Tag Archives: Hamas

August 24, 2015 · 08:08

The comeback that should not be

That is the consideration I was contemplating this morning. This is all about former Defence Minister Ehud Barak and his outspoken views. The issue all over the papers are that Israel had not proceeded three times to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.

So is this freedom of speech, is this treason or is this something else? You see, as a former Defence Minister he has certain duties. One of them is defending and keep safe the state of Israel. So was this a ‘military men and cowardly politician’ scenario as some people report? Without all the facts it would be poor judgement on my side to continue some view. Yet, my view, like that of some others who matter. I have been there, I saw Israel in July 1982. I saw Israel on other occasions and I saw on TV, like many others how Sbarro became the place of slaughter. The Israeli army has been ever vigilant in keeping Israel safe. So, why was Iran not attacked?

It could be a simple as the tactical setback that an attack would bring, it would be a direct problem for any Israeli to get anything done in the UN building and at that time, there was not enough evidence that the enrichment of Uranium was a clear and present danger at that particular moment in time.

These are all issues that matter, as former Defence Minister, Ehud Barak knows this. If he does not, he should never have been elected into that position. But that is a mess Mossad can take a look at. You see I remember them from 1984. Nahum Admoni was someone to bring the deadly chill of fear into your heart. I do not know anything about Tamir Pardo, but I feel decently certain that he has a more relaxed job and he is watching both the Syrian and Iranian areas with due diligence on an hourly basis. So is this just about another comeback of Ehud Barak? That is what I suspect. Of course Ehud Barak making these claims just after the rocket attacks from Syria is only one side to it. If attacks are now coming from there, there is every chance that more attacks will also come from Gaza. I cannot state for certain that one means the other, but there is every chance that Israel could face attacks form Sinai, which would make Eilat vulnerable, whilst attacks happen to the north at equal pace. This is what I feared all along. I illustrated this in ‘ISIS is coming to town!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/06/23/isis-is-coming-to-town/). Yes, the article is a year old, but in my defence there was no clear reliable information on how strong ISIS was, what they had planned and what time line they used. So is there still a danger? Yes, there is and there always was. The issue is that pre-emptive actions will not make any difference, if anything, it could fuel extremist support. It could be for this very reason that the military held off. The main reason will remain that Israel is not committed to war, it is committed to peace and the defence of the state of Israel. Do you not think that Rafael Advanced Defence Systems could have come up with something a lot more offensive if war was on Israel’s mind? It has been the cornerstone of every issue playing. Israel only wants to stay safe, as such it has always been the Hamas covenant to eradicate the Jews that have been the foundation of the Gaza issues. After Adolf Hitler had his European tour 1939-1945, did you think that the Jewish people would ever accept such attack on their existence ever again? Think again, I say!

SO in that light, should Ehud Barak be regarded as a very dangerous man? A man who is willing to play fast and loose with the state of Israel, just to get one more comeback?

That is the part I am uncertain about without a lot more information, but consider the following quotes “For years, both he and Netanyahu issued veiled threats to attack if the world did not take action. Those threats, while often dismissed by commentators as bluster, were widely seen as a key factor in rallying international sanctions against Iran“. I was always in favour of an attack, should there be actual evidence that weapons grade Uranium was produced, but I was also adamant that Israel should not be the one doing the attack. In my view that would be the tinderbox that was not allowed to light the fuse. America yes (preferable no) and the EEC (or NATO) absolutely yes. The friends of Iran would have to see that the amount of nations willing to step in would make them reconsider alliances. The second quote is “Barak told his interviewer that both he and Netanyahu favoured an attack in 2010, but the military chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel did not have the operational capability“, which is very likely. You see in 2010, the Gaza area remained a growing concern, only an idiot starts a war on more than one front, so the assessment of Gabi Ashkenazi seems to have been the prudent one. Considering the growing attacks of missiles in 2010, 2011 and 2012 only gives additional evidence that not attacking seems to have been the wisest course of action. That view has not changed. As the dangers for Israel diversify, Israel needs to make changes to the policies they make, as such, any attack on Iran would have destroyed these options. Whatever aide might come from the NATO members after the missile launches from Syria, none of those would be an option if Israel had made any act of aggression against Iran. So in these views alone, I show the vision and deliberation Ehud Barak seems to lack even before he makes any headway towards a comeback, an issue I need not consider as I was never an Israeli elected official.

So if a non-Israeli can see this, even one who supports the total defence of Israel, what else is Ehud Barak not seeing and is that not the greater cause for concern?

It is the final quote in one article (Yahoo News) that gives us the heart of what should not matter “Barak ‘wants to remind people where he was, what he did, how important he was, how rational he was,’ said Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘When Ashkenazi starts doing the political lecture circuit, Barak wants to be able to create and raise as many obstacles as possible.’” You see, as defence minister he was not that important, if push comes to shove, as a short term Prime Minister either Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon would have surpassed him, as a defence minister he was passable, but in that light, both Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo could have done his job too. Although in that light, Meir Dagan should have (if I noticed it correctly) gone slightly lighter on the pastries, he is likely to become his own worst enemy. I am willing to accept that this is the consequence of having a quick meeting at Gal’s bakery in Haifa every now and then.

In all this, the centre remains, Ehud Barak has been in a fortunate position, he was not unimportant for Israel. He was a civil servant, surpassed by many in their dedication to the defence of the state of Israel, in all this former Defence Minister Ehud Barak forgot that his biggest enemy was his own ego, a mistake that the media will take advantage of in the happiest method possible. The people of Israel and of other nations need to consider that Iran is, was and shall remain a danger to Israel. Knowing this is the most important detail here. What the press ignored is that possible aggressive actions would have been considered. Any nation, with any level of defence will ALWAYS consider an aggressive option, it is the quality of both its military and politicians at large to decide when such actions can no longer be avoided. As we see in the past, Israel never had to result to an all-out attack on Iran, which does not mean that this will not happen, it only means that when it does happen, no other alternative remained available. This is exactly why NATO must consider its actions in Northern Israel, for the mere reason to keep any offensive alternative at bay.

What a shame former Defence Minister Ehud Barak never realised this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Adolf Hitler, Ariel Sharon, Ashkenazi, Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Ehud Barak, Eilat, Gabi Ashkenazi, Gal's bakery, Haifa University, Hamas, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, Meir Dagan, Mossad, Nahum Admoni, Netanyahu, Reuven Hazan, Sbarro, Sinai, Syria, Tamir Pardo

July 8, 2015 · 10:37

In the lull of news

As people brace themselves for the outcome of another Greek deadline, the US army will find itself cut by 40,000 troops and there seems to be ongoing talks between Iran and interested parties. The last one is the one that feels like it is largely ignored. There is nothing sexy on nuclear talks and unless you are Israel, most people do not care. Yet, is that the clear truth?

This is what the BBC gives us (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33424502), “The so-called P5+1 – the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany – want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon“, which sounds of course really nice on paper (and in theory). Yet, when we look at the quote “The sticking points are said to include the duration of limits on Iranian nuclear research and development, guidelines for international inspections and how sanctions will be lifted. Tehran is also demanding that the UN ban on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles be lifted as part of any deal”

We have to wonder for how long this ‘agreement’ will last and why we see ‘export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles‘, why is that? Perhaps certain Middle Eastern parties have been waiting on a Misagh-2 delivery? It might just be another model, so as we might understand that Iran would want to open options for import, the reasons for export are a little fuzzier as well as who would buy them? Russia? They have excellent missiles themselves and they supply them to nations all over the world too. So the question becomes, why allow for export? Especially when a captured stockpile of IS showed “26 of the recovered shells were made in Iran, an ally of Assad’s, and 18 were made in Syria itself, the report states” (at http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/06/where-does-the-islamic-state-get-its-weapons/). So certain parties are already getting arms somehow under an embargo, when the floodgate opens, the balance of power will shift in the Middle East, especially as certain parties are getting funded somehow (reference to Hamas). So even as we might not like, but could not openly object to Iran improving its defences (from Russian Stockpiles) there should remain a strong vigilant approach to not letting them export weapons of any kind.

