Tag Archives: Pakistan

December 5, 2015 · 11:13

Perception

Perception is an essential need for all of us. Yes, it is used in videogames where the power of perception allows us to see our foes approach earlier (Fallout series), or it allows the game to play with our minds as floors become ceilings and where statues follow your every move (Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem). Just two of many options, but this is not about gaming or about a videogame. You see perception allows us to perceive the events as they take place. From my perception it is clear that the events in Martin Place were never terrorism, it was merely a case of a mental health crises with a hostage situation and that person happened to be a Muslim.

The events in France were clearly terrorism, it is that clear view that we could all watch that diminished whatever terrorism claim existed over Sydney, and perception does that.

But what about San Bernardino?

You see, that is not a question, it is not THE question, but it is an essential question. The guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-isis-connection). Here we see that the FBI is investigating this shooting as an act of terrorism.

To their support we should consider

  1. Suspects attempted to destroy ‘digital fingerprints’
  2. Tashfeen Malik allegedly made pledge of allegiance to Isis in a Facebook post on day of the attack
  3. FBI director James Comey said that there was “no indication that the killers are part of an organised larger group or form part of a cell. There is no indication that they are part of a network.”

In the first three elements, it is important to realise that the first one gives view to premeditation.

These three need to be kept in mind, yet the main issue is not just those three, now I need to push a few quotes together, so you see the view that I also perceive to be.

“Tashfeen Malik, 27, swore fealty to the terror group in a Facebook post on Wednesday, the same day she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, committed the rampage” is part one, which we now connect to “David Chelsey, a lawyer for Farook and Malik’s family, said many details “do not add up”. “There are a lot of disconnects and there are a lot of unknowns and there are a lot of things that quite frankly don’t add up, or seem implausible,” he told CNN. “It doesn’t make sense. No one has ever seen Syed with any of the things – with some of the things found on the scene, they’ve never seen them with him. The pipe bombs, for example. No one had ever seen him use or have anything like that,” he said“.

Now we get the issue at hand. If we accept David Chelsey’s words as absolute truth, we are faced with at least two scenarios that are a lot harsher than you might consider at present.

  • In the first, is David Chelsey in absolute lawyer mode? So to say, if the families Farook and Malik require isolation from the events, this is the play to make, which means that his clients might not have told him the truth. They might not have been lying, but that is not the same. Yes, it is possible that they never saw a pipe bomb, but that does not mean that they have not been privy to eccentricities like buying goods in the middle of nowhere when you can buy the same items 15 minutes away from their home. The lawyer might just be doing his job, but in equal measure he is aiding in changing a view from realistic to an intentional attempt to misinform the federal authorities, or more precise his clients are. It is an additional view towards premeditation in the worst case, and an intentional act to colour the glasses of those trying to sway the public.

Why am I stating this?

Consider you are a parent and your child picks up a gun and kills fellow schoolies and teachers, how would you react? When we have a mental health case like Sydney that view is one we can all understand, but what if your child shouts allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now it becomes a different game, now the parent does whatever he/she does not to lose their own sanity. Can you blame them?

So is the FBI confronted with a case where the family was unaware, in denial or hiding their involvement/ we can state that the lawyer is not helping any of it, but that is not his fault, the FBI’s job does not get to be any easier!

  • In the second, when we consider the acts from Malik, who was born in Pakistan and travelled on a Pakistani passport, and recently lived in Saudi Arabia. She apparently met Farook online. In addition, the participation of Syed Rizwan Farook now ups the ante in all this. In addition we read “Christian Nwadike, who worked with Farook for five years, told CBS that his co-worker had been different since he returned from Saudi Arabia. “I think he married a terrorist,” Nwadike said“, so here is the issue, how did Christian Nwadike know? I am not stating he is right or wrong, I am asking, what signs were there? You see, I am going somewhere with this. Was Syed Rizwan Farook groomed for terrorism during his engagement period? It seems he lived an isolated life, which goes a long way towards making him an easier mark, yet in that, from the little I know of Muslims, one woman alone could not have done this, which implies that he’s had additional conversations with a Muslim Cleric, one he met whilst in Saudi Arabia, possibly with contacts before and after he came back, which would have gone a long way towards move for extremism, which makes destroying the digital fingerprint essential and possibly that part, if successful is part of the problem because that method can be employed again and not just in the US.

