Facebook stating that the page was "not in violation of Facebook"s rules.""

Six days later, after a huge outcry in the Hebrew press and on social media, Facebook changed its initial judgement and removed the anti-Semitic page.

This kind of behavior is just what Muhammad Syed is railing about.

"Arab atheists, Bangladeshi secularists, and numerous other groups have been under attack for years, as religious conservatives in the Muslim world learn to abuse Facebook"s reporting system to their advantage. Early last year, multiple atheist and secularist groups were targeted with mass, coordinated infiltration and reporting -- leading to the closure of many groups. These groups were eventually restored, but only after a lengthy and sustained effort by organizers to draw public attention to the issue."

Darshan-Leitner said that although she does not consider Facebook guilty of incitement, its insistence that it cannot control all the content on its pages is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. After all, its algorithms are very accurate when it comes to detecting users" shopping habits -- information that advertisers pay a lot of money for the privilege of obtaining.

Furthermore, Facebook has been aiding abusers of human rights -- such as China, Turkey, Russia and Pakistan -- to curb the freedom of expression of their people. As the New York Times reported last November, the social media giant quietly developed software to enable the Chinese government to suppress posts. This was CEO Mark Zuckerberg"s way of getting back in China"s good graces, after Facebook was banned from the enormous market in 2009.

Where Pakistan is concerned, the situation is just as delicate. In March, according to Al Jazeera, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif warned that blasphemous content on Facebook would be "strictly punished."

Sharif has been trying to get social media outlets to adhere to his country"s blasphemy laws, which state that anything deemed insulting to Islam or Muhammad is a crime, and those convicted of it can be sentenced to death. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called blasphemy "an issue about the honor of every Muslim," and threatened to "take strong action" against Facebook and other platforms that do not comply. He also mentioned, however, that Facebook had agreed to send a delegation to Pakistan to work something out.

This was a mere few months after Facebook signed a "Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online," produced by the European Commission and also endorsed by Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube, asserting "a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world." This, it stated, "is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population." (Emphasis added.)

This is a far cry from a whispered exchange, caught on a hot mic on the sidelines of a United Nations development summit in New York in 2015, between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Facebook"s Mark Zuckerberg. Merkel confronted Zuckerberg about not doing enough to combat "xenophobic" posts relating to the influx of migrants into Europe in general and Germany in particular.

"We need to do some work on it," Zuckerberg responded.

So far, all of Zuckerberg"s hard work seems to be paying off, but not for former Muslims such as Syed, seeking moral and intellectual support from the like-minded.

UK Terror Threat Level Lowered To "Severe" As Police Tear Down Terrorist Cell

Four days after UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Tuesday the nation"s terror threat level was raised to the highest possible, "Critical" level in response to the Manchester suicide bombing which killed 22 people, and resulted in British troops being deployed on the streets of London for the first time in a decade, on Saturday Theresa May said Britain had lowered its security threat level to "severe" following a number of arrests and significant activity by police investigating the suicide bomb attack. As a result the British soldiers who were deployed earlier in the week to assist police, would be withdrawn from Britain"s streets from midnight on Monday.

Earlier in the day, police hunting the terrorist network behind the suspected suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, said they had made two further arrests overnight as they closed in on other possible cell members. May said this meant that the independent body which sets the threat level had decided it should be lowered from its highest rating "critical", which means an attack could be imminent, to "severe". As a result, the UK"s threat assessment has now been returned to the level it was at prior to the Manchester attack, with no imminent attacks expected, although as May also added an attack is still "highly likely".

"A significant amount of police activity has taken place over the last 24 hours and there are now 11 suspects in custody," May said. "The public should be clear about what this means. A threat level of severe means an attack is highly likely. The country should remain vigilant."

UK terror threat level reduced from CRITCAL to SEVERE. WATCH @Theresa_May statement HERE: pic.twitter.com/ZYqzv8wATD

— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) May 27, 2017

Elsewhere, Reuters reports, that UK police officers said they had used a controlled explosion to gain entry to an address in the north of the city where two men were detained on Saturday. Some hours later, police cordoned off a large area in the Moss Side area of south Manchester and houses were evacuated with a bomb disposal unit sent to the scene. A man working in a local shop, who declined to be named, told Reuters he saw three men being taken away from the address.

"As part of an ongoing search at a property in Moss Side an evacuation is currently being carried in the area," police said in a statement.

