Tag Archives: Israel

October 17, 2016 · 18:39

A New Disney

There was an Italian, who has been famous for over 125 years, he is not the first or the only famous Italian. There was this guy who came up with Pizza, There was this other Italian who thought fast Ford cars were a joke and he created Ferrari, then there was this other Italian, who made tractors, disagreed with the previous Italian and created Lamborghini. It is actually none of those. It is Carlo Lorenzini who was born 190 years ago. You might not know the name, perhaps his alternative name? Carlo Collodi! If you are still in the dark, than remember the story of a wooden boy who wanted to become a real live boy. Steven Spielberg used the notion in AI, but the original remains the best, namely Pinocchio!

Yes, the story of a wooden boy going into the world, yet as a wooden boy he was not alone, there was a little Cricket accompanying him and he would be a lot more important than your average Cricket, Jiminy was his name. Today the story is even more relevant, you see, the name Yemini Cricket might be ringing bells, but the truth of the wooden boy is there. The question becomes, who is the wooden boy?

So when I read ‘US, Britain and UN demand Yemen ceasefire within days‘ (at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/16/us-britain-and-un-demand-yemen-ceasefire-within-days),

Yet when I read “The United Nations envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, said: “We are here to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, which will be declared in the next few hours.” Cheikh Ahmed said he had been in contact with the rebel Huthi militia’s lead negotiator and with Yemeni President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi’s government“, my recollection does not go towards the classical story, it goes to a reference a little closer to the present (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZrKOCdHFs), the laughter applies to both the sketch and reality. Aleppo is a great example, how 5 years and 400,000-450,000 fatalities later, no solution is there, but they are still flying to places like Switzerland to talk. I wonder when we add up all the costs, how much did the taxpayer pay for this play?

A number of civilian casualties that have now surpassed the total US Military casualties, of those who died during WW2. Doesn’t that look like a clear message that massive change was required a few years ago? I reckon all the players know that, yet, having long conversations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whose only concern is to stall so that the population can be made extinct before the resolution passes, reads a lot more like the Friends edition of Pinocchio, than the original by Carlo Collodi, where we see the conscience that is Jiminy Cricket.

So as we see the beginning of the same slow train in Yemen, I have to wonder if creating a new version of Pinocchio with Yemini Cricket is the way to go. It educates politicians as well as bring some hard needed cash towards Hollywood (or Bollywood).

So why is this different?

To one degree it is not, towards the other degree it is very much so. The problem is that both Syria and Yemen could be on the same page, no degrees of separation. In this case there are two at least. You see, Yemen has limited ties to Russia, making it less complicated, what is the issue is that the Houthi’s are actively shooting missiles at the US Navy complicating matters a lot more. It only takes one direct hit, and Yemen would technically be in a state of war with the US. Now, normally, a bankrupt nation is not that much a bother, but Yemen is not an economic or military superpower, so going against America sounds like a PR approach to get them ‘involved’. What is an issue is that Yemen, the neighbour of Saudi Arabia could get lucky at some point, what happens after the hit will be an issue, because Americans tend to get cranky when you successfully blow up something American. Interesting is that there are now multiple sources claiming that Iran is now moving towards the Red sea. An interesting story as the Red sea is on the other side of the Persian Gulf and Iranian war ships have no actual business there (which could also apply to the Americans). The question becomes how is Saudi placed into all this? Here there are issues too. There is no stating if there is even any link but the changes and the Attention that members of the Saudi government are drawing attention to themselves become a factor (speculation from my side).

One part is from the Australian Financial Review (at http://www.afr.com/news/world/middle-east/saudi-prince-mohammed-bin-salmans-shatters-decades-of-tradition-20161017-gs3yt5), where we see the title ‘Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s shatters decades of tradition‘, is not giving us the ‘goods’. The first quote is “He has slashed the state budget, frozen government contracts and reduced the pay of civil employees, all part of drastic austerity measures as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is buffeted by low oil prices“, which would be quite acceptable in one view, at least it appears that one government in this world is dealing with its budget issues, although not in the most ‘desirable’ way, when a nation is so dependent on oil, there might not be too many options. The second quote is “While vacationing in the south of France, Prince Mohammed spotted a 134-metre yacht. He dispatched an aide to buy the ship, the Serene, then owned by Russian vodka tycoon Yuri Shefler. The deal was done within hours, at a price of approximately €500 million (roughly $720 million today)“, which implies the opposite. The question is not the cut-backs or spending spree, the issue is neither quote, it is the quote I will give now “Many young Saudis admire him as an energetic representative of their generation who has addressed some of the country’s problems with uncommon bluntness. The kingdom’s media have built his image as a hardworking, businesslike leader less concerned than his predecessors with the trappings of royalty” as well as “Others see him as a power-hungry upstart who is risking instability by changing too much, too fast“. So is the prince a go-getter or power-hungry? I cannot tell as this is all based on third degree of information, what matters is how the view and the actions will reflect the counteractions of the US and Iran in regard to Yemen. The moment the conflict results in a direct attack on Saudi grounds, what then? Iranian warships in the Red Sea would only complicate that, making a harsh response from the Saudi Military even more destabilising.

In my view there are two sides within Saudi Arabia, yet how they should be seen is another matter. I do not claim to have a proper view. I have questions. You see Mecca is an Islamic Holy city (the most important one) and it is part of Saudi Arabia, so as Saudi Arabia is the caretaker of this holy site, the involvement if Iran is more than just a small issue. Whatever they decide to escalate could have large repercussions all over the Middle East. The Sovereign State of Saudi Arabia has every right to defend it in every way possible, so Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman is also Minister of Defence and the youngest one in the world, which as a stat sounds nice, yet it also means that in light of other decisions, he is ready to do that what the US has been unable to do, declare war on its enemy by actually acting against them! Not that the US needed to declare war, but in light of Syria, doing anything actively would have been nice, an absence of resolution that His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud is less likely to show.

What is a problem is the fact that the complications are more and more likely as days go by and that is the one spark that this powder keg does not need. Iran cannot be denied access to international waters, which will not lessen the impact. One of the elements in all this is seen in the second quote regarding the ‘power hungry’ side of it. You see, the AFR article is also mentioning “Mohammed bin Nayef, the interior minister and longtime counter-terrorism czar“, which is now an element in all this. You see, whatever happens next is all surrounding the need for intelligence. So whatever issues there are between His Royal Highness Muhammad bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud gives wake to the Disney sequel, a tale of two princes. A new approach to the classic Dickens story where the plight of two members of the Royal family of Al Saud are protecting the Sovereign state of Saudi Arabia as well as the safety and security of all Muslims that are in and nearby Mecca. Even as the papers are expecting a ceasefire, the issue is that stalling is equally a tactic here. There is no way of telling why Iran is involving its warships in that region, other than trying to complicate matters and demanding a seat at the table of decision, which would only change the time table in the worst of ways. What the Deutsche Welle did give was the quote “the Saudi-led coalition has blamed an airstrike that killed over 140 people at a funeral ceremony in Yemen on “erroneous information” received from a “party” affiliated with the country’s embattled government“, it matters, because it gives light to the essential issue that the two princes need to rely on quality intelligence, sources that can be scrutinised. And in this matter, mentioning the yacht was to iterate that spending that money on a satellite over the area might not have been the worst personal idea I am having. And let’s face it, any prince that can claim that he has his own satellite wins the discussion with any other prince relying on yacht and status. So many have a yacht, but how many of these rich individuals (very wealthy people in general) would own their own satellite? Especially if it becomes a source of intelligence.

Of course there is a lot more to owning one’s own satellite, but I hope we can all agree that intelligence will be key in whatever escalates over the next week. My issue is that too many players have their own agenda, yet would those agenda’s be truly 100% be focussed on whatever is best for Yemen and/or Saudi Arabia? You see, oil prices are down now, but why and for how long? What happens when prices go through the roof again? What happens then? Suddenly all these political issues are all linked to the price of Oil and the profit it brings?

I do not claim to have these answers, but the fact that too many sources are not asking the questions that require asking is troubling, yet the AFR article gives us a lot more, even more than I bargained for, which is comforting to say the least. What becomes a matter of discussion is the one quote that shows the elements “People who have met Mohammed bin Salman said he insisted that Saudi Arabia must be more assertive in shaping events in the Middle East and confronting Iran’s influence in the region – whether in Yemen, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon“, giving the links that require addressing and the prince is not afraid to do just that, however it take two to dance rings around Iran and taking away its influence in the Middle East. As I see it, Riyadh will have to make changes to some degree. Counter-Intelligence will be key in dealing with Iran and the impression I get when I see a quote like “has deep ties to Washington and the support of many of the older royals” shows the speculative possibility of the older ‘let us see how this plays out‘ against the younger ‘let us get this party started through action‘. It is not about the balance, but about what works best. In that regard both princes might have to make changes a lot faster than they are comfortable with, because if the news is correct, the Iranian ships and submarines will soon be active in the Red Sea, but active to what extent is something that remains speculative, whatever they do, the fact that it includes Iranian submarine presence (as reported but not confirmed), will also raise tensions with Israel.

As I see it, the biggest issue is Iran and what they are trying to get out of it. Putting themselves in the middle of a conflict where they are now trying to imply that it is all about them (especially as they are in the Red Sea), yet is their presence less valid than that of the US? It seems to me that we are creating a new Vietnam, just not with the Russians involved (like Syria). So there are two solutions to consider. One is that the US is replaced by for example the Commonwealth, or France, which takes away the Iranian-US issues. That is, if Saudi Arabia would be willing to consider that move. No matter what, the navy that does that, could find themselves in an armed conflict with Iran, so it better be a competent and modern Navy which leaves not that many options. The Netherlands, the UK, France, South Korea and India. Giving the option to either South Korea or India would benefit, as Iran cannot spin some NATO link story. In addition Iran cannot afford to piss of too many additional nations as either could make short work of the ego of Iran as these navies decide to sink Iranian war vessels like rubber dinghies, because they pushed one button too many.

