How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

November, 2011:

Climategate 2.0 – Waiting for the Next Boot to Drop

Nov 28th, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

Like many scientists who are convinced that the whole anthropogenic global warming subject is nothing more than a political scam designed to transfer wealth from citizens of the world to governments and selected corporate entities and private individuals, I was overjoyed to see the original Climategate e-mail releases. They clearly showed that the whole thing was nothing more than a contrived invention of the United Nations and various private and corporate interests that conspired to convince the people of the world that living, working, moving about, and producing in the modern age was going to bring about cataclysmic changes to the earth’s ecosystem, thus leading to massive death, disease, migration, and destruction unless trillions of dollars were spent to “save the world”. And, they almost succeeded, largely due to their co-conspirators (knowing or unknowing) in the main stream media and the corporate and political elite, and the total lack of scientific literacy in the vast majority of the world’s population, even in the supposedly educated Western world.

I have written many times about how global warming, later re-branded climate change when the warming stopped in 1998, was a fraud and a scam. (See the bibliography at the end of this article.) The actual measurements simply did not fit the predictions of the computer models. And, the whole scam was based on the computer models and the reported warming since the 1800’s. But, since the mid 1800’s, we have been coming out of the “Little Ice Age“, so warming should have been expected. Furthermore, it has been warmer in the past. Nobody, today, would give Greenland its name. But, 1000 or so years ago, it was green. And this is not speculation; there are plenty of archeological sites, as well as ice-core and other proxy data, to support the fact that Greenland was much warmer, even in the geologically recent past, let alone what it might have been tens of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. One of the most often cited explanations for climate change (by skeptics) is the influence of the sun. Of course, the global warmingistas say that is impossible. The sun, they claim, has nothing to do with climate change. (That claim, alone, should start one wondering about their “science”.) I reported in early 2010 how an experiment at CERN was designed to shed light on the theory that the sun, by varying its output slightly and thus modulating the amount of cosmic rays that reached the earth, could explain much of climate change. The global warmingistas did everything they could to stop the funding for the project, but they failed, and the preliminary results were announced a few months ago. The results supported the theory, as reported in Nature Magazine. (More on the online supplement to the Nature article.)

The theory, in its simplest form, was that clouds are formed by nucleation of water droplets on small chemical particles that are formed when cosmic rays strike the earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays, the more water droplet nuclei you have and thus the more clouds you get. The more clouds you get, the more sunlight is reflected back into space and the less sunlight reaches the earth. Both of these processes tend to cool the earth. (Just think about how much cooler you are when a cloud passes overhead and cools your skin. This same effect works on the whole earth.) Although actual levels of solar radiation do not vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade, or century to century (which is the reason the warmists state that the sun could not be the cause of climate change), these small differences in solar radiation do make enough change in the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth that the cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere are changed. And these changes are thought to increase or decrease clouds, thus modulating the temperature of the earth. Much more needs to be done on this theory, but, as I showed in an earlier article, there is tremendous correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, while there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, other than the fact that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and it goes down after temperature goes down. (Contrary to the central point of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” farce.)

But now, Climategate 2.0 has been released. Obviously timed to derail the Durban conference, which was doomed to failure before it started, this new e-mail release goes way beyond the tasty morsels revealed in Climategate 1.0. Personally, I never expected Climategate 2.0. I thought the initial release was all there was. And, I suspect the various guilty parties hoped that it was the end of the story. But, apparently, it was just the shot across the bow. The new e-mails show further collusion and scientific misbehavior (at best) or scientific fraud (more likely). They put to bed the argument that the released e-mails were just “taken out of context”, or misinterpreted, as in “hide the decline”, or “using a trick”. But, what is even more tantalizing, to me, and probably terrifying to the guilty parties, is the fact that there are many, many more e-mails involved in the release than can currently be read. The FOIA 2001 file that was released contains not only thousands of full-text e-mails beyond what was released in Climategate 1.0, but many thousands of additional e-mails that can only be opened with the proper decryption pass phrase.  As described in an excellent post by thepointman, it looks like “Climategate 2 is a bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator attached to it and it may very well be cluster munition as well.” That is, if anyone tries to kill, discredit, or imprison the leaker, all he or she has to do is have the necessary pass phrase released and all of the Climategate e-mails will become public, including those that almost certainly go to the highest levels of government, politics and industry. It is not unlike the file that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released with an unknown pass phrase that he would release if harm came to him. That tactic kept harm from coming to him, so far. I suspect it will keep the leaker in the Climategate case safe, too. And, since Climategate involves the conspiracy to extort trillions of dollars from the people of the world, and the continuation of the fraud is necessary to support hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless “research” by corporations and universities, and WikiLeaks only involved the release of mostly embarrassing government screw-ups and intrigue, which all but the most naive people expect, I suspect the stakes are much higher for the leaker of the Climategate e-mails than they are for Julian Assange. It will be interesting  to see what happens next. I suspect many “climate scientists” will be deservedly added to the unemployment rolls.

Bibliography:

“Those Who Say Temps and CO2 Have Never Been Higher Have Some ‘Splainin To Do”

“American Physical Society Fellow Resigns Over APS Refusal To Look Into The Science Of Global Warming”

“Where Are Global Warmingistas & Main Stream Media On Reporting That Cosmic Rays May Control Earth’s Temperature?”

