Why Assange, Snowden and their little henchmen aren’t heroes

The left-wing lauds Julian Assange, ignoring his alleged criminal behaviour.

They celebrate Edward Snowden despite the fact he is a traitor and currently enjoys the protection of a despotic virtual dictator.

They falsely claim that their enabler, Glenn Greenwald has won a Pulitzer Prize, when he has not.

They hold these three up as heroes, when the reality is starkly different.

Max Hastings calls them out and explains why the “liberals who defend traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools”.

248CD84100000578-0-image-a-58_1420854703652

Just imagine the Queen’s Birthday Parade, June 13, 2015: the monarch, her family and escorting officers are arrayed on Horse Guards’ in Whitehall, watching the serried red companies wheel and march past in slow time.

Suddenly, men burst from the crowd and begin spraying bullets among the soldiers and spectators.

It is a scenario from hell, yet no more fanciful than that of Wednesday’s massacre in a Paris magazine office, or last month’s slaughter of 132 schoolchildren in Peshawar, or the carnage of the London bus and Tube bombs of July 2005.

It is the sort of image with which security chiefs live every day of their working lives, because for them that would be the cost of a failure.

Yesterday’s dramatic events in France ended with three terrorists and four hostages dead after a formidable French security and intelligence operation.

The intelligence services have never doubted that new terrorist attacks will come to the West, including Britain. An event such as the Charlie Hebdo killings merely gives the ongoing threat a shocking new sense of immediacy.

On Thursday, the director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, made a rare speech, warning it was almost inevitable that an attack in this country would get through sooner or later. ‘Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know that we cannot hope to stop everything,’ he said.

The price of living in an open society, with the precious freedoms we take for granted, is that all of us, great and small, are vulnerable to attackers consumed by hatred for our culture, its values, and manifest superiority to those from which they come.

Globalisation places a disturbing number of such people in our midst, rather than far away in Somalia or Iran.

The good news is that although Islamic fanatics can cause us pain and grief, they pose no existential threat as did Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

They cannot be compromised or parleyed with, because they have no rational political demands: they claim affiliation to a feudal order in which women are denied rights, technology is banished and mullahs arbitrate over daily life.

This is the astonishing thing that I find difficult to believe. The very same liberals who support women’s rights, abortion on demand, demolishing of a so-called rape culture, gay rights, are supposedly anti-racist…and so on, yet they all support through their silence a feudal ideology that subjugates or kills those things, beliefs and people they hold dear.

Those who argue in favour of according ‘traditional British tolerance’ towards ‘young Muslim hotheads’ ignore the seriousness of what is going on around us. At least 300 British-born Muslims are currently thought to be fighting as jihadis in Iraq and Syria, alongside thousands more from other European nations.

These people cannot be compared — as liberal columnists sometimes foolishly suggest — with the young romantics who left Britain in the Thirties to fight General Franco’s fascism in the Spanish Civil War.

The jihadis embrace a nihilistic faith of which the consummation is no political victory, but instead death — for themselves and hapless innocents.

My old friend the military historian Professor Sir Michael Howard makes an important point: we in the West like to delude ourselves that most of the world wants to share the cultural freedom we cherish.

In reality, he says, freedom is a relatively modern idea, and huge numbers of people, many of them hardline Muslims, bitterly resist it.

It was demented hostility to freedom that caused the Paris killers to murder 12 people on Wednesday for mocking the Prophet, just as Monty Python and countless other Western comedians have for decades mocked Jesus Christ.

Michael Howard notes that fundamentalist Muslims feel a much stronger attachment to their tribe or sect than to any nation state. Jihadism, he says, represents a response to ‘the challenge of a secular, urban civilisation that threatens to destroy their traditional values and beliefs’.

It took us, in the West, about three centuries after the Enlightenment — when reason and individualism began to assert themselves in the 17th and 18th centuries — to become comfortable with what we now call cultural freedom.

We cannot expect doctrinaire Muslim societies from the East, which have fomented radicalism throughout the world, to do so in a few years.

‘It is not surprising that a fanatical minority, inspired by a romantic longing to return to the doctrines and practices of a pure Islam, aim at destroying the Western civilisation that they see as debauching the purity of their own culture and beliefs,’ says Howard.

If they won’t change then we must resist…with force.

Many who take up violence are losers, incapable of achieving social or professional success in their adopted societies. We should never underrate the role of boredom, a search for purpose, in persuading unstable young men to embrace terrorism.

But understanding the fanatics’ motivation does not in the least diminish the need vigorously to defend ourselves against them. In some ways, it is harder to counter people who acknowledge allegiance to no national flag than to confront Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or even Iran.

Our principal weapons against terrorists are not tanks, Typhoon fighter jets or warships, but instead intelligence officers using electronic surveillance.

Much cant has been peddled recently about the supposed threat to liberty posed by government eavesdropping on our lives.

Such people as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor turned treacherous fugitive), who have broadcast American and British secrets wholesale, are celebrated as heroes by some people who should know better, many of them writing for the Guardian or broadcasting for the BBC.

In truth, Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping.

