“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, October 14, 2013

The Permanent War Party and the corrupt US Corporate Media - the media continues to present former military and government officials as venerated experts without informing the public of their industry ties – the personal financial interests that may be shaping their opinions of what is in the national interest.

“…Nor does American have any interest in Syria beyond the well being of its people…” Barack Obama

HAT TIP: RUFUS
Conflicts of interest in the Syria debate
An analysis of the defense industry ties of experts and think tanks who commented on military intervention

October 11, 2013
Authors: Gin Armstrong, Whitney Yax, Kevin Connor
Media contact: Kevin Connor, 718-916-0925, kevin@public-accountability.org
Read coverage: Washington Post
This report has been updated – please see the correction.
During the public debate around the question of whether to attack Syria, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush, made a series of high-profile media appearances. Hadley argued strenuously for military intervention in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, and authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined “To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.”
In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria. Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert.
Though Hadley’s undisclosed conflict is particularly egregious, it is not unique. The following report documents the industry ties of Hadley, 21 other media commentators, and seven think tanks that participated in the media debate around Syria. Like Hadley, these individuals and organizations have strong ties to defense contractors and other defense- and foreign policy-focused firms with a vested interest in the Syria debate, but they were presented to their audiences with a veneer of expertise and independence, as former military officials, retired diplomats, and independent think tanks.
The report offers a new look at an issue raised by David Barstow’s 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series on the role military analysts played in promoting the Bush Administration’s narrative on Iraq. In addition to exposing coordination with the Pentagon, Barstow found that many cable news analysts had industry ties that were not disclosed on air.
If the recent debate around Syria is any guide, media outlets have done very little to address the gaps in disclosure and abuses of the public trust that Barstow exposed. Some analysts have stayed the same, others are new, and the issues and range of opinion are different. But the media continues to present former military and government officials as venerated experts without informing the public of their industry ties – the personal financial interests that may be shaping their opinions of what is in the national interest.
This report details these ties, in addition to documenting the industry backing of think tanks that played a prominent role in the Syria debate. It reveals the extent to which the public discourse around Syria was corrupted by the pervasive influence of the defense industry, to the point where many of the so-called experts appearing on American television screens were actually representatives of companies that profit from heightened US military activity abroad. The threat of war with Syria may or may not have passed, but the threat that these conflicts of interest pose to our public discourse – and our democracy – is still very real.

Key Findings
The media debate surrounding the question of whether to launch a military attack on Syria in August and September of 2013 was dominated by defense industry-backed experts and think tanks. These individuals and organizations are linked to dozens of defense and intelligence contractors, defense-focused investment firms, and diplomatic consulting firms with strong defense ties, yet these business ties were rarely disclosed on air or in print. This report brings transparency to these largely undocumented and undisclosed connections.
For more on the methodology used to identify commentators, think tanks, and industry ties, please see the “Methodology” section below.
Commentators
  • 22 commentators. The report identifies 22 commentators who weighed in during the Syria debate in large media outlets, and who have current industry ties that may pose conflicts of interest. The commentators are linked to large defense and intelligence contractors like Raytheon, smaller defense and intelligence contractors like TASC, defense-focused investment firms like SCP Partners, and commercial diplomacy firms like the Cohen Group.
  • 111 appearances, 13 attempts at disclosure. These commentators made 111 appearances – as op-ed authors, quoted experts, or news show guests – in major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg, and the Washington Post. Despite the commentators’ apparent financial and professional stakes in military action, major media outlets typically failed to disclose these relationships, noting them, often incompletely, in only 13 of the 111 appearances (see table below for media outlet breakdown).
  • Varying types of conflicts of interest. In some cases, commentators have undisclosed industry ties that pose significant and direct conflicts of interest. In other cases, the undisclosed ties were less direct, but still suggest that the commentator has a financial interest in continuing heightened levels of US military action abroad. A number of consultants are included because their business relationships are foreign policy-focused and likely involve work for defense clients, though most do not disclose client lists. One consulting relationship highlighted in the report is with the Department of Defense – not an industry connection, but a significant conflict of interest.
  • Largely supportive of military action. The commentators profiled have largely expressed support for military action in Syria, and many have framed the decision as an issue of national security. However, the opinions they expressed were not uniformly supportive of military action. Several commentators identified, such as Robert Scales, opposed military intervention outright. (see correction)
The following is a selection of commentators, profiled at greater length below, who have multiple undisclosed ties to the defense industry and have expressed strong support for military intervention in Syria in multiple appearances:
  • Jack Keane has strongly supported striking Syria on PBS, the BBC, and Fox News. Though Keane is currently a director of General Dynamics, one of the world’s largest military services companies, and a venture partner of SCP Partners, a defense-focused investment firm, only his military and think tank affiliations were identified in all sixteen appearances.
  • General Anthony Zinni has expressed support for military action in Syria during three appearances on CNN and one on CBS This Morning, and has been quoted in the Washington Post. Though a director with major defense contractor BAE Systems and an advisor to defense-focused private equity firm DC Capital Partners, only Zinni’s military experience was considered relevant by the media outlets interviewing him all five times.
  • Stephen Hadley has voiced strong support for a strike on Syria in appearances on Bloomberg TV, Fox News, and CNN, as well as in a Washington Post op-ed. Though he has a financial stake in a Syria strike as a current Raytheon board member, and is also a principal at consulting firm RiceHadleyGates, he was identified all four times only as a former National Security Advisor to George W. Bush.
  • Frances Townsend has appeared on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 six times strongly favoring action in Syria. Though Townsend holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews & Forbes and Monument Capital Group, and serves as an advisor to defense contractor Decision Sciences, only her roles as a CNN national security analyst and member of the CIA and DHS advisory committees were revealed in all six appearances.
Think Tanks
  • Seven think tanks. The report profiles seven prominent think tanks with significant industry ties that weighed in on intervention in Syria. These think tanks were cited 144 times in major US publications from August 7th, 2013 to September 6th, 2013. The Brookings Institution, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and The Institute for the Study of War were the most cited think tanks from our dataset.
The report also includes profiles on the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Enterprise Institute, the Atlantic Council, and the Center for American Progress. Each profile includes a selection of commentary from analysts associated with the think tank and a selection of defense industry ties. These ties are both organizational (corporate sponsorships and donations) and individual (ties through their directors, advisors, trustees, fellows, and analysts).
Methodology
Commentators were identified in articles, videos and transcripts gathered from Factiva and Google News searches, for the period August 20, 2013 to September 18, 2013. Research on the commentators’ backgrounds was then conducted, drawing on data from SEC EDGAR, news archive searches, online biographies, and other sources. Commentators with current industry ties were selected for inclusion in the report. Each piece was reviewed for relevance and only those directly related to discussions around Syria were counted toward the total. Potentially conflicted commentators were included in our dataset regardless of their support or opposition to military intervention. Where possible, videos of appearances were reviewed to determine whether industry affiliations were noted on-screen in a way that would not appear in transcripts.
The think tanks were identified through a review of articles appearing in major US publications for a slightly different period, from August 7th, 2013 to September 6th, 2013, and included the keyword “Syria” in the headline and/or lede paragraph. Searches were conducted using the Factiva database. Each article was reviewed for relevance to the Syria intervention debates. Only articles directly related to discussions around Syria were counted toward the total. Research was then conducted on the think tanks’ industry ties through reviews of annual reports, news articles, SEC data, and sources such as Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/), a database which includes extensive information on some of the think tanks profiled in the report.
In each case, data was reviewed and compiled on LittleSis.org (the opposite of Big Brother), PAI’s investigative research platform. The data in this report is available on LittleSis.org. At times, citations link to LittleSis.org profiles; additional, original sources for information about these individuals and organizations can be found on these pages.
Commentators and think tanks were included if they had significant current ties to the following types of firms:
  • Defense and intelligence contractors.
  • Investment firms with a significant defense or intelligence focus.
  • Consulting firms with a significant focus on defense, intelligence, or commercial diplomacy.
Some consulting firms identified in the report function as shadow diplomatic firms, working for foreign governments and corporate clients seeking overseas business. These firms, such as the Albright Stonebridge Group, usually do not disclose their clients, so it can be difficult to discern their defense industry ties. In the absence of disclosure, this report includes these firms, and notes their defense ties where possible. Regardless of whether they have defense clients, principals at these firms likely have business relationships that complicate their public personas as expert foreign policy commentators.

