Tag Archives: Middle East

May 30, 2017 · 16:00

The hard-line path

Over the last days we have seen an increased voice of extremist call by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran. The question now becomes, how will the internal struggle change the game for Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran. The NY Times gives us (at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/middleeast/iran-election-hassan-rouhani.html) the issues that play. “He badly needs to demonstrate progress on overhauling the moribund economy”, which is just one of several quotes. Yet the danger is not in the achievements, the issue now is that someone else will get the seat to the presidency in less than 4 years. The optimism could go straight out of the window sooner than we think. The hard-line of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is seen everywhere and even as President Rouhani is on his last term, the ayatollah is not. The news we see now, the beats and shouting of ‘Saudi Arabia’s rulers faced “certain downfall” for aligning themselves with the US‘, as well as ‘Saudi Arabia is a ‘cow being milked’ by US, says Iran’s supreme leader‘ is now getting a louder view and voice, whilst they are positioning Saudi Arabia as the oppressor of Islamic faith, whilst he throws Bahrain and Yemen into the mix. As we see the news, the issue that President Trump remains in opposition of Iran, causes additional worries. Unless the US is willing to go into a direct war with Iran, the only thing their diplomatic corps is achieving is to set the population against the US, in this what was regarded as a moderate, President Rouhani is now on the edge of finding a moderate continuation through a successor, whilst the Ayatollah is finding new ways to instil conservative values, undoing what President Rouhani has achieved. In all this the ‘progressive’ approach of Europe, with their nuclear program for Iran, lifting all sanctions and other ‘path improvements’ are soon to be a new cause for concern. I made that point 2 years ago in my blog when I mentioned the need for caution as the world was still getting past the idea of a post-Ahmadinejad era. I was clear in my warning that no matter how moderate the new president is, the hardliners might get another Ahmadinejad into play, that would change the status by a lot.

In addition, Forbes gave us the following a mere 4 days ago.

  • Sent over 3,000 to the gallows and escalated domestic crackdown,
  • Increased its export of terrorism through Shiite proxies across the Middle East,
  • Boosted the Levant dictator Bashar Assad in his massacring and displacing millions of innocent Syrians,
  • Supported the IRGC in test launching a significant number of ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and harassing US Navy vessels in international waters,
  • Increasing Tehran’s support for the Afghan Taliban, according to the The Washington Post,
  • Made having dual nationality a threat, as experienced by too many hostages

In addition, we get “For hard-liners and their affiliates — including the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij, the judiciary and the Intelligence Ministry — Rouhani is more helpful in achieving their major objectives“, which is given by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy and president of the International American Council.

The question becomes, on how Iran sees facilitation and how they consider it is used by Iran in Europe, because the limitations that hindered serious facilitation by Iran in the past are all but gone. The overly optimistic people (called politicians with a personal agenda), have paved a very dangerous path. They will be in denial, yet the parts that are clearly showing is that President Rouhani has been more and more outspoken in certain regards, which as the president of Iran he should be allowed to do, yet it is an extremely outspoken anti-Saudi Arabia view. This is happening whilst the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has now finished a third underground missile production factory. And whilst I note upfront that I have no ballistic experience, which means that I am not an Aussie electrician (jab at: ‘Aussie electrician charged with helping IS develop missile capabilities’), yet what some sources have not mentioned is that the commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, is the very same person who boasted rocket aid to Hezbollah as well as the mention that the Iranian missiles can reach Israel. In addition, we have the threat: “Hajizadeh explained that if the Zionist regime attacks Iran, it will be destroyed. He said, “If those people make a move, it will hand us a justification to wipe them off the face of the earth“, this part actually needs additional footnotes. The link is at https://www.juancole.com/2012/07/hajizadeh-if-israel-attacks-iran-it-will-be-destroyed.html, and it is good to read as it addresses a few issues. In all this Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh gives a clear address to a reaction, with the reinforced ‘when Israel attacks’, so the General states to only act in retaliation, he states he would not act in a first strike. I can accept that, although my rusty Arabic is set at 0%, so if the original text was a recipe to make spicy lamb, I would not be able to tell the difference. Yet in all this, the subterfuge will be missed. Even as we accept that the General is a devoted Muslim with a love for his country and a devotion to live to highest standards, how many hard-line Iranians would it take to create the wrong intelligence and the missiles would get fired towards Tel Aviv anyway? Do not even consider that this cannot happen, with a closed system and with Iranians that have the mental drive that Ahmadinejad had, how many would it take to set the system to give the decision makers the wrong intel? America has had its share of miss-presentations. Perhaps some of you remember Colin Powell and his suitcase with evidence of weapons of mass destruction in 2003. How did that go over? The reality is that Iran has an environment where the hardliners get to be in power again and again. Whenever that is not the case, there is enough time to debunk and diminish the work that moderate minded Iranians achieve. As there is a military power core, a religious power core and a political power core, it requires only two hardliners too grab the power via elections. We already know that the Ayatollah is a devout hardliner, which means that they are one step away from another hard-line elected rule. This is the reality that was and Europe has opened up additional paths for that future to return in the future, intentional or not does not matter.