A senior intelligence officer told me recently how dismayed he and his colleagues were by the risk that their listening operations would be curtailed by civil liberties campaigners. ‘GCHQ gives us the only edge we have got over these people’, he said.

I am convinced he is right, that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 must maintain their licence — within a legal framework — to trawl the ether, in the strongest public interest.

There may be a few mavericks within intelligence services who abuse such power, but unless we view the very existence of government as inherently wicked and threatening, I cannot for the life of me imagine what harm can result from MI5 accessing the phone calls, bank accounts, emails of you, me or any other law-abiding citizen. How much Amazon and Google know about our private lives seems much more alarming than what MI5 discovers.

Public safety demands a perpetual balancing act between collective security and the rights of the individual.

Snowden, Assange and their enablers have helped terrorists and criminals with their constant wailing about “deep state surveillance”. Every person who dies as a result of terrorism is on their heads.

History teaches that few societies are completely safe for long. All that changes is the nature of the threats.

Our forefathers lived with Jacobite rebels, machine-wrecking Luddites, mobs that smashed every window in the Duke of Wellington’s Apsley House in London, German bombers, trades union militants, Trotskyite revolutionaries, and Irish terrorists.

We would have more cause to be fearful of the Islamic fanatics if they were peddling a coherent doctrine such as communism or fascism, with a spurious plausibility.

Instead, the jihadists’ murderous outrages represent merely howls of fury against the 21st century, in which they are so ill-fitted to compete.

As MI5 warned on Thursday, there will be more acts of terrorism, some in Britain, and they will cause us distress.

Our intelligence services — and now the French security service — have been criticised because on several occasions terrorist attacks have been carried out by men whose names are discovered to have been on terrorist watch lists.

But logistically it is an impossible task for any intelligence agency to monitor the thousands, and even tens of thousands, of young Muslims known to have expressed an interest in violence.

What we must remember is that our society is much stronger than they are. Our values are those of civilisation, whereas they fly the black flag of barbarism.

There are plenty of people who worry about surveillance, some rage against it, other tweet inanities about it. Politicians whinge about it…but what other defences do we have against people who wish us death and harm?

Sit here and accept it? Wring our hands at the humanity of it all?

I prefer to live and stand on my feet, not crawl to the demands and wishes of a medieval death cult.

– Daily Mail

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • conwaycaptain

    That covers Norman, Turei, Minto and the rest of their fellow travellers

    • Aucky

      ……..and let’s not forget the big guy who bankrolled their seditious efforts to undermine our democracy.

      • Cadwallader

        For that reason ALONE he ought be booted out of NZ, promptly!

      • Pete

        .Com is of no consequence, he will be gone soon enough, he does not, and never has had the same belief set, as the progressive communist traitors he enabled, he was just a banker for them

        Someone pulled me up the other day ….not on here, for calling Harre, Norman, Minto . Greenwalld, Snowden etc traitors..apparently it was a bit “harsh” Well in my eye’s, anyone who deliberately tries to endanger a country and it’s citizens by exposing methods and systems employed by the states security services to our enimies is a traitor.

        • Aucky

          Agreed Pete but Dotcon does deserve his place in infamy. He made his cash available in an effort to influence our democratic processes for his own ends. Had he succeeded just imagine where our country would be right now economically and where our international reputation would stand.

        • NoEyeDeer

          I disagree with the label traitor for the mentioned folks. I can see it being applied for Snowden as he must have known the implications releasing the data would have on his fellow intelligence peers and the global intel community. However traitor is a specific word that gives the activities of Harre, Minto etc. far too much credit. I think they believe they are following an ideology that is right and true, but in reality they are little more than egotist political wannabes with a grudge.
          The only value I think characters like Assange and Snowden bring about is the checks and balances to Intel gathering which is vital to sustain it’s proper function in a civilised democracy.
          I admire their passion, however misguided, to bring about a change they thought was necessary and I will pause to acknowledge that before they are rightly clapped in irons and taken to jail for the crimes they have committed.
          Traitors .. not really, Heroes, hell no, Criminals .. .yup.

      • Albert Lane

        The sooner he’s gone, the sooner we’ll be able to forget him. The quicker the better.

    • Pete

      It sure does, I wish we had a public figure who would stand up and call all of these traitors out, the love fest with Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald was something to behold, driven I may add by our traitorous media.

  • williamabong

    Terrorism – coming to a town near you soon

  • Davo42

    At some point Snowden is going to figure out that his whistle blowing was not worth it. He is now stuck in a horrible place and completley controlled by the Russian version of the organisation he was trying to destroy.He has no access to new information and has become irrelevant. Other than embarrasing a few world leaders his leaks have been ineffective, and has failed to affect any change.

    • conwaycaptain

      Snowden is now irrelevant and so Is Assange. He stuffed his backers for GBP250k when he took up residence in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
      He cannot leave and his health is failing.

