Sigh. Well, Al, it looks like Global Worming is drying up. Here's your next ambulance to chase and cow to milk to help you pay for your insane electric bills and transportation fuel costs.
French health watchdogs, in a precautionary move, recommended on Thursday reducing exposure to mobile phones and other portable wireless devices. The guidelines are an interim step pending the outcome of wider research into any impacts from health from radio frequency fields.
"The time for inaction has passed," Martin Guespereau, director of the French Health and Security Agency (Afsset), said at a press conference. "Let's not wait until the indications become pathologies before moving forward with limiting exposure," he said.
More than 1,000 studies were reviewed by Afsset, focussing on mobile phones, Wifi emitters, microwave ovens, cordless home phones and other gadgets that use frequencies of between 9 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (gHz). I wonder how much grant money has been thrown at this.
Most of the studies did not show any negative impacts. Not enough, apparently.
Some research, however, did point to possible health problems, including cell damage, reduced male fertility and a lower blood flow to the brain. Lower blood flow to the brain seems plausible. Leaves me wondering how the folks with male fertility problems are using their phones, however. Probably better check for correlations with vibrate mode.
Emphasising caution, Guespereau also pointed out that cellphones have been widely used for barely a decade, not long enough to study long-term impacts from constant exposure.
But certainly long enough to study medium-term impacts from constant exposure. The highly sensitive outliers would have shown up by now, surely. There are always highly sensitive outliers.
"We cannot endorse the idea 'nothing has been proved, so nothing needs to be done'," said Guespereau.
Given the uncertainty, the agency said further research was needed to determine potential health impacts and in the meantime advised the public to exercise caution. "If environmental exposure can be reduced, it should be," the agency said in a statement. It referred to a principle it called ALARA -- "As Low As Reasonably Achievable."
In these difficult times, no grant money is to be sneezed at.
Exposure to children should in particular be limited, Afsset said.
If one has no children of one's own, and avoids friendship with those who so indulge, that particular problem is eliminated.
Other recommendations included the use of "hands-free" kits for cellphones and switching off machines such as modems and Wifi emitters when possible. Consumers can also choose devices that have a low "specific absorption rate," which measures the level of radio-frequency emitted, and use gadgets that monitor radiation intensity.
For cellphone networks, Afsset suggested France's three competing telecoms giants share local transmitters to reduce the tally of relay stations.
An interim European Union study released earlier this year concluded that cellphone use is unlikely to cause cancer, but said that the effects of long term use and on children were unknown. Quick, someone tell Nancy!
A comprehensive review of the potential health consequences of mobile phone use -- known as the Interphone Study -- overseen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is set to be released before the end of the year, a spokesperson said Thursday.
#2
Ms. Lotp is an adult, but if we had young children at this point I'd be very careful about cell phone or wireless telephone handset use.
I'm not a neuroscientist but I follow the research literature some due to my own specialty. A lot of brain circuitry doesn't finalize until late in adolescence or even early 20s. Electromagnetic energy that might not affect adults at all could have real effects on kids and teens. I'm not all that sanguine about constant bluetooth use, either.
A Connecticut college has warned students interning for late-night, skirt-chasing TV funnyman David Letterman to stay at arm's length from the host.
A rep from Quinnipiac University told the celebrity Web site TMZ that "due to recent circumstances we will have a discussion with those in charge of placing our interns at the David Letterman show in the future."
In the statement, the school added, "We will diligently oversee this internship program to ensure that our interns are out of harm's way." Great harm. Unimaginable harm.
The "Late Show" host recently revealed that he had allegedly been the target of a $2 million blackmail plot after CBS News producer Robert "Joe" Halderman, 57, accused the comedian of carrying on a sexual relationship with his former gal-pal Stephanie Birkitt, according to authorities.
Letterman admitted that he did have a relationsip with Birkitt, 34, who worked for the show as an intern and was promoted to be his personal assistant and appear in on-air bits, along with other female staffers who are of legal age.
The Post reported on Oct. 4 that the normal male's randy comic's Midtown office has all the trimmings for a predator bachelor on the prowl, including a fold-out couch and a kitchen. Which are inexplicable because he never works late at night.
Located in the cavernous Ed Sullivan Theater, Letterman's office comes with a reception area as well.
Posted by: ed ||
10/16/2009 1:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I can see this working a treat.
