WAR 09/15 t0 09/22..................THEWINDSOFWAR* ***

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Folks;

I apologize for not being around, untill now. The meat world had, and has be me almost totally concetrating on "matters of survival"

Or put in a different way; we are totally engrossed in securing our last needs (just in case TSHTF. Which, ladies and gentlemen. Could well HAPPEN at any time now.

All the "needed" events have occured; and really, they were "inplace for at least weeks, this I know.

BUT!

My personal, and my ladys's attention, as well, has been focused. That! Indeed! We could well be facing TEOTWAWKI at any time - now.

That, my friends (your better half suddenly saying "We'd better get prepared like - now.)

In any case, untill this situation lets up (sometime after the elections). I will be required to help her with what she "feels is needed to supply us for our needs)
Things like 3 seperate ways to pull water out of our water well.

Sigh, it's been "fun" since last Saturday, when my lady woke me up saying "We have got to get our act togather like now!

Anyway, folks. I guess I will be posting the news intermittantly, at best. For the foreseeable future. Cause we have to re-examine all our preps, food etc. To make sure that we are set for anything....*We have more freeze-dried stuff coming next few days - just learned about that when she said "Incidently Fed-Ex will be coming up, so watch for it, will you...

"Yes Mam"

Anyway. I will be on, possibly sporadically for a bit... Sorry.

Dutchman

==========

(25)08/14 to 08/21...........****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*of****WAR**** ~

(26)08/22 t0 08/29......................**** WINDS **** OF **** WAR ****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...-****-WAR-****

(27)08/30 to 09/06......................****THE****WINDS* ***OF****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*OF****WAR****

09/07 t0 09/14......................****THE****WINDS* ***OF****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show..............****THE****WINDS*-***OF****WAR****

==========

Friday, September 14, 2012

[size=-"5"]Iran: Hezbollah will defend us
"easily" against Israeli attack [/size]

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...T_0_UK-IRAN-ISRAEL-HEZBOLLAH&sec=Worldupdates

DUBAI (Reuters) - An aide to Iran's supreme leader said Israel's military threats had "put Israeli citizens one step away from the cemetery" and that Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was ready to hit back.

Yahya Rahim-Safavi, military adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the increasing threats from Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities were "foolish", the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) reported on Friday.

"The boldness and foolishness of Israeli officials in threatening the Islamic Republic, have put Israeli citizens one step away from the cemetery," he said.

"If, one day, the Israeli regime takes action against us, resistance groups, especially Hezbollah ... will respond more easily," said Safavi, a former commander in chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made increasing hints in recent weeks that Israel could strike Iran and has criticised U.S. President Barack Obama's position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time.

The heightened rhetoric has stoked speculation that Israel may attack before U.S. elections in November.

Hezbollah has said any attack on Iran would be met by strikes against Israeli and U.S. targets in the region, even if American forces played no role in the attack.

"A decision has been taken to respond and the response will be very great," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview this month.

Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah, founded with Iranian help during Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, has grown from a militia into a powerful political and military force. It fought a 34-day war with Israel six years ago in which 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 160 people in Israel, mostly soldiers, were killed.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Israeli stance on Iran risks alienating US

PATRICK SMYTH
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0915/1224324047634.html

WORLD VIEW: Netanyahu’s pressure on Obama has
exposed tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme

‘WHO ARE you trying to replace? The administration in Washington or that in Tehran?” Shaul Mofaz, head of Kadima, Israel’s largest opposition party, pointedly asked of Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister.

The latter’s intervention in the US presidential campaign this week to demand assurances on blocking Iran’s nuclear programme, construed by many as deeply partisan, may have been prompted by personal frustration at US stonewalling. Or it may be the result of a calculation that President Obama, mid-election, is particularly vulnerable and amenable to pressure from Israel. No dice, Obama says.

Either way, Netanyahu has done himself and his country no favours by again antagonising Israel’s biggest ally, providing “ammo” for his pal Mitt Romney’s contention that Obama is soft on protecting Israel, and by exposing publicly the divisions in Israel over his strategy.

On Thursday his deputy prime minister responsible for intelligence and atomic affairs, Dan Meridor, distanced himself publicly, opposing the strategy of demanding “red lines” or negotiation deadlines and taking a more nuanced view of a nuclear-armed Iran. Netanyahu has spoken of the danger of a second holocaust, but “I don’t want to speak in apocalyptic . . . holocaust terms,” said Meridor, a veteran of Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party. “I think that we are strong and we will overcome the challenges, but this is a serious challenge.”

Defence minister Ehud Barak issued a statement saying problems with the US should be worked out behind closed doors.

At issue is Israel’s concern that Obama’s promise that he will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon is too vague to represent real leverage. Netanyahu wants the US to pledge to enforce militarily a “red line” threshold setting a specific limit to Tehran’s stockpile of medium-enriched uranium linked to a technical assessment of how much it would require to create a bomb.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which on Thursday again rebuked Iran over concealing its activities, it has amassed enough low- and medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, it could fuel as many as six nuclear weapons.

The US, like most of the international community, does not trust Iranian assurances that its programme is entirely peaceful, but does not relish the prospect of carrying out a military strike, and many experts – including top US general Martin Dempsey – doubt whether they could damage the dispersed, well-defended nuclear facilities.

Washington rightly views an Israeli strike in a similar vein – both as dangerously destabilising to the region, and as likely to embroil the US in military action to protect Israel from the inevitable retaliation.

Netanyahu said on Tuesday that “those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel”. But, while there appears to be real support in Israel for pressure on the US for a “red line” or a deadline on the interminable negotiations with Iran, commentators suggest it is associated with strong opposition to an Israeli “go-it-alone”. Voters see deadlines set by the US as a possible way out of the conundrum, a constraint on Netanyahu.

The more basic question that is not being asked in the debate in the US, however, is the heretical one posed bluntly by the former New York Times editor Bill Keller in an effective article this week: “Can we live with a nuclear Iran?” Such is the power of the Israeli lobby that, even if Obama wanted to consider the option, it is politically unmentionable.

Yes, says Keller, even if Iran is able to produce a weapon. Traditional nuclear deterrence, the theory of mutually assured destruction that was for so long the cornerstone of US strategic thinking in the cold war, is capable of constraining Iran, he argues.

“Before an Iranian mushroom cloud had bloomed to its full height over Tel Aviv,” Keller argues, “a flock of reciprocal nukes would be on the way to incinerate Iran. Iran may encourage fanatic chumps to carry out suicide missions, but there is not the slightest reason to believe the mullahs themselves are suicidal.”

To the argument that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the relationship with Israel even more unstable, he responds that “history suggests that nuclear weapons make even aggressive countries more cautious. Before their first nuclear tests, India and Pakistan fought three serious conventional wars. Since getting their nukes they have bristled at each other across a long, heavily armed border, but no dispute has risen to an outright war.”

And, as a strategic option it is certainly not incompatible with a continuation of an international campaign to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment programme or to force Tehran to confine it under supervision to peaceful use.

In truth, it may already be the assumption underpinning the real, unspoken US policy. Although US leaders are politically constrained to publicly back Israel and to threaten Iran that it will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, Obama’s reluctance to be more specific may well reflect a sober and realistic, unacknowledgeable calculation that stopping Iran from doing so may indeed be more costly than the realistic possibility of containing a nuclear-armed Iran.

In suspecting as much, Netanyahu may actually be right.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Netanyahu defends his call on US
to take clear stance on Iran strike

MARK WEISS in Jerusalem
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0915/1224324046778.html

ISRAELI PRIME minister Binyamin Netanyahu has defended his call for the United States to set red lines on Iran’s nuclear programme, despite domestic criticism that his policy has soured bilateral relations with Israel’s closest ally.

It has been a bad week for Mr Netanyahu. Not only did President Barack Obama refuse to publicly declare when the US would be prepared to use military force against Tehran, but the White House also made it clear Mr Obama will not have time to schedule a meeting with Mr Netanyahu when the Israeli leader visits New York later this month.

The Israeli media was full of headlines over the “crisis” in relations with Washington, and the fact Mr Netanyahu had clearly emerged as the loser in the “poker game” with Mr Obama. To add insult to injury, key ministers criticised the fact the dispute had been conducted publicly instead of via discreet diplomatic channels.

Deputy prime minister Dan Meridor indicated it was a mistake to try to exert pressure on Washington. “I don’t want to set red lines or deadlines for myself,” he told Israel’s Army radio.

Despite the criticism, Mr Netanyahu said it was right for Israel to keep up the pressure, and he denied accusations he was attempting to interfere in the US election. “That’s nonsense, because what’s guiding me is not the election in the United States but the centrifuges in Iran,” he told Israel’s most widely read newspaper, Yisrael Hayom. “If the Iranians had stopped enriching material and preparing a bomb until the US election was over, I would have been able to wait,” he added.

It is no secret Mr Netanyahu is closer ideologically to the Republican Party than the Democrats, and the Obama administration suspects him of trying to influence the Jewish vote ahead of the election.

Mr Netanyahu is an old friend of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The two worked briefly together as corporate advisers in the 1970s at the Boston Consulting Group.

The trip to Israel by Mr Romney at the end of July, which included a fundraising event, increased Democratic suspicions. He accused Mr Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus”. US Jewish businessman Sheldon Adelson, one of the main donors to the Romney campaign, owns Yisrael Hayom, which is distributed free of charge and is the country’s most pro-Netanyahu media outlet.

California Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, a staunch Israel supporter, wrote a critical letter to Mr Netanyahu. “It appears that you have injected politics into one of the most profound security challenges of our time, Iran’s illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he wrote. However, Mr Netanyahu insisted that only Israeli threats to strike Iran had led to stepped-up international sanctions, and what was needed now was a credible military option. “What if the United States doesn’t take action? That’s the question that must be asked,” he said.

=

Maryh · Sep 14, 2012

Will miss your posts. I read but usually don't comment.

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Facing criticism, Netanyahu
denies interfering in US vote

* Israeli leader says Iran is his focus, not US election

* Yet some critics accuse him of trying undermine Obama

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\09\15\story_15-9-2012_pg4_8

JERUSALEM: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday denied accusations he was interfering in US politics after coming under fire for fiercely criticising Washington’s handling
of Iran.

Relations between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama hit a new low this week after the Israeli leader said nations that failed to set red lines for Iran did not have the “moral right” to prevent Israel from launching a military strike.

He did not mention the United States by name, but the comments were clearly aimed at Obama and his administration.

Coming less than two months before a US presidential election, critics accused Netanyahu of seeking to influence the vote - a charge the Israeli prime minister rejected in interviews published in local
media on Friday.

“That’s nonsense, because what’s guiding me is not the election in the United States but the centrifuges in Iran,” he told Israel’s Hayom daily newspaper.
“If the Iranians ... had stopped enriching material and preparing a bomb until the US election was over, I would have been able to wait,”
he added.

Israel and Western powers believe Iran is developing the technology to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this and says its nuclear project is entirely peaceful.

Netanyahu has constantly urged the United States and Europe to apply more pressure on Tehran, believing that only the threat of credible military action will persuade Iran to back down.

However, this week’s outspoken criticism - which followed days of incessant public demands for Washington to impose red lines on Iran - provoked a sharp response in parts of the US press and a rare letter of admonishment from a US senator.

“It appears that you have injected politics into one of the most profound security challenges of our time, Iran’s illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons,” California Democrat Barbara Boxer said, adding that she was one of Israel’s staunchest supporters.

Closer to Romney?: In private conversations, sources close to Netanyahu have voiced a clear preference for Obama’s opponent in the forthcoming election - Republican contender Mitt Romney.

Some Israeli press commentators say the right-wing Netanyahu is seeking to undermine Obama, with whom he has had notoriously testy relations, and bolster Romney, who has accused the White House of throwing “Israel under the bus”.

They have also been quick to play up the close ties between the Israeli leader and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, one of Romney’s most generous financial backers who also bankrolls the fervently pro-Netanyahu Israel Hayom daily.

In his interview with Hayom, Netanyahu appears to take another swipe at Obama, questioning his administration’s assurance that it will not let Iran develop the bomb.

“But what if the United States doesn’t take action? That’s the question that must be asked,”
he said.

An official in his entourage insisted that Netanyahu’s sole concern was Iran. “The Iranians are not taking any notice of the U.S. presidential elections, so we cannot afford to either.”

However, some senior members of the prime minister’s Cabinet have urged him to halt public criticism of Obama and have queried his insistence on setting red lines.
In a stinging rebuke, Time magazine columnist Joe Klein accused Netanyahu of not only trying to sway the US election but of also trying to shunt the country into a war with Iran. “Netanyahu’s recent behaviour is outrageous,” he
wrote. reuters

=

CGTech · Sep 14, 2012

The Flying Dutchman said:
=

Folks;

I apologize for not being around, untill now. The meat world had, and has be me almost totally concetrating on "matters of survival"

Or put in a different way; we are totally engrossed in securing our last needs (just in case TSHTF. Which, ladies and gentlemen. Could well HAPPEN at any time now.

All the "needed" events have occured; and really, they were "inplace for at least weeks, this I know.

BUT!

My personal, and my ladys's attention, as well, has been focused. That! Indeed! We could well be facing TEOTWAWKI at any time - now.

That, my friends (your better half suddenly saying "We'd better get prepared like - now.)

In any case, untill this situation lets up (sometime after the elections). I will be required to help her with what she "feels is needed to supply us for our needs)
Things like 3 seperate ways to pull water out of our water well.

Sigh, it's been "fun" since last Saturday, when my lady woke me up saying "We have got to get our act togather like now!

Anyway, folks. I guess I will be posting the news intermittantly, at best. For the foreseeable future. Cause we have to re-examine all our preps, food etc. To make sure that we are set for anything....*We have more freeze-dried stuff coming next few days - just learned about that when she said "Incidently Fed-Ex will be coming up, so watch for it, will you...

"Yes Mam"

Anyway. I will be on, possibly sporadically for a bit... Sorry.

Dutchman

=

No problem Dutch, know exactly what you mean. And the bolded parts were a chuckle..! :lol:

nadhob · Sep 14, 2012

I think the message is rather clear from the Israeli Prime Minister to the American Jewish voter, who by far continues to vote Democratic. A vote to support Obama is a death wish for Israel. Come Nov 7th, if he has another 4 years, and owes no favors to anyone, you might witness the demise of Israel as Nation in the World. Unfortunately, that message is bound to be lost on the masses, as they interest themselves with the distractions that the Western World affords them. I have friends that are American Jews and I can't believe how naive they are as to whats going on in the world. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid...

Reborn · Sep 14, 2012

Yep:

Obama lead over Romney grows among Jewish voters
9/14/12 http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world...ver-romney-grows-among-jewish-voters-1.465107

OldArcher · Sep 14, 2012

Bravo Zulu from a Squid to a Devil Dog... Thanks for all you do, Dutch... You, HC, and the other Faithful, have done extremely well by us... Again, Thank-you all...

OA, out...

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Can't sleep!

Israel's Netanyahu says
U.S. may not act against Iran

By DANIEL ESTRIN
Associated PressAssociated Press
Posted: 09/14/2012 07:22:33 PM PDT
http://www.montereyherald.com/rss/ci_21547950?source=rss

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insinuated Friday that Israel cannot entirely rely on the U.S. to act against Iran's suspect nuclear program, a sign the Israeli leader is not backing down from rhetoric that strained relations this week with the Obama administration.

Netanyahu has been arguing in recent weeks that Iran is getting close to acquiring nuclear weapons capability, a claim Iran denies. He has been pushing the U.S. to commit to the circumstances under which the U.S. would lead a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly hinted that if the United States does not attack, Israel will.