No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia must do what it can to keep safe and the Yemeni issue is one that tests many sides of those who see and witness it, because there is a dilemma in conscience. A revolution that got out of hand, a set government overthrown with its own agenda. When we see the Houthi’s slogan “God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam“, can we really show any kind of support or sympathy?

The most important part to realise is that we need to set aside our version of what is acceptable, we have seen the US and Europe at large impose their version of ‘civility’, whilst bending over, grabbing their ankles and let the financial industry quite literally get away with murder in many ways. We impose rules and expectations, whilst having no clue how to manage a budget or how to stem greed to the point of strangulation. In all this, we have given up the high ground in several fronts, so we are no lecturer with any level of confidence. It is my opinion, that the Middle East can only be decently governed by someone in the Middle East. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia should be at the centre of it, there is no doubt that it would beneficial that a coalition that would include Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, but I am not knowledgeable enough to see whether it is just them, or that other players should be seriously considered. What does matter is that both General Intelligence Directorate (GID, aka Mukhabarat) and Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate would be important in ascertaining Iran’s hostile actions and if need be counter them. From my academic point of view is the challenge that the SIGNT of the three would pose to get one coherent reporting and analytical solution on Iranian intelligence. One that would definitely benefit all three nations. Yet perhaps that will evolve into a third Disney project, which could be the next big thing. It’s all just a thought, but think it over for yourself and ask yourself the question you did not hear voiced, this is important, because this stage could get ugly in a hurry and possibly before Christmas this year.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Religion

Tagged as AFR, Australian Financial Review, Carlo Collodi, Carlo Lorenzini, Counter-Intelligence, Deutsche Welle, Egypt, France, General Intelligence Directorate, His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, His Royal Highness Muhammad bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Houthi, India, Iraq, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, Israel, Jews, Jiminy Cricket, Jordan, Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate, Lebanon, Mecca, Mohammed bin Nayef, Mohammed bin Salman, Mossad, Muhammad bin Nayef, Muhammad bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mukhabarat, NATO, Pinocchio, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sergei Lavrov, SIGINT, South Korea, Steven Spielberg, Syria, the Netherlands, the Serene, UK, Yemen, Yuri Shefler

March 19, 2016 · 23:57

Return of the Crusades?

You might laugh about all this, but I am not convinced. When I look back in time trying to seek that past I see a part that is different. I remember the stories as they come through the history of Richard I and especially his part in the Crusades, not as a Disney figure. There was the story of the Crusader in Jeans and a few more; stories that involve An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, a person many in the west will know as Saladin.

You see, the generation that followed will know him as a name in assassins Creed, or a man of Charisma in Kingdom of Heaven (masterfully played by Ghassan Massoud). We see the names of people as they are paraded in front of our eyes, but the reality is that they represent lessons we forgot and we are about to relive them in other ways, the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Or in the quote of one of my personal favourite video games: ‘War never changes!‘

This started in part through a few article that I saw this evening. The first one is from Cal Thomas, he gives us (at http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/thomas-iran-s-missiles-and-the-nuclear-deal/article_50482e79-7496-5b29-b92c-ce7616f9f8c6.html) the following: “More sober thinkers, fearing Tehran would never comply with the agreement, envisioned Iran gaining access to $100 billion in frozen assets and using it to underwrite terrorism” as well as “Last week, as part of a military exercise, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard launched several medium- and short-range missiles capable of reaching Israel“, here he also quotes the Washington Post stating that these missiles can now reach Israel. The quote “exceed limits that the U.N. Security Council has imposed in connection to resolutions banning Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads“. In my view any denial from Iran is empty for a few simple re-engineering reasons, a mere formality that could be achieved in as little as 2 days (when the elements are available). The quoted opposition from the Democratic Party being “an Obama administration spokesman claimed to be unaware of any missile launch“. Here is where the problem sits from my point of view. The American President was so eager to score any kind of points, he opened a door that should have been left alone. Not for those in charge of Iran now, but any extreme individual that follows. Perhaps the president remembers Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or perhaps he is slightly too busy as he is trying to remember the waitresses working on 660 N Wells St, Chicago? I do not know, I am merely asking.

You see, many saw Iran as an option, but too many people in dire economic need were too willing to give away the farm in the process. These same group of people who are now in denial! For those in doubt who to believe, see the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-vows-to-keep-firing-ballistic-missiles/2016/03/10/77a3edac-e708-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html). Whilst politically flaccid US is talking to flaccid counterpart the U.N. Security Council on what is another landmark screw up by those greedy for economic benefits.

The evidence?

This is a valid question! This blog cannot be a rant, not be some conjecture. Consider the quote “The resolution’s language allows Iran to argue its ballistic missiles are not “designed” to carry nuclear warheads“, so we see another case where ‘resolution language’ basically means, the failed attempt for proper governing, to be placed within ambiguous legislative agreements. Like the EU for example. The fact that Greece could not be removed, because there was no way out. Now we get voluntarily removal from nations themselves (UK likely in June), which is what I mean with flaccid legislation!

So when we see the Washington Post with the quotes “According to Hajizadeh, some of the missiles carried 24 warheads and one ton of TNT” and “the Revolutionary Guards fired two ballistic missiles, including one with graffiti saying “Israel should be wiped off the earth” written in Hebrew on it“, Consider 24 warheads and 1000Kg of TNT. This is the danger I warned for! I did so on July 8^th 2015 in my article ‘In the lull of news‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/08/in-the-lull-of-news/). Now we have missiles with threats and whilst the Iranians contemplate to replace 1,000 Kg of TNT, with 724 Kg of Erythritol Tetranitrate and add 270Kg of Strontium 90 pellets, we get a new application of a shotgun, more important, a missile with claymore capabilities. You might think that this causes little harm. Think again, this would for all intent and purpose be a dirty bomb. Whilst these flaccid politicians debate ‘nuclear warheads‘ two Iranian missiles could irradiate Israel from Rishon LeTsiyon to Ramat Hasharon. Basically Tel Aviv and everything around it would be irradiated through metal pellets for decades and after 3-4 decades Iran claims that part in the name of Allah. That was the nightmare all along and a bankrupt America seems to be at present, to be in denial of too many events from Europe to Eastern China. I wonder who is actually minding the store over there.

Now you might also wonder how this material is obtained. You see strontium 90 is not a natural product. In this case Strontium 90 is just an example, even though it does not require military grade uranium, you see, it can be gotten from spend uranium fuel cells. Now consider that the USNRC gives us “There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is un-reprocessed spent fuel“, which is not the only nation that has it. So how guarded are these spent fuel cells? More important, who is checking the inventory and how easily can a few hundred Kg go missing? Now ask the additional question on how much fission (non-military grade) did Iran create from 2013 onwards (see the picture at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-installs-more-advanced-centrifuges-for-uranium-enrichment-amid-nuclear-standoff-diplomats-say/), where we see a 2008 picture stating ‘Natanz uranium enrichment facilities‘, so how much spend fuel is there and how much Strontium-90 could Iran have now?

It seems to me that these facts should have been known for a very long time. Do you still think that the debate on what constitutes a ‘nuclear warhead‘ is valid?

So, there is plenty of evidence, does it fit together?

That is the second question and an equally valid one. You see, there is only a 42% chance that a missile with 24 warheads will be intercepted 100%, more important, the delivery system will be over Israel, the pallets will still fall, but will not create a curtain. I reckon that 2 missiles fired will have around 29%-34% to be 100% intercepted. So no matter how this goes, we will have a massive amount of damage in Israel. Will we idly stand by to see Israel fall away, to see the Christian icons of history fall away? I think not. In that regard we would steer directly for a new age of Crusades, war never changes!

Now in all clarity and honesty. There is absolutely NO given information that this comes to pass. Yet, can we take that chance? Should US policy have been allowed to put Israel in such danger? So when we hear the words from President Obama on how hard we EU needs to stick together, consider how much credibility he has. Consider the legislation he never passed, corporate greed he never stopped, how Iran is moving to be nuclear capable, how his administration endangered the state of Israel, how he has done little to nothing regarding Syria and how our holy sites will be in direct danger. All massive failures!

The worst part in all this is that the next administration has little chance of cleaning up the mess this administration leaves behind, because when the Euro goes, so does the Dollar!

Should you think that Iran has no intentions here, consider their own words on the missile ‘Israel should be wiped off the earth‘, and was my initial consideration that the next elected president of Iran possibly to be a radical like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that far-fetched? You think that a commanding officer (read General) would have allowed any text on his missile without his agreement?

You cannot be that naive!

There is one light in all this, you see Iran has an opponent. As they have been clashing arms with the forces of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, they cannot make much headway on Israel. Yet in all this, as a war with Iran becomes a reality at that point, it seems to me that Russia will step back. No matter how Iran thinks it has Russia as a friend, it will not allow itself to be tainted by the fallout Iran would create. What will happen is that we all will be confronted with around a million angry Israelites, a nation that, at that point will no longer regard the US as a friend or ally. Whatever plays after that is too chaotic to make any clear projection on, I only know that it will get very ugly.

What is a given is that those who did fumble the ball will be confronted with nations angry and eager (through fear) to cast war on Iran on that point. No matter how much restraint requests we hear from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he will be faced with a very angry world, because those who needed to step in decided to wage a ‘war of words’ with people who are basically deaf and will only seek the sound of actual war.

I wonder how this president sees his legacy and when things go south, which excuse he will offer. This is for the mere reason that any following successful missile launch will be the clearest signal to be seen as evidence that the USA is no longer a superpower and it can no longer actually act. I wonder how the world will act at that point, because someone would have to spearhead a direct assault on Iran, any direct attack on Israel from Iran makes that a given. If not, does this mean that Israel truly stands alone again?

It would be the most shameful and darkest day in history of the western world the moment the answer to that question becomes ‘Yes!’

