Al-Shabaab vs The Security Dialogue: Round 3 - The Hilarity Continues

Well, folks. It's that time of year when our favorite little jihadis decide to engage me on Twitter. Our contest is always one-sided and really quite funny. For a bunch of murdering, raping, degenerates they do a hell of a job of setting up a great punch line. I'll stop teasing and let you see for yourself. Ding ding!

Daaamn son. .@hsmpress_ Got 99 problems & revenue streams is ONE. moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/ter…
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 29, 2013

.@hsmpress_ I never underestimated your "wealth". I believe that was the work of others. People will donate money for any evil.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Moreover, I'm never "shocked" by your actions. Though I am "impressed" you're still chasing an American HVT. How is Omar?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

@scrivenlking Amriki has imported that Yankee superiority mantra into #Somalia & he can't understand why locals are resisting him.
— HSM Press Office (@HSMPress_) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Speaking of superiority issues, how's that participating in democratic governments working out for you?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Seriously. How hard is it to catch a white guy who Tweets in Somalia? $70M in revenue & you can't catch a nerd w/ a beard? Sigh.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Speaking of Kenya, how's that going for you? Great parade they did for you guys. Hearts and minds, right?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ At least you guys have Mogadishu. No? Oh, touchy subject. Well at least you have the other cities. No? 99 problems, huh?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ You're on my mind. youtube.com/watch?v=eJlN9j…
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) May 1, 2013

Have You Seen Former FBI Agent Robert Levinson?

Former Special Agent Robert Levinson missing since March 2007

Robert Levinson is a former FBI agent who has gone missing since March 2007 in Iran. He was acting as a private investigator looking into cigarette-smuggling. There has been contact with the hostage-takers and Robert Levinson's family. There are some experts who have noted the sophisticated tradecraft involved in the transmission of these messages from the hostage-takers. They conclude this points to Iran clearly. The Iranian government contends they had nothing to do with this. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadnejad has stated, "Our security officials and agents have expressed their willingness to assist the FBI, if the FBI has any information about his travels around the world." It's curious he would make such a statement. What would his "travels around the world" illuminate for the Iranians? Ahmenijad has a history of playing coy whenever the Iranians have ever been directly linked with any nefarious activities. It's like asking your child to tell you who broke lock on a drawer you were keeping his Christmas presents and they reply "I would be happy to help you find the lock if you would tell me what the lock was protecting."

Here's an example of the messaging sent to Levinson's family.

Levinson supposedly met with Dawud Salahuddin, an American fugitive who converted to Islam and later assasinated an Iranian diplomat in the US. Salahuddin describes himself as a close friend with whom he "shared hotel room on Kish on March 8. Iranian officials in plain clothes came to the room and detained and questioned Salahuddin about his Iranian passport, Salahuddin said. On his release a day later, Levinson had disappeared, and the Iranian officials told Salahuddin he had left Iran." Salahuddin then says something that caught my eye - "I don't think he is missing, but don't want to point my finger at anyone. Some people know exactly where he is," Salahuddin told the newspaper (Financial Times). "He came only to see me." Salahuddin is in a very tricky spot. Levinson was meeting him to network with Iranian officials who might provide leads for a cigarette company that retained Levinson's services. Salahuddin can't go into further details because of his delicate situation there - he's political in Iran and has supported reformers who oppose the current regime. If the Iranians did take Levinson and Salahuddin knows something, I would suspect he's not going to say much for fear of endangering his safe-haven. 

Fred Burton, the VP for Intelligence at Stratfor, has put out a video talking about hypothetical investigative techniques US authorities have engaged in since they received the messages from the hostage-takers. It is interesting to note the correlation between the imagery analysis to find terrorist groups via their messaging and the analysis that goes into locating a hostage like Levinson with similar messaging. His video is below.

I have several readers in Iran.  So I'm going to post Levinson's picture and biographical data as well as a link to his family's blog.

Kish Island, Iran
March 9, 2007 

ROBERT A. LEVINSON

DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth:	March 10, 1948	Hair:	Gray
Place of Birth:	Flushing, New York	Eyes:	Blue
Height:	188 cm (74 inches) - at the time of his disappearance	Sex: Race:	Male White
Weight:	104 kg (230 pounds) - at the time of his disappearance	Citizenship:	U.S.

Remarks:

Levinson wears eyeglasses. He is believed to have lost a significant amount of  weight, possibly 50-60 pounds.