“Al Gore Follows Disgraceful Lead of Clive Hamilton And Tells Children They Know More Than Their Parents”

“Time Magazine Shows Its Lunacy Again”

“Disgraced Head of Climategate Scandalized CRU Essentially Admits Man-made Global Warming Not Real”

“Fantastic New Resource: 500 Peer Reviewed Articles That Support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”

“2 Part Article In National Post Gives Excellent Layman’s Explanation Of Climategate”

“Important New Article On Greenland Climate In Journal of Climate”

“A Simple Primer On Anthropogenic Global Warming Skepticism”

“Not Only Is AGW Fraud, But Global Warming Itself Might Be A Lie”

“Russia Today: Debate On Climate Change”

“More Damning Climategate Revelations: Apparently CRU Selectively Used Russian Temperature Data”

“Global Governance Is Real Goal Of Global Warmingistas: Don’t Expect Free Speech Or A Free Press In Their Utopia”

“Global Warmingistas Now Resort To Armed Guards To “Hide The Decline””

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”

“Why Total Scientific Transparency Is Vital In Climate Studies”

“Global Warmingistas Hit Another Low With Letter To Children “About Your Father””

“Third World Nation Representatives Get Their Panties In A Knot In Copenhagen”

“Global Warmingistas Now Dis NY Times Reporter Who Had Been One Of Their Best Mouthpieces”

“Climategate Professor To Global Warming Skeptic “Shut Up…..Asshole””

“Why Climategate Is So Important”

“I Hate To Say “I Told You So”….Never Mind”

““Hide The Decline” Animated Audio About Climategate”

“Two Incredibly Stupid Commercials Brought To You By The Global Warmingistas”

“All You Really Need To Know About “Global Warming””

“More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover”

“The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money”

“Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-made Global Warming””

“More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion”

“What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!”

“Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science”

“More Evidence That Global Warming Is Political, Not Scientific”

 

 

 

Raped Woman Jailed for Adultery and Forced to Marry Rapist

Nov 28th, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

Remind me again. Why have we wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in hell holes like Afghanistan and Iraq? I realize that Sadam Hussein had to go. He was a terrorist and supported terrorism. Indications are that he was behind the Oklahoma City Bombing and there were clearly al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. (To learn about the connection between Sadam Hussein and the Oklahoma City Bombing, read The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. It provides extensive legal documentation that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Iraqi connection to the bombing, even going so far as to name the third terrorist. McVeigh and Nichols were just useful idiots.) We took his government out in a matter of weeks, and captured him in a matter of months. Mission accomplished. To stay in Iraq after that was pure folly. To think that a Muslim nation could be brought into the 21st century with a secular democracy was nothing short of stunningly insane. Now that we are leaving, it will become, essentially, a territory of Iran. (Unless we do something about the real problem in the Muslim world, which is Iran.) To be in Afghanistan and Pakistan for any reason other than killing the Taliban is insane, too, and we can never kill them all, so being there is stupid, especially after we accomplished our mission, which was to kill bin Laden.

But, of course, we think that by giving them billions of dollars and trying to build their infrastructure and improve education we can somehow bring these 7th century hell holes into the 21st century. WRONG! They are Muslims and worship an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammed and his sock puppet Allah. The only law they will ever respect or obey is Sharia. And Sharia is barbaric. And, to prove just how barbaric and misogynistic Sharia is, a recent story by CNN explains the all-to-typical plight of a Muslim rape victim. In this particular case, the rape victim was in Afghanistan, but such situations happen everywhere that Sharia rules the land.

Kabul (CNN) — The ordeal of Gulnaz did not simply begin and end with the physical attack of her rape. The rape began a years-long nightmare of further pain, culminating in an awful choice she must now make.

Even two years later, Gulnaz remembers the smell and state of her rapist’s clothes when he came into the house when her mother left for a brief visit to the hospital.

“He had filthy clothes on as he does metal and construction work. When my mother went out, he came into my house and he closed doors and windows. I started screaming, but he shut me up by putting his hands on my mouth,” she said.

The rapist was her cousin’s husband.

After the attack, she hid what happened as long as she could. But soon she began vomiting in the mornings and showing signs of pregnancy. It was her attacker’s child.

In Afghanistan, this brought her not sympathy, but prosecution. Aged just 19, she was found guilty by the courts of sex outside of marriage — adultery — and sentenced to twelve years in jail.

Yes, you read that correctly. The rape victim was accused of adultery and sentenced to 12 years in jail. (She was lucky she was not stoned to death, since that is often the penalty for adultery in Muslim countries.) Now, you ask, how could a rape victim be accused of adultery? Well, that is simple. She got pregnant. To get pregnant, she obviously had sex. If she had sex and is not married, she obviously committed adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, what about the rape? She knew who raped her and eventually reported the crime. How could she be accused of adultery? The answer, under Sharia, is simple, again. Under Sharia, in order to prove rape, a victim must produce 4 male witnesses to the rape. If she can’t produce 4 male witnesses, then reporting a rape is nothing more than confessing to adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, the situation gets even worse for Gulnaz, the rape victim. If she wants to get out of jail early, and restore her honor (and that of her family), all she has to do is marry the rapist! Yes, you read that correctly. And, that is ok under Sharia, because the rapist only has one wife, and is allowed to have four, so they can be married. And, it is important that she do something to restore her honor (and marrying the rapist is the only option for her) because otherwise the male members of her family would generally be expected to kill her upon her release from prison because she defiled the family’s honor by being raped. Again, from the CNN article:

The only way around the dishonor of rape, or adultery in the eyes of Afghans, is to marry her attacker. This will, in the eyes of some, give her child a family and restore her honor.

