US think tank details global investment in Iran
Companies and government agencies in three dozen countries have struck more than $153 billion in deals with Iran since 2000, investment that could offer important leverage to help persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, a new study says.
...
During the period studied, French companies were the leading investor in Iran at $30.2 billion, followed by China at $29.5 billion, Germany at $26 billion, Italy at $23.7 billion, Japan at $18.3 billion, Austria at $18 billion, the Netherlands at $13.6 billion, South Korea at $13.27 billion, Britain at $12.78 billion and India at $9.9 billion.
...
Even the US, which has had trade sanctions on Iran for nearly 30 years, posted $4.2 billion in investments.
The sanctions were imposed after fundamentalist students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days at the US embassy in Tehran during the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Pletka said US firms took advantage of loopholes that allowed them to conduct business through subsidiaries, as did Halliburton -- which recently completed its work in Iran -- or to assert, like Coca Cola and PepsiCo., that they were providing needed foodstuffs.
Other companies and government agencies cited by AEI included France's Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank, the Italian national export credit agency SACE, China National Non-Ferrous Metals Industry Corp., Germany's Linde AG and Japan's Chiyoda.
China, which needs new energy supplies to support its booming economy, was Iran's number one trading partner in 2005 -- the last year for which trade figures were available -- after four consecutive years as number two.
In 2005, Italy was the number two trading partner and also the number one guarantor of government export credits to Iran. Japan, Iran's number one trading partner in 2000-2004, was ninth in 2005. Tokyo has been under strong pressure from Washington to curb its dealings with Iran.
Spokesmen for the US State Department and Treasury Department say they were unaware of any comprehensive US government analysis of US and international investment in Iran despite the fact that their agencies play central roles in the US-led effort to increase pressure on Tehran's leaders.
Conflict Securities Advisory Group, a Washington-based global security risk consultancy, keeps a file on more than 300 companies doing business in Iran but the information is for clients.
The US and its allies have accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon but Tehran insists it is only trying to produce nuclear energy.
Pertinent Links:
1) US think tank details global investment in Iran
Showing posts with label earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label earth. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
DAR AL HARB - GERMANY: CENTRALIZED NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT, A WAY TO STOP 'SECRET' NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS
Germany proposes nuclear enrichment under UN body
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested on Tuesday building a uranium enrichment facility under UN auspices in a neutral country as a way to defuse nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea.
...
"It's not about dissuading Iran and North Korea from building nuclear weapons," Steinmeier said. "The issue is the civil use of nuclear energy. How can we ensure that states won't use the enrichment of uranium to secretly make nuclear weapons?"
Pertinent Links:
1) Germany proposes nuclear enrichment under UN body
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested on Tuesday building a uranium enrichment facility under UN auspices in a neutral country as a way to defuse nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea.
...
"It's not about dissuading Iran and North Korea from building nuclear weapons," Steinmeier said. "The issue is the civil use of nuclear energy. How can we ensure that states won't use the enrichment of uranium to secretly make nuclear weapons?"
Pertinent Links:
1) Germany proposes nuclear enrichment under UN body
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
DAR AL HARB / ISLAM - GERMANY: GERMANS WILL BE TARGETED FOR KIDNAPPINGS AROUND THE WORLD BY MOSLEM JIHADISTS
Islamists: Germans will be kidnapped
BERLIN, April 17, 2007 (UPI) -- Concerns are rising about the growing number of terror threats against Germany, formerly a country spared from Islamist violence.
Ever since the abduction of two Germans in Baghdad, the Islamists have stepped up the rhetorical warfare against Berlin.
In a video message to the German TV show "Spiegel TV," the Global Islamic Media Front, or GIMF -- a German language Web site that has in the past posted Islamist videos -- said that more Germans will be abducted in the future. The GIMF said it was relaying the message in the name of the kidnappers of the two German hostages in Iraq.
The kidnappers wanted to tell Berlin that "even if the two Germans are killed, Germans will always be targets for kidnappings all over the world until the German government pulls its troops out (of Afghanistan)," German news magazine Der Spiegel quoted from the message.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamists: Germans will be kidnapped
BERLIN, April 17, 2007 (UPI) -- Concerns are rising about the growing number of terror threats against Germany, formerly a country spared from Islamist violence.
Ever since the abduction of two Germans in Baghdad, the Islamists have stepped up the rhetorical warfare against Berlin.
In a video message to the German TV show "Spiegel TV," the Global Islamic Media Front, or GIMF -- a German language Web site that has in the past posted Islamist videos -- said that more Germans will be abducted in the future. The GIMF said it was relaying the message in the name of the kidnappers of the two German hostages in Iraq.
The kidnappers wanted to tell Berlin that "even if the two Germans are killed, Germans will always be targets for kidnappings all over the world until the German government pulls its troops out (of Afghanistan)," German news magazine Der Spiegel quoted from the message.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamists: Germans will be kidnapped
Friday, April 13, 2007
DAR AL ISLAM - IRAN: URANIUM ENRICHMENT IS ONLY ONE STEP AWAY FROM PRODUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Tehran Times: 'A Country That Has... Uranium Enrichment Is Only One Step Away from Producing Nuclear Weapons; This Step Is Not a Scientific or a Technical [One] – But a Matter of Political Decision'
By: Y. Mansharof
On April 10, 2007, after several postponements, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his long-promised message "that will gladden all Muslims" at Iran's Nuclear Day festivities.(1) During the day's main rally, held at the nuclear facility at Natanz, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was now manufacturing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.(2)
At this stage, senior Iranian nuclear program officials are not saying exactly how many centrifuges are operating at Natanz, apparently out of fear of a possible military attack by the West.(3) At the same time, both senior officials and the Iranian media are stressing the importance of this accomplishment, and that it marks the point of no return in Iran's nuclearization process.
With this announcement, the Iranian regime is apparently trying to achieve two aims. The first is to announce its nuclear progress despite U.N. sanctions and international pressure, and thus to deter a possible attack on its nuclear facilities. The second is to reduce domestic criticism following the increase in Western pressures and sanctions.(4)
The following are excerpts from Ahmadinejad's April 10 speech and from statements by other senior Iranian officials, as well as from the Iranian press, on the issue.
...
Read the whole thing...
Pertinent Links:
1) 'A Country That Has... Uranium Enrichment Is Only One Step Away from Producing Nuclear Weapons; This Step Is Not a Scientific or a Technical [One] – But a Matter of Political Decision'
By: Y. Mansharof
On April 10, 2007, after several postponements, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his long-promised message "that will gladden all Muslims" at Iran's Nuclear Day festivities.(1) During the day's main rally, held at the nuclear facility at Natanz, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was now manufacturing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.(2)
At this stage, senior Iranian nuclear program officials are not saying exactly how many centrifuges are operating at Natanz, apparently out of fear of a possible military attack by the West.(3) At the same time, both senior officials and the Iranian media are stressing the importance of this accomplishment, and that it marks the point of no return in Iran's nuclearization process.