This all matters in a second phase too. Even as we see news by tabloids and not by actual newspapers, the news given is that Jeremy Corbyn, the man who wants to be in charge of Labour UK and is electable, that person attended a ceremony honouring terrorists, the wreath was laid at the grave of one of the PLO terrorists that killed the 11 Israeli Olympic athletes, all killed during the 1972 Olympics at Munich. The fact that it is in several tabloids is why i am mentioning it. The issue in addition is why the actual newspapers have no mention of it. The sun gives us ‘FRIENDS LIKE THESE Jeremy Corbyn called banned terror group Hamas ‘serious and hard-working’ after admitting attending wreath-laying ceremony for Palestinian killer‘, so as I am in some confusion on why anyone wants to be that stupid, the fact that multiple sources are making mention on it, the larger danger becomes on why anyone would allow Jeremy Corbyn to get elected, especially as he gives ‘value‘ to a terrorist organisation, so as we now wonder who is briefing him and who would be this stupid. I am trying to make very sure that I am not facilitating fake news. There is additional evidence as he the Telegraph gives additional links to Channel 4 news (2015 event). Whenever I try to go deeper, they seem to refer to the 2015 event. This now calls to question on how Corbyn got to be in charge of the Labour in the first place. It should make the party feel really happy. The fact that it now reaches the limelight again seems to be political gaming, yet the worry is real, do you want someone in charge who gives voice to a group that is regarded as a terrorist group in several nations. Even as MI5 is looking into the events before the Manchester bombing and what signals are missed, the UK is now contemplating setting the person who put a wreath at the grave of one of the Munich murderers at the helm of Britannia. it is like making Alex DeLarge minister of Justice (Clockwork Orange reference). It seems like really not the best way to go about making Britain stronger. Yet in all this, there is an underlying pressure. You see, these elements unite as there is a push to find a way to make the UK-Iran link a stronger one. As the UK peers urge to make these policies stronger and better, the report gives within the title ‘Time for New Realism‘, in this as additional ties to Palestine are called for, the UK is setting the unique part in distancing itself more from the US in an anti-Trumpism move, yet in addition, it will create a wall between the UK and Israel. The report has loads of wisdoms, and even propagates my own view in different words. As they state: “We have a new and uncertain American policy in the region…We can no longer assume America will set the tone for the West’s relationship with the Middle East“, which was voiced by me differently as I stated in the past: “The United States is no longer a superpower, with the national debt (now at $20 trillion) setting the stage of labelling the United States as a bankrupt nation“. Its inability to set a proper economic stage has left the United States with a lack of options. there is little cause to take notice on what the United States administration shouts as it cannot afford any actions, this is also what North Korea seems to realise as it commences missile test after test, with test missiles entering Japanese territorial waters (Sea of Japan). As Japan urges China to act, which we could consider to be an act by a nation as bankrupt as the United states are, we need to also realise that China is an actual superpower and Japan is not. As Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed actions, we will need to see what actions the Japanese will actually take, the 3rd US nuclear aircraft carrier now entering North Korean waters, we also see that the US is opting for sanctions and diplomatic pressures. We can assume that this is the best way to go about it and the question is for how much longer, the second speculated reason is that the US has no other options available. With the Syrian escalations still in place, getting into any war on multiple fronts is something only Napoleon succeeded in. Oh wait, no he did not, it was the end of Napoleon, having a theatre of war on multiple shores is a really bad idea, so that is also a thought to consider, but that realisation comes with the premise that unless China acts, North Korea can do whatever it wants (for now). So as we see several nations play what we call the hard line, the UK is setting the stage but is wisely playing a cautious game until after the elections, in addition, the UK peers are giving out a report that requires a shift in actions and thinking. We can oppose this, but as this report comes from the 0.1% most intelligent persons of the UK, ignoring that report is a really bad idea (read: utterly stupid path to follow), so as we get to know that report better and better, my initial thought is on how to create a really strong bridge with Israel, because if pro-Palestinian dialogues begin, there will be the need of diplomatic handholding (not in a romantic way). It is not merely because this world is not as small as we sometimes think it is. So as we see that the Brexit path is opening new terrain and in addition new paths to grow economies, we are left with the notion that as some think that the hard-line is the best path, we must realise that it is not the only path and there is much work that could be achieved, it remains a question how far it gets us all, but that is usually the notion of another path, it could open new terrain for all and in addition, there is an upside as the EU is following the US path for however long they can the others can look and evolve new options never before offered. I am still hesitant to consider any connection to Iran, yet the letting that fear stopping me from seeing where that could get us all is equally stupid. the power of fear is for many just too overwhelming. The problem then becomes, especially in light of Manchester, is the move a wise one?