Incredibly, this is something that Gulnaz is willing to do.

“I was asked if I wanted to start a new life by getting released, by marrying this man”, she told CNN in an exclusive interview. “My answer was that one man dishonored me, and I want to stay with that man.”

Tending to her daughter in the jail’s cold, she added: “My daughter is a little innocent child. Who knew I would have a child in this way. A lot of people told me that after your daughter’s born give it to someone else, but my aunt told me to keep her as proof of my innocence.”

Gulnaz’s choice is stark. Women in her situation are often killed for the shame their ordeal has brought the community. She is at risk, some say, from her attacker’s family.

We found Gulnaz’s convicted rapist in a jail across town. While he denied raping her, he agreed that she would likely be killed if she gets out of jail. But he insists that it will be her family, not his, that will kill her, “out of shame.”

Whether threatened by his family or hers, for now, jail may be the safest place for her.

Shockingly, Gulnaz’s case is common in Afghanistan.

CNN asked a spokesman for the prosecutor to comment on the case. The reply was that there were hundreds such cases and the office would need time to look into it.

At least in this case, the rapist was jailed, although the article does not state that he was jailed for this rape. Rape is a serious crime under Sharia, but virtually impossible to prove because of the requirement to bring forth 4 male witnesses.

The specific Koranic reference that requires 4 male witnesses to prove rape is 2:223: (Shakir) “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.” The history behind this verse is very interesting, and serves as an excellent example of how Allah served as Mohammad’s sock puppet.

The story behind the verse is that Aisha, Mohammad’s favorite bride, who he married when she was 6 and consummated the marriage with when she was 9, was accused of infidelity by 3 men. (“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death.” — Bukhari 7.62.88) Mohammad did not want to believe that she had been unfaithful. Of course, Mohammad had many wives; more in fact than the 4 allowed to all other Muslims, because his sock puppet Allah gave him special dispensation in Koran 33:50. Yusuf Ali translation:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

But, while Muslim men can have 4 wives, and all of the concubines that they want, Muslim women must be strictly faithful. The story is described in the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet), Bukhari (5.59:462):

Narrated ‘Aisha:

Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah’s Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah’s Apostle after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah’s Apostle had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned.

When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.

Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja’ (i.e. “Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji’un”) as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul.”

(Urwa said, “The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. ‘Abdullah’s) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail.” Urwa also added, “None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (‘Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul.” Urwa added, “‘Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she used to say, ‘It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father’s) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad’s honor from you.”).

‘Aisha added, “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah’s Apostle as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah’s Apostle would only come, greet me and say,’ How is that (lady)?’ and leave. That roused my doubts, but I did not discover the evil (i.e. slander) till I went out after my convalescence, I went out with Um Mistah to Al-Manasi’ where we used to answer the call of nature and we used not to go out (to answer the call of nature) except at night, and that was before we had latrines near our houses. And this habit of our concerning evacuating the bowels, was similar to the habits of the old ‘Arabs living in the deserts, for it would be troublesome for us to take latrines near our houses. So I and Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abu Ruhm bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf, whose mother was the daughter of Sakhr bin ‘Amir and the aunt of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and whose son was Mistah bin Uthatha bin ‘Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, went out. I and Um Mistah returned to my house after we finished answering the call of nature. Um Mistah stumbled by getting her foot entangled in her covering sheet and on that she said, ‘Let Mistah be ruined!’ I said, ‘What a hard word you have said. Do you abuse a man who took part in the battle of Badr?’ On that she said, ‘O you Hantah! Didn’t you hear what he (i.e. Mistah) said? ‘I said, ‘What did he say?’

Then she told me the slander of the people of Ifk. So my ailment was aggravated, and when I reached my home, Allah’s Apostle came to me, and after greeting me, said, ‘How is that (lady)?’ I said, ‘Will you allow me to go to my parents?’ as I wanted to be sure about the news through them. Allah’s Apostle allowed me (and I went to my parents) and asked my mother, ‘O mother! What are the people talking about?’ She said, ‘O my daughter! Don’t worry, for scarcely is there a charming woman who is loved by her husband and whose husband has other wives besides herself that they (i.e. women) would find faults with her.’ I said, ‘Subhan-Allah! (I testify the uniqueness of Allah). Are the people really talking in this way?’ I kept on weeping that night till dawn I could neither stop weeping nor sleep then in the morning again, I kept on weeping. When the Divine Inspiration was delayed.

Allah’s Apostle called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me. Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of my innocence, and the respect he preserved in himself for me. Usama said, ‘(O Allah’s Apostle!) She is your wife and we do not know anything except good about her.’ ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than she, yet, ask the maid-servant who will tell you the truth.’ On that Allah’s Apostle called Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) and said, ‘O Barira! Did you ever see anything which aroused your suspicion?’ Barira said to him, ‘By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it.’

So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sad bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sad (bin Mu’adh). ‘By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.’

On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sad (bin Mu’adh) got up and said to Sad bin ‘Ubada, ‘By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.’ On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah’s Apostle was standing on the pulpit. Allah’s Apostle kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he. All that day I kept on weeping with my tears never ceasing, and I could never sleep.