With this announcement, the Iranian regime is apparently trying to achieve two aims. The first is to announce its nuclear progress despite U.N. sanctions and international pressure, and thus to deter a possible attack on its nuclear facilities. The second is to reduce domestic criticism following the increase in Western pressures and sanctions.(4)
The following are excerpts from Ahmadinejad's April 10 speech and from statements by other senior Iranian officials, as well as from the Iranian press, on the issue.
...
Read the whole thing...
Pertinent Links:
1) 'A Country That Has... Uranium Enrichment Is Only One Step Away from Producing Nuclear Weapons; This Step Is Not a Scientific or a Technical [One] – But a Matter of Political Decision'
Monday, February 19, 2007
DAR AL HARB - EU / U.S.A. / WORLD: THE E.U. & OTHER DEMOCRATIC NATIONS v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Europe should promote a democratic world order
by David Clark
LONDON: One of the many casualties of 9/11 and its aftermath has been the idea, fashionable in the 1990s, that a world with only one superpower would be a more comfortable place to live. This hinged on the argument that in a unipolar world order the dominant state, in pursuit of its global interests and responsibilities, acts as a producer of global public goods from which everyone benefits, such as security, stability and free trade. That is the basis on which the advocates of US primacy have always defended its legitimacy. Paul Wolfowitz’s famous Defence Planning Guidance paper of 1992 talked about the need for the US to “account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established economic and political order”.
Far from being the conceit of neoconservative intellectuals, faith in the benign effect of US power was shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Things look very different today. The intervention in Iraq has strengthened the very forces of extremism and violence it was meant to weaken, with the result that we are in much greater danger. The Bush administration continues to drag its heels on the environment and prevent the action needed to meet an even greater threat in the form of climate change. The US’s unwillingness to address its $764bn trade deficit and its determination to continue consuming beyond its means is responsible for global economic imbalances that threaten meltdown and worldwide depression.
Instead of acting as a provider of global public goods, the US looks more like a global free rider, using its power selfishly and irresponsibly to the detriment of the greater good.
A common mistake is to see this as a reflection of the American character, rather than as the inevitable consequence of unrestrained power. The truth is that any other nation in the US’s position would do the same and probably much worse. Dominant powers are always prone to trampling on the interests and rights of others.
The problem with US hegemony is that it’s hegemonic, not that it’s American. As Vladimir Putin pointed out in a speech this month, the unipolar model is inherently flawed because it concentrates power in ways that are unhealthy and undemocratic.
Very true, but how strange to hear it from the lips of the Russian president. In each of the criticisms he levelled at the US, more or less the same could be said about the government he leads.
Putin deplores America’s conduct of the war on terror, but the brutality of his assault on Chechnya makes the abuses at Guantanamo look mild by comparison. The bullying of Russia’s neighbours through energy cut-offs, trade embargoes and the sponsorship of local insurgencies shows scant regard for the high-minded diplomatic principles espoused in his speech. And when it comes to ripping up treaties and ignoring international law, Putin has little to learn from Bush. He refuses to accept Russia’s obligations as a signatory of the Energy Charter Treaty, for instance, and prefers the unilateral use of energy dominance for geopolitical and commercial advantage.
Putin’s only real objection to a unipolar world order is that Russia is not the unipole. In every other respect his foreign policy doctrine is similar to the neoconservative approach he purports to oppose. Anyone who takes his concern for democratic standards seriously hasn’t been paying enough attention to the erosion of political and civil rights under his leadership.
Europe, certainly needs a strategy for creating a more balanced and legitimate distribution of global power, but it shouldn’t be one that follows Jacques Chirac’s efforts to offset US influence through big power summitry with an authoritarian Russia. It must be one that is true to Europe’s democratic values.
Of course, the concept of power balancing is in itself controversial. For some, such as Tony Blair, the suggestion that US power needs to be balanced is evidence of anti-Americanism. But his alternative of seeking influence in Washington has been given more than a fair wind, and he has precious little to show for it. There is an alternative that allows Europe to pursue an effective power balancing strategy without resort to the cynical realpolitik of old, and it has been made possible by the remarkable political transformations of the last three decades.
Almost two-thirds of the world’s population, accounting for three-quarters of nation states, now live under democratic rule. It is those states collectively that form the body of legitimate world opinion and must be mobilised.
US policymakers have marginalised the United Nations on the grounds that universal membership confers power and legitimacy on despots and tyrants. But what was striking about the debate on Iraq was the fact that most world democratic opinion was opposed to America’s approach. The objective of power balancing must be to ensure it is brought to bear more effectively in future.
India will, on current trends, overtake China to become the world’s most populous country by the middle of the century. Unlike China, it is an established democracy and ought to be a natural ally in any attempt to create a more balanced and democratic world order.
Another priority should be South America, where the democratic gains of the last 20 years have been as great as those of eastern Europe. Its regional trade blocks, the Andean Community and Mercosur, are in the process of merging to form a South American Community of Nations modelled on the EU. With a population of 361mn, there are plans for a single market, a common currency and a common foreign policy.
Around these three poles — Europe, India and South America — it would be possible to galvanise a new global democratic sentiment that rejects unipolarist assumptions without being antagonistic towards the US.
The end of American primacy is coming, whether Washington likes it or not. The choice is between a bipolar system in which it faces an authoritarian and increasingly confident China, or a multipolar order in which it can share the challenges of global leadership with other centres of democratic power.
The shift from unipolarity to a democratic multipolarity should be our common project of the 21st century.
- Guardian News & Media * David Clark is chairman of the Russia Foundation and was a special adviser at the UK Foreign Office from 1997 to 2001
WOOO HOOOOOOOO ! ! !
Another European plan, the first plan that was hatched by Charles De Gaulle and the EEC, has resulted in EURABIA...
Now, let the Europeans hatch a plan for a "new world order" perhaps like the E.U. itself, a dicatorship perhaps a kingship.
Pertinent Links:
1) Europe should promote a democratic world order
by David Clark
LONDON: One of the many casualties of 9/11 and its aftermath has been the idea, fashionable in the 1990s, that a world with only one superpower would be a more comfortable place to live. This hinged on the argument that in a unipolar world order the dominant state, in pursuit of its global interests and responsibilities, acts as a producer of global public goods from which everyone benefits, such as security, stability and free trade. That is the basis on which the advocates of US primacy have always defended its legitimacy. Paul Wolfowitz’s famous Defence Planning Guidance paper of 1992 talked about the need for the US to “account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established economic and political order”.
Far from being the conceit of neoconservative intellectuals, faith in the benign effect of US power was shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Things look very different today. The intervention in Iraq has strengthened the very forces of extremism and violence it was meant to weaken, with the result that we are in much greater danger. The Bush administration continues to drag its heels on the environment and prevent the action needed to meet an even greater threat in the form of climate change. The US’s unwillingness to address its $764bn trade deficit and its determination to continue consuming beyond its means is responsible for global economic imbalances that threaten meltdown and worldwide depression.
Instead of acting as a provider of global public goods, the US looks more like a global free rider, using its power selfishly and irresponsibly to the detriment of the greater good.
A common mistake is to see this as a reflection of the American character, rather than as the inevitable consequence of unrestrained power. The truth is that any other nation in the US’s position would do the same and probably much worse. Dominant powers are always prone to trampling on the interests and rights of others.