"I hear those who say we should wait until the last minute. But what if the U.S. doesn't act? It's a question that must be asked," Netanyahu told Israel Hayom.

The paper, a free mass-circulation daily, is funded by Netanyahu's billionaire Jewish-American supporter Sheldon Adelson.

The Obama administration suspects Tehran is seeks to become a nuclear power and says it is committed to preventing a nuclear Iran, but insists more efforts must be made before resorting to military action. Washington is refusing to be specific about what would necessitate a strike on Iran and rejected an Israeli demand for lines that can't be crossed.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu rebuked the U.S. stance, perceived as an indirect swipe at the Obama administration. He said "those in the international community who refuse to

put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

Netanyahu's harsh rhetoric has drawn criticism in Israel and abroad. It even prompted a leading Jewish-American senator to take the extraordinary step of publicly rebuking him. Some have charged that Netanyahu's comments were aimed at helping his longtime friend and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in his November election showdown with President Barack Obama.

In the interview, Netanyahu strongly rejected the claims.

"I am guided not by the elections in United States but by the centrifuges in Iran," he said. "If the Iranians were to say 'stop' and cease enriching uranium and preparing a bomb until the end of the elections in the United States then I could wait."

Adding to tensions, Romney criticized Obama at a New York fundraiser on Friday for allegedly not planning to meet in person with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meetings later this months.

Earlier this week Obama called Netanyahu and the White House followed up the phone call with a rare late-night statement denying reports of a rift. Netanyahu's office said the two men had a "good conversation."

White House spokesman Jay Carney downplayed any signs of discord with Israel.

"The president has made clear that he is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We are completely in sync with Israel on that matter. There is no daylight between the United States and Israel when it comes to the absolute commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said.

=

Housecarl · Sep 14, 2012

Dutch, I hear you with regards to "the meat world" as you well know and understand. If ever you need me to start a new week's thread give me a PM and I'll take care of it.....

Old Archer, MzKitty and everyone else, thank you back for your contributions to our grappling with what's going on and trying to understand and prepare appropriately in kind...
____

Hummm....I think putting the "Middle Power" label on the US may be a tad early at this point....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/everyone-middle-power-now-7470

Sept-Oct Issue of The National Interest
Everyone is a Middle Power Now

The Buzz
Alexa L. McMahon | September 13, 2012

Many things are better in theory than practice: Eating an ice cream cone while driving, running for president, walking twenty miles a day to stay fit. Now add to that list an op-ed by Bruce Gilley in the New York Times, “The Rise of the Middle Powers.”

The nugget of Gilley’s piece is this: “As China’s influence grows, the United States is struggling to come up with an effective strategic response. . .Through proactive and nonaligned diplomacy, middle powers may be able to influence the rise of China in ways the United States cannot.”

Fair enough, but who are these so-called “middle powers”? Every analyst seems to have his own definition, and that is where the trouble begins for Gilley. He defines them to be “the 10 or 20 influential states, like South Africa and Australia, that aren’t permanent members of the UN Security Council or global giants.” Okay, but who else makes his cut? Countries as disparate as Ghana, Egypt, Sweden and Bangladesh.

The author claims that pursuing middle-power options “on conflicts like the South China Sea and Syria would mean allowing friendly countries to take the lead on diplomatic work, because they are less threatening to China. While this may entail some compromises for Washington,” Gilley says, “it is more likely to generate solutions that Beijing will heed.”

And yet, herein lies the problem: What use is a solution that Beijing will heed if it’s not necessarily what we want? Gilley’s motley middle powers have complex demographic, governmental and societal differences that make them hugely varied, not to mention they are of contrasting economic strengths. Some may share similarities and alliances with the United States, but each has its own goals and agenda. The “compromises” for Washington in any given case could change dramatically depending on which middle power was in charge.

The notion that Washington should occasionally take a backseat to regional powers is certainly not new nor is it in poor judgement. Yet it’s clear that in this case, Gilley needs to narrow his definition of middle power before we can employ U.S. diplomacy in the manner he envisions.

Topics:

Grand Strategy
Great Powers

Stories Related to Everyone is a Middle Power Now

A Stiff Apology is a Second Insult
Raffling Off Seats at the Head Table
Kissinger's Words of Warning
Gerson Saves the Children

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Saturday15/9/2012 September, 2012, 02:47 AM Doha Time

Iran warns Israel of Hezbollah response

Reuters/Dubai
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...=531247&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

An aide to Iran’s supreme leader said Israel’s military threats had “put Israeli citizens one step away from the cemetery” and that Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was ready to hit back.

Yahya Rahim-Safavi, military adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the increasing threats from Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities were “foolish”, the Iranian Students’ News Agency (Isna) reported yesterday.

“The boldness and foolishness of Israeli officials in threatening the Islamic Republic have put Israeli citizens one step away from the cemetery,” he said.

“If, one day, the Israeli regime takes action against us, resistance groups, especially Hezbollah ... will respond more easily,” said Safavi, a former commander in chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made increasing hints in recent weeks that Israel could strike Iran and has criticised US President Barack Obama’s position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time.

The heightened rhetoric has stoked speculation that Israel may attack before US elections in November.

Hezbollah has said any attack on Iran would be met by strikes against Israeli and US targets in the region, even if American forces played no role in the attack.
“A decision has been taken to respond and the response will be very great,” Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview this month.

Shia Muslim Hezbollah, founded with Iranian help during Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, has grown from a militia into a powerful political and military force. It fought a 34-day war with Israel six years ago in which 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 160 people in Israel, mostly soldiers, were killed.

=

Housecarl · Sep 14, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...012/protesters-clash-with-police-in-islamabad

Protesters clash with police in Islamabad
By: Our Staff Reporter | September 15, 2012

ISLAMABAD – Security forces clashed with angry protesters outside the US Embassy in Federal capital as hundreds of people demonstrated across Pakistan on Friday to denounce an anti-Islam movie, burning US flags and calling for the film-maker to be killed.

The clashes occurred as demonstrators tried to march towards US Embassy in Islamabad; however, perfect security measures taken by law enforcement agencies kept them hundreds of meters away from main entry point to diplomatic enclave.

In their effort to storm US Embassy after Friday prayers, the demonstrators scuffled with police at different places, however, city managers remained successful in keeping hundreds of protestors away from causing damage to life and property.

The protesters were chanting ‘Death to America’, ‘Death to Isreal’ and ‘Expel the US Envoy from Pakistan’. However, law enforcement agencies intercepted them before entering red zone.

The demonstrators burnt the US flag, besides asking the government to end diplomatic ties with US until US government sentence the film-maker to death.

Security was tight in the federal capital and Rangers had been deputed at the diplomatic enclave to avert any attack from the protesters.

A number of rallies were organised in the Federal capital and the largest rally was organized at Sector G-6, Markazi Imam Bargah in which hundreds of people participated and staged protest.

Islamabad had stepped up security measures around US diplomatic missions, following attacks on US consulates and embassies in Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Yemen over the blasphemous film.

Around 400 protesters rallied in front of Red Mosque after Jumma prayers, following a call from JI.

They called for the handover of Terry Jones, an extremist American Christian pastor linked with the film.

“Terry Jones should be handed to us for a trial in the Sharia court,” a speaker at the rally told the gathering.

Another speaker called for closure of the US Embassy and the expulsion of the US ambassador and other diplomats from Pakistan.

Elsewhere in the capital, there were two smaller demonstrations against the film, one of which led to brief scuffles with police.

Delivering sermon at different mosques of federal capital, prayer leaders urged Muslims to get united to teach America a lesson for insulting Islam and prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Ulema, addressing rallies after Friday prayers, strongly condemned the blasphemous US movie and demanded that stern action should be taken against the controversial film producer.

NovaChickee · Sep 14, 2012

I read more than I post. I always appreciate your posts and will watch for them in the weeks.....

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

German defence minister says
strike on Iran 'not illegitimate'

Sapa-dpa | 14 September, 2012 15:38
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/20...minister-says-strike-on-iran-not-illegitimate

While unwise, a military strike against a nuclear-armed Iran would be legitimate, according to Germany's defence minister.

"In terms of military action against Iran, this action is not illegitimate, but not wise," Thomas de Maiziere told the European Israeli Dialogue conference Tuesday.

His comments, which were initially reported by the German conservative daily Die Welt on Thursday, and were confirmed by his spokesman on Friday, have triggered strong criticism from members of Germany's opposition parties.

Government spokesman Steffen Seibert noted that the government's common belief is that it is important to observe with great concern that Iran's nuclear program could pave the was for a weapons program.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

No Rush to War

Published: September 14, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/opinion/no-rush-to-war.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Amid the alarming violence in the Arab world, a new report about the costs of a potential war with Iran got lost this week. It says an attack by the United States could set back Iran’s nuclear program four years at most, while a more ambitious goal — ensuring Iran never reconstitutes its nuclear program or ousting the regime — would involve a multiyear conflict that could engulf the region.

The significance of the report by The Iran Project is not just its sober analysis but the nearly three dozen respected national security experts from both political parties who signed it: including two former national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski; former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering; and the retired Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is trying to browbeat President Obama into a pre-emptive strike. On Tuesday, he demanded that the United States set a red line for military action and said those who refuse “don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” Later, Mr. Obama telephoned him and rejected the appeal. On Friday, Mr. Netanyahu suggested in an interview that Israel cannot entirely rely on the United States to act against Iran’s program.

Leaders need flexibility and ambiguity, not just hard and fast red lines. And it is dangerous for Mr. Netanyahu to try to push the president into a corner publicly and raise questions about Washington. Is that really the message he wants to send to Tehran?

There is no reason to doubt President Obama’s oft-repeated commitment to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, according to a new poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and 59 percent said if Israel bombs Iran and ignites a war, the United States should not come to its ally’s defense.

Iran is advancing its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. That’s a danger to Israel, the region and all efforts to curb proliferation. But administration officials and many other experts say Iran is still a year or more away from producing an actual weapon, and, if it begins to build one, they will know in time to take retaliatory action.

The best strategy is for Israel to work with the United States and other major powers to tighten sanctions while pursuing negotiations on a deal. It is a long shot, but there is time to talk. And that’s where the focus must be.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

Charles Krauthammer:

President Obama's abandonment

By Charles Krauthammer
mercurynews.com
Posted: September 15, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21547495/charles-krauthammer-president-obamas-abandonment

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA - AUGUST 29: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to supporters... (Alex Wong)«1»WASHINGTON -- There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn't matter, we can deter them, or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.

In my view, the first position -- that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union -- is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history. But at least it's internally coherent.

What is incoherent is President Obama's position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable -- "I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" -- yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.

A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips and others have argued, can increase the chance of war. It creates, writes Cordesman, "the same conditions that helped trigger World War II -- years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real."

This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president's rebuff of the Israeli prime minister's request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.

The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:

1) Sanctions. The director of national

intelligence testified to Congress at the beginning of the year that they had zero effect in slowing the nuclear program. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports (Aug. 30) that the Iranian nuclear program, far from slowing, is actually accelerating. Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at Fordow, the facility outside Qom built into a mountain to make it impregnable to air attack.

This week, the IAEA reported Iranian advances in calculating the explosive power of an atomic warhead. It noted once again Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its weapons testing facility at Parchin, and cited satellite evidence of Iranian attempts to clean up and hide what's gone on there.

The administration's ritual response is that it has imposed the toughest sanctions ever. So what? They're a means, not an end. And they've had no effect on the nuclear program.

2. Negotiations. The latest, supposedly last-ditch round of talks in Istanbul, Baghdad, then Moscow has completely collapsed. The West even conceded to Iran the right to enrich -- shattering a decade-long consensus and six Security Council resolutions demanding its cessation.

Iran's response? Contemptuous rejection.

Why not? The mullahs have strung Obama along for more than three years and still see no credible threat emanating from the one country that could disarm them.

3) Diplomatic isolation.

The administration boasts that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement -- against U.S. entreaties not to attend. Even the U.N. secretary-general attended -- after the administration implored him not to.

Which shows you what American entreaties are worth today. And the farcical nature of Iran's alleged isolation.

The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran without war is to establish a credible military threat to make Iran recalculate and reconsider. That means U.S. red lines: deadlines beyond which Washington will not allow itself to be strung, as well as benchmark actions that would trigger a response, such as the further hardening of Iran's nuclear facilities to the point of invulnerability and, therefore, irreversibility.

Which made all the more shocking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's dismissal last Sunday of the very notion of any U.S. red lines. No deadlines. No bright-line action beyond which Iran must not go. The sleeping giant continues to slumber. And to wait. As the administration likes to put it, "for Iran to live up to its international obligations."

This is beyond feckless. The Obama policy is a double game: a rhetorical commitment to stopping Iran, yet real-life actions that everyone understands will allow Iran to go nuclear.

Yet at the same time that it does nothing, the administration warns Israel sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program. With zero prospect of his policy succeeding, Obama insists on Israeli inaction, even as Iran races to close the window of opportunity for any successful attack.

Not since its birth six decades ago has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 14, 2012

=

OBAMA REJECTS PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU;
Accepts Jay-Z and Beyonce!

September 14, 2012
By: Rc Clayborn
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-rejects-prime-minister-netanyahu-accepts-jay-z-and-beyonce

Who Is More Important to Obama; Jay-Z, Beyonce or Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu? It is only fair to ask this question based on the recent international disaster at the U.S. Embassy-Benghazi Libya. Also it's only fair to ask this question based on Prime Minister Netanyahu trying to schedule a meeting with Barack Hussein Obama. The answer to the question is “Jay-Z and Beyonce;” hosting a forty thousand dollar dinner for Barack. What did you expect from a celebrity president who campaigns with neglect to daily security briefings on Iran building a nuclear bomb and Muslim/Islamic Terrorist instigating daily eruptions of deadly violence?

Obama and Hillary’s Tolerance to Muslims killing Christians!

PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 five churches in Mombasa, Kenya, were attacked and torched as Muslims rioted and killed Christians. Did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama [president] denounce or show concern over such deadly violence? Should the recent free speech internet video of “religious study on Mohammed” be blamed for agitating Muslim/Islamic terrorist to torch the five churches in Mombasa, Kenya?

WHEN WAS the last time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama [president] made an official public statement rejecting “Anti-Christian Threats from Muslims?” The answer is; “NEVER!” When was the last time Hillary or Barack gave an official apology to the Christian World for the “Muslim/Islamic killings of Christians” performed on a daily bases? The answer is; “NEVER!” When was the last time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama [president] made an official apology to the Worldwide Muslim-Brotherhood and Muslim/Islamic Terrorist-Mob groups? The answer is; “Everyday!”

WHEN WAS the last time the federal government issued an arrest warrant for the killers of two U.S. Troops murdered by devout Muslim Afghans? Or when was the last time the federal government issued an arrest warrant for the killers of three U.S. Soldiers murdered during the Ramadan meal which occurred within days of the two U.S. Troops murdered by Muslim Afghans? WHEN WAS the last time the U.S. Federal Government issued a search for an individual who made a free speech internet video discussing the Muslim prophet Mohammed? The answer is; Yesterday!

OBAMA BLAMES VIDEO for slain U.S. Ambassador Stevens!

The security breach of American property [U.S. Embassy Benghazi Libya] in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his peers were slain was not the result of a recent internet video of “religious study on Mohammed” placed on YOUTube. If that’s the case, then what other free speech videos on YOUTube, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, Yahoo News, Google News, or Fox News have prompted killings of Christians and Americans prior to the U.S. Embassy Benghazi Libya breach on September 11, 2012? For the current administration to officially announce that the recent over-taking of U.S. Embassy Benghazi Libya is due to an internet video of “religious study of Mohammed” implies that Americans are foolishly enough to believe anything Obama says.