In the morning my parents were with me and I wept for two nights and a day with my tears never ceasing and I could never sleep till I thought that my liver would burst from weeping. So, while my parents were sitting with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked me to grant her admittance. I allowed her to come in, and when she came in, she sat down and started weeping with me. While we were in this state, Allah’s Apostle came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah’s Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, ‘Amma Badu, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’

When Allah’s Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ My father said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle .’ Then I said to my mother, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ She said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle.’ In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Quran, I said, ‘By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph’s father when he said, ‘(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.’ Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; and Allah knew then that I was innocent and hoped that Allah would reveal my innocence. But, by Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal about my case, Divine Inspiration, that would be recited (forever) as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something of my concern, but I hoped that Allah’s Apostle might have a dream in which Allah would prove my innocence. But, by Allah, before Allah’s Apostle left his seat and before any of the household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah’s Apostle.

So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him, (when he used to be inspired Divinely). The sweat was dropping from his body like pearls though it was a wintry day and that was because of the weighty statement which was being revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, he got up smiling, and the first word he said was, ‘O ‘Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!’ Then my Mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle). I replied, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah. So Allah revealed the ten Verses:– “Verily! They who spread the slander Are a gang, among you………….” (24.11-20)

Allah revealed those Quranic Verses to declare my innocence. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to disburse money for Mistah bin Uthatha because of his relationship to him and his poverty, said, ‘By Allah, I will never give to Mistah bin Uthatha anything after what he has said about Aisha.’ Then Allah revealed:–

“And let not those among you who are good and wealthy swear not to give (any sort of help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s cause, let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (24.22)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, ‘Yes, by Allah, I would like that Allah forgive me.’ and went on giving Mistah the money he used to give him before. He also added, ‘By Allah, I will never deprive him of it at all.’

Aisha further said:.” Allah’s Apostle also asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. his wife) about my case. He said to Zainab, ‘What do you know and what did you see?” She replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I refrain from claiming falsely that I have heard or seen anything. By Allah, I know nothing except good (about ‘Aisha).’ From amongst the wives of the Prophet Zainab was my peer (in beauty and in the love she received from the Prophet) but Allah saved her from that evil because of her piety. Her sister Hamna, started struggling on her behalf and she was destroyed along with those who were destroyed. The man who was blamed said, ‘Subhan-Allah! By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I have never uncovered the cover (i.e. veil) of any female.’ Later on the man was martyred in Allah’s Cause.”

It should also be noted that Mohammad’s pedophilia is an approved and common practice in Muslim countries. (1)

That is the attitude of the Islamic world. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that more than half the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghani refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a fourteen-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and Iranian leader until his death, married a 10 year old girl when he was 28.  He considered it a “divine blessing” to marry a prepubescent girl, and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”  (2)

It is time to abandon all countries that enshrine Sharia. It is time to cut off their financing. It is time to cut off visas. It is time to restrict trade and travel with them. Eventually, if they are strangled, economically, they may seek to join the 21st century, or at least the 19th century. Until then, we should have nothing to do with them. If other countries want to trade with them, let them deal with the problems. We don’t need anything they produce, including their oil. We can, and do, get most of our oil from other sources, and if we used a little common sense and tapped our abundant oil resources, and started making more use of our huge reserves of coal and natural gas, we would be just fine. Let them live in their 7th century nirvana by themselves.

 

(1) “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t” by Robert Spencer, P. 188

(2) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/tarek-fatah-call-your-office-muslim-leaders-in-yemen-say-those-who-support-ban-on-child-marriage-are.html

 

 

Occupy “Whatever”: Leftists, Morons and Lunatics

Nov 23rd, 2011
by EdTroy.
1 comment

The whole “Occupy” movement is interesting to follow. Although it “seemed” to come out of nothing, it was clearly anticipated and nurtured from the beginning. Indications are clear that leftist Cretans like George Soros, and leftist organizations like SEIU and other arms of the Democratic Party, are behind it. We also know that the government spent billions of dollars to set up FEMA (concentration) camps for American citizens in the last few years, and spent millions to buy (and essentially lock up the supply of) freeze dried food. Why would a government build FEMA (concentration) camps and buy  millions of dollars  worth of freeze dried foods if they did not expect to need them? The answer is obvious. Just like the “Arab Spring” was a manipulated program to install Islamist governments in many countries (and has now officially succeeded in Tunisia, Libya, and will soon succeed in Egypt), what we have seen in America is an attempt to install a Socialist or  Communistic  government in the United States. Why would anyone with half a brain want to reinstate the failed policies of socialism and communism? Look how well these philosophies worked in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, and many other countries around the world, to greater or lesser degrees. Lets not forget that the basic cause of the financial meltdown in Greece and other European countries was the socialist policies that they adopted that guaranteed citizens huge pension and other benefits, long vacations, excessive pay, and early retirement. (Essentially a cradle to grave nanny state.) The outcome was clear, and now they have finally run out of the other persons’ money. The same is happening in the United States. In fact, with a total debt of over $100 trillion (not including over a quadrillion dollars in derivatives held by financial institutions that cannot ever be paid), the United States is even more bankrupt than most other countries. The only thing that is “saving” us is that the Fed can print money, while most other countries cannot. Of course, printing money does not solve the problem; it only makes it worse by devaluing the currency and delaying and making worse the final, inevitable  collapse. We can see what happens when currency is devalued by looking at recent history in Argentina and Zimbabwe, or older history in the Wiemar Republic.