"You got a job as an intern with the Letterman show!
Yeah, isn't it great.
Great! are you kidding? you're now officially the ugliest chick on campus."
#4
Late night shows like Letterman's are filmed at 5:30 pm or so. I doubt that anyone is at the Ed Sullivan Theater at 11:30 pm other than a janitor or a flunky. And maybe an intern.
#9
When entertaining a member of the fair sex in one's room the housmaster must be able to freely insert his matchbook between the door and the jamb.
However, by the time arrived the spirit, though not the the literal rule itself, had been so thoroughly abused that one Friday evening the 30 inhabitants of the dormitory were clustered about a wide opened door, clapping and shouting in unison with the couple within. In loco parentis ended several years later. And now we are governed by such oafs.
#10
*sigh* Some things never change. I came back to my triple room one afternoon to find two sets of bed springs squeaking in unison under two roommates -- each with appropriate boyfriend, of course. By my time the rule was one didn't get caught in flagrente delecto (I think that's how it's spelt). Not quite the same as an open-invite audience, Nimble Spemble, but quite more than enough to be going on with. They were given the weekend to find new rooms elsewhere in the dorm system, and I got a closet-sized single down the hall. We didn't hold with such things in that residential college, and we had a waiting list for the rooms.
The problem with diligently overseeing the interns is that some of them still will chase the adventure. Really, the best way to protect the interns is to find other placements for the ones currently there, and eschew that show in future... and trumpet that decision in the college's recruitment literature.
Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. A proactive nanny state?
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said. WTF?
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." Maybe you'd feel better if Halle Berry and Vanessa Williams came over and gave you a big hug. At the same time.
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said. Oh, I get it. Separate but equal.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said. I just don't know which side of the equal sign to put these kids on. Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." Ahh, but this isn't about the adults. It's about the kids. Sort of the same level of deception that you see in modern politics I guess.
The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said. Why bother? He's toast already it's just that he doesn't know it. Get to work on something important.
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzman said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card. And the same color skin, apparently.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office. Question: Who is supposed to be the servant in this story?
#1
Hummm, preventing another Obama?
Naw they're both American.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/16/2009 6:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Tangipahoa Parish is on the backend of nowhere, other side of the Mississippi River from the rest of the state - in that goofy chunk of country between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi state line. Maybe word of desegregation hasn't made it up into that section of nowhere yet?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/16/2009 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships
Yet society just elected the offspring of such a relationship as POTUS.
Most liberals aren't very religious. But they are people of faith. When reality clashes with a cherished belief, they cling to the cherished belief. We've noticed ... Artic Sea Ice Grows, How can this be?
It snowed in Minnesota over the weekend. In Denver, too. Record cold temperatures were set in Idaho and western Montana.
It was unseasonably cold in Madison, Wisconsin over the weekend, too. But those who attended the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists didn't notice.
The keynote speaker was former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Gore is the world's most famous advocate of the theory of anthroprogenic (man-made) global warming. In his book, "An Inconvenient Truth," and his movie of the same name, Mr. Gore warned mankind faces catastrophe if drastic steps aren't taken immediately to slash our emissions of carbon dioxide.
Mr. Gore predicted the Senate would pass a "cap and trade" bill before a UN conference on climate change in Denmark in December. Most of the 500 journalists who heard him speak applauded.
Mr. Gore is someone only a liberal could regard as an expert on climate change. He took exactly two science courses as an undergraduate at Yale, scoring a D in Natural Sciences 6, and a C in Natural Sciences 118.
Mr. Gore's paucity of qualifications may be why he refuses to debate scientists who challenge his thesis. And he rarely answers questions after giving one of his alarmist speeches. Mr. Gore did so in Madison, perhaps because he assumed the audience was friendly.
But in the audience was Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer, who asked him about a 2007 finding by a British judge that "An Inconvenient Truth" is riddled with scientific errors.
Justice Michael Burton had to rule on the veracity of Mr. Gore's claims because a parent objected to having the film shown in schools. He found nine "significant errors" made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." Screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom, Justice Burton said.
When Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore what he was doing to correct the errors Justice Burton identified, Mr. Gore, after much stammering, said: "the ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools."
That response was technically true, but evasive. Justice Burton said "An Inconvenient Truth" could be shown, but only if Mr. Gore's "one-sided" views were balanced.