Christians and Jews are being killed daily by Muslim groups all over the world and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama [president] have displayed a nonchalant attitude about it. The prejudice and distaste that Hillary and Barack hold for Israel and Christians can’t be hidden from public eye. Although both claim to be Christians, that has to be a bold face lie within itself when they see their Christian Brothers and Sisters being killed by Muslims and Islamic Terrorist around the world and they do nothing about it. Hillary and Barack currently have the power to stop the Muslim/Islamic violence against Christians around the world if they choose to do so, but they choose not to; Why?

Instead Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama [president] focusing on hunting down Muslim/Islamic killers of U.S. Ambassador Stevens, Jews and Christians, they choose to hunt down the creator of a recent internet video of “religious study on Mohammed.” Even if Hillary and Barack were justified in searching for a particular producer of a recent internet video of “religious study on Mohammed,” there are thousands of recent internet videos of religious study on Mohammed placed on YOUTUBE that have priority over the latest video of fame. Such a witch hunt for a recent internet video producer of “religious study on Mohammed” prompted by Hillary and Barack’s alphabet media network hound dogs represents a pathetic effort to the world that America is serious about Muslim/Islamic Terrorist violence.

FYI

Did you know that Egyptian Muslims are getting paid to kill Christians? If you don’t believe it, perform your own simple investigation of these known events. On the contrary Hillary and Barack have shown no interest in the reality of Muslims getting paid to kill Christians. You can correlate the paid killings of Christians with actual facts of flyers that are routinely issued which contain the names and contact points for Muslims who wish to collect their rewards for killing Christians. But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama [president] have no concern or announcement denouncing the pure hatred of Christians and Jews by Muslim/Islamic Mobs.

Barack and Hillary are pathetic international representatives of American values, especially Christian life values. Therefore don’t be shocked if White House Press Secretary Carney announces today that the recent internet video of “religious study on Mohammed” is the reason for Christian Children being persecuted around the world by Muslim/Islamic Terrorist:

Lahore (Agenzia Fides) - a few days ago in Islamabad: 14-year-old Christian Waiz Masih was killed by young Muslims, after a "discussion on religion."

Sunil Yaqoob Masih, a 14-year-old Catholic orphan from Faisalabad, whose body was found mutilated and without any internal organs

Amaria Masih, an l8-year-old Catholic, raped and murdered on November 27, 2011 in the village of Samundari (Punjab) by Muslim Arif Gujjar, who wanted to marry and convert her.

Sabir Bashir, a Christian teenager, tortured and killed in October 2011 in the territory of the district of Khanewal District (Punjab), by Muslims

Anna, a 12-year-old Christian girl, Arif Masih’s daughter, scavenger in Shahdra, a small town near Lahore (Punjab): kidnapped and raped repeatedly for eight months by a gang of Islamic militants.

Four Christian children killed in 2011 with their mother near Jehlum (Punjab) because they refused to leave a village which was predominantly Muslim.

Shazia Bashir, a 12-year-old Christian girl, who was raped and murdered in January 2010 (Fides 08/02/2010). Chaudhry Naeem, the rich Muslim lawyer, responsible for the crime, was acquitted.

Lubna Masih, 12 years old, raped and murdered by a group of Muslims in Rawalpindi (Fides 13/10/2010).

Kiran George, a girl from Sheikhupura (Lahore) who died on March 10, 2010 from burns all over her body, after Muslim Ahmad Raza, a police officer, poured gasoline on her and lit her on fire.

Question; WHEN WAS the last time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama [president] made an official public statement denouncing and rejecting “Anti-Christian Threats and Violence from Muslims?” The answer is; “WHAT DO YOU THINK!”

=

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d92627a-fdba-11e1-9901-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26W9jYNgu

September 13, 2012 5:47 pm
Clashes grow ahead of Venezuela elections

By Benedict Mander in Caracas

Outbreaks of violence and hardball campaign tactics are intensifying in Venezuela as tensions rise ahead of presidential elections due on October 7.

Clashes between rival supporters resulted in stone-throwing, arson and as many as 20 injuries on Wednesday as supporters of President Hugo Chávez attempted to prevent opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski from attending a rally in the coastal city of Puerto Cabello.

“Those actions aren’t spontaneous. There’s someone responsible for those actions,” Mr Capriles told supporters after reaching the rally by helicopter and a motorboat driven by local fishermen that enabled him to bypass a roadblock set up by Mr Chávez’s supporters to prevent access to the airport.

“It is him, and I say this directly: it is you who wants this scenario, you who wants to spread fear, you who wants Venezuelans to continue fighting each other,” said Mr Capriles, addressing Venezuela’s socialist leader without using his name.

Jorge Rodríguez, Mr Chávez’s campaign manager, said government supporters “have a right to protest and demonstrate freely” against Mr Capriles’ visit, blaming his rival’s supporters and local police controlled by the opposition for the violence.

The worst flare-up since campaigning began in July followed warnings by Mr Chávez earlier this week that Venezuela could descend into “civil war” if he lost the election. He claimed that a document the opposition insists is fake shows that Mr Capriles was secretly planning “neoliberal” reform policies that would be widely rejected if he wins.

“The rich have their families, fine houses, good vehicles, probably an apartment at the beach, properties and so on ... Does a civil war suit them? Not at all. It only suits the extreme, fascist right embodied by the loser. It’s in the interests of the peace-loving rich for Chávez to win,” said Mr Chávez.

Although the election campaign has seen less violence so far than some had feared, there have been sporadic outbursts. Only last weekend Mr Capriles was forced to cancel a march in a poor Caracas neighbourhood, claiming that Mr Chávez’s supporters had threatened violence.

Both sides have also accused each other of engaging in dirty campaign tactics.

On Thursday, pro-government lawmakers produced a video showing a prominent opposition politician apparently accepting a bribe from an anonymous businessman. Mr Capriles swiftly expelled him from his movement, but said that the government was “desperate” to smear his name.

Mr Chávez accused the opposition last week of hyping reports of a massacre of 80 Yanomami Indians in the Amazon by Brazilian gold miners, after investigations suggested that the alleged slaughter did not take place.

The opposition, in turn, accused Mr Chávez’s supporters this week of attempting to bribe members of outlying parties to abandon the opposition alliance.

The incident at Puerto Cabello coincided with the release on Wednesday of a report written by Patrick Duddy, a former US ambassador to Venezuela, predicting that in the run-up to the elections Venezuela “could experience significant political unrest and violence that lead to the further curtailment of democracy in the country.”

The report, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, said that although Mr Chávez has pledged to respect the election result, the “most plausible scenarios for instability and conflict in Venezuela derive from the premise that the Chavistas will not willingly surrender power and would be willing to provoke violence, orchestrate civil unrest, or engage in various forms of armed resistance to avoid doing so.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.

More
On this story

Venezuela Profligacy puts Chávez’s dream at risk
Chávez urged to pay debts to companies
The World Fire and Venezuela poll
Critics question flow of Venezuelan aid
Venezuela insists refinery fire put out

On this topic

Explosion halts Venezuela’s biggest refinery
Venezuelan cheap petrol policy backfires
Chávez accused of eroding rights
Venezuela more prone to oil price jitters

IN Latin America & Caribbean

Colombia confirms Farc peace talks
Mexico police fire on US goverment staff
Colombian central bank sends off minister
Brazil raises medals target for Rio

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index...7c/ht/Chavez-election-bid-divides-Venezuelans

Chavez election bid divides Venezuelans

Big News Network (UPI) Saturday 15th September, 2012

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Speculation over President Hugo Chavez's future health is dividing Venezuelans three ways as the momentum for Oct. 7 election builds up.

Some want him out, others want his presidency to continue no matter for how long and still others are wavering in their loyalty as they fear his early death from cancer.

Chavez, 58, looked healthier than for many months when he reappeared to harangue the populace on his campaign trail. He also resumed his signature rite of speaking for several hours at a stretch on any number of issues.

The rhetoric flows in familiar directions but the nation remains in the dark about key questions about his health: what cancer, where, how serious?

Chavez declared himself "completely cured" when he announced in July his candidacy for a fourth term of office. He came to power in 1999 and survived several reported power wrangles and, lately, repeated surgical procedures and chemotherapy in Cuba.

Fidel Castro's reported full recovery from cancer drew Chavez to Cuban doctors and, so far, the going has been good. But, unlike previous political campaigns, Chavez this year is facing a younger, serious opponent in Henrique Capriles, 40, who has taken to using Chavez's populist techniques to convey the message of -- same difference.

While Chavez punctuates his political campaign with noticeably longer periods of rest and recuperation, possibly to let medication work, Capriles is energetically taking his message to the large majority of impoverished Venezuelans who have always been the core of popular support for the president.

However, Capriles has also been able to tell his audiences Chavez's Bolivarian revolution hasn't delivered on promises. Venezuela has been in recession for a third year running, only just emerging from the combined effect of drought, water and electricity shortages.

The oil-fueled subsidies of the revolutionary administration haven't protected Venezuelans, Capriles is saying, from a chronic runaway inflation, organized crime and drug-related violence and unemployment.

He's also telling Chavez fans he won't dismantle socialism but manage it better than the incumbent has so far done.

As a result, data show that 25-30 percent of Venezuela's 19 million registered voters remain undecided about who to vote for.

Street protests and election-linked violence indicates tensions are running high, and divisions are appearing among the majority that until recently backed Chavez and responded to his rhetoric that the country's minority of rich and wealthy weren't to be trusted.

Chavez surprised many loyalists by announcing Venezuela's withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights. Harassed by endemic violence, Venezuelans weren't reassured by the president's gestural politics in the heat of the election campaign.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged Chavez to reconsider his decision to withdraw from the convention, warning it could set back efforts for human rights protection in Venezuela and the region as a whole.

Venezuela's decision signals its exit within a year from the Costa Rican Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Washington's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Pillay said both institutions "have not only had an extraordinarily positive impact on human rights in the region but also served as pioneering examples which showed the rest of the world how vital and effective regional human rights bodies can be."

Chavez announced the decision in July after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights supported a Venezuelan, Raul Diaz, accused of participating in 2003 bombings of the Spanish Embassy and Colombian consulate in Caracas. Four people were injured in the attacks.

Diaz was sentenced to more than nine years in prison, but in 2010 he fled and sought asylum in the United States after a court allowed him out for work during certain hours. Diaz denies any role in the attacks but Chavez accused the court of "supporting terrorism" by siding with Diaz.

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...M1aYiQ?docId=12d2916834e44178ba0a0a4b6981e2fc

Anti-Japan protests in China swell, turn violent

By DIDI TANG, Associated Press – 14 minutes ago

BEIJING (AP) — Protests against Japan for its control of disputed islands spread across more than a dozen cities in China and turned violent at times Saturday, with protesters hurling rocks at the Japanese Embassy and clashing with Chinese paramilitary police before order was restored.

Thousands of protesters gathered in front of the embassy in Beijing. Hundreds tried to storm a metal police barricade but were pushed back by riot police armed with shields, helmets and batons. A few made it through but were quickly taken away by plainclothes police. Protesters also threw rocks and burned Japanese flags.

Protests were more orderly in most other cities, though in the southern city of Changsha protesters smashed a police car made by Mitsubishi, a Japanese brand, according to online reports.

Anti-Japanese sentiment, never far from the surface in China, has been building for weeks, touched off by moves by Tokyo and fanned by a feverish campaign in Chinese state media. Passions grew more heated this past week after the Japanese government purchased the contested East China Sea islands from their private Japanese owners.

Although Japan has controlled the uninhabited islands — called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese — for decades, China saw the purchase as an affront to its claim and as further proof of Tokyo's refusal to negotiate over them.

Beijing lodged angry protests and tried to bolster its claim by briefly sending marine surveillance ships into what Japan says are its territorial waters around the islands and by ratcheting up state media coverage. Some news programs featured bellicose commentary.

A Japanese Embassy employee declined to comment Saturday on the protests.

In Japan, candidates vying to lead the top opposition party called for a tough stand against Beijing in the dispute.

Shigeru Ishiba, a former defense minister seen as a leading contender to head the Liberal Democratic Party, said in an election debate that Japan should send a strong message to China that it will not back down.

"This is something that Japan should do as a nation," he said.

Smaller demonstrations had been staged in China throughout the week. But they boiled over Saturday, especially in Beijing. Outside the Japanese Embassy, the protesters — most of whom appeared to be students — shouted slogans demanding that Japan relinquish the islands. Some hurled rocks, bottles and traffic cones at the embassy. As the crowd grew, police closed off a main thoroughfare to traffic. City buses skipped the stop near the embassy.

Zhang Zhong, a 32-year-old computer worker, said Chinese should stand up against Japan, remembering its brutal occupation of much of China before and during World War II.

"We cannot lose the Diaoyu Islands," he said. "We cannot forget our national shame."

In Shanghai, about 200 police officers cordoned off the street leading to the Japanese Consulate, allowing protesters in groups of 100 to approach the building. Demonstrators had to first register with police.

The demonstrations came before the anniversary Tuesday of the 1931 Mukden Incident which often triggers anti-Japanese sentiment. The incident was used as a pretext by Japan to invade northern China, and activists have called for more demonstrations Tuesday.

The swelling Chinese anger over the disputed islands comes even though the Japanese government had hoped its purchase would calm, rather than inflame the situation. The nationalistic governor of metropolitan Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, had proposed buying the islands in April and planned to develop them — something that Beijing would have seen as an attempt to solidify Japan's claim. By purchasing them instead, the central government promised to keep them undeveloped.

Associated Press Television producer Aritz Parra, writer Christopher Bodeen and researcher Henry Hou in Beijing, reporter Eric Talmadge in Tokyo, and photographer Eugene Hoshiko in Shanghai contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

Japan opposition talks tough on China as territorial dispute escalates
The Hindu - 3 minutes ago

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3900712.ece

TOKYO/ BEIJING, September 15, 2012
Japan opposition talks tough on China as territorial dispute escalates
AP

Five candidates vying to lead Japan’s top opposition party have called for tough approach against China in an escalating territorial dispute even as protests against Japan spread across more than a dozen cities in China on Saturday.

The candidates including former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, former Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba and party secretary general Nobuteru Ishihara slammed China in a debate on Saturday ahead of the Liberal Democratic Party’s presidential election, scheduled for Sept. 26.

They called for Japan to bolster its control of disputed East China Sea islands, saying they are Japan’s inviolable sovereign territory.

Violent protests in China

Protests against Japan for its control of disputed islands swelled across more than a dozen cities in China and at times turned violent on Saturday, with protesters hurling rocks at the Japanese Embassy and clashing with Chinese paramilitary police before order was restored.

Thousands of protesters gathered in front of the embassy in Beijing. Hundreds tried to storm a metal police barricade but were pushed back by riot police armed with shields, helmets and batons. A few made it through but were quickly taken away by plainclothes police. Protesters also threw rocks and burned Japanese flags.

Protests were more orderly in most other cities, though in the southern city of Changsha protesters smashed a police car made by Mitsubishi, according to reports online.

Anti-Japanese sentiment, never far from the surface in China, has been building for weeks, touched off by moves by Tokyo and fanned by a feverish campaign in Chinese state media. Passions grew more heated this past week after the Japanese government purchased the contested East China Sea islands from their private owners. Though Japan has controlled the uninhabited islands called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese for decades, China saw the purchase as an affront to its claims and as further proof of Tokyo’s refusal to negotiate over them.

