Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
#israel Intel Chief: "We Don’t Want #ISIS Defeated in #Syria " #Syrie #IS #EI #Daech #Daesh #Terrorism #Siria
AntiWar.com - 21.06.2016
Israeli Intel Chief: We Don’t Want ISIS Defeated in Syria | Says ISIS faces difficulty, loss would put Israel in ‘hard position’
In a speech at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevy, took Israel’s long-standing position that it “prefers ISIS” over the Syrian government to a whole ‘nother level, declaring openly that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in the war.
Maj. Gen. Halevy expressed concern about the recent offensives against ISIS territory, saying that in the last three months the Islamist group was facing the “most difficult” situation since its inception and declaration of a caliphate.
Israeli officials have regularly expressed comfort with the idea of ISIS conquering the whole of Syria, saying they find it preferable to the Iran-allied government surviving the war. At the same time, they were never so overtly supportive of ISIS and its survival.
Halevy went on to express concern that the defeat of ISIS might mean the “superpowers” leaving Syria, saying this would put Israel “in a hard position” after being so opposed to the survival of the Syrian government.
He then said Israel will do “all we can so as to not find ourselves in such a situation,” suggesting that the Israeli military is looking at direct support for ISIS as a matter of policy, and not just rhetoric.
Portrait of Nine Lost Souls the #FBI Charged as #Terrorists While Letting the #Orlando Shooter Go - The Intercept #ISIS
June 17 2016, 5:52 p.m.
In the U.S., 88 people have been arrested on charges of supporting ISIS since 2014. Meet nine of them
n the midst of Omar Mateen’s shooting rampage in Orlando, law enforcement officials say the 30-year-old Florida resident called 911 and proclaimed his support for the Islamic State. Although FBI officials say they have not identified any direct connection between Mateen and the terrorist group, his case has once again brought calls for a harsh crackdown on individuals who might commit acts of domestic terrorism.
In the United States, 88 people have been arrested on charges of supporting ISIS since 2014, according to statistics compiled by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. Who are they? Most are young, male, and American citizens. But in contrast to the Islamic State’s own propaganda, as well as the statements of many political figures, many of the U.S. supporters of ISIS come across as more pathetic than fearsome. While media reports have trumpeted the danger of sleeper cells, most of the people arrested by the FBI appear to have been wayward, isolated young men (and a few women) with little connection to international terrorist groups.
Recent coverage of the Orlando shooting has indicated that Mateen was motivated by homophobia and mental illness as much as any militant ideology; the FBI had investigated Mateen on two occasions and interviewed him but never pressed charges. The FBI’s handling of his case, along with its handling of the often-hapless people it does arrest on terrorism charges, shows the complexity and, perhaps, the impossibility of the task — trying to identify and imprison real terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism.
Using court documents, interviews, and Google images of major landmarks from their personal lives, The Intercept has constructed brief portraits of nine recent cases of “ISIS in America.”(..)
#DonaldTrump, #HillaryClinton Call for Bombing #ISIS After #Orlando Shooting That #Daesh Didn't Direct-The Intercept #GiganticDicks #Syria #Irak #Iraq #Syrie
June 13 2016, 11:12 p.m....
Neither explained how escalating bombardments in Iraq and Syria would do anything to stop self-radicalized and/or unhinged attackers in the United States
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump reacted to the Orlando shooting with evidence that they can agree on at least one thing: bombing people. Both candidates called for an escalation of the U.S.-led bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
“We have generals that feel we can win this thing so fast and so strong, but we have to be furious for a short period of time, and we’re not doing it!” Trump complained on Fox & Friends Monday morning.
“Are you saying hit Raqqa right now?” asked host Brian Kilmeade. “We’re going to have to start thinking about something,” Trump replied.
Along the same lines, Clinton suggested during her post-Orlando speech Monday afternoon that “We should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign.”