When Mr. McAleer pressed Mr. Gore on his evasion, the Society of Environmental Journalists cut off his microphone and escorted him away.
There was a time when journalists applauded when one of their own spoke truth to power. But in the Society of Environmental Journalists, relevant facts must be suppressed if they clash with the party line.
But reality is making it more difficult for journalists to protect Mr. Gore and other alarmists from scrutiny, and there are defections from the Praetorian Guard. As the Society of Environmental Journalists was silencing Mr. McAleer, Paul Hudson, climate correspondent for the once firmly alarmist BBC, was asking "What happened to global warming?"
The warmest year on record, Mr. Hudson noted, was 1998, 11 years ago. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing, but temperatures have not. This is something the computer models on which Mr. Gore and other alarmists rely said was impossible.
Satellite data indicate the planet cooled significantly from 2007 to 2008, said Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. This winter figures to be the coldest in decades, says the Farmer's Almanac. The ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic are getting thicker. Dr. Mojib Latif, a scientist on whom the UN relied heavily for its original alarmist forecasts, now says the planet will cool for the next 20 years.
As the evidence moves decisively against them, alarmists are escalating their rhetoric. Britain's Prince Charles -- whose academic credentials are even weaker than Al Gore's -- told business leaders in Brazil we have less than 100 months to avert climate catastrophe.
But opinion polls in Australia, Britain and here indicate people no longer are buying what they're selling. The Society of Environmental Journalists may not notice, but ordinary people can tell when it's cold outside.
By Michael Scheuer. Take with a grain of salt.
Rather than popular support for the Taliban being based on intimidation and money, what we are seeing in Afghanistan is popular opinion catching up with Islamist determination. Until roughly late 2006, the war against the U.S.-NATO coalition was largely fought by the Taliban, other Islamists groups like that led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and al Qaeda. Since then, however, the Islamists have been joined by Afghans who simply do not want Muslim Afghanistan occupied by all sorts of infidels from all sorts of Christian and polytheist countries. In short, an Islamist insurgency has evolved into an Islamist-nationalist freedom struggle not unlike that which beat the Red Army. The best way to see the growth of the Afghan enemy facing the United States and NATO is to track the proliferating number of insurgent attacks in the heretofore quiet and supposedly "friendly" arc of provinces from Herat in the west clockwise to Badakhshan in the far northeast. . . .
. . . [L]et us hope . . . that Washington's focus is refixed on the hard but simple Afghan choice it faces: Because the U.S.-NATO occupation powers the Afghan insurgency and international Muslim support for it, we must either destroy it root and branch or leave. . . . . [O]nly the all-out use of large, conventional U.S. military forces can be expected to have a shot at winning in Afghanistan. Since 1996, the United States has definitively proven that clandestine operations, covert action, Special Forces actions, and aerial drone attacks cannot defeat al Qaeda. It has likewise proven beyond doubt that nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand.
That said, military victory would require 400,000 to 500,000 additional troops, the wide use of land mines (even if Princess Diana spins in her grave), and the killing of the enemy and its civilian supporters in the numbers needed to make them admit the game is not worth the candle. This clearly is not a viable option. . . .
The man spent his career in the CIA, in the end targetting Osama bin Laden and not being permitted to do anything about it during Bill Clinton's tenure. Is he more qualified than I to design military strategy?
I also wonder how much the behaviour of the Afghans is due to Strong Horse thinking rather than love of the jihadis who are stealing their sons and daughters and using them as human shields? But that is not going to change so long as they are left to the tender mercies of the jihadis when we pull back.
#1
What I'd like to know is the following. What evidence exists that this is a popular uprising? If it is a popular uprising, how widespread is it?
Scheuer did not say much on that other than "the proliferating number of insurgent attacks in the heretofore quiet and supposedly 'friendly' arc of provinces from Herat in the west clockwise to Badakhshan in the far northeast."
A story came across last week that American troops are told by Afghan villagers that there are no Taliban around, and the next minute they are shot at.
Afghanistan is described as "a land of a thousand alamos." To me that sounds like the enemy has freedom of action, while we can't move or maneuver except by helicopter. While this may largely be because of the terrain and lack of modern roads, that does not change the difficulty of the situation.
Afghanistan is important to national security because it is where terrorists have launched attacks, and Afghanistan is next door to Pakistan and Iran. But is Afghanistan critical to US national security?