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE AS TO HOW THE US GOVERNMENT EXAMINES ITSELF WITHOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST:


205 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Hard to tell sometimes. The media is generally thought these days to be in Obama's pocket.

      All I got to say is an argument must stand on its own regardless of who is making the argument.

      Might be better not to even have the name of the person making the argument, just the bare argument itself.

      Fudd

      Delete




  2. It's a little disingenuous to cast either party as the permanent war party. The dems were in control when we got into WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It is good to know the background of the person doing some talking.

    But because someone works for the defense industry does not make his argument automatically wrong, any more than someone who works for MoveOn or some lefty think tank is automatically right.

    The argument must stand by itself.

    Having said that I post the following about the criminality of the Obama Administration -


    October 13, 2013
    America's New Obstruction Of Justice Crisis
    By Chriss Street


    The Congressional probe to determine who was responsible for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) policy of discriminatory audits and/or retaliatory examinations of conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status just became a criminal obstruction of justice matter. A series of emails released on October 8th by Congressional investigators documents that the former IRS manager of tax exempt determinations, Lois Lerner, and the top IRS official for ObamaCare, Sarah Hall Ingram, disclosed confidential taxpayer information to Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Jeanne Lambrew and White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz regarding churches who filed suit against ObamaCare's contraception mandate. This action appears to be criminal, but if the motivation was intimidation, the penalties would skyrocket for obstruction of justice.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/americas_new_obstruction_of_justice_crisis.html#ixzz2hfkRG9y4

    Fudd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe we are deep in felony territory with the above.

      Fudd

      Delete
    2. Henry A. KissingerMon Oct 14, 02:00:00 AM EDT


      "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."


      Delete
    3. :) That's good.

      Fudd

      Delete
    4. Get 'em under RICO, triple penalties. Giuliani stomped on the Five Families real good that way.

      Delete

  3. It's a little disingenuous to cast either party as the permanent war party. The dems were in control when we got into WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It is good to know the background of the person doing some talking.


    I think the very term “permanent war party” implies that regardless of which party is in office, the “permanent war party” rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farmer Fudd still sees the world in a binary mode.
      Either/or
      Black/White
      Republican/Democrat

      He is still fully invested in the politics of perceived dichotomy, still in denial of reality regarding the singularity of Federal power.

      He remains an idiot, even if he has learned his name.

      Delete
    2. Well, they are not ruling too well right now. We are not in Syria in any big way. We haven't attacked Iran. We pulled that anti-missile defense system out of Poland, and we are supporting the MB in Egypt. We didn't get into a fight with Venezuela and we've not attacked North Korea, and our ties with Israel are weakening.


      Nice topic.

      g'nite

      Fudd

      Delete
    3. Signing out,I see rat is still dogging my every comment, my every move. Stalking.

      It is a little disconcerting, being followed by a man who needs counseling.

      Fudd out!!

      Delete
    4. It is supposed to be disconcerting, you fucking fascist.

      There is not going to be any respite.
      Not until the public apologies are made.

      Stay the Course!

      Delete

    5. "Never, never, never give up."

      Delete
    6. You know what, I don’t want to know, but knock it off, both of you.

      Delete

    7. "What kind of people do they think we are?
      Is it possible they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?

      Delete
    8. It sounds like desert rat really does need counseling.

      Delete
    9. desert ratMon Oct 14, 02:20:00 AM EDT
      It is supposed to be disconcerting, you fucking fascist.


      Rat's usage of vulgar words and hostility to others shows that he is allowed to be a brute, thug with Deuce's tacit approval.

      Delete
    10. ...said the man who calls me a Nazi cunt for not supporting a yearly jackpot military aid payout to one of the top ten arms exporters in the world.

      Delete
    11. Sorry, never used the c word.

      I called you a liar and an anti-semite.

      The C word? not me.

      But wait, which name were you using then, it's so hard to KNOW which one is you. Whoever or what ever you are.

      Delete
    12. And whatever word I called you it certainly was not about foreign military aid to Israel.

      Delete
    13. I have called you a Israel hating Jew bashing troll....

      Yep...

      Delete
    14. I also have accused you of misdirection, lying and generally being a shit.

      But I guess I already said that.

      How's that fake cancer doing?

      Delete
    15. I am sorry, LEECH. Not Leach, but when you were pretending to be a lesbian you certainly sounded like a leach.

      Delete
    16. My point about Rat's usage of vulgar terms was that he was scolding all of US about using those exact terms.

      I wasnt excusing any vulgar terms that I might have called you. You, a self confessed liar deserve all sorts of "terms".

      You earned them.

      Wear them proud.

      Delete
    17. No sense in calling you a "twat" since for years many here thought you were a man......

      Delete
    18. And still we DONT really KNOW anything about you. Other than what you tell us. Or lie to us about.

      Heck, some here think Rat does his posting from INSIDE a prison... Anything is possible.

      Delete

    19. "Don't Treat Your Thoughts as Facts"


      Delete

    20. "Do your feelings scream at you? Feelings do carry information but you can give them the wrong meaning. Be careful how you interpret them as it ain't necessarily so. Feelings can be traitors, traps, and betrayers if they are not based on external reality.

      For example, paranoia is a belief accompanied with high anxiety and distorted thinking that you are not safe and someone is out to get you. If there is no data to back up the fears, it is paranoia. If there is good reason about being harmed, it's not. The mind when stressed can play tricks on you, making up anxiety-ridden stories.

      Delete

    21. “Sometimes you can see things happen right in front of your eyes and still jump to the wrong conclusions.”


      This certainly applies to WiO ....

      Delete
  4. EXCEPTIONALISM

    WASHINGTON — Leaders at World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings on Sunday pleaded, warned and cajoled: the United States must raise its debt ceiling and reopen its government or risk “massive disruption the world over,” as Christine Lagarde, the fund’s managing director, put it.

    The fiscal problems of the United States overshadowed the official agendas for the meetings, with representatives from dozens of countries — including two of Washington’s most important economic partners, Saudi Arabia and China — publicly expressing worries about what was happening on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good, let them worry. Good for them, good for us. It'll raise borrowing rates, and the US will finally get serious about reducing the debt.

      Delete
  5. WHY IS KERRY REPORTING IN TO AIPAC?

    The US secretary of state, John Kerry, said on Sunday the window for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear programme was "cracking open", but added that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

    Kerry made the comments in a speech made via satellite from London to a foreign policy conference in California staged by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organisation in the US. The State Department released excerpts of Kerry's prepared remarks.

    Also on Sunday, Kerry and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, held talks on Iran, Syria, Egypt, the Middle East peace process and other matters.

    The focus on Iran's nuclear programme comes before the start of negotiations between the Islamic Republic and the five permanent UN security council members and Germany, which are set for Tuesday and Wednesday in Geneva.

    Earlier on Sunday, Iran said it would not allow any of its enriched uranium stockpile to be shipped abroad, but said it could sanction other curbs on its nuclear programme in order to reassure the international community that it is not interested in building a bomb.

    "Right now, the window for diplomacy is cracking open. But I want you to know that our eyes are open, too," Kerry said in his remarks to Aipac. Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the citizen-members of AIPAC take their RIGHT as citizens to be involved in their government seriously.

      Unlike the majority of Americans who just dont give a hoot.

      Delete
    2. Barack Obama will say if Iran tests a nuke it will cross a red line. Iran will test a nuke. Barack Obama will get very cross. Whoops, it's mid-January 2017, sorry, out of time. Over to you Hillary.

      Delete

  6. AIPAC CALLS A MANDATORY FORMATION FOR THE US CONGA LINE


    Unforgettable Experience

    The AIPAC Policy Conference is the largest gathering of America’s pro-Israel community. The conference highlights the importance of the partnership between the United States and Israel and showcases the two nations’ common interests in making the world a better place.

    Through demonstrations of groundbreaking Israeli innovations that are saving American lives, keynote speeches by top leaders from both the United States and Israel – such as President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, Vice President Joe Biden and others – emotional and inspiring moments on stage, smaller and more intimate educational sessions, and dynamic interactive exhibits Policy Conference attendees experience the full scale of pro-Israel activism in just three days.