So is that all?

You see, this opens the door to the issue the FBI has been puzzling over for the better part of a decade. Home grown terrorism was always a worry, but the extent shown in San Bernardino gives view that part of all this remained under the radar of the FBI, which is the perception issue they have. They knew they had it, as they were trying to find options on how to deal with this, but in all this the reality is that perception is the only initial weapon a person have to counter the imagination of an extreme fanatic, yet is that enough and what else could there be?

It is not something that is easily answered. You see as FBI director Comey said, there are elements of evidence that will not make sense, but is that because the picture is distorted or is that because elements are missing. That is part of the puzzle that both the FBI and Homeland security are facing at present. This now gets us to the next perception, is this in part Lone wolf terrorism? The act here might not be, but the ‘support’ system behind this, is that part lone wolf terrorism? You see, part of these answers are not here yet and perhaps it will take a while for this to surface, but when we consider the pipe bombs we are also left with other questions. If this was a one way trip, why did the police find the dozen pipe bombs? KSNV, News3LV reports (at http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/12-pipe-bombs-thousands-of-ammo-found/sf3rLM0bzEWOxM3pBXLpZA.cspx), “Authorities have revealed 12 pipe bombs and more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition were found inside the San Bernardino suspect’s believed residence“, did they expect to start shooting, get away, go home and load up for the next round? You see, in all this perception is key. Now consider the elements that are required to buy and make these pipe bombs. Are you telling me that this does not get noticed? Well, apparently not. I can go to www.bulkammo.com and get myself 500 Rounds of 7.62x54r for the FN FAL for a mere $241, or $240 for 1000 rounds of 9 mm, which means that they had left for well over $750 in ammo at home. In addition, if they kept a certain lifestyle (spending), were no flags raised by the shifting of purchased goods? If we consider the other elements in play, where did the money come from? Perhaps his job allowed him to prepare to this extent, yet in all this questions come to the surface, a rational mind would expect that this was decently certain to be a one way trip, so why leave bombs and ammo at home? The part made no sense, unless they were not alone, perhaps another party was going to be in attendance but they bailed out at the last moment and as such this act was more hastily executed. It is mere speculation on my side, but that speculation comes from my own perception of the events seen. They could be very wrong!

You see that view is in opposition from the very last quote in the News3LV report “They were equipped and could have committed another shooting but we intercepted that“, did you really? Consider that the San Bernardino Police Department is a mere 3.5 miles away, at normal speed that is 10 minutes, at full speed and sirens no more than 3.5 minutes. That is all the time they would have had because there is an option that patrols are on scene, so getting back home was never truly realistic, so why leave it all there?

Were they head cases to begin with or is the FBI missing a few clues? Clues that David Chelsey is helping to muddy. Not by his choice, because he is representing his clients the best way he can, so I am not having a go at him in any way, shape or form. In addition, the weird act of their landlord to give the press access to their home is actually giving us additional questions. The house in the way it looked, was that how they lived? Did they never have guests and as such was the wife intentionally isolating her groomed co-shooter from the very beginning.

If that is the case, than how does the response from the family as voiced by David Chelsey make sense?

You see perception is an essential element, what we perceive, what others should have perceived and what the authorities perceive from all the data that they are receiving this very moment. How does it all fit?

At present it does not seem to fit at all, apart from the timetable and the fact that they either took no time at all for the ‘first’ shooting being able to get past South Waterman Avenue which then lead to the 4 hour manhunt. Again, this is not to place blame (in this case on the San Bernardino Police Department), but to get us to the question,  that as the shooting had passed, how did the couple expect to get back home to pick up more bombs and ammunition? I asked it before and with the added information you too should consider the thought on how they could have gotten back to their homes to load up for more? It merely gives us the question mark and the idea that this was likely never meant to be a party of two. If we accept that speculation we will get to the final question, who else was involved (were more people involved) and what comes next?

What is your perception on this case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

November 3, 2015 · 23:51

Fail it until you nail it

Another day another moment I roll my eyes. You see the Guardian came with an interesting article, interesting and kind of useless (OK, useless is a bit of a stretch). Let’s explain that part. The title is interesting enough. When we see ‘World’s biggest tech companies get failing grade on data-privacy rights‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/03/data-protection-failure-google-facebook-ranking-digital-rights), many of us, me included get to be a little curious.