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Cal Thomas, Democratic Party, Erythritol Tetranitrate, Ghassan Massoud, Hajizadeh, Iran, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Israel, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Natanz, President Obama, Ramat Hasharon. Tel Aviv, Richard I, Rishon LeTsiyon, Russia, Saladin, Strontium, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Security Council, USNRC, Washington Post

January 31, 2016 · 16:59

Not allowed to refuse

Yesterday the Guardian showed us a side that has avoided visibility to some extent. Part of the title is ‘recognise Palestinian state if new peace effort fails‘, the missing part is ‘France says it will‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/france-recognise-palestinian-state-if-peace-effort-fails-ultimatum). So what is going on? You see, the Guardian gives us many of the goods, but not all of them, which will lead to speculations (even, or is that especially by me?).

Let’s look at the parts the Guardian does give us, which is “France has issued an ultimatum to Israel, saying it will recognise a Palestinian state if a renewed push for a two-state solution fails“, it is not an unseen strategy that the larger player (sometimes called ‘the bully’) will resort to the ‘do this or else approach’, which we are used to see through American politicians, not to mention those large American corporation. So when France resorts to such a tactic we might be taken aback a little. You see, when we hear the growl from a Staffordshire terrier we look nervous and wonder what happens next, but do we have that same feeling when a Poodle growls at us? I would say no, but there we have part of the conceptual problem, because France is no Poodle, the time of Brigit Bardot with Poodles looking young, sexy and helpless was an illusion that was never the real France to begin with. If we look at the economic power of France, we should regard France to be nothing less than a Dogue de Bordeaux, it seems large and silent, but it is powerful and deadly to its opponents. To give an indication of size: Banque Martin Maurel, Société Générale, Natixis and Crédit Agricole. These are just four financial institutions, but they have the cloud to underwrite the total American public debt of 18 trillion. So you better believe that France has massive cloud here, even as America no longer has it.

Perhaps just like France gave the US Lady Liberty, perhaps the US should give France a statue honouring Monsieur Souscripteur? I am digressing!

You see, the quote “The Palestinians have welcomed France’s renewed efforts to negotiate a two-state solution at talks that are expected to include leaders from the US, Europe and Arab nations“. That quote sounds nice, but it is not in the heart of the matter, for the longest of times Palestine has done nothing to contribute to any peace solution. Part of the information that is missing is shown in the Jerusalem Post. At http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Analysis-Is-Abbas-losing-control-443117 we see: “Abbas has been facing increasing criticism in the past weeks from senior Fatah officials in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It seems that they have tired of his autocratic-style rule. Some of them, including Jibril Rajoub and Tawfik Tirawi, have even come out in public against the PA president, demanding that he share power enough at least to appoint a deputy president“. What would be a better solution for what is ‘regarded’ as Palestine authority to push other players in trying to push Israel in budging. America (at present) is no longer seriously considered a player in the Middle East.

Reasoning here is that it cannot deal with Russian events and in addition, there is a ‘minor’ in our midst called Turkey who is making new claims regarding ‘air violations’ on Turkish airspace, hoping someone holds their hands (just me guessing).

‘My airspace has been invaded!’

Getting back to the Post, we see “Fatah seems to be in even worse shape in the Gaza Strip. Fatah leaders and activists there have accused Abbas of ‘marginalizing’ the faction, and are making unmistakable break-away noises“, which is all about politics, but the fact that Abbas and Hamas are at odds is not a good development, in addition, Hamas ‘pledged’ on January 7^th that they were considering resuming suicide attacks against Israel, so whatever acts France has on its mind, it plays towards Hamas, not the Palestinian people and in addition the continued ISIS action in Gaza are fuel for even more concerns, so ‘recognising’ any part of Palestine is a really bad idea. Let’s not forget that they are at the core of a mess that many parties wanted to solve (or at least seriously try to solve for over 2 decades). Now we get to the good stuff! The quote “Fatah leaders in Gaza are furious with Abbas. They have a substantial list of grievances. First, Abbas has not paid the salaries of thousands of their members there, including policemen and security officers who have been sitting at home since Hamas seized control over the Strip in 2007“, so now we see what Abbas needs, he needs money, stability and a large player at his back and that player better brings money and loads of it. Something America cannot achieve. So now we see the links that France is ‘opted for’ to bring to the table. The Jerusalem Post brings even more issues, which are linked but less direct when regarding the French Connection Abbas seems to hope for (apparently through Laurent Fabius), I could go on that it is a socialist situation, but that seems slightly too petty, because believe it or not he is a good and intelligent politician who was in 1984 the youngest Prime minister of the fifth Republic of France to be elected. In addition, I personally believe that a man like that is about French Interests (the price for being born in the Arrondissement de Passy).

Yet, I feel certain that I am not the only one who sees this for what it is, it is an economic play, yet to what extent? That will remain pure speculation. You see, the quote gave us “talks that are expected to include leaders from the US, Europe and Arab nations“, it is the part ‘Arab nations’. I feel certain that whatever deal is struck that can be ‘presented’ as ‘short changing’ Israel, whomever pulls that off will get loads of leeway in the Middle east. As America dropped the ball more than once, France seems to be going into ‘Mastiff’ mode and is taking the game to a new level. There is additional consideration that this play would take loads of Muslim pressures away from France, which is a tactical consideration. Whether that part is at all in play is not certain, as stated, I am also speculating here. The steps make sense, but the facts are not out in the open. The BBC has hinted in the past months in that direction, but they have not given any specifics in the last two weeks. The Washington Post did confirm in more than one article that Palestinians consider the reign of Abbas an utter failure, which gives us the second side. How can any state be recognised that has been unable to keep its own ducks in a row, it has no real economy to mention and the last numbers that have any reliability have been a decade old. One source (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp) gives us 6.9 billion in 2013, yet I personally believe that these numbers are inflated. My reasoning? Well, when we consider that they have the following ‘ranks’, Palestine Corruption Index at 26.00 Points, Palestine Food Inflation at 3.72%, and Palestine Unemployment Rate at 27.40%. When we consider (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp-growth-annual), we see GDP growth, in 2014 per quarter set at 7.1%, 3.9%, -10.1% and -1.1%, that is in my view adjusted overly positive speculation. As per July 2015 it is suddenly set at +9.6% for Q3 2015. Is no one catching on here? The numbers do not add up, it is (as I personally see it) an interaction of overly positively weighted expectations with a massive downdraft when inspected, in addition, with 25% corruption and 27% unemployment GDP can never rise to that extent. The Doghmush clan (now known as Jaysh al-Islām) might be the only growing GDP player. Perhaps the PNA could report whether their economy comes (partially at least) from Jaysh al-Islām?

As I stated, speculation, but if Palestine has no economic footprint, how can any headway be made if the numbers don’t add up? I accept that any nation will forever be more than its economy, yet when we see that too many questions exist on BOTH the political and economic field, how can any agreement be kept or be pushed in any direction? A peace process requires both sides to keep to any agreement and there is too much evidence that any agreement will not be honoured by the next player and Mahmoud Abbas is already on the way out, making the efforts of France a mere waste of time to say the least.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Arrondissement de Passy, Banque Martin Maurel, BBC, Crédit Agricole, Doghmush clan, Dogue de Bordeaux, France, Hamas, ISIS, Israel, Jaysh al-Islām, Jerusalem Post, Jibril Rajoub, Laurent Fabius, Mahmoud Abbas, Natixis, Palestine, Russia, Société Générale, Tawfik Tirawi, the Guardian, Turkey, Washington Post

December 29, 2015 · 11:19

Ignorance is not an option

Moments of scandal within the IDF are rare, but oh boy, when they do happen, they don’t seem to be light ones. That was the first thought I had when I updated my news brief last night and the news ‘Israel’s armed forces shocked at dismissal of missile defence chief‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/28/israel-armed-forces-shocked-dismissal-missile-defence-chief-yair-ramati) caressed my pupils. Yair Ramati an Israeli veteran was sacked for a “grave breach of information security”, the added quote “Israeli media reports said Ramati had broken protocol when he transferred documents to his computer, making them easier to steal” was an additional reason for concern. Israel, a nation that has been under attack for decades, where Muslim fanatics will seek any way to get a hold of information that can further any anti-Israeli cause got a little help when Yair Ramati transferred documents to his personal computer. Now the issue is not that simple, because I myself tend to hold much higher levels of protection on my own computer than the corporate networks tend to have, as such it would be safe, but infrastructure and the rules on them are clear in most networks, even more so in the slightly less trusting environment of the IDF, so what gives?

In the world of cyber, ignorance is no longer an option, ignorance can quite literally get you and your friends killed. Socially, Financially or actually killed in a death certificate kind of way, the IDF (read: Mossad Cyber division) is very aware of that and for a person like Yair Ramati to make a mistake like that, is it complacency or just plain stupidity?

Well, I am less on the side of stupidity, because stupid people do not head the Iron Dome project, they just remain janitors; so should we ‘over-analyse’ this? Yes we should, mainly because complacency is a massive issue. We all do this at times. Any person who states no is either lying to you or will soon be lying to you. We all drop the ball at times, the error might be small and it will not be to the extent of copying files to a personal computer, but those moments will happen. Phishers, hackers and others are all awaiting you to make that basic flaw one day. The only excuse where such a flaw might be excused (to some extent) is burnout. We get to be too exhausted and in one moment we think ‘oh whatever’ the moment you endanger it all.

That is the moment we need to worry about, because it will always happen.

ABC had an interesting quote “Three people familiar with Mr Ramati said, on condition of anonymity, that he had improperly handled classified documents but was not accused of criminal misconduct like espionage“(at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-28/israeli-missile-defence-director-dismissed-over-security-breach/7056400). From the data I have on Yair Ramati I feel like I should explicitly agree (not that my view can be expertly vetted), but a man like Yair Ramati with decades of loyal service does not commit espionage as I see it, the state of Israel will use his services again and again and with the last three years of missile attacks, I reckon burn out set in and Yair Ramati had his ‘oh whatever‘ moment. This event is a wakeup call for the Israeli security services in more than one way, because this situation could have more than one person in such a predicament. Some of the boffins at the IDF are in dire need of some mental health support, not in the way that they are unbalanced, they actually are, as some of them are exhausted!