The problem with US hegemony is that it’s hegemonic, not that it’s American. As Vladimir Putin pointed out in a speech this month, the unipolar model is inherently flawed because it concentrates power in ways that are unhealthy and undemocratic.
Very true, but how strange to hear it from the lips of the Russian president. In each of the criticisms he levelled at the US, more or less the same could be said about the government he leads.
Putin deplores America’s conduct of the war on terror, but the brutality of his assault on Chechnya makes the abuses at Guantanamo look mild by comparison. The bullying of Russia’s neighbours through energy cut-offs, trade embargoes and the sponsorship of local insurgencies shows scant regard for the high-minded diplomatic principles espoused in his speech. And when it comes to ripping up treaties and ignoring international law, Putin has little to learn from Bush. He refuses to accept Russia’s obligations as a signatory of the Energy Charter Treaty, for instance, and prefers the unilateral use of energy dominance for geopolitical and commercial advantage.
Putin’s only real objection to a unipolar world order is that Russia is not the unipole. In every other respect his foreign policy doctrine is similar to the neoconservative approach he purports to oppose. Anyone who takes his concern for democratic standards seriously hasn’t been paying enough attention to the erosion of political and civil rights under his leadership.
Europe, certainly needs a strategy for creating a more balanced and legitimate distribution of global power, but it shouldn’t be one that follows Jacques Chirac’s efforts to offset US influence through big power summitry with an authoritarian Russia. It must be one that is true to Europe’s democratic values.
Of course, the concept of power balancing is in itself controversial. For some, such as Tony Blair, the suggestion that US power needs to be balanced is evidence of anti-Americanism. But his alternative of seeking influence in Washington has been given more than a fair wind, and he has precious little to show for it. There is an alternative that allows Europe to pursue an effective power balancing strategy without resort to the cynical realpolitik of old, and it has been made possible by the remarkable political transformations of the last three decades.
Almost two-thirds of the world’s population, accounting for three-quarters of nation states, now live under democratic rule. It is those states collectively that form the body of legitimate world opinion and must be mobilised.
US policymakers have marginalised the United Nations on the grounds that universal membership confers power and legitimacy on despots and tyrants. But what was striking about the debate on Iraq was the fact that most world democratic opinion was opposed to America’s approach. The objective of power balancing must be to ensure it is brought to bear more effectively in future.
India will, on current trends, overtake China to become the world’s most populous country by the middle of the century. Unlike China, it is an established democracy and ought to be a natural ally in any attempt to create a more balanced and democratic world order.
Another priority should be South America, where the democratic gains of the last 20 years have been as great as those of eastern Europe. Its regional trade blocks, the Andean Community and Mercosur, are in the process of merging to form a South American Community of Nations modelled on the EU. With a population of 361mn, there are plans for a single market, a common currency and a common foreign policy.
Around these three poles — Europe, India and South America — it would be possible to galvanise a new global democratic sentiment that rejects unipolarist assumptions without being antagonistic towards the US.
The end of American primacy is coming, whether Washington likes it or not. The choice is between a bipolar system in which it faces an authoritarian and increasingly confident China, or a multipolar order in which it can share the challenges of global leadership with other centres of democratic power.
The shift from unipolarity to a democratic multipolarity should be our common project of the 21st century.
- Guardian News & Media * David Clark is chairman of the Russia Foundation and was a special adviser at the UK Foreign Office from 1997 to 2001
WOOO HOOOOOOOO ! ! !
Another European plan, the first plan that was hatched by Charles De Gaulle and the EEC, has resulted in EURABIA...
Now, let the Europeans hatch a plan for a "new world order" perhaps like the E.U. itself, a dicatorship perhaps a kingship.
Pertinent Links:
1) Europe should promote a democratic world order
Sunday, February 18, 2007
DAR AL HARB / ISLAM: THE IDEA OF A "WEST v ISLAM" CLASH REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY AROUND THE WORLD
Global poll: Most reject idea Islam and West face 'clash of civilizations'
LONDON: A majority of people surveyed in 27 countries do not believe the world is locked in a "clash of civilizations" that will lead to violent conflict between Islam and the West, according to a poll published Monday.
The British Broadcasting Corp. World Service poll of more than 28,000 people found 52 percent believe tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims are caused by political power and interests, compared with 29 percent who say religion and culture are root causes.
Most Muslim, non-Muslim and Westerner respondents rejected the idea that violent conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable. Although 28 percent said violence was inevitable, twice as many — 56 percent — believe "common ground can be found."
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, countries around the world have struggled with how to deal with radicalism at home and abroad. The poll's results are hopeful, showing most believe differences between Muslims and Westerners can be worked out, said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey with pollsters from GlobeScan.
"Most people around the world clearly reject the idea that Islam and the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations," Kull said.
Fifty-eight percent blame tensions on intolerant minorities — not cultural groups as a whole. But, 26 percent identified fundamental differences between the cultures as the cause.
In Britain, 77 percent believe common ground can be found between Muslim and Western cultures, compared with 15 percent who see violence as inevitable. In the U.S., 64 percent believed in common ground but 31 percent saw conflict as inevitable.
Overall, 52 percent of the 5,000 Muslims surveyed said common ground was possible, including majorities in Lebanon (68 percent) and Egypt (54 percent) as well as pluralities in Turkey (49 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (47 percent).
Worldwide, the poll indicated, Muslims are more certain than Christians that tensions derive from political conflict, at 55 percent compared with 51 percent.
The belief in common ground increases with education at 46 percent among those with no formal education to 64 percent for those with post secondary education.
Pollsters questioned about 1,000 people in each country. The margin of error for the Nov. 3-Jan. 16 poll ranges from 2.5-4 percentage points depending on the country.
Pertinent Links:
1) Global poll: Most reject idea Islam and West face 'clash of civilizations'
2) Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West (html)
3) Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West
LONDON: A majority of people surveyed in 27 countries do not believe the world is locked in a "clash of civilizations" that will lead to violent conflict between Islam and the West, according to a poll published Monday.
The British Broadcasting Corp. World Service poll of more than 28,000 people found 52 percent believe tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims are caused by political power and interests, compared with 29 percent who say religion and culture are root causes.
Most Muslim, non-Muslim and Westerner respondents rejected the idea that violent conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable. Although 28 percent said violence was inevitable, twice as many — 56 percent — believe "common ground can be found."
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, countries around the world have struggled with how to deal with radicalism at home and abroad. The poll's results are hopeful, showing most believe differences between Muslims and Westerners can be worked out, said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey with pollsters from GlobeScan.
"Most people around the world clearly reject the idea that Islam and the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations," Kull said.
Fifty-eight percent blame tensions on intolerant minorities — not cultural groups as a whole. But, 26 percent identified fundamental differences between the cultures as the cause.
In Britain, 77 percent believe common ground can be found between Muslim and Western cultures, compared with 15 percent who see violence as inevitable. In the U.S., 64 percent believed in common ground but 31 percent saw conflict as inevitable.