On Friday, Britain"s most senior counter-terrorism officer said police were confident that they had made "immense" progress and had apprehended a "large part of the network". However, extra armed officers will be on duty across the country with security stepped up at some 1,300 events over the long holiday weekend.

The scope of the response to the Manchester attack has been dramatic, with the Times newspaper reporting on Saturday that intelligence officers had identified 23,000 jihahist extremists living in Britain. Earlier this week a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters the security services were managing 500 active operations involving some 3,000 people who were thought to pose a threat.

An armed police officer at Manchester Piccadilly railway station

A concern for the UK, and perhaps explaining the reduction of the threat level, is that over the weekend there are a number of high-profile events including soccer cup finals in London and Glasgow, and the Great Manchester Run. However, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the UK police chief for counter-terrorism, advised people to be vigilant but to "go out as you planned and enjoy yourselves".

Meanwhile, the traditional blowback to these kinds of events has emerged, with Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable saying there had been a rise in reported hate crimes, from an average of 28 to 56 incidents on Wednesday even as the police and politicians praised communities in Manchester for their reaction to the bombing.  "We can"t directly link these to the events of Monday night and are continuing to monitor the situation," he said.

Also on Friday, political campaigning for the June 8 national election which was suspended after the Manchester attack resumed with the bombing becoming a central feature. The opposition Labour Party, emboldened by a rise in opinion polls, argued that Britain"s foreign policy had increased the risk of attacks and criticized Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May for cutting spending on policing. May said Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was saying Britain was to blame for the bombing.

"I want to make one thing very clear to Jeremy Corbyn and to you, and it is that there can never, ever be an excuse for terrorism," she said at the G-7 meeting in Sicily. A recent poll on Thursday put May"s Conservatives five points ahead of Labour suggesting a far tighter race than previously anticipated, sending the British pound tumbling..

UK Government Moves Aggressively To Censor & Control The Internet

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The following dystopian excerpts come from today’s UK Independent article titled, Theresa May to Create New Internet that Would Be Controlled and Regulated by Government:

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

Thanks for clearing that up.

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become “the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet”, the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers’ browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn’t published, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. “We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,” the Conservatives write.

“Other sources of harm.” Can’t wait to see the ever-expanding government definition of that.

Perhaps most unusually they would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives.

The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms. Just like with gambling, that money will be used to pay for advertising schemes to tell people about the dangers of the internet, in particular being used to “support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms”, according to the manifesto.

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will “take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy” – and crack down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough advertising money.

If internet companies refuse to comply with the rulings – a suggestion that some have already made about the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act – then there will be a strict and strong set of ways to punish them.

Given how willing tech companies have been to comply with government spying in the past, it’ll be interesting to see how they respond to this dangerous, authoritarian power grab.

Facebook Killer Shoots Himself In Pennsylvania After Police Chase

The manhunt for Facebook killer Steve Stephens is over in what is may be the most fitting end.

Steve Stephens, the suspect in the Cleveland, Ohio, Facebook killing, shot and killed himself after a brief police pursuit in Erie County, Pennsylvania, this morning, the Pennsylvania State Police said.

Steve Stephens was spotted this morning by PSP members in Erie County. After a brief pursuit, Stephens shot and killed himself.

— PA State Police (@PAStatePolice) April 18, 2017

Stephens was found dead of self-inflicted gunshot wound in white Ford Fusion on Buffalo Road,. State police had been following the car as it was headed west into the city of Erie. Yesterday, there were reports that Stephens was spotted in Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park area, but police said the reports were unsubstantiated.

Authorities had issued a warrant for Stephens’ arrest, and offered up to $50,000 for information leading to his capture.

According to GoErie.com, Erie police have confirmed the suicide in Erie on Tuesday of Steve Stephens, the Cleveland resident suspected of fatally shooting a Cleveland man on Sunday and posting video of the slaying on Facebook.

Stephens died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound while driving a white Ford Fusion near Buffalo Road and Downing Avenue around 11:10 a.m., police said.

State police were following the car as it headed west into Erie, according to dispatchers.

The car, pointed west, is stopped in the westbound lane of Buffalo Road, across from the former Burton Elementary School, 1660 Buffalo Road. Police are blocking off the entire school grounds. Erie police are also at the scene.