The first part is shown here: “Given a percentage grade on privacy, freedom of expression and their commitment to those value based on an exhaustive analysis of their user agreements, no single company scored an aggregate grade above 65%“, the quote by Rebecca MacKinnon might sound nice, but she should know better in more than one way.

In the first, some of these companies are so global that many rights tend to be an upper level aggregation of the nation with the least rights. If America wasn’t so Prudishly Hypocritical a lot less would be ‘censored’. In addition, a global internet sounds nice, but it is crossing borders with national legislation, the internet does not get to have rights above national legislation, even in nations that are as liberal as it gets, issues will rise and the largest tech companies are trying to surf those waves as Rebecca MacKinnon very well knows. I am even more worried when a company like Vodafone (aka Vodafail in Australia) scores better than Twitter.

As for the grades, the beginning of the methodology (at https://rankingdigitalrights.org/project-documents/2015-indicators/#TOTAL) rears its ugly head in an interesting way when we look at question C3.

Here we see:

C3. Internal implementation

Does the company have mechanisms in place to implement its commitment to freedom of expression and privacy?

Checklist elements (select all that apply):

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

The company maintains an employee whistle-blower program.

 

The items here are the fun part:

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

Let’s take a look at some of these ‘great’ techies. Orange, Vodafone and Axiata. All telecom companies. In order of mention: ???,92000,20000. So let’s say 125,000 staff members, so should employee training on freedom of expression be available to all? In Addition, Orange merged in several nations. These mergers include France Télécom and T-Mobile UK, whilst in addition Orange is being phased out by its parent company EE Ltd. (aka Everything Everywhere). And for the whistle-blower part. How often was this a ‘hidden’ option to commit gross and unacceptable industrial espionage? As a Journalist it might sound like a sexy article, but did she for one moment realise that tech corporations need to hold onto their IP on several levels? Her book might be regarded as ‘amazing’ (Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom), yet when I read:  “Though the technology used for coordinating and organizing may be politically neutral, the context in which it is deployed is rarely so. Governments everywhere—whether they do business in the home government of companies or in the host government of markets—are demanding that Internet and telecommunications companies take sides, or at least stand back and avert their eyes while the government does what it needs to do, leaving the user or customer none the wiser.”, I worry!

Americans seldom comprehend that the right to be an utter idiot is not a god given right. In some places you get to be held accountable. I will go one step further, most of these self-proclaimed freedom fighters have excelled, through their train of thought, in protecting criminals and organised crime, which is some feather to put in your resume!

In addition, as people are crying for a free internet they also hold others accountable for their own stupidity.

Let’s show this with an example. If we change all global policies so that as per January 1st any hacked account who did not have a proper password will not be refunded, so the issue “Most banks will refund you your lost money after you sign some forms saying that you had nothing to do with the theft” will now include that not having proper quality passwords in place will be regarded as ‘assisted theft’. So you get no refund! I reckon it will take less than 1 day for the entire internet to go crazy regarding the injustice of that ruling. This is the issue, Rebecca MacKinnon doesn’t want a free internet; she wants an unaccountable internet. In her ‘netizenship’ she wants a free internet to hold governments to account, but in her virtual nation she has done nothing to hold those netizens accountable for Cyber bullying, harassment and assault on one’s devices. In that world there is no ‘Netfray’ (a made up crime definition), which might be freely seen as per adjusted version of the Crimes Act 1900 section 93C(2) “Netfray, a person who uses or threatens unlawful cyber violence towards another and whose conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable user skills present at the scene to fear for his or her personal data and internet safety is guilty of netfray and liable to imprisonment for 10 years“.

That part we will not see!

This is what makes that report an issue. Tech companies need to protect themselves non-stop. So, even as we agree that the cyber joke (aka Ashley Madison) is one side, the other side is Sony, which has a massively higher level of protection. In the latter case it is still speculations from many sides (including one from me), but a real timeline, and an account of events that could be decently precise was never revealed. Now I would expect that both sides of the fence prefers to keep it a secret, but in my view that hack was never clearly solved.