THE DETAILS Information is being sought regarding United States citizen Robert A. Levinson, a retired FBI Special Agent, who went missing during a business trip to Kish Island, Iran, on March 9, 2007. Levinson retired from the FBI in 1998 and worked as a private investigator following his retirement. Levinson traveled to Kish Island, Iran, on March 8, 2007, working on behalf of several large corporations, and his whereabouts, well-being and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance have been unknown since that time.  REWARD The United States Government is offering a reward of up to $1,000,000 for information leading directly to the safe location, recovery and return of Robert A. Levinson  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have any information concerning Robert Levinson, please contact the FBI Tip Line at tips.fbi.gov. You can also contact your nearest American Embassy or U.S. Consulate.  Field Office: Washington Field Office

Al-Shabaab vs The Security Dialogue: Round 2

Al-Shabaab (aka "The Lads") and I have continued our verbal contest of will and intellect.  As one might imagine, this has been quite entertaining.  My wife has told me I need a real hobby. Pfft! I told her some people have golf and I have making fun of transnational "designated terrorist organizations".  It's the simple things in life that are the most rewarding.

In case you haven't heard, al-Shabaab "nailed" the Kenyan military Twitter spokesperson who tweeted a photo of an execution which the Kenyans claimed happened in 2009.  Given the fact al-Shabaab was there when this execution took place because they were the executioners, it should come as no surprise al-Shabaab was able to note this glaring discrepancy in fact.  Massive embarrassment occurred prompting the Kenyans to apologize for the slight to al-Shabaab.  Sensing the mounting tension, I decided my commentary might be needed to mitigate this crisis.

Here's the commentary.  As you can see, this was a very entertaining series of tweets:

@MYC_Press @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir Seriously? Over ONE photo? You guys pulled off a heck of a coup! Finding Waldo should be piece of cake.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) January 12, 2012

@MYC_Press @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir U seem to excuse mass murder and terror.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) January 12, 2012

@scrivenlking @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir touche! but i don't - i'm just a jihadi waiting to cross over into Somalia & chinga a KDF personnel!
— MYC Press Office (@MYC_Press) January 12, 2012

Arms sales: Who buys our guns?

You ever wonder who we sell our guns and other weapon systems to? Turns out the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service conducted a study to find out.  The report is below.

Here is a table from that report you might find interesting.  Notice how dramatically sales have gone down in the last seven years.  While you're at it, let me know if you find any consistent leaders:

Here's the report as promised:

GRAPHIC: UAV fleet breakdown

Here's a pretty cool graphic from the folks at The Post.   It gives a breakdown of our current drone fleet.

The growing U.S. drone fleet - The Washington Post

UPDATE: Lost Drone or Trojan Horse?

So if you've been keeping tabs on the lost UAV in Iranian hands, you've probably read recently the Iranian claims that they brought the bird down with "electronic warfare".  Many experts have pondered on what techniques could have been used to bring down a "stealth" drone.  A popular theory has consistently been that the Iranians have spoofed the Global Positioning Satellite link between the UAV and its base and used that technology to "guide" the aircraft to their base in Iran.    It's even supported by a report done by the US Air Force on UAV vulnerabilities.  In a nutshell, the Iranians and these experts are claiming the Iranians tricked the UAV into believing the Iranians were the American base in Afghanistan in which it was supposed to be landing at.  What would this entail?  One theory I came across, via a comment on Bruce Schneier's original article on the lost UAV, was the Iranians could have used a mixture of high-gain antennas, a microwave link, and two aircraft following at the same speed as the UAV.

I have some issues with this theory from an intelligence standpoint, as it supposes a lot about the Iranians and their capabilities.

1. It would lead you to believe the Iranians have a need to bring down a drone which is simply taking pictures that any high-resolution satellite could pick up albeit not in real-time.  The Iranians have known for quite some time that we've been using our technology to spy on them and what areas we would be "curious" about.  Heck, any fourth grade student whose ever played Call of Duty knows that as well.
2. Second, it presumes the Iranians have the intelligence to know when exactly a UAV is flying and over which area.  Where would they get this type of information?  We have captured ZERO moles inside our government who would/could link sensitive drone technology/intelligence to Iran.  They would require an immense amount of verifiable data for such a project to be undertaken undetected and implemented almost flawlessly such as flight patterns (remember this is a "stealth" aircraft SEVERAL years in the making), satellite data which no other foreign government has used as of yet, real-time drone locations, and types of drones being flown.  Keep in mind the Beast of Khandahar wasn't "discovered" until 2009 at a base in Afghanistan. 
3. Third, that it would have the time to detect and dispatch the necessary equipment to those areas.  Even if it had the intelligence necessary, it has little in the ways of "stealth" technology to test this against let alone test it without raising eyebrows in Washington or Tel Aviv. 
4. Lastly, the Iranians never once thought to employ or use this in their campaign against the United States in Iran.  Seriously, why is this the first time the Iranians have showcased such a bird?  This presumes this is the first "stealth" UAV to fly over Iranian territory.  Surely, if they were as good as some pundits would have you believe, where are the other "stealth" drones?  I know - Iran, now claims to have seven other US drones.  What we know for a FACT is they have one verifiable drone in their custody.  How hard would it be to recreate a mock-up and say they "captured" the others?  Why now has the President requested just this one particular drone?  Because they only had this one and he already got what he wanted when it crashed.
5. Just because something is possible does not make it plausible.  It is possible I could one day become the CEO of Microsoft, but given my lack of experience as the CEO of a major corporation, it is not plausible.  The same can be said of the Iranians.  They are great at many things.  And are a very good adversary.  However, this is a country that had a 7 year war with a country that took us a few months to overrun (barring the pseudo-quagmire that later ensued with the help of our Iranian "friends").  Having such technology could be useful, in many arenas and operational theaters for Iran, yet it only provides "fruit" for them now?

