Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘france

After 70 years of faked “independence”, nothing changed in the behavior of our political “leaders”

French mandated military general to Lebanon, Dantez, on how Lebanese politicians behaved during WWII: they were in contact with De Gaulle and Vichy in the same time and received money from both.

I am confused. What Trump and Macron (of France) are planning to ruin Syria

Apparently, Trump and Macron want to strike Syria very badly n account that chemical weapons were used in Al Ghouta. Russia vetoed the USA tailor-made alternative to investigate the accusation in Syria and the USA vetoed Russia alternative.

All parties on the field (Syrians and Russians) are saying “No chemical weapons were used”, even the Islamist factions didn’t mention such an event, though chemical weapons were discovered in their tunnels, dug by their prisoners in the last 4 years.

Syria invited the specialized UN organization on chemical weapons to come and investigate on the field and a team has already arrived.

Russia warned USA and France that its reaction will be prompt if the strike injure any Russian in Syria.

Trump cancelled his Latin America tour to personally control the situation of the strike.

The colonial powers have the habit of setting up all kinds of Red Lines when it suit them to other militarily “weaker nations”. Red Lines are Not meant to be applied to the colonial powers, ever. They do sometimes sign on treaties but refrain to ratify them, like the International penal court, or any of their citizens being prosecuted by other nations, especially in matter of crimes against humanity. Or eliminating weapons prohibited by the UN.

Chemical weapons were first used by the colonial powers starting in WWI by Germany. The USA used chemical weapons extensively on Korea and China in the 50’s, then Orange defoliating gases and napalm in Viet Nam… France supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons and were heavily used during Iran/Iraq war that lasted 8 years  (1980-88).

I am confused. First question: Were chemical weapons been used in Al Ghouta? Yes or No? I was not in the battle field, and neither were you. How to you interpret whatever you got in information?  What are your rationals for lack of facts? What can we do with any secret intelligence pieces that we are denied knowledge?

I am confused. Second question: If chemical weapons were used, why it took place when the battle of Al Ghouta was over and all Islamic factions and their families relocated by buses to Edlib and Jarablos?

I am confused. Third question: The colonial powers repeatedly disseminated the plausibility of usage of chemical weapons in Al Ghouta before the re-conquest started. The battle finished and no news of usage of chemical weapons were announced until the last couple of days when the war was over.

I am confused. Fourth question: We all felt that the colonial powers expected the Islamic factions to use the chemical weapons they were supplied with, against either the Syrian army or the civilians inside Al Ghouta to provide excuses for the powers to intervene. Nothing happened. Had the colonial power failed to coordinate their strikes before the battle and now, as they are ready, they need to vent their frustrations from the failed 2013 threat?

I am confused. Fifth question: Why the White Helmets working with Islamic factions and trained to fabricate videos persist on taking video of children, and only children? If chemical weapons were used, the most probable injured parties should be the fighters huddled inside their tunnels in order to vent them out. Why No videos of these supposedly gassed terrorists were not taken for the common people to watch? Since 2013, many of these cruel videos were taken in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq… and displayed as happening in Syria.

I am confused. Sixth question: Why USA and France persist on attacking and striking the Syrian people under any excuse? Is it because their plans failed and they need some kind of revenge? And this latest determination to strike, is it a tactics to let the totally unconvinced world community believe that chemical weapons were indeed used?

Note: My conjecture is that Trump and Macron are finally convinced that whatever plans they had in Syria has failed, and need a face-saving strike before they retire their military operations in this hellish Syria and focus on trade row with China and their multiple domestic problems

Political systems repeat same deadly mistakes. In particular racist and apartheid system

Germany repeated the same strategic military mistake that defeated it in WWI and WWII.

As Germany was about to win the battle in France in WWI and enter Paris again, then it dispatched valuable divisions to the Russian front where they found out Not to be needed.

In WWII, as England was about to throw out the towel, Hitler opened the Russian front.

Israel system still cannot sustain a long protracted war: Its huge military superiority pressures its system to carpet bomb and stop the war within less than a month.

Israel system is based on creating sustained settlement for Only Jews. It refuses any political settlement for Palestinians since this is tantamount to giving up settlements built on robbed Palestinian lands.

The USA was built on conquering more lands for its expanding population and kept up military operations and engagement all around the world.

England steadfastly wanted to be the dominant sea power. It created WWI in order to destroy the fast growing German navy and merchant ships that became the second exporting nation after USA. It found an excuse in WWII to destroy French Navy and merchant ships because it became larger than its feet. And now England is in the tail of the developed nations.

What’s going on in France and Belgium? Hundreds of extremists ending up in Syria?

« Tout s’écroule. » Abasourdie. Elle s’interroge, ne comprend pas.

Marie-Agnès Choulet « n’avait rien vu venir » . Devant les caméras de France 2, puis BFM TV, elle pleure, elle essaie de comprendre. Son fils Pierre, 19 ans, est parti faire le jihad en Syrie. Sans raison apparente.