Overall, 52 percent of the 5,000 Muslims surveyed said common ground was possible, including majorities in Lebanon (68 percent) and Egypt (54 percent) as well as pluralities in Turkey (49 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (47 percent).
Worldwide, the poll indicated, Muslims are more certain than Christians that tensions derive from political conflict, at 55 percent compared with 51 percent.
The belief in common ground increases with education at 46 percent among those with no formal education to 64 percent for those with post secondary education.
Pollsters questioned about 1,000 people in each country. The margin of error for the Nov. 3-Jan. 16 poll ranges from 2.5-4 percentage points depending on the country.
Pertinent Links:
1) Global poll: Most reject idea Islam and West face 'clash of civilizations'
2) Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West (html)
3) Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West
Friday, February 09, 2007
EARTH: YOUTUBE.COM, THE JIHADISTS NEW FRONT IN THE PROPAGANDA WAR
Militant Islamic groups open new propaganda front in war on terror
LONDON: With just one click, anyone with an Internet connection can watch videos of bombings and sniper attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq — shot, edited and broadcast by Islamic militants on YouTube, the world's largest video sharing portal.
With the global spread of high-speed Internet connections and the anonymity afforded by the world's biggest and busiest sites, extremists have found a new forum for displaying largely unregulated propaganda, viewed by up to 100 million people a day.
On Friday, prosecutors in Britain charged a man with plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier — an act that was reportedly intended to be posted on the Internet. Until recently, videos shot by terror groups were posted predominantly on specialist Internet sites, which only those knowing what to look for could find. But now more are turning to mainstream sites like YouTube to maximize viewers.
"They can always bring down a video, but it's very easy to create a new one. It's like an uphill treadmill for YouTube," said Sajjan Gohel, director of international security at the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation, a counterterrorism think tank.
Jeremy Curtin, a U.S. State Department official responsible for monitoring Internet propaganda, said authorities were aware of the footage on sites like YouTube but had not made any real progress in tackling the problem.
"It's new to everybody, we are trying to find out how best to engage with Internet companies," he told The Associated Press.
European intelligence agencies, while acknowledging existence of the videos, also say there is little they can do to stem the tide.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief of staff Thomas de Maiziere, who oversees intelligence agencies, said authorities are struggling to glean information from cyberspace.
"Trying to uncover Internet meetings of terrorists is like searching for a needle in a haystack," he told the online magazine Netzeitung. "The security agencies have their hands full trying to keep pace and get into these chat rooms."
...
By the time the U.S. government figures out how to engage the "internet companies" the 'war on terror' shall be over...
Pertinent Links:
1) Militant Islamic groups open new propaganda front in war on terror
LONDON: With just one click, anyone with an Internet connection can watch videos of bombings and sniper attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq — shot, edited and broadcast by Islamic militants on YouTube, the world's largest video sharing portal.
With the global spread of high-speed Internet connections and the anonymity afforded by the world's biggest and busiest sites, extremists have found a new forum for displaying largely unregulated propaganda, viewed by up to 100 million people a day.
On Friday, prosecutors in Britain charged a man with plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier — an act that was reportedly intended to be posted on the Internet. Until recently, videos shot by terror groups were posted predominantly on specialist Internet sites, which only those knowing what to look for could find. But now more are turning to mainstream sites like YouTube to maximize viewers.
"They can always bring down a video, but it's very easy to create a new one. It's like an uphill treadmill for YouTube," said Sajjan Gohel, director of international security at the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation, a counterterrorism think tank.
Jeremy Curtin, a U.S. State Department official responsible for monitoring Internet propaganda, said authorities were aware of the footage on sites like YouTube but had not made any real progress in tackling the problem.
"It's new to everybody, we are trying to find out how best to engage with Internet companies," he told The Associated Press.
European intelligence agencies, while acknowledging existence of the videos, also say there is little they can do to stem the tide.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief of staff Thomas de Maiziere, who oversees intelligence agencies, said authorities are struggling to glean information from cyberspace.
"Trying to uncover Internet meetings of terrorists is like searching for a needle in a haystack," he told the online magazine Netzeitung. "The security agencies have their hands full trying to keep pace and get into these chat rooms."
...
By the time the U.S. government figures out how to engage the "internet companies" the 'war on terror' shall be over...
Pertinent Links:
1) Militant Islamic groups open new propaganda front in war on terror
Sunday, February 04, 2007
DAR AL HARB-CHRISTENDOM: THE WEST WILL BE OUTNUMBERED BY MOSLEMS IN THE COMING DECADES
Muslims Could Overtake Western World with High Birth Rates
A pro-life group says that the Western world’s current low birth rate could mean that Muslims will overtake the West’s population in the coming decades.
by Ethan Cole, Christian Today US Correspondent
A pro-life group says that the Western world’s current low birth rate could mean that Muslims will overtake the West’s population in the coming decades.
The Population Research Institute said the Western world is facing a crisis with almost every country having birth rates below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, according to OneNewsNow.
The replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women would have only enough children to replace themselves and their partner. At 2.1 births per women, the population growth through reproduction would be about zero.
“It’s because Christian and Jews are refusing to have children, refusing to get married, [and] having such low birth rates that the Muslims are going to inherit the Earth,” said PRI spokesman Joseph D’Agostino to OneNewsNow. “It’s not anything the Muslims are doing; it’s what Christians and Jews are not doing.”
However, others have refuted claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the world growth rate of Muslims is 2.13 and for Christians it is 1.36, with the birth rate of Muslims about double that of Christians. However, Christians are out converting Muslims almost two to one (1.7:1), the Encyclopedia reports.
“There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day,” wrote Brother Andrew, founder of Open Doors, in a commentary in 2004. “The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis.”
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslims Could Overtake Western World with High Birth Rates
A pro-life group says that the Western world’s current low birth rate could mean that Muslims will overtake the West’s population in the coming decades.
by Ethan Cole, Christian Today US Correspondent
A pro-life group says that the Western world’s current low birth rate could mean that Muslims will overtake the West’s population in the coming decades.
The Population Research Institute said the Western world is facing a crisis with almost every country having birth rates below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, according to OneNewsNow.
The replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women would have only enough children to replace themselves and their partner. At 2.1 births per women, the population growth through reproduction would be about zero.
“It’s because Christian and Jews are refusing to have children, refusing to get married, [and] having such low birth rates that the Muslims are going to inherit the Earth,” said PRI spokesman Joseph D’Agostino to OneNewsNow. “It’s not anything the Muslims are doing; it’s what Christians and Jews are not doing.”
However, others have refuted claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the world growth rate of Muslims is 2.13 and for Christians it is 1.36, with the birth rate of Muslims about double that of Christians. However, Christians are out converting Muslims almost two to one (1.7:1), the Encyclopedia reports.
“There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day,” wrote Brother Andrew, founder of Open Doors, in a commentary in 2004. “The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis.”
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslims Could Overtake Western World with High Birth Rates
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
EARTH: THE U.S. DOLLAR IS NOT AS DEAD AS SOME WANT IT TO BE
Reports of dollar's death greatly exaggerated, currency experts say
Countries with large dollar holdings are showing a new willingness to dump the dollar in favor of the rising euro.
