As can be seen from the inconsistencies between this entry and my previous entries related to the "kill list," I don't know precisely where the truth of the matter lies - just that the NY Times' story isn't it, although it appears to contain hints of the truth, such as the claim that some intelligence officials refer to drone strikes as "crowd kills." Its main purpose appears to be to reinforce the "war on terror" cover story for what is actually a Satanic reign of terror and a war on civilization and mankind. (The Times' article even claims that the supposed weekly meetings about "the kill list" [33 44 60] take place on "Terror Tuesday.")
It strikes me as strange that we can know that the media from time to time publishes utter fabrications (such as its reports about Syria, which have included Hollywood-style productions complete with sets resembling portions of Syrian cities, according to this interview with Webster Tarpley), and yet take articles about what supposedly happens in the inner sanctums of government so seriously. The recent NY Times article about "the kill list," is a case in point. (See Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will. Note that, at least when I viewed it, the title was preceded by a seemingly strange phrase "A measure of change," which just happens to convert to 1 82 21 38, i.e. 83 21 38, i.e. 11 3 11.)
With this in mind, I went over the article again, even though I dismissed it as a "fairy tale" after my initial perusal, and this time I noted that there is no way to prove much if anything about it. Below, I include a few excerpts from it, and comment on them, to draw attention to the possibility that is it is another such shameless fabrication with NO RELATION to reality, published shortly after Jeremy Scahill's recent interview on NPR (see this entry), probably to get in the last word and thus make us forget what Scahill said: Also note that things supposedly reverted to business-as-usual after the "underwear bomb" scare, as I mentioned in this entry. So, this article about some supposed hand-wringing over drone strikes just doesn't fit into what we know about drone strikes. Here are some excerpts, with my emphasis and comments:
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
[With guns and bombs? If you lived in one of these areas, wouldn't you carry a rifle? Are these "bombs" labeled "bomb" in letters large enough to be seen by a drone? Do they have alarm clocks attached to the outside?]
It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.
[Note that because this (supposed) conference doesn't involve an actual physical meeting, it's easy to spin a fantasy about it taking place. Also note that the supposed detailed biographies of the "terrorists" seem to appear out of nowhere, as if from some propagandist's imagination.]
This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and LIFE STORIES of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.
[So, we're supposed to imagine teams of CIA agents running around Yemen, infiltrating Al Qaeda, getting their names, and then interviewing their relatives to get their life stories. And yet, even with this amazing ability to gather information in the area, drones strikes somehow frequently go horribly "wrong."]
The video conferences are run by THE PENTAGON, WHICH OVERSEES STRIKES IN THOSE COUNTRIES, and participants do not hesitate to call out a challenge, pressing for the evidence behind accusations of ties to Al Qaeda.
[If the Pentagon oversees the strikes and runs the conferences, it can say whatever it wants and bomb whomever it wants. Who's going to prove them wrong?]
“What’s a Qaeda facilitator?” asked one participant, illustrating the spirit of the exchanges. “If I open a gate and you drive through it, am I a facilitator?” Given the contentious discussions, it can take five or six sessions for a name to be approved, and names go off the list if a suspect no longer appears to pose an imminent threat, the official said. A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the C.I.A. focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes.
[For all we know, this account could be a complete fabrication to give the impression that someone asks "the tough questions" that we would ask if we could. There is no way to verify it. Even if the meeting actually occurred, and someone actually asked such a question, how would they know that the answer was truthful?]
Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America’s image and derail diplomacy.
[According to Webster Tarpley, Obama was schooled in Nietzsche and Frantz Fanon, the latter of whom is notorious for advocating "holy violence," which I assume is an allusion to advanced SRA. The Ulstermann Report paints an image of a White House run by a "composite Presidency," and not some supposed benevolent philosopher-king. Then there's the known fact that Obama demanded the imprisonment of the one reporter who reported the truth about drone strikes in Yemen.]
“He realizes this isn’t science, this is judgments made off of, most of the time, human intelligence,” said Mr. Daley, the former chief of staff. “The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.”
[Again, how do we know that the discussion has anything to do with what's actually happening? Why are those who threaten to provide reports from the scene systematically persecuted, and in some cases, themselves killed by drone strikes, as I mentioned in this entry? ]
Mr. Obama, who had rejected the Bush-era concept of a global war on terrorism and had promised to narrow the American focus to Al Qaeda’s core, suddenly FOUND HIMSELF DIRECTING STRIKES IN ANOTHER COMPLICATED MUSLIM COUNTRY.
[This narrative of the al-Majalah massacre, the result of a cruise missile exploding over an encampment of Bedoin herders, which was supposedly an Al Qaeda training camp, is probably intended to "correct" Jeremy Scahill's statements about it in his NPR interview (see this entry). In fact, this was a case of unmitigated terror intended to generate recruits for Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Taliban-like organization in Yemen. Cruise missiles have massive warheads, and the one used in this case contained bomblets that didn't go off initially, and killed people who stumbled onto them well after the initial attack.]
THE VERY FIRST STRIKE UNDER HIS WATCH IN YEMEN, ON DEC. 17, 2009, OFFERED A STARK EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTIES of operating in what General Jones described as an “embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with.”
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. IT WAS HARDLY THE KIND OF PRECISE OPERATION THAT MR. OBAMA FAVORED. Videos of children’s bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, FUELING A FEROCIOUS BACKLASH THAT YEMENI OFFICIALS SAID BOLSTERED AL QAEDA.
THE SLOPPY STRIKE shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.
[I contend that it was not sloppy, but deliberate and precise terrorism. How could anyone have confused that camp for a terrorist-training camp? Who were the terrorists being trained - those who authorized the strike?
What verifiable actions did Obama take? HE WENT AFTER THE REPORTER WHO REPORTED THE ACTUAL RESULTS, including the fact that it was not a drone strike, but a cruise-missile strike.
So, on the one hand, you have this account of Obama wringing his hands and studying the writings of Christian philosophers about the conduct of war, and on the other hand, his verifiable actions of demanding that the reporter be locked up, where he was subjected to "harsh treatment."]
Mr. Obama had drawn a line. BUT WITHIN TWO YEARS, HE STEPPED ACROSS IT. SIGNATURE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN WERE KILLING A LARGE NUMBER OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS, even when C.I.A. analysts were not certain beforehand of their presence. And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was seizing territory.
[Note the sly plug for "signature strikes" ("were killing a large number of terrorist suspects") indicating in my opinion that this story came from organized Satanism's propaganda division. Note that killing all these "terrorist suspects," according to Jeremy Scahill, did not include certain top terrorist leaders, who could schedule meetings at restaurants without fear of getting blown to bits out of the blue.]
Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. Officials say the criteria are tighter than those for signature strikes, requiring evidence of a threat to the United States, and they have even given them a new name — TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes. BUT THE DETAILS ARE A CLOSELY GUARDED SECRET — PART OF A PATTERN FOR A PRESIDENT WHO CAME INTO OFFICE PROMISING TRANSPARENCY.
[In other words, the authors are letting us know that after reading their long article, we really don't know anything more about what's happening in Yemen than we did before reading it, but they insinuate that we can trust "the Pentagon," and that if we knew the facts about TADS, we would agree that they are justified. Mentioning a type of operation known as TADS, which just so happens to convert to 44, the number which Crowley associated with "the bloody sacrifice" of Satanism, i.e. advanced SRA in the form of murder, might have been intended as a subtle means of waving the truth under our noses.]