A side Hamas and Hezbollah might be hoping for at present, you see when the really good ones are too tired mistakes are made and those mistakes will be exploited. And these exploitation might be on an additional side too. You see, as ABC reported “Israel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in US funding for the three missile defence systems, whose private contractors include Boeing Co, Raytheon, and Elbit Systems“, what happens when its main conductor is no longer creating the symphony? What will that mean for the product at large? We might focus on Iron dome, but the stretch goes a lot further than this. Consider places like Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd. People like Haim Defrin and Julian Cohen, unlike the board with people like Avi Felder, Yoram Shechter, Yehuda Gai et al. Haim and Julian are in the thick of things. With additional military pressures and of course the responsibility to get the highest quality, they are under constant need (read: pressure) to deliver, when were they taken aside, to unwind, educate them on common cyber sense and when were their stress levels reduced? Not to mention their parent company IMI (Israel Military Industries). For every organisation, there tends to be an In Bitching Mode overall whining umbrella corporation, nes paz?

So in that light, it is not entirely impossible that Udi Adam and Avi Felder at IMI could be facing dilemmas of a similar kind within their infrastructure, the question becomes, is it happening, is it containable and unlike the step made now by sacking Yair Ramati, can a solution be found to reinvigorate the soul of the loyal population that has been pushed and pushed again and again?

You see, some might see the transgression by Yair Ramati as a part of legal and security (not debating that), but we all forget that Common Cyber Sense is equally Operations, Strategy and HR. HR has a much bigger role to play, because if this is stress and burnout, than it is clear in my view that HR failed the people who have been loyal to their infrastructure, success all the time is an illusion, a person will fail to some extent, the issue is to make sure that the damage is averted. I cannot state whether this was an option for Yair Ramati due to the size of the transgression, but certain questions are asked to the lesser extent. It is the Guardian quote “The former director of the Israeli atomic energy commission, Uzi Eilam, told Israel Radio he had known Ramati for 30 years and found the news hard to believe“, in a place like Israel, when a person with 3 decades of knowledge has an issue, my view is that the dismissal might not be an overreaction, but the issues leading to this are a lot more important than we realise and another set of proper investigations (by the right people) is an essential next step.

Ignorance is not an option and the question becomes was that ignorance just in the court of Yair Ramati, or had that ball been dropped by his superiors in another field at an earlier stage?

It is not a question I can answer with the information I have, but there are enough indicators to ask that question out loud, now it is up to the right people over there to ask a similar question and it is up to them to do some proper investigations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABC, Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd, Avi Felder, Boeing Co, Elbit Systems, General Udi Adam, Haim Defrin, IDF, IMI, Iron Dome, Israel, Israel Military Industries, Julian Cohen, Raytheon, the Guardian, Udi Adam, Uzi Eilam, Yair Ramati, Yehuda Gai, Yoram Shechter

November 15, 2015 · 03:28

With a little bit of Ruffalo

Paris is in turmoil, before we go out in rage and aggression, we need to realise that sometimes a spark comes from another direction, in this article realise the following from the beginning to the end of it. Mark Ruffalo who is regarded as a great actor and a nice guy should today be remembered as a great humanitarian and an excellent actor. 9 hours ago he stated on Twitter (@MarkRuffalo) “Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks“, which is very much to the point. Whether the word ‘intended’ or ‘expected’ or ‘feared’ should be used here is beside the point. It is not mere semantics and Mark hit the nail on the head.

Yet, what was this foolish act, to go after the one nation where liberalism is at the centre of life, ah, that might have been the reason all along, I am merely speculating!

I have never been about ‘mere speculating’ so let’s take a look at what we have (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates).

These were the attacks:

The Bataclan, which is a theatre located at 50 boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement of Paris.
Stade de France, the national stadium of France, situated just north of Paris in the commune of Saint-Denis.
La Belle Equipe, a cafe on Rue de Charonne.
Le Carillon, a bar-cafe at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
Le Petit Cambodge, a restaurant at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
Rue Fontaine au Roi

The other side of this coin (which is linked to all this) is that we see how certain Humanitarian groups are reduced to the jokes they should be. This shows exactly how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was correct. The flotilla’s are stopped to slow down the massive intake of explosives and weapons into Gaza. The 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla attack was nothing more than some marketing ploy (as I see it). You see the direct reality is that goods are not stopped by Israel, goods are inspected by Israel before they go into Gaza. What makes this all such a bad joke is because:

The blockade of the Gaza Strip imposed by Israel and Egypt

So BOTH Egypt and Israel are enforcing the blockade!

As per May 2010, the list of imported items included 2 million litres of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits, vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, fabrics, clothing and shoes. You see, if that flotilla had nothing to hide, and if there were non-weaponisable articles in there they would have been inspected and the materials would have been delivered. This is what made the Humanitarian joke to say the least. They wanted to play a pissing game with a nation that had been under terrorist attack for decades. Now relate all that to what we saw that happened this weekend!

These seven attacks if we include Charlie Hedbo shows the issue, it shows terrorism. This is what Israel faced and those well intentional kids with their propaganda minds are now pushed onto a page of reality. Now they are all in disbelief, it is all about non-comprehension and blaming outside sources. Blaming it on a ‘few’ desperate minds.

Reality gives us a very different picture. It shows that many of you are not ready to face. It is a similar reason why I personally at time regard some members of the court to be ideological cowards (if it pleases the court). Yet, time is on my side, what people pushed for when they considered me to be overinflating the ‘risk’. Now we see the articles with issues I elaborated on for over 2 years. Now we see the Guardian with ‘Can international law meet the challenges of today’s lawless conflicts?’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/14/international-law-yemen-syria-isis-conflict). I will elaborate my view of the courts later, but for now it is time to make one more step before we get back to Paris.

So, let’s get back to the political puppets, because they have a role to play in all of this. Perhaps you would like to remember March 9^th 2015, where Greece’s defence minister Panos Kammenos threatened to ‘flood Europe with migrants, including Syrian jihadists’. So if any of the 8 cadavers are Syrian, will we see a request for the head of Panos Kammenos on a brass platter (the man is not worthy of silver)? Will we suddenly see more ‘apologies’ regarding poorly chosen words? As per 5 minutes ago, Sky News reported via Twitter that one of the bombers had a Syrian passport.

All these issues matter and they are all connected. We will see so many responses flooded on emotions and not enough on the cold light that logic brings. Logic must be ground to all this, no matter what kind of logic, but the unconditional need to eradicate all ISIS life. In this I do not oppose Mark Ruffalo and his need for humanity (as well as the need to instil it). I do not oppose or attack his values. He is a man of peace, or a man from peaceful times. There is nothing negative about it, I come from times of chaos and strife. I know what needs to be done. I might not be in any decent shape, but I was a crack shot, which means that up to 800 meters I can, I would and I am willing to cull the ISIS population as per immediate. In that I reckon the French must now realise that their brethren in Légion Etrangère, can and should now do what needs to be done, take the war to ISIS, wherever they are. This is what needs to be done and politicians on a global scale need to wake up and need to wake up fast.

If you doubt these words, then consider the following facts: 6 attacks required some planning, acquisition of goods (explosives, weapons and ammunition), they required transport and these elements needed to time the events, which implies support, funding and training. This is not some lone wolf club, this is clear evidence of orchestration and a larger support network that is now proven to be in France and possibly in additional EEC nations.

In this I will not oppose the call by Mark Ruffalo, but I will oppose the call by British broadcaster Rufus Hound who responded with a call for a peaceful response, You see, the theory of peaceful negotiations is partially valid when you deal with any established party that adheres to certain values (like not bombing civilians), in the case of a barbarian collective (people abstaining from evolution) the clear path is eradication. You might shy from this word, but the definite reality is that this world no longer has any place for certain extremism. The disavowed of any extremism is almost essential (yes, ironically that includes my view, which is currently based on realism).

Here we see the irony where realism is based on values we can no longer support, which is partially why Humanitarian values more and more stop being part of the reality of life. Greed got us part of the way and the rest was created through the intolerance of the enactors. So basically they heralded their own extreme eradication.

Is my view to extreme?

You might think that, but consider the costs of these events, not what is lost, but the funds these people needed to get the weapons and explosives. Getting into France, all those took time and money, places to store and places to collect all of this. Cars to move what is needed and to leave a false trail. All that supports the evidence of orchestration and intent. Even with the decent paying job I have, it would take 2-3 years to get all the funds required, so someone funded this. Which takes me back to the words of Panos Kammenos, given in utter stupidity so that he got some limelight, this is part of the realisation that there is more support and more funds. This needs to be halted, we must hunt and eradicate ISIS and their support engine. In my mind ANY bank executive who made short cuts to make their bonus, if they are found to be in support, strip their rights after which they get a fatal accident. I feel 99% certain that after the third ‘accident’, these greed driven idiots will suddenly grow morality (a fear of mortality does tend to do that).

How does all this get us back to Paris?

In part it is the European consequence to these attacks. Any refugee trail is likely to be halted completed. They were halted in British to some extent, but now we will see a massive change in movement and in addition we will see a massive rise in intolerance, which is to be expected but should not be allowed for. We will now face the humanitarian dangers America faced from 1941 onwards with their Japanese and Japanese-American heritage. The camps are a black blight on American society and even though it partially was able to get past that, Europe could face a similar stigma and Paris will be at the centre of all this. Two days ago, we saw the news stating ‘French political elites panic as Marine Le Pen Gains Ground‘, well if they were afraid 2 days ago, how will they react coming Monday morning? The most powerful quote in that article was “Ms. Le Pen can sense the feeling of distress across the nation as voters feel they have been abandoned to their fate by legacy parties allowing that influx – without consultation. They feel no affinity for the ‘multi-cultural’ France they believe is being foisted on them“, that feeling will escalate next week as the blame game starts, some of it might go towards Panos Kammenos, which implies that Tsipras might request the resignation of his slightly too outspoken National Defence Minister, my reasoning here is that if any evidence is found that the Syrian bomber came from Greece, the gloves come off completely and Greece will face ridicule they have never faced before.