Late last month, the United Arab Emirates became the latest country to shift more of its currency reserves away from the dollar, joining Russia, Switzerland, Venezuela and others.
Those moves come amid ambiguous signals from China recently about possibly pulling back from the dollar, and recent word from Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, that it would prefer payments for oil, typically priced in dollars, in euros.
But currency experts say that this turn away from the dollar is not likely to do any long-term damage to the currency's value for a number of reasons. First, the motives of central banks that are adding other currencies to their reserves do not appear to be driven by the belief that the euro will eventually supplant the dollar as the world's key currency. Rather, these central banks are doing what investors typically do to minimize risk: diversifying their portfolios.
Moreover, the amount of currency moved so far has been relatively small in a global market that trades trillions of dollars a day — only about $2 billion in the case of the United Arab Emirates, for example.
"There is some indication that central banks are moving to diversify reserves, but it's at a very slow pace," said David Powell, a currency analyst with IDEAglobal. "Is it the start of a massive shift out of the dollar? I would say no."
Further, the lasting impact on the dollar's value when foreign central banks invest in other currencies is far from certain, analysts said.
"Most people think it does not influence exchange rates for any long period of time," said Edwin Truman, senior fellow at the Petersen Institute for International Economics who served for more than two decades as the director of international finance for the Federal Reserve. "It has some day-to-day effects, but not any big effects."
News of the United Arab Emirates decision was part of the reason the dollar fell against the euro, the British pound and the Japanese yen last week. Last year, the euro appreciated more than 11 percent against the dollar, and the British pound rose nearly 14 percent against the dollar.
But those trends seem to be driven by other forces, including varying prospects for growth around the world and changes in interest rates in the United States and elsewhere.
One reason the dollar is not likely to start flowing with great speed out of central banks is that foreign countries risk devaluing their investments if they do so. Even the slightest suggestion that a country is thinking about swapping dollars for euros risks sending the value of the dollar falling, and in turn hurts all foreign investors in U.S. securities.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Reports of dollar's death greatly exaggerated, currency experts say
Countries with large dollar holdings are showing a new willingness to dump the dollar in favor of the rising euro.
Late last month, the United Arab Emirates became the latest country to shift more of its currency reserves away from the dollar, joining Russia, Switzerland, Venezuela and others.
Those moves come amid ambiguous signals from China recently about possibly pulling back from the dollar, and recent word from Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, that it would prefer payments for oil, typically priced in dollars, in euros.
But currency experts say that this turn away from the dollar is not likely to do any long-term damage to the currency's value for a number of reasons. First, the motives of central banks that are adding other currencies to their reserves do not appear to be driven by the belief that the euro will eventually supplant the dollar as the world's key currency. Rather, these central banks are doing what investors typically do to minimize risk: diversifying their portfolios.
Moreover, the amount of currency moved so far has been relatively small in a global market that trades trillions of dollars a day — only about $2 billion in the case of the United Arab Emirates, for example.
"There is some indication that central banks are moving to diversify reserves, but it's at a very slow pace," said David Powell, a currency analyst with IDEAglobal. "Is it the start of a massive shift out of the dollar? I would say no."
Further, the lasting impact on the dollar's value when foreign central banks invest in other currencies is far from certain, analysts said.
"Most people think it does not influence exchange rates for any long period of time," said Edwin Truman, senior fellow at the Petersen Institute for International Economics who served for more than two decades as the director of international finance for the Federal Reserve. "It has some day-to-day effects, but not any big effects."
News of the United Arab Emirates decision was part of the reason the dollar fell against the euro, the British pound and the Japanese yen last week. Last year, the euro appreciated more than 11 percent against the dollar, and the British pound rose nearly 14 percent against the dollar.
But those trends seem to be driven by other forces, including varying prospects for growth around the world and changes in interest rates in the United States and elsewhere.
One reason the dollar is not likely to start flowing with great speed out of central banks is that foreign countries risk devaluing their investments if they do so. Even the slightest suggestion that a country is thinking about swapping dollars for euros risks sending the value of the dollar falling, and in turn hurts all foreign investors in U.S. securities.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Reports of dollar's death greatly exaggerated, currency experts say
Monday, January 01, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
EARTH: U.S. INFLUENCE DWINDLES IN AFRICA
Letter from Africa: U.S. influence dwindles on a restless continent
MOGADISHU, Somalia
The rally last month was supposed to be against Ethiopia, Somalia's neighbor and historic archenemy, whose troops would soon sweep into this capital. But the cheers that shook the stadium (which had no roof, by the way, and was riddled with bullet holes) were about another country, far, far away.
"Down, down U.S.A.!" thousands of Somalis yelled, many of them waving cocked Kalashnikovs. "Slit the throats of the Americans!"
Not exactly soothing words, especially when the passport in your pocket has one of those golden eagles on it.
Somalia may be the place that best illustrates a trend sweeping across the African continent:
After Sept. 11, 2001, the United States concluded that anarchy and misery aided terrorism, and so it tried to re-engage Africa. But anti-U.S. sentiment on the continent has only grown, and become increasingly nasty. And the United States seems unable to do much about it.
A number of experts on Africa trace those developments to a sense not of American power, but of its decline — a perception that the United States is no longer the only power that counts, that it is too bogged down in the Middle East to be a real threat here, and so it can be ignored or defied with impunity.
U.S. officials, for example, acknowledge that they are at a loss about what to do about the on-again, off-again Somali crisis, which cracked open in December when the two forces dueling for power blasted away at each other in their first major confrontation. In this case, there are a lot of reasons why many of the people don't like Americans, starting with the United States' botched efforts to play peacemaker in the early 1990s to its current support for Ethiopia, whose troops last week helped the internationally recognized government oust the Islamic regime that held the rally in the stadium.
But the broader issue playing out here — the sense that Washington is not the kingmaker it once was — goes beyond Mogadishu. It is Africa-wide. And it is based on a changed reality: The emergence of other customers for Africa's resources and the tying down of U.S. military forces in Iraq have combined to reduce U.S. clout in sub- Saharan Africa, even as the United States pumps in more financial aid than ever — about $4 billion per year.
"The actual ability of the U.S. to influence circumstances on the ground in Africa has declined dramatically," said Michael Clough, a former director of the Africa program of the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the symbolic significance of the United States is still there. So we become the perfect target."
Chester Crocker, who was an assistant secretary of state for Africa under President Ronald Reagan, says the drop in U.S. influence began when the Cold War ended. He argues that despite all the complaints about fickle Cold War Africa policy, which critics say propped up one corrupt dictator after another under the rationale of containing communism, the United States was at least paying attention to Africa, and its efforts may have saved millions of lives.
It was in the decade immediately after the Cold War, Crocker said, when the United States disengaged from much of the continent, that Africa fell apart. Cataclysmic wars swept through Somalia, Rwanda, Algeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Congo. More Africans were slaughtered in the 1990s than in any other recent decade.
Now, as the United States resumes its interest in Africa, it faces a new, more pixilated landscape. "Africa is in play again," Crocker said. "It is a more competitive playing field which gives greater influence to African leaders as well as to potential competitors or 'balancers' of U.S. diplomatic leverage. It is not just China; it is Brazil, the Europeans, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, India."