In that environment Rebecca MacKinnon wants an open internet, who is she kidding?

Back to that report, because the mentioned items are connected to what comes next!

F11. Identity policy (Internet companies)

Does the company require users to verify their identity with government-issued identification, or with other forms of identification connected to their offline identity?

More important, the part that follows: “This indicator is only applicable to Internet companies. We expect companies to disclose whether they might ask users to verify their identities using government-issued ID or other forms of identification that could be connected to their offline identity. Evaluation: This indicator has two possible answers. A company will receive full credit if its answer is “No,” and a company will receive no credit if its answer is “Yes.””

So as hackers use dummy accounts, trolls use fake id’s and Identity thieves use your id to have ‘fun’ and profit from what is not theirs, finding ways to stop them loses you a credit. There are places where a person’s ID is not the issue, but in this day and age those places are quickly diminishing. If you doubt this (always an option) then perhaps you remember Caroline Criado-Perez, who did something truly British by petitioning for Jane Austen to be face of the Bank of England £10 note.

By the way, the amount of death threats she got, how many of those people got arrested, how many of those got convicted? Yes, an open internet would stop all that! (That’s my sarcasm for voicing ‘no it will not’).

Another issue with her quotes is seen here: “Part of the problem is that this is a new world with the internet, and we are so dependent on these companies that we really need them to get it right. And they have a lot of work to do.”, so how about hammering on proper legislation and better issues on prosecuting some of those offenders? When the internet gets cleaned up, a lot more leeway could be given to something like the internet. In this a nice example is given by herself as she answered a question on movie piracy (September 2012), “the fact they are kids and they’re doing stuff and they don’t even realize it is illegal, or it is not that big deal“, it is only part of the answer, but she makes a decent case, yet the issue here is that it is a BIG deal, these ‘kids’ are causing harm to the rightful revenue of the maker of that movie, so you want an open internet, but the transgressions there are far too often trivialised and for the most they end up not getting prosecuted, you want accountability on one side, but not on your side, that is too uneven a scale and for the most many nations have not caught up with the quality IP laws they need to protect their innovators.

Now, it is not all bad, reading the linked ‘2015 Indicators’ of the Ranking Digital Rights is actually a lot more interesting than the article. A few of the questions were an amazing topic for discussion by themselves and the people behind them had done an interesting job, yet overall how can you compare Malayan company Axiata against Vodafone, or Orange for that matter? Axiata which was only recently rebranded (2009), whilst Vodafone has had a global one-sided (and to some extent one-sided failure) in the industry. A brand that has its fingers in the national pies of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Places where you either adhere to the law or you get shut down. So how can they receive a fair weighted grade? If not than the article and the exercise are almost moot. Almost because there is one part of the article I wholeheartedly agree with: “MacKinnon said remained optimistic the industry would improve its privacy efforts over time. “This is the test you take at the beginning of the class where everybody fails, and then you get to work, and then everybody’s going to improve,” she said”

It is not a mere ‘Amen to that’ ending, there are several serious issues that come to light, especially when you consider players like Apple and Microsoft. In case of Apple (with whom I still have some beef), is the fact that from 1995 onwards I have had a few of their devices, the Performa 630, the MacBook Pro and the G5, all between 2100 and 3000, all affordable and all on the ‘above average’ end of the range when they were released. The iPad 1 (I still have it) at a price that is still good, because that that same price you now get the latest version with 128GB; in an open non-accountable internet that is no longer an option, the billions poured into a design will find itself cheaply reengineered making new innovations no longer an option. Microsoft has a similar part, the Xbox One now at almost 50% of what the initial Xbox360 costs and close to equal in price with the very first Xbox. Even though this sounds good, these firms have had their shares of ‘errors’ to deal with, but overall those consumers (for the most) have never received a sour deal, this is only possible with quality protection in place, protection that MacKinnon is not considering to the extent she should, in her view of ‘netizens and the open internet’ she should get an equal fail grade, both sides need to work on whatever future comes our way, McKinnon know this too!

You do not get to graduate Harvard and run CNN in Beijing and Tokyo without a clear realisation that national borders are a lot more than a mere line on a map, which is what she almost implies, almost!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

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 17th 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 23, 2014 · 20:47

If it is your child?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,