In response, Beijing has lodged angry protests and tried to bolster its claims by briefly sending lightly armed marine surveillance ships into what Japan says are its territorial waters around the islands and by ratcheting up state media coverage. Some news programs featured explanations of historic documents and bellicose commentary.

Smaller demonstrations had been staged throughout the week. But they boiled over Saturday, especially in Beijing. Outside the Japanese Embassy, the protesters, most of whom appeared to be students, shouted slogans demanding Japan relinquish the islands and claiming China’s ownership of them. The crowd grew larger than expected, prompting police to close off a main thoroughfare to traffic.

In Shanghai, about 200 police officers kept order, cordoning off the street leading to the Japanese Consulate and allowing protesters in groups of 100 to approach the consular building. Protesters had to register with police before they could cross the cordon and had to take their banners with them when they left.

Keywords: Japan-China dispute, East China Sea islands

RELATED NEWS
China, Japan ties in choppy waters A tide of differences between China, Japan

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201209150068

ANALYSIS: From China's viewpoint, Japan should have kept isles problem shelved

September 15, 2012

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

BEIJING—China's harsh backlash over Japan's move to put the Senkaku Islands in state ownership stems from a belief in Beijing that Tokyo has broken a long-standing taboo.

In 1978, then Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping paid a visit to Japan in which he called for the two sides to shelve their Senkaku dispute.

"Any issue that our generation does not have the wisdom to resolve should be handled instead by future generations," he said.

Ever since then, inaction has remained China's basic policy on the Senkakus, which it calls Diaoyu.

Japan may argue that China threatened its sovereignty by pushing operations by fishing boats and surveillance ships into waters around the islands.

But officials in China's foreign ministry feared that things would spiral out of control if Japan and China began openly clamoring for ownership of the islands.

"What we are calling for is to maintain the status quo," said one ministry official shortly before Japan purchased three of the Senkaku Islands from their private owner.

China believes Japan has opened a Pandora's box by moving to purchase the islands.

"Japan reneged on a tacit understanding," said a researcher at a government-affiliated think tank in China.

On Aug 16, a day after Japan arrested Hong Kong-based activists engaged in an island landing stunt, the organ of China's Communist Party asked a rhetorical question in which it faulted Japan.

"Which country failed to stand by a common understanding the two countries had formed and strayed from the correct path of controlling conflicts through dialogue and cooperation?" asked the People's Daily in a commentary.

Japan said purchasing the islands is aimed at ensuring their stable management. But China saw it as a shift in the status quo and a departure from the principle of leaving the dispute in cold storage.

"Nationalization is simply an excuse for Japan to strengthen its legal standing over the Diaoyu Islands," Le Yucheng, assistant foreign minister, told a meeting in Beijing on Sept. 14.

The same day, six Chinese marine surveillance vessels entered Japanese territorial waters surrounding the Senkakus.

Broadcasts on state-run China Central Television repeatedly showed the ships defying Japan Coast Guard patrol boats with this message: "The Diaoyu Islands are an integral part of China. You are violating China's sovereignty."

Hong Lei, a foreign ministry spokesman, has blamed Japan for provoking the latest confrontation over the islands and has called on Tokyo to return to the path of dialogue.

Japan knew its decision to purchase the Senkakus would rile China and it anticipated a backlash.

But a senior government official said the intrusion of the six surveillance vessels in Japanese territorial waters was "close to the strongest reaction the government had expected."

"China is serious," the official added.

An aide to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said in the event of military retaliation the Self-Defense Forces might need to be deployed.

"We have simulated all possible scenarios," the aide said. "We cannot rule out the possibility that China will mobilize its military."

If the Chinese government allows fishing boats to head to the islands it is possible that individuals will land there.

Japan deported the Hong Kong activists arrested in August without sending the case to prosecutors.

But Japanese officials have informed their Chinese counterparts the next landing might play out differently. Since the Japanese state is now the islands' landowner, the government cannot afford to treat similar provocations leniently, sources said.

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201209150064

China willing to risk 'conflict' as it claims waters around Senkakus

September 15, 2012

By KENJI MINEMURA/ Correspondent

BEIJING?A Chinese official suggested the country was willing to risk a "minor conflict" over its territorial dispute with Japan, saying it was prepared to chase off Japan Coast Guard vessels from waters around the Senkaku Islands.

The statement follows an announcement by China's foreign ministry Sept. 14 that it has submitted a sea chart to the United Nations showing the waters as its territorial sea.

Yu Zhirong, a senior official of the State Oceanic Administration who was formerly with the People’s Liberation Army Navy, told The Asahi Shimbun: "We will have to chase off Japan Coast Guard vessels from Chinese territorial waters. We are not fearful of risking a minor conflict."

Yu, who served as deputy chief of the SOA’s East China Sea Branch until last year, added that the chart submitted to the United Nations is "designed to clearly demonstrate the new territorial sea China had set."

The Chinese government had announced Sept. 10 its intention to turn the waters around the Senkakus, which it calls Diaoyu, into its territorial sea. The foreign ministry said the chart's submission has completed all legal procedures required under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

On Sept. 14, three days after the Japanese government purchased three of the disputed islands from their private owner, the SOA dispatched six Haijian marine surveillance vessels into Japanese territorial waters around the Senkakus.

At a news conference the same day, Hong Lei, a foreign ministry spokesman, said, "The waters around Diaoyu are under China's jurisdiction. (The dispatch of the surveillance vessels) is a legitimate act of law enforcement."

Yu, who is now a researcher at the ocean development research center under the SOA, said the two fleets sent on Sept. 14 were the largest in number and the highest in performance to be dispatched so far.

The vessels included the Haijian 50, which has a load displacement of 4,000 tons and is capable of carrying a helicopter.

Past surveillance excursions usually involved two Chinese vessels circling Uotsurishima, the largest of the uninhabited islands, outside Japanese territorial waters.

On Sept. 14, however, the vessels repeatedly entered Japanese territorial waters around all five of the islands before leaving the contiguous zone outside Japanese territorial waters.

China is expected to send additional surveillance ships as well as fishing boats into Japanese territorial waters to bolster its claims over the islands.

A fishing ban in the East China Sea, which has been in place for three and a half months, is set to be lifted on Sept. 16.

By KENJI MINEMURA/ Correspondent

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/film-protests-egypt-idUSL1E8KF0CW20120915?type=marketsNews

UPDATE 1-Police seal area near U.S. embassy in Cairo

Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:29am EDT

* Follows four days of clashes over anti-Islam film

* Egypt's Islamist president faces tough balancing act

* United States is major aid donor to Egypt

By Patrick Werr and Tamim Elyan

CAIRO, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Hundreds of riot police sealed off the area near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Saturday and the interior minister said he would restore calm after four days of clashes between police and Egyptians incensed by a film denigrating the Prophet Mohammad.

A 35-year-old protester was killed and dozens of people were injured in clashes overnight.

The authorities closed the street leading to the embassy where the demonstrators had spent four days throwing rocks and petrol bombs at police.

The area was quieter early on Saturday. A Reuters reporter saw police push several young men into trucks. Two of the men looked bruised and one was stripped down to his underwear.

"Not so rough," shouted one as he was hustled away.

Police formed cordons on roads into Tahrir Square near the U.S. mission and plain-clothes officers wielding sticks frisked passers-by. The square, the focus of last year's popular uprising that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak, was strewn with garbage and a torched vehicle was towed away.

"Our presence here is to clear the square of people who are breaking the law," Interior Minister Ahmed Gamal el-Din said as he inspected the area. "We must preserve the square as a symbol of the revolution. That is the aim of our operation."

He said measures would be taken to ensure "those breaking the law" do not return.

The protesters said they wanted to expel the U.S. ambassador to punish Washington over the low-budget film, produced in California, that portrayed the Prophet Mohammad as a womanizer and religious fake. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the film "disgusting and reprehensible".

Egypt's state news agency said 27 people were injured on Friday, which suggests more than 250 people have been hurt in the clashes since Tuesday, when protesters climbed the embassy's walls and tore down an American flag.

Hundreds of protesters had pelted police with stones and petrol bombs late into Friday night as they were pushed back from the embassy perimeter.

"God is Greatest" and "There is no god but God," one group near the front of the clashes chanted as some threw stones on a street leading from Tahrir to the embassy. Police in riot gear fired off rounds of teargas.

DELICATE BALANCE

President Mohamed Mursi, an Islamist and Egypt's first freely elected leader, has to strike a delicate balance, fulfilling a pledge to protect the embassy of a major aid donor while delivering a robust line against the film to satisfy his Islamist backers.

In Sinai, militants attacked an international observer base close to the borders of Israel and Gaza, a witness and a security source said. Two Colombian soldiers were wounded, an official from the observer force said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called his Egyptian counterpart, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to "underscore the importance of ensuring the safety and security of the U.S. diplomatic mission," Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

"Minister al-Sisi reiterated Egypt's commitment to secure U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel," Little said.

Many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as blasphemous. The film has provoked outrage across the Middle East and led to the storming of several U.S. missions in the region.

In Libya, authorities said they had made four arrests in the investigation into the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Mursi has condemned the film, rejected violence and promised to protect diplomatic missions. His cabinet said Washington was not to blame for the film but urged the United States to take legal action against those insulting religion.

The United States has a large embassy in Cairo, partly because of a vast aid programme that began after Egypt signed a peace deal with Israel in 1979. Washington gives $1.3 billion in aid a year to Egypt's army plus additional funds for government.

Related News

Protesters clash with police near U.S. Embassy in Cairo, one dead
Fri, Sep 14 2012
Two dead as protesters attack U.S. embassy in Tunisia
Fri, Sep 14 2012
UPDATE 6-One dead as Egyptian protesters battle police near US Embassy
Fri, Sep 14 2012
Protester killed in Cairo: security source
Fri, Sep 14 2012
Egypt protesters battle police near U.S. embassy
Fri, Sep 14 2012

Analysis & Opinion

Anti-American fury sweeps Middle East over film insulting Prophet Mohammad
Barfi!: A sweet film which has its moments

Related Topics

Stocks »
Markets »

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/shadow-war-169880336.html

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
SHADOW WAR
Iranian-sponsored terror on rise, likely would explode if attack launched on its nuclear facilities
By: Daniel Byman
Posted: 3:18 AM | Comments: 0

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's call for the United States to declare "red lines" for Iran and its nuclear program makes it even harder for the Obama administration to walk the line between calming Israel and increasing the pressure on Iran.

As Washington considers its responses -- and anticipates how Iran would respond in turn -- the risk of terrorism will loom large for both Israel and the United States.

Terrorism related to Iran's nuclear program has already begun. Indeed, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the suspected Iranian-orchestrated terrorist attack in July that killed five Israelis and a local bus driver in Bulgaria is that it generated little surprise or reaction in Israel.

Israel's former national security advisor, Uzi Arad, pointed out that Iran was simply responding to Israel's covert campaign against Tehran: "Anybody with eyes in their head can see we are in the middle of an escalation orchestrated by various elements, and where occasionally we are the instigating side."

This "shadow war" between Israel and Iran has created an escalatory dynamic, as the Bulgaria attack indicates, with Iran feeling compelled to respond to what it sees as Israeli aggression. Although specifics are steeped in secrecy, Israel is blamed (or lauded, depending on where you stand) for killing Iranian nuclear scientists, sabotaging an Iranian missile facility, releasing a computer virus that crippled Iranian centrifuges, and killing noted terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah operations commander who worked closely with Tehran and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans when Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and U.S. marine barracks in 1983.

Terrorism, well before Bulgaria, was Iran's response to such Israeli actions. In 2012 alone, Iran has been linked to attempted attacks in Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Kenya and Thailand.

In October 2011, the United States disrupted a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington by bombing the restaurant where he often ate lunch. Had the bomb gone off as planned, it also would have killed many Americans dining there.

The question, therefore, is not whether Iran will respond to further provocation -- including the ultimate provocation of air strikes on its nuclear facilities -- but how, and whether Iran's response should alter the U.S. and Israeli calculus.

In considering this question, it's important to realize terrorism is both Iran's best option for striking back and its only one. When they feel under assault, Iran's leaders want to prove to their population they are fighting back. The regime is sensitive to any humiliation and has a strong belief in revenge.

Anger is particularly intense within key elite audiences, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which both protects the regime against domestic opponents and leads its covert operations abroad.

Perhaps most important, for all its bluster, Iran is a weak country: Its conventional military forces are poorly armed and weakly trained. Economically, Iran is reeling from increasingly tight sanctions, and its ideology holds little appeal -- even in Iran itself.

Iran, however, has developed a robust intelligence and paramilitary apparatus, and in the past, it has conducted or attempted attacks, at times with its ally, the Lebanese Hezbollah, in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as the Middle East. For Iran, terrorism works.

So if Israel or the United States took the war out of the shadows and conducted a direct military strike on Iran's suspected nuclear facilities, the Iranian terrorist response would be considerable.

We could expect terrorist attacks around the world -- Iran and Hezbollah have shown a presence on every inhabited continent. In addition, Iran would be particularly likely to step up support for anti-U.S. forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere in its neighbourhood. Tehran would also use the limited al-Qaida presence in Iran and its ties to Sunni jihadists to try to strike the United States and its allies. The relationship is troubled, but Iran has influence over al-Qaida, and now would be the time for Tehran to call in favours.

The scope and scale of the response would depend on the level of casualties from any attack and the political circumstances of the regime in Tehran at the time the attack occurred. An attack that caused many Iranian casualties and was proven successful (and thus embarrassing for Iran's leaders), particularly if it came at a time when the Iranian regime felt politically weak, could lead to terrorist attacks on U.S. and Israeli facilities and personnel around the world, including on U.S. soil.

Still, the threat of U.S. retaliation for such retaliation would make Iran's leaders careful not to let escalation get out of hand. America's conventional might has long moderated Iran's behaviour because Tehran knows its forces are no match for those of the United States. Iran toned down its anti-U.S. terrorism after orchestrating the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The quite real spectre of a U.S. military strike and more comprehensive sanctions probably sobered Iran's leaders.

That could change, however, if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. Some scholars have argued the theoretical point that, in general, nuclear weapons make states more cautious, as they fear the catastrophic escalation that a nuclear crisis could bring. More likely, though hardly inevitable, is that Tehran might become emboldened by a nuclear weapon, since it would then have the ability to threaten a devastating response should it be attacked with conventional forces. This "umbrella" would then enable Iran to be more aggressive supporting sub-state groups such as Hezbollah or opposition forces against various Arab enemies.

This is not just conjecture. After acquiring a nuclear capability, Islamabad believed it had obtained a degree of immunity from India's superior conventional forces, and Pakistani leaders began more aggressively supporting various groups in Kashmir and against New Delhi in general. Pakistan even carried out its own military operations in conjunction with Kashmiri fighters against India in 1999, when it seized border posts in Kargil on the Indian side of the Line of Control, almost provoking a major war. Islamabad has also backed groups tied to horrific terrorist attacks in India, including a 2001 strike on the Indian parliament and strikes in Mumbai that killed more than 160 people in 2008.

The silver lining is that Iran is not likely to pass a nuclear weapon to terrorist groups except under the most extreme circumstances -- too much could go too wrong in too many ways. Even an emboldened Tehran would recognize the United States and Israel would see such a transfer as a grave threat (something U.S. rhetoric has repeatedly emphasized) and would dramatically escalate their pressure on Iran, perhaps including significant military operations.