If I were in the business of punditry and consulting for major media networks, I would stick to the "massive intelligence failure" story.  However, I'm just a guy with a blog so I'll stick with what's plausible and wonder how a multi-million dollar "stealth" aircraft flown by the largest intelligence apparatus has a "mechanical failure" over an enemy's territory whose nuclear development program was brought to its knees by a computer virus invented probably by the aforementioned intelligence agency.

Lost UAV or Trojan Horse?

I'm sure you've read all the hoopla about the Iranians capturing a U.S. spy drone.  The news media has asked just about every intelligence "expert" they have on their rosters.  Most have taken the bait and sensationalized the story almost beyond belief.  The other day I heard someone call it a "massive intelligence failure". Others have claimed the Iranians will reverse engineer  this aircraft (actually the Iranians said this) and use its "stealth" technology.  Some have even lauded the "success" of Iran's first unmanned bombing drone also supposedly equipped with "stealth" technology.  You would think these guys were Romulans.

The Benefits of Talking....

There's been a lot of news in the press lately regarding criticism Senator Obama has faced regarding his suggestion that the United States begin dialogue with certain rogue states like Iran. Most of his critics point out the US government has an official policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists or their sponsors. They say it creates a certain degree of legitimacy to a government which engages in terrorism and oppresses its people. While I agree with this to a small extent, I'm beginning to ask myself the very same questions Senator Obama faced when preparing this a talking point in his campaign.

• Has this ever been pursued by other presidents when faced with like-minded regimes?
• Are we not doing the same with a nuclear North Korea?
• What's the harm in trying?

This has been tried by numerous other heads of states. People within President Reagan's administration conjured up a plan to begin talks with moderate Iranian officials who wanted to depose the Ayatollah. The idea was to ship weapons to the Iranians who promised to do whatever they could to free the American hostages in Tehran at the time. The proceeds of those sales would then be funneled to Israel and the rest is history.

Bush administration officials are negotiating right now with North Korea. One could argue North Korea has a worse track record in regards to the inhumane treatment of its citizens and an equal standing when it comes to preferred sponsor status with certain terrorist organizations. We could even look at other regimes who also advocate terrorism and go to more overt means to legitimize it such as Lebanon or Palestine. The PLO and Hamas have political parties and hold government posts throughout their respective territories. Their stance in regards to terrorist activity is notorious and dare I say just as lethal as Tehran. Yet, we honored Yasar Arafat with official White House visits and a seat at major negotiations with Israel.


I'm no friend of Tehran and I am completely against the tactics the current regime supports. But I'm beginning to wonder how much longer can we afford to wait for this current homicidal ideology which exist there to die. Nothing we've done to Tehran seems to be working. Sanctions only increase the rhetoric and support inside the regime. Military strikes would only inflame the Muslim world and bring us to a major regional conflict in a place where all of our friends are dying off like that monkey from Outbreak. Maybe, it is time for something different. I'm not proposing opening up embassies in Tehran but let's at least sit down and lay the groundwork for a "peaceful" future. "Peaceful" should not imply "harmonious". Even I'm not that optimistic.

Does anyone remember who we fought in the Korean War other than the North Koreans? We fought Chinese soldiers. Some 50 years later, China is becoming the world's largest economy. This didn't come about through military strikes or sanctions, but through a quiet dialogue through diplomatic back-channels and trade negotiations. Slowly, our two governments could build to a dialogue like this and "peace" could be acheived. What I'm proposing takes courage and a will to see "peace" acheived. This is something all warriors should want.