Time will tell! Sometimes it is just that simple!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Religion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 19, 2014 · 11:04

Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more

It is an old saying that still applies today. It reflects on two events, two that show that the events we see escalating have a profound impact on choices, those in the past and in the future. When we consider the events (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/synagogue-murders-binyamin-netanyahu-despicable-murderers) of slaughter, we see two sides of the same equation, on one side can we hold a group accountable for the action of a few people. Can Palestine be held accountable for the events of two Palestinians? The UN is so eager to add Palestine and give them loads of options, yet the massive amount of events going on form 1946 gives clear way that many have been on track and remain on track to eradicate the Jewish population. There is something entirely wrong about that, yet we must accept that Palestine has genuine grievances; however these are completely ignorable towards the fact that genocide should not be condoned, the Israeli state, which seemingly became the quick solution for governments after the WW2 massacre. As I personally see it, the powers that be who were in charge in 1945 required a solution for giving the Jewish population a solution and made their dream come true of the start of the state of Israel. Was this wrong? I am not wise enough to have the answer to this, yet what is a certainty is that, if it had not happened, Europe would have been confronted with a population bend on revenge after what was done to them. Consider the danger of death squads getting even with the Dutch, German and French population for what was done to them. Even if we consider legal events (at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/jewish-family-in-restitution-standoff-with-german-city-of-teltow-a-939659.html), ‘A German-American lawyer and his family have been fighting for over two decades to reclaim lucrative properties lost under the Nazi regime‘ is only one of millions. Consider when massive chunks of Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Koln, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Reims, and that list goes on. Creating the state of Israel was the easy way out. Even though Historically, that part would have been even larger than what it is now. Yet, the issue does not stop here.

When we look at the second news story we see that the US has been kind enough to leave some hardware for Isis (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/un-report-isis-enough-weapons-carry-on-fighting-two-years). The four bullet points are:

  • Arsenal is sufficient enough to threaten region ‘even without territory’
  • Much of Isis’s weapon stocks were stolen from US-backed Iraqi military
  • Report recommends sanctions including seizing Isis oil tanker trucks
  • Foreign jihadis flocking to Iraq and Syria on ‘unprecedented scale’

The first issue shows that ISIS has enough power to be a clear threat, this leaves the indication that the initial US strategy of bombing was never a true option. I never believed it to be and several deeper into military knowledge and strategy had the same idea on this. The term ‘no boots on the ground’ was not realistic from day one. To be honest, it would be realistic if other nations had stepped up to the plate for this, which would not be a unacceptable idea, as America is both financially and economically in a state slightly lower than the average basement. It is not unrealistic to let other nations step up to the plate, but that would leave it all in the hands of politicians, which gives the reader an idea of how much is unlikely to happen.

The second issue is twofold, either the Iraqi military is strategically inapt to deal with the situation, in the second it is not impossible that part of the Iraqi military is on the side of ISIS and they military is to some extent the eyes and ears of ISIS. The last part is clear speculation by me, but overall is that such a stretch? ISIS is making massive stride all over the middle east, there is additional clear indication that ISIS has reached Gaza and moreover, Hamas is losing more and more control of the west bank. These escalating issues are now becoming a worry on several fields. West Bank, Sinai and they are gaining visibility in Jordan.

The third issue is about recommendations. It sounds nice in theory, but what will be done when they only deal with Islamic partners like Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestine, Senegal and others, how much confiscation will there be? More important, the recommendation ignores the biggest danger. What if ISIS locks down on the oil, they got by without it easy enough, but when the lock down starts, how long until most nations go into a lock down? Consider the barricading of oil transport to US and Europe for two weeks, how long until that powder keg paralyses nations and economies? Frank Herbert wrote it about it in his book Dune: ‘He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing‘, that is a truth we ignored. The tactic (seen as ‘scorched Earth‘) has been employed by Stalin during WW2, Sherman in the American civil war, Lord Kitchener in South Africa and by the Russians against Napoleon. The tactic was to some extent banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, which is only nice if ISIS would respect that, but we can definitely rule out that chance.