Le 22 octobre 2013, Marie-Agnès trouve un mot dans la chambre de son « petit Pierre ». Il lui annonce qu’il est parti en Syrie « faire de l’humanitaire ». En février 2015, le garçon de 21 ans meurt dans une attaque suicide. Il était « sportif, intelligent et discret ». Ses proches sont unanimes.

Comme Pierre, 400 Français se battent actuellement en Irak et en Syrie, selon les chiffres du ministère de l’Intérieur.

Environ 300 sont sur la route.

Comme Pierre, nombre d’entre eux ont eu une enfance relativement paisible, dans des familles plutôt aisées. Ils n’ont rien à voir avec le schéma surmédiatisé « délinquance-prison-radicalisation ».

Ces jeunes gens ont d’autres raisons de partir.

Dans une certaine mesure, cet exode guerrier français n’est pas inédit. La France a été l’un de plus gros pourvoyeur de combattants durant la guerre civile espagnole de 1936 à 1939 ou encore durant l’invasion soviétique de l’Afghanistan de 1979 à 1989.

Aujourd’hui encore, les Français sont les Occidentaux les plus nombreux en Syrie. Ils partent parfois pour des raisons pas si éloignées de celles de leur prédécesseurs.

« Freedom fighters » d’Afghanistan et jihadistes de Syrie

Les motivations pour partir faire le jihad en Syrie et en Irak ne sont pas si différentes de celles qui ont poussé certains Français à partir en Afghanistan dans les années 1980 : un esprit de solidarité et de résistance face aux injustices subies par une communauté, une soif d’aventure.

Amin Wardak habite dans un petit appartement, au huitième étage d’un immeuble moderne du nord de Paris. Trente ans auparavant, il était l’un des plus grands commandants de la résistance afghane face à l’armée soviétique. Il s’est réfugié en France en 1995, dégoûté des luttes intestines des partis politiques locaux et craignant pour sa vie.

Il reçoit dans son salon recouvert d’épais tapis afghans, vêtu d’un élégant Kurta – une tenue traditionnelle afghane – bleu azur, la Misbaha – le chapelet musulman – à la main.

Amin Wardak

Ses souvenirs sont une page d’histoire de la guerre froide. Il parle de ses rencontres avec Bush père, de son amitié envers les Français partis se battre avec lui.

Lui voit surtout les différences entre son combat d’il y a trente ans et celui des générations engagées auprès du groupe État islamique.

Les « freedom figthers » qui partaient combattre les Soviétiques en Afghanistan n’étaient ni payés ni embrigadés. Ils luttaient contre un envahisseur étranger, pour la liberté d’un peuple.

(Mais les Afghan durant l’occupation Sovietique se sentaient en securité, ne manquer de rien et tous aller a l’ecole)

Les combattants occidentaux de l’EI, eux, sont rémunérés. « Les jeunes de Daesh sont manipulés et appâtés par les salaires que leur reverse l’organisation », fait-il observer. Selon plusieurs reportages, 800 dollars par mois sont promis aux jihadistes étrangers pour prendre part à une guerre civile et imposer un modèle de vie aux populations locales.

Désabusé, Armin Wardak ne veut pas croire à la sincérité de la démarche des nouveaux jihadistes occidentaux.

Il a déjà vu, dans son pays, trop de jeunes embrigadés dans divers groupes fondamentalistes manipulés par des puissances étrangères. « Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, les troubles en Afghanistan ne sont pas notre guerre. C’est la guerre des étrangers, mais c’est notre peuple qui paie .» Si c’est vrai pour l’Afghanistan, ça l’est aussi pour la Syrie et l’Irak. (C’est un refrain bien connu: Meme durant la guerre civil au Liban, on disait la guerre des etrangers)

Laurent Maréchaux, de nationalité française, la soixantaine lui aussi, a combattu aux côtés d’Amin Wardak. Il a grandi dans le Val-de-Marne, au sein d’une famille aisée. Il comprend certaines des motivations des Français qui partent se battre en Syrie.

Pour en savoir plus sur Laurent et les autres Français partis se battre en Afghanistan :

Vies clandestines, nos années afghanes, un documentaire de Christophe de Ponfilly, en VOD ici.

Le 27 décembre 1979, il décide de se rendre en Afghanistan. Il entre en contact avec Amin Wardak. Laurent a 27 ans et une biographie déjà chargée :  amateur de tauromachie en Espagne, militant politique anarchiste à Paris. Il sait fabriquer des EEI (engins explosifs improvisés). A son arrivée, il apprend ses techniques aux résistants afghans et les forme aux actions de guérilla. Pour prouver l’efficacité de ces méthodes, il mène avec succès une attaque sur une garnison soviétique.