Both candidates neglected to consider that no operational links between ISIS and the alleged Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, have been discovered. While Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS shortly before the attacks, he had reportedly previously claimed connections to two groups that oppose ISIS: the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
And neither explained how escalating bombardments in Iraq and Syria would do anything to stop self-radicalized and/or unhinged attackers in the United States.
If ISIS is not doing anything to help coordinate or assist these sorts of mass killings, then destroying it — even if that were possible — wouldn’t make any difference.
And even if you blame ISIS for “inspiring” such attacks, the fact remains that there are any number of extremist ideologies that a deranged would-be killer could derive inspiration from — and you cannot bomb them all.
Clinton’s and Trump’s gusto about doubling down on what the United States is already doing — the U.S.-led coalition has conducted over 12,000 airstrikes against ISIS and other militant groups in Iraq and Syria — was echoed by sitting lawmakers.
“We’ve got to be willing to take the battle to ISIS. Right now, they’re taking the battle to us, and yesterday it was in Orlando,” Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reviving the Bush-era slogan: “Fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”
“The reality is, what we need to do is we need to take the fight to the terrorists on their doorstep. Whether it’s ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, we need to be there,” Rep. Bill Hurd, R-Texas, told CNBC on Monday morning.
But the record shows that, if anything, U.S. military engagements in the Middle East drive recruits to extremist organizations, rather than away. Even Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon worried about that.
Prostitutes and 5* hotels: Day 1of Libyan Investm. Fund vs #GoldmanSachs trial - #Libya #Finance #Corruption #UK #Gaddafi
Monday 13 June 2016 15:50 UTC
Monday 13 June 2016 20:00 UTC
Goldman Sachs exploited inexperienced staff at Libya's sovereign wealth fund to clinch "inappropriate" deals which cost the fund $1.2 billion (1.5 billion euros), lawyers claimed at London's High Court Monday.
Goldman Sachs exploited inexperienced staff at Libya's sovereign wealth fund to clinch "inappropriate" deals which cost the fund $1.2 bn (1.5 bn euros), lawyers at London's High Court claimed on Monday.
The high-profile trial promises a rare glimpse into the workings of the US investment bank, and features allegations of shady dealings and the use of prostitutes in 2008.
The Wall Street giant denies any wrongdoing, saying the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) lost money due to the 2008 financial crash, not their close but controversial working relationship.
On the opening day of the hearing into the LIA's claim, its lawyer Roger Masefield read out an internal message sent by Goldman Sachs partner Driss Ben-Brahim.
Ben-Brahim said the nascent fund, set up by Muammar Gaddafi's government in 2006 to capitalise on Libya's oil wealth, was "very unsophisticated - and anyone could 'rape them'," the court heard.
The LIA alleges that Goldman Sachs employee Youssef Kabbaj embedded himself in the fund, gained the trust of "young and impressionable staff" and sold it complex products that ended up losing the LIA more than $1.2 bn.
These actions earned the bank over $220 mn in profits, the LIA's lawyers claim.
Kabbaj built an especially close relationship with Haitem Zarti, younger brother of fund chairman Mustafa Zarti, securing him a coveted Goldman internship, Masefield told Judge Vivien Rose.
Kabbaj took Haitem Zarti on holidays to Morocco and to a conference in Dubai.
Here, "it appears from Goldman Sachs' disclosure that, while there, Mr Kabbaj arranged for two prostitutes to spend the evening with them at a cost of $600," LIA lawyers claimed.
It is then alleged that the bank rushed through a basket of deals of "staggering size" in 2008 without the LIA conducting due diligence tests or seeking independent advice.Abuse of trust?
The bank had earlier sold the LIA complex derivative products tied to the share prices of Citigroup bank and French energy firm EDF.
The LIA, one of the world's wealthiest investors, claims it was tricked into believing it had gained strategic stakes in the companies.
But it says in reality it only held risky bets which became worthless when stock markets plunged following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank in September 2008, wiping out the $1.2 bn outlay.
The situation became clear to Mustafa Zarti during a 2008 meeting with the bank, whereupon he threw Kabbaj out of the meeting, the court heard.