The fourth one is the nightmare many government face, not as they go there to fight, but what happens when these people return, which allows ISIS to place lone wolf terrorists, with massive amounts of options to damage the nations that gave them a life and future in the first place. Now we get to the title!

si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

If you are elsewhere, live as them there (rough translation), yet the second part is not exactly happening, yes they start like that, then they take over and others convert or die. This is at the core of the issue, and as we speak, there is intelligence out there that is confirming (actually they are not denying, which is not the same) that ISIS is growing its numbers from the refugee camps, camps with over 2 million people. If only 1% joins, they will have enough troops to change the face of the Middle East.

We can debate on legitimacy of Iraq all we want, but in the end does it truly matter? The events that changed the map are now at the centre of the moments that shape the new Middle East. The question becomes who wins? It is clear that the winner will have a foundation of support all over the Middle East, yet where will that leave Israel and America? Soon they will be forced down a path of war that none considered to the extent that anyone envisioned. It will be the first war that might have the blessing of the Arabian states, as it seems decently clear that they have enough worry from ISIS as well. If ISIS grows beyond a certain point, we will see a change in Jordan and Syria first, after that the tinderbox will truly light up, with threats to Egypt and the nations surrounding the UAE and Saudi Arabia, then what will we do? Consider ISIS not just with troops and arms, but with access to the oil wells and they decide who gets delivery. Then we end up with the nightmare scenario, just because it was left to the politicians.

So as we now consider the fullness of the text: “si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi“, those in charge need to consider who they are dealing with and throw out the play book they used for too long a time without ANY results, consider who these Romans are and deal with them, because if we don’t they will hand out the dealings of portions of grief none will survive, which will be extremely uncomfortable for all of us.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 23, 2014 · 11:45

ISIS is coming to town!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a solution?

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

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

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

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

 

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 12, 2013 · 03:13

Foreign and Domestic

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

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

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

That would be a fair question!

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

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

Are there doubts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 6, 2013 · 13:20

The Syrian principle

Syria has been on the forefront of most minds. Some look at it to solve it, some to see stability as a reason and some, or so it seems see Syria as a solution to a second game that has stages in play. So the question from this moment becomes whether Syria is now altered into a stack of dominoes? If we apply the domino principle to certain events in the Middle East, then the question becomes, how fair is that assessment?

First there is the fact that Brahimi, envoy to the UN has been very ‘outspoken’ in getting Iran involved. This is not me questioning Mr Brahimi as to why he wanted Iran to be part of it anyway. The question I have is valid, yet, I will admit that Mr Lakhdar Brahimi has an impressive list of achieved levels of expertise and as such we should regard him as the NHL coach bringing back the Stanley cup more than once. Like Jack Adams and Tommy Ivan. As a true blue Capitals fan, I still think the Red Wings suck (massively). Yet, these two coaches brought home Stanley three times each. They needed the players, but the coaches made it happen. We hate the team, we respect the coaches (it’s a screwed up world, I know). Such is life! Lakhdar Brahimi is in the same league. We do not like, or even care for the players at present, but the mitigation has made it happen in the past and as such we will watch how the play unfolds.

The mentioned play does have a lingering after taste. When Russia set into motion another Nuclear Power plant, when their support to Iran was given and they requested Iran to make certain moves, was this the upcoming play they had started to begin with?

Of course Russia has the resources, the power, the persuasion and the economic interests to make this all happen. It does however bring the question who or what Iran is actually representing? Syria, the Syrian people or just themselves?

Does this reflect on Lakhdar Brahimi?

I do not believe that this is the case. His work for the Elders, his work as a board member for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as well as his work for both the UN and the Arab League. He is trying to solve an issue and he will use any ethically accepted method to make the members to his party Waltz for peace. The question validly remains what the invitees have in mind. If we see the evidence through time and space that Russia cares about Russia, plain and simple, then their acts are not wrong, or not wanted, yet when the dance is not about the dance but about trademarking the fashion they wear, then who are the real dancers and what do they stand for?

Russia is not alone. We could ask somewhat similar questions of the USA. The UK is out of reach as they started the parliament step. The result is not one they wanted, but they stood by it. It was an admirable step, but not the greatest moment in David Cameron’s career.

Does it matter?