Laurent Maréchaux et Djalâlouddine Haqqani, chef du "réseau Haqqani", allié des Talibans et activement recherché par les Etats-Unis
Laurent Maréchaux et Djalâlouddine Haqqani, numéro 3 d’Al Qaida pour l’Afghanistan et nommé responsable des « human bombs » en Afghanistan par le mollah Omar

Comme Laurent, les autres « freedom fighters » français n’étaient pas musulmans. S’ils se retrouvaient là-bas, c’était au titre de motivations communes. En Afghanistan hier, en Syrie aujourd’hui, un motif de départ ressort particulièrement : l’humanitaire. Amin Wardak se rappelle qu’il y avait 11 ONG humanitaires en Afghanistan. Sept étaient françaises.

Les jeunes combattants français dépeints comme les « barbares de Daesh » sont, eux aussi, animés par une « forme d’humanitarisme » quand ils décident de partir, explique Farhad Khosrokhavar, sociologue franco-iranien, directeur de recherche à l’EHESS et l’auteur de Radicalisation :

« Il s’agit d’une définition différente de l’humanitaire. C’est une manière de vouloir aider leurs frères musulmans face à un régime sanguinaire et impie (le régime alaouite). […] Ils ne sont pas purement manipulés. Il y a une demande de manipulation. »

Leur désir de départ s’appuie sur un sentiment d’injustice et d’impuissance, relayé par les médias : les milliers de victimes de la guerre, les millions de déplacés dans l’indifférence.

Terroriste, un terme commode qui ne recoupe pas toujours la réalité

Laurent Maréchaux
Laurent Maréchaux

Laurent Maréchaux va jusqu’à contester la façon dont ces jeunes sont qualifiés par les autorités et les médias. Le terme terroriste, qu’il considère comme une expression commode et diabolisante, ne peut pas tous les désigner. Il insiste : ces Français partent avant tout se battre pour défendre une communauté musulmane qu’ils estiment agressée et délaissée. Une fois sur place, certains commettent des horreurs. Pas tous.

Marc [le nom a été modifié, NDLR] est un Français qui « gagne bien sa vie ». Il compte rejoindre le groupe EI sous peu. Lui aussi, il sait pourquoi. À ses yeux, les exactions de l’EI n’ont rien à envier aux atrocités commises par les Américains. Joint sur Twitter, il confirme cette analyse.

« Ils [les membres de la coalition] acceptent que les États-Unis bombardent des civils sous prétexte de cibler des terroristes… des femmes et des enfants sont massacrés, mais ça les médias n’en parlent pas. […] Les États-Unis ont prétexté des armes de destruction massive [en Irak] alors que Colin Powell tenait une fiole de pipi de chat. Ils ont massacré des milliers de civils. Quand ils sont partis, ils ont mis au pouvoir des chiites qui ont commis des massacres… »

Laurent Maréchaux nuance largement ce constat. Mais il n’est pas dupe face à l’emploi du mot terroriste. Comme à son époque, il définit autant des actes sur le terrain qu’un statut d’allié ou d’ennemi identifié par les grandes puissances.

Entre deux gorgées de café, il raconte comment les Américains lui ont demandé de rencontrer un certain Oussama Ben Laden en Arabie saoudite, afin de monter des filières vers l’Afghanistan occupé par les Soviétiques. Il souligne qu’il y a quelques années, les Américains ne se sont pas gênés pour soutenir des organisations aux méthodes et à l’idéologie très proches de l’EI afin d’affronter et d’affaiblir une puissance ennemie.

La soif d’aventure, porte d’entrée vers le jihad

Laurent Maréchaux décèle un autre facteur de départ vers la Syrie. Son expérience lui enseigne que les jeunes jihadistes sont, au fond, animés comme lui par un esprit d’aventure, assumé ou pas. Il a fait la guerre. Il n’évoque pas sans émotion les amitiés profondes qu’il a nouées sur le terrain, les regards graves échangés avant un assaut, les marches forcées à travers des paysages somptueux, pour éviter les loups et les hélicoptères soviétiques.

Images de propagande du groupe Etat islamique.

Puisqu’il en a réchappé, il connaît le pouvoir d’attraction de la guerre. Son aspect épique. « Romantique », dit-il. La communication de l’EI joue clairement sur ce créneau. Derrière les citations religieuses, les vidéos et affiches de l’État islamique diffusées sur Twitter ou Facebook sont truffées de codes et de références empruntées aux jeux vidéos et aux films d’actions. Le groupe État islamique vous promet de passer de l’autre côté de l’écran.

Boubaker el Hakim, jihadiste de la filière des Buttes-Chaumont, se confiait en ces termes à un journaliste de RTL en Irak, en mars 2003 : « Je suis en Irak, on fait le jihad ! (…) C’est des tapettes, des bouffons les Américans ! (…) On est des moudjahidins ! » Le frisson de l’aventure, la fierté de défier un immense empire semblent primer sur le sentiment religieux.