Yet, Paris is only the beginning, having a history for being the cultural centre of Europe also means that an efficient transport system has been the foundation of France for some time (ignoring train delays at present). €132 gets me to Amsterdam in 3 hours, €23 gets me to Orleans in an hour. So as people are currently looking at the emotion, the chaos and the damage, there is little evidence that only 8 people would have been part of all this, as these people started their event, the rest of those teams could have moved onto ‘new’ targets. It will be up to DGSE and DGSI, both relying on BRGE to get to the core of some of this. Once military elements get involved it will become another matter entirely, in all this my initial advice is to Panos Kammenos to shut up and do whatever the French require of you. Now there is no evidence that these people went via Greece, but the words of Panos Kammenos will hang heavy in the air after these events in Paris. More important, how will Hungary and others react now? This now all heads back to Paris.

A Europe that needs to alter their view and legalities regarding extremism, the law was nowhere near ready to deal with this. The new French bill (at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl2110.asp), seems to have a few issues, as per (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/09/france-counterterrorism-bill-threatens-rights).

The quote “Under article 1, the interior minister could bar people from leaving France if there are “serious reasons to believe” they are planning to go abroad with the aim of “participating in terrorist activities, war crimes or crimes against humanity” or if authorities suspect they are traveling to a place where terrorist groups operate and in conditions conducive to their posing a threat to public safety upon their return to France. Once a decision is made, the person’s passport would be withdrawn and the person would be prevented from leaving the country“, So as we see Human Rights are complaining more and more regarding the fact that ‘the Bill Would Breach Free Movement and Expression‘, gives us in this day the reason for not taking Human Rights too serious. Some Human Rights organisations only have themselves to blame. The issues on Israel are one of the lighter examples. The fact that Human rights go against this (one of many objections) whilst we see objections towards ‘participating in terrorist activities‘ and the consequential ‘restriction of movement‘, we cannot take certain elements serious. Of course I am in this case also guilty of trivialising parts as there are a few more serious matters that might lead to questions to reflect upon. What we all forget that it is up to France to decide what is best for France. That realisation is part of the issue, where we see that Strasbourg is also all about rapers getting a chance for a family life with the child begotten through rape (a way to get a British Passport), now we see (in exaggerated terms) that terrorists should not be hindered in movement. That part is at the heart of the matter where both England and France are close to reject this Human Rights Act and it will further fuel both Brexit and Frexit.

Part of this is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks) where we see that French intelligence is now under scrutiny. The intelligence network has no resources to deal with the amount of data required to even possibly find any clue that something could be amiss. In all this we see the first responses from France. The most visible is Marine Le Pen, who only 13 minutes ago stated “For the sixth time in 2015, Islamist terrorism has struck our country. France mourns her dead and I mourn with her. I pay tribute to the dedication of our armed forces. France must determine who its friends are and who its enemies are. France’s enemies are those who maintain links with Islamism. Once and for all, France must recapture control of its borders. Islamist fundamentalism must be destroyed, radical mosques must be closed and radical clerics must be expelled. French terrorists must be stripped of their citizenship and banned from this country“. The ‘PROJET DE LOI, renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme‘ is only a first step, the question becomes, how will the surrounding nations react? The UK might be an island, but that benefit does not befall Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium. Where will this go for them? And the real true refugees, what will become of them? Questions that have no easy answer, yet at present, none seem to have any clear answers, which should worry the residents and citizens of many nations, including those that are not part of the EEC.

In the end Mark Ruffalo is completely correct with his statement, which is not corrected for the one part we forget, which is that ISIS has pronounced war on France, so what will you do? Hope for some kind of empty peace, or will you accept that this is a war and it must be answered with the military force it deserves and the lack of rules and rights that this opponent is not worthy of. Time will tell what will be their next act, yet I have a clear idea of what their opponents will do. They will express condolences, they will meet, talk and I expect that they will lack in actions, in resolve and in clear operational steps, which makes for a worry, because the lack of operational actions is not something that ISIS has. I will let you consider the events that were and how it will affect the times that come and feel free not to ignore the words of Mark Ruffalo.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

Tagged as Brexit, BRGE, DGSE, DGSI, EEC, Egypt, Frexit, Gaza Strip, Human Rights Act, Hungary, ISIS, Israel, Marine Le Pen, Mark Ruffalo, Orleans, Panos Kammenos, Paris, Stade de France, Syrian Terrorist, terrorists, The Bataclan, UK

November 8, 2015 · 23:12

Looking for the rocket man

Yes, there is an issue in the Sinai, Sharm Al Sheik no less. It is not news, I have known about it for a while as has most people. It is in the news, it is in the pages, there is gossip and there is much speculation. In the end another plane went down, this time it is the Russians who get to deal with this. Now, I am not a man to hold a grudge, but has anyone barred their access? It is not like MH17, yet still to give the Russians direct access after they did all; they could to stop the Dutch from getting access to evidence and the victims is a bit of a no no, nothing personal Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin!

The news from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/new-era-airport-security-sinai-terror) gives us “Fears focus on screening of baggage handlers as aviation experts demand new global response“, you see that could also be seen as “Fears focus on screening of baggage handlers as aviation experts, demands for new global response“. What a difference a comma makes eh?

This calls a few issues into question. Let’s face it, after someone got rid of those two slightly less appealing buildings roughly 5163 days ago, we still need to see issues with quotes like: “A fundamental overhaul of global aviation security is required“, how bloody moronically stupid does a community get to be? From what I can tell, the overall ‘security’ at the slot machines in Vegas are a lot better than in well over 40% of the airfields, so what gives?

In addition, we now see: ‘British Sharm Al Sheikh flight in ‘missile’ incident‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34754577). The response there is “A spokesman said the incident had involved ground-to-ground firing at a military base a few miles from Sharm-el Sheikh airport, and that no plane had been in danger” what ground to ground firing and who was firing? By the way, a flare is not ground to ground and it is not a flare either.

I am not opposing the article or the response, yet overall the BBC article is decently less then clear whilst the Egyptian response might not be reliable as they have a few more ‘presentational issues’ to deal with. Yet if it was all about ‘routine military activity and was not a targeted attack‘, why did the flight deviate? There must have been a decent level of perceived danger for the pilot to do this. I will readily accept any pilot stating ‘better be safe than sorry‘, which means that he/she saw a possible danger. And even though this was in August, it gives clear evidence in connection to what is about to follow.

So is this a mere trivial event? Not that downing a Russian flight is trivial, but is this a possible escalation for Saudi Arabia? You see, the airport has resorts to the north and the south, so there should be no threat there (we hope), yet to the west of the Ring road what is there? There seems to be a military compound with blue rectangles (possibly water purification) but there is no way to tell for certain), from there it is a mere 8 Km to the airstrip, so was the pilot jumpy or are events downplayed? I am happy if it was a mere jumpy pilot, who I would instantly support for any choice he made to keep his passengers safe, but can we agree that if ground to ground fire is visible to the pilot that the explosions were really big, or that the events were a lot closer to the airport? My issue here is not that the event took place, but that it gets reiterated to hell at this point 7 weeks later. The mention “A missile that came within 300 metres of a plane carrying British tourists to Sharm el-Sheikh was “probably a flare”, found investigators“, should remain an issue, because why fire flares at a commercial plane? Also, those buggers are not that fast, or do not tend to go so high, which means that there is a little more to the story. In addition, we get “Another Thomson plane was also flying into [Sharm el-Sheikh] at the same time and saw the rocket” as well as the fact that flares tend to really light up in a way similar to ‘here comes the sun’, so what gives? In addition the final fact, if both planes saw the ‘light’ and both remain consistent about a ‘rocket’, in my view the issue remains. Yet the final quote here is “Thomson said there was “no cause for concern” for further flights“, which means that it could be a flare, but in all this better visibility and more open response, especially in ‘light’ of what blew up afterwards would have been better (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/07/missile-thomson-airplane-flare).

You see, this is all speculation on my part (yet I try to be as cold and as logically as possible) something you will not likely find in the Daily Mail or some Murdoch publications. They will all be about fear and about emotional speculation. In equal measure of worry, the MFO South Camp should be no more than 35 Km to the South of the airport, so if there was ground to ground action was the MFO informed, were any activities spotted by them? More info that did not make the papers or the Tabloids. This is all nice and speculative, but in the end, this is all an escalation of what happened to Russian flight 9268, yet there is no overall evidence at this point. Some of the photos show that shrapnel holes are from the inside out, which gives weight to the UK claim that it was a bomb on board of the plane. That evidence comes with the support that the cone of firing a Stinger, or even a stinger alternative like the Igla-S seems unlikely. Only a more modern version like the Starstreak or an alternative would then be the consideration, but for ISIS to get something like that is even less likely, make that extremely unlikely. If it was a Stinger or alike it had to be fired either from the sea, or from the Sinai itself, but that requires the terrorist to be too close to the Sharm Al Sheik – Dahab ring road. This might give more weight to the ground to ground firing, but also gives weight to the UK pilot to take a very quick gander somewhere else. All this remains speculation!

If the bomb was on board, we get back to my initial issue ‘how bloody moronically stupid does a community get to be’, you see, Egypt requires tourism to go on, to go on successfully. So why is there not more stringent security? With roughly 10 million tourists bringing 6 billion in revenue, security should have been on the forefront of the minds of the Egyptian ministers of both tourism and Intelligence. Which impacts me as I laughingly read the headline ‘Egyptian foreign minister claims allies not sharing intelligence on possible Isis bomb plot’. Yet there is one other alternative. It is shown by the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/sinai-plane-crash-egyptian-foreign-minister-claims-allies-not-sharing-intelligence-on-possible-isis-a6725236.html). The alternative is that mechanical malfunction from the tail is still not impossible, however, in another article we see ‘Black box data ‘reveals Metrojet A321 was brought down over Egypt by explosion’’, which is also from the independent. The quote “tests carried out on the cockpit voice recorder show the tragedy could not have been caused by either a technical fault or an error by the crew” could be regarded as significant here.