It does, but for different reasons you could imagine. We are all getting in a world that is getting more and more complicated. Like the inefficient use by some managers to hang onto ‘bullet point statements‘ in their memo’s, we genome in an unrealistic way the issues in play. At times a 2000 word document cannot be tweeted in a 144 character statement; the unrealistic approach that this always works will mean that people judge on inaccurate and incomplete information. In case of the Middle East it is not one, but hundreds of documents on that size. A tweet will not get us there and at times we need a person to make the choices to keep the story minimised, clear and correctly complete. Here Lakhdar Brahimi has his work cut out.

This is where the current situation just gets murky. No matter how clean the presiding speaker is, we know that there are dancers like Russia in play. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons still corrupts the idea, the notion and the act. What to do?

I do not know, but I do know that the talks will not just be about Syrian victims and Chemical weapons. It will have attached talks of Iranian nuclear power and a few more non-disclosed points of discussion.

What is an interesting development, which weirdly enough is not getting the level of exposure through the PRESS are the acts of King Abdullah II of Jordan and Pope Francis (the Bishop of Rome, in case you did not know) as they are trying to find solution through dialogue. Yes, I know that many others are in favour of this. Consider that Jordan is currently getting pounded on lack or resources as they deal with close to 1.5 million refugees. Still, His Royal Highness is not hiding behind others, or seeking an easy way out. No, he is hoping that dialogues will bring a solution. THAT is character of the highest level!

I would like that talks will solve is this issue, yet my sense of reality tells me it is no longer an option when two teams are so polarised. I am no standard to be based upon, but people like Pope Francis and King Abdullah II should be heralded for taking such a strong stance of principle, especially when we see what their stance is costing the Jordan government. Consider that we saw European nations back down lately for issues a lot less than that.

The world is a lot more complex for all players involved. We the people must accept this and we must accept the responsibility of knowing a lot more. If we do not, then we do not get to blame our representation and their choices for action, because we did not know. Ignorance is NOT a defence!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 2, 2013 · 04:22

Fighters to Syria

The Dutch have started a trial against an Iraqi citizen who has been living in the Netherlands for 13 years. Now he is joining the rebels to fight in Syria. In this case the trial seems to be focussing on the mental health status of the individual.

It is an interesting view. In this case it is about people who will become militant, more extreme and the fear is that these people might return to the Netherlands in a more militant and extreme state with additional fear that these events might start a wave of extreme actions.

There is a case that seems to hold water, yet will it hold water in a legal way?

1. The person has not yet left the Netherlands and as such the issues are not proven (at present).
2. If we look back to WW2, Americans moved to the UK to fight against Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Is this a similar view?

In the second case there are additional issues. These people are joining the fight against Assad. This is an internal civil war. In the WW2 case England was under direct attack by Germany. So there were other issues in play. In addition, these people all joined military fighting units that were part of a sovereign state. That is not the case with the Syrian rebels.

The issue that does not seem to be (overly) illustrated by the news at present, is that in this specific case (in case of Syria) that no matter how good the goal, these people are joining a non-aligned, combatant army. It could be seen as a group of people that are joining a terrorist organisation (from the viewpoint of Syrian government). There is supporting evidence in this case to some extent.

If we consider Humanitarian Law, then we must also accept the laws of war, which limits attacks to “military objectives.” Military objectives are personnel and objects that are making an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. There is ample evidence that civilian targets have been fired upon. When we take that into consideration, then a government has a clear directive to stop this. It could send its own army to police and structure the events, yet, they cannot engage in war on targets that are prohibited by Humanitarian law. From that point, not only must these recruitment drives be stopped, they also have some level of evidence that recruiting for these tasks should be seen as criminal.

I must keep a little space for the chance that my information is not complete, or even worse, is to some degree incorrect (newscasts from all over the world tend to lower reliability a little). The spreader of the information that we see on the news might not be completely correct, or from a reliable source (not claiming that this is the case, but I must allow for this fact to be the case).

If we consider that then the statements of both David Cameron and William Hague are more than just dangerous. I am referring to a batch of statements that these two honourable gentlemen have made over the last 2-3 months. In that light, it is the statement by the Lord Mayor of London Boris Johnson that seems to be the correct one. (He stated “Britain could not end the conflict by ‘pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs.’“) Even though Humanitarian Law does not speak on the delivery of weapons, the fact that it is known that their weapons are used in transgression of Humanitarian law, even before these weapons had been delivered could bite any nation that delivers these weapons down the road.

