THREAD: Research Fellow @hu_rdman writes about the attack on Aden airport on Dec 30, 2020, when he and other colleagues narrowly escaped death at what should have been a celebratory occasion welcoming the arrival of the newly formed Yemeni government.

Ever since 9/11, we've been instructed that tiny minorities of extremists are solely responsible for their reprehensible actions. There was no greater sin than blaming law-abiding people who share some of their beliefs.

That's how we got the "lone wolf terrorist" cliche. A great herd of lone wolves swept across the world, each completely isolated from anything but the most direct support for their heinous deeds. "Tiny minorities of extremists" were blamed for "hijacking" the beliefs of millions.

The Western world did backflips to completely firewall the actions of terrorists from the larger bodies of people they claimed to represent. We hired a legion of consultants to show us exactly where the line between extremism and legitimate belief was drawn.

We wouldn't even name the adversaries of civilization. We declared a "global war" on their methods, to avoid criticizing their beliefs. The Obama administration launched a huge, expensive "Countering Violent Extremism" initiative that pointedly treated extremism as generic.

The greatest of pains were taken to draw very sharp and bright lines between violent extremism and even the most provocative and incendiary acts of legitimate speech and political organization. This was true of the race riots in the Obama years, as well as terrorism.

(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.

(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.

(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.

(PS2) I'm sure there'll be those who say that a Donald Trump event giving tons of money to a company that enriches Paul Manafort at a time when Trump continues to need Manafort to stay quiet and Manafort is having money problems is a mere coincidence.

*That* I do not agree with.

(PS3) By the same token, as a federal criminal investigative matter, when you are about to have numerous investigations into whether security at a government building had been pre-compromised and someone who worked security at that building commits suicide, it gets investigated.

Macron on tensions with Russia: “We continue sometimes to fight against an ideology or an organisation that no longer exists with a geopolitical logic that no longer exists and that has continued to fracture Europe.”

And on Nato: “Nobody can tell me that today’s Nato is a structure that, in its foundations, is still pertinent. It was founded to face down the Warsaw Pact. There is no more a Warsaw Pact.”

In other words, the partly confrontational policy of the West towards Russia is anachronistic.

Yet the "geopolitical logic" of today's more confrontational policy towards Russia has nothing to do with the Warsaw Pact or the Cold War. It's not true that the West is caught in anachronistic thinking.

Sanctions and the renewed focus of Nato on territorial defense was a response towards Russian aggression against Ukraine: Putin started a war of aggression against Ukraine and has annexed parts of the country, with over 13.000 people killed.

Is the European Union really being unreasonable over the City of London?

Or are we seeing an inevitable consequence of a Brexit that prioritised sovereignty over financial services?

A thread…🧵💵🏦🇬🇧🇪🇺

Andrew Bailey’s Mansion House speech this week showed clear signs of frustration about the EU’s foot dragging in granting “equivalence” to UK regulators on financial

The view among UK financial lobbyists and regulators is that the EU has various financial equivalence agreements already with a host of other third countries (even the US) so why not the UK, which is currently, of course, totally aligned?...3/

But the view in the EU is that the UK is different from those other countries because it’s so dominant in finance - and they fear outsourcing regulation to an authority outside the bloc when that regulated activity could potentially affect EU markets/business so profoundly ...4/

Andrew Bailey thinks the EU is gearing up to demand the UK be a simple “rule taker” in return for equivalence, unable to unilaterally change UK rules, which he says would be "intolerable"....5/