So as I go back to my moment of hilarious laughter (I do sound like a Hyena at such moments), the first one is “Sameh Shoukry said no other countries had given the Egyptian government access to their information” My thoughts on that can be seen in a number of ways. Sameh Hassan Shoukry must and does realise that Egypt still has a corruption problem. One side is lighted by Georges Fahmi in the Carnegie Middle East Center. Here we find the quote from a statement from Mahmoud Hussein, the former secretary general of the Brotherhood that said: “The Brotherhood operates with its apparatuses and institutions in accordance with the regulations and with the members of the Guidance Bureau. It has supported its work with a number of assistants in accordance with these regulations and the decisions of its institutions; its deputy leader accordingly acts as a general guide [head of the organization] until the general guide is released [from prison] God willing, and the Guidance Bureau is the one that manages the work of the organization” (at: http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/07/14/struggle-for-leadership-of-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood/idbr).

It is ‘with the members of the Guidance Bureau‘ that gives pause. I have no evidence in support, but I believe that they are either still partially part of the police apparatus, or they are getting support from sympathetic people in official offices giving them the heads up when to relocate. I think that in their desperation to survive a few of the Brotherhood sheep are actually ISIS wolves. If they are all over Sharm Al Sheik, than they could be some friendly tourist officials, is that such a stretch?

In support I give that tactically ISIS needs direct access to Sharm Al Sheik should they ever truly decide to attack Saudi Arabia in a more direct way! An airstrip with planes is too tempting a target to ignore and a place devoid of tourists might make a better target.

The previous picture I placed, partially in speculation for the part that now follows. In the first the intended insincere response by Sameh Hassan Shoukry, who as a diplomat should have known better (he probably did), yet the second group of persons are another matter. Sedki Sobhi Sayyid Ahmed, minister of Defence is actually the smallest target here. In all this, the seemingly failed security at Sharm Al Sheik airport poses questions for the positions for Mohamed Hossam Kamal, minister of Civil aviation, as the Airport at Sharm Al Sheik is the foundation of 6 billion in revenue, so more diligence would have been expected, in that same light questions should be asked from Ashraf Salman, minister of investment as these events are never ever good for continued investments. Yet by far the biggest issue might be with Egyptian Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance Administration (DMI), which at present should be Director Salah Al-Badri. Yes we get that Alexandria and Cairo are more juicy targets, but with ISIS in the Sinai, having a better presence in Sharm Al Sheik would have been essential and whomever was there seems to have blown their job away (one Russian plane at a time).

You see for Director Salah Al-Badri the issue is a lot more pressing, if ISIS is actually tactically active in Sharm Al Sheik, than in equal measure they could be active in El Tor, which means that they are within striking distance of both Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir having any quality presence in Sharm Al Sheik was not that much of a stretch.

Beside the point of how the Egyptians perform maintenance on their house, a certain event 5163 days ago should have been adamant in overhauling security at their immediate airports and Sharm Al Sheik definitely qualifies here. Yet in here lies the speculation, if we accept a bomb, when was it added? If it was from a tourist it is one thing, if it got added to the load from another source we have a massive problem to consider, because if it happens there what other airports are considered dangerous? You see if this was a small flight to Eilat (which is currently not possible). What other options are there? You see the one event that does count is that any attack from ISIS in Sinai is also a direct danger towards Israel. Southern Israel has been under fire from ISIS last July, so the stretch that Sharm Al Sheik is a tactical point for attacks on Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia seems not that large. A place loaded with fuel, tourists (read propaganda lessons), possible planes (that could not get away) and moral visibility. So even if my speculation is really farfetched, is the needed for quality security and intelligence perhaps less of a stretch? That support can be found with CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/middleeast/russian-plane-crash-airport-security/index.html), the quote “In May, a mentally disturbed man slipped through a hole in a wall and tampered with a plane, the Cairo Post reported, citing Egyptian newspaper Youm7. The man approached a plane sitting on the runway and tried to open a door to the aircraft, the article said. He was arrested after moving a block in front of the plane’s wheel, the article said” should be self-evident.

As we get to the end we need to ask: should we look for the rocket man? If the airport security outside the airport is so lacks, we must worry on the first premise that flights are in danger when we consider that security stops 100 meters from the fence and a Stinger, a 28 year old technology has an 8000 meter range. What else can they throw at the tourists there and as such, perhaps the evading UK pilot was in the end, the brightest person of the lot. If it turns out to be a bomb, than there are even more issues because that means that ‘wolves’ were on the compound and none of the sheep woke up, at which a stinger would be the least of their problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Alexandria, Ashraf Salman, BBC, Cairo, Carnegie Middle East Center, CNN, Egypt, Eilat, Georges Fahmi, Igla-S, ISIS, Israel, MFO South Camp, Mohamed Hossam Kamal, Russian flight 9268, Salah Al-Badri, Sameh Hassan Shoukry, Saudi Arabia, Sedki Sobhi Sayyid Ahmed, Sharm Al Sheik, Sinai, Starstreak, Stinger, the Guardian, the Guidance Bureau, Thomson plane, UK Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Youm7

October 31, 2015 · 22:56

United we classify others

Two articles hit me a few days ago. One of them was an article describing a survey by the Reputation Institute. The news article titled ‘Tel Aviv ranked among least reputable cities‘. The article was found at http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-ranked-among-least-reputable-cities/. This was an issue for me, because I have been to Tel Aviv. Why would it not be reputable, or at least one of the more reputable cities. In all that I wonder, because the top 600 cities (by population) are larger than Tel Aviv with its 425,000 people. So coming in at 92 whilst 600 are larger is still a good achievement. What puzzles me in all this is the part ‘least reputable cities‘. What makes a city reputable? I did not see the research or the questionnaire, but when we see “the Reputation Institute, asked 19,000 residents of France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Japan, the US, Canada and Russia to rank the world’s top 101 cities based on their levels of trust, esteem, admiration and respect“.

Trust, “In a social context, trust has several connotations“, which is nice yet did the interviewees realise that? The paper (at http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf) gives a nice view on how trust is not an easy thing to tackle. at Page 43 we read “one can develop a good relationship with another person by gradually increasing Trusting behaviour, while at the same time decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person. Decreasing controls includes less ‘checking up’ on the other person. It also includes moving from a formal relationship to a more personal, informal relationship”

Which is nice when we consider that Russia, land of GRU and FSB gives way to ‘decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person’, so do the interviewees from Russia consider trust the way a person from Sweden, the Netherlands or even Uruguay does? I can go on for the other nations, but in all, many have a feeling towards Israel, their view is biased from day one. Plenty with an anti-Israeli view, some with an anti-Jewish view, the probability of a mean will not apply here.

Then we get ‘esteem’, are they looking upon Tel Aviv in a particular way? Are they confusing esteem with ‘self-esteem’? All questions that go through my mind. We could state that Bagdad in last position is validly there, but over what level of reasoning? Because it is in a warzone?

Yet, do my thoughts invalidate the results? The paper as shown does give a solid foundation, the methodology sounds sound. In that I state ‘sounding sound’ is not entirely on the ball. You see, the heart of the respondent, how does that come in? The study overview states “G8 general public (only people who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ familiar)” Yet what makes you somewhat or very familiar? How many Non-Jewish people who have been to Tel Aviv answered this? How many know this place. I was there, and I felt safer there than in Budapest (and Budapest is a decent and safe city). Tel Aviv scored less than Johannesburg, Hanoi, even Cape Town, known for its high crime ended up with a score better than Tel Aviv.

So what gives value to this report? This is not the setting of my view, it is a question. The question exists in my mind because if we give reputation and value to a place we must know and agree to the standards given here. That is the question that should be on your mind too. Now, you might not care about Tel Aviv for many reasons. The bulk of us will never visit the city, visit the country or end up anywhere near it. So how do we give value to a place, even when we are somewhat familiar? Yet there is more than just the result as given in the Times of Israel. Slide 22 when you get the 2015 reputation report (at http://www.reputationinstitute.com/), shows a very interesting part. Familiarity versus Reputation. So how about the places with low familiarity? How come their reputation is so high? Is it the media, because there again we see that Tel Aviv gets in the news when there are rocket attacks and terrorist issues towards Israel, so how can we consider reliability in this report? Beware my words, I am not stating that the methodology is in question, I am wondering how the validity of vision from the interviewee is correct. In a similar way, we can understand that Baghdad is graded poorly, but why is Tehran graded so bad, it is because of our impression of Iran? In that same context we might understand why Sydney, Stockholm and Melbourne are graded so high, yet in all this, what makes Zurich more reputable than Amsterdam or Oslo, perhaps because FIFA is placed there? With the FIFA news Zurich got a lot of visibility, but is that visibility correctly graded in the mind of the beholder? The issue here is the colouring by the media, that influence cannot be countered, which is why I think that Tel Aviv got placed so badly (in this 101 list). Behind all this is a bigger issue. It is the one reason why I object to some of these studies.

