A headline to an article at Prison Planet says it very well: “Global NSA Surveillance Did Nothing to Prevent Paris Shooting.”
We are told by our overlords that, for our own safety, we must all be watched and monitored by the state at all times. Like 1984. Except they don’t say the part about “like 1984.” No, they tell us that if we’re not doing anything wrong, we shouldn’t have a problem with being watched. So we all have to be watched, but notice that it never stops any attacks, like the bombing at the Boston Marathon. Or the hostage situation in Sydney. Or the shooting in Paris.
Indeed, terrorism is never stopped by the surveillance state (and I would argue, is probably staged or allowed to happen by the owners of the surveillance state), and each terror event that occurs despite the surveillance state is met with hand-wringing from the overlords and their media mouthpieces about the fact that it’s unfortunate that the terror attack happened and to prevent such events in the future, what we really need to do is get rid of this impediment or that impediment to the surveillance state and then all will be well. And of course, the “impediments” they’re talking about are our freedoms: of speech, privacy, thought, etc.
None dare call it terrorism
And of course, the actual terrorists—i.e., banksters and their fellow mafiosi in the military-industrial complex—are certainly never brought to justice through the use of the massive surveillance state, even though presumably their phone calls, emails, Internet activity, bank records, travel patterns, and other assorted data are known to the surveillance community. Surely the NSA has enough on Jamie Dimon and his ilk to put them away for a very long time, and it’s not as though Dimon and others are not engaged in wrongdoing and/or extreme malfeasance of one kind or another, as noted in this listicle: “7 CEOS WHO SHOULD BE IN JAIL INSTEAD OF MARY MCCULLEY.” Yet no Wall Street bigwigs have seen or will see the inside of a jail cell despite the supposedly all-seeing surveillance state.
The surveillance state seems to always have such bad timing, doesn’t it? In Paris, we are told, the police showed up 5 minutes after the gunmen had left—oh snap! So close! This tardiness was despite the fact that the now-famous footage of the gunmen shooting at the already-downed officer at point-blank range was apparently being filmed on a cell phone, which is supposedly easily accessed in real-time by the security state, as discussed in this article, titled “Cellphone data spying: It’s not just the NSA”:
The National Security Agency isn’t the only government entity secretly collecting data from people’s cellphones. Local police are increasingly scooping it up, too.
Police maintain that cellphone data can help solve crimes, track fugitives or abducted children or even foil a terror attack.
Yeah, theoretically they ought to be able to “foil a terror attack,” they just…never do. Hmmm…now why is that?
Granted, the story above is about American police, but as the Prison Planet article mentioned at the beginning of this article states, we’re dealing with a global surveillance state and apparently the NSA is able to record, and has recorded, phone calls even in France:
The National Security Agency monitored the phone calls made in France, Le Monde reported Monday, citing documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
“Telephone communications of French citizens are intercepted on a massive scale,” Le Monde said in its online English edition.
The intercepts took place from December 10, 2012, to January 8, 2013, the article reported. An NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts a day.
According to Le Monde, this is how the system worked: “When a telephone number is used in France, it activates a signal which automatically triggers the recording of the call. Apparently this surveillance system also picks up SMS (text) messages and their content using key words. Finally, the NSA apparently stores the history of the connections of each target — or the meta-data.”
Even with this, the gendarmes were still five minutes behind the gunmen. Does that not strike anyone else as odd?
Why isn’t all “terrorism” and crime nipped in the bud? Why have wars?
If these incredible surveillance capabilities really do exist, why is there any crime or terrorism? Why couldn’t it all be nipped in the bud? Any criminals plotting over any modern communication device—be they bankers, al Qaeda/ISIS, or common street thugs—could be found out in essentially real-time. And this capability, as the article above mentions, should “foil terror attack[s].” But again, it never does.
And this incredible surveillance capability should really cut down on wars, too, wouldn’t you think? Especially the “war on terror,” which is supposedly really a war against some stateless individuals—remember the entire excuse (or one of the biggest excuses) for invading Afghanistan, a country which had no involvement in 9/11, was because one guy, i.e. Osama bin Laden was there. So if all we’re trying to get is a handful of guys—the bin Ladens of the world, the Zawahiris of the world, etc., and we have this incredible, all-seeing surveillance and drones and smart weapons, why would we invade another country ever again? Doesn’t make sense to send out armies if you can easily find the guy you want and send in a couple of RoboBees to take care of him, now does it?
But terrorism and war are their bread and butter
Well, it does make sense if you understand that the military-industrial complex doesn’t get to keep milking us taxpayers if we don’t have “terrorism” and unwinnable “wars on terrorism.” So it seems to me that there are two possibilities here: 1) the surveillance state is way over-hyped and has nowhere near the capabilities we are told it has, hence the fact that “terror attacks,” crime, and war go on unabated, or 2) the surveillance state does have all the capabilities we’re told it has but the terrorism, crime, and war are allowed to continue so that the military-industrial complex is not made obsolete. So which is it? I’ll leave that one up to you.
Snowden, in his first interview, suggested the gathering of of the data will never be used to the benefit of citizens, only to their detriment.