He later called Goldman Sachs a "bank of Mafiosi" and claimed it had "abused his trust", selling him risky products inappropriate for a state fund.
As evidence of Goldman Sachs' opinion of their financial knowledge, the claimant's legal team cited an email sent by a Goldman Sachs vice-president describing a presentation given to the LIA.
It said: "You just delivered a pitch on structured leveraged loans to someone who lives in the middle of the desert with his camels."
Goldman Sachs denies it exerted undue influence on the fund or abused its trust, arguing that the deals involved standard products common in the financial world.
In its submission to the court, it said: "The credit crisis and its impact on global markets turned out to be far more prolonged than the LIA and the great majority of market participants had anticipated.
"The LIA was the victim of an unforeseen financial depression, not of any wrongdoing."
Goldman partners, including Andrea Vella, co-head of investment banking in Asia, are expected to give evidence during the eight-week hearing, in which the LIA is seeking to recoup its losses.
#Psychiatrists & #pharma industry are to blame for the current ‘epidemic’ of mental disorders -92 mn #psy #health
Ajoutée le 11 mai 2015
Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 12th november 2014.
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media #RIPDemocracy
It's only fitting that the Democrats' process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.
June 7 2016, 1:41 p.m.
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration — on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him — most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.
None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton — as was always the case from the start — is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.
And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone — i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate — Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: Many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
#HillaryClinton’s State Department Gave #SouthSudan ’s Military a Pass for Its #ChildSoldiers #HillaryThisEvilPerson
State Department under Clinton played a central and unacknowledged role in granting waivers for military aid to South Sudan despite its child soldiers.
June 9 2016, 12:32 p.m.
met a few of them in the town of Pibor last year. These battle-tested veterans had just completed two or three years of military service. They told me about the rigors of a soldier’s life, about toting AK-47s, about the circumstances that led them to take up arms. In the United States, not one of these soldiers would have met the age requirements to enlist in the Army. None were older than 16.
Rebel forces in southern Sudan began using child soldiers long before seceding from Sudan in 2011. The United States, on the other hand, passed a law in 2008 that banned providing military assistance to nations that use child soldiers. The law was called the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, or CSPA, but after South Sudan’s independence, the White House issued annual waivers that kept aid flowing to the world’s newest nation despite its use of child soldiers. President Obama stated in 2012 that the waiver that year was in “the national interest of the United States.”
The president’s move was criticized by human rights activists and others. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska and the author of the CSPA, described the use of child soldiers as an “unthinkable practice.” The U.S. “must not be complicit in this practice,” he said. “The intent of the law is clear — the waiver authority should be used as a mechanism for reform, not as a way of continuing the status quo.” Because of the requirements of the law, the waivers were issued by the White House rather than the State Department, so Obama was the target of most of the criticism.
Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state when the first waivers were issued, was apparently never asked to comment on them, and the State Department never provided any explanations about its role. Clinton had spent years vowing to defend the rights of children worldwide — in 2012, she railed against “modern-day slavery” in the introduction to a State Department report on human trafficking that took aim at the “unlawful recruitment or use of children” by armed forces. Yet she does not appear to have publicly explained her role in allowing South Sudan and other countries to receive military suppo(...)
Role of #HillaryClinton ’s brother in #Haiti #gold #mine raises eyebrows - #mining #commodities #ThankYouSista ...
"This is what, at least for the time being, a gold mine looks like.
It also has become a potentially problematic issue for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she considers a second presidential run, after it was revealed this month that in 2013, one of her brothers was added to the advisory board of the company that owns the mine.
Tony Rodham’s involvement with the mine, which has become a source of controversy in Haiti because of concern about potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors, was first revealed in publicity about an upcoming book on the Clintons by author Peter Schweizer.
In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative — an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors."
#HillaryClinton was erratic First Lady, 'violent' to husband, staff - Secret Service author
Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, was a volatile and at times violent presence as First Lady during her husband Bill's two terms in the White House, according to a new book by an ex-Secret Service agent.