The transgressions that are currently allegedly occurring are not from some obscure part of the Customary International Humanitarian Law. No, we are only at rule 1 when we find the collision with the occurring transgressions. So by allowing and not outspoken opposition of these transgressions, we are not giving support to regime of Assad, we are actually flushing our own standards down the drain. If the convoy that was attacked last week by the rebels contained goods as well as people then there is also the transgression of rule 55 of humanitarian law. Furthermore, there is every chance that these foreign supporters, as not being a national from Syria, could be seen, if arrested, as a spy, a mercenary or a terrorist by Syria’s sovereign ruling party. That would complicate matters in several ways and its unlikely that the end solution that the Syrian courts would offer is one that the supporter will be able to live with (like the firing squad).

Whatever choices the UK makes, they should be clear and outspoken on the transgressions of humanitarian law. The Dutch face a similar act to follow. In regard to the court case, it seems to me that in the British Nationality Act 1981 in section 40 it states:

The Secretary of State –
(a) shall not deprive a person of British citizenship under this section unless he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a British citizen

This means that, even though it is decently bad Humanitarian law, that if the Secretary of state can place the fact that militants returning to the UK are not in the interest of Public good, they would lose their UK passport before they even make it past UK customs at the airport. The Dutch are less lenient here. In their case you would only lose your nationality is you are convicted for a crime against the Dutch state. It would be very conceivable that the transgressions of Humanitarian law would constitute enough transgression at this point. That part is not yet a given as the current case in the Netherlands is the first one of its kind ever in Europe.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

June 15, 2013 · 16:22

Two sides of a political nature

The NOS (source: www.nos.nl ) is again inspiration to today’s blog. The Dutch television mentioned two articles that have bearing on this. The second one is about Syria, so you the reader will probably have your own views. The first one is an important one, yet, it might at present not be on your radar.

A scandal hit Dutch politics as the Chairman of the First room. A position that is comparable to speaker of the house in the US or the speaker of the House of Lords in the UK has resigned. His position must be one of pure neutrality. A position that came into question in an article by the newspaper called ‘the Volkskrant’ (translated: The People’s paper). In that article he was quoted to have stated that keeping a politician out of the procession during the Royal inauguration was in the back of his mind. That is regarded as a huge ‘no no’ and as such, to prevent escalation, he resigned his position as speaker of the house.

This is not about former speaker Fred de Graaf. It is about a certain approach to certain political parties. You see in the 90’s there was the CP (Centrum Party). This was an ultra-right movement with such an outspoken disdain for that what did not fit, that they made the Ku Klux Klan look like a social moderate organisation. Yes, they are that extreme. Whenever its speaker ‘JanMaat’ spoke out, politicians would walk away, not debate, just remain silent. I always regarded that as an utter mistake. Political scientists told me on how good the approach was, how the wind was taken away from his sails. Yet, as he was allowed to speak unchallenged a fearful thing happened, people accepted his words to some extent. He gained 3 seats in parliament (Dutch version of the House of Commons). Finally someone woke up and they started to debate issues and of course, that resulted in the Centrum Party losing all three seats in the following elections 4 years later. Silence is NOT golden!

Following that event a new party came, the name was ‘Leefbaar Nederland’ (translated as ‘Liveable Netherlands’). This was led by a person named Pim Fortuyn. This was nothing like the Centrum Party! Mr Fortuyn was a person of Charisma, he was a true politician and he was an excellent speaker. The issue was that there were similarities. The platform still had ‘full=full’ in a central position. You see, the Netherlands is not that large. In the US it is only slightly larger than Maryland (30%), and Tasmania Australia is 50% larger than the Netherlands, a nation with 17 million, making it one of the densest populated nations on the planet. He had a few radical (read politically incorrect idea’s) those messages do not matter. What was the issue, was the fact that his charisma gave him ten times the following the Centrum Party ever had. In the end Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by a person who was regarded as mentally unstable and an environmental activist. It became a source for years of conspiracy theories.

Now we have Mr Geert Wilders of the PVV (Party for freedom). Mr Wilders visited Australia, which in its own was quite the show as the Australians rebelled against such an extreme politician. The last one has been active in the Dutch House of Commons. An interesting event was that he was denied entrance in the UK. When he did travel via Heathrow with reporters he was detained, only to be shipped back on the next plane.

It seems to me that Geert Wilders is to some extent ignored in political circles. The danger here is that this man is no Mr Janmaat of the CP. This man is highly intelligent and a decent speaker. He is also a lot stronger political muscle then the previous two politicians. Not engaging him has strengthened him, and as such his party now has 10% of the seats in the Dutch House of Commons. It could be debated that as he is a strong speaker going up against him would have a risky factor for anyone debating him as he can be ruthless.