Laurent se souvient avoir ressenti un délicieux sentiment d’exclusivité, de singularité. La sensation d’être là où tous les regards se braquent, là où l’histoire se fait. Boubaker el Hakim a, lui, besoin de le dire : « Je suis là, c’est moi, je suis en Irak ! »

L’idéologie de l’EI, en rupture avec l’idéologie sécularisée des « freedom fighters »

Le jihad obéit également à une dynamique singulière, en rupture avec les idéaux des « freedom fighters » : la prégnance du religieux dans l’analyse du conflit, le rejet du modèle occidental et le besoin de renouer avec des valeurs sacrées.

Laurent Maréchaux ne s’identifie pas complètement aux jeunes jihadistes, car leur idéologie n’est pas de même nature que la sienne. Il décrit sa démarche comme un engagement politique et romantique, inscrit dans un temps et un espace donnés. Rien à voir avec l’engagement religieux et universel des jihadistes.

Farhad Khosrokhavar distingue lui aussi l’idéologie religieuse de l’EI des « espaces idéologiques sécularisés » qui luttaient contre l’envahisseur soviétique ou le fascisme espagnol. Les combattants de jadis se positionnaient sur une réalité sociale et territoriale qu’ils avaient analysée de façon rationnelle. Ceux d’aujourd’hui font passer leur religion au-dessus de tout. C’est, pour eux, la panacée à tous les maux de la région.

Ce que recherchent les jeunes jihadistes, c’est « la servitude volontaire vis à vis d’un pouvoir qui incarne le bien », explique-t-il. La libération et la victoire de leur révolution ne dépendent pas de l’homme mais de sa soumission à Dieu.

L’islam radical, remède au malaise identitaire

Selon le chercheur, ces jeunes de classe moyenne sont exposés à un malaise identitaire. Ils souffrent de la dilution de l’autorité et de la disparition du modèle familial traditionnel : « L’islam leur propose des lignes de démarcation assez nettes entre ce qui est bien et mal. » C’est, d’après le chercheur, un modèle rassurant où chaque aspect de la vie est étiqueté, réglé, où chacun connaît son rôle dans la société.

Du côté des femmes, qui représentent — phénomène inédit — 20% des départs vers la Syrie, se marier à un jihadiste est une chance, comme l’explique Farhad Khosrokhavar : un moudjahidin est « viril ». Il sera aussi probablement fidèle : une personne aussi dévouée à son Dieu est une personne capable de grande fidélité.

Le fantasme de l’âge d’or de l’islam, preuve du bien fondé du jihad

Si ce modèle séduit, c’est aussi parce qu’il propose de « revenir à la vie d’avant » , selon Laurent Maréchaux. La vie d’avant, c’est cet âge d’or de l’islam où la civilisation arabe était le centre du monde. Le monde arabe rayonnait sur sa périphérie. Ses armées surclassaient les autres. Son savoir était diffusé partout.

« Il y a un fantasme autour de cette période de dignité », reconnaît Marc. Mais, pour lui, l’islam reste la condition sine qua non d’un monde juste et prospère :

« Lorsque l’islam est appliqué, il n’y a pas de président qui détourne de l’argent ou qui est protégé par une immunité […]. Il n’y a pas de parachute doré, […] pas de parents dans des maisons de retraite pour s’en débarrasser, pas de pauvres dans la rue… […] L’âge d’or reviendra naturellement avec la mise en application [de la religion], c’est une promesse. »

Marc cite un hadîth : « “La prophétie restera parmi vous autant qu’Allah le souhaitera, puis Allah y mettra un terme quand Il voudra (période du prophète paix sur lui). Il y aura alors un califat suivant la voie prophétique, qui vous gouvernera autant qu’Allah le souhaitera, puis Allah y mettra un terme quand Il voudra (période des 4 premiers califes). Puis viendra une royauté injuste (et dynastique) qui vous gouvernera autant qu’Allah le souhaitera, puis Allah y mettra un terme quand Il voudra (période des Omeyyades, Abbassides, Ottomans). Puis viendra une royauté tyrannique qui vous gouvernera autant qu’Allah le souhaitera, puis Allah y mettra un terme quand Il voudra (période des dictateurs en Syrie, en Égypte, en Irak, au Yemen, en Libye, en Algérie, au Maroc, en Arabie Saoudite…). Puis viendra alors un califat suivant la voie prophétique (période que nous vivons actuellement).” Puis le Prophète ( ) se tut. »

L’EI sublime ce retour à l’ordre social et moral en le vernissant d’une aura mystique : les partisans de l’organisation décèlent dans les événements actuels les prémices de l’apocalypse, annoncé dans une prophétie tirée du Coran. Marc en témoigne :