I am not completely convinced that we need to commit the lives of our men and hundreds of billions of dollars for the sake of a godforsaken landlocked country that lists poppy fields as its greatest asset.
While Scheuer is no doubt wrong on many details, I would still probably side with him on "Get Nasty or Go Home." Do it big and win, or just forget it, and get out. Don't try to do it halfways.
#2
Fair enough Maggie, and there are some here who would agree in whole or in part to your comment.
The Taliban served as a host to al-Qaeda. By and large the Taliban leadership agrees with and thinks the same way that Binny does. They share the same ideas even if their cultures are some different (Arab versus Pashtun).
The Taliban were austere, murderous thugs before they met al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda gave them wider horizons for their thuggery.
With that happy thought in mind, we can't allow the Taliban to return to power. We saw what happened the first time they seized about 90% of Afghanistan. We saw how they allowed -- hell, aided and abetted -- the development of al-Qaeda as a major terrorist and quasi-state power. If the Taliban seized the country again, the same things would happen, and al-Qaeda, or terrorists like them, would find respite and refuge.
How you go about preventing that is open to some debate. I have some misgivings about simply expanding the number of American troops there. I'm not sure we can sustain a big footprint (logistically as well as politically). I'm getting to understand a little about COIN, clear and hold, etc., but I'm not sure it works in Afghanistan -- the country is so backwards, so tribal, and so different from what we've done before (Iraq, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc) that I'm not sure the past examples work.
It might be better to have a small footprint operation -- lots of Special Forces who train and assist those Afghans who want a country for themselves and who are willing to keep the terrorists out. That might be the best we can hope for over the next decade. We could sustain that.
I agree -- don't do it halfway. Pick the right strategy and commit to it completely. Educate the American people as to why it's the right strategy and why we have to prevail. I'm just not sure "Do it Big and Nasty" is the right strategy; I'm more in favor of "Do it Small and Nasty".
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/16/2009 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Do we really care whether the mooks who attack our cities come from Afghanistan as opposed to Somalia or Yemen? These strategies amount to whack-a-mook, country by country.
I think our choices are live with an Islam that generates coconuts like the Taliban and al-Q or change Islam so that it does not generate them.
#4
change Islam so that it does not generate them Rotsa Ruck on that, it would be a job bigger than nation-building by an order of magnitude. Changing Islam is a job for Muslims. The Taliban served as a host to al-Qaeda. As far as I'm concerned, the most succinct way to refer to the Taliban is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Don't mince words or concepts.
I don't see solution for the breeding-grounds of the Taliban except for the region to continue to send out suicide bombers & assorted murderers, then to be hit with reprisals from other countries until one side or the other is exhausted. Electorates of various countries injured by the Taliban will not stand for long-term colonization (which seems to be the only real solution) unless they are so badly injured they change their collective minds. Political leadership might mobilize opinion & support before something worse than 9/11, but there's no sign of that kind of leadership anywhere in the West. The world economy may be so badly damaged by expanding al-Qaeda-bred chaos in central & southwestern Asia that Afghanistan & Pakistan may drop off the world map & collapse into massive starvation.
#5
why not pick a tribal chieftain or warlord, and enable him to be the strongman that goes and whacks the mooks for us? the deal upfront is we get hit, you lose $$$. then he takes it personal when a Taliban shows up and causes trouble, it costs him both face and cash.
worst mistake ever was enabling hamid kharzi (sp?). the pashtun sob has been quietly enabling the Taliban and triangulating for his own gain since day one. better would have been to back the northern alliance and let the pashtuns clean house to get to play ball.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
10/16/2009 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
*cough* Dostum *sough*
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/16/2009 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Immediately following our withdrawal, the Taliban would roll over Afghanistan, I think, sponsored and they are by both the Pakistan army, via the ISI, and Gulf Arab charity. As soon as the Taliban regained control they would invite their little friends like Lashkar e Taiba and Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (or whatever their exact names are, I struggle to remember the details) to set up training camps -- for a suitable consideration, of course -- where people like that lovely Afghan lad from Denver can learn all sorts of useful skills which they will then excitedly apply. So important, now things have hotted up in Pakistan, the army so annoyed that the Punjabi Taliban keep blowing up in their faces and all. And it's the TTP, Lashkar e Taiba and all who are running the attacks against Britain. So it goes back to, do we fight them over there or at home?