So the question becomes, why are politicians so easy to choose the ignore option to fight the values they and many others detest? Is that not a showing of cowardice? If we are truly vested in not allowing a growth of right wing extremities to grow into political houses, then ignoring is not a solution. If you think that we are all in a better place, think again. Look at the statistics of poverty and unemployment rates then consider that we are close to the levels that we had in the times leading up to WW2. That was the beginning of a group that held a great power to politically manipulate in the past. To see that part escalate, read on below where we look at Syria.

As history is to repeat itself, we see a growing fear of returning events of escalations. Syria has according to the evidence engaged the use of Chemical weapons on a small scale. The body count has surpassed 150 (dying of the effects of chemical warfare) and now several parties are under agreement that the straw that broke the camel’s back had been delivered. A coalition which currently contains France and UK, with the US now ready to join ranks has put their foot down. We have seen the consequences, we have seen the movies and medical evidence, yet the Russians are not convinced (in a state of denial). When we look at Chemical warfare, we see a weapon of Mass Destruction. So did the Press speak to people like Oznobistchev, Saveliev and Arbotov? Are they not supposed to be experts in the area of WMD? So did the press get to them, or was there a health statement of laryngitis by Director Bortnikov? #JustSaying. The issue is not just the Yay or Nay. It is that again we have two sides. The Russian side, delivering S-300 missiles to Syria and there is the other side. I have no issue with Russia delivering the hardware. It is legitimate hardware and no matter how we feel, the sovereign ruler of a nation bought a defensive weapon system for its country. In all honesty I must confess that at 3% commission, selling missiles at 250 million per system looks appealing. Charging that much for a weapon system that the Russians took off the market in 2012? I’d sell that! One must always be ready to pay the tailor, and Saville Row is slightly costly. Those systems are not used to deploy chemical weapons, but they will stop those who want to stop them. Where is this going?

This re-reads like the beginning of another Vietnam. One goes one corner, one goes the other (music by: Frankie Goes to Hollywood – Two Tribes). This is the level of high stakes poker we currently cannot afford to play. This is likely to have repercussions on all levels. From the previous part one could come to the conclusion that politicians prefer to evade. That might actually be less of an option. This is because larger players now have their ego at stake. The issue is not them, as whatever escalates will be far from their bedrooms. The issue is now quickly becoming Jordan AND Israel, as they both will get caught in the middle. Jordan already has rising issues as the Syrian population is running for their lives, straight into the arms of Jordan’s dwindling resources. It will also raise risks for Israel as HAMAS and their allies will see this as an option to really light the tinderbox.

So what can we do to solve this? Well, what if we can get info from another party? Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan was/is a member of the WMDC (weapons of mass destruction commission). This all affects his country one way or another. What are his views? Has he seen any evidence? I think that this is more about settling the Syrian war. Settling that war can never succeed if we do not bolster stability in the region overall.

I believe that when, not if that stability fails, America will not need to worry about finding Lone-Wolf terrorists. There will be every chance that people from Morocco to Egypt will rush to enlist with Al-Qaeda, a scenario no one wants.

I fear that some have lost sight of that. There is too much smoke and the wrong people are calling to push buttons, whilst they are not at risk at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 6, 2013 · 15:59

Shalom Syria!

There have been several issues in the last two years that give reasoning to ponder our collective futures as we see issues flame over the Middle East. It has been clear in several ways that Israel is constantly under attack, it has been under attack pretty much after the state of Israel was founded.

So in a highly pressurised area, the Civil War in Syria was not the additional pressure anyone was waiting for. This civil war has now passed the two year mark. So, we can honestly say that this is a ‘grievance’ that goes high with the entire population of Syria (no matter which side they are on).

Yet, there are still other sides. At present President Bashar al-Assad has seen an expected short term issue into a long term consequence. Even if (however unlikely), he would be victorious against the opposition, there will be a massive amount of repairs to be done all over Syria. In addition, with the currently shown evidence, which gives us enough evidence that Syria employed methods of chemical warfare against its own citizens, there is every chance that nations of the League of Arab states will not invite him to the negotiation table as an equal any day soon. This means that whatever support he hopes to have needs to come from other ways and means.

So, what about Hezbollah?

They proclaimed their support for the Syrian state and President Bashar al-Assad. Here is where the plot became confusing for many. Hezbollah currently seen and should remain to be regarded as a terrorist organisation. Yet, their open support for a sovereign state is a valid question mark for many.