"Inevitably," he concluded, "this dilutes somewhat U.S. ability to call the shots, define the agenda and mobilize coherent international action."
For example, there is Sudan, a country that the West, and the United States in particular, has desperately tried to isolate. First, it was because of Sudan's links to terrorists. Then came reports that the government was tied to genocide in Darfur. Sanctions have been imposed, almost embarrassing amounts of diplomatic pressure have been exerted and now military threats are being made. The result: even more anti-American hatred, which plays straight into the hands of the hard-line Khartoum regime.
Why are the results of U.S. policy in Sudan so meager? Two reasons stand out above others: oil and Asia.
Sudan is flush with a booming supply of crude oil, and it has turned to East from West for trade partners: to China, India, Malaysia and the Arab world. That means U.S. economic leverage doesn't work as it once did.
"We learned that we don't need the Americans anymore," said Lam Akol, Sudan's foreign minister. "We found other avenues."
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Crocker said, there were few other avenues. In those Cold War days, he said, sustained, patient, high-level U.S. involvement helped end wars from Angola to Mozambique and helped to bring South Africa's brutal apartheid system to its knees.
In the 1990s, with the Soviet Union gone, aid to Africa fell; Americans were turning inward, and foreign policy focused far more on building trade relations with dynamic new partners, especially in Asia and Eastern Europe.
But then came Sept. 11.
"And suddenly poor, nasty, weak places mattered," said Steve Morrison, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In an effort to reduce the conditions in which terrorism is thought to thrive, U.S. foreign aid to Africa surged, with much of the money going to health programs and peacekeeping. Private Western efforts to alleviate suffering also increased. Just ask Bill Gates. Or Bill Clinton.
Today, in Congo, the United States spends more than $200 million supporting a UN peacekeeping mission that has barely kept that unruly, violent country intact. But Ted Dagne, a specialist in African affairs for the Congressional Research Service, said that such concern about security in Africa "has not led to expansion of relations in other areas and did not increase American influence in Africa."
One reason, he argued, was that American policy these days does not necessarily mean sustained, patient, high-level attention. Instead, it emphasizes the role that Africans themselves can play (supported by American money and advice, of course). More and more, Africans are mediating their own conflicts, from the border disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the civil wars in Burundi and Sudan.
Another reason is Iraq. The ceaselessness of Baghdad's bloodshed has greatly undermined U.S. credibility.
Even so, many Africa experts say there are countries — Kenya is one — where the American message still matters. There, the United States is generally credited, along with other Western countries, with exerting crucial diplomatic leverage that helped Kenya make the peaceful transition in 2002 from a one-party state to a genuine multiparty democracy.
"America still has a lot of influence," said S.O. Mageto, a former Kenyan ambassador to Washington. "But not like it used to."
Pertinet Links:
1) Letter from Africa: U.S. influence dwindles on a restless continent
MOGADISHU, Somalia
The rally last month was supposed to be against Ethiopia, Somalia's neighbor and historic archenemy, whose troops would soon sweep into this capital. But the cheers that shook the stadium (which had no roof, by the way, and was riddled with bullet holes) were about another country, far, far away.
"Down, down U.S.A.!" thousands of Somalis yelled, many of them waving cocked Kalashnikovs. "Slit the throats of the Americans!"
Not exactly soothing words, especially when the passport in your pocket has one of those golden eagles on it.
Somalia may be the place that best illustrates a trend sweeping across the African continent:
After Sept. 11, 2001, the United States concluded that anarchy and misery aided terrorism, and so it tried to re-engage Africa. But anti-U.S. sentiment on the continent has only grown, and become increasingly nasty. And the United States seems unable to do much about it.
A number of experts on Africa trace those developments to a sense not of American power, but of its decline — a perception that the United States is no longer the only power that counts, that it is too bogged down in the Middle East to be a real threat here, and so it can be ignored or defied with impunity.
U.S. officials, for example, acknowledge that they are at a loss about what to do about the on-again, off-again Somali crisis, which cracked open in December when the two forces dueling for power blasted away at each other in their first major confrontation. In this case, there are a lot of reasons why many of the people don't like Americans, starting with the United States' botched efforts to play peacemaker in the early 1990s to its current support for Ethiopia, whose troops last week helped the internationally recognized government oust the Islamic regime that held the rally in the stadium.
But the broader issue playing out here — the sense that Washington is not the kingmaker it once was — goes beyond Mogadishu. It is Africa-wide. And it is based on a changed reality: The emergence of other customers for Africa's resources and the tying down of U.S. military forces in Iraq have combined to reduce U.S. clout in sub- Saharan Africa, even as the United States pumps in more financial aid than ever — about $4 billion per year.
"The actual ability of the U.S. to influence circumstances on the ground in Africa has declined dramatically," said Michael Clough, a former director of the Africa program of the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the symbolic significance of the United States is still there. So we become the perfect target."
Chester Crocker, who was an assistant secretary of state for Africa under President Ronald Reagan, says the drop in U.S. influence began when the Cold War ended. He argues that despite all the complaints about fickle Cold War Africa policy, which critics say propped up one corrupt dictator after another under the rationale of containing communism, the United States was at least paying attention to Africa, and its efforts may have saved millions of lives.
It was in the decade immediately after the Cold War, Crocker said, when the United States disengaged from much of the continent, that Africa fell apart. Cataclysmic wars swept through Somalia, Rwanda, Algeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Congo. More Africans were slaughtered in the 1990s than in any other recent decade.
Now, as the United States resumes its interest in Africa, it faces a new, more pixilated landscape. "Africa is in play again," Crocker said. "It is a more competitive playing field which gives greater influence to African leaders as well as to potential competitors or 'balancers' of U.S. diplomatic leverage. It is not just China; it is Brazil, the Europeans, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, India."
"Inevitably," he concluded, "this dilutes somewhat U.S. ability to call the shots, define the agenda and mobilize coherent international action."
For example, there is Sudan, a country that the West, and the United States in particular, has desperately tried to isolate. First, it was because of Sudan's links to terrorists. Then came reports that the government was tied to genocide in Darfur. Sanctions have been imposed, almost embarrassing amounts of diplomatic pressure have been exerted and now military threats are being made. The result: even more anti-American hatred, which plays straight into the hands of the hard-line Khartoum regime.
Why are the results of U.S. policy in Sudan so meager? Two reasons stand out above others: oil and Asia.
Sudan is flush with a booming supply of crude oil, and it has turned to East from West for trade partners: to China, India, Malaysia and the Arab world. That means U.S. economic leverage doesn't work as it once did.
"We learned that we don't need the Americans anymore," said Lam Akol, Sudan's foreign minister. "We found other avenues."
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Crocker said, there were few other avenues. In those Cold War days, he said, sustained, patient, high-level U.S. involvement helped end wars from Angola to Mozambique and helped to bring South Africa's brutal apartheid system to its knees.
In the 1990s, with the Soviet Union gone, aid to Africa fell; Americans were turning inward, and foreign policy focused far more on building trade relations with dynamic new partners, especially in Asia and Eastern Europe.