#8
why not pick a tribal chieftain or warlord, and enable him to be the strongman that goes and whacks the mooks for us?
Agree, abu do you love and this appears to be McChrystal's approach as well.
And yes Karzi needs his arse capped and the sooner the better and make sure they take out his brother with him.
The ongoing war in Yemen between its Army and a group of extremist Shiite Zaydis, known as the Huthists, has taken a dangerous turn, with the situation escalating and the number of victims rising at an alarming rate. As the conflict spreads reaching new areas, this "war" is the Huthists' sixth attempt to separate from the current rule in Yemen and establish an Islamic emirate based on the Shiite Zaydi faith.
The clashes mainly center in the areas that are under the Huthists' control, namely in Al-Azqul, Al-Malahiz, Harf Sufyan, Al-Maqash, Wadi Shahwan, Al-Naqah, Damaj, Jabal al-Hafur, and other areas.
The Huthists belong to the founder, Badr al-Din al-Huthi. Some reports say he belonged to the Zaydi faith and converted to the 12-imam Jafarite faith and that he studied in the city of Qom in Iran and demanded his right to the imamate.
Abdul-Malik, son of Badr al-Din, is now leading the war, and he uses a different policy in spreading the Zaydi faith, which has been known for being tolerant and supportive of coexistence. The Zaydi faith in Yemen has always been famous for its ability to absorb diverse groups without hostility.
Currently, there are unequivocal evidences that absolutely clearly show Iran's flagrant and direct involvement in triggering the war in Yemen by explicitly supporting the Huthists with ammunition, weapons, money, and military combat expertise.
This stepped up fighting in Yemen is part of a dexterous plan, prepared by the Qods Force unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, within the "Yaman khosh hal" scheme. "Yamankhosh hal" is a Persian phrase meaning happy Yemen.
This plan was prepared more than a year ago, with direct blessing from Mohammad Jafari, the most important commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. An initial amount of money exceeding $4 million was earmarked for the plan.
Among the most important components of the plan is to train the Huthists' forces on guerrilla warfare, fighting inside cities and in mountainous areas, planting explosive charges, and mobilizing the public. This is in addition to buying tribes' loyalty, opening up to and linking with the ready separatist Southern Mobility Movement in southern Yemen in order to increase the pressure on the central government from all direction while engaging in direct coordination with members of the Al-Qaeda Organization, which has clearly become an obvious tool of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
There are astonishing new facts that are being revealed, most importantly the fact that the Iranian involvement in Yemen began in 2004 under the tempting cover of a humanitarian charity work that began with the large project of building the Iranian Red Crescent Hospital in Sa'dah. The revenues of this hospital went directly to the Huthists.
The ultimate goal of the "Yaman khosh hal" plan is to set up two states. In one state, the imamate rule would return with a pro-Iranian religious regime, led by Al-Huthi. The other state would be under a separate southern rule, headed by a group of political factions that would be directly funded and run by Iran. And, of course, the two states would be a prelude to Iran's entry into the heart of the Horn of Africa.
The aim behind Iran's clandestine activity in Somalia and Kenya, an activity that is being gradually revealed, is to forcefully tighten the control of the navigation route in the Red Sea.
The world was distracted by the Iranian nuclear issue, which turned out to be a fanfare, and was preoccupied with domestic developments in Iran while the Iranian bazaar continues to expand and open destructive branches.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yemeni Shia aren't really coreligionists with the Iranians, who used to be traditional Twelvers before Khomeini's velayat-e faqih heresy became state doctrine & messed up all the definitions. Zaydis are a different brand Shia, sometimes called "Fivers". They don't truck with the notion of a hidden Mahdi, and seem to be closer to Sunnis on the subject of clerical authority.
Of course, the Syrian-Iranian alliance, what with the deeply heretical nature of Alawis even by Iranian revolutionary standards, strongly suggests that Qods Force and the rest of the exporters of Islamist revolution aren't particularly picky about their pawns.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/16/2009 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
but the Ismaelis (seveners) have pretty much stayed out of the practical jihad for the past few decades
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/16/2009 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, El Presidente Fox Inc made it a program to move the indios y mestizos out. Get the potential source of revolutionary reform to be someone else's problem, so the traditional old Spanish blood class could continue to maintain power. Let's just say they were 'encouraged' to expand old Mexico into other lands [how that includes Chicago is a real stretch, but the again, it's just 'community organizing'].