In addition, they might be able to gain international support because almost all states, including China and Russia, fear such transfers. Tehran has not transferred much less lethal and controversial chemical weapons to Hezbollah, despite having had such weapons in its arsenal for more than 25 years. Groups such as Hezbollah would fear the consequences of going nuclear, recognizing this could lead the United States, Israel and others to take military action that could threaten its position in Lebanon. In addition, these groups have proven quite capable in using rockets, explosives and small arms to achieve their objectives.

However, should the clerical regime believe itself to be facing an imminent threat of regime change from the United States and its allies -- a situation comparable to what Saddam Hussein faced in 2003, say -- the calculus would change dramatically. If the United States deployed ground forces in large numbers or used air power to back Iranian rebels -- measures that for now are not on the table -- Iranian leaders would see this as a grave threat to their hold on power.

From Tehran's point of view, the United States and others would have already escalated beyond the point of no return. Tehran would have nothing to lose, and at least a chance of intimidating or deterring the United States, by such transfers. In addition, Iranian leaders might want revenge or simply want to vent their rage and use terrorists to do so.

Even if the most provocative measures against Iran's nuclear program are taken by Israel alone, the United States should expect to find itself the target of attacks, particularly abroad. Although the two countries do not march in lockstep, the subtle distinctions in Iran policy that divide Washington and Jerusalem are often lost in Tehran.

U.S. support for aggressive sanctions and Israel's covert campaign are considered part of a shared effort to undermine the Islamic Republic, and reportedly joint operations such as the computer virus that targeted Iran's nuclear program further blur differences.

There is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't quality to any policy response to the terrorism threat related to Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian terrorist threat is here to stay -- and indeed may be likely to grow -- as the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program reaches a boiling point. Further ramping up intelligence efforts against Iran, working with allied services to disrupt potential plots, pushing to decrease the size of Iranian embassies given the sizable intelligence presence there and other low-profile measures are obvious steps.

But in the end, Iran's lack of strategic options and desire to respond to what it sees as foreign aggression will lead Tehran to continue to work with a range of terrorist groups. Successful U.S. policy can reduce the scope and scale of Iranian violence, but it is not likely to end it altogether. So while we should celebrate efforts to set back Iran's nuclear program, we should brace ourselves for Iran's determination to make us pay a price for our efforts.

Daniel Byman is a professor in the security studies program at Georgetown University and research director of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.

--Foreign Policy

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 15, 2012 J11

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281691,00.html

US media see Iran strike as transcending elections issues

NYT says leaders need 'more than red lines,' and Washington Post delves into Netanyahu's 'Hamlet-like anguishing' over strike on Iran, as Israel-Iran tensions become pivotal issue in presidential race

Ynet
Published: 09.15.12, 09:07 / Israel News

As the presidential race in the United States gains momentum and differences between Israel and the US over the need of an immediate action vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear ambitions grows, US media levels growing criticism at Israel's demands of a "red line."

A top commentator at the Washington Post urged US President Barack Obama to help Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "climb down from his unwise rhetoric"; and the New York Times asserts that "Leaders need flexibility and ambiguity, not just hard and fast red lines."

Related stories:

Obama in Rosh Hashanah greeting: Let's renew bond
US official: Nuclear bomb is our red line
Barak urges discretion on Israel-US differences

David Ignatius of the Washington Post's opinion piece, titled "Puzzled by a 'red line' demand," wonders about Netanyahu's "almost daily demands" for the US to set a clear red line for Iran, and asks "What does he wants beyond what President Obama has already stated?"

Ignatius said that "Obama believes he has drawn the US red line as clearly as a superpower ever should." He noted previous statements by Obama, saying that the US has a national security interest in preventing the Islamic Republic from achieving military nuclear capabilities.

He further notes that the Obama administration has already proved it plans to stop Iran by directing the US Armed forces to formulate a detailed plan of attack should Iran cross the US' line.

Ignatius hedged that Netanyahu's true aim is to see Obama issue a de-facto ultimatum or deadline for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment.

"נתניהו צריך להפנים - אובמה לא אוהב שמכניסים אותו לפינה" (צילום: AFP)

'Presidents don't turn over power of war and peace' (Photo: AFP)

"Watching Netanyahu’s public, Hamlet-like anguishing over the past year about 'to bomb or not to bomb,' one suspects the real issue for him isn't red lines so much as trust that they will be enforced," the Washington Post states.

The relations between the American president and the Israeli prime minister have often been strained and close associates on both sides say they are plagued by mutual mistrust both on a personal level and on a political one.

"Netanyahu should understand that no country can allow another to impose the conditions under which it will go to war," Ignatius wrote. "Presidents don't turn over that power of war and peace, even to their best friends."

If both the US and Israel wish to maintain deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, "Obama should help the Israeli leader to climb down from his unwise rhetoric," he states.

'No Rush to War'

The New York Times' editorial largely echoed that sentiment, further stressing that the United States should not rush to strike Iran, especially since there is a consensus among experts that such a strike could, at best, set the Iranian's nuclear program back four years at most.

Netanyahu, the editorial states, is "Trying to browbeat President Obama into a preemptive strike," further exacerbating the tensions between the close, long-time allies.

"Leaders need flexibility and ambiguity, not just hard and fast red lines. And it is dangerous for Mr. Netanyahu to try to push the president into a corner publicly and raise questions about Washington. Is that really the message he wants to send to Tehran?" the New York Times wondered. Israel has no reason to doubt Washington's resolve on the Iranian threat.

But recent polls show that 70% of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, and 59% said that if a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran ignites a regional war, the United States should not come to its ally’s aid.

The editorial asserts that "The best strategy is for Israel to work with the United States and other major powers to tighten sanctions while pursuing negotiations on a deal. It is a long shot, but there is time to talk. And that’s where the focus must be."

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-v-Netanyahu-by-Stephen-Lendman-120915-291.html

September 15, 2012 at 01:47:58
opednews.com
Obama v. Netanyahu
Lots more going on than meets the eye.
by Stephen Lendman

Much has been made about an Obama/Netanyahu rift. At times, it's hard separating rhetoric from reality. Nonetheless, neither leader, it appears, particularly likes the other. Disagreement between them is palpable. It's over Iranian red lines and deadlines.

Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said he doesn't believe in "red line policies." He responded to Netanyahu saying:

"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time.' And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

"Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs."

A previous article called Netanyahu the mouth that roars for good reason. He repeatedly puts both feet in his mouth and risks swallowing them.

He's arrogant, offensive, duplicitous, thuggish, and dangerous. He's an embarrassment to legitimate governance. It's hard imagining why any Israelis put up with him. If ever a bum deserved to be thrown out it's Netanyahu.

One Israeli analyst said he "must set red lines on his malice toward Obama." Israelis and many others are fed up with his bluster. He's gone out of his way to alienate support from his closest ally. An unnamed Israeli official said he caused "profound" damage in relations with Washington.

Haaretz contributor Yoel Marcus accused him of "acting wildly irresponsibly." He overstepped "traditional boundaries." He crossed a proper comportment red line.

He's interfering in America's election. He's making a serious mistake. Marcus cited a Bulgarian proverb, saying:

"When God wants to punish someone, the first thing He does is take away his brains."

Doron Rosenblum questions the future of "Bibi-ism." It's a "state of mind." It "dictates the tone of Israel." It does so by a leader "who concentrates more and more authority in his hands," wields it like an autocrat, "while nurturing a media personality cult."

Bibi-ism's bottom line is what he says goes. Opposition isn't tolerated. His mouth disengages from his senses and sensibility. He's combative and overbearing. Observers call him pompous, domineering, and insufferable.

He engages in the "politics of permanent" confrontation. He never misses a chance for a good fight. He avoids "reconciliation and cooperation."

Obama and some officials around him are tired of his ultimatums. They're also unhappy about his thinly veiled support for Romney. Perhaps he's emotionally unbalanced and can't help it. It's cause for concern that his finger's on Israel's nuclear trigger.

Conscience International head James Jennings told Press TV America must stop supporting Israel. "The United States should change its entire Middle East policy," he said, "beginning with its support for Israel and should support the Palestinian cause more."

Doing so "would send a great message," he added. Perhaps it would go a long way toward ending bloodshed.

After an overnight conversation with Obama, Netanyahu's tone softened. It's likely temporary. Don't bet he changed. Photos of the two together show images of strained relations.

Former State Department spokesman PJ Crowley witnessed nine face-to-face meetings. There's "a lack of rapport between these two men," he said. "They don't like each other very much. Plus, there are serious differences between our interests and Israel's."

He added that Netanyahu stresses "agenda-setting." He watched both political conventions. Israel and Iran were mentioned, "but not significantly discussed, even" though Democrats changed their Jerusalem position. Netanyahu wants Israel on "the front burner."

It's also personal with Bibi, said Crowley. He thinks he has maximum leverage pre-election. He believes his hawkishness got Washington to impose tougher sanctions. He's not about to go it alone and attack Iran. He thinks Obama will win in November. He prefers Romney.

Last November in a press conference with Nicolas Sarkozy, a hot microphone moment caught the former French president saying "I cannot bear" Netanyahu. He also called him "a liar."

Obama responded, saying "You're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."

Netanyahu claims "leaders are tested at times of differences with our allies, even our closest allies. We face huge challenges. As prime minister, it's my duty to insist on Israel's vital interests and to ensure its security and future."

As long as he remains prime minister, relations with any US president won't be easy.

"The most important interest today," he claims, "is to prevent Iran from continuing its clear effort to obtain nuclear weapons - weapons in the hands of a state that calls for our destruction and is bent on achieving its goal."

Of course, he, other Israeli officials and US ones know Iran has no nuclear weapons program, doesn't plan one, threatens no one, and isn't hell bent to destroy Israel. Yet he keeps saying it. His bluster long ago wore thin. No wonder Obama, other US officials, and some Israeli ones are fed up with him.

He'll keep stressing red lines, he says. Without them, "Iranians would have no reason to stop their drive to obtain nuclear weapons." His bombast won't quit. Nor do supportive comments from other Likudnik hardliners.

pposition leader Shaul Mofaz blamed him for strained US/Israeli relation. "Throughout Israel's history," he said, "the drums of war have never beaten so incessantly as during these days."

Jonathan Cook calls America's special relationship with Israel more myth than reality. It's been "propagated by politicians to mask the suspicion - and plentiful examples of duplicity and betrayal - that have marked the relationship since Israel's founding."

"Politicians may prefer to express undying love for Israel, and hand over billions of dollars annually in aid, but the US security establishment has - at least, in private - always regarded Israel as an unfaithful partner."

Disagreement over Iran is palpable. It's more about timing than intent. At the same time, officials in both countries strongly oppose war. They know potential consequences are too catastrophic to risk.

They're also concerned about a volatile, at times out-of-control, prime minister. For good reason, they don't trust him.

A former US intelligence official said "Israel is far from a trusted ally in the US 'war on terror.' " So why talk of special ties. In part, it's because of the formidable Israeli Lobby. It intimidates virtually the entire Congress.

Israel is also nuclear armed and dangerous. It's also believed to have a potent chemical and biological weapons arsenal. If threatened, it won't hesitate using them.

Perhaps Washington prioritizes reigning in this menace. At the same time, US military field commanders have tactical nuclear weapons and other WMDs. In combat situations, they're authorized to use them at their discretion.

Both countries threaten their own people and humanity. That bottom line counts most.

To meet or not to meet! Mossad-connected DEBKAfile said "Obama's refusal".to see (Netanyahu in New York) because 'the president's schedule will not permit that' left Jerusalem thunderstruck - and Washington, too."

In late September, both leaders will address the UN General Assembly on different dates. Meeting there or in Washington was thought to be one way to resolves differences over Iran.

"By rebuffing Netanyahu," Obama showed he opposes unilateral Israeli action. Netanyahu's bluster doesn't make things easier. He's his own worst enemy. He wants a firm commitment and timeline on Iran.

Sparring between the two leaders "reached a point of no return." Perhaps they'll meet after all. Finding common ground won't be easy. Repairing strained relations may take precedence. Who knows what's possible dealing with a prime minister who won't take no for an answer.

Some officials in both countries believe relations between them are deteriorating. Netanyahu's foot-in-mouth disease explains why. A US president's refusal to meet an Israeli prime minister is unprecedented in recent memory.

The last time both leaders met, Netanyahu was overbearing, demanding and offensive. Obama likely deplores a repeat. Netanyahu has more than Iran in mind. After his last White House visit, his popularity soared. It was temporary. He needs all the help he can get.

Israeli sources believe he'll get the meeting he wants. Expect another White House one replete with favorable photo-op publicity. He'll get more in New York. He'll meet with Hillary Clinton.

Obama officials deny strained relations with him. White House sources say it. They're paid to lie. So are ambassadors. Dan Shapiro, Washington's Israeli envoy, said both men agreed by phone to continue their "close cooperation and conversations."

Some wonder. Netanyahu goes out of his way to alienate people. Even America's media and some Democrats are less supportive.

The New York Times reported what it called "unusually harsh public comments about Israel's most important ally." Its September 13 article headlined "Obama Rebuffs Netanyahu on Setting Limits on Iran's Nuclear Program."

An unnamed US official said Washington's red line is an Iranian nuclear weapon. There is none, of course, nor plans to build one.

Netanyahu demands more. Relations with Obama reflect "frequently crossed wires." Netanyahu's bluster doesn't help. Saying Obama has no "moral right" to restrain Israel fuels resentment.

Israeli officials are offended. Netanyahu "faces deep divisions within his own country." His own deputy prime minister for intelligence and atomic affairs, Dan Meridor, told Israeli Army radio: "I don't want to set red lines or deadlines for myself." Others share his view for good reason.

Senator Barbara Boxer posted a letter on her web site headlined "Boxer Expresses Disappointment Over Israeli Prime Minister's Remarks."

Calling herself one of Israel's strongest supporters, she said Netanyahu's comments are "utterly contrary to the extraordinary United States-Israel alliance"."

"In light of this, I am stunned by the remarks that you made this week regarding U.S. support for Israel. Are you suggesting that the United States is not Israel's closest ally and does not stand by Israel?"

"Are you saying that Israel, under President Obama, has not received more in annual security assistance from the United States than at any time in its history, including for the Iron Dome Missile Defense System?"

In New Yorker editor David Remnick 's Neocon Gambits article, he said:

"It is hard to overestimate the risks that Benjamin Netanyahu poses to the future of his own country. As Prime Minister, he has done more than any other political figure to embolden and elevate the reactionary forces in Israel, to eliminate the dwindling possibility of a just settlement with the Palestinians, and to isolate his country on the world diplomatic stage."

"Now Netanyahu seems determined, more than ever, to alienate the President of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney's campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election - one no less pivotal than the most super Super PAC."

He added that Netanyahu's most trusted US allies are hardliners going along with him no matter what he says, does, or wants.

Other US media critics call him "brazen," "disgusting," "overbearing," and "over-the-top." It's hard remembering any previous Israeli leader taken to task this way.

Netanyahu remains his own worst enemy. He's so obstinate, single-minded, unyielding, and tantrum-prone, he'll likely muddle on, do little to sooth relations, leave fences unmended, and alienate growing numbers of Israeli supporters. Peace advocates for sure hope so.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Email address removed .

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...16e7ec-fd44-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html

Next up in the Middle East mess? Saudi Arabia’s succession fight.
By Karen Elliott House, Published: September 14
Comments 1

From afar, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia appears immune from the turmoil and uncertainty engulfing nations such as Syria, Egypt and Libya. But rather than being an oasis of stability in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is nearing its own crisis point.