    The conference culminates in the opportunity for delegates to lobby their members of Congress to support legislation that encourages a stronger relationship between the United States and Israel. Policy Conference puts you in the driver’s seat and charges you with the responsibility to impact change.

    Who Attends the Conference

    More than 12,000 pro-Israel Americans
    More than two-thirds of Congress
    More than 2,000 students from 449 campuses
    242 Student Government Presidents from all 50 states
    More than 250 Synagogue delegations
    Jews, Christians, African Americans, Latinos from all 50 states

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It just gets bigger by the year, Christians, Jews, Lesbians, College Kids, Truck Drivers, Small Business folks...

      All support AIPAC's goals of a strong American and a SAFE Israel

      Delete
    2. If you want someone to be in your herd, then find a way to condition them. Fear works best for creating sheeple.

      Delete
    3. Fear Islam, fear Iran, fear North Korea, fear an EMP attack, fear, fear fear!

      That is the chorus we hear from the AIPAC choir!


      When the truth is plain as that nose on your face.

      We have nothing o fear, but fear itself!

      Delete
  7. Iranian.com

    Oct 13, 2013 - Secretary of State John Kerry has no plans to attend Iran nuclear talks with six world powers due to get underway in Geneva Tuesday, there are hints Kerry may decide to do so on his own, or to pursue a follow up meeting with his Iranian counterpart soon.

    “Yes, there is a chance, but no decision has been made and, for now, it is not happening,” one US official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor Sunday. “His aides are advising no, but Kerry often makes these types of calls on his own.”

    Kerry “has no plans” to come to Geneva, a State Department official said Sunday.

    Kerry met with chief international negotiator, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, in London Sunday, to discuss the upcoming Iran talks, Syria, and Middle East peace, the State Department said.

    “Right now, the window for diplomacy is cracking open,” Kerry said in videotaped remarks to a national conference of the American Israel Public Affairs (AIPAC) meeting in California Sunday. “But I want you to know that our eyes are open too.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for your service Asshole
    The Pentagon has been holding phony “arrival” ceremonies for fallen soldiers at a base in Hawaii for over seven years, according to recent statements made by the United States Department of Defense to NBC News.

    For nearly a decade, military personnel transported flag-draped coffins containing the bodies of troops killed in action from seemingly just-arrived cargo planes during ceremonies near hangar 35 at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

    In reality, however, the remains of those soldiers may have spent upwards of months in military custody before being paraded out during partially-fabricated ceremonial presentations carried out by the government’s Joint Prisoner of War Accounting Command, or JPAC.

    Bill Dedman, an investigative reporter for NBC, said that the Pentagon confirmed this week “that no honored dead were in fact arriving, and that the planes used in the ceremonies often couldn't even fly but were towed into position.”

    The Pentagon has since released a statement of its own clarifying the falsity of such events.

    “These pre-planned ceremonies are symbolic in nature, with the purpose of honoring those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our nation,” the Pentagon admitted.

    “Part of the ceremony involves symbolically transferring the recovered remains from an aircraft to a vehicle for follow-on transportation to the lab. Many times, static aircraft are used for the ceremonies, as operational requirements dictate flight schedules and aircraft availability. This transfer symbolizes the arrival of our fallen service members. It is important to note that recovered remains ceremoniously transferred from the aircraft to the CIL vehicle have been in the lab undergoing forensic analysis to determine identity,” the statement continued.

    World War II veteran Jesse Baker told Dedman that he attended at least 50 of the ceremonies, and always thought the bodies of his fellow servicemen were being saluted as soon as they returned on US soil from abroad.

    "If I have been fooled, I am going to be a very pissed-off citizen, because I've been going for years," Baker said. "And I know a lot of guys who are going to be pissed off. ... They're out there honoring warriors."

    Rick Stone, a former deputy chief with JPAC who spoke with Dedman for the NBC report, said the reality regarding the troops’ final arrival was much less sensational that the ceremonies suggest.

    “When remains are brought back by JPAC staff, Stone said, they arrive from the airport in a plastic box in an employee's private vehicle, with no ceremony,” Dedman reported after meeting with him.

    "It's an open fraud inside JPAC," Stone said of the ceremonies. "But it's more than just the arrival ceremony. The fraud is really their inability to bring closure to more families. Our noble mission is to go find some of these kids, and this thing is so fouled up we don't even recognize the mission."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Replies
    1. You do not honor the dead by dishonoring the living.

      Delete
    2. What we need is a REVOLUTION.

      Delete
    3. The United States had a revolution, in 2008
      That revolution was ratified in 2012.

      Farmer Fudd remains behind the curve.

      Delete
    4. Then there was the 518-lb man who was told to buy two airline seats...and ended up with one in row 17 and one in row 19

      Delete
  10. IRAQ


    A string of bombings in mostly Shia-majority cities across Iraq killed at least 42 people and wounded dozens, officials said, a grim reminder of the government's failure to stem the uptick in violence that is feeding sectarian tensions in the country.

    There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the latest attacks on Sunday, but car bombs are frequently used by al-Qaeda's Iraq branch.

    The group and other Sunni fighters often target Shia civilians in an effort to undermine the Shia-led government.

    Al-Qaeda's ideology considers Shia Muslims heretics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there's no claim of responsibility they default to the Great Satan.

      Delete
    2. Iran calls America the "Great Satan", get your islamic republics straight...

      Delete
    3. Iraq is a Shi'ite theocracy who allows Iran to pass weapons through to Assad. Get your players in the Muslim civil war right.

      Delete
  11. AFGHANISTAN

    An Afghan man wearing an Afghan army uniform shot at US soldiers in south-eastern Afghanistan, killing at least one serviceman on Sunday, local officials and the Nato-led coalition said.

    The so-called "insider attack" in Paktika province is the fourth in less than a month and is likely to strain already tense ties between coalition troops and their allies, with most foreign troops scheduled to withdraw by the end of next year. A Reuters tally shows Sunday's incident was the tenth this year, and took the death toll of foreign personnel to 15.

    "A man wearing an Afghan army uniform shot at Americans in Sharana city [the provincial capital] near the governor's office," said an Afghan official, adding that two soldiers had been hit by the gunfire.

    The Nato-led coalition confirmed one soldier had been shot by a man in security forces uniform, but did not comment on his nationality or whether the Afghan was wearing a army uniform.

    Insider attacks threaten to further undermine waning support for the war among Western nations sending troops to Afghanistan. A similar flurry of attacks last year prompted the Nato-led force to briefly suspend all joint activities and take steps to curb interaction between foreign and Afghan troops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solution: Segregate the forces in preparation for a pullout. That way there's no more "insiders" to attack. Everyone in the Umma is an outsider. That's certainly how they view we'uns infidels.

      Delete
    2. Deuce doesnt understand "Umma".

      Maybe you should educate him on that.

      Delete
  12. Would that be the same Zinni so critical of President Bush and Israel for their involvement in the affairs of their neighbors, like, Iraq?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are trying to root out these anti-Semitic moles who somehow attain flag rank in the US armed forces, but UCMJ 88 which tells them to shut their mouth about political leadership in the United States makes it hard to find them until they've already been discharged and show up as a talking head on CNN.

      Delete
  13. By definition among historians, a "revolution" is the "violent" overthrow of one system by another.

    While Mr. Obama appears to be pushing the country toward revolution, we are not quite there.

    Earlier, someone enumerated the wars during which Democrats held the presidency. In doing so, he omitted Woodrow Wilson during WWI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wars, like recessions, can be inherited. It's not fair to lay WW2 on Truman. So let's enumerate the wars STARTED by Democrats.

      1. Madison, War of 1812
      2. Polk, Mexican War
      3. Wilson, First World War
      4. Roosevelt, Second World War (okay, Hitler started it, but you get the idea)
      5. Truman, Korean War
      6. Johnson, Vietnam War (Ton Kin incident, mass escalation from crisis to war)
      7. Clinton, Serbia air campaign, independence of Kosovo established by force
      8. Obama, doubled down on Asscrackistan, Libya revolution

      Delete
    2. We have overlooked the Civil War.

      Delete
    3. Well, that was started by President Jeff, but he doesn't count. If he stayed in the Union he'd surely have been a Copperhead Democrat.