And, how could Americans be so stupid? There has never been a successful Communist, Marxist, or Socialist  state. Communism and Marxism do not work, because, in the end, most people want to better their own circumstances, and they do not want to be told by the state what their lot in life will be, or how much they can earn, or how successful they can become. (And, China cannot be considered a successful example of Communism because it is actually easier to go into business and make money in China than it is in the United States. There may be a central Communist Party that ostensibly controls the country (and certainly controls the people), but capitalism is alive and well in China. The primary actions of the Communist Party is to crush dissent and control the personal lives of the citizens, not to control business and how much a person can achieve or not achieve.

Some of the “Occupy” lunatics want to impose a minimum wage of $20/hr. Well, how moronic would that be? At present, the “official” unemployment rate in the United States is about 9%. But, that is a fraud. The real unemployment rate, when you take into account people who are not employed as much as they would like to be, and people who have given up and gone on social security or welfare, or dropped off the rolls of the “officially unemployed” because they have been unemployed for too long, it  is more like 20%. Also, the unofficial number does not include the self-employed who, if they find themselves out of work, cannot be counted since they are not eligible for unemployment. Now, that means that about 80% of Americans ARE employed. But, the median salary is less than $20/hr. That means that  less than 1/2 of the employed Americans make more than $20/hr. Since 1/2 of 80% is 40%, and more than that percentage of people currently make less than $20 per hour, we can approximate and say that about 45 to 50 percent of Americans who are currently working make less than $20 per hour.  Lets be conservative and say 45%.

So, what would result from the moronic demand of the “Occupy” crowd that the minimum wage be raised to $20/hr? All of those people making less than $20/hr would have to be fired because the value of their work would not be equal to the minimum wage! Thus, the unemployment rate of 20% would go to 20%+45%=65%! Imagine that: 65% unemployment. Way to go, Occupy!

This is also why the minimum wage is both stupid and harmful to people who are either new to the labor market or without salable skills. As the minimum wage is forced upward by stupid politicians, there are fewer and fewer jobs available for the unskilled. Furthermore, since there are still some necessary jobs for the unskilled, but American companies cannot afford to pay the minimum wage to Americans to fill those jobs, those jobs are exported to foreign countries that do not have such extravagant minimum wages.

Does the “Occupy” have some legitimate beefs? Yes. We all do. The idea that banksters and large financial firms could create absurdly risky derivatives and then get bailed out by the government with tax payer dollars is a crime. No company should be allowed to be too big to fail. And, those that did fail (which was many of them) should have been allowed to fail. And allowing the executives and traders at those banks to continue to get obscene “bonus checks” is also a crime that must be stopped. You don’t reward failure, and they failed.

The “Occupy” protesters are targeting the wrong group of people. (Of course, since they are sponsored by the Democratic Party and various socialists, they could not be expected to target the correct people, since that would mean biting the hand that feeds them.) But, the real cause of the current problems in this country (and the rest of the Western world) are the politicians who are totally controlled by corporate interests and directed by the lobbyists. It is the stupid rules that they impose, like forcing banks to make loans to people who cannot afford them. It is bowing to the interests of the banksters and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which forced a separation between investment banks and commercial banks. (In many ways, this act, alone, could have prevented much of the financial carnage created by derivatives since the investment banks that held them would have been separate from the commercial banks and would have gone bankrupt, as they should have, instead of being bailed out by the politicians.) Stupid rules like repealing the uptick rule for shorting stocks which at least lent some drag to the downward direction of stocks when they do drop. Stupid rules like raising the minimum wage. Stupid rules like most of the rules imposed by the EPA and so many other government agencies. Stupid rules like forming and keeping useless and harmful agencies like the Department of Education that has been dumbing down Americans since its inception in 1981. While we spend more money on education than any other country in the world, we produce some of the stupidest students in the world. And, of course, that means that we need to bring in foreign students to fill the scientific and engineering jobs that we do have, but they cannot often be filled by Americans because they are too stupid and uneducated. As someone who has spent many years in graduate school in the field of engineering and physics, I can tell you that there are very few “American” students studying at that level. And, those that are American are almost always of Indian, Chinese, or Japanese ancestry, because those cultures still respect and value learning and education. Of course, they will probably be “Americanized” soon, after which they will value nothing but their favorite sports team, reality tv show, and Hollywood gossip.

Another pet peeve of the Occupy crowd is the claim that they went to college and now have this huge college loan but they can’t get a job. So, they feel that their student loan should be forgiven and they should be given a high paying job! The very fact that they could make such a claim shows that they obviously wasted their money on college tuition, since they obviously learned very little “of value”. And, that is the key: “of value”. What did they get their college degree in? Engineering, mathematics, physics, computer science, nursing, medicine, chemistry or pharmacy (not including the chemistry or pharmacopoeia of  Cannabis)? If so, they would probably have a job, because there are plenty of American jobs in those areas. In fact, employers are complaining that they cannot find enough qualified people in those fields, especially those with advanced degrees. The sorry fact of the matter is that many American students simply cannot handle those fields because of the failure of the American educational system since the founding of the Department of Education and the adherence in the United States to Agenda 21, which is a UN program designed to deliberately dumb down people and teach them to be good little socialists and worker bees in the New World Order. Many of the Occupy crowd undoubtedly wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on college degrees in such majors as social work, psychology, business administration, social studies, government, political science, world history, ancient history, etc. Well, guess what? Those “skill sets” have very little value in the real world. In fact, some have virtually no commercial value unless you get a Ph.D. and go out on your own as a psychologist or become a professor in those subjects. Do you really need a college degree in social work to help people to fraudulently fill out paperwork for welfare and food stamps? What do you intend to do with a degree in “government” or “political science”? Of course, again, the education system is to blame for steering students into such economically worthless college majors.