In my personal view this list caters to presentations and to some who need to see a national interest, it also places my own view in debate (as it should), not because my view is too shallow, but as we go through the iterations of reasoning behind this as we see in slide 24. The Advanced Economy gives view to the question ‘why is an advanced economy part of reputation or familiarity?‘ This connect on more than one level, which got me to ‘The Economics of Developing Countries‘, what makes for an Advanced Economy? In that view Peru, Chile and Uruguay are not amongst them, so with close to 1/3 of the measurement absent, in that case, how come Montevideo scored so high in that list? If it is the state of peace, we see something a lot more linking, Tel Aviv, Karachi and Abu Dhabi together, a pattern seems to emerge. In that view we must wonder as Tel Aviv is not in war, but under near constant attack. Now when we add Rio to all this, we see another pattern emerge, those not relying on ‘stability of peace’ we see the need for positive reinforced publications, Rio is certainly getting that. In all this we do not question the reputation institute or their methodology, it is all about the people giving their vote. It is that view which gives voice to my worry. Slide 24 is descriptive in all this. ‘Appealing environment’ is one, which give the view to ‘non war torn places’, Effective government is the second one. Yet, why is ‘effective’ government part of all this? You see, in my view, the most effective government is a corrupt one, a humane based government (like Norway and Sweden) tends to be expensive and not that effective. Perhaps effective government and humane government are terms that are interchangeable? I am just asking. In all this we see the four earlier words at the core of this. ‘Trust’, ‘Admire’, ‘Esteem’ and ‘Feeling’, so how does this all link?

Slide 25 gives us ‘Social, Economic & Environmental Policies’ in regard to ‘Effective Government’, are they for real? Environmental policies can be made more effective, but they do not, I say again absolutely not make for an effective government. In addition when an Advanced Economy relies on ‘Financially Stable & Future Growth’ we can state that Wall Street took care of that not happening in the last decade and in addition not for many more years to come, so when we acknowledge that the elements of attributes are an issue, does that not add question marks to the stated foundation of this report? In all this the summary from page 28 onwards makes sense. I do not disagree, I do not oppose it, but in all this, it is a view brought to us on the premise of a flawed view, the influenced view of the interviewee, that part is missing, which gives the question mark within me. This gets me to slide 34, a good reputation might influx tourism, yet in all this, the tainting influence of media becomes a colouring issue, discriminatory and revoking as we ignore or forget that perception is tainting and the press factor seems to be uncorrected for. So how is that not an issue in all this, or at least a non-correcting influence? This all gets me to the final part “living or working in the city, or deciding to invest in the city” might be deciding factors for anyone when the reputation is an issue, but on what foundation? Still overall the report remains an interesting piece of work, the supportive behaviour slide gives fuel to that.

My views do come to fruition in slide 40 where we see the two quotes “Communication is required to capitalize on good reality and overcome poor perceptions” and “Change is required to alter ‘reality’ and minimize reputational risk“. In my mind, this states that opportunity and risk are influential factors that can be pressed on by the media, the media sets perception and alters reality in a hundred ways, so does this paper show true reputation, or does this show how the media is too large a factor to ignore and in all this a place like Tel Aviv got introduced to the less reputable score than they should have gotten? The question is how we see a true score on reputation and perhaps that list is not completely incorrect, but in my personal view, the idea that Bangkok is more reputable than Tel Aviv remains an issue, one of perception and I have actually been to both places.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Budapest, FSB, GRU, Israel, Russia, Sweden, Tehran, Tel Aviv, the Media, the Netherlands, the Reputation Institute, Times of Israel

October 16, 2015 · 00:34

War and Pieces

This world seems to become less and less of a good place. I feel that I could be able to stick my head in the sand were it not from my law assignment, which is making decently progress. I feel that focussing on this as much as I can drains me, but the fact that things are lining up feels like a rush. The feeling that definite defeat is leaving me as the feeling of stalemate and even the tiniest partial feeling of a small victory is just too good a feeling. After this 2 more weeks and a final exam. That feeling is one we do not experience too often. We tend to be slightly ahead of the curve, go with the flow (and the masses) and in some cases be a little ahead of the pack. So in that regard making it from lets academically state ‘a state of depression’ into ‘the sunny feeling of victory’ might be my only reference to what drug users chase. I got there all by myself.

Yet, this is not about me. Not completely. You see, in the back of my mind is something that John Oliver stated regarding Toyota and how it is the car of choice for ISIS. Global Research (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved/5480921) claims: “So far the UK has sent around £8m of “non-lethal” aid, according to official papers seen by The Independent, comprising five 4×4 vehicles with ballistic protection; 20 sets of body armour; four trucks (three 25 tonne, one 20 tonne); six 4×4 SUVs; five non-armoured pick-ups; one recovery vehicle; four fork-lifts; three advanced “resilience kits” for region hubs, designed to rescue people in emergencies; 130 solar powered batteries; around 400 radios; water purification and rubbish collection kits; laptops; VSATs (small satellite systems for data communications) and printers“, in addition we see “It’s fair to say that whatever pipeline the US State Department and the British government used to supply terrorists in Syria with these trucks was likely used to send additional vehicles before and after these reports were made public“. This is an implied action, not a real action. In this two parts get to me.

Why are the origin of these trucks so hard to find? The sketchiness of the information implies that certain parties have less satellite oversight than they would like to.
If the implications are true, why were these cars not seeded?

In the first there are of course all kinds of issues. SIGINT will never reveal what they actually have and those assigning SIGINT duties will remain silent too, yet in all this another cog is operating. This is seen when we consider the CNN title ‘U.S. Treasury inquires about ISIS use of Toyota vehicles‘, can anyone explain to me how the US treasury got involved in matters regarding a Japanese brand? That the State Department and the alphabet groups are all over it makes perfect sense, the US treasury does not, not even the Secret Service (who is stretched thin these days), would explain that push, because the people involved are unlikely to be on their front page. You see, this gives a clear feeling that someone in the US Treasury got a phone call (or they want to focus away from governmental bankruptcy papers).

Did no one wonder about the starting paragraph: “The U.S. Treasury is seeking information from Toyota about how ISIS has gotten hold of the automaker’s trucks, which have been shown in the terror group’s propaganda videos“? The second paragraph is even more puzzling: “Toyota said it is part of a broader U.S. Treasury inquiry looking more closely at how international supply chains and capital flow into the Middle East“. This means either they followed the money towards the end of the line, which means that there is a direct American link (which is another issue), or someone is demanding answers. John Oliver gave a funny nudge towards GM (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BRTEXomD6s), yet consider the GM earnings release: “Jul 23, 2015 – Net revenue in the second quarter of 2015 was $38.2 billion, compared to $39.6 billion in the second quarter of 2014“, so are we awake now?

In addition the second issue on seeding. Did no one consider seeding those exported cars with passive id chips? Those puppies can be placed nearly everywhere. You see, you can do more than just keep a DVD in the store, you can also tag a part of the car you never see, after which you can keep track of those puppies. It is a low tech level of low jacking. Try to find a one by one inch sticker on a metal frame. Good luck I say!

So as I am winning the war with myself, there is now an implied war being lost by allied forces. We can state that intentionally or not supplying ISIS is not a win. Even if that was not the case, even if the rebels had been provided with equipment, the fact that it goes to ISIS in mint condition is another worry, it implies that rebels have no clue (and no James Dean acting skills either), whilst in addition the lines of the rebels are getting more and more blurry. This now reflects on ‘U.S. Weaponry Is Turning Syria into Proxy War with Russia‘ (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes.html). The quote “With the enhanced insurgent firepower and with Russia steadily raising the number of airstrikes against the government’s opponents, the Syrian conflict is edging closer to an all-out proxy war between the United States and Russia” is also alarming. Not the US/Russia escalation, but the danger in light of earlier revelations that there is the danger that ISIS gets a hand on some of this stuff and hits Israel. Consider the speculative event that an Iron Dome within the Birya, Safed and Rosh Pina Airport triangle gets hit by a confiscated US TOW? That puppy needs to get within 2.5 miles, but still, if it gets done the moral push, the danger of all-out war and the escalation that ISIS gets to take control Gaza are all options that are not completely impossible, even as the current leadership of Hamas is downplaying ISIS in their region. Hamas has been playing a dangerously stupid game in Gaza and their power is not as good as they claim it to be. The fact that more and more extreme claims are met with lack of determined discipline in their own following gives rise to that claim. In equal measure, there is still a danger that some of the Russian materials will also make it to ISIS hands, which just amplifies the dangers over there. Like Hamas, Hezbollah talks up a storm, yet in all this the ‘thousands’ of missiles they claim to have would have been fired already if they were at least 3% dependable, the Russian hardware could change that. Is it enough? That is hard to say as there are several tiers of data missing. Hezbollah has been playing certain facts closer to the chest, which does not mean that they have what they need, but in all this, several sides have claimed that the Iranian – Hezbollah supply line of missiles is a fact. That part was conveniently kept out of those ‘reliable’ papers for a long time as they commented on a nuclear Iran. It is one side Israel protested against for a very long time. So as an organised war falls to pieces, we see that there is a fractural war going on, each with their own agenda and many pieces having a hatred of Israel. We can consider that part when we look at the quote “the failed $500 million Pentagon program that was cancelled last week after it trained only a handful of fighters. That was unsuccessful largely because few recruits would agree to its goal of fighting only the militant Islamic State and not Mr. Assad“, which was also in the NY Times. The quote should in my mind have ended with “and not Mr. Assad or Israel“, two words that make all the difference. Two words kept out of papers, quotes and off the record, but in the minds and hearts that some of these people who received the training. Many of them with family ties to Hezbollah, even though not directly.

As I see it, we are watching pieces of a kinetic puzzle. They are moving and the watchers that should be watching every piece are lacking resources on both the hardware and software side, which means that events pass by unnoticed, giving the involved parties less warning and more losses, not just now, but down the track too. When this escalates beyond control the providers of current hardware will only have themselves to blame in the end, but as those involved parties will never end up being in the firing line, they might not care. That could start a phase where ‘it was not my responsibility‘ and ‘I did not care‘ end up being one and the same, which could end up being the most dangerous of escalations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Assad, Birya, Global Research, GM, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iron Dome, ISIS, Israel, John Oliver, Rosh Pina Airport, Safed, SIGINT, State Department, Syria, TOW, Toyota, U.S. Treasury, Youtube

September 27, 2015 · 22:22

The danger the UN brings

Yes, the UN has been active, the news in several places including the Netherlands shows a sight that many might not grasp. As one of the sources US News reports ‘UN summit approves 15-year blueprint to eradicate extreme poverty and combat climate change‘, of course many are now cheering on how lives will become better. Will they?