      Delete
    4. Illinois gave Lincoln 50.69% of the popular vote and Douglas 47.17%.

      Delete
    5. Allen, don't buy Deuce's hype that Lincoln started the war. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter one week after Abe took office. The President swore an oath to put down insurrection and protect gummint property.

      Delete
    6. Yep, that is right!

      Mr Lincoln had to burn Atlanta ....

      .... to save it!

      Delete
    7. Well, Sherman had to burn Atlanta to destroy it. Saving it wasn't on his radar. He especially had it in for Columbia SC.

      Delete
    8. In what is sometimes referred to as the "Revolution of 1800," Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams. The election was a realigning election that ushered in a ...


      Thomas Jefferson called his election "the Revolution of 1800" because it marked the first time that power in America passed from one party to ...


      Then there was the Industrial Revolution, not shot fired in an organized fashion.
      In a definition of revolution, violence is not mentioned, as a required factor.

      A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

      Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

      The election of the son a of bi-racial couple, as President, in and for the United States of America ...
      That was revolutionary.

      The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy and technology much more than political systems ....

      ..... they are often known as social revolutions. ....
      (note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville).


      That is what the election of 2008 reflected, a social revolution in the United States.
      The results of that revolution, ratified in 2012.

      Some amongst US would like to counter that revolution,
      Those folks are referred to as "Contras".


      Delete
    9. This paragraph should have been italizied.
      Mea Culpa

      Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

      Delete
    10. There goes Rat redefining words and their meanings as he types.

      This is why you cannot discuss ANYTHING with Rat. He will redefine the terms after the fact just so he can "WIN" his meaningless argument.

      Delete
    11. I will stick with Jacques Barzun, perhaps the greatest American historian of the century.

      You are mistaken about the Industrial Revolution being peaceful. Try Paul Johnson.

      Delete
    12. Paul Johnson is good.

      Glad you mentioned him.

      Fudd

      Delete
    13. THE BIRTH OF THE MODERN (1991). Paul Johnson -- 1095 pages --pack a lunch

      Delete
  14. The real permanent war party in the world is the islamists.

    They've been at it for 1400 years.

    It's in their book.

    Which they take all too seriously.

    90% of the conflicts in the world today involve the islamists vs. somebody else.

    Thankfully a good deal of their permanent violence is between their own sects.

    Farmers United to Defend Decency

    Fudd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for them, there's a thing called Karma, or Tao, or the Law of Unintended Consequences. You may come across as a bad-ass in prison, getting tattooed with "La Raza" and 666 and skulls and shit all over your face to cover the knife scars and broken nose, but later when you get out of the can interview for Hewlett-Packard it doesn't go over so well.

      Delete
    2. The Greeks invaded Asia Minor well before 1,400 years ago. The Muzzies did not start that..
      The Greeks did

      The Jews invaded Palestine, even further back than that.
      There is no blame or responsibility that can be accrued to the Muslims, for the genocide instigated by the Israeli

      So... if one were to look for the "original" cause of the conflict ...
      It is the invasion of Palestine, the destruction of the Canaanite people, by Jacob.

      That was what, some 3,000 years ago.
      The initial invasion of the Middle East by a "Western" political power?

      Or were those Israeli, some 3,000 years ago not part of the "Western World"?

      Delete
    3. There folks the Bible says invaded Canaan weren't just Judahites but twelve other tribes, and the Bible says they came out of slavery in Egypt. Nothing in Egyptian history about that. What really happened was that there were some Canaanites with an injunction not to raise pigs (this is found by archaeology, no pig bones in their villages) who sometimes got along with their neighbors, sometimes didn't, this was standard back then. They had a calf as their god. The ones in the southern area called him Yahweh, the ones up north called him El Shaddai, or God of the Mountain, and worshiped him on hilltops. They were briefly unified in a kingdom ruled by Saul, David, and Solomon, but under Solomon's son they split in two much like the USA and CSA did once. During this son's reign, a woman in his court wrote a novel ostensibly about Yahweh, but she had a kind of post-mortem crush on David, and that's what it was really about. There were stories of gardens and serpents and Jacob wrassling God. This is the Yawhist, or "J" document. Men come off as dorks in her novel, women like Eve and Rebecca and Tamar are unfathomably cool. There are incidents that tend to make the southern part of the region more favored, with digs at the north. Up there, another "Elohist" document was developed. Sargon II invaded the north in 720 and carted everyone off, they intermarried with the Medeans. Later Nebuchadnezzar did the same thing to the south, but he did not have a policy of eliminating tribal identity. The scribes put together the J and E document, added some priestly stuff, stories about heroes like Samson, and even incorporated stories they picked up from the Babylonians, such as the Great Flood in Gilgamesh tablet 11. To cap it off, they inverted the 4 "evil days" of the Babylonian lunar month, but retained their name: shabat. Sabbath days, when instead of staying home to avoid bad luck they stayed home to honor the Creator, who now made the world in a single week. The result was the Torah. Later, some more priests "found" the book of Deuteronomy and they added that too. It said the Jews were supposed to whomp on the ass of everyone around them, and the reason God was giving them a hard time was that they didn't. So now they say it's their Holy Land, but they just made all that up, see?

      Delete
    4. You mean it's in the Jewish book, to propagate an endless war over that beachfront property?
      A book that predates the birth of Mohammad, or the founding of Islam!

      You say there was war, conquest and genocide before Mohammad was even born!

      Impossible! That is not how it is described in the American Thinker!

      Delete
    5. They need to write that beachfront property off and just focus on Boca Raton. Save themselves and everyone else a lot of grief, and I'm sure YMMV would smile.

      Delete
    6. ymmv
      Literally means "Your mileage may vary" but is often used in forum talk meaning that your results will vary
      "There is a great sale going on at the store, most under $10, but YMMV"

      Delete
    7. Robert Anton WilsonMon Oct 14, 12:32:00 PM EDT


      “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.”

      Delete
    8. YMMV is the Tetragrammaton for your deity who started out as a golden calf worshiped at Sechem and/or Bethel. He's the one your neighbor Canaanites now call Allah, who started out as a moon god worshiped at the Kaaba. Jesus said it's his daddy Abba. Mormons say he started out as a human being. Chief Shy Bear calls him the Great Spirit. Deepak Chopra calls him the Great Quantum Wavefunction because that sounds cool. The faithless are anxious for him to do a sign because they haven't seen him do anything lately. Pat Robertson thinks he flooded out Colorado as the penalty for legalizing pot. Your mileage may vary.

      Delete
    9. Sorry Ms T had to keep up with your bastardization..

      The term tetragrammaton (from Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning "four letters")[1][2] refers to the Hebrew theonym (Hebrew: יהוה‎) transliterated to the Latin letters YHWH.

      I the LAME Latin translation "YHWH" but that's not what you typed. You typed "YMMV" Which stands for "your mileage may vary"

      you are amazingly stupid.

      Delete
    10. I didn't want to eff the ineffable. Some Rabbi might have issued a fatwa and made me sing in the back of a bus.

      Delete
  15. Meanwhile, the latest reliable poll found that 90% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the term "Redskins" - while 90% of all Americans ARE offended by the "Washington".

    :)

    Good sense still prevails at times....

    Fudd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as long as it's not the other Washington. The good Washington.

      Delete
    2. I am not sure what relevance the names of the teams in the Negro Football League has to do with Muslims, but it will come to me.

      :):):)

      Delete
    3. That would be the Washington Homies.

      Delete
  16. (Continued from the previous thread)

    Quirk: Your map only shows me that Stevenson wasn't very popular.

    There is other information on that map aside from the plurality of Electoral votes. You will note that Stevenson only carried the deep South, Kentucky, and West By God Fucking Virginia. So it looks very much like Obama-McCain, with Ike standing in for Obama. I realize the parties have done a grand reversal in the 1970s, but there are ideologies which are consistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      I agree 'there are ideologies that are consistent'. But much of the country has changed. IMO, Ike was no RINO when he was president and it is unfair to call him such.

      Just as Reagan said, 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me,' Ike could easily say the same thing. He didn't leave the Republican Party. It left him. Ike wouldn't recognize the idiots we have running the GOP today.

      As for the 'grand reversal', I saw this comment a while back and I agree with much of it. (To Follow)

      .