« Un autre élément explique un l’engouement [pour le jihad] : une prophétie du prophète Mohamad [paix sur lui] qui a indiqué qu’un califat arriverait avec des indications qui laissent fortement penser à ce qui arrive. »

Un Occident en panne d’idées qui ne séduit plus sa jeunesse

Laurent Maréchaux constate que l’Occident n’a, selon lui, rien à offrir face à un modèle si attirant d’explication du monde. Il prend à témoin : qui voudrait se battre pour le matérialisme capitaliste ? Pour lui, face au vide idéologique de l’Occident, tout système alternatif paraît séduisant. Le takfirisme, une doctrine de l’islam radical suivie par l’EI, en est un. Sans concurrent sérieux aujourd’hui. Cheik Essa, un théologien égyptien, l’a théorisé ainsi :

« Tout non-croyant, baptisé ou athée, est un infidèle et un ennemi de l’islam et doit être combattu au même titre que les musulmans non-pratiquants ou les afghans qui tournent le dos à leur religion en soutenant les troupes de Georges Bush. »

« Pour faire la guerre aujourd’hui, il faut être musulman », affirme Laurent Maréchaux. Comprendre « guerre » dans le sens suivant : risquer la mort pour défendre ses idées politiques. Cette posture, fait-il comprendre, était valorisée en Occident aux XIXe et XXe siècle. Il y a aussi, selon lui, quelque chose de typiquement français dans cette propension à partir « faire la guerre ». Une culture de la résistance dont ces jeunes sont inconsciemment imprégnés.

Lui-même a été façonné par le passé résistant de son père et de son grand père, l’appel du 18-Juin du général de Gaulle, autant de références qui célèbrent le courage et la lutte à contre-courant. Il aurait également pu citer « Indignez-vous ! », l’essai de Stephane Hessel en faveur de l’engagement personnel et de « l’esprit de résistance » largement diffusé dans les médias et les écoles il y a cinq ans.

Il pense que les jihadistes portent une partie de cet héritage. Un héritage déformé, vidé de son contenu républicain, mais qui valorise une posture : un engagement contre un système oppressant.

« En Afghanistan, tous les Français lisaient « les sept piliers de la sagesse » », le récit autobiographie de Lawrence d’Arabie sur la mythique révolte arabe contre les Ottomans. Désormais, les jeunes combattants français puisent dans le Coran d’autres épopées guerrières.

Aujourd’hui, Laurent admet qu’il ne voit plus de combats susceptibles de justifier le recours aux armes. A part, peut-être, la défense des Yézidis assiégés par l’EI dans les montagnes de Sinjar. Mais il ne croit pas en une issue heureuse pour les Yézidis. En Afghanistan, il « savait qu’ils allaient gagner » .

Pierre Narchi posted this link on FB
‘Tout s’écroule.’ Abasourdie. Elle s’interroge, ne comprend pas. Marie-Agnès Choulet ‘n’avait rien vu venir’. Devant les caméras de France 2, puis BFM TV, elle…
3millions7.com|By Centre de formation des journalistes (CFJ)

 

 

State-sponsored hacking on the rise: The USA, France, Israel, China and now North Korea

North Korea only needed an Internet connection and computers to cripple an entire company like Sony Pictures Entertainment .

North Korea targeted Sony Pictures Entertainment because the studio planned to release “The Interview,” a satirical film depicting a plot to assassinate North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un.

Hackers calling themselves “Guardians of Peace” demanded that Sony stop the movie’s release, set for Christmas, or they would attack moviegoers in a 9/11-style assault.

Sony at first bowed to pressure and on Wednesday withdrew the film from theater distribution. But on Friday, criticized for giving the hackers what they wanted, the company said it hoped to distribute the comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco on “different platforms.”

Sony and the rise of state-sponsored hacking

North Korea has been blamed for one of the most destructive cyber-attacks on a company in US history. It’s just the latest in a string of hacks sanctioned and funded by governments

Ian Sherr  and Seth Rosenblatt posted this December 20, 2014

“This is absolutely a wake-up call,” said Bruce Bennett, an expert on North Korea and military defense for the RAND Corporation think tank. “We have North Koreans who built nuclear weapons. Why should we suspect they can’t do cyberattacks?”

While the latest cyberattack puts North Korea in the public eye, the country is not unique.

China, Israel, France, Syria and the US are among the world’s most powerful countries that have amassed armies of hackers engaged in cyberwarfare. These countries have reportedly used sophisticated computer skills to disable Iran’s uranium enrichment plants, cripple oil and gas production in Saudi Arabia and sabotage satellite and infrastructure systems around the world.

The number of cyberespionage attacks across the Web rose 15 % between 2011 and 2013, according to a report by Verizon. The annual cost of a successful cyberattacks increased to $20.8 million in the financial sector, $14.5 million in technology and $12.7 in the communications industry, according to a Heritage Foundation report released just before the attack on

Most attacks targeting the US come from China and France, in addition to those originating on American soil, according to Internet research firm Norse. State-sponsored hacking is “undeniably on the rise,” said Kurt Stammberger, senior vice president of market development at Norse.