#3
The problem is that Mexican Americans disagree. When Mexico had its consulates in the US allow Mexicans to vote in the last elections, less than 1 in 1,000 did.
IIRC Mexicans make up the largest number of new American citizens every year. The idea that Mexicans in America are waiting for a chance to turn the South West US into Mexico is nothing but a fantasy. Mexicans in the US KNOW what they were escaping.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/16/2009 15:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's the kids of the immigrants I worry about, not the parents.
#3
ION BHARAT RAKSHAK > US DOLLAR TO HIT 50 YEN, CEASE TO BE GLOBAL CURRENCY RESERVE: SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPS SAYS.
* SAME > [Global]RECESSION WILL TURN INTO [Global]DEPRESSION. Asset Management, Inc. Nippon Pert says WALL STREET, NOT MAIN STREET [US Consumers], IS THE ONLY ONE MAKING ANY MONEY.
IHO POTUS Bammer's various stimuli packages has had only a minor or trifling effect on the general US economy, + Year 2010 will likely prove MORE RISKIER than 2009???
Right now, even his strongest supporters. . . are worried that. . . Barack Obama may become known as the great difference splitter. A former senior official, active on the president's campaign sat in my office just yesterday worrying aloud about whether this is just learning curve behavior or whether we are drifting toward Jimmy II. There is a place for deliberation and compromise in the quivers of wise leaders, he argued, but there is also a need to be decisive and sometimes to push to fulfill a vision or defend an ideal or an interest.
There are real merits to being the no-drama Obama of campaign fame. But in a world in which the Chinese or the Iranians or the North Koreans or Republicans or wings of the Democratic Party are inclined to push as hard as they can until they meet real resistance, it's fast coming time for the president to show he is willing to lose some friends and even some battles to defend his principles or the national interest. . .
. . . Analysts are divided on how secure these weapons are. Some say the weapons are less secure than they were five years ago, and Saturday's attack would show a "worrisome" overconfidence by the Pakistanis.
While complex security is in place, much depends on the Pakistani army and how vulnerable it is to infiltration by extremists, said a Western government official with access to intelligence on Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, . . .
"Pakistan's weapons are less secure today than they were five years ago, and it seems they're even less secure than under the Musharraf government," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political studies and conflict management at Bar Ilan University in Israel, referring to the previous administration of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Steinberg said Israelis are becoming less confident of the U.S. ability to control events and put plans into action that would protect Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.
#1
If they are vulnerable to attack, the sensible and responsible thing to do is to go ahead and attack. Allowing highly dangerous weapons to remain vulnerable is irresponsible. Eventually the results will be catastrophic.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/16/2009 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
These attacks are just tests for the inevitable push to obtain these materials. Sound intelligence states that reaction time, response force, and "feeling up" of external assets (Spys) is the reason to test your capabilities on something other than the main target first.
I assure you, designs on the Pak nukes is the highest priority for these folks. Seeing as they have been edged out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and are losing money as well as personnel, the natural path is for them to take the arsenal while they can.
An attempt will be made, and india is first target.
We need a wally world team trained specifically for the extraction of these and we need it right now.
A full sandtable with as much intel needs to be presented because this is not an IF, it is a When.
The Pakistanis need to understand that our interest is also theirs as India will not stand by in the Idle if struck. They have no compunction at all with using full force retaliation.
Kashmir is again just an agitation, yet a very big thing in the long run if you account for the foreigners (Al Qaeda) are the ones stirring up the war again.
Please get on this immediately. Last night was the night I knew I would see. Big and bad things are about to happen, the good Angels will stand by.
#5
OTOH MIL FORUMS POSTERS > ITO proclaim that the major Muslim States of TURKEY, SYRIA, EGYPT, + IRAN, ETC. can never achieve "great power" recognition = status [also read, RADICAL ISLAM'S OWG-NWO CALIPHATE/GLOBAL ISLAMIST-JIHADIST STATE]widout Nuclear Weapons.
Just as CHINA can not achieve SUPERPOWER STATUS whle maintaining its traditional ISOLATIONISM - CHINA MUST EMBRACE ITS BIRTH PANGS, NOT AVOID IT.
#6
The major Muslim states won't acquire major power status even with nukes, JosephM. They'll just be handled a little more delicately. Does anyone think of North Korea as a major power?