      • Albert Lane

        Did you read in the UK press about how much Assange is costing the British Government in its efforts to ensure he doesn’t leave the Ecuadorian Embassy without being arrested. It’s in the millions of pounds. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

  • Sally

    As I said on BC last night for our spy agencies to do their jobs properly they have to be secretive so I wish certain individuals including some in this country shut up and let them to their job.

  • I hope our fat German friend is reading this–it may help him understand why he is seen as a pariah by so many in this country. Trotting out his band of traitors, self-aggrandising ‘Pulitzer’ prize winners and fugitives did neither him, his party or the Hagar any good at all.

  • Sally

    One must wonder why are there are some private individuals so concerned how our spy agencies operate.
    Are they doing something illegal or covering for someone?
    So in raising issues is this their way to get media/politicians on their side? Then this results in more barriers put way of our spy agencies to effectively do their job.

    • ex-JAFA

      They’re not necessarily criminals or associates trying to hide crime, although I’m sure there are some in that category. Others will adhere to a flawed political ideology that wants less government interference in their lives, yet the rest of their (oxy)moronic ideology is all about either forcing people to do – or prohibiting people from doing – all manner of other things.

      As a libertarian, the only areas where I want more government resourcing is in defence and intelligence… so that they can *protect* my right to do pretty much what I like with my own life and property.

  • Franco.Prussia

    Politicians need to run with the reasoning expressed here instead of being cowards. One reason that the worried lefties still get traction on this is that very few politicians have ever come out strongly enough, outside perhaps the US. They need to be straight and say that they need intelligence to defeat current threats in the same way they needed nukes to defeat previous threats… and that if we can trust the state with the capacity to annihilate the world we should also trust it to maintain our privacy. Admit there will be mistakes, but promise there won’t be abuses. That’s about it, and the average punter will close their ears to the loons.

  • friardo

    “The intelligence services have never doubted that new terrorist attacks will come to the West” should have read RETURN to the West. There is nothing new about Muslim terrorism.

  • Mikev

    We have our own snivvelling leftwing tosspots here who want to disband our GCSB & SIS – Russell Norman, Minto, Locke etc. The MSM should be taking them to task on their views. They won’t of course!

  • Amanda Atkinson

    Who needs surveillance? All we need to do is send Russel and Matiria to hug the terrorists, and talk to them. Easy fixed!

  • Dave_1924

    So… we let the intelligence services trawl everything of anyone, anytime. And that is our best bet to protect ourselves?

    And there is still no guarantee it will protect us as the speech says “But logistically it is an impossible task for any intelligence agency to
    monitor the thousands, and even tens of thousands, of young Muslims
    known to have expressed an interest in violence.”

    I do not agree that some faceless people should be able to trawl any and all eletronic information regarding me on the off chance. No thank you. I am not a person of interest. And I value my privacy. I CHOOSE what the world sees of me and my life. Currently i am pretty open about my life. But that is my CHOICE not state compulsion.

    The ring leaders of these acts are well known to the security services, the spiders in the background are well known to the security services. Targetted monitoring and surveillance of these people, under warrant where necessary, is fine by me.

    The real way to try, I believe to try and stop this problem is:

    1 – Human Intel. Old fashioned ears to the ground, agents working under cover, informants inside the organisations behind these atrocities

    2 – Targetted SigInt: focused on the known puppet masters and their organisations, monitoring of known jihadi comms channels and disrupting them – particularly at source.

    3 – Addressing the reservoirs the expendable foot soldiers come from in the West. Targetted programmes of counter propaganda to plant messages of hope for these people. Targetted programmes to give these people meaningful jobs so idle hands don’t have time to get involved. This is a battle for hearts and minds ultimately to reduce the number of potential foot soldiers

    4 – Removing, and quickly, hate merchants from the public domain and putting them in solitary confinement for the rest of their natural. Remove the cause of the infection not the symptoms. Though this is open to abuse

    5 – Finding a way to target the cashflows that support the jihadist movement. Which means looking at our “friends” like the KSA and other countries in the Middle East. They are ultimately behind these thugs

    6 – Stop Muslim migration to the West. Once a large enough MUslim population has establish in a Western country there is an inevitable, it seems judging by England, France etc examples, calls for Sharia. Sharia is contrary to secular societies insistence on the rule of Law – law made by our democratic institution of parliament. Islam and Secular Western society are oil and water. They will never mix truly

    Much of the above will not find support in a broad sense here – I know that. The points above are imperfect no doubt and won’t stop the problem entirely.

    But I am not willing to be a party to a broad, do what you like, state surveillance apparatus that can legally trawl my life whenever and however it wants.

    I, as a free person, get to CHOOSE what I reveal about myself and my life. That is a fundamental part of Western culture – CHOICE.

    If we give that away then we are moving into Big Brother land where we have always been at war with America and the Caliphate has always been our Ally

    Target Terrorists and their command structures…. but the operative word is TARGET.

  • Dog Breath

    The worse part of this debate is that ultimately society is being forced to decide how many senseless deaths are acceptable verse giving up some perceived personal freedoms. As already admitted nothing can be done to provide 100% assurance that everyone is safe so what is to be the number of acceptable deaths . It’s a horrible situation for democracy to be in.

32%