      Delete
    2. Today Ike would be just like Chuck Hegel, and J Street would do a full-court press to block him from being SecDef.

      Delete

    3. .

      (Cribbed comment)

      Whoops, I am having trouble with google search. I plug in a question and keep getting sent to some advertising site.

      Can't find what I wanted to link. However, the points being made was that there really wasn't that much of a shift during the 70's. When it came, it was 20 years later and came because of economic and social reasons rather than racial issues. As the Democrat party became more liberal, southern Democrats found themselves more disenfranchised.

      Without the GOP, LBJ's 1964 Civil Rights Act would have never have passed. Likewise, Nixon's record in supporting blacks was impressive. The shift of blacks to the Democratic party took place in the 1930's. FDR got 23 percent of the vote when he first ran. When he was elected in 1936 he got 71% of their vote. Eisenhower got only about 39 percent of the black vote in 1952. By the time 1964 had rolled around, most black voters were still voting Democrat.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      Today, the GOP is being run by a bunch of neocon nitwits, the same bastards this stream warns of, the same MIC Ike warned about.

      IMO, they are the real RINOs, hypocrites who have hijacked the party. But again IMO, you can't compare pols from different eras and say one is a RINO and the other not. While Ike was president he was the GOP.

      .

      Delete
    5. As was John McCain when he was their nominee for the Presidency.
      As he still is, today, being their last Standard Bearer standing.

      If a person claims to be a Republican, but does not stand with Jon McCain, they are the RINO, not "Big" John.

      Delete
    6. Voting Rights Act 1964
      House Republicans Yea 83%
      Senate Republicans Yea 80%

      Delete
    7. The singularity of power in the Federal government, illustrated again.

      Delete
    8. Robert A. HeinleinMon Oct 14, 02:28:00 PM EDT


      "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."


      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. .

      If a person claims to be a Republican, but does not stand with Jon McCain, they are the RINO, not "Big" John.

      Simplistic and nonsensical.

      Even Republicans can't agree on what being a Republican is.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/video/inplay/the-republican-party-is/2013/10/11/f10aa608-32b1-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_video.html

      Proof of this is that Boehner refuses to bring the Senate proposals on the government shutdown and the debt limit to the floor. He knows he can't hold his own caucus. It's also the reason he refused to allow some in the caucus to attend the meeting with Obama.

      Only a fool would consider the term RINO as anything but an ad hominem, a logical fallacy designed to attack an opponent, someone who disagrees with you on one or more issues, a tactic used to delegitimize him. The typical Bureau of Truth nonsense we get from the munchkins in OZ.

      Unfortunately, some of the intellectually challenged miss the obvious and buy into the fallacy.

      .

      Delete
  17. Concentrated solar thermal is again making the news, with the world’s largest parabolic trough array with thermal storage – opening for business in Arizona.

    The 280 MW Solana Generating Station constructed by Spanish group Abengoa has six hours of molten storage capacity that will allow it to produce energy into the evening, and deliver output according to the needs of the customer.

    “Solana is a monumental step forward in solar energy production,” said Don Brandt, the president of APS, the local utility. “This provides a huge boost toward our goal to make Arizona the solar capital of America.”

    Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-storage-comes-online/#WeowWk5XcW41VDFv.99

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The opening of Solana is one of three major new projects that are coming on stream, as CSP begins to recover the ground lost, and projects ceded, to solar PV when that technology delivered massive cost reductions in recent years.

      The 375 MW Ivanpah project, the largest solar power tower in the world, has delivered to the grid for the first time and is due to start full operations within the next few months, as is the 110 MW Crescent Dunes facility in Nevada, which will be the world’s largest solar power tower project with molten salt.

      Also, the first commercial scale solar thermal plant with storage, the Gemasolar plant in Spain, recently marked its second anniversary by delivering electricity 24/7 for 36 consecutive days. On Thursday, Dr Keith Lovegrove, the head of solar thermal at Australia’s IT Power, said CSP with storage is ”virtually unbeatable” as a technology, and the costs are coming down quickly.

      The Solana plant’s CSP technology produces electricity by collecting the sun’s heat to create steam that turns conventional turbines. It has 2,700 parabolic trough mirrors,which follow the sun to focus its heat on a pipe containing a heat transfer fluid.

      This fluid, a synthetic oil, can reach a temperature of 735 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat transfer fluid then flows to steam boilers, where it heats water to create steam. The steam . . . . . . .

      Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-storage-comes-online/#WeowWk5XcW41VDFv.99

      Solar at Night

      Delete
    2. The utility alone will pay 14 ¢/kW·h . . . wait until they tack their costs on that and hand the bill to people with underwater mortgages in Vegas. Sure Rufus, sounds great. Meanwhile the Oil Drum writes their last post.

      Delete
    3. I never liked most of those assholes, anyway. They were severely anti-ethanol, and I suspect, funded by the oil industry.

      Delete
    4. Naw, they're just a modern iteration of a uniquely American tradition, the one-size-fits-all answer to everything. In the 1800s they would have been talking about golden plates and multiple wives. In the 1900s they would have been JFK assassination theorists.

      Delete
  18. WiO: No sense in calling you a "twat" since for years many here thought you were a man......

    I am profoundly disinterested in what you think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet? You reply. Over and over again.....

      Delete
    2. Interesting Ms T, Xenia, teresita et al...

      How long did it take you to google that retort?

      Delete
    3. I'm so profoundly disinterested in workplace wedding/baby showers.

      https://twitter.com/brianjharvey/statuses/314768894202097665

      Delete
    4. Must have saw that and cut and pasted it on your linux clipboard app.

      Save it for a witty retort.

      Delete
    5. Dietrich BonhoefferMon Oct 14, 12:34:00 PM EDT


      “By judging others we blind ourselves to our own evil and to the grace which others are just as entitled to as we are.?

      Delete

    6. “If people try to judge you or shame you for doing safe, consensual things that make you happy, I can guarantee you they're bad people.”

      Delete
    7. Diet was one of the good Germans of his day.

      He wrote that when they shoot me "for me it will be entering eternal life"
      .
      They did indeed finally shoot him.

      Fudd

      Delete
    8. WiO, that's a riot. Two words put together, not even college ones, and you think I googled them? And to prove it you googled them.

      Delete
    9. No I just doubt your ability to create any string of words not lifted from some source.

      Delete
    10. Skepticism is good. But two words, you're bound to get a few hits.

      Delete
  19. I am finding it amusing to watch Whackadoodle responding, perhaps 30-40% of the time, to anon posts that are not mine.

    But it is unfair so I will make a big push in the next few days to get a proper google account and picture up.

    Fudd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "To know what people really think, pay regard to what they do, rather than what they say."


      It has been months now, that our Anonymous friend has been making these complaints ...
      It has been within his power to remedy the situation the entire time.

      Delete

    2. "Each person has a choice; the choice to do as one may wish and as one wants remains with the individual. If a person sees no benefit to change, they will not change."

      Delete

    3. "There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept the responsibility for changing them."

      Delete
    4. Denial of responsibility

      This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:

      blaming: a direct statement shifting culpability and may overlap with denial of fact ...

      minimizing: an attempt to make the effects or results of an action appear to be less harmful than they may actually be, or ...

      justifying: when someone takes a choice and attempts to make that choice look okay due to their perception of what is "right" in a situation. ...

      regression: when someone acts in a way unbecoming of their age (e.g. whining, temper tantrum, etc.)

      Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.

      Delete
    5. The fascist Farmer Fudd has used the "Anonymous" tag to avoid responsibility.
      Then blames others for misapplied accreditations.

      Anonymous then utilizes his famous bawhahaha, when no other remedy presents itself!

      So we see both "blaming" and "regression" in the actions of Anonymous ...
      .... the fascist Farmer Fudd, as he attempts to avoid personal responsibility.

      Funny stuff.

      Delete
    6. Well, now that I have arranged to use a Google log in, Deuce is free to lock down the site and keep Anonymous Coward out.

      Delete
    7. Unless you are the anonymous coward?

      Delete
    8. desert ratMon Oct 14, 01:40:00 PM EDT
      The fascist Farmer Fudd has used the "Anonymous" tag to avoid responsibility.
      Then blames others for misapplied accreditations.


      LOL kettle calling the pot black...