The elderly sons of Saudi Arabia’s founder, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, who have ruled sequentially since his death in 1953, are approaching the end of the line. And as that happens, the future of this kingdom on which the world depends for oil has never been more precarious.

King Abdullah is nearly 90 and ailing. Crown Prince Salman is 76. The royal family can continue to pass the monarchy to remaining brothers and half-brothers, but even the youngest of those is already in his late 60s. None is likely to have the acumen and energy — or even the time — to usher in an era of reform to solve the kingdom’s mounting problems: poor education, high unemployment, a corrupt bureaucracy, a sclerotic economy and an increasingly young and frustrated society. These domestic challenges are compounded by external ones including Middle East turmoil, the nuclear ambition of the radical regime in Iran and a fraying alliance with the United States.

The three historic pillars of Saudi stability are cracking. Massive oil revenue, which has bought public passivity, is threatened by peaked production and sharply increased domestic energy consumption. A supportive Wahhabi Islamic establishment that bestowed legitimacy on the House of Saud is increasingly fractious and is losing public credibility. And now, the royal family is in danger of division as it is forced to confront generational succession.

Whether by the choice of the royal family sooner, or by the will of Allah a bit later, the crown is going to pass to the new generation. This entails risk as well as opportunity.

The opportunity is obvious. In theory at least, a new-generation royal — educated, more open-minded and above all more energetic — could begin to tackle the country’s manifold problems by relaxing political and economic controls and by providing more efficient and accountable government to relieve the frustrations of a sullen populace.

Given the stakes involved, however, the risk is that the diffuse and divided royal family will dither or, worse yet, splinter. The issue is not merely which new prince would wear the crown, but the fear among the royals that his branch of the family would pass it on to its sons and grandsons in perpetuity, precluding other branches from ever ruling again.

For nearly 60 years, the crown has passed by family consensus from one brother to the next, occasionally skipping one deemed incapable or unsuitable for leadership, but otherwise following the tradition of seniority. Whoever reigned might favor his sons with particularly plum jobs, but he understood that the crown would go next not to his sons but to his brothers. It is a system unlike that of any other monarchy. But in a kingdom where princes often marry multiple wives and thus produce dozens of progeny each — now adding up to nearly 7,000 princes — it is a system that has largely worked.

Given the royal family’s aversion to risk, perpetuation of the status quo — several more aged and infirm brothers ascending to the throne — is the most likely choice of senior Saud royals. But what may seem safe to them is dangerous for the country. Saudi Arabia these days is all too reminiscent of the dying decade of the Soviet Union, during which one decrepit leader succeeded another, from Leonid Brezhnev to Yuri Andropov to Konstantin Chernenko, before a younger and more open-minded Mikhail Gorbachev arrived too late to save a stagnant society and economy. As President Ronald Reagan famously said of those old Soviet leaders, and as the next U.S. president may say of the Saudis, “They keep dying on me.”

In Saudi Arabia, there are some potential Gorbachevs — or better — among the grandsons of the founder. Ten of the 13provincial governors are grandsons, all with administrative experience, some with genuine talent and almost all sons of kings. Similarly, there are grandsons holding prominent positions in some key Saudi ministries. A short list of third-generation princes who could be king includes Khalid al-Faisal, governor of Mecca and son of the respected late King Faisal; Muhammad bin Fahd, governor of the oil-producing Eastern Province and son of the late King Fahd; Khalid bin Sultan, deputy minister of defense and son of the late Crown Prince Sultan; and Muhammad bin Nayef, deputy minister of interior for security and son of the late Crown Prince Nayef.

How would a new-generation monarch be selected? Recognizing how large and divided the royal family had become, in 2006 King Abdullah established an Allegiance Council comprising each of his remaining brothers or, in the case of deceased brothers, each one’s eldest son. This council of 35 princes is intended to represent the entire Saud family in the selection of a crown prince to succeed the one who automatically ascends to the throne upon Abdullah’s death. Each member of the council would have one vote; in a country that has no democracy, it would at least be a form of family democracy. Abdullah, who exempted selection of his own successor from this process, already is on his third crown prince, each of whom he personally chose and two of whom died. As a result, the council has met only once: at its formation, when it swore fealty to king and country. Many Saudis fear that the Allegiance Council process will die with King Abdullah — and with it the hope of a smooth generational succession.

Family feuds are not an idle worry. The Sauds have ruled Arabia on and off for more than 250 years. Infighting among several brothers ended their rule in 1891 and forced into exile a teenage Abdul Aziz, who later returned and founded the current kingdom. On his deathbed in 1953, the long-reigning Abdul Aziz forced his two eldest sons, Saud and Faisal, to swear to avoid a repetition of this history.

The admonition fell on deaf ears. The two brothers quickly began quarreling, and their feud continued for more than a decade before Faisal, with the backing of family members and religious leaders, forced his elder brother into exile.

Aware of this history, Saudis can only watch and wait, exerting no influence on succession decisions but aware that rivalries could break out and a royal house divided might not stand.

Saudi society now bears little resemblance to the passive populace of even a decade ago. Thanks to the Internet, Saudis know about life inside their kingdom and in the wider world, and they resent the disparities they see. Fully 60 percent of Saudis are under 20 years old. They know that 40 percent of Saudis live in poverty; 70 percent can’t afford to own a home; and 90 percent of workers in the private sector are foreigners, even while unemployment among 20- to 24-year-olds is nearly 40 percent. Saudi men won’t take the lower-skilled jobs for which they are qualified, and even well-educated Saudi women are not allowed to take jobs for which they are qualified.

Most ordinary Saudis aren’t demanding democracy, but merely a more efficient government and a more equitable distribution of the oil riches that they believe belong to the country, not just to the royal family. It is far from certain that a ruler from the new generation could meet these demands, however modest they may seem. What is more certain is that the diminishing line of elderly brothers cannot.

So for the foreseeable future, the royal Saudi 747, richly appointed but mechanically flawed, flies on, its cockpit crowded with geriatric pilots. The plane is losing altitude and gradually running out of fuel. On board, first class is crowded with princely passengers, while frustrated Saudi citizens sit crammed in economy. Among them are Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn the plane around, as well as terrorists who aim to hijack it to a destination unknown. Somewhere on board there may be a competent new flight team that could land the plane safely, but the prospects of a capable pilot getting a chance at the controls seems slim. And so the 747 remains in the sky, perhaps to be hijacked or ultimately to crash.

Karen Elliott House, a Pulitzer Prize winner for coverage of the Middle East, is the author of the forthcoming “On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines — and Future,” to be published next week.

Read more from Outlook:

Under Obama or Romney, U.S. Mideast policy won’t change much

What Ambassador Chris Stevens would have wanted us to do in the Middle East

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/node/21562960?fsrc=scn/ob

Muslim rage
Why they won’t calm down
Mischief, not madness, often underlies Muslim anger

Sep 15th 2012 | from the print edition
Comments 98
Denmark must burn in hell

TO OUTSIDE eyes it is as bizarre as it is repellent. A single event, book, cartoon, film or teddy bear, which represents nothing but its originator, who may not even be American, sparks lethal outbursts of mass protest. What, to prejudiced Westerners, could better exemplify Muslim backwardness and depravity?

The latest bloody furore was provoked by the belated release on the web of an amateurish film, probably made by a Coptic Egyptian resident in America, attacking the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, brute and pervert. Yet the film had been available (with stunning lack of success) for months, though dubbed in Arabic more recently. Undoubtedly offensive, it could count as an incitement to religious hatred—illegal in some countries, though not in America. But it is no worse than plenty of other material only a mouse-click away.

So why the ire? In a hallmark essay in 1990 called “The Roots of Muslim Rage”, Bernard Lewis, an Anglo-American commentator on Islam, blamed a mentality twisted by history. He cited the obligation of holy war, dating from the faith’s turbulent birth and shaped by centuries of setbacks ranging from the retreat from Europe to Western imperialism, and even the challenge to Muslim male authority from rebellious children and emancipated women. The result was an inferiority complex, in which humiliation was compounded by Western ignorance.

There is also a less apocalyptic explanation. Muslims’ resentment at slights to their religion is readily aroused by reports of desecration of the Koran or books, films and pictures that include a blasphemous (ie, any) depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or of God. Yet outbursts of rage can also be stirred by political grandstanding and mischievous politicians preying on an ill-informed and aggrieved populace.

It is certainly odd, for example, that the latest film suddenly began attracting attention in the run-up to September 11th, an anniversary almost as politically charged in the Muslim world as it is in the West. It was energetically publicised (albeit in caustic terms) by two Salafist (hardline Islamist) television channels.

Most outbursts of Muslim rage bring political dividends to someone. The Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, reaped the benefits of his fatwa demanding the death sentence on Salman Rushdie for his book “The Satanic Verses”, published in 1988. Pakistani politicians gain from whipping up sentiment against Christians—and against politicians seen as soft on them.

The furore over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten , was also curious. It held a cartoon competition (about supposed Muslim intolerance) in September 2005. Protests erupted four months later, sparked by a dossier that included pictures the paper had never published. The row, which cost at least 100 lives, was a boon for those with mischief-making agendas.

Ignorance of the way the West works in many Muslim countries makes rabble-rousing easy. Protesters at the American embassy in Cairo on September 11th erroneously believed the offensive film to have been shown on “American state television”: in a place with a weak tradition of independent broadcasting, that claim is not as absurd as it might be elsewhere.

The casualties of such outbursts are not only innocent lives and lost livelihoods. The truth suffers too. A reluctance among many Muslims to accept that America could be a blundering victim of atrocities rather than a wily perpetrator meant that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers were widely reported from the outset as an inside job, facilitated by Israel’s intelligence service, to stoke up Western hatred of Islam. Three-quarters of Egyptians now believe that conspiracy theory. It is a headache for their new president, Muhammad Morsi, as he plans to visit New York for the United Nations General Assembly (see next article). For many Americans, only an explicit disavowal of his past support for such theories would signal that he is a decent man worth dealing with.

In this section

Despite everything, it’s still a success
»Why they won’t calm down
The Brothers flex their muscles
Revolution in the air at last
Can he really rescue the place?

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE88E00G20120915?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Three dead as protesters attack US embassy in Tunisia
Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:37am GMT
By Tarek Amara

TUNIS (Reuters) - At least three people died and 28 others were wounded on Friday after police fought hundreds of protesters who ransacked the U.S. embassy in Tunisia in their fury over a film denigrating the Prophet Mohammad, state television said.

A Reuters reporter saw police open fire to try to quell the assault, in which protesters forced their way past riot police into the embassy.

The protesters smashed windows, hurled petrol bombs and stones at police from inside the embassy, or started fires in the embassy and the compound. A black plume of smoke rose from the facility.

One protester was seen throwing a computer out of a window, while others walked away with telephones and computers.

A Tunisian security officer near the compound said the embassy had not been staffed on Friday, and calls to the embassy went unanswered. A Reuters reporter saw two armed U.S. soldiers on the rooftop.

The protesters, many of whom were Islamic Salafists, also set fire to the nearby American School, which was closed at the time, and took away laptops and tablet computers.

The protests began after Friday prayers and followed a rallying call on Facebook by Islamist activists that was quickly endorsed by the local faction of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

Libyan officials suspect the Libyan branch of Ansar al-Sharia of being behind an attack in Benghazi in which four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were killed on Tuesday.

The moderate Islamist Ennahda movement, which heads the Tunis government, had advised Tunisians against participating in the protest against the crude, low-budget film, made in California and trailed online, which portrayed the Muslim prophet engaged in vulgar and offensive behaviour.

"The (Tunisian) government does not accept these acts of aggression against foreign diplomatic missions," said a statement read on state television. It said Tunisian authorities were "committed to ensuring the safety of foreign diplomatic missions".

Hundreds of protesters wielding petrol bombs, stones and sticks had charged at the security forces protecting the embassy before jumping a wall to invade the compound.

"Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas," they chanted, in reference to the slain al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.

The protesters pulled down the U.S. flag flying over the embassy, burned it, and replaced it with a black flag emblazoned with the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith.

Riot police finally drove the protesters from the embassy and the compound, and a Reuters reporter saw them arresting around 60.

The compound was cordoned off by police, soldiers and members of the elite presidential guard, but clashes continued in the el-Aouina district across a highway from the smart Auberge du Lac neighbourhood where the embassy is located.

© Thomson Reuters 2012 All rights reserved

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE88E04320120915

Peace envoy Brahimi says Syria crisis is global threat
Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:45am GMT
By Marwan Makdesi

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - International mediator Lakhdar Brahimi said after talks with President Bashar al-Assad that the escalating Syrian conflict posed a global danger.

"We discussed the Syrian crisis and I repeat, this crisis is very dangerous," Brahimi told reporters after he met Assad for an hour at the presidential palace.

"This crisis is deteriorating and represents a danger to the Syrian people, to the region, and to the whole world."

Activists say more than 27,000 people have been killed in the 18-month-old conflict between Assad's forces and the mainly Sunni Muslim rebels determined to overthrow him.

Saturday's meeting in Damascus was Brahimi's first with Assad since he replaced Kofi Annan as peace envoy two weeks ago, taking on a mission which the veteran Algerian diplomat described as "nearly impossible".

Assad's forces and the outgunned but increasingly powerful rebels seeking his overthrow have ignored appeals to end the fighting, which has continued in most of the country's main cities, including Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and Deir al-Zor.

Damascus residents reported hearing heavy overnight bombardment followed by the sound of jet planes swooping over the capital shortly after 7 a.m. (0400 GMT) on Saturday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based group monitoring the violence, said 160 people were killed in Syria on Friday, as Brahimi met Russian and Chinese diplomats in Damascus. On Thursday he spoke with the Iranian ambassador.

Russia, Iran and China are supporting Assad's government and Moscow and Beijing have three times blocked Western-backed attempts in the U.N. Security Council to criticise and threaten sanctions against Damascus.

"I believe that the president realises more than me the dimensions and the danger of this crisis," Brahimi said.

Brahimi said Assad and his officials had pledged to support his work, adding that he would return to the region soon after talks in New York with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Syria's U.N. envoy Bashar Ja'afari said earlier this month Damascus was "open-minded and fully committed to the mission of Mr Brahimi in his endeavours to put an end to violence and find a Syrian-led political solution to the crisis".

(Writing by Dominic Evans; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

© Thomson Reuters 2012 All rights reserved

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20120915.aspx

The Assimilation Wars

September 15, 2012: The dispute with the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal has heated up again as China continues to maintain warships in the area and threatens Filipino ships trying to enter one atoll. Next year the Philippines plans to allow exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas near its coast (Palawan Island). China says it will not allow this. By international law (a 1994 treaty), the waters 360 kilometers from land are considered the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), of the nation controlling the nearest land. The EEZ owner can control who fishes there, and extracts natural resources (mostly oil and gas) from the ocean floor. But the EEZ owner cannot prohibit free passage, or the laying of pipelines and communications cables. China has angered its neighbors by claiming all the islands (especially tiny uninhabited ones) in the South China Sea. This is a 3.5 million square kilometer (1.4 million square mile) area south of China and Taiwan, west of the Philippines and north of Indonesia. China claims the entire area, as if it were one big EEZ. This has aroused the ire of the neighbors, and caused them to unite against China.

Despite the United States mutual-defense treaties with many claimants (Philippines, Taiwan, Japan), China believes it will prevail, simply by applying constant pressure on all fronts (military, economic, media and diplomatic). China has openly threatened economic retaliation against nations that protest the great South China Sea land grab, and is, by implication and its actions, threatening the use of military force as well. Chinese state-controlled media have pushed these claims on nationalistic grounds. This has been very popular with most Chinese, who see China becoming a world power again. However, this use of nationalism is dangerous as it could push China into a war if neighbors resist China actually making good on their territorial claims.