It is time for the Occupy crowd to get over it and find a job.

 

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East

Nov 22nd, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

By George Friedman

U.S. troops are in the process of completing their withdrawal from Iraq by the end-of-2011 deadline. We are now moving toward a reckoning with the consequences. The reckoning concerns the potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran moving from a fairly marginal power to potentially a dominant power. As the process unfolds, the United States and Israel are making countermoves. We have discussed all of this extensively. Questions remain whether these countermoves will stabilize the region and whether or how far Iran will go in its response.

Iran has been preparing for the U.S. withdrawal. While it is unreasonable simply to say that Iran will dominate Iraq, it is fair to say Tehran will have tremendous influence in Baghdad to the point of being able to block Iraqi initiatives Iran opposes. This influence will increase as the U.S. withdrawal concludes and it becomes clear there will be no sudden reversal in the withdrawal policy. Iraqi politicians’ calculus must account for the nearness of Iranian power and the increasing distance and irrelevance of American power.

Resisting Iran under these conditions likely would prove ineffective and dangerous. Some, like the Kurds, believe they have guarantees from the Americans and that substantial investment in Kurdish oil by American companies means those commitments will be honored. A look at the map, however, shows how difficult it would be for the United States to do so. The Baghdad regime has arrested Sunni leaders while the Shia, not all of whom are pro-Iranian by any means, know the price of overenthusiastic resistance.

Syria and Iran

The situation in Syria complicates all of this. The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian government since 1970, when the current president’s father — who headed the Syrian air force — staged a coup. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect related to a Shiite offshoot and make up about 7 percent of the country’s population, which is mostly Sunni. The new Alawite government was Nasserite in nature, meaning it was secular, socialist and built around the military. When Islam rose as a political force in the Arab world, the Syrians — alienated from the Sadat regime in Egypt — saw Iran as a bulwark. The Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime immunity against Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also gave Syria support in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more important, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority.

Syria and Iran were particularly aligned in Lebanon. In the early 1980s, after the Khomeini revolution, the Iranians sought to increase their influence in the Islamic world by supporting radical Shiite forces. Hezbollah was one of these. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of the Christians and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization, to give you a sense of the complexity. Syria regarded Lebanon as historically part of Syria, and sought to assert its influence over it. Via Iran, Hezbollah became an instrument of Syrian power in Lebanon.

Iran and Syria, therefore, entered a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. In the current unrest in Syria, the Saudis and Turks in addition to the Americans all have been hostile to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. Iran is the one country that on the whole has remained supportive of the current Syrian government.

There is good reason for this. Prior to the uprising, the precise relationship between Syria and Iran was variable. Syria was able to act autonomously in its dealings with Iran and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. While an important backer of groups like Hezbollah, the al Assad regime in many ways checked Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, with the Syrians playing the dominant role there. The Syrian uprising has put the al Assad regime on the defensive, however, making it more interested in a firm, stable relationship with Iran. Damascus finds itself isolated in the Sunni world, with Turkey and the Arab League against it. Iran — and intriguingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have constituted al Assad’s exterior support.

Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid- to low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership — and even to some of its adversaries within the military — the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force. The key for those who would see al Assad fall is to divide the military.

If al Assad survives — and at the moment, wishful thinking by outsiders aside, he is surviving — Iran will be the big winner. If Iraq falls under substantial Iranian influence, and the al Assad regime — isolated from most countries but supported by Tehran — survives in Syria, then Iran could emerge with a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (the latter via Hezbollah). Achieving this would not require deploying Iranian conventional forces — al Assad’s survival alone would suffice. However, the prospect of a Syrian regime beholden to Iran would open up the possibility of the westward deployment of Iranian forces, and that possibility alone would have significant repercussions.

 

Consider the map were this sphere of influence to exist. The northern borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan would abut this sphere, as would Turkey’s southern border. It remains unclear, of course, just how well Iran could manage this sphere, e.g., what type of force it could project into it. Maps alone will not provide an understanding of the problem. But they do point to the problem. And the problem is the potential — not certain — creation of a block under Iranian influence that would cut through a huge swath of strategic territory.

It should be remembered that in addition to Iran’s covert network of militant proxies, Iran’s conventional forces are substantial. While they could not confront U.S. armored divisions and survive, there are no U.S. armored divisions on the ground between Iran and Lebanon. Iran’s ability to bring sufficient force to bear in such a sphere increases the risks to the Saudis in particular. Iran’s goal is to increase the risk such that Saudi Arabia would calculate that accommodation is more prudent than resistance. Changing the map can help achieve this.

It follows that those frightened by this prospect — the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would seek to stymie it. At present, the place to block it no longer is Iraq, where Iran already has the upper hand. Instead, it is Syria. And the key move in Syria is to do everything possible to bring about al Assad’s overthrow.

In the last week, the Syrian unrest appeared to take on a new dimension. Until recently, the most significant opposition activity appeared to be outside of Syria, with much of the resistance reported in the media coming from externally based opposition groups. The degree of effective opposition was never clear. Certainly, the Sunni majority opposes and hates the al Assad regime. But opposition and emotion do not bring down a regime consisting of men fighting for their lives. And it wasn’t clear that the resistance was as strong as the outside propaganda claimed.