      Delete

    9. Pot can't call the kettle black
      Cause the trains all running on the same old track.

      You got trouble on your hands, trouble on your mind ...

      Jerry Jeff Walker

      Delete
    10. Hell, quot, I created Farmer Fudd.

      There was no one using that moniker, that avatar ....
      Until I credited some Anonymous posts to a character i invented.

      That some poor fool has embraced one of my characters, as his own.
      That he has projected his own persona, his own soul, into one of my characters ....

      Just an indication of the power of words, when properly applied.

      Delete

    11. “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”


      Delete
    12. Nothing was more satisfying ....
      Than to see Anonymous sign those posts with ....

      ..... "Fudd" .....

      Mission Accomplished!

      Delete
    13. A total mindfuck of the Anonymous poster was accomplished.
      He became the character, accepting and embracing himself as the object of derision.

      A technique that uses misdirection to lead to an ending that is at first glance completely unexpected or contradictory, but is coherent and reasonable given hindsight and careful observation of the clues presented.

      Famer Fudd . . . the target bought into the character, 100%

      Funny, funny stuff.

      Beyond funny, really. Closer to a rumbling belly laugh.

      Delete

  20. "You always do what you want to do. This is true with every act. You may say that you had to do something, or that you were forced to, but actually, whatever you do, you do by choice. Only you have the power to choose for yourself."

    ReplyDelete
  21. DR: Thomas Jefferson called his election "the Revolution of 1800" because it marked the first time that power in America passed from one party to ...

    Really? The Thomas Jefferson who was Washington's Secretary of State and Adams' Vice President got the top job and it was a revolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perception shapes reality, Ms T.

      One fellas revolution, just another fellas election.

      Or should we say ....

      Revolution is ...
      ... the election of the other fella?

      Delete
    2. What it tells me is that political hyperbole started early.

      Delete
  22. Replies
    1. Don McLean:

      Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
      The Byrds flew off with a fallout shelter,
      Eight miles high and falling fast.
      It landed foul on the grass.
      The players tried for a forward pass,
      With the jester on the sidelines in a cast...


      (The Jester was Dylan, taken out of the scene for two years by a motorcycle crash, Byrds were busted for pot -- "landed foul")

      Delete
  23. Gabby Giffords goes to a gun show, gets boo'ed, and has all the shocked indignation of a neo-con coming to this blog and being told Israel needs to pony up their own apartheid financing. But she wasn't very bright even before she got shot in the head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...returning to genuine apartheid...

      http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-devastating-palestinian-lives-homes-210105197.html

      Syria war 'devastating Palestinian lives and homes'

      Delete

    2. "There is no more Palestine. Finished."

      Delete
    3. I think the Syrian civil war is an equal opportunity devastator of homes and lives. Good thing McCain isn't President, we'd be getting fake caskets from there too.

      Delete
    4. The civil ar in Syria, hasn't helped the "Christian" communities, either ...

      Weeks after al-Qaeda-linked rebels seized the Christian town of Maaloula in northwest Syria, they now have captured Sednaya, an Aramaic-speaking village to the north of Damascus.

      Known for its large presence of Christian churches and monasteries, the village is under constant threat of Islamist militias from Yabroud and the Lebanese mountains, the Vatican news agency Fides reported.

      “This is banditry,” a religious-order priest who wished to remain anonymous told Fides. “But it is also a vendetta against Christians. We would not want to give a meaning to these acts of religious persecution, but they are targeted attacks that have the effect of creating confusion and fear among civilians.”


      Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/syrian-islamists-seize-aramaic-speaking-christian-/#ixzz2hjecD0ZA

      Delete

    5. "There is not one single place built in this country of Israel that did not have a former Arab population."

      Delete
    6. ...nonsense, Moshe Dayan..."There is not one single place built in this country of Israel that did not have a former Arab population"

      Quotation marks don't make so, boy. Let's have the link and the quote in full.

      Delete
    7. https://www.google.com/search?q=There+is+not+one+single+place+built+in+this+country+of+Israel+that+did+not+have+a+former+Arab+population.+dayan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

      Delete
    8. This what Dayan said, in the entirety. Yours is a misquotation with an agenda. If you are going to quote, do so accurately.

      We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.

      Delivered to Technion University students on March 19, 1969

      Delete
    9. We all are in agreement then.

      Palestine was FULL of Arabs

      Moshe tells us so
      There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.

      Delete
    10. Hardly. It was however full of ruins. You, desert rat, do not know that the Bedouins had this nasty habit of raiding Arab villages, stripping them of food and livestock. Often Arab men were murdered outright, while healthy females and children were sold into slavery or held by the Bedouins as slaves..

      Re: Ownership of Land

      At the end of the 19th century Sultan Abdülhamid II settled loyal Muslim populations (Circassians) from the Balkan and Caucasus among areas predominantly populated by the nomads in the regions of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, and also created several permanent Bedouin settlements, although the majority of them did not remain.[16]
      Ottoman authorities also initiated private acquisition of large plots of state land offered by the sultan to the absentee landowners (effendis). Numerous tenants were brought in order to cultivate the newly acquired lands. Often it came at the expense of the Bedouin lands.

      So, desert rat, the sultan owned all the land. Those who lived on it did so by his leave. Needing money, the sultan sold huge tracts of real estate to absentee landlords, who brought in serfs to work the land. Listen carefully, a serf or vassal or field hand is not the owner of the land.

      The sultan sold large estates to Jews at this time, with Baron Rothschild acting as broker. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, renegades and warlords attempted to nullify the Jewish rights to real property. The Jews have been resisting the bandits ever since.

      Because an Arab came from a certain village did not give him ownership of that village or any part thereof.

      As to the state of Palestine in the 1850s, shortly before Jews started to seriously move there, read Mark Twain. Palestine was a barren, unpopulated wasteland, other than grubby towns like Jerusalem..

      Delete
    11. Funny, that is not how either Moshe Dayan or David Ben Gurion described it, in the 1930's and 40's

      Delete

  24. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.
    Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
    -- Moshe Dayan, addressing the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Haifa. Quoted in Ha'aretz, 04/04/1969

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Upon examining all of the British and American monitoring of broadcasts [the BBC recorded them and kept transcripts as did the American government] in the area at that time, Irish journalist, Erskine Childers concluded that ..

      "There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948."

      Delete
  25. "In strategic terms, the settlements (in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) are of no importance."
    What makes them important, he added, was that "they constitute an obstacle, an unsurmountable obstacle to the establishment of an independent Arab State west of the river Jordan."
    --Binyamin Begin, (son of the late Menahem Begin and a prominent voice in the Likud party writing in 1991, Quoted on page 159 of Findley's Deliberate Deceptions)

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."--
    David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."-
    - Moshe Dayan, addressing the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Haifa. Quoted in Ha'aretz, 04/04/1969

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.
      ___Moshe Dayan

      Yea, I much prefer this to the original.

      Delete
    2. Still amounts to apartheid.

      If you find a particular rendition more "pleasing" in does not change the reality of apartheid in Palestine..

      Delete
    3. Error (Ha'aretz, Jonathan Lis, 5/17/06): Since 1967, almost no building permits have been issued for the eastern part of the capital.

      Fact: A study by Justus Reid Weiner of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs notes that "the average number of permits issued to Arabs annually during the past five years is 183 ...." In other words, 915 permits were issued between 1997 and 2001. Based a graph by the same source, about 3000 permits were issued between 1976 and 2001 ("Illegal Construction in Jerusalem: A Variation on an Alarming Global Phenomenon," 2003, pg. 94. Graph on pg. 158. Figures based on data supplied by Charles Kohn, the Jerusalem Municipality's Principal City Planner). In addition, "the percentage of applications that result in the issuance of a building permit is virtually identical in Arab and Jewish neighborhoods" (Weiner, pg. 94, citing data from Menachem Helman, head of the Jerusalem Municipality's GIS Center). Furthermore, the city has "authorize[d] the issuance of in excess of 33,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab sector," suggesting that the number of permits issued to the Arab sector could be much higher if only more individuals from that sector would apply for permits (Weiner, pg. 93).

      ...hardly apartheid, assuming you are not using your own personal dictionary. Given your problem with factual quotations, I would not be surprised.

      Delete
    4. When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. . .