In 2010, a malicious computer program called Stuxnet successfully damaged machines Iran was believed to be using to create nuclear weapons. Two years later, The New York Times said Israel and the United States were behind the attack.

Since then, hackers working on behalf of various countries have carried out plots against nations and corporations.

The Syrian Electronic Army, a group of hackers sympathetic to the dictatorial regime there, has defaced websites and taken control of social-media accounts.

The Chinese government is suspected of having breached the computer networks of government and spy agencies around the world, as well as large corporations including Google, Adobe, Yahoo and defense contractor Northrop Grumman.

President Obama also said he doesn’t believe North Korea worked with other countries in the attack against Sony.

In the not-too-distant future, warfare with traditional weaponry may take a backseat to potentially more destructive tactics: computer code attacking the companies and infrastructures, including electric grids and oil and gas pipelines, that society relies on.

That isn’t as farfetched as it once was, said Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of security services firm CrowdStrike. “From a technical perspective, this attack wasn’t unprecedented,” he said. “There’s no doubt we’ll see more of these in the future.”

While the attack on Sony may seem expansive in its destructive scope, it only affected shareholders, partner companies and employees. An attack on critical infrastructure of countries would be more devastating, said Evan Sills, a cybersecurity consultant at Good Harbor.

Many countries have the ability to do such damage but have so far refrained from such destructive attacks, Sills added. But that doesn’t mean terrorist groups will show similar restraint.

“What North Korea did to Sony, a terrorist group could do to them in three years,” Sills said. “In terms of how bad could it get? It could get pretty bad.”

 

Most potent Queen: 16th century Catherine of Medicis

The 16th century was one of the most violent of centuries: massacres, religious genocide events, perpetual wars, famine, plagues (moria)…

And yet, the 16th century was ripe with illustrious and famous personalities and characters: Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Machiavelli, Ariosto, England Elizabeth I, Shakespeare, Phillip II of Spain, Charles Quint, Savonarola, Luther, Calvin

You can say Europe in the 16th century was the Christian flip coin of current ISIS (Daesh) in extremism, cruelty and fixation in their belief systems.

Every nascent religious sect, and they were numerous (Protestants, Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists…), and they all adopted the Old Testament stories for guidance and the Ancient prophets proclamations as their guiding rod to commit massacres and try to wipe out the other sect members.

This is a typical case of counter reaction since the Catholics focused on the message of Jesus (The New Testament) and the stories of the saints while they had the Old testament on the back burner.

This trend in focus is still adopted today with both sects.

The Catholics were called the papists, the Protestant sects in France were called parpaillot, reformists, biblical and they wore the white scarf

Almost any Prince with wealth hired from the large pool of mercenaries to attack towns and villages and get the title of the vanquished prince and the razzia loot.

Katarina of Medicis lost both her parents as a child.

Her father was Laurent II of Florence and her mother was the French Madeleine de Bourbon of Auvergne.

By the age of 18, she had lost all her cousins and relatives. Italy was the scene of constant wars among the princes and town and cities changed hands very frequently.  For example her aunt, half-brother Alexander and cousin Hippolyte died by poisoning and in battles.

Catherine spent most of her childhood in prisons, monasteries, nunneries… until her great uncle Pope Clement managed to arrange her wedding to the second son of France King Francois I.

The French King and his son Henry were made prisoners by the monarch Charles Quint at the Pavia battle in Italy, and they remained incarcerated for 5 years.

Henri II and Catherine were 14 years old when they married.

At their wedding night, King Francois entered their bedroom and watched the actual intercourse and made sure to see the bloody bed sheet.

And Catherine could not get pregnant until she was 18 and she lived in perpetual fear of being divorced, but King Francois liked his Duchessina.

Her first son Francois died in childhood. And she remained pregnant every year for 15 years.

Diane de Poitier, the eternal sweet heart of King Henry until he died, wanted Catherine to be pregnant all the time so that she keep the king all to herself.

There was no competition: Diane was beautiful and tall, while Catherine was short, chubby and plain.

Henry II wore the black and white preferred colors of his beloved Diane and all the emblems had the H and D initials.

After Henry died in a Knight Fighting joust during a ceremony by the captain of his Scottish troop Montgomery, Diane met with Catherine and Diane retreated to her chateau, never to hear from her again.

Catherine gave birth a couple of times to twins who died in childbirth and many other of her progenitor.

Only 3 of her male kids survived to live to be over 3o and no more than 35 Two became kings Charles 9 and Henry 3.

The daughters who survived to get married off were 3: Elizabeth, Claude and Marguerite (Margo )

The eldest Elizabeth was betrothed to Phillip II of Spain, Claude to the Prince of Lorraine, and Marguerite (Margo ) to Henry of Navarre, who became king Henry 4, and thus the dynasty turned over from the Valois to the Bourbon.