But then came Sept. 11.
"And suddenly poor, nasty, weak places mattered," said Steve Morrison, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In an effort to reduce the conditions in which terrorism is thought to thrive, U.S. foreign aid to Africa surged, with much of the money going to health programs and peacekeeping. Private Western efforts to alleviate suffering also increased. Just ask Bill Gates. Or Bill Clinton.
Today, in Congo, the United States spends more than $200 million supporting a UN peacekeeping mission that has barely kept that unruly, violent country intact. But Ted Dagne, a specialist in African affairs for the Congressional Research Service, said that such concern about security in Africa "has not led to expansion of relations in other areas and did not increase American influence in Africa."
One reason, he argued, was that American policy these days does not necessarily mean sustained, patient, high-level attention. Instead, it emphasizes the role that Africans themselves can play (supported by American money and advice, of course). More and more, Africans are mediating their own conflicts, from the border disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the civil wars in Burundi and Sudan.
Another reason is Iraq. The ceaselessness of Baghdad's bloodshed has greatly undermined U.S. credibility.
Even so, many Africa experts say there are countries — Kenya is one — where the American message still matters. There, the United States is generally credited, along with other Western countries, with exerting crucial diplomatic leverage that helped Kenya make the peaceful transition in 2002 from a one-party state to a genuine multiparty democracy.
"America still has a lot of influence," said S.O. Mageto, a former Kenyan ambassador to Washington. "But not like it used to."
Pertinet Links:
1) Letter from Africa: U.S. influence dwindles on a restless continent
Saturday, December 23, 2006
EARTH: "DIALOGUE" BETWEEN THE WEST, IRAN & SYRIA ARE AT A DEAD END
Dialogue between the West, Iran and Syria leads to a dead end
The US has merely ended up eliminating Iran's two regional rivals -- the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime -- leaving it to project itself as a regional hegemon
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Saturday, Dec 23, 2006, Page 9
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the fundamental problem in the Middle East is not intervention by the West. The real problem is that, for all their dabbling, the Western powers seem capable of neither war nor dialogue. This leaves everyone in the region at the mercy of the Middle East's oppressive regimes and proliferating terrorists.
Advocates of the Iraq war lacked an understanding of the complexities on the ground to wage an effective war of liberation and democratization. As a result, their policies merely ended up eliminating Iran's two major regional rivals: the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. This presented Iran with a golden opportunity to project itself as a regional hegemon, and Iran's leaders are unlikely to let this opportunity slip away.
Advocates of dialogue with the Iranians and their Syrian allies, like former US Secretary of State James Baker, labor under the delusion that they can actually reach an understanding that can enable a graceful US exit from Iraq and help stabilize that wounded country. The delusion is based on two false assumptions -- that the Iranians and the Syrians can succeed in Iraq where the US has failed, and that the international community can afford to pay the price of ensuring their cooperation.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dialogue between the West, Iran and Syria leads to a dead end
The US has merely ended up eliminating Iran's two regional rivals -- the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime -- leaving it to project itself as a regional hegemon
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Saturday, Dec 23, 2006, Page 9
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the fundamental problem in the Middle East is not intervention by the West. The real problem is that, for all their dabbling, the Western powers seem capable of neither war nor dialogue. This leaves everyone in the region at the mercy of the Middle East's oppressive regimes and proliferating terrorists.
Advocates of the Iraq war lacked an understanding of the complexities on the ground to wage an effective war of liberation and democratization. As a result, their policies merely ended up eliminating Iran's two major regional rivals: the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. This presented Iran with a golden opportunity to project itself as a regional hegemon, and Iran's leaders are unlikely to let this opportunity slip away.
Advocates of dialogue with the Iranians and their Syrian allies, like former US Secretary of State James Baker, labor under the delusion that they can actually reach an understanding that can enable a graceful US exit from Iraq and help stabilize that wounded country. The delusion is based on two false assumptions -- that the Iranians and the Syrians can succeed in Iraq where the US has failed, and that the international community can afford to pay the price of ensuring their cooperation.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dialogue between the West, Iran and Syria leads to a dead end
Friday, December 22, 2006
EARTH: SURVIVAL BOOKLET FOR NUCLEAR WAR...
Survival Guide:
- It is preferable to wear white, as thermal heat passes more freely through dark clothing.
- Though lead is considered a good protective barrier, Beta particles hitting lead form X-rays; thus it is preferable to coat the lead with aluminum foil; actually it pays to coat anything you are hiding behind with aluminum foil, wood or plastic.
- Gamma rays "know" how to pass around corners, thus it is preferable to hide in a shelter that is reached by turning several 90 degree angles.
- Swallow potassium iodide to avoid thyroid cancer.
a. Because there are many kinds of burns and poisoning, summarizing them succinctly is difficult. In brief, if one detects the signs of poisoning (nausea, etc.) within a few minutes, a quarter of an hour or sometimes half an hour – his chances are slim. But if the symptoms appear between one and six hours after exposure, his chances are better. In any case, the symptoms should disappear after a day or two, for a week or two, and then reappear; of those who will die, most will die within a month.
b. While exposure to the powerful radiation from the blast is most dangerous, there is also danger in prolonged exposure to radiation. Thus one should try to get to a clean area and to change clothes. While it is recommended to wash with soap and water, at least in the case of Israel, it is unclear where the water will come from; the national water monopoly has not made any plans to protect its supply from radiation. Still, if one manages to get to a clean area and wash, this is preferable, but one should not rub the burned and peeling skin too hard, or allow the dirt pass into one's open wounds.
- Of course, to increase the odds of survival, it would be preferable to be rid of Iran before Iran is rid of us.
- But to do that, one must first be rid of the government of Israel and the conceptions controlling the government in the US.
- In Israel, the prime minister and his cabinet, and the military brass, proclaim and may even believe that Israel won last summer's war in Lebanon and that the Israeli army functioned well; both the Israeli and American governments think that the way to solve the problems of our region are to return to the Road Map and to offer the gangs of murderers surrounding Israel a little more territory or economic aid, because, as Israeli leaders have been repeating ad nauseam for the past decade, there is no military solution, not now, later or ever, here, there or anywhere, and as Olmert and Livni and before them Barak and Sharon and before them the Jews of the 1930s say and said, when faced with attacks, "Restraint is strength"; and so retreats become "disengagement," and surrender is victory and war is peace and as long as we are on this slope, "Work makes us free."
- In America of course it is all about spreading “democracy”. This theory might be summed up as, “What’s good for the goose must be good for the wolf.” The problem is that the multi-cultural Open Society democracy invites the wolf to lunch with the American goose, gander, and goslings.
- And let us in Israel pray we are freed from this our government and our nuclear enemies before these enemies free us from our bodies, as our previous enemies did, those accursed enemies who proclaimed that "Work makes us free."
- And let us pray the American president decides to win this war the old-fashioned way, before Iran and North Korea, not the world's most rational or restrained regimes, decide to do the winning.
Pertinent Links:
1) A Special Survival Booklet for Nuclear War
2) S.A.N.E. Society of Americans for National Existence
- It is preferable to wear white, as thermal heat passes more freely through dark clothing.