On Monday, a secret Hezbollah munitions bunker in South Lebanon blew up under mysterious circumstances, injuring a senior official in the organization. This is the second such incident in recent months. The first occurred on July 14, when an explosion destroyed a major Hezbollah munitions dump in the South Lebanese village of Hirbet Salim. Hezbollah immediately pointed fingers at the Mossad. Whether or not Israel was to blame, the explosion caused Hezbollah considerable discomfort by proving that it was in flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which forbids stockpiling weapons south of the Litani River.
The recent explosions have highlighted the weakened geopolitical status of Hezbollah, a diminishment which many predicted no one could have foreseen at the end of the last war.
As part of its combat doctrine, which eschews reliance on reinforcements and resupply, Hezbollah has stockpiled its weapons throughout Lebanon, but particularly near the Israeli border. According to current Israeli intelligence estimates, Hezbollah has an arsenal of 40,000 rockets, including Iranian-made Zelzal, Fajr-3, Fajr-5, and 122 mm rockets (some of which have cluster warheads) and Syrian-made 302 mm rockets. Some of its rockets can reach greater Tel Aviv. Hezbollah also has a number of highly advanced weapons systems, including antiaircraft missiles, that constitute a threat to Israeli combat aircraft.
But all is not rosy for Hezbollah. After the war, considerable dissatisfaction with the organization was voiced inside Lebanon. Many blamed its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, for Israel's retaliatory bombardments that caused widespread damage.
Harsh criticism of Hezbollah also came from an unexpected source: Tehran. The Iranian strategy calls for Hezbollah to play two roles. One is to instigate minor border provocations. The other is to launch, on Tehran's command, a full-scale retaliatory attack should Israel target Iran's nuclear facilities. The 2006 war met neither criterion, and, as the Iranians complained, merely served to reveal the extent of Hezbollah's military capabilities.
Then, in February 2008, Imad Mughniyeh, the organization's military commander and Nasrallah's close associate, was killed in a car bomb in Damascus. The assassination of the man who topped the FBI's most-wanted list prior to Osama bin Laden was a severe blow to morale, as well as to Hezbollah's strategic capabilities. Nasrallah was convinced that the Mossad was responsible, and vowed to take revenge "outside of the Israel-Lebanon arena."
The Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, which is also responsible for protecting the country's legations abroad, has been on high alert ever since. But as of today, Hezbollah has not exacted its revenge. Israeli officials raised four possible reasons for Hezbollah's failure to act, all of which reflect its current weakness.
First, no replacement has been found for Mughniyeh, whose strategic brilliance, originality and powers of execution are sorely missed by Hezbollah.
Second, Israel's intelligence coverage of Iran and Hezbollah is far superior today to what it was in the past. Planned attacks, including one targeting the Israeli Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, have all been foiled. The Israeli security services have also shared information with Egyptian authorities that led to the arrest of members of a Hezbollah network who intended to kill Israeli tourists in Sinai. The arrest of these operatives resulted in sharp public exchanges between Egypt, Hezbollah and its Iranian masters, when Nasrallah admitted that these, in fact, were his men.
Third, Nasrallah cannot afford to be viewed domestically as the cause of yet another retaliation against Lebanon. Any act of revenge that he contemplates needs to be carefully calibrated. On the one hand, it needs to hurt the enemy and be spectacular enough to stoke Hezbollah pride. On the other hand, it cannot be so murderous as to cause Israel to respond with force. To complicate matters further, Israel has made it clear that because Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, despite the fact that the party that it backed lost in the recent election, any Hezbollah action against Israel would be viewed as an action taken by the Lebanese government. Thus Israel would regard Lebanese infrastructure as a legitimate target for a military response.
Finally, there are the Iranians. Their primary focus is on proceeding with their nuclear program without unnecessary distractions. Tehran's main concern is that a terror attack that can be linked to Iran would result in the arrest of its agents overseas, who are currently procuring equipment for its uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Tehran is now reluctant to place intelligence resources at Hezbollah's disposal. This is a serious blow to Hezbollah, which is not yet able to function as a full-fledged independent operational organization internationally.
Hezbollah is also clearly aware of the severe blow in terms of power and prestige that the Iranian mullahs suffered as a result of the massive protests following June's presidential election. Automatic support from Tehran is no longer a certainty. For now, at least, the Iranian hardliners have troubles of their own.