Meanwhile, the Philippines denied media reports that they have allowed the U.S. Marine Corps to operate on Palawan. The Philippines has not denied that more American warships are visiting the Philippines. The Philippines have also annoyed the Chinese by announcing that the sea area off Palawan island, out to the limit of the EEZ has been renamed the West Philippine Sea. China insists this area is still the South China Sea (which they claim to own.)

The Chinese government is allowing (or at least not shutting down) more anti-Japan demonstrations. The government has helped keep alive the memory of Japanese atrocities during World War II and the 1930s. Japanese troops and civilians behaved badly in China after Japan defeated Russia in a 1905 war. China inherited Russian "concessions" (Chinese territory the Chinese government had been forced, at gun point, to allow foreigners to operate in). Japan expanded this territory and essentially took control, with the object of making northern China a part of Japan. This sort of thing was very unpopular in China back then, and still is.

China and Cuba have agreed to increase military cooperation. China has supported the Cuban dictatorship for over fifty years, but has never provided much in the way of economic or military aid. Six years ago China became Cuba's second largest trading partner (after Venezuela). China achieved this by extending credit to Cuba, despite a long record of unpaid trade loans. China also pays Cuba for the use of electronic monitoring (of the U.S.) facilities. China maintains a low profile in Cuba, apparently in order to avoid a confrontation with the United States that would weaken Chinese complaints about American military forces operating near China.

India and China recently agreed to resume joint military exercises. These had been suspended two years ago because of very public Chinese claims on Indian territory. The claims remain, but the Chinese are no longer releasing press releases about the issue. The Chinese are also trying to halt the growth of an international coalition opposing Chinese claims on all of the South China Sea. At the same time, Chinese officials visited Pakistan and very publically assured their long-time ally that China would continue to support Pakistani independence and supply Pakistan with modern weapons.

China state-controlled media recently featured stories about Su-30 fighters, carrying live ammo (missiles and smart bombs) in Tibet, along the high-altitude border with India. There were also prominent media reports of recent amphibious training exercises. This was directed against Japan, which has become increasingly aggressive about asserting its ownership of the Senkaku islands.

The government has lost another battle with the Internet. This one involved efforts to cover up a March incident where the 23 year old son of a senior Communist Party official died when his $800,000 sports car crashed. His two passengers were women, one of them naked. Both the women survived the crash, but one is paralyzed from the neck down. The dead man was a recent college graduate and made about $10,000 a year from a government job. Thus the question was how could he afford an expensive sports car. Even his father's much higher salary could not pay for such luxuries. The government wanted to keep all this quiet because it was another reminder of all the corruption and nepotism in the senior leadership. But the story did get out and despite energetic efforts by the Internet police and censors, it spread nationwide, with pictures of the wreck and those involved.

____

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20120915.aspx

Vietnamese Kilo Hits The Water

September 15, 2012: In August Vietnam announced that it had finalized the purchase of six Kilo class submarines. About the same time Russian revealed that the first of these Vietnamese Kilos was in the water and will undergo sea trials before the end of the year.

It was three years ago that Vietnam first announced that it was buying six Russian Kilo class submarines, for $300 million each. The Kilos weigh 2,300 tons (surface displacement), have six torpedo tubes and a crew of 57. They are quiet, and can travel about 700 kilometers under water at a quiet speed of about five kilometers an hour. Kilos carry 18 torpedoes or SS-N-27 anti-ship missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers and launched underwater from the torpedo tubes.) The combination of quietness and cruise missiles makes Kilo very dangerous to surface ships. North Korea, China and Iran have also bought Kilos. China is building its own unlicensed version of the Kilo (the Type 41 Song class). Considering the low price, it appears that the Vietnamese boats do not have AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), which allows non-nuclear boats to stay underwater for weeks at a time.

Housecarl · Sep 15, 2012

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/w...s-gennadi-v-gudkov-a-putin-opponent.html?_r=1

September 14, 2012
Lawmaker Who Defied Putin Is Expelled by Colleagues
By ELLEN BARRY

MOSCOW — Russia’s Parliament on Friday took the rare step of expelling one of its members, a four-term lawmaker and former K.G.B. officer who last year crossed a political line in the sand, joining crowds calling for Vladimir V. Putin to give up power.

The lawmaker, Gennadi V. Gudkov — a gregarious, rumpled populist in the vein of former President Boris N. Yeltsin — arrived at the Duma before the opening of the plenary session, as he has for the past 11 years. This time, though, as he entered he referred to the hilltop where Jesus was crucified, saying, “If this is my Golgotha, I am ready to climb up to it.” After he addressed the hall, someone hissed, “Judas.”

Mr. Gudkov’s expulsion took place without any judicial process and was an extraordinary step, even after a summer of criminal cases against political activists. Unlike the young bloggers and anarchists who have been targets up until now, Mr. Gudkov, 56, is a full-fledged member of the elite, with contacts in law enforcement and government circles.

By publicly stripping Mr. Gudkov of his status, the Kremlin hopes to send a warning to other insiders who might be tempted to defect. But it is a gamble, it was clear on Friday, as Mr. Gudkov used his last moments as a lawmaker to open a new political career.

“Do you understand your historical responsibility?” he asked the Duma, minutes before they voted to exclude him. “You think you’re stripping my mandate? You’re stripping the mandate of hundreds of thousands of my voters. They are the source of power, and not the people sitting here. We will all answer for this — especially those who are about to violate the basic law of this country: the Russian Constitution.”

The last time Parliament voted to expel a member was in 1995, when it moved against Sergei Mavrodi, the founder of a notorious pyramid scheme that bankrupted vast numbers of naïve investors.

The action on Friday, on a vote of 291 to 150, with 3 abstentions, stripped Mr. Gudkov of his legislative immunity, and prosecutors announced that the authorities would decide in the next two weeks whether to bring criminal charges against him.

The lawmakers revoked Mr. Gudkov’s mandate because they said he had operated a business while holding office, which violates Russian law. He has denied operating the business. He also points out that many of the 450 legislators in the Duma have vast personal wealth they could not have accumulated on their five-figure government salaries, but have never been called to account.

Nevertheless, the idea of punishing officials for corruption appeals strongly to the average Russian, and the evening news featured polls showing that most respondents supported punishing Mr. Gudkov.

“Just the fact that the deputies, by their own decision, have stopped considering themselves a ‘caste of untouchables’ is extraordinarily important for the institution of representative democracy,” said Aleksei Chesnakov, secretary of the general council of United Russia, the pro-Kremlin party that sponsored the effort to unseat Mr. Gudkov, in comments posted on the party’s Web site.

Considering the recent crackdown against protest leaders, there was little question that the Duma’s move was driven by Mr. Gudkov’s opposition activity, and there was some nervous joking about which legislator would be targeted next. In a jarring moment, the head of the ethics commission that accused Mr. Gudkov acknowledged that no legislator in history had been expelled without any judicial process.

“My colleague said this was a political case, and any of us could be in his place — yes! It is political,” said the official, Vladimir Vasiliev, who then invoked an anticorruption slogan popularized by opposition leaders.

Mr. Gudkov has spent most of his career planted solidly within Russia’s nomenklatura, offering few signs that he would take on the Kremlin, which may have made his defection particularly disturbing to Mr. Putin, who was prime minister and is now president. He aspired from boyhood to join the Soviet intelligence service, writing a letter offering his services to Yuri V. Andropov, the head of the K.G.B. from 1967 to 1982.

Like Mr. Putin, Mr. Gudkov has called the collapse of the Soviet system a great tragedy. After leaving the K.G.B., he became a major player in the private security industry. He entered the Duma after Mr. Putin became president, and spent the first six years allied with United Russia before shifting to A Just Russia, a docile minority party. He was a voluble man’s man — the kind of person a Russian would call a “muzhik” — in a rubber-stamp legislature.

But that changed markedly ahead of last year’s parliamentary elections, when Mr. Gudkov delivered a fiery speech warning that expected vote-rigging in favor of the ruling party would radicalize voters and politicians like himself. “Even a hare,” he said, “when driven into a corner, will turn into a beast.” His friend Anatoly Yermolin, another veteran intelligence officer who split with United Russia, said Mr. Gudkov could hardly be called a radical.

“We are ordinary people, and we answer normally when we are treated normally,” he told the Web site gazeta.ru. “When instead the partnership offers us an army-style central command — well, in that case, any normal person will fight back.”

As lawmakers filtered out of the vote on Friday afternoon, Mr. Gudkov’s allies said they would devote new energy to publicizing the wealth of lawmakers loyal to Mr. Putin and called on the public to attend an opposition demonstration planned for Saturday, at which Mr. Gudkov is likely to be the star. After he left the hall, Mr. Gudkov walked slowly down the crimson carpet that lines the halls of the Duma, surrounded by photographers and cameramen.

“You are witnessing the birth of a new public politician,” he said.

As such, Mr. Gudkov may prove troublesome to the Kremlin, said Mark Galeotti, a specialist in Russian security services at New York University. A figure with Mr. Gudkov’s background could tap into the dissatisfied ranks of law enforcement, as well as a variety of other Russians who, as Mr. Galeotti put it, “may not like to sip cappuccino in coffee bars.”

“Gudkov has been made — I wouldn’t say a martyr to the general population, or to the hipster class, but precisely to a new part of the population that has not been involved,” Mr. Galeotti said. “He has been put in the position where he has no scope for compromise. He has to back down. Or he himself ups the ante. And I think we know from the character of Gudkov that the former is unlikely.”

Anna Kordunsky contributed reporting.

Related

Parliament Raises Stakes Before Anti-Kremlin March (September 11, 2012)

OldArcher · Sep 15, 2012

Housecarl said:
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201209150064

China willing to risk 'conflict' as it claims waters around Senkakus

September 15, 2012

By KENJI MINEMURA/ Correspondent

BEIJING?A Chinese official suggested the country was willing to risk a "minor conflict" over its territorial dispute with Japan, saying it was prepared to chase off Japan Coast Guard vessels from waters around the Senkaku Islands.

The statement follows an announcement by China's foreign ministry Sept. 14 that it has submitted a sea chart to the United Nations showing the waters as its territorial sea.

Yu Zhirong, a senior official of the State Oceanic Administration who was formerly with the People’s Liberation Army Navy, told The Asahi Shimbun: "We will have to chase off Japan Coast Guard vessels from Chinese territorial waters. We are not fearful of risking a minor conflict."

Yu, who served as deputy chief of the SOA’s East China Sea Branch until last year, added that the chart submitted to the United Nations is "designed to clearly demonstrate the new territorial sea China had set."

The Chinese government had announced Sept. 10 its intention to turn the waters around the Senkakus, which it calls Diaoyu, into its territorial sea. The foreign ministry said the chart's submission has completed all legal procedures required under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

On Sept. 14, three days after the Japanese government purchased three of the disputed islands from their private owner, the SOA dispatched six Haijian marine surveillance vessels into Japanese territorial waters around the Senkakus.

At a news conference the same day, Hong Lei, a foreign ministry spokesman, said, "The waters around Diaoyu are under China's jurisdiction. (The dispatch of the surveillance vessels) is a legitimate act of law enforcement."

Yu, who is now a researcher at the ocean development research center under the SOA, said the two fleets sent on Sept. 14 were the largest in number and the highest in performance to be dispatched so far.

The vessels included the Haijian 50, which has a load displacement of 4,000 tons and is capable of carrying a helicopter.

Past surveillance excursions usually involved two Chinese vessels circling Uotsurishima, the largest of the uninhabited islands, outside Japanese territorial waters.

On Sept. 14, however, the vessels repeatedly entered Japanese territorial waters around all five of the islands before leaving the contiguous zone outside Japanese territorial waters.

China is expected to send additional surveillance ships as well as fishing boats into Japanese territorial waters to bolster its claims over the islands.

A fishing ban in the East China Sea, which has been in place for three and a half months, is set to be lifted on Sept. 16.

By KENJI MINEMURA/ Correspondent

Beware, The Dragon is hungry... Could well light the fuse of WWIII, if Nipon does, indeed, have nukes...

OA, out...

OldArcher · Sep 15, 2012

Housecarl said:
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281691,00.html

US media see Iran strike as transcending elections issues

NYT says leaders need 'more than red lines,' and Washington Post delves into Netanyahu's 'Hamlet-like anguishing' over strike on Iran, as Israel-Iran tensions become pivotal issue in presidential race

Ynet
Published: 09.15.12, 09:07 / Israel News

As the presidential race in the United States gains momentum and differences between Israel and the US over the need of an immediate action vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear ambitions grows, US media levels growing criticism at Israel's demands of a "red line."

A top commentator at the Washington Post urged US President Barack Obama to help Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "climb down from his unwise rhetoric"; and the New York Times asserts that "Leaders need flexibility and ambiguity, not just hard and fast red lines."

Related stories:

Obama in Rosh Hashanah greeting: Let's renew bond
US official: Nuclear bomb is our red line
Barak urges discretion on Israel-US differences

David Ignatius of the Washington Post's opinion piece, titled "Puzzled by a 'red line' demand," wonders about Netanyahu's "almost daily demands" for the US to set a clear red line for Iran, and asks "What does he wants beyond what President Obama has already stated?"

Ignatius said that "Obama believes he has drawn the US red line as clearly as a superpower ever should." He noted previous statements by Obama, saying that the US has a national security interest in preventing the Islamic Republic from achieving military nuclear capabilities.

He further notes that the Obama administration has already proved it plans to stop Iran by directing the US Armed forces to formulate a detailed plan of attack should Iran cross the US' line.

Ignatius hedged that Netanyahu's true aim is to see Obama issue a de-facto ultimatum or deadline for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment.

"נתניהו צריך להפנים - אובמה לא אוהב שמכניסים אותו לפינה" (צילום: AFP)

'Presidents don't turn over power of war and peace' (Photo: AFP)

"Watching Netanyahu’s public, Hamlet-like anguishing over the past year about 'to bomb or not to bomb,' one suspects the real issue for him isn't red lines so much as trust that they will be enforced," the Washington Post states.

The relations between the American president and the Israeli prime minister have often been strained and close associates on both sides say they are plagued by mutual mistrust both on a personal level and on a political one.

"Netanyahu should understand that no country can allow another to impose the conditions under which it will go to war," Ignatius wrote. "Presidents don't turn over that power of war and peace, even to their best friends."

If both the US and Israel wish to maintain deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, "Obama should help the Israeli leader to climb down from his unwise rhetoric," he states.

'No Rush to War'

The New York Times' editorial largely echoed that sentiment, further stressing that the United States should not rush to strike Iran, especially since there is a consensus among experts that such a strike could, at best, set the Iranian's nuclear program back four years at most.

Netanyahu, the editorial states, is "Trying to browbeat President Obama into a preemptive strike," further exacerbating the tensions between the close, long-time allies.

"Leaders need flexibility and ambiguity, not just hard and fast red lines. And it is dangerous for Mr. Netanyahu to try to push the president into a corner publicly and raise questions about Washington. Is that really the message he wants to send to Tehran?" the New York Times wondered. Israel has no reason to doubt Washington's resolve on the Iranian threat.

But recent polls show that 70% of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, and 59% said that if a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran ignites a regional war, the United States should not come to its ally’s aid.

The editorial asserts that "The best strategy is for Israel to work with the United States and other major powers to tighten sanctions while pursuing negotiations on a deal. It is a long shot, but there is time to talk. And that’s where the focus must be."