- Though lead is considered a good protective barrier, Beta particles hitting lead form X-rays; thus it is preferable to coat the lead with aluminum foil; actually it pays to coat anything you are hiding behind with aluminum foil, wood or plastic.
- Gamma rays "know" how to pass around corners, thus it is preferable to hide in a shelter that is reached by turning several 90 degree angles.
- Swallow potassium iodide to avoid thyroid cancer.
a. Because there are many kinds of burns and poisoning, summarizing them succinctly is difficult. In brief, if one detects the signs of poisoning (nausea, etc.) within a few minutes, a quarter of an hour or sometimes half an hour – his chances are slim. But if the symptoms appear between one and six hours after exposure, his chances are better. In any case, the symptoms should disappear after a day or two, for a week or two, and then reappear; of those who will die, most will die within a month.
b. While exposure to the powerful radiation from the blast is most dangerous, there is also danger in prolonged exposure to radiation. Thus one should try to get to a clean area and to change clothes. While it is recommended to wash with soap and water, at least in the case of Israel, it is unclear where the water will come from; the national water monopoly has not made any plans to protect its supply from radiation. Still, if one manages to get to a clean area and wash, this is preferable, but one should not rub the burned and peeling skin too hard, or allow the dirt pass into one's open wounds.
- Of course, to increase the odds of survival, it would be preferable to be rid of Iran before Iran is rid of us.
- But to do that, one must first be rid of the government of Israel and the conceptions controlling the government in the US.
- In Israel, the prime minister and his cabinet, and the military brass, proclaim and may even believe that Israel won last summer's war in Lebanon and that the Israeli army functioned well; both the Israeli and American governments think that the way to solve the problems of our region are to return to the Road Map and to offer the gangs of murderers surrounding Israel a little more territory or economic aid, because, as Israeli leaders have been repeating ad nauseam for the past decade, there is no military solution, not now, later or ever, here, there or anywhere, and as Olmert and Livni and before them Barak and Sharon and before them the Jews of the 1930s say and said, when faced with attacks, "Restraint is strength"; and so retreats become "disengagement," and surrender is victory and war is peace and as long as we are on this slope, "Work makes us free."
- In America of course it is all about spreading “democracy”. This theory might be summed up as, “What’s good for the goose must be good for the wolf.” The problem is that the multi-cultural Open Society democracy invites the wolf to lunch with the American goose, gander, and goslings.
- And let us in Israel pray we are freed from this our government and our nuclear enemies before these enemies free us from our bodies, as our previous enemies did, those accursed enemies who proclaimed that "Work makes us free."
- And let us pray the American president decides to win this war the old-fashioned way, before Iran and North Korea, not the world's most rational or restrained regimes, decide to do the winning.
Pertinent Links:
1) A Special Survival Booklet for Nuclear War
2) S.A.N.E. Society of Americans for National Existence
EARTH: ISLAM IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION, A POEM
Islam is a Peaceful Religion
“Islam is a peaceful religion.”
“Islam is a peaceful religion.”
They’ll tell you that straight to your face.
And they’ll swear that it’s true,
Unless, of course, you
Aren’t a Muslim, then it’s not the case.
Sunnis, they all hate the Shiah.
The Shiah hate Sunnis as well.
But there’s no debating,When it comes to hating,
They both hate the damned Infidel.
Just who is an Infidel, really?
It’s you and your kids and your mom.
If you’ve an aversion
To enforced conversion
You’re targets to “peaceful Islam”.
“Islam is a peaceful religion.”
We hear it all night on TV.
Each time that it’s said
We can count on more dead,
Who are peaceful as peaceful can be.
“Death!” cries the “peaceful religion”.
They shout it ‘til they’re out of breath.
“Death to the Hindu!”And
“Death to the Jew!”And
“Death to America! Death!”
“It’s just a small group of fanatics.”
We’re told after each new assault.
“Ignore those who rant.
Heed not those who chant.
And, besides, it’s America’s fault.”
“Islam is a peaceful religion.”
With hypnotic rhetoric they
Continue to gull us,
To soothe and to lull us
Until that “most glorious day”
When Islam, the “peaceful religion”
Has forced the free world to its knees
And the masks they now wear
From their faces they tear
And we see the true face of disease.
“Islam is a peaceful religion.”?
How long must we live with this lie?
It’s time for the
FreeTo rise up and decree:
“Our Liberty shall never die!”
We must tell this “peaceful religion”
Our tolerance is at an end.
We’ve been patient and kind
But you’re going to find
We won’t break just because we can bend.
Know this, Oh “peaceful religion”
And know it without any doubt.
Though we try to be fair,
You don’t want to be there
When our patience and kindness run out.
by The Average Joe
Pertinent Links:
Thursday, December 21, 2006
EARTH: CHINA & PAKISTAN TO SIGN A NUCLEAR ENERGY COOPERATION AGREEMENT
Pakistan, China to sign nuclear energy cooperation agreement
ISLAMABAD, Dec 21 (KUNA) -- Pakistan and China are holding experts-level consultations to finalize the vital energy cooperation agreement in a couple of months, said a report on Thursday.
During the recent visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Pakistan, the two states agreed in principle to enter into a new phase of nuclear energy cooperation, the local newspaper "The Nation" - citing diplomatic sources - reported.
The newspaper said the two time-tested friends were expected to sign the agreement during the visit of the Chinese President to Islamabad in November, this year. However, it added, the decision was delayed as some technical matters were required to be sorted out before the signing of the important pact.
After the conclusion of the ongoing technical level talks, Pakistan Atomic Energy Cooperation (PAEC) and the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) would sign the landmark agreement that would provide Pakistan two nuclear reactors of 300 megawatts by the end of 2007.
The agreement would be followed by four others in the years to come, it added.
It said further that one important aspect of the new agreement would be the permanent transfer of nuclear reactors building technology to Pakistan. "This will enable Pakistan to carry out 40 percent construction work of nuclear power plants on its own", said diplomatic source. (end) amn.
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan, China to sign nuclear energy cooperation agreement
ISLAMABAD, Dec 21 (KUNA) -- Pakistan and China are holding experts-level consultations to finalize the vital energy cooperation agreement in a couple of months, said a report on Thursday.
During the recent visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Pakistan, the two states agreed in principle to enter into a new phase of nuclear energy cooperation, the local newspaper "The Nation" - citing diplomatic sources - reported.
The newspaper said the two time-tested friends were expected to sign the agreement during the visit of the Chinese President to Islamabad in November, this year. However, it added, the decision was delayed as some technical matters were required to be sorted out before the signing of the important pact.
After the conclusion of the ongoing technical level talks, Pakistan Atomic Energy Cooperation (PAEC) and the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) would sign the landmark agreement that would provide Pakistan two nuclear reactors of 300 megawatts by the end of 2007.
The agreement would be followed by four others in the years to come, it added.
It said further that one important aspect of the new agreement would be the permanent transfer of nuclear reactors building technology to Pakistan. "This will enable Pakistan to carry out 40 percent construction work of nuclear power plants on its own", said diplomatic source. (end) amn.
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan, China to sign nuclear energy cooperation agreement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