In the Jerusalem Post we see the headline ‘Iranian official: US will remain our enemy despite emerging nuclear deal’, which is fair enough, and the quote “”Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations’ freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains” he explained further” is fair enough, we can’t all be friends, yet the problem is that its military commander stated ““This is the duty of the Muslim world to obey the order of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Khamenei) and arm the Palestinian people so that a powerful response will be given to the Zionist regime,” said Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, commander of the Army Ground Force” not too long ago (august 2014), which beckons the dangers of letting Iran export weapons. Consider that a mere lieutenant or a master sergeant can lose certain items in his depot at times, so how much can get ‘lost’ in a depot when a General is calling the shots?

Is that so far-fetched?

This is at the core if the issue, the heart of the matter is quite a different thing here.

You see, the core is about the enrichment. LiveScience had an interesting quote “Separating that type of uranium from the more common variety requires a great deal of engineering skill, despite the fact that the technology needed to do it is decades old. The challenge lies not in figuring out how to separate uranium, but in constructing and running the equipment needed for the task“, so if we accept “The key to their separation is that atoms of uranium-235 weigh slightly less than atoms of uranium-238” so if the approach of a centrifuge gives us “Each centrifuge pulls out a little bit of uranium-238, and then passes the slightly refined gas mixture onto the next tube, and so on, until many hundreds of thousands of spins later, the gas remaining in the tube is almost entirely composed of uranium-235” a clear explanation by Jeff Binder, the isotope production program manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Yet is that the only way? Stanford University has a course called Physics 241, where we see Uranium Enrichment by Misam Jaffer, who also gives us “Laser separation: The use of laser separation for uranium enrichment is based on the principle of differential photoexicitation of isotopes of uranium by the use of monochromatic radiation. One such process is the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) in which the laser light used photo ionizes a particular isotope while not affecting the others and changes its physical or chemical properties which are then utilized to separate the desired isotope, which in uranium enrichment is U-235. In doing so, the U-235 ions are positively charged and hence are attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected“, we will get all kinds of ‘experts’ telling us how this is not as efficient, or other words added into telling us on how this is not good enough. Yet, with Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan in charge in Iran, ‘good enough’ is not the issue, the issue becomes, is it good enough to make a dirty bomb?

That is the fear Israel has been dealing with, because when missiles start flying from around Rafah, they will not need a hit, it just needs to get close enough to Beer Shiva, Ashkelon and Tel Aviv to make the issue evolve into something truly terrifying for the middle east, because at that point the US has absolutely no chance of getting a hold of the situation. the fact that some of the negotiating players have no clue (or do not care) regarding that danger is seen in the quote “Foreign ministers of the other powers started to return to Vienna on Sunday to help push for a swift deal“, please give me one example where a nuclear ‘swift deal‘ was ever a good idea, and in light of the glow in the dark consequences, should the word ‘swift’ be allowed to be used?

You see, the end quote “US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that reaching an agreement is possible this week if Iran makes the ‘hard choices’ necessary, but if not, the United States stands ready to walk away from the negotiations” sounds nice, yet the reality is, is that the US has not had any clear defining diplomatic victories for a long time, in that light, the word ‘swift’ is not that reassuring and I feel 99.53324% certain (roughly) that it leaves Israel with not such a good feeling either, especially that any lifting of the embargo means that their Iron Domes might have to work overtime soon thereafter.

The last part is not just an assumption, with many newsreels on missile attacks on Israel in 2015 alone.

So how did we get from Iran to Israel? Simple, Iran is an open supporter of Hamas. In addition, the top leaders of the Iranian military are eager to carve their names in history in anti-Israel acts and Hamas is eager to oblige. The fact that ISIS is all over Gaza and the Sinai only makes matters worse. So as some might strip away parts of any embargo on Iran, they should also keep a keen eye on what they give away, because it seems that the issue is not just ‘what could aid Iran’, but these people are also contemplating (on a daily basis) ‘what could hurt the US and its ally Israel’, there is not too much on that side of the equation, which makes any ‘swift deal’ a worry for several players (read victims) involved.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Ashkelon, Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation, BBC, Beer Shiva, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, China, conventional arms, France, Gaza, Germany, Hamas, Iran, ISIS, Israel, Jeff Binder, Jerusalem Post, John Kerry, Misam Jaffer, nuclear weapon, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Physics 241, Russia, Sinai, Stanford University, Tel Aviv, UN, Uranium Enrichment, US, US Secretary of State John Kerry

January 12, 2015 · 11:09

Statistical defiance

There are mornings when you get the surprise of a lifetime. One version is when you are not actually awake; you look to your side seeing a smiling woman stating that she feels nice. Suddenly the phone rings and you wake up! In another version (where you are awake) you get of the subway, you see a ten dollar note. You see some worthy cause 20 feet down the road, easy come, easy go! You feel you did your civic duty and life goes on, the coffee you pay for after that with your own money still tastes a little better that morning. The power of Karma!

A third one is the one I saw this morning. It was on the Australian Channel 7 (Sunrise). The shining light was none other than Andrew O’Keefe. Whilst some dark haired woman from Melbourne was going on about vilifying the Muslim community, Andrew was not the voice of reason, but the voice of wisdom and insight. There is no denying that the Muslim extremists are getting a lot more attention, often through their violent doing but when we consider the acts of up to 50,000 people (the combined numbers of Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Hamas and a few others), it is almost less than a drop in the ocean of the 1.5 BILLION Muslims. How much vilification did we see for those bombing abortion clinics? Or how much light was shone on the ordeal that the Muslims in Burma face whilst getting prosecuted by Buddhists? It seems that there is an unacceptable unbalance and Andrew O’Keefe made sure that this was stated!

Way to go Andrew!

I have no issue hunting down extremists, not just for the dangers to Christians, but for the equal protection of Jews, Muslims and other religions alike. We should also clearly see that Christians have had their own groups of extremists and in several places including the US. We seem to forget that part. There is a lot wrong with all of us as we condemn a group because of the rotten apples in their basket, even though this amounts to a little less than 0.003% of that population. It is like sending 300,000 apples back to an orchard, because one had a worm.

Now you will state, where one has a worm, more worms will be found. Yes, that is not a wrongful assumption, but at what point will the purchased shipment be actually unworthy of purchasing? The fact that we condemn the apples for one bad one, is no reflection on the apples, it is a reflection on us! That part is at the core of the problem. Yes, we need to hunt down extremists and yes, we need not be nice about it. We do however have a sworn duty to make sure that the innocents are protected; no matter what faith they adhere too. Let us not forget that the shot policeman in the Charlie Hebdo case was a Muslim himself, a French policeman who died defending the freedoms he believed in. His name was Ahmed Merabet, let his name not be forgotten! So, extremists will not care! They care for the false image of self, a demonic view that does not even exists, because any view of self will always lack objectivity. We do not care if it is a person staring at their own reflection, but when that results in the hunt and killing of innocents, they cross lines and we need to accept that there will be a consequence to that. However, vilifying others will never be a good or acceptable point. Andrew O’Keefe gave good light to that part.

So it turned out that I was watching a nice morning unfold! An outspoken clarity of events, one that had gone missing on many fronts for too long.

Yet, there is more, I think that last week was the straw that broke the camel’s back in several places. For this I need to take a step back to September 11^th 2001, you see, my personal interpretation of those events might not be the ones you have considered. You see, I think that the attack never succeeded. It is my personal believe that the intent of Osama Bin Laden was different. I expect that yes, the towers were to be hit, yet his intent was that the towers would burn all day and all night, like torches over New York, keeping everyone busy and the symbol become torches of fear in the hearts of Americans. When the towers collapsed his intent of fear became a consequence or rage, we know what happened after that and those who saw Zero Dark Thirty know how they got him anyway. Hiding in Pakistan, scared of the eagles circling ever closer until he was removed from life. The events last week in France might become the same point. I do not think that Islamic State ever considered that a ‘mere’ cartoonist would bring millions into the street in sadness, but thereafter in acceptance of the need to hunt these people down. Now it is not just the US, now it is the collected members of NATO, the EEC and the Commonwealth. In addition, Islamic State is now losing its hidden internal ‘friends’ in many of the Middle Eastern nations. This would always have happened, for the simple reason that history has proven that terrorism will never work and will for the bulk of events have a counteractive effect, yet as the Islamic State was still trying to grow, these events are now the cause that not unlike OBL, these members will now be forced to hide as they are hunted by too many players. Those with similar agenda’s had outgrown their welcome for some time, but now there is a resolute acceptance that people are willing to concede that reasoning is no longer an option with such groups. The benefit is that this could spell an actual increase of security for places like Israel, as the pressure will push for the hunt to continue in Jordan and Libya by its own local ‘population’ could spell a change of weather. Where they expected to bring fear failed, they achieved to anger a group of people who were up to the #JeSuiCharlie point hoping for a civil solution, that time has now passed. Even though these people are massively against violence, they are now to some extent conceding that action needs to be taken.

The Guardian had a piece in ‘comment is free’, where I saw the following quote regarding the polarisation of debate regarding Charlie Hebdo: “By framing events in Manichean terms – dark versus light; good versus evil – an imposed binary morality seeks to coral us into crude camps. There are no dilemmas, only declarations. What some lack in complexity they make up for in polemical clarity and the provision of a clear enemy“. I do not believe this to be correct. It is not untrue as a statement, depending on who this is regarded to, but I think the game is as per yesterday changing. As we see the move of #JeSuisCharlie for freedom and against violence, that move seems to be showing a below the surface change, the acceptance to some extent that simple talks are no longer an option, these people are now willing to accept that professionals need to do whatever they need to do to get these acts of violence stopped, in whatever way will stop the killing of innocents. It was not just the act, part of this equation is a person who filmed from likely a smartphone what was happening, the filmed part is less than a minute, but as thousands a people saw the cold headed execution of a French policeman, we now see a film, not unlike the film of the Kennedy assassination (the Zapruder film) that those who see it are no longer asleep, the presentation is like a bucket of ice water. Just like I woke up from the fake dream of a beautiful woman being happy in bed next to me, they too get a realistic vision and less optimistic view. The view that what they believed possible (civil talks) can never be. The evidence is too raw and too direct. Whatever notion they had of acting whilst a population remained half-awake is no longer, the people will allow such extremists to be hunted, the damage of the fake fears through Edward Snowden is now getting undone, the resolution of the people wanting this resolved allows for it.

So, as we will see, a weird twist of fate on how one act suddenly calls our attention to the craziness of what we allowed to continue for too long, we will soon see a change of venue, the hunters will become the hunted. It is not just Paris, even though this is event shows a visible support against extremists into millions, the view gets additional power through the alleged execution by ISIL of Journalists Sofiene Chourabi and Nadhir Ktari from Tunisia. The support here is showing that there is more than just a show against violence, we are slowly seeing a change where the shift is not where ISIL is, but the fact that there is no one left not willing to hunt ISIL down, a different perspective, one they had not bargained for. The second benefit here is that there is every chance that the people will now also wake up towards the issues involving Hamas. Even as Hamas thought it was relatively safe after the European voting events, it now must content with the fact that they are now very likely to be seen as unacceptable as ISIL is. I spoke before about the options for Palestine, providing its excluded 100% of Hamas that reality is now, due to the visibility of #JeSuiCharlie a lot more likely. Because as the House of Hamas is less seen as acceptable on a global scale, they will react in ‘fear of self’ and unite with the people who would not find them acceptable in the first place. It all might work out for peace in the end, how statistically weird is that for a change?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as #JeSuiCharlie, Ahmed Merabet, Al-Qaeda, Andrew O'Keefe, Channel 7, Charlie Hebdo, Commonwealth, EEC, French policeman, Hamas, ISIL, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, libya, Muslim extremists, Nadhir Ktari, NATO, Osama Bin Laden, Palestine, Sofiene Chourabi, Sunrise, the Guardian, Zapruder, Zero Dark Thirty

January 10, 2015 · 11:11

Comprehension

Yesterday has been a weird day for France, unlike here in Sydney; they had their dealings with terrorists. You see, I remain in the mindset that what happened in martin Place last month was a crazy person with a gun, the fact that he was a Muslim makes little difference. He was a mental health case with deadly intent, it got him killed, but only after he killed some of his victims. France is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here is the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGVwZyXYlQ (in French with English subtitles), I normally would not add something like this, but it is important to see the difference. This is not some hostage situation asking for a flag, this is almost military precision, it is direct, clean (pardon the expression), kill and get out! A policeman was on the scene and was executed without any consideration.

Here you see directly what Israel has faced on a daily basis; this is what the direct hatred of Jews looks like. Even though this is against a satirical cartoonist, the hatred of these extremists’ remains the same. The Guardian has an article by Jonathan Freedland that covers several parts of what bothers me. The article ‘Charlie Hebdo: first they came for the cartoonists, then they came for the Jews‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult) gives us a few views. The quote: “They hated the cartoons, we say. Free speech was the target, we declare. They wanted to silence satire and gag dissent“, this was not unlike my view. I find satire enjoyable, but when you touch religion (any religion), some people tend to get a little off the balanced sane side. Some get abusive, some get a little violent, yet as far as I know, none will act to this degree (although opposites in the India – Pakistan debates might not agree with me). No matter what I think or believe, Charlie Hebdo was in a place with free speech and he was entitled to it. The best comparison I heard was from an American Journalist describing Charlie Hebdo as the French version of ‘the Onion’.

When we see the following two quotes we get to the real stuff: “Then on Friday, a siege at a kosher supermarket, four hostages confirmed dead, the murderers apparently linked to those behind Wednesday’s carnage” and “Perhaps the murderers are bent on killing people not only for what they do, but for who they are“, this is at the centre of a lot of issues behind the objections against allowing Palestine into the UN and other places. I and many others have no hatred for Palestinians however, we will not accept Hamas to be allowed at any table for the terrorist organisation that they are. And so long as Palestine will not disavow Hamas and as long as Hamas calls the shots, there is no future for Palestine as I see it. This is at the heart of the matter, so when you think of these poor poor Palestinians, watch the uncensored shooting in Paris and now realise that this is what Israel faced for many years now, with added rockets and nail bombs!

The next part is actually at the centre to what we tend to feel and also how our civilised minds should be feeling. “For Muslims, that has meant spelling out that these killers speak only for themselves. Note the speed with which a delegation of 20 imams visited the Charlie Hebdo offices, branding the gunmen “criminals, barbarians, satans” and, crucially, “not Muslims”“, this makes sense in regards to the next part “Of course they should not have to do it. The finger-wagging demand that Muslims condemn acts of terror committed by jihadist cultists is odious: it tacitly assumes that Muslims support such horror unless they explicitly say otherwise“, this makes sense. Perhaps we all remember the atrocities of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and white power groups against African Americans. We distance ourselves as Christians, because their acts are not those of Christians at all. They are at the centre of some agenda of hate that the boggles the usual civilised mind. Some cannot grasp the small mindedness of it. Yes, we all hate at times and we hate enough to kill, maim or harm, but that comes in defence of a rational against us, or our family when it is harmed. To blatantly hate is not within our power (it should not be), I will go one further, children when they are born do not have the capacity to hate; it is the one dark side that gets taught to us, which makes it so inexplicable to some.

Now we get to the parts that I do not completely agree with (even though what is stated is not wrong) “Wednesday’s deaths brought a loud chorus insisting that Charlie Hebdo was vulnerable because it had been left out on a limb. That was down, they said, to the cowardice of the rest of the press, lacking the guts to do what the French magazine had done“. The press has been many things (cowardly to some extent as well), when the press (globally generically speaking) started to cater to advertisers and circulation, many papers started to cater to the emotional reader “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’” (The Daily Telegraph, March 2014) and “Death Cult CBD Attack” (The Daily Telegraph, December 2014). It is only one of several papers, the public gets misinformed too often, too much innuendo. “Andrew and the under-age ‘sex slave’” from The Daily Mail, implying the Duke of York is just the most recent of revenue claiming headlines. When you rely on income in this way, we see the newspapers as they no longer are, they are no longer informing the people, hopefully setting their minds to a more informed stable position, we are left with groups of people getting angry on implied innuendo. It makes for revenue (but becomes non-informative). So how about we make it a little more clear? How about tax offices change that glossy magazines are not tax deductible as they do not qualify as ‘researchable materials’? The ATO states “Newspapers and magazines, you can claim a deduction for that part of the cost of newspapers and magazines that relates to your using them in researching a topic as an employee journalist“. When we remove glossy magazines and add the Daily Telegraph and sort minded groups on that list, perhaps they will clean up their act?

So as non-violent Muslims fear repercussions for emotional responses, we in general have a duty to shield them, but in my mind we have an equal need to hunt down these extremists. We need to become a lot less tolerant of hate crimes like we are seeing in Paris this week, but they must be held against the real threat, not the threat that some papers perceive to instil. So this is where my view slightly differed from Jonathan Freedland. The French issue should wake us up in other ways too. Not only should we regard the hate attacks Israel has been under for a long time, we need to notice that walk softly and ‘try to reason’ will not work. The policeman had little option but to talk the man into not shooting him, it did not work! I feel for his family, and for the family of other victims, but you all need to wake up now, terrorists are real, they are not some deranged Sheik with delusions of grandeur wanting a ‘Shadada’ flag in a chocolate shop. They are people with guns, with a tactical mind that tells them to kill that what they hate without hesitation or remorse, so as you keep on crying on ‘your’ privacy, whilst posting your ‘nightly’ achievements on Facebook, remember that limiting those who hunt these extremists, might get you or someone you know killed at some point.

Yet Jonathan’s gem is at the very end “Theirs is a dirty little war, a handful of wicked fanatics against the rest of us. And they must lose“, I could not have said it better myself, but with that comprehension comes a change to all our minds, not to our hearts! Our hearts must never embrace the acts and the violence needed; our minds must however accept that some need to do what they do to stop these people, preferably before innocent lives are lost. It must happen everywhere and it needed to start yesterday. So, as you ponder these ‘lost souls’ as they go Jihad in Syria, then also quickly realise that these people come back with the skill, the intent and the reasoning of the extremists that you saw in the YouTube video, so if you are a parent and you wave your hand to your little boy or girl as they go to school, you should realise that they might leave the house the last time that day. What are you willing to do to keep them safe?

I am not trying to quell you into emotion like the press so often does; I need you to comprehend what must be done by professionals to keep you and your family safe. Think it through and cast your vote! You need not act, you are not trained and not qualified to suddenly emotionally react to these extremists. Only the calm mind will know what to do and they must be given the option to win and to make sure that extremists lose, or we lose it all!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as ATO, Australia, Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hedbo, extremists, France, Hamas, Israel, Jihad, Jonathan Freedland, KKK, Ku Klux Klan, Martin Place, Palestine, Paris, Sydney, Syria, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, UN, white power groups, Youtube

December 30, 2014 · 14:42

Fur ball?

OK, I thought I was done for the year, you know, the last article when I threw a little lob ball in a less serious approach to reporting events. However, that part threw me a little fur ball, almost like coughing up the Cheshire cat.

It all started with the Jerusalem Post today, at least that is when I noticed the message. The title states: ‘Israel expects world community to oppose Palestinian efforts at UN, Netanyahu says‘ (at http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-expects-world-community-to-oppose-Palestinian-efforts-at-UN-Netanyahu-says-386058), true, there are issues with the entire UN debacle to some extent; my emphasis is regarding the use of ‘some’. You see, as much as I oppose the entire anti-Semitic approach towards Israel. Having a strong anti-Palestinian view seems equally wrong; however, Palestine has created this issue whilst condoning whatever Hamas did to the largest extent, which is completely unacceptable either, none of those actions make sense. The quote “Israel will oppose conditions that will endanger our future” is very much central into this. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very correct in that statement. Hamas has always and remains ‘dedicated’ to wiping out Israel, which beckon the thought why the EEC courts would rule against giving Hamas the ‘terrorist’ label. We could argue and speculate on how this is even acceptable. Did this grow out of fear on the Islamic state presence in both Gaza and Sinai? The fact that they are growing in Libya and even in other parts of North Africa is a nightmare scenario coming true (at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/islamic-state-opening-front-in-north-africa/). There have been unconfirmed reports of Islamic State in Algeria, but if so, if they could start getting any level of hold in Morocco, then they are just a footstep away from Spain. That should scare the EEC plenty, they have no funds left to manage any event, and giving up Israel means that they get a little time to ‘clean up’ their border issues. This would be a step that is delusional in many ways. You see, Israel remains essential to balance in the Middle East. The Economic Judges took little notice of that part of the equation; just on the formality of what a terrorist is, (apparently blowing up Sbarro filled with civilians is not a terrorist act). By the way, did anyone notice how there dos not seem to be any paper explaining the formality in that legality? Just the fact that is was ‘a formality’.

The second quote is the one that seems to be a little debatable: “Netanyahu said that Israel and western civilization were under attack from Iran and Islamic radicals, and that this attack also included Palestinian efforts to impose a solution that would endanger Israel’s security and place its future in danger“, one part should be (as I see it): “under attack from extreme supporters within the Iranian government and Islamic radicals“, which would be more correct. I do not believe all Iranian (at present) are like that, yet open support from Iran towards Hamas has been seen, these military elements seem to get some political protection, which proves my point (to some extent), yet I am not certain (or there is at least a decent level of doubt) that it does not blanket all political Iran as I see it. The fact that President Obama announced the possibility of an American Embassy in Tehran is not a bad thing, but these developments should be closely watched, because there is an issue. It is not the fact that this meeting was with Indiana Governor Mike Pence. The act that he is a Republican and that this meeting was absent of Democratic heavy weights might be fuel for speculation were the current Democratic administration stands. Especially as the White house was unwilling to confirm or deny it stance towards Israel. This has all the makings of a political issue that should be a moral one. Israel remains under siege from rockets on a nearly daily basis, it seems that people forget how the US reacted when there was some demolition going on in New York close to the corner of West Street and Liberty street. Let us not forget that this was ONE event. Israel has remained under attack for decades. Israel now has two generations under attack from rocket fire. These events cannot be compared, but perhaps the Americans can remember their anger on September 12^th, which is the feeling Israel has had for a long time. It wants to survive plain and simple. It’s neighbour will continue to attack Israel, whilst Israel wants to survive, yet, in fairness, I must look towards the other side too. I believe there can be a Palestine WITHOUT Hamas. That is an option, but Hamas does not want it, it wants to lead and to do that, it must remove Israel. It is not a puzzle, it is a simple equation, one denies the existence of the other solution, so I must side with Israel and as such, as long as there is Hamas, there can be no Palestine. A situation now worsened with the existence of Islamic state in that area.

There is another view that I must bring forth. I am not sure if I can agree with it as there are a few parts that touch on items I never looked at (it is not a small document at http://www.academia.edu/5145129/Gunning_-_The_Conflict_and_the_Question_of_Engaging_with_Hamas_in_EUISS_CP124_European_Involvement_in_the_Arab-Israeli_Conflict), but it has views that are not invalid. As such, I call to attention to the following part “They could, for example, spell out the rewards that would be forthcoming for a new unity government that would share responsibility for delivering basic services and the rule of law in both the West Bank and Gaza“, this is found on page 41. I am not stating that this is happening, but when we consider the events, it is not that far a stretch to see that this might be part of a path that the EEC is currently treading. If so, they will soon see the other side of a terrorist organisation. It remains nice and talkative as long as steps in their direction are made; when that stops when THEY need to show progress there will be delays, miss-communication and other events. Then those big business judges will see innuendo towards ‘give us the rest or else‘, then what? When THEIR ego is in play, what will they decide then? Let us not forget that they are gambling with the existence of the state of Israel. When they are told, there are 10 solutions to this and ‘no’ is not an option, whilst they contemplate what the other 8 options are, when they suddenly realise it was a binary question with a ‘no’ and a ‘yes’, the other 8 solutions never existed in the first place, then what? They might not have pulled the trigger, but they are skating towards the end of Israel for the simple comfort of mind that never existed. You see, terrorists are extremists, they only cater to the view of ‘self’, with no regard of any other view. Israel is trying to survive, plain and simple, a war that continued from 1945 onwards.

Yet, there was also a spark of visibility (in other areas), that gave me pause to consider other dimensions. Not in regarding to what goes boom, but in another direction. In the same way that we look at the EEC decision of Hamas, there is a Jewish issue that the Jerusalem post shows, which gives us another part of this cloak. It is seen at http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rabbi-Meir-Mazuz-responds-to-Rabbi-Cohens-attack-on-Yishai-385989. As we see a needed separation of politics and Law, we see an equal need to separate state from church (as many have always seen it in the US and other places). The quotes were “Rabbi Shalom Cohen, he should be well, is a great Torah scholar, a righteous man and a great intellectual, but he does not come down to the people and, therefore, he does not understand the common people”, “He has never held public office and served most of his career as a rabbi in yeshiva and a yeshiva dean, not as a halachic arbiter dealing with the questions of Jewish law that are brought to senior rabbis for a ruling” and “Mazuz seemingly referenced one of Cohen’s recent outbursts in which he said during a prayer service at the Western Wall for the welfare of IDF soldiers during Operation Protective Edge that Israel did not need an army because “It is God almighty who fights for Israel.”“. Now I am not debating the issues as they are, I feel not qualified to do so, but there are issues as they have always been in almost any religion. I would not elect a Rabbi to political office, for the same reasons I would not vote for the election of a Catholic in that same category, each having a slight radical, absolute view. A woman’s ‘right to choose’ abortion would end pretty much immediately, also, there would be a diminished view for defence and an increase or humanitarian needs and diplomacy. Yet, Diplomacy without military power could be regarded as either pointless, or useless. Diplomacy requires a stick to fight with when ‘the’ word is ignored. It is counterproductive when we know that the stick remains ignored and the diplomatic view is ignored completely when we know that there is no stick in the first place. This is the damage that Julian Assange created, which too many ignored. The anti-American league had a field day when they saw WHERE the US had made commitments, knowing where the stick was, toppled many American diplomatic endeavour, whilst they remained in the dark where the other sticks were. That view is only emphasised when we see the Jewish elections. How can the people be served without their military need for defence? Is that not counter to the Torah? If we know that the IDF abides by what is seen as “The Torah establishes the boundaries of what is permitted and forbidden in war for both individual and for society“, which gives us how Hamas waged war, yet the ‘legalised’ view of the EEC disregarded that overall view and reacted to, what I regard to be an economic view of judgement, which gives us the escalating issues. The added incentive here is that no one has actually give any visibility on how the ruling was made, on what legal premise is was founded, is this not strange too?

So, as we consider on who makes rulings on how judiciary choices are made, we must consider that the players have their own agenda. Whether we should consider how the law is seen (by some) and when we see how economies ad terrorists make decisions, in a morally biased way how, is any of it regarded as legal? Is there a boundary between those who fell from a rocket and those who fell through economic ‘treason’? How does that reflect differently on the victim? There is a famous quote we see Lee Marvin make in the movie ‘The Big red one’ (one of my five all-time war movies). There he states “We don’t murder; we kill“, I am certain that it did not matter to the one whose live we end, only to our own morality to pull the trigger. A morality a terrorist or a stockbroker for that matter does not seem to have.

You see, the sniper kills (or murders) for the protection of others, the terrorist and stockbroker acts for the wealth (or survival) of self at the expense of (all) others, elements of the same sides of two different coins.

So as the fur ball coughs up a Cheshire Cat, we must worry for the future, we all seem to disregard certain values and adhere to choices of our own survival, even if that requires us to realign our morality, just the slightest. As Saruman the White becomes Saruman of many colours, we see the fading of white, the finding of what was actually right and we lose ourselves into a world where we remove the fences that were there to protect us all. What happens next? I do not know, or even pretend to know, but I do worry, because 2015 is likely to be a year of turmoil, a year where we had to focus on a better economy, a side that might be pushed aside for whatever escalation comes next.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Algeria, Algiers, Benjamin Netanyahu, Cheshire cat, EEC, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, Iran, Islamic State, Israel, Jerusalem Post, Julian Assange, Lee Marvin, libya, Mike Pence, Morocco, Palestine, President Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rabbi Meir Mazuz, Rabbi Shalom Cohen, Sbarro, Spain, Tehran, Torah, UN, Washington Times, West bank

December 23, 2014 · 20:47

If it is your child?

This is the thought that is foremost on my mind as I was reading the article ‘EU court says Hamas should be removed from terror list’ (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/17/us-eu-hamas-courts-idUSKBN0JV0S020141217), when we read the quote “The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas should be removed from the European Union’s terrorist list, an EU court ruled on Wednesday“. I wonder if Israel would be willing to give housing to the children of these court officials, preferably in an area between Nir Oz and Ein Habsor, you see, these children would have an additional 32% chance of getting killed by Hamas rocket fire. I feel certain that the European court judges are truly dedicated to prove that during the coming year that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation and they should be willing to sacrifice their own children in the process, seems fair doesn’t it (especially as at present the second generation of children are now under daily threat of fire)?

If there is an unfortunate accident, we can send flowers stating that it was a mere industrial accident and we will be so sorry for their loss!

But that is not the reality, it seems that the thousands of missiles shot at Israeli citizens is just a simple show of… affection? So, when people try this in places like Strasbourg, will the 275,000 people consider it a sign of affection, or will they call it an act of terror? If we see the fallout in Martin Place, Sydney, where we watched a mere crazy person with a gun take hostages, where fatalities were found, the un-relentless reaction to innocent Muslims have not been in small numbers, how will the reaction be when we use the Hamas numbers? Some sources (unconfirmed) states that over 160 rockets were fired into Israel in August towards the Eshkol region (a decent reason to house the children of these judges there for a while), how would the people of Strasbourg or Sydney react at that point?

Israel has been faced with these attacks for years, the people in the EU court know that too, so how is it possible to use legislation to scrap Hamas from the terror list. Can we remove the Taliban or Al-Qaeda from that list too? I mean Al Qaeda only hurt two buildings and what are two buildings between two potential economic alliances? A building can be rebuilt, can’t it?

If this level of sarcasm upsets you (which it should), then consider how Israel feels as a terrorist organisation is removed from the terror list, For if Hamas does not need to be on that list, then neither should the Taliban (just ask the Pakistani parents who lost 132 children) and Al Qaeda (numerous family victims).

So, why was this step taken in the first place?

Is that not at the heart of the matter? These rulings happened in a time whilst Hamas is firing rockets into Israel. The question becomes now why this step was taking in the first place?

The reasoning is unclear, yet when we consider the text “The text was a compromise, representing divisions within the EU over how far to blame Israel for failing to agree peace terms“, it is questionable what the reasoning is. When we consider the cease fires in the past, they have always been broken by Hamas again and again.

When we consider the following text “Hamas says it is a legitimate resistance movement and contested the European Union’s decision in 2001 to include it on the terrorist list“, we must also consider the following:

Hamas has intentionally been shooting hundreds of rockets aimed at a civilian population.
Hamas has broken nearly every cease fire.
Hamas has fired over 4,000 rockets into Israel in 2014 alone.

So, as Hamas is pleading for all kinds of aid, we must question how they are running out of materials for food and medication, whilst having enough money to buy explosives and materials for purchasing/building rockets. This has been going on for a long time, yet the European commission has stated now that Hamas is no longer a terrorist organisation. It gets to be a lot more fun (read hilarious), when we consider the following article from August 2014 ‘UN: Israel’s Refusal to Share Iron Dome with Hamas a War Crime‘ (at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/19462/un-israels-refusal-share-iron-dome-hamas-war-crime/#4wYsjW25C8K9ZtWq.97), so not only is Hamas not a terrorist group, we should ‘share’ top tier technology with them so that their enemies can find a way around it? How is this even a sane idea? Remember, this is a group of people, hiding in schools and other locations that they share with civilians and they are firing missiles from public locations. Her quote “Pillay said that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not “absolve” Israel from what she deems legal violations“. When exactly would we, in general supposed to share technologies with those who attack us. I clearly remember Germany not sharing Enigma and the allies not sharing their radar technologies, perhaps that was a crime too? In that statement we also see “As of 2012, Iron Dome has a 90 percent success rate“, which implies that up to 400 rockets would not have been stopped, which had an impact on civilian casualties, would that not be a terrorist action?

But back to the European court, because the actual issue is still not dealt with. You see, they are bickering on ‘terrorist’ and ‘resistance’. In my personal view, Hamas might have been a resistance movement if they had attacked military objects, but I have some questions regarding these ‘European decision makers’. Perhaps they had forgotten, or people had hastily overlooked the events of Thursday August 9^th 2001. Someone from Hamas went into Sbarro with a nail bomb and blew itself with 15 others up, 130 got injured, in addition public transportation was targeted (busses) and they were bombed in similar ways. The list goes on and on for a long time. So how are they not a terrorist group?

Perhaps it is about this part “It said if an appeal was brought before the EU’s top court, the European Court of Justice, the freeze of Hamas funds should continue until the legal process was complete“, yes, perhaps it is about the Hamas funds that are frozen, how much is that in total? It does go deep into the millions, yet how many millions does not seem to be openly registered anywhere (in any reliable way). In my view, this escalation can only go into one direction, Hamas will act out, sooner rather than later, if it brings enough Israeli casualties, it will shift a massive demand for the unjust extermination of Palestine’s on a near global base, whatever excuse used, the option “a legal ruling of the court based on procedural grounds”, will be cast aside by many nations, not just Israel. What follows could have been prevented; one must wonder how this came about in the first place.

It is my direct personal fear that these events are not about ‘procedures’ but on the need of ‘wooing’ whomever is speaking on behalf of Hamas and in regard to what they are offering to certain parties out of sight. This is all pure conjecture from my side, there are no hidden files and there is no one whispering secrets in my ears. With ISIS/ISIL in the mix within Gaza, the waters are about to become a lot more murky, in that regard is it not interesting that this procedural verdict had been passed too?

For the benefit of whom becomes the question? I wonder if we get the answer when it is too late.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, breakingisraelnews, Ein Habsor, Eshkol region, Gaza, Hamas, Iron Dome, ISIL, ISIS, Israel, Nir Oz, Pakistan, Palestine, reuters, Rockets, Sbarro, Strasbourg, Sydney, Taliban, terrorist attacks

October 3, 2014 · 11:38

Selling Israel

The papers are having another go at selling another version of an idea that has been said so often that I worry that those going towards it are dim or desperate, I honestly cannot tell which of the two they are. Now, before we continue let me frank. I have nothing against Iranians, several were in University with me, I met some in Sweden and in Europe, but these Iranians are the ones who left, they wanted a happy future, a future Iran could not offer. There is the issue, the Iran we seem to see are those who do not want to be in Iran. So why are those able to change, are doing so whilst flushing the futures of many whilst they enjoy the age of fornication. This is at the premise when we look at the Guardian Article ‘Iran nuclear talks: why Tehran must be brought in from the cold’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/nuclear-talks-why-tehran-must-come-in-from-cold). Here lies the heart of the problem in several ways. You see, it was all easy and clear in the time that Ahmadinejad was in power, we could smell crazy 25000 miles away. Now we have an issue we haven’t had before, you see, now that President Rouhani is in office things are changing. President Rouhani is by all standards, as far as I have been able to tell a decent person, he is a moderate, what would be seen as a good Muslim in pretty much any sense of the word and as I see it devoted to his country and his family, a man any man or corporation would happily do business with. If there is one flaw, then it is the fact that he went to the Glasgow Caledonian University, so he might not cheer for Australian cricket, but we can let that slide.

My issue is not with President Rouhani, it is with the person who follows. I know it, many know it and for a massive amount, the intelligence branch at large knows it, so why do we see more and more sounds on a nuclear deal? I will tell you why, it is because the parties willing to do business will not ever be in danger. No matter what happens when the deal is made, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any danger to the US or the Commonwealth. So, those involved parties are all willing to talk, mainly because of the massive amounts of money it could bring. Add to that the oil and gas reserves that Iran has and we have the makings of a greed driven agreement.

There is just one problem, if this happens, these people will directly endanger the status of Israel. I hope that they remember that Israel is an ally?

So why is this issue? What is the danger?

There are many. Consider the moment that Iran has nuclear capabilities. How long until a nuke or a dirty bomb makes it into Israel? Less than two weeks ago we saw high ranking Iranian officers acknowledge that they are giving missile technology to Hamas, do you think that Hamas will not fire such a rocket? How dim do we need to be? Hamas and Iran are both filled with more than a share of extremists. Even if the bomb does not hit Tel Aviv, there are half a dozen places where the state of Israel will collapse if one went off. Even more dangerous is the issue when it goes off in the Mediterranean, when the rads get into the water there, tourism for Greece and Spain will collapse overnight, it is also likely that irreparable damage will be given to both Italy and France at that point. How will you live then without a Euro coin that is still around?

So, is there any doubt? Ahmadinejad: “World forces must annihilate Israel” (Aug 2nd 21012) as well as “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury“. So our issue is not with President Rouhani, it is with whoever follows. Because when that person is not a moderate, one who wants to ‘score’ a name for himself in the eyes of all Muslim nations not willing to recognise the state of Israel.

The article does extent on several other sides. One of them is “many Iranians agree that, for the moment, the president’s priorities should be economic and diplomatic“, this is exactly what President Rouhani seems to be doing, trying to increase the living standard for Iranians. He seems to be successful because of the man he is, many are willing to talk to him and take economic steps. Who would not want to do business with the prospective customer who is moderate, respected and likely relaxed. As such certain dangers are ignored, you see, Iran has rules and regulations, they are clear and precise, so any Iranian Muslim can become president, however that also includes extreme elements like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because the consequences of a ‘democratic’ system of election is that anyone can raise his voice, where the issues start. When Iran becomes a nuclear nation, we need to take a look at… but then it will be too late.

There is more than just a few articles from the average Journalist. When we look at Alon Paz, an officer of the IDF, we see that Lt. Col. Alon Paz, Israel Defence Forces, is a Visiting Military Fellow at The Washington Institute. If we take a look at his article in the Business Insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-colonel-we-must-examine-hamas-strategy-2014-7?IR=T) we see that Iran is having more than just one influence and these actions are taken with President Rouhani in office. The question is how Iran moves forward, however, we need to keep it as an essential first step that it does so not as a nuclear enabled power, because that will change our futures in the most negative way imaginable.

The fact that Hamas has received missile technology from Iran is perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence against Iran becoming Nuclear, not because of those in charge, but because of select groups of officers who are propagating the need for Israel to be removed, once one of them gets into office, the lifespan of Israel will be measurable in mere hours, so as Israel starts glowing in the dark, what will America say then? “I’ll take that goat off your hands for 2 zuzim”, where will it leave the rest?

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Ahmadinejad, France, Glasgow Caledonian University, Hamas, Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Israel Defence Forces, Italy, Lt. Col. Alon Paz, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muslim, President Rouhani, Spain, Sweden, The Washington Institute, United States

September 27, 2014 · 10:07

Double Jeopardy!

Let’s take this article in a different, artistic, free for all spin, where we (reader and writer) need to look at the facts and see what seems to be behind it. Now we all agree that when I say ‘what seems to be’ is of course open to some interpretation and it is JUST one view. For example, if we take Dr Who and his TARDIS, or as some know it the story of a mad man and a box, we are left with two thoughts ‘Is it bigger on the inside?’, or is it ‘Smaller on the outside?’, so: ‘Run you clever boy!’ (girls too) and get to the end of this steeple chase!

When we look at how the news was given yesterday as voiced by Sarah Butler and Sean Farrell (not related to Gerard Butler or Colin Farrell as far as I can tell), we see a strange change in pace. Now the issues we see here call in for some additional worries and considerations.

Business for £100!

“In light of the write off of 250 million, we see that a loss of 3 billion due to stock pressure has been found, whilst rating agencies like Fitch are now calling for a lot more transparency“.

“Why must Tesco Reinvent themselves?” (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/26/tesco-must-change-culture-reinvent-brand)

Yes, that was indeed the correct question. Now, we see that actions are getting taken and overall, the top dog (aka Dave Lewis, not related to Inspector Lewis of the Oxfordshire police department) has been on top of this since the earliest moments. Yet when we consider the quote “On Friday shares in Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Tesco all fell in response to further evidence of difficulties in the market and bearish comments from one of the UK’s most influential fund managers“. I have, to a partial degree, an issue with Woodford. Yes, he made billions and yes, he has called it a few times, yet overall, this came out of the blue (or so it seems). The fact that Woodford had no money in this does not make it a case, what is the issue is the entire trip of reinventing, whilst this was all an implied accounting irregularity. So is this more, or was that an assumption by some of the players? If the four managers are gone and this is about a lot more and for a lot longer, then the question become why? I stated before, what if this was not about the event, but about the orchestration? Investigations need to be completed before we can say anything of value here, but the facts seem to bear out that this, not unlike libor was about a few people and no transparency or oversight. This calls for alterations and modifications. When we hear the quote Dave Lewis made “Turning our business around will require change in our culture, as well as in our processes and our brand proposition. We want to work in a business which is open, transparent, fair and honest. We all expect Tesco to act with integrity and transparency at all times“, then we see an implied event that points towards the fact that there was more and must be dealt with too. The question then becomes what do we not know yet?

So, now we go to International politics for £250. “The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is calling for the UNSC to set a clear deadline for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank”

“Why has Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) entered into a joint government with Hamas?” (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/mahmoud-abbas-un-israeli-withdrawal-occupied-territories)

Yes, that is indeed the question, although the answer is less simple, Mahmoud Abbas keeps on ‘ignoring’ the simple fact that Israel reacted to missiles fired from the west bank into Israel. This is at the core why Israel has had enough, when you get a barrage which comes down to well over 3 missiles a day for an entire year, at some point people have had enough and they come calling with a rather large piece of Willow (aka Cricketbat). When we hear Mahmoud Abbas talk about “a just peace through a negotiated solution”, I recall that man in Liverpool who claimed to have invented a game that in certain respects is a bit like cricket. What he doesn’t know is that the England team has been playing it for years. Mahmoud Abbas is so bend on getting into as many organisations within the UN as fast as possible, also calls for questions that many are not asking. My issues with all that is that at present, Hamas (or Abbas) have broken every seize fire, only when they learned that no one was interested in their insincere crying, did Hamas realise that their extinction had become an international acceptable solution, proving the target is a terrorist organisation. Now we get the speeches, yet the underlying issue of missile acquisition and delivering them through tunnels has still not been dealt with. The additional side is what has had Israel ‘upset’ for some time now. Iran who claims to be peaceful and is so ‘deserving’ of nuclear power, shows the side we knew would come. Even though they talk about Nuclear power for energy only, the fear Israel had is shown with the quote “Two senior Iranian officials told an Arabic-language television channel on Monday that Tehran has supplied missile technology to Hamas for its fight against Israel“, So as other players up the ante for Israel, the consequences for Mahmoud Abbas seems clear as well, especially after the quote “There’s a reason that Abu Mazen entered into a joint government with Hamas“, which leads me to the question Why is Mahmoud Abbas allowed into the UN building, or into America at all. Was there now a clear consequence to be labelled a terrorist? This part gets another uncomfortable side (at http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4392/isis-gaza), I cannot vouch for the supplier of the news, so that part MUST be considered to be an issue. Yet, the quote “Hamas prevented local journalists from covering the ISIS rally in the Gaza Strip last month as part of its effort to deny the existence of ISIS in the Gaza Strip. But Hamas seems to be trying to cover the sun with one finger” gives ample weight to both the desperate (could just be frantic) acts by Mahmoud Abbas to get into bed with the UN as much as possible. If ISIS is indeed already active in Gaza, then the ante for Israel is now a lot higher than many thought it was (I am still having a question mark with the validity of that intelligence). I did cover the risk to some extent in ‘Puppet on a string!‘ on July 30^th 2014, yet my disagreement with Lt. General Michael Flynn was not on that, the fact that he seems to have been spot on in regards to something worse is indeed coming to fruition, yet the fact that Hamas is losing to ISIS on their home turf is also a worry (one I did not see coming that fast), because we now see that changing the balance in the Middle East (or Arab Spring as some call it) seems to have had several adverse effects, changing the gameplay in a game many did not understand to begin with.

If this is all correct, then ISIS is now confirmed in both Gaza and Sinai, which means that the next step to this scenario is Jordan, before Israel becomes a target. Here we see a possible disaster in the making, as ISIS could have access to recruitment and slaughter of up to 600,000 refugees. The question becomes, how many would they recruit and where will they then head to next?

If this is a case of Double Jeopardy, then who is getting set on trial twice? The refugees, Israel of Palestine? In this game, people can get trialled twice, almost like a bad episode of Big Brother. The danger here is that the eviction will lead to housing in the cemetery, which might look cheap but the living space truly sucks!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Politics

Tagged as Abu Mazen, Big Brother, Colin Farrell, Dave Lewis, Double Jeopardy, Dr Who, Gaza, Gerard Butler, Hamas, Inspector Lewis, Iran, ISIS, Israel, Jordan, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Mahmoud Abbas, Morrisons, Palestine, Sainsbury’s, Sarah Butler, Sean Farrell, TARDIS, Tesco, Woodford

August 21, 2014 · 11:17

A time to breath

I am just now taking a few minutes (roughly 32.4) break from my UNI assignment. I have way to go and I should be OK to get it all done in time. These are also the moments when a person, no matter how driven to get the assignment done, will start worrying about the proper tense of it all. I procrastinate, he procrastinates, she procrastinates, we all look at Facebook, the Guardian, YouTube and whatever other non-University virtual place we can think of.

I do it every two hours to keep my mind slightly more alert than usual. Assignments can be dull dreary and often nerve wrecking and if we do not take a little look out of the window, we go bonkers (for Americans: that means ‘loony tunes’).

The topic of news are the beheading of a US reporter by ISIS, air strikes batter Hamas and something about Sainsbury and credit card fraud. If you do not know that ISIS is a massive threat, then feel free to hide back under your rock, if you think that there can be peace between Hamas and Israel, then please say hi to Professor Minerva McGonagall from me when you get back to Hogwarts and enjoy the ‘reality’ of magic, muggles and feast over the death of he-who-should-not-be-named.

The Sainsbury issue is however a massively different slice of pie, and I will take a bite out of that one. It is yesterday’s pie, but it seems to have the good taste of ‘are you for real?‘ whilst having a glass of ‘someone better start waking up soon there‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/20/sainsburys-bank-security-fraud-transfer-credit-limit).

The first quote that I have an issue with is almost at the end of that article, where it states “Sainsbury’s, which has run its own banking operation since 2013, might now want to look at its security measures“. How about “Dear Sainsbury bank, in light of the information we currently have, we will feel a sense of utter joy to permanently shut you down in 48 hours if you do not wake the flip up and get your hat on straight! Kind regards the office of common sense and persecutors of dumb, dumber and the flatulently moronic”

This is not 2001 or 2003, it is 2013 and the dangers of cybercrime, identity fraud and other mismanaged works by those who acquire that what others own, has been in operation since the late 90’s and the article, if correct has all the makings of a new season of ‘the Office‘.

The quote “At no time was I asked the further security questions that only I could answer“, which implies that the security of ones birthdate is as dangerous as it is futile. Many people seem to hand over that information to Facebook (that open message and personal detail place which was created in 2004). The fact that the automation and security process of commonwealth welfare is stellar-sized more advanced above the implied security of the Sainsbury bank should give credit to levels of Howling laughter from Edinburgh (random place to the north), which the people in London would hear.

So, that’s enough rant for a few minutes!

The issue remains how ‘a bank’ had not been vetted beyond the points of common cyber sense, as well as allow certain changes (like increasing credit limit) other than in person to the place where the credit was offered in the first place. I must stress out here, that I am going by the Guardian article, so if their information is incomplete, then so will be the info you read here. Yet, if we see some place called ‘the northern echo’ (at http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8423732.Sainsbury___s_hit_by_credit_card_scam/), then we see more issues with Sainsbury and well before 2013, which means that there is at least one watchdog that seems to be asleep at the helm. A quote from the echo is “The court heard that the scam was costing Sainsbury’s £12,000 a week in the North- East alone“, which implies that it is costing them a bundle, so we should take a step back and wonder how asleep some of these people are.

There is however a larger issue that is not being addressed. We have seen that ATM’s have been the target of several options. In Australia, Westpac came with a novel idea that prevents someone adding a skimming slot in front of the card reader of an ATM that is quite ingenious (see pic),

but overall the ATM has not been too overly developed. There was a time when I saw that the AMEX cards had a hologram, but the newer systems which are all about waving in front of a scanner open up many other criminal endeavours of exploitation of your bank account. The fact that seems to be implied is that Sainsbury, even today, remains a decade behind is cause for massive concern. This all will give rise to the question on how long it will take, before insurance companies take enough offense and no longer pay banks for their shortcomings, then what?

Here is see instant fortune for the one innovator that can truly show us a new way on digital transactions that allow for a new (or upgraded) system that is about safety and security, not about speed of transaction. Consider that golden idea that will keep trillions of transactions safe. Even if you only get $0.01 per transaction, you would end up wealthier then Bill Gates in less than two years (greed tends to be a great motivator).

Is there anything we can do? Well, the Sainsbury issue is a little extreme, but overall banks are getting better at upgrading security, yet there are a few things you can do. First of all, limit the location of your card, so that you can only use it national. Yes, it looks so cool that you can use it all over Europe, but if you are stuck in Stratford-upon-Avon and you have yet to write your first book, then it is highly likely that you cannot afford distant travels, which means that your card only needs to work in the UK (or whatever country you live in). Second, cyber criminals tend to spy on your computer if they can. So, when you are not using your computer, shut it down. It seems so cool to have it ready at a moment’s notice, yet that thing actually uses a fair bit of electricity and when you are not using your computer at night, it could be used to see if you have passwords and account details somewhere. Not the thing you want to leave unattended. Today, people leaving their smartphone unattended (I mean no pin or password), which is even more reckless nowadays. Even having more ‘renowned’ apps are getting to be more and more questionable (reference to my ‘No Press, No Facebook!‘ blog of August 10^th), how long until someone slips in an app, to piggy onto some banks wave and pay app (a way to pay using the mobile phone by waving it in front of a scanner)? These are technologies that are possible today (whilst Sainsbury is an implied decade behind).

So, we should all take a moment to breath (except Sainsbury who apparently need to update their security) and consider the financial links we now have and when we last checked them for correctness of transactions, more important, what other card options do you have where people can too easily take your cash for a ride? I am referring to possible fuel cards, book club cards and other cards where you do not get the invoice immediately, so you might get a nasty sting when you open ‘that’ letter next week wondering when you had that complementary 50 pound dinner as a new member. It is the unspoken danger of having too much info on open social media, some banks seem not to have been updated and likely other providers could well be lacking in security procedures too.

Did you take time to breath?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as credit cards, Facebook, fuel cards, Gaza, Hamas, ISIS, Israel, Sainsbury, Sainsbury bank, the Guardian, the Northern echo, the Office

August 18, 2014 · 11:44

Hiding behind the bully

Again it is the Guardian the illuminates an issue that seems to hit the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/17/sainsburys-removes-kosher-food-anti-israel-protesters). The header ‘Sainsbury’s removes kosher food from shelves amid fears over protesters‘. Let’s take a look at the sanity of this. First, about Kosher foods, if we accept this explanation: “Kosher food is food prepared in accordance with Jewish Dietary Laws“, which makes the act of Sainsbury an act of discrimination. These same protesters were actually quite busy ignoring events as Hamas was sending thousands of rockets into Israel; in addition, they seemed not to care about the acts of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine against Israel. No one seems to be asking the question how missiles weighing well over a ton (FAJR-5), and also not the cheapest of ordinance makes it into Gaza. The option where we suddenly see, but no serious questions are asked on how Iranian hardware gets there, in an age when there is a block on all things Iranian. It seems that big business has more than just a small hand in keeping the imbalance going. Yet, ‘these bullies’, is that even correct?

You see, Sainsbury acted preventively. There were protesters and I do believe in free speech, so there is nothing against protesters, as long as they respect the choices of others. There will always be the bullies in these places, who by their acts will escalate an issue into something more. It still makes the act of Sainsbury a discriminatory one and as such, there could be legal ramifications for Sainsbury.

The quote “Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP, accused Sainsbury’s of racism” is not incorrect, yet the information is slightly off the boil. I should also add the quote from Sainsbury “A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said it was ‘an absolutely non-political organisation’ and said the food was returned to the shelves ‘as soon as was practically possible’“. This has a ring of truth, so basically, we can argue that the store manager in question had made a bad call, but that is something for Sainsbury to address.

So why are we looking into the issue of hiding behind the bully. There is a sound to it, that links to it, that corrupts the nature of acts, which is not a good thing either. We act according to our values, our insights and often by our direction. It makes the act of the branch manager of the store in Holborn questionable, but not necessarily wrong, evil or racist. We are confronted with dilemmas in the face of a crisis and we all at times make not the best choice, which is not saying that we made the wrong choice.

And as we look through the coloured glasses we see a pattern, coloured by the bullies. In this case the accusation by Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP and Facebook user Gavin Platman who had a much more down to earth pragmatic response. He voiced a view that “move blurred the line between a political statement and a hate crime” was that so? Perhaps the store owner feared the consequence of vandalism with possible added dangers to his customers. As stated, the act remained questionable, but there is enough evidence that this was not an act of Malice, but simple fear and worry, enough doubt to state it was absent of political issues and absent of hate.

I have my views in the matter of Gaza, some formed whilst I was there in 1982, some formed by the news and some by other information. It is also important to show another side. Even though I have spoken out against journalists often enough, there is a view you must know about. There is a headline “Journalist quits Australian newspaper after suspension over ‘offensive’ response to Gaza column complaints“, this is because of the article the journalist wrote (at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/israels-rank-and-rotten-fruit-is-being-called-fascism-20140724-zwd2t.html).

I do not agree with some of his views, but they ARE HIS views and he is entitled to them, plain and simple. The quote “Yes, Hamas is also trying to kill Israeli civilians, with a barrage of rockets and guerrilla border attacks. It, too, is guilty of terror and grave war crimes. But Israeli citizens and their homes and towns have been effectively shielded by the nation’s Iron Dome defence system, and so far only three of its civilians have died in this latest conflict” is one of the quotes I do not agree to. His facts are straight, yet this system was designed in 2005 and it had been in service since 2011. Yet, before that already hundreds of mortars and missiles had been fired upon Israel. The issue I raised in ‘Puppet on a string‘ on June 30th and in a few blogs before that. Consider the amount of missiles fired, who is supporting Hamas, because this entire mess is escalating because some people behind the screen are funding all this, the article NEVER goes into that. My issue is that the writer seems to rely on a missile defence system that is 3 years old, whilst the Israeli people had been under attack for decades. It seems that to the lesser extent, hatred for the Jews has never stopped, not since WW2. What we see now is a nation that has been under attack and in fear of extinction for 4 decades. The writer does touch on some of the events and also is adamant in calling both sides guilty, which is fair enough. The other quote is do not completely agree with is “The Israeli response has been out of all proportion, a monstrous distortion of the much-vaunted right of self-defence“, yes, from the directness of what happens now he is stating the truth, yet decades of missiles has made Israel angry and perhaps worried and in fear. More than 1300 missiles were fired upon Israel last year. Someone with a massive fat wallet is funding Hamas, yet the Iron Dome also requires funds every shell Hamas fires requires another $25.000. How long until the funds runs out for Israel? These sides are not shown or talked about. He ends in “That is why the killing and the dying goes on. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum. And the rest of the world, not caring, looks away“. That I can partially agree with. The issue is still, until funding runs out for one of them. A side no journalist seems to be looking at. It is a simple view in any analytical premise. So is there a bully here?

Yes, I speak out against certain journalism, or better stated lack thereof. Mr Carlton was ‘judged’ as we see the quote “An Australian newspaper columnist has resigned after being suspended for telling people abusing him over a column on Gaza to ‘f*** off’” Is that reason enough? How was he wrong? Have you seen some of the trolls we see in social media? So he tells an abuser to (F word omitted) off. How does that even closely justify suspension? I might not agree with the view Mr Carlton had (at least partially), yet he had a right to his view. I might counter it, but I will not abuse him for it. Here it seems that the Sydney Morning Herald was hiding behind the Bully. The question becomes, who was that bully? The fact that Mr Carlton responded to the abuse was also not the greatest idea, but it was HIS RIGHT to do so, it seems that this side was also ignored, especially as we look at the weeks of suspension result.

So as we look for the bullies and look for the result of their acts, we should also realise that we all react to some extent here, not all in the greatest way, sometimes we think it was not important, sometimes to not rock the boat and sometimes because it seems like to only act available to us. But whether we give in to the bully, or hide behind the bully, we gave the bully that what he wanted and never deserved, so does the bully have an identity? To the Palestinians it is Israel, to the Israeli’s it is Hamas, and to Hamas they are the Jews. And as the vicious circle grows we see more players pointing towards their own demons, whilst the actual bully points towards his or her own ignorance and fears.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as Carlton, Gavin Platman, Gaza, Hamas, Iron Dome, Israel, Jews, Louise Mensch, Palestine, Puppet on a string, Sainsbury, SMH, Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian, WW2

Tag Archives: Hamas

Recent Posts

Archives