      Delete
    5. Hmm...silly, really...Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David was a Moabite. I guess the LORD must have missed her during all the smiting and general mayhem.

      Delete
    6. Well probably because when the priests invented Deuteronomy it was the reign of Hezekiah well after Ruth and David, besides they and the Edomites were sort of cousins the Jews, not strangers. Obadiah covers this.

      Delete
  28. It's only Rock & Roll but ...
    .... golly, those hits just keep on coming!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey which blamed the GOP for the gummint shutdown contained 20% gummint workers and was overweight +11 Democrats. No wonder.

      Delete
    2. 17% of American adults work for State, Local, or the Federal Government.

      Delete
    3. I guess that should have been "employed adults."

      Delete
    4. Ted Cruz:

      I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books!! I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like this speaker, Nan, I do not like this, 'YES WE CAN'!! I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free. I do not like their smug replies, when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope, I do not like it, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!

      Delete
  29. Looting: "Indiscriminate plundering of Palestinian property by Jews [in 1948] was so common that it caused Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to confide to his diary that he was 'bitterly surprised' by the 'mass robbery' in which all parts of the population participated. [...]
    Tom Segev reported: 'In Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem there were many civilians among the looters.' Another Israeli writer, Moshe Smilanky, reported: 'Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, brinks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts ...' Segev commented that Smilansky 'could have also added to the list toilet bowls, sinks, faucets and light bulbs.'"
    -- p.68 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff


    The Result: "Israel's conquests included not only such major cities as Jaffa, Lydda and Acre, but also 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and another 100 villages that were occupied by Jews. In all Israelis took over more than 50,000 homes, 10,000 shops and 1,000 warehouses. It was estimated that about a quarter of the buildings in the new state were originally the property of the Palestinians."
    -- p. 72 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff


    Expulsion: "Nazareth, all-Palestinian with 17,000 residents was captured on 16 July [1948]. However, Palestinian residents were allowed to remain, the only major Palestinian town where this happened. In most areas the Palestinians were actively forced to flee or deliberately panic-stricken into fleeing with reminders of Deir Yassin" This happened because "the local Jewish commander who captured Nazareth, Ben Dunkelman, two days after the city's fall he was ordered to force its civilians to evacuate [but refused to obey orders]"-- Donald Neff in his book Fallen Pillars, (1995) p.65., p.288 and supported on pp. 201-202 of Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's play that record, one more time!

      "Israel's conquests included not only such major cities as Jaffa, Lydda and Acre, but also 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and another 100 villages that were occupied by Jews. In all Israelis took over more than 50,000 homes, 10,000 shops and 1,000 warehouses. It was estimated that about a quarter of the buildings in the new state were originally the property of the Palestinians."

      Delete
    2. There goes the "We Bought That" myth.

      Right down the drain ...

      Along with the "Birthright" myth that Ashkenazi Jews from Europe have a hereditary claim to Palestine.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

      Delete
    3. Hardly. Deeds are not myths, which is one of the great things about them, when dealing with the factually challenged.

      Delete
    4. But not to ALL of Palestine.

      25% of the land in the state of Israel WAS stolen from the Palesinians.
      Outright robbery, if the Ben Gurion reference is at all accurate, and I think it is.
      The Dayan reference was credible, so is the Ben Gurion.

      The idea that Europeons bought sovereignty with those real estate deeds, just plain comedic.

      The Ottoman could transfer a questionble claim to title of the land, but not sovereignty over the people of Palestine

      Delete
  30. Apartheid ....

    The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as...
    Inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity...
    "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."


    Which the secular state of Israel has implemented against the Palestinian/Arab population of Palestine.
    To maintain control the territories Israel captured in 1967.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Experts on Apartheid are found, naturally, in South Africa.

    The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) has released a report confirming that Israel is practicing both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

    The HSRC commissioned an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank to conduct this study. The resulting 300-page report, titled “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law,” represents 15 months of research and constitutes an exhaustive review of Israel’s practices in the OPT according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested originally by the January 2007 report by eminent South African jurist John Dugard, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council, when he indicated that Israeli practices had assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid.
    ...
    Regarding colonialism, the team found that Israel’s policy and practices violate the prohibition on colonialism which the international community developed in the 1960s in response to the great decolonization struggles in Africa and Asia. Israel’s policy is demonstrably to fragment the West Bank and annex part of it permanently to Israel, which is the hallmark of colonialism. Israel has appropriated land and water in the OPT, merged the Palestinian economy with Israel’s economy, and imposed a system of domination over Palestinians to ensure their subjugation to these measures. Through these measures, Israel has denied the indigenous population the right to self-determination and indicated clear intention to assume sovereignty over portions of its land and natural resources. Permanent annexation of territory in this fashion is the hallmark of colonialism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Regarding apartheid, the team found that Israel’s laws and policies in the OPT fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Israeli law conveys privileges to Jewish settlers and disadvantages Palestinians in the same territory on the basis of their respective identities, which function in this case as racialized identities in the sense provided by international law. Israel’s practices are corollary to five of the six “inhuman acts” listed by the Convention.
    A policy of apartheid is especially indicated by Israel’s demarcation of geographic “reserves” in the West Bank, to which Palestinian residence is confined and which Palestinians cannot leave without a permit.
    The system is very similar to the policy of “Grand Apartheid” in Apartheid South Africa, in which black South Africans were confined to black Homelands delineated by the South African government, while white South Africans enjoyed freedom of movement and full civil rights in the rest of the country.

    Quoting from the Executive Summary of the report, project leader Dr. Virginia Tilley explained that the three pillars of apartheid in South Africa are all practiced by Israel in the OPT. In South Africa, the first pillar was to demarcate the population of South Africa into racial groups, and to accord superior rights, privileges and services to the white racial group. The second pillar was to segregate the population into different geographic areas, which were allocated by law to different racial groups, and restrict passage by members of any group into the area allocated to other groups. And the third pillar was “a matrix of draconian ‘security’ laws and policies that were employed to suppress any opposition to the regime and to reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination.”

    The Report finds that Israeli practices in the OPT exhibit the same three “pillars” of apartheid:

    The first pillar “derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews.”

    The second pillar is reflected in “Israel’s ‘grand’ policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel’s extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians.”

    The third pillar is “Israel’s invocation of ‘security’ to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To reference "Building Permits" .... laughable.

      Delete
    2. Makes absolutely no difference, those "Building Permits".
      It is a "Side Issue" to the whole.

      An attempt at misdirection from the reality of the "Three Pillars of Apartheid" that Israel practices.

      Delete
  33. In 1967, Israel retook land illegally occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan.

    Under the terms of the 1949 Armistice, all belligerents were to maintain a DMZ on each side of the armistice line. No armed forces were to cross into the respective DMZs. The Arabs broke the agreement by moving large formations of infantry and armor into their DMZs. Israel attacked as was its right under the 1949 agreement. For perspective, this is what Britain and France were to do when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. Long story short, you want to play, you have to pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A claim that has been denied by the UN, the "Legitimizer", as it were.

      Another worn out excuse, another justification that failed to pass muster of the International Community.

      Delete
    2. UNSCR 252 (21 May 1968)

      [USA and Canada abstained.]

      The Security Council

      Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly Resolutions [concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem]

      Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;

      Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further actions which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.”

      Delete
    3. UNSCR 267 (3 July 1969)

      [Adopted unanimously]

      The Security Council

      “Recalling its resolution 252 of 21 May 1968 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967 respectively concerning measures and actions by Israel affecting the status of the City of Jerusalem, . .

      Noting that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem. .

      Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968);

      Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the General Assembly and Security Council resolution mentioned above;

      Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem;

      Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem including expropriation of land and properties thereon are invalid and cannot change that status;

      Urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect. . .”

      Delete
    4. UNSCR 298 (25 September 1971)

      [Syria abstained]

      The Security Council, . . .

      “2. Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem;

      3. Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the city of Jerusalem including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied sections are totally invalid and cannot change that status”.

      Delete
    5. NSCR 476 (30 June 1980)

      [USA abstained.]

      The Security Council, . . .

      “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”. . .

      Delete
    6. UNSCR 478 (20 August 1980)

      [USA abstained.]

      The Security Council, . . .

      “Deeply Concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security. . . .

      Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

      2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; . . .