Hmmmmmmmm... Those traitors/morons in D.C. really ARE that dense!!!

OA, out...

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 15, 2012

=

Canada's diplomatic disaster

Tehran is officially non grata in Ottawa
now. What's cooking, asks Eric Walberg

13 - 19 September 2012
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1114/re12.htm

On 7 September, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced that his country is suspending all diplomatic relations with Iran, expelling all Iranian diplomats, closing its embassy in Tehran, and authorising Turkey to act on Canada's behalf for consular services there. Baird cited Iran's enmity with Israel, its support of Syria and terrorism. "Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," Baird said at the Asia Pacific Economic Conference in Vladivostok, Russia.

Canada has not had a full ambassador in Iran since 2007. Relations between the two countries cooled after Iranian-Canadian free-lance photographer Zahra Kazemi died in Iran in 2003 under disputed circumstances, and went from bad to worse under the Conservative government in power in Ottawa since then.[/b]

While indeed Iran has been the nation most outspokenly critic of Israel, and is actively working to thwart the Western-backed insurgency in Syria, there is no evidence of its support for "terrorism". It is in fact the victim of terrorism on the part of Israel and the US, which boast about assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and destroying Iranian computers with viruses made-to-order, among other officially-sponsored acts of subversion.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast suggested that the real reason for Harper's latest targeting of Iran was because of Iran's successful hosting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran in August. Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran's hosting of the 16th NAM summit was a "humiliating defeat" for the West.

Humiliation is indeed the operative word for Canada in particular. The past five years of Conservative rule in Canada under the fiercely pro-Israeli Prime Minister Stephen Harper have brought nothing but disgrace to Canada internationally, and this present move adds further humiliation.

As if scripted, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu immediately commended Canada's decision. With good cause, as it looks suspiciously like a response to a direct Israeli request. Canadian foreign policy is now made in consultation with Israeli advisers under a public security cooperation "partnership" signed in 2008 by Canada and Israel to "protect their respective countries' population, assets and interests from common threats". Israel security agents now officially assist Canada's security services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), in profiling Canadian citizens who are Muslims and monitoring individuals and/or organisations in Canada involved in supporting the rights of Palestinians and other such nefarious activities.

The barring of British MP George Galloway from entering Canada in 2009 on a North American tour was done as a result of this cooperation. Baird's claim that Iran supports terrorism is one that Israeli agents have most certainly been making in Ottawa under this partnership. Harper has publicly stated he is convinced that Iran is trying "beyond any doubt" to develop nuclear weapons, presumably with "evidence" supplied by these advisers.

"It's hard to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days," chirped Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on his official visit in 2010. He is right. Stephen Harper's Conservatives:

- called Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon a "measured response". (Two Canadian UN peacekeepers were targeted and killed by Israeli in the invasion. Harper refused to protest, asking rhetorically in parliament what they were doing there in the first place)

And as is the case in the Obama/Romney "race" next door, there is no peep of protest from Canada's opposition liberals or socialists. Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae (whose wife Arlene Perly is past vice president of the Canadian Jewish Congress) met with Netanyahu on his official visit to Canada in February this year, and afterwards said the visit "gives all Canadians the chance to reflect on the deep friendship and strong ties between Israel and Canada".

In a bizarre non sequitur, the "Liberal" leader added, "Iran's regime is a threat to the security of the region and the world. A nuclear armed Iran would mean the threat of even greater proliferation and instability in the region, is a direct flouting of international law, and obviously raises the deepest concerns in Israel for its security." Apparently a very much "nuclear armed Israel" which daily threatens to bomb Iran does not raise his "deepest concerns" for Iran's security.

After meeting with President Shimon Peres during his official visit to Canada this May, New Democrat leader Tom Mulcair, told the press, "my in-laws are Holocaust survivors. Their history is part of my daily life. That's why I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all circumstances." Mulcair's wife, Catherine Pinhas, was born in France to a Sephardic Jewish family from Turkey. Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East and Independent Jewish Voices criticised Mulcair for accepting financial support from pro-Israel lobbyists.

So there will be little if any protest in parliament over Harper's unprovoked violation of diplomatic norms. In fact, rumour has it that this Canadian move is in preparation for an Israeli-US attack on Iran, though Baird demurred when asked about this as the motive for advising all Canadians to leave Iran immediately. However, the Harper government actually supports Israel's threats of a pre-emptive air strike against Iran as being within its rights. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas Peter Kent told the G8 in Toronto in 2010, "it's a matter of timing and it's a matter of how long we can wait without taking more serious pre-emptive action."

It appears Ottawa is ready and willing to join Israel in any attack. Harper has said, "an attack on Israel is an attack on Canada." There have already been US-conducted military "exercises" involving Canadian ships off Iran's coast. One-hundred-and-sixty Canadian troops have died senselessly in Afghanistan over the past decade. Now Harper wants them to die for Israel in an invasion of Iran, orchestrated to look like it is in defence of Israel.

The NAM summit clearly ruffled some feathers. Iran is supported by the great majority of the world's people and governments, both as a courageous opponent to US and Israeli imperial intrigues, and as a model for countries that want to develop independent, peaceful nuclear power as an alternative to oil. The summit strongly supported Iran on both counts.

Iranian leadership of NAM during the next three years promises to be innovative and energetic. Even as Baird embarrassed Canadians with his undocumented accusations and violations of diplomatic norms, Mehmanparast called on the UN to fulfil its obligations towards Palestinians and respond forcefully to Israel's killing of six Palestinians in besieged Gaza last week. "As the rotating president of NAM, the Islamic Republic of Iran expects all international institutions affiliated to the United Nations to adhere to their responsibilities towards the Palestinian nation." The hysteria in Tel Aviv, Washington, and now Ottawa is not without cause.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 15, 2012

=

As a wave of anti-American riots erupts
across the Islamic world... Muslims' U.S.
flag burning protests spread to Britain
By Neil Sears
PUBLISHED: 14 September 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eoId=&hasBCVideo=true&BCVideoID=1841130212001

The terrifying tide of violent protests sweeping the Islamic world over an anti-Muslim film hit London yesterday.

Elsewhere British diplomats were in fear for their lives, with staff at the embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, locking themselves in as 5,000 angry demonstrators raged and lit fires in an attack on the German embassy next door.

In London, 150 protesters marched on the US embassy chanting ‘burn burn USA’ as the American flag went up in flames, soon joined by the Israeli flag.

Wave of hate: Protestors burn the American flag outside the country's embassy in London yesterday

There was a call for sharia law to be imposed over Britain. Police made two arrests.

Among the rabble-rousers was notorious demagogue Anjem Choudary, who has led a number of Islamist groups that were subsequently banned.

Firebrand: Choudary is the former UK leader of the al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK organisation - both of which have been outlawed under the Terrorism Act

It came as riots and demonstrations spread halfway around the globe, from Morocco in the west to Bangladesh in the east. American embassies and symbols were the primary targets for fury.

The wave of hate has been sparked by an obscure film called Innocence of Muslims, which was produced in America and has been criticised for ridiculing Islam and depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a fraud, a womaniser and a madman.

The film was apparently produced by a Coptic Christian living in California, using funds raised by radical American evangelicals and Egyptian Coptic Christians.

Since clips were shown on Arab television it has provoked ever-growing outrage, including the murder in Libya on Tuesday of the US ambassador.

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made clear that ‘the United States government had absolutely nothing to do’ with the video. British diplomats were dragged into the protests after demonstrators stormed the German embassy next door in the Sudanese capital, burning a car and rubbish bins.

The German embassy is believed to have attracted particular ire because Sudan’s foreign ministry had criticised the country for allowing a protest last month by right-wing activists carrying caricatures of the Prophet.

There were no reports of British casualties in Khartoum.

In violence elsewhere, the number of dead and wounded grew. In the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli police began shooting, killing one man, after a mob set fire to a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise and an American restaurant. Another 25 were wounded in the chaos.

And there was anxiety for the safety of Pope Benedict, who had arrived in the Lebanese capital Beirut yesterday for a three-day visit.

In Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, 2,000 protesters set off for the US embassy, only to be stopped short by national security forces firing live rounds, killing one man and leaving 15 injured.

In the Tunisian capital Tunis, several thousand demonstrators threw stones at the US embassy and set fire to cars, before being fought off with tear gas and gunfire. Three were reportedly killed.

Hate preacher: The former solicitor, holding microphone, joined rallied around 150 hard-line Islamists in a march to the mission in Grosvenor Square this afternoon

In Cairo, Egypt, the mob was kept clear of the local American mission by riot police, instead protesting in Tahrir Square. The Muslim half of Jerusalem witnessed a mob of 400 marching towards the US consulate hurling bottles, but they were repelled by police.

In Damascus, Syria, a 200-strong crowd demonstrated outside the US embassy – although it was abandoned in February because of the country’s bloody civil war.

In Tehran, Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, in Jalalabad in Afghanistan, in Istanbul in Turkey, in Bangladesh, in cities across Pakistan, and in Bahrain, protesting crowds limited their anger to chanting and burning US and Israeli flags.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-protests-spread-Britain.html#ixzz26XqkBrGQ

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 15, 2012

=

Iran denies Kuwait invasion - media report

Lawmakers urge government
to take threats seriously

By Habib Toumi, Bureau Chief
Published: 16:00 September 15, 2012
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/kuwait/iran-denies-kuwait-invasion-media-report-1.1076052

Manama: Kuwaiti lawmakers urged the government to be “fully ready” for an invasion by neighbouring Iran.

The call by the MPs was prompted by a media report attributed to Mohammad Karim Abedi, a member of Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, in which he allegedly said that Tehran “had the right to interfere in Kuwait to protect the Shiites there, just like Gulf countries explained their interference in Bahrain to protect Sunnis there.”

“The committee studied and heard reports about the measures taken to protect Ahl Al Bait in Kuwait in case there is a security issue,” the Majlis official reportedly said.

“Iran is a military power now and it has long arms that can reach wherever it wants.”

The claims highlighted by the Kuwaiti media have sparked a flurry of angry reactions from lawmakers, from the dissolved 2012 parliament and the reinstated 2009 legislative body, expressing anger with Tehran and urging the government to address the issue decisively.

However, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, on Saturday “categorically dismissed a report about Iran’s interference in Kuwait as “politically-tainted fabricated claim”.

“Kuwait is a friend and neighbour of the Iranian nation and government and we respect this Islamic and neighbouring country,” Boroujerdi said, quoted by Fars News Agency.

In March 2011, troops from the Peninsula Shield, the military arm of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), were called in by Bahrain to help with addressing unrest in the country.

Tehran denounced the move, saying that it amounted to an invasion of Bahrain, but Manama rejected Iran’s stance as “blatant interference in its domestic affairs’ and said that the call was under a GCC agreement for mutual protection, just like Article 5 within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisaton (Nato).

Tehran also opposed a move by some GCC states to turn their cooperation alliance founded in 1981 into a union, as urged by King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz in Saudi Arabia in December.

In October, Abedi said that Iran was capable of neutralising Saudi Arabia militarily if it chose to do so.

“Iran’s military forces have the ability to strip Saudi Arabia of its security whenever it wants and Saudi Arabia will not be capable of responding,” he said in response to Riyadh’s accusation that Iran was behind the plot to assassinate Adel Al Jubair, the Saudi ambassador to the US. “Saudi Arabia has to face the consequences of the accusations it levelled against Iran,” he was quoted as saying.

=

The Flying Dutchman · Sep 15, 2012

=

16 September 2012, Sunday

DOÐU ERGÝL

Shadow boxing

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-292445-shadow-boxing.html

The tug-of-war between Iran and Israel -- with the US watching over Israel -- resembles shadow boxing rather than an actual fight. Rhetoric is fiercer and more threatening than the nonexistent Iranian bomb or the undeclared war by Israel on Iran for having the bomb.

Iran has been very secretive concerning the status of its nuclear program -- except for strongly declaring that it is peaceful. This secrecy increases the disinformation that a breakthrough is close and the bomb will appear at the end of the production line sooner than expected. The surprise effect also shrouds Israeli intentions of declaring a war on Iran to abort its exaggerated nuclear capability. Although there is no sight of either a bomb or a war, the rhetoric about both is commonplace.

Iranians do not say where they stand or how close they are to being a nuclear power. The Israelis are snarling and claim that it is the Americans that are preventing them from an abortive attack on Iran. This situation resembles Saddam Hussein, who had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but pretended he did to deter Iran and suppress domestic dissent.

In the meantime, the Iranians are happy to be taken seriously by the international community, sitting around a table with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. It raises their standing within the community of nations, and the existing regime uses it as a means of prestige and legitimacy to sustain its grip on power. Needless to say, its nuclear program has provided Iran with political clout without even producing a bomb that is dangerous. In the absence of the bomb, Israel has no legitimate reason to attack for existential reasons. So the whole issue is more rhetorical than actual.

Has the Iranian nuclear program gone as far as the Israelis claim it has? The US does not believe so. But it has not refrained from imposing sanctions on Iran, either. However, cognizant of the fact that there will be such pressures, the Iranian government has made preparations to stand firm. Furthermore, China and Russia won’t let Iran lose, resulting in ceding influence in this part of the world, which is rich with natural resources, to its strategic competitor, namely the US.

Military action against Iran may not be enough to stop its nuclear ambition. If this proves to be true, Israel will look like it has lost the war. This will strengthen Iran and prolong this religious regime that seeks further influence in the Gulf region and east Mediterranean. So an abortive action has to make sure that this does not happen. This means American involvement. Yet the Americans are reluctant to engage in a military mission against Iran as of today. Instead they resort to alternative abortive measures like using devastating cyber-war instruments like Stuxnet.

However, it is interesting to know that Stuxnet -- a computer worm believed to have been employed by the US and Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program -- has already been employed either by the US or Israel, but the extent of its damage has never been acknowledge by Iran, which carried on with the program. Harsh words are met with harsh words. But so far no bombs have been exchanged in the absence of an Iranian bomb. Yet there are a number of Israeli bombs, and neither the patrons of Israel nor their allies in the Muslim world lined up against Iran are complaining about it.

In any case, an exchange of nuclear weapons and the ensuing chaos in the Middle East would be more catastrophic than a nuclear Iran. Could a regime be as suicidal as the Israelis claim Iran is just because of its religion?

Looking at the pattern of Iran’s behavior, so far it has pursued a foreign policy with harsh rhetoric but restrained action, mainly relying on secondary (covert) instruments. It supports Hezbollah, Syria and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) so that they will be blamed for violence rather than Iran, which is one of Iran’s favorite strategies. But so far, the Iranians have not produced a bomb or exposed it to attract retaliation. The ongoing war, if it may be called so, is in words, not in deeds. Both of the contending sides try to look more awesome and dangerous to scare the other.

So could Iran’s insistence on having a nuclear bomb be more of a psychological war tactic that boosts its political clout? If so, Israel’s threat of attacking an Iran with no nuclear weapons is also political, aiming at keeping an array of nations (especially Arab) in opposition to thwart the Iranian threat. This posture also helps Israel to look stronger than it actually is. What about the US? Are the Americans posing as if they are protecting Israel by restraining it from starting a catastrophe in the Middle East? Is what we see shadow boxing, while we wait for the match that will never come?

=

WAR 09/15 t0 09/22..................****THE****WINDS****OF****WAR* ***

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Veteran Member

Deceased

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Veteran Member

Seeking Aslan's Country

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Deceased

On TB every waking moment

Deceased

On TB every waking moment

Contributing Member

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

Deceased

WAR 09/15 t0 09/22..................THEWINDSOFWAR* ***