Last week, however, the Free Syrian Army — a group of Sunni defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — claimed defectors carried out organized attacks on government facilities, ranging from an air force intelligence facility (a particularly sensitive point given the history of the regime) to Baath Party buildings in the greater Damascus area. These were not the first attacks claimed by the FSA, but they were heavily propagandized in the past week. Most significant about the attacks is that, while small-scale and likely exaggerated, they revealed that at least some defectors were willing to fight instead of defecting and staying in Turkey or Lebanon.

It is interesting that an apparent increase in activity from armed activists — or the introduction of new forces — occurred at the same time relations between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other were deteriorating. The deterioration began with charges that an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States had been uncovered, followed by allegations by the Bahraini government of Iranian operatives organizing attacks in Bahrain. It proceeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear device, followed by the Nov. 19 explosion at an Iranian missile facility that the Israelis have not-so-quietly hinted was their work. Whether any of these are true, the psychological pressure on Iran is building and appears to be orchestrated.

Of all the players in this game, Israel’s position is the most complex. Israel has had a decent, albeit covert, working relationship with the Syrians going back to their mutual hostility toward Yasser Arafat. For Israel, Syria has been the devil they know. The idea of a Sunni government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood on their northeastern frontier was frightening; they preferred al Assad. But given the shift in the regional balance of power, the Israeli view is also changing. The Sunni Islamist threat has weakened in the past decade relative to the Iranian Shiite threat. Playing things forward, the threat of a hostile Sunni force in Syria is less worrisome than an emboldened Iranian presence on Israel’s northern frontier. This explains why the architects of Israel’s foreign policy, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, have been saying that we are seeing an “acceleration toward the end of the regime.” Regardless of its preferred outcome, Israel cannot influence events inside Syria. Instead, Israel is adjusting to a reality where the threat of Iran reshaping the politics of the region has become paramount.

Iran is, of course, used to psychological campaigns. We continue to believe that while Iran might be close to a nuclear device that could explode underground under carefully controlled conditions, its ability to create a stable, robust nuclear weapon that could function outside a laboratory setting (which is what an underground test is) is a ways off. This includes being able to load a fragile experimental system on a delivery vehicle and expecting it to explode. It might. It might not. It might even be intercepted and create a casus belli for a counterstrike.

The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat. The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.

At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.

Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan. It will be interesting to see if the Turks participate. Far more interesting will be seeing whether this works. Syrian intelligence has penetrated its Sunni opposition effectively for decades. Mounting a secret campaign against the regime would be difficult, and its success by no means assured. Still, that is the next move.

But it is not the last move. To put Iran back into its box, something must be done about the Iraqi political situation. Given the U.S. withdrawal, Washington has little influence there. All of the relationships the United States built were predicated on American power protecting the relationships. With the Americans gone, the foundation of those relationships dissolves. And even with Syria, the balance of power is shifting.

The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran — a very painful and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with risks.

We are now in the final act of Iraq, and it is even more painful than imagined. Laying this alongside the European crisis makes the idea of a systemic crisis in the global system very real.

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Europe’s Crisis: Beyond Finance

Nov 16th, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

By George Friedman

Everyone is wondering about the next disaster to befall Europe. Italy is one focus; Spain is also a possibility. But these crises are already under way. Instead, the next crisis will be political, not in the sense of what conventional politician is going to become prime minister, but in the deeper sense of whether Europe’s political elite can retain power, or whether new political forces are going to emerge that will completely reshape the European political landscape. If this happens, it will be by far the most important consequence of the European financial crisis.

Thus far we have seen some changes in personalities in the countries at the center of the crisis. In Greece, Prime Minister George Papandreou stepped aside, while in Italy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now has resigned. Though these resignations have represented a formal change of government, they have not represented a formal policy change. In fact, Papandreou and Berlusconi both stepped down on the condition that their respective governments adopt the austerity policies proposed during their respective tenures.

Europeanists dominate the coalitions that have replaced them. They come from the generation and class that are deeply intellectually and emotionally committed to the idea of Europe. For them, the European Union is not merely a useful tool for achieving national goals. Rather, it is an alternative to nationalism and the horrors that nationalism has brought to Europe. It is a vision of a single Continent drawn together in a common enterprise — prosperity — that abolishes the dangers of a European war, creates a cooperative economic project and, least discussed but not trivial, returns Europe to its rightful place at the heart of the international political system.

For the generation of leadership born just after World War II that came to political maturity in the last 20 years, the European project was an ideological given and an institutional reality. These leaders formed an international web of European leaders who for the most part all shared this vision. This leadership extended beyond the political sphere: Most European elites were committed to Europe (there were, of course, exceptions).

Greece and the Struggle of the European Elite

Now we are seeing this elite struggle to preserve its vision. When Papandreou called for a referendum on austerity, the European elite put tremendous pressure on him to abandon his initiative. Given the importance of the austerity agreements to the future of Greece, the idea of a referendum made perfect sense. A referendum would allow the Greek government to claim its actions enjoyed the support of the majority of the Greek people. Obviously, it is not clear that the Greeks would have approved the agreement.

Led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the European elite did everything possible to prevent such an outcome. This included blocking the next tranche of bailout money and suspending all further bailout money until Greek politicians could commit to all previously negotiated austerity measures. European outrage at the idea of a Greek referendum makes perfect sense.