Margo and Henry had no liking to one another and they mostly led separate life. Margo fucked every attractive person she liked and had love affairs with her brothers, particularly the future Henry III.

When Henry 4 was assassinated, Margo continued her life-style of total debauchery and refused to be detached from her Regency status even after her son Louis 13 was enthroned.

Catherine had two critical jobs to battle for:

1. Secure and maintain the French dynasty of Les Valois through her sons

2. Avoid any excuses for Spain King Phillip 2 to invade France. Phillip 2 was the most powerful and wealthiest monarch in western Europe.

Actually, Catherine denied the Spanish troops permission to cross France in order to enter and occupy Belgium and the Netherlands

Some how, her immature sons took advantage of their mother’s worries and priorities by allying with French factions against King Phillip’s Catholic policies and constituted coalitions of princes opposing Catherine policies of neutrality.

The eldest son Charles 9 was cruel, brutal and a nitwit. He was tightly linked to admiral Gaspard de Coligny (a Huguenot Protestant sect) and they were scheming to form an army and harass the Spanish troops in Belgium.

That was a red line that Coligny should have not crossed for Catherine, and she decided to assassinate de Coligny

The attempt failed and the admiral was just wounded. Catherine knew that the fingers will point to her and she hurriedly met with her son King Charles 9 for the entire night, figuring a way out of that mess to avoid a civil war.

Finally Charles gave up and screamed “Kill him, kill them all”

Her son Henry gave the job to his great friend, the catholic prince Henry de Guise who insisted on waging wars on the Huguenots. De Guise didn’t wait for the green light and attacked the Huguenot early morning.

What was supposed to decapitate the leaders of this sect, turned out a massive massacre. The genocide in Paris lasted 3 days and 4 nights and then it spread to the provinces for months. After the massacre, on the 4th day, the shopkeepers, butchers and common people returned to their jobs as if nothing happened.

The insane and cruel Charles 9 lost it completely after this tragedy and stayed in his castle blowing his horns as if going hunting and screaming from the top of his head. He died at the age of 34.

Her second son Henry was her favourite. There were negotiation of marrying Henry to Elizabeth I of England that faltered because henry believed the rumors in France circles that Elizabeth was the “whore of London”

For a brief winter, Henry was pressured to travel to Poland in order to rule this country as its monarch, but he fled with his French companions and travelled across Europe, Venice and other Italian cities.

Henry’s passion as a young man was designing clothes and appointed himself the cloth designer in all ceremonies. He even designed what his brother-in law Henry of Navarre wore during his wedding. 

When Charles 9 died, Henry became King Henry III who was unstable and frequently whipped himself all night longs for forgiveness and chastisement. He brought wild animals and imprisoned them in a deep hole. One day he decided to kill a lion in the hole and then let the wild beasts devour one another.

His old friend Henry de Guise was receiving regular amount of money from Phillip II of Spain to destabilize France and keep it in constant civil war. And he set his mind to grab the throne since he was the most popular figure in Paris. De Guise was tall, svelte, handsome, blonde and rich.

In the nick of time, Henry III decided to flee to the Castle of Chartres in order not to be kept prisoner in Paris. It is there that Henry III receive intelligence that the Spanish Armada was destroyed and the attempt to invade England failed.

Eventually, Henry drew de Guise to his Palace and assassinated him by his Pretorian guards, along with de Guise’s brother the young Cardinal of Lorraine.  Pretorian guards or spadassins of 45 in number were from Gascoigne and headed by Du Guast. Catherine was dying during this assassination in another room.

And what of Catherine’s youngest son Francois?

Francois was fragile in health and eventually died of tuberculosis at the age of 30.

The king of Scotland sent his kid daughter Marie Stuart to Paris to live and be educated in the French court. Marie is the future  Queen of Scotland whom her cousin Elizabeth I would incarcerate in a London dungeon and decapitate her 8 years later.

Marie and Francois were inseparable, played together and were in love.

When Catherine husband Henry II was seriously injured, the surgeons were experimenting with “”live subjects” in order to discover the best way to perform the surgery on the dying Henry. Catherine forced Marie to watch the bloody surgery on one of the live person so that Marie learn “what it takes to be a queen

Until Marie had to leave France at the age of 18 after her father died. Marie never returned to France.

Francois gave his mother plenty of worries and troubles. He frequently disappeared from the screen of Catherine in order to form coalitions opposing either his brother Henry III or to fight the Spanish troops in Belgium.

Francois even paid a visit to London to rally Elizabeth I to his cause. He was a frequent visitor to Elizabeth’s bedroom until she got fed up and kicked him out of her bed, room and England.

Francois spent his last year leading an army in Belgium, occupying a town one day and losing another the next day.