This is where the issue of yesterday and the issue last January exploded quite literally. Israel finds it utterly unacceptable that advanced missile systems are delivered to Hezbollah via Beirut. This is the reason Syrian got to watch a bright orange sky as a ‘research-building’ (as the Syrian government calls it) was turned into the main component of a snow globe.

Israel is quite right to be concerned with advanced weaponry seemingly given to Hezbollah. The note here is the ‘advanced’ part as Israel seems to remain eager to stay out of the internal struggle of Syria as much as possible. There is the side that the press at present seems to lack ‘illuminating’ to all.

No matter what the Syrian statement is, as they complained validly that they lost a building, yet no one upgraded it to a hotel as the rules of the Monopoly game states. The issue I have is that a convoy of weapons, not once, but twice would make its way to Beirut. Take into consideration the following report by Reuters last year. ( at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-lebanon-explosion-idUSBRE89I0N620121019)

So, slowly the question could become, is Israel not already in a war with ‘Syrian’ elements as such, considering that the new name of Lebanon might be “West Syria”, or what in the US might in future be known as West Side Syria. There had been issues all over the news in the last year that Syrian intelligence had the run of Lebanon. As such Israel’s strike makes even more sense. It also is given additional strength if we consider Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-un-idUSBRE93311920130405

 All this gives reason for worry. Should this escalate even further, an option that is at present unlikely but not impossible will change to “likely” if the Syrian government keeps on updating Hezbollah the way it currently seems. The consequence will seem far-fetched at present, yet uncomfortably logical.

Should the issues with Hezbollah/Syria escalate, then that would give Israel two new frontiers to worry about. First the people of Lebanon might enter their own moment of Civil war for the simple reason that one air-strike lit up the sky more brightly then the combined effort of an entire year of Syrian explosions. That and the fact that it’s citizens might even end up having to look at a levelled Beirut because Hezbollah violated UN Security council resolution 1701 for some time, as well as the issue that at present elements from Syrian Intelligence seems to be a ruling voice in Lebanon, might make the population angry enough to clean up their government.

These escalating issues will be a clear sign to Hamas to start their fireworks barrage (read S.C.U.D/Qassam/Fajr-5) on Israel. This will push Israel into a state of utter defence, which means that their attacks can no longer be proportionate. They would have little other option then to change both the West-Bank and Beirut into an ash pile. There are plenty of people claiming that Israel will not do this and how this should be resolved diplomatically. To them I say “Talk is cheap!” Syria crossed a red line according to the NATO Intelligence, yet at present nothing is done. Any talk is only a factor of delay. I do understand that the US is not happy, willing or able to just enter a new war zone. I am also not stating that they should consider it, yet if they do not, when (‘should’ is a better word) things escalate they will remain outside the zone discussing and not being able to direct the theatre of war, something they prefer as it will always be better to direct the game then just run with the other players.

For all who claim that THIS time (the Sarin evidence discussions) it is not a delaying tactic, I state “By whose standard?” Let me guess; only at some point AFTER missiles hit Tel Aviv, THEN they will agree to talk? Then there would be a suddenly (temporary) agreed seize fire? There is at present enough evidence for Israel to seize proportional responses and do whatever they can to secure the state of Israel.

For anyone thinking that this is an option Israel would never consider, and then consider that Lebanon is giving Hezbollah and Syrian Intelligence pretty much Carte Blanche in Beirut. Even though Lebanon does not currently have a dangerous striking force, and in addition, the Lebanese government has at present no intent of open hostile acts against Israel (as far as I know), then consider that when (not if) the Syrian establishment falls, a massive amount of military and intelligence personnel will move into Lebanon and Iran trying to escape prosecution from the people they prosecuted. As the victor of this encounter will be prosecuting (read hunting and lynching those who did the atrocities). I am not saying it did not happen on both sides, I am stating that the victorious side will end up giving blanket immunities to their people. Both Iran and Syria will be getting an added group of people happy to start open hostilities with Israel.

So a solution must be found. I personally believe it is not just about the Syrian Civil War. No matter what people shout, that ‘party’ is not going anywhere for many months after the civil war have been resolved. The issue on how Lebanon seems to have been compromised into a puppet state that is run by Terrorist and hostile Intelligence organisations seems to miss the news regularly, and that is a matter that has a much higher priority then people think, as that part has the ability to remain a destabilising factor long after the Civil War is done with. The reason should be obvious. Two groups that should reasonably be isolated, now end up having access to Banks, Media and a sizeable harbour. Two groups with too much access to all kinds of resources, both living with the premise that their values is based upon their ability to wage terrorist assaults on Israel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,