As shown in the clip below, Erie police are at the scene, with Erie County Coroner Lyell Cook and the FBI and Erie County District Attorney Jack Daneri. Erie Mayor Joe Sinnott said early Tuesday afternoon that he did not have much information about the incident, but he expected to be briefed later in the day by Police Chief Don Dacus. “Obviously when you’ve got a fugitive out there, you’re pleased to see it come to some quick resolution,” Sinnott said.

An aggravated murder warrant was issued for Stephens" arrest early Monday because police believed he may have fled Ohio.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf tweeted his thanks to the Pennsylvania State Police for their vigilance.

Thank you to the brave @PAStatePolice troopers for their vigilance in pursuing the Facebook killer. Thankful no one in PA was hurt. https://t.co/GN5i6jkcuI

— Governor Tom Wolf (@GovernorTomWolf) April 18, 2017

US Releases Video Of "Mother Of All Bombs" Explosion Which Killed 36 ISIS Fighters

One day after the Trump administration demonstratively used the GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb (MOAB, also known as Mother Of All Bombs) the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal in Afghanistan, in a clear show of force meant to send a signal to North Korea, it released a video of the explosion.

.@USFOR_A releases GBU-43 #MOAB strike video against #ISIS-K cave complex, #Nangarhar, #Afghanistan #DefeatDaeshhttps://t.co/MuhU7JXuNn pic.twitter.com/qBqptpuzbE

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) April 14, 2017

Afghan officials said 36 militants were killed in the strike in Nangarhar province, near the Pakistan border, where the US military previously estimated ISIS had 600 to 800 active fighters. There were no civilian casualties, according to the Ministry of Defense statement, which also said several ISIS caves and ammunition caches were destroyed. U.S. officials said precautions were taken to avoid civilian casualties. The ISIS commander in the area was among the dead, Afghanistan’s presidential palace said.

Hakim Khan, 50, a resident of Achin district where the attack took place, was quoted by CBS as saying he welcomed the attack on ISIS, saying, “I want 100 times more bombings on this group.”

But fierce opposition among Afghans also surfaced. Former President Hamid Karzai condemned the strike, saying it “is not the war on terror but inhuman, and (the) most brutal misuse of our country as (a) testing ground for new and dangeorus weapons. It is upon us,Afghans, to stop the USA.”

Karzi said, “I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon.”

Others were similarly stunned by the unexpected US show of force.

Since news of the strike broke, most social media users in Afghanistan criticized both the Afghan government and U.S. One user calleld it “our generation’s “Hiroshima,” adding, “I’m still in shock.”

In a 2003 review of the legality of using the MOAB, the Pentagon concluded that it could not be called an indiscriminate killer under the Law of Armed Conflict. “Although the MOAB weapon leaves a large footprint, it is discriminate and requires a deliberate launching toward the target,” the review said, adding, “It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use.”

Meanwhile, President Trump called the attack a “very, very successful mission.” The U.S. military headquarters in Kabul said in a statement that the bomb was dropped at 7:32 p.m. local time Thursday on a tunnel complex in Achin district of Nangarhar province, where the Afghan affiliate of ISIS has been operating. The target was close to the Pakistani border.

The U.S. estimates 600 to 800 IS fighters are present in Afghanistan, mostly in Nangarhar. The U.S. has concentrated heavily on combatting them while also supporting Afghan forces battling the Taliban. Just last week a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier, Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, 37, of Edgewood, Maryland, was killed in action in Nangarhar.

According to CBS, Adam Stump, a Pentagon spokesman, said the bomb was dropped from a U.S. MC-130 special operations transport. He said the bomb had been brought to Afghanistan “some time ago” for potential use. Army Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a written statement that the strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the Achin area “while maximizing the destruction” of ISIS fighters and facilities. He said ISIS has been using improvised explosive devices, bunkers and tunnels to strengthen its defenses.

“This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he added, using the U.S. military’s acronym for the ISIS affiliate.

Ismail Shinwari, the governor of Achin district, said the U.S. attack was carried out in a remote mountainous area with no civilian homes nearby. He said there has been heavy fighting in the area in recent weeks between Afghan forces and ISIS militants.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said ISIS fighters had used the tunnels and caves in Achin to maneuver freely. “The United States takes the fight against ISIS very seriously and, in order to defeat the group, we must deny them operational space, which we did,” Spicer said.

* * *

With that we now turn our attention to North Korea, where many expect that an explosion of a similar magnitude is imminent over the next 48 hours.