      5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character of and status of Jerusalem and call upon:

      all Member States to accept this decision;

      Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City;” . . .

      Delete
  34. Now it would seem abundently clear that if the UN has no jurisdiction on the occupation and colonization of Jerusalem ...
    It would have even less jurisdiction over the Iranian nuclear program.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1803 on Iran's Nuclear Program would have no legal standing, especially if the UN Security Council has no legal standing with regard the International City of Jerusalem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the UN is an illegitimate authority, well, there it would stand.

      Concerning both Israeli and Iranian actions in contradiction to the UNSCR concerning them both.

      The UN is either a valid and legitimate organization, or it is not.
      If Israel can legitimately ignore the Security council Resolutions, so to can the Iranians.

      Peas in a pod.
      Essentially equal in their disrespect for the International community.

      The Equivalency Standard proven to be in effect, once again.

      Delete
    2. “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies,” Annan said. “And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”1
      ___Kofi Anan, UN Secretary General

      Delete
    3. So?
      There may have been some General Assembly activity that could be described as prejudiced against Israel.
      UNSCR 267 is not one of those

      The Security Council, including the United States voted UNANIMOUSLY

      UNSCR 267 (3 July 1969)

      [Adopted unanimously]

      The Security Council

      “Recalling its resolution 252 of 21 May 1968 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967 respectively concerning measures and actions by Israel affecting the status of the City of Jerusalem, . .

      Noting that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem. .

      Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968);

      Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the General Assembly and Security Council resolution mentioned above;

      Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem;

      Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem including expropriation of land and properties thereon are invalid and cannot change that status;

      Urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect. . .”

      Delete
    4. If your previous claim was accurate, allen, about Israel battling "lawlessness" in Jerusalem, well, in 1967/1968 the Israeli would have turned the International City back to the UN for administration.

      That the Israeli did not do so, invalidates your argument.
      That along with the UNANIMOUS finding of the Security Council as described in UNSCR 267 which puts Israel on the outside of the community of nations, right there with those other rouge regimes in Iran and North Korea.

      Judged by the same Standard.

      Delete
    5. Hardly. The record of incompetence shown by UN peacekeepers is legendary. This is apart from their infamous vices, such as rape, robbery, and child molestation. If a single shot is fired, they are off to the races.

      As to the status of Jerusalem, the UN had its turn at bat and struck out - something to do with oil money as I recall. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Jerusalem's Christians and Muslims seem to be content with the status quo.

      I think we shall keep Jerusalem, if for no other reason than teaching the outer-Arabs a lesson: When you keep stupidly losing wars, you lose real estate. For those who disagree, come and take it. :-)

      Delete
    6. And the Iranians will keep their centrifuges, spinning.

      It's all good.

      ;-)

      Delete
  35. At least six people were killed after a powerful, 7.2-magnitude earthquake struck the central Philippines early Tuesday, damaging buildings and triggering landslides and panic.

    Local government officials said they feared the number of casualties could increase as they gather more reports from the various islands in the area, but the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said there was no widespread threat of a tsunami.

    ReplyDelete
  36. To those that claimed that the rebels in Syria did not have access to chemical weapons ...
    Reality on the ground, well, it tells a different story.

    Now that the international chemical weapons inspection teams are on the ground, the truth comes out.

    .Pressure mounted on Syrian rebels Monday to permit access to chemical-weapons sites in areas under their control, as the head of the international watchdog on such toxic munitions said the rapidly shifting lines in the civil war made it difficult for inspectors to reach some locations.

    Seems that the rebels did, and still do, have access to some of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.

    Despite the protestations to the contrary, the rebels have garnered a share of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles.
    The "Spoils of War", as it were.

    Like the Israeli garnered Jerusalem, back in 1967.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syrian-rebels-urged-to-allow-access-to-chemical-weapon-sites/article14864480/

      Delete
  37. The National Security Agency has been sifting through millions of contact lists from personal email and instant messaging accounts around the world, including those of Americans, in its effort to find possible links to terrorism or other criminal activity, according to a published report.

    The Washington Post reported late Monday that the spy agency intercepts hundreds of thousands of email address books every day from private accounts on Yahoo, Gmail, Facebook and Hotmail that move though global data links. The NSA also collects about a half million buddy lists from live chat services and email accounts.

    The Post said it learned about the collection tactics from secret documents provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden and confirmed by senior intelligence officials. It was the latest revelation of the spy agency’s practices to be disclosed by Snowden, the former NSA systems analyst who fled the U.S. and now resides in Russia.

    The newspaper said the NSA analyzes the contacts to map relationships and connections among various foreign intelligence targets. During a typical day last year, the NSA’s Special Source Operations branch collected more than 440,000 email address books, the Post said. That would correspond to a rate of more than 250 million a year.

    A spokesman for the national intelligence director’s office, which oversees the NSA, told the Post that the agency was seeking intelligence on valid targets and was not interested in personal information from ordinary Americans.

    Spokesman Shawn Turner said the NSA was guided by rules that require the agency to “minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination” of information that identifies U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

    While the collection was taking place overseas, the Post said it encompassed the contact lists of many American users. The spy agency obtains the contact lists through secret arrangements with foreign telecommunications companies or other services that control Internet traffic, the Post reported.

    Earlier this year, Snowden gave documents to the Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper disclosing U.S. surveillance programs that collect vast amounts of phone records and online data in the name of foreign intelligence, often sweeping up information on American citizens.

    The collection of contact lists in bulk would be illegal if done in the United States, but the Post said the agency can get around that restriction by intercepting lists from access points around the world.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/report-nsa-collecting-contact-lists-98305.html#ixzz2hl6WfSVU

    ReplyDelete
  38. .

    Another country suffering from water shortages, this one a big one.

    The title in the Economist article was "China's North is Running Out of Water. And Now for the Bad Part".

    The entire article is filled with startling facts about the water crisis in China. I only picked the following paragraph because of the geopolitical issues.

    But the biggest damage could be political. Proposed dams on the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra, Mekong and other rivers are bound to have an impact on downstream countries, including India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. The Chinese say they would take only 1% of the run-off from the giant Brahmaputra. But if all these projects were operational—and the engineering challenges of one or two of them are so daunting that even the Chinese might balk at them—they would affect the flow of rivers on which a billion people depend. Hence the worries for regional stability. And all this would increase China’s water supplies by a mere 7%. The water crisis is driving China to desperate but ultimately unhelpful measures.

    http://www.economist.com/news/china/21587813-northern-china-running-out-water-governments-remedies-are-potentially-disastrous-all

    .

    ReplyDelete
  39. .

    I agree with Barry Rubin's analysis of Iran in the following article.

    Iran a Lunatic State or a Rational Actor? Neither

    As I've insisted for many years, it is increasingly clear that Iran will get nuclear weapons. We should start discussions in that framework.

    The recent brilliant decision of the Iranian elite - which is not only more ruthless but strategically smarter than Western leadership - to make President Hassan Rouhani its representative to the West guarantees it. The only question is when Iran will get them.

    The evidence seems to show that this is several years away. (It will be interesting if that development comes too late to affect Syria's civil war, and such will probably happen.)

    WHY WILL Iran certainly get nukes? First, the West isn't going to take strong enough action to stop it, because the alternatives are deemed - perhaps accurately so - too risky. No surgical Israeli strike is going to stop it, and President Barack Obama will never support such a strike. Of course, there is also lots of money at stake. The sanctions may seem tough, but have more holes than Swiss cheese.

    After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there is perhaps a better moneymaking climate. His successor Rouhani will further soothe Western willingness to battle on this issue. Of course, no one really cares that much about potential genocide in Israel.

    Second, with international support at a low point, the logistical difficulties, and an incredibly reluctant US president, Israel is not going to attack Iran...


    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/10/14/is_iran_a_lunatic_state_or_a_rational_actor_neither_105515-2.html

    I also agree with this thought

    The use of nuclear weapons causes the loss of the security the mere possession of nuclear weapons confers.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      There are some things I disagree with in Rubin's analysis, such as,

      Of course, no one really cares that much about potential genocide in Israel.

      While I doubt Obama would offer any kind of public support for an Israeli first strike on Iran, I'm pretty confident he would order an attack on Iran if Israel was attacked. However, Iran also knows that Israel is perfectly capable of defending herself.

      .

      Delete