Catherine had to criss-cross France several times and for a couple of years each time and way into her 60’s. Many of those long trips were meant to find her sons lost from her screen of control and who were complotting and joining coalitions (Ligues).

In her old age, she had to travel across France at the demands of  her immature sons of kings who were reluctant and unable to perform much of anything of value or to negotiate any peace treaty.

And Catherine was feared, respected, and admired for her abilities, steadfastness and clear visions by all the factious princes.

Catherine relied on her “Girls” the “Flying Spies” to gather critical pieces of intelligence of the creation of inside coalitions among the princes and managed to disperse or decapitate in the bud many alliances that constituted a threat to the throne of the Valois dynasty or which could invite foreign powers to attack France..

Catherine managed to maintain the integrity of France and avoided to intervene militarily outside France.

She was the Regent, in-power or effectively for 40 years and was the doyen (Dean) of the Western European monarchies  for several decades.

If it were not for her deceiving and deceitful sons of kings and her useless daughters, France would have witnessed the best powerful Queen they ever had.

She died before she could save Henry 3 who had accumulated enemies through his reckless decisions.

Catherine was a real genius in politics and statesmanship.

Mostly, real geniuses come from the pool of early orphaned persons

Note 1: Read the French book of Michel Peyramaure 

Note 2: In these centuries, absolute monarchies agreed to sign “peace treaties” when these 3 conditions were satisfied:

1. One of the monarch is feeling the weight of age and is terribly reluctant to go out on a long adventure

2. The treasury is bankrupt

3. Civil wars about to break out if one of the sons is vying for the throne

At this junction, the monarch gets busy “selling off” to the highest bidder his daughters and sons to kings and princes.

If the negotiations do not replenish the treasury, at least temporary truces are to be expected.

Soon enough, one of the sons snatches the throne, and being too anxious for adventure, more wars are ignited and the cycle is closed.

Sure, a historian can amass plenty of other causes to explain and validate the ridiculous frequent wars and skirmishes, but the simplest overwhelming reason is related of” totally bored young monarchs” with plenty of energy to spend outside of hunting parties.

France is ditching the ‘Islamic State’ name — and replacing it with a label the group hates

From the start, exactly what to call the extremist Islamist group that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq has been problematic.

At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or (the acronym Daesh in Arabic).

However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

(The US preferred ISIL in order to satisfy the wishes of their obscurantist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia monarchy that is scared to giving the ISIS any further expansion schemes into Saudi Arabia, the hotbed of Wahhabism and their homeland. Wahhabism is the extreme Protestant counterpart in Islamic sects)

To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the “Islamic State” – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate.

(Or the caliphate title is thought after by the Saudi monarchy)

A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press  and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted this name, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL.

Now the French have added another complication.

On Monday, the French government released a statement that included a reference to the group under a different name: “Daesh.

September 17 , 2014

France had hinted that it would begin using this term – how the group is referred to in much of the Arab world – before, but this week appears to be the first time that the country has used it in official communications.

This is a terrorist group and not a state,” Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters last week, according to France 24.

I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats.’ ”

That logic is certainly understandable, and the French aren’t alone in bristling at the idea that an extremist group gets to take the moniker “Islamic State.”

Last month, Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Dar al-Ifta, called on the world’s media to stop using the term, instead suggesting a new term: “al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria” or QSIS.

“The initiative by Dar al-Ifta came to express the institution’s rejection of many stereotypes that attach the name of Islam to bloody and violent acts committed by such groups,” Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to Egyptian grand mufti Shawqi Allam, told al-Arabiya News.

And a group of British imams recently called on British Prime Minister David Cameron to stop calling the group “Islamic State,” making a request for a new moniker, “Un-Islamic State,” instead.

“We do not believe the terror group responsible should be given the credence and standing they seek by styling themselves Islamic State,” a letter sent from the imams to Cameron read, according to the Guardian. “It is neither Islamic, nor is it a state.

Despite the admirable French logic, Daesh comes with its own complications.

As historian and blogger Pieter van Ostaeyen noted back in February, that word is a transliteration of an Arabic word (داعش), an acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham (which is itself a transliteration of the group’s Arabic name: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام).

There are a variety of different schools of transliteration, and there are a number of different styles for writing the Arabic acronym in Latin characters: The Washington Post uses DAIISH, but DAASH, DAIISH and DAISH are also used.

However it’s spelled, there’s another big factor: The group is reported to hate the moniker.

The Associated Press recently reported that the group were threatening to cut out the tongues of anyone who used the phrase publicly, and AFP have noted that the term “Daeshi” has been used a derogatory term in some parts of the Middle East.

Some analysts have suggested that the dislike of the term comes from its similarity to another Arabic word, دعس, or Das. That word means to trample down or crush.

Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.

adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

March 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,375,953 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 720 other followers

%d bloggers like this: