Tag Archives: Iran

June 23, 2014 · 11:45

ISIS is coming to town!

Many have seen the news. Iraq is facing another brawl between the Sunni and Shiite. I do not proclaim any side, or even to know and comprehend the difference between the two beyond a limited and basic level. Is it required? There is an interesting article on it all in the Huffington Post (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-barbanel/the-current-incarnation-isis_b_5509461.html), whether this is something you can connect to is up to you. It is the last paragraph that gives me pause and even some worry.

“Unfortunately, what’s needed is for the West to man-up and send in a multi-national force (Americans, Brits, French, Germans, etc.) and squash ISIS (which has ambitions of spreading their Islamic revolution to London and New York). It won’t take many planes or drones. ISIS has no air force. It won’t even take many troops to confront the several thousand ISIS fighters. What it will take is will power and if there’s absence of that we will be left only with the words of the 18th Century Irish philosopher Edmund Burke: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.‘”

First of all, the US has no intent of getting involved (at present), more important should they? Remember the old issue when between the 2nd and the 4th of August 1990, Iraq took over Kuwait? It was condemned and after a while the US instigated Desert Storm and it was in that time between 17th January and 28th February 1991 that Sadam Hussein was removed from Kuwait. It was after this when at some point Bill O’Reilly made mention that at this stage, the hold of Sadam Hussein was weak and the Iraqi people could have overthrown their government if they truly wanted freedom. He was correct in a sense, but was he correct overall? I did not consider that part until this week. You see, the issues around Operation Iraqi Freedom (a dubious choice of name to some extent), was that this situation was never completely and correctly resolved (I admit that my use of correct is debatable). So as the US established democratic elections and formation of new Shia led government, we should wonder, even though the Shiite is in a massive majority, how the Sunni’s would react. Last week we saw the escalation of that sentiment in all its brutality. Giving a lot more weight to the consideration Bill O’Reilly left me with when he made the initial statement.

I needed to get another view, so I looked and I found this statistic Shia Muslims constitute 10-20% of the world’s Muslim population and 38% of the Middle East’s entire population, So that is a sizeable chunk, another gave me: “Most Muslims are of two denominations: Sunni (75 – 90%) or Shia (10 – 20%)“, which makes me wonder at first, yet the view from Professor Sue Hullett gave me: “Let me review, while Shia Islam makes up only 10%-20% of the world’s Muslim population, Iraq has a Shia majority (between 60%-65%), but had a Sunni controlled government under Saddam Hussein“, As she is the Distinguished Professor and Chair of Political Science at Knox College, her numbers should be regarded as reliable and they are in line with other numbers I found.

This leaves me with a much clearer picture that we are facing a change where Iraq goes back into the shape it had under Sadam Hussein. More important, the Shiite majority seems to be unwilling to fight the Sunni’s in this matter. Linked to this is a second quote from the Huffington Post “Tens of thousands of Iraqi troops just ran away, abandoned their equipment and abdicated their duty. Had even a fraction of them stood and fought, ISIS probably could have been thwarted.”

This is exactly in the light Bill O’Reilly stated several years ago. So is this a case of ‘Barbarians’ attacking ‘Pacifists’? More important, is it the job of the USA to just intervene every time? The issue of ‘deserting’ Shiite’s, for whatever reason, gives clear indication that not only was the exit strategy poorly chosen, an exit strategy should not have been considered. In other light, if the Iraqi’s are not willing to fight for their country and resources, what rights are they enabling themselves with?

Is there a solution?

I am not sure if there is. I have my doubts whether 300 advisors will help when troops run away leaving plenty of resources behind for ISIS, the fact that ISIS was active in Syria and is now armed to the teeth and entering Iraq should also give way to additional questions. The strategic position of ISIS at the borders of Iraq, Syria AND Jordan should also be seen as a dangerous escalation. The destabilisation of Jordan (if made threats are accurate), will push millions of refugees in all kinds of direction; none of them could be seen as a positive one. This is at the heart of the strategy of ISIS, which with my apology for a lack of better phrasing is actually brilliant. They have area control to move large amounts of goods and the US is not clear on what to do and where to do it. If they openly start an opposition war, whether from Iraq or not, they will derail whatever achievements the US state department had made with Iran, this will open up more options for Syrian escalation and the one almost ‘stable’ part there (Jordan), will now be in direct threat as well as its Royal family. Unless King Abdullah II of Jordan finds an acceptable alliance and added support, it runs the risk of destabilising really fast. Now we have ourselves a true Clambake as ISIS ends up with resources at the bulk of the Israeli borders. There is then a direct threat to Eilat (via Jordan) as well as the option to enter the Sinai with from there a path to Hamas. Israel could find themselves in a direct war on two fronts whilst having only limited options to reflect the invader ISIS without direct consent of Jordan, which ties the hands of Israel, with likely direct threats to the cities of Eilat, Ashkelon and Beer Sheva, which puts Israel in clear and present danger of having to instigate a massive offensive. This changes the Sinai into a powder keg and whilst there is no outspoken hostility against ISIS by Egypt, even if it was, Egypt will not allow an increased presence of Israel in the Sinai, making this “no man’s land” a good haven for ISIS, would they proceed in this direction.

ISIS is there for a massive danger for overall stability. That part is called to order even stronger when we consider the headline of the Financial Times ‘Diverse funding and strong accounting give Isis unparalleled wealth‘, by Sam Jones, Defence and Security Editor yesterday afternoon. This gives way to several issues. Not only are they a threat, they are a well-funded threat, which means that they could support Hamas with materials allowing for even more attacks on Israel, giving us an easy escalating situation. I reckon my initial advice for Israel to take back the Sinai in 2012 would have been the best course of action. Not in any anti-Egyptian way, but considering the pressures President Sisi is dealing with at present, having to deal with ISIS in his back yard might have been the one part he preferred not to deal with.

It would also have limited several explorations by ISIS, yet that did not happen, which means that unless a direct solution for Iraq can be found, we will see escalations all over the Middle East. If ISIS does get a hold of Iraq, the US will be forced into a financial and military corner, requiring a solution in a multinational way and very likely in several nations. Will that ever be an acceptable option?

In my mind, the most direct meed would not be Iraq, but Jordan. It is dealing with millions of refugee’s and a dwindling amount of resources. You should by now realise that until Iraqi’s pick up arms (instead of fleeing), that theatre could be lost. If we accept the roman principle of war (the installation of defences against enemy retaliation), then adding strength to the Kingdom of Jordan, as well as a massive increase of Humanitarian aid will be a first priority. It makes Israel less of a target and it limits the movement of ISIS in regards to Syria and Iraq. Yet in the end, until an offensive is launched, ISIS cannot be dealt with and that is something that needs to be done, the question remains: ‘how to do it?’

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Bill O'Reilly, Eilat, Financial Times, Huffington Post, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Israel, Jordan, King Abdullah II, Knox College, Middle East, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sadam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, Sam Jones, Shia Muslims, Shiite, Sinai, Sue Hullett, Sunni, Sunni and Shiite, Syria, USA

March 4, 2014 · 15:13

Israel stands alone

I wish I had better news, but the situation as it deteriorates in the Middle East, might in the next immediate period give more pressure and dangers to the state of Israel then anyone realises. Is it more than Israel thinks it is? That is a little harder to see, but I feel certain that their bad case scenario had included options even worse than I would be able to foresee.

This is not just on the issues raised by the USA, or EU as published (at http://news.sky.com/story/1217922/us-and-eu-urged-to-halt-weapon-sales-to-israel), it is also the issues which will hit Israel as we see a deteriorating war theatre in Syria. When we see “Amnesty International criticises what it calls Israel’s ‘callous disregard for human life’ in its handling of Palestinian protests against occupation“. Is that the actual truth? Over 4000 attacks from Palestine missiles and mortars in the last 5 years against Israeli civilian targets, making almost 70 attacks a month for 5 years, so basically a little over two attacks a day, every day for 5 years (even more in the 5 years before that). These were almost all fired at civilian targets, which makes the Amnesty International report a coloured one. I am not just writing this from the back of the room. I have been there, I have seen the consequences and people that I know of have been in direct danger because of the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah and the groups acting in the Sinai. So, this is not just a far away from my bed situation (Dutch expression). When even today in 2014 see that the Palestine’s are stating “The Palestinian Authority adamantly rejects Israel’s right to exist” on a daily basis and the fact that this is still shown and proven at every turn. Is it a surprise that the tensions are not and will not be broken any day soon?

The second issue comes from State Secretary John Kerry, as mentioned by Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1205342/israel-boycott-warning-dismissed-by-netanyahu),where we see the quote “US Secretary of State John Kerry had suggested that a failure of peace talks with the Palestinians would accelerate calls for a ‘de-legitimisation campaign’ against the Jewish state”

Is that so? The issue, as it has been known for decades is all about Israel’s right to exist. NOT ONE government has been able to swing this in favour of Israel EVER! So Mr Kerry, are you sure you want to be the one that is known as the person who acquired the label ‘the failed superpower USA‘ as we see not just the issues in Israel, but also the failings of campaigns involving Afghanistan, Syria and now the Ukraine? I am not stating that the last two should have been about military intervention, but diplomacy did not work. As the Syrian issues keep on escalating, the dangers that escalations move south of the Syrian border is not out of the question, when that happens the dangers for Israel will quickly increase. Even though many parties do not want the Syrian government to completely fall and left in the hands of several smaller extreme hands, the dangers, even if Syria moves on without President Assad will mean that pressures towards Lebanon will mean that the extremists now attacking Israel on a regular basis will end up with a lot more resources then they have at present. As we look at the mentioning of economic sanctions, the handling of it as we see in the newspapers about economic sanctions have for the most never ever worked.

Cuba is still there, even though it has been under massive economic pressure since 1962, the economic pressures against North Korea since 1950 also failed. They are still there; these two have nowhere near the resources of Russia, so how will the sanctions against Russia ever work? In addition, Russians are acquiring businesses all over Europe; the acquisition of Siebel in the Netherlands is one of the most visible ones lately. How will sanctions work in these cases?

This is all linked to Israel, let me get to that.

As we see the power of government (the US in particular) fall back because it has no power to stop businesses in many ways, we will see that governments are slowly losing power on a global scale (so not just the US). To some degree it will all be about the business and the local religion they depend upon, this evidence is seen as we see watch where big business remains and how it can deliver its projected forecast. This has been fact since the early 90’s. Now, as Europe needs and desires to do business all over the Middle-East, they will unite their view according to the need of their business. This does not make Muslims or Christians anti-Semites, yet the acts of individuals have been, especially when lacking moral and cultural insight, anti-Semite in nature. As long as the business makes that they need to achieve, they can get away with most acts of pro-profits. This places Israel, with a unique national religion in a dangerous place. When we see the article at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctantly-abandon-swedish-city-amid-growing-anti-semitism-1.301276, in addition the news at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4456356,00.html shows another side of one of the most liberal nations in the world. This is not a statement against Sweden, but the fact that this level of hatred goes on, even today, in several nations gives rise to the acts of Israel. Until the ‘right to exist’ is met by all its neighbours, and the Middle-East at large, this will go on and on. If anyone wants to make a statement on how it was ‘theirs’ in the past, then remember that the tribes of Israel were not just in Israel, they held parts of Palestine as well as a sizeable chunk of Syria as well. As this place became ‘slave shopping central‘ for both the Egyptians and the Romans, that area went from all to naught within 5 generations. So what is a solution? Well, as for the issues at hand, we could request two payments one from Egypt for 25 trillion and one from Italy for almost 50 trillion, not to mention the damage the Jewish population suffered from fanatical German acts. I am certain that Israel will make a deal to some extent. So if we go back long enough the issue could be settled, but the involved parties have nowhere near the funds to make restitution. In the end, is there a solution? It seems that there is, but not a peaceful one, not until the involved parties are willing to sit down and actually talk. In that regard, the US intervention has little or no power to hold any of it up. It is, especially at present, willing to sit at any table for economic reasons (not that this is a bad thing), but Israel knows that whatever deal will be gotten, it will not end good for Israel, the US knows this, it has always known this and at present, in their economic state of destitution they cannot afford to care about it. This is partially why the entire Iran situation will not be accepted by Israel, nor should it be by many nations. Be aware, I am not speaking out against Iran in this matter, but the issues as former president Ahmadinejad escalated them can easily happen again. Iran is the third largest nation in terms of oil reserves and this is why many parties are so adamant to make a deal with Iran (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/31/us-china-iran-zhenrong-idUSBRE9BU03020131231), as China is making new deals for oil, Iran will get an additional incentive of well over 80 billion, which the US is now missing out on. In an age of cash is king, the US is demoted from king to a mere tiny Earl and this is more than upsetting to these high and mighty US oil barons. Their business is wavering. So, as they will push for more and more business, the dangers Israel faces are also increasing. This is not about Hassan Rouhani, who so far is showing and proving to be an international diplomat. Israel fears what comes next in 2021. There is no indication that Hassan Rouhani is anything but a moderate, however the next one might not be like that and anyone who follows and is one step closer to a new Ahmedinejad will give the state of Israel a direct nuclear threat to deal with. They cannot allow for such a dangerous situation. It is all good and nice the things that John Kerry (as State Secretary) claims now, but when things go wrong, he will sit from a distance negotiating for talks whilst Tel Aviv partially glows in the dark. At that point those poor poor Iranians will be willing to talk (after the fact). When, at that point Israel stops existing, the Mediterranean is no longer a viable place and the fallout dangers to the eco systems of Greece, Italy and Spain will be regarded, by the US administration, as unfortunate. When a nation has no options, every step is one too many. Is my assumption a fair one? Consider the acts of former Iranian president Ahmadinejad; consider the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah as well as the Al-Qaeda groups currently in the Sinai. Mohamed Morsi was only just in office when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood started staging anti-Israel rallies in Cairo.

I feel certain that John Kerry has been aware of all these dangers, as have the members of the state departments all over the world. So, if any solution is ever to exist, then getting the ‘right to exist’ for Israel, will be a mandatory first step.

So when I stated that Israel stands alone, I was not kidding. For those who are eager to deal with the oil states, will have to deal with many who are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel (avoiding stating the term anti-Semitism here). In this era of government bankruptcies, the Cash is King approach is painfully visible and there is no clear solution in sight any day soon.

Debt and …?

This is a story I find hard to write. Is it a story? That will always depend on your point of view. You see, there is a danger to blindly sight with one person, one group or one vision. We all have it. We think of a certain path being the only one and as such treading of that beaten path is always a dangerous one because we as people do not walk off the path. Some know the horrors that this beaten path protects us from.

This is the story of Israel and an ally, who due to impending bankruptcy had to make a leap of faith. This is how I see the Iran issue. Let me be clear. I have nothing against Iranians. I remain in the belief that Ahmadinejad was an utter idiot and as such no trust could go to Iran. The image of its current President Hassan Rouhani is entirely different, yet, I still have an issue with the dangers to Israel. No matter how good Rouhani is. He will be up for re-election and after two terms, what will Iran get? Will it get another Ahmadinejad? Until the Muslim nations all acknowledges the existence of the state of Israel, giving them nuclear abilities is just too dangerous in many cases. In my mind Ahmadinejad wanted immortality, to be remembered in prayer for all eternity. To get that, he only needed to destroy Israel, something that could be achieved with only one successful nuclear missile strikes. Would Ahmadinejad do this, if he had nuclear abilities during his reign? In a heartbeat! Now, I am fully aware that most Muslims are not like this. But it only takes one elected one to take that step. This is a very real danger! So, I personally do not expect that Hassan Rouhani is like that at all (it is just the image I have of that man). But if we consider that to be elected in Iran, that three of several elements are: administrative capacity and resourcefulness, a good past record, trustworthiness and piety. If Ahmadinejad passed these, then who else will be able to pass these checkpoints?

So what is this about debt?

Well, the US has too much of it and it needs billions each day to stay afloat because the US cannot get a grip on its spending. With an oil filled Iran, the US will be willing to do business and it desperately needs money! If you doubt that reasoning, then consider the Cuban issue. Why after decades is there still so much pressure, both economically and technologically? Consider this pdf from the US military: “Policy Options for a Cuban Spring” (at http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630_art014.pdf)

I wonder if this stand-off approach would be there if there were large oil fields under Cuba. A Cuban response, even though I find it slightly too ‘propagandistic’ (is that a real word?) is at http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/alarcon-tvi.html, where it states as they quoted US senator Warner “The current policy treats Cuba more cruelly than Iraq and North Korea, where US embargoes are less restrictive.” I cannot vouch whether that was said, whether that person quoted it, but there seems to be a ring of truth in the sentence. It seems that Iran still supports Hamas, a known terrorist organisation, but as this endangers Israel and not the United States, the US will deal with Iran. So, is this an act of betrayal against its long term ally Israel? That depends on several matters, but that is how many would see it. That view is endorsed even more if we consider that Cuba is still under the heaviest of sanctions.

So is the US being sanctimonious? Considering the pressures that remain it does look that way. Whatever you think of the Cuban regime that is in place. It has been there for 50 years. So, the approach of half a century that did not work has to change. There are additional questions. This quote gives one view “Human rights advocacy groups have criticized Castro’s administration for committing human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch stated that his government constructed a ‘repressive machinery’ which deprived Cubans of their ‘basic rights’ “. Another view could be that the US had strangled Cuban Economy for half a century and as such certain developments could never take place. It is possible that my view is the wrong one, yet as we see how the pressure on Iran is now faltering, where they endured economic sanctions less than half the time Cuba had, additional questions must be asked. Israel has been placed in a dangerous situation and I wonder what promises John Kerry will make on his visit when serious questions will be asked of him. I wonder if the Cuban situation will enter the discussion at some point.

As for my added label of ‘sanctimonious’?

Consider that the US Tax evasion law (FATCA) which was initially supposed to start in January 2013, has now been delayed until July 2014. There is an interesting read (at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/dcom-unitedstates/local%20assets/documents/tax/us_tax_fatca_faqs_061711.pdf). So as Reuters reported another delay (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/usa-tax-fatca-idUSL1N0IJ1N020131029) the question becomes, who does the US government serve? More and more evidence comes to light that it is not all US citizens, but mostly the Rich and corporate ones. So when things get out of hand, consider the reason why things got out of hand and not just the ‘who’ dropped the bomb (if that happens). Those who allowed for the dangers will have plenty of blood on their hands and history must record and openly name and shame those involved too.

It could be the only true historical manifest to stop greed (nothing else seems to work).

There is a third side to this, if America would be willing to allow for indirect terrorist support (Iran supporting Hamas) through economic windfall, then are we not obliged to pronounce the US bankrupt? If freedom is only gotten through ledgers and by approval of the banks and the wealthy, then how free are US citizen really?

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots”

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.