193 countries agreed on this. Like the millennium plans. Not all targets were met, but as some state (like Dutch NOS News), there is progress. The news stated on how poverty got halved. Here I wonder on what grounds that evidence is brought, where the data is. I am not stating it is incorrect, I am stating that poverty shifted and several nations are playing possum on those numbers. Has anyone considered the US numbers on how many people are living below the poverty line? How many need double jobs just to make ends meet? How is that not poverty in its own right? Now they are stating on how businesses need to get involved, moving from charitable to profitable (quote Dutch Prime Minister Rutten).

Here is the danger! You see we have ample evidence on many levels that the bulk of business will not make these jumps unless there is a benefit to them. Like tax breaks, like non-accountability. So as these new plans needs funding, funding many nations no longer have, how much additional taxation will get lost and how will that impact the lives of you and me all?

Is that not a valid question? The Dutch king might be very committed, yet funds are not there. Critics are already in disagreement. The overall lack of environmental improvements have been overly visible for a long time, getting it in an UN speech is unlikely to make change here. Which is just my personal view.

The quote from the prime minister is also very tainting. “These problems are too large for a government to tackle, we need corporations to step in“. This is perhaps the first clear statement from a leading EEC member that governments can no longer hack it. This is what I have stated for a long time. The law stayed its hand and as such the treasuries remain non protected and non-accountability with improper wasting of resources have given weight to a now faltering group of governments. Yet, corporations have to rise to the occasion, to which I ask: ‘At what price?‘

Feel of course free to disagree, yet in 8 years, see how goals are not being met, not even close and then listen to the carefully phrased excuses people will give regarding not making the targets. The US News article has one quote that needs to be regarded: “Supporters say there is no choice but to go big in a world of expanding population, growing inequality, dwindling resources and the existential threat from global warming“. It is the ‘dwindling resources’ that is at the heart of many issues. We allow the exploitative and imbalanced Wal-Mart to continue, yet we all realise that resources are an issue. In all this that same Wal-Mart will be asked to give support so that they can get a free pass. Does this make the entire UN operation a new chapter in its recognition as a paper tiger?

You only need to look at the Syrian issue to see how the UN is largely ignored. Now we get another ‘issue’, not with the speaker, she is as I see it in all this part of the UN PowerPoint. The quote ““Promise peace to all children in Pakistan, in India, in Syria and in every corner of the world,” Malala implored the leaders“, it sounds nice, it makes for good TV, but there is no realism here. Syria has its issues where the life of a child is conceptual at best. The Indian government has close to no options at all to deal with its child labour issues, the same situation exists in Pakistan. Both nations where the realistic view is to either work or starve. The combined child labour population of Pakistan and Indian exceeds the total population of either Australia or Sri Lanka. That is how unrealistic the issues are. Again, I have nothing against Malala, she overcame more hardship than most of us will encounter in a lifetime, but those in the UN should know better and adding her to this presentation is good for Malala and I wish her every positivity as well as the fact that we should not be silent on these issues, but the delegates of the UN should know a lot better, this issue is one that will not be met.

Another shifted view comes from Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi who said that “the international community has to deal with global challenges that hinder development“. The quote “Egypt has been fighting an insurgency by Sinai militants allied to the Islamic State group. At the same time, security forces have cracked down on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists“, as well as “El-Sissi also expressed concern that “the tools” to achieve the goals are insufficient, and stressed that richer nations have a responsibility to help poorer ones“. This sounds not even close to nice. The direct option was to engage in a dialogue with Israel on how to deal with the Sinai, Israel is very willing to assist and find solutions here, as the pressure is also on Israel due to Sinai Extremists. No, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi wants the rich countries to step in. Likely also making sure that some hands are tied in all this. The last one is a speculation, yet in addition the entire MFO situation are set after certain accords, so how will these accords be impacted? The September 17^th 1978 Camp David Accords will likely see a different light over that evolving future. Is this truly a ploy to deal with the Sinai Extremists, or a played option to sway a vote to allow more Egyptian troops and military into Sinai, with all kinds of new pressures? I just set into the light three small issues that give worry to the entire 15 year blueprint. Yes, there is benefit and essential growth to eradicating extreme poverty, yet in all this it can ONLY be achieved by overhauling laws on a global level. Changes that players like Wal-Mart will never allow for, moreover, they have a sizeable lobby at their side to make sure that the fortunes of the Walton family remains guaranteed. Wal-Mart spend will over 7 million in 2013 to its lobby to make sure certain pawns were either moved, or not moved according to their needs. As the members of that family grows in fortune a billion a year, 7 million is nothing, even then times that would be a steal at twice the price, the cost of doing business and the laws of the land, the laws of most nations fall short in this regard.

Interesting that this side saw no exposure at all.

In this, the monarchist nations remain the strongest supporters, they are mostly about the nations and the global good, republics are all about the elected principle and the lobbies in the back, corporations rule there! Is it any surprise that Sweden and the Netherlands are so socially inclined? That is the impact of a monarchy reflecting on all the people and the moral and social good of the world. In similar light, how should we see the quote by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Canadian Global News, where we read: “Modi confirmed plans for a fivefold boost in renewable energy but added two years to the time frame, saying it will take seven years instead of five”, is it because of American politics and what we have seen in the past that this could be seen as a shift until after the next election and that issue will be dealt with after the elections? Will we see an offer by Narendra Modi offering the open gap NTT DoCoMo left to the next mobile player under conditions of renewable energy installations? Will that suddenly count towards the total? In all this, those installations count as a cost, which means that those players will not be saucing the treasury coffers. That is the foundation of problems several other nations must remain aware off and unless the laws are adjusted this all shows like another paper tiger, offered in consideration from a group of people who get paid very nicely on an annual base, so the next 15 years some of these players would be decently well fed. Is that my sarcasm that you read now?

I must admit that sarcasm swims within me as I have seen the faltering side of several branches in law and politics not adjusting the view required to guarantee their nation towards growth, a view that is not an option at present. In all this not enough people are looking onto the sides that long term adjustments are required to make so that any option is realistic, yet with Wal-Mart equals on other shores their game is not dissimilar to the game the Walton’s are playing in a legally correct way, in all this the law has faltered in several nations, with no view of improvements any day soon.

So the dangers the UN bring will impact economies, unless the law adjusts firm and fast that plan is not likely to be made. If you doubt my words then consider the ‘plans’ that were made in 2000, they were not met, in some cases they were met only 50%, it is called an improvement, but from that we must accept that either the plans were never realistic, which beckons the question, why accept a non-realistic plan, in the second there is the validity that progress was booked, yet at what price and in this time and in this economic age what is the realistic chance that such funds remain to be available?

As for my doubts, that part can be seen in the very end of the article (at http://globalnews.ca/news/2242584/un-summit-approves-15-year-plan-to-erase-extreme-poverty-fight-climate-change/) called ‘UN summit approves 15-year plan to erase extreme poverty, fight climate change‘, the quote is “As for finding the trillions needed to implement the goals, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates said Thursday “we’d be doing very well to have anywhere near that amount of money available by 2030”“. We know Bill Gates to be one of the leading philanthropists. He has not tried to hold on to the massive wealth Microsoft brought him and he has spent a lot, yet he knows how much money this requires, something I expect the politicians involved have no realistic clue about. If Bill Gates shows signs of worry regarding the need of these trillions, how come the governments involved are not extremely outspoken regarding the massive debts they have and that no one has these level of funds. In part only corporations do and my worry is that the price of agreeing to all this will cost us a lot down the road. In addition, it is also interesting to note on how papers have the same stories, the same quotes and the same title, so is the journalistic branch now limited to do the copy and paste action? In that I set Reuters apart. The one issue they show and the other papers did not (as far as I can tell), is the article (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/26/us-un-assembly-china-idUSKCN0RQ0HW20150926), so as we accept the second quote to be “Chinese President Xi Jinping announced on Saturday that Beijing will establish an assistance fund with an initial pledge of $2 billion to help developing countries implement a sweeping global sustainable development agenda over the next 15 years“. Now if we accept the first quote to be from Bill Gates (the one stated earlier), now compare the statement just given by Chinese President Xi Jinping, controlling the second largest economy on the planet (if we accept the US numbers to be true), than 2 billion (the article states another 12 billion by China too), in light of the statement by Bill Gates “As for finding the trillions needed to implement the goals“, gives the vision that the second largest economy is contributing less than 0.7% of the required amount. So is anyone still considering the realistic view offered by the UN, a 15 year goal that is not realistic is in my view nothing more than a concept in presentations, if you are there and if the coffee was nice, the day might not be lost, but in all certainty, it is unlikely to be a true gain to anyone attending other than Malala, who as a UN envoy achieved what she had to achieve, to shed light on a situation that needs addressing, how that is done is actually on the plate of Gordon Brown who is the political side of the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education.

In the most worrying closure, I have stated it before, would the culling of our population help? If so how can the UN exist, or even remain to continue when the required solution is to dim the lights for billions of people, a population decline in excess of 90%. This is not humane and equally unrealistic. I want to see realism in the shape and size that we the people are properly informed on what is needed, where the law will properly adjust to hold corporations accountable for steps taken and for profits made. A reality I am unlikely to see happen in my life, so what will be left to the generation that follows me?

I honestly do not know, yet in the light of what I just showed you the reader, did you consider any of the issues that I noticed and that none of the articles discussed and more important, why were these issues not raised by the involved journalists?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Bill Gates, Camp David Accords, Canadian Global News, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, extreme poverty, global warming, Gordon Brown, India, Israel, Microsoft, Muslim Brotherhood, Narendra Modi, NTT DoCoMo, Pakistan, poverty line, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Prime Minister Rutten, Sinai Extremists, United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education, US News reports, Wal-Mart

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

Tag Archives: Israel

Recent Posts

Archives