In short, despite the fact that Hezbollah today is substantially stronger in purely military terms than it was three years ago, its political stature and its autonomy have been significantly reduced. It is clear that Nasrallah is cautious and he will weigh his options very carefully before embarking on any course of action that might lead to all-out war with Israel. There are some experts in Israel who believe that even Hezbollah's retaliatory role in the Iranian game plan is currently in question.
Not to mention that it's clear Israel has been watching as Hizb'allah cached that exotic weaponry, and can dispose of it at will. Wouldn't it be fun to see individual caches spontaneously explode about once a week -- on Friday afternoon? -- those squirrels with lasers on their heads get into everything, donchaknow! Filmed in glorious black-and-white by Israeli drones or their spy satellite that just happened to be looking in that direction, of course, for publication after.
The explosion that took place in the home of a Hezbollah member sounded the alarm once again and highlighted the level of danger in Lebanon that lies in the existence of an armed organization whose capabilities exceed those of the [national] army, is bigger than the state, and does not comply with rules set by the government, or even the rules of its traffic department [in reference to the motorcycle ban at night].
The danger of the explosion is that it is a sign that Hezbollah does not hesitate to endanger the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians, as it is apparent after the explosion that took place in south Lebanon that the party is storing its arms and missiles in homes and in residential areas. This poses a threat to the lives of innocent people. Hezbollah, or its supporters, cannot tell us that this is something Israel is saying and spreading and so we should not cite it. If in his speeches Hassan Nasrallah was quoting the Israeli military Winograd report into the July 2006 war then why does he think it is unwarranted that we believe the images released by the Israeli military showing members of Hezbollah emptying the house, where the explosion took place, of supplies and missiles?
Whilst certain incidents remind us of others, as we are in the midst of uproar over the Goldstone report on the Gaza war, then why haven't we seen Arab reports informing us of how these armed groups use innocent residents as shields in their own wars and how they obtain finance and weapons? Why don't they tell us about the agendas and ties of these groups, who they are affiliated to and whose instructions they follow, whether they are Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza or other groups that split the Arab states from within!
In fact Hassan Nasrallah is yet to come out with the detailed report that he promised after the story of Salah Ezz al-Din -- the Lebanese businessman affiliated to Hezbollah who is said to be a friend of Nasrallah, and who is known as the Imad Mughniyeh of finance -- was revealed, as weeks ago Nasrallah pledged to issue a detailed report showing the party's and its members' ties with Ezz al-Din and revealing the extent of the real losses.
Israel is a clear and acknowledged danger to our security, but the problem with Hezbollah is that it is a danger that many people ignore. In fact there is a propaganda machine that embarks upon misleading public opinion, as the party is now above the law and has its own media, communications [network], airport, spies, and businessmen...it is a party that the Lebanese traffic department cannot question under the [new] law relating to motorcycles that pass through the streets of Beirut in the same way they do in Iran.
Therefore the explosion, or the bombing -- as nothing is too farfetched -- that took place in Tayr Filsay on the southern bank of the Litani River, is evidence of the danger that looms and could blow up in Lebanon, especially as this explosion is not the first of its kind. It is the second explosion; the first occurred in July in Khirbet Silim in south Lebanon that also targeted a Hezbollah arms depot!
Posted by: Fred ||
10/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
WAFF > IS ANOTHER LEBANESE WAR [Israeli-Hizb]IN THE MAKING???
ARTIC > seems the HIZZIES HEZZIES HUZZIES, etc were observed loading Milyuhns-and-Zilyuhns of IMPROVED LR ROCKETS prior to the recent explosion, which essens means Hizbullah can now strike deeper into Israeli than since before 2006, which in turn again behooves ISRAEL = IDF TO RESORT TO MORE MASSIVE, NO-HOLDS-BARRED GROUND = COMBINED ARMS INCURSION OR INVASION OF LEBANON IN THE NEXT WAR.
* SAME > WE HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT IS UNMANNED.
#2
Islamonazis believe that secular political orders seize sovereignty from the arab deity concoction, "allah." Everything Israel does against terrorist animals like Hizbollah and Hamas, they do in the interest of Western Civilization, with its Judeo-Christian basis.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana
Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint. 
Most liberals aren't very religious. But they are people of faith. When reality clashes with a cherished belief, they cling to the cherished belief.