Coming under pressure from Greece and the European elite, Papandreou resigned and was replaced by a former vice president of the European Central Bank. Already abandoned by Papandreou, the idea of a referendum disappeared.

Two dimensions explain this outcome. The first was national. The common perception in the financial press is that Greece irresponsibly borrowed money to support extravagant social programs and then could not pay off the loans. But there also is validity to the Greek point of view. From this perspective, under financial pressure, the European Union was revealed as a mechanism for Germany to surge exports into developing EU countries via the union’s free trade system. Germany also used Brussels’ regulations and managed the euro such that Greece found itself in an impossible situation. Germany then called on Athens to impose austerity on the Greek people to save irresponsible financiers who, knowing perfectly well what Greece’s economic position was, were eager to lend money to the Greeks. Each version of events has some truth to it, but the debate ultimately was between the European and Greek elites. It was an internal dispute, and whether for Greece’s benefit or for the European financial system’s benefit, both sides were committed to finding a solution.

The second dimension had to do with the Greek public and the Greek and European elites. The Greek elite clearly benefited financially from the European Union. The Greek public, by contrast, had a mixed experience. Certainly, the 20 years of prosperity since the 1990s benefited many — but not all. Economic integration left the Greek economy wide open for other Europeans to enter, putting segments of the Greek economy at a terrific disadvantage. European competitors overwhelmed workers in many industries along with small-business owners in particular. So there always was an argument in Greece for opposing the European Union. The stark choice posed by the current situation strengthened this argument, namely, who would bear the burden of the European system’s dysfunction in Greece? In other words, assuming the European Union was to be saved, who would absorb the cost? The bailouts promised by Germany on behalf of Europe would allow the Greeks to stabilize their financial system and repay at least some of their loans to Europe. This would leave the Greek elite generally intact. The price to Greece would be austerity, but the Greek elite would not pay that price. Members of the broader public — who would lose jobs, pensions, salaries and careers — would.

Essentially, the first question was whether Greece as a nation would deliberately default on its debts — as many corporations do — and force a restructuring on its terms regardless of what the European financial system needed, or whether it would seek to accommodate the European system. The second was whether it would structure an accommodation in Europe such that the burden would not fall on the public but on the Greek elite.

The Greek government chose to seek accommodation with European needs and to allow the major impact of austerity to fall on the public as a consequence of the elite’s interests in Europe — now deep and abiding — and the ideology of Europeanism. Since by its very nature the burden of austerity would fall on the public, it was vital a referendum not be held. Even so, the Greeks undoubtedly would seek to evade the harshest dimensions of austerity. That is the social contract in Greece: The Greeks would promise the Europeans what they wanted, but they would protect the public via duplicity. While that approach might work in Greece, it cannot work in a country like Italy, whose exposure is too large to hide via duplicity. Similarly, duplicity cannot be the ultimate solution to the European crisis.

The Real European Crisis

And here we come to the real European crisis. Given the nature of the crisis, which we have seen play out in Greece, the European elite can save the European concept and their own interests only by transferring the cost to the broader public, and not simply among debtors. Creditors like Germany, too, must absorb the cost and distribute it to the public. German banks simply cannot manage to absorb the losses. Like the French, they will have to be recapitalized, meaning the cost will fall to the public.

Europe was not supposed to work this way. Like Immanuel Kant’s notion of a “Perpetual Peace,” the European Union promised eternal prosperity. That plus preventing war were Europe’s great promises; there was no moral project beyond these. Failure to deliver on either promise undermines the European project’s legitimacy. If the price of retaining Europe is a massive decline in Europeans’ standard of living, then the argument for retaining the European Union is weakened.

As important, if Europe is perceived as failing because the European elite failed, and the European elite is perceived as defending the European idea as a means of preserving its own interests and position, then the public’s commitment to the European idea — never as robust as the elite’s commitment — is put in doubt. The belief in Europe that the crisis can be managed within current EU structures has been widespread. The Germans, however, have floated a proposal that would give creditors in Europe — i.e., the Germans — the power to oversee debtors’ economic decisions. This would undermine sovereignty dramatically. Losing sovereignty for greater prosperity would work in Europe. Losing it to pay back the debts of Europe’s banks is a much harder sell.

The Immigrant Factor and Upcoming Elections

All of this comes at a time of anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim, feeling among the European public. In some countries, anger increasingly has been directed at the European Union and its borders policies — and at European countries’ respective national and international elites, who have used immigration to fuel the economy while creating both economic and cultural tensions in the native population. Thus, immigration has become linked to general perceptions of the European Union, opening both a fundamental economic and cultural divide between European elites and the public.

Racial and ethnic tensions combined with economic austerity and a sense of betrayal toward the elite creates an explosive mixture. Europe experienced this during the inter-war period, though this is not a purely European phenomenon. Disappointment in one’s personal life combined with a feeling of cultural disenfranchisement by outsiders and the sense that the elite is neither honest, nor competent nor committed to the well-being of its own public tends to generate major political reactions anywhere in the world.

Europe has avoided an explosion thus far. But the warning signs are there. Anti-European and anti-immigrant factions existed even during the period when the European Union was functioning, with far-right parties polling up to 16 percent in France. It is not clear that the current crisis has strengthened these elements, but how much this crisis will cost the European public and the absence of miraculous solutions also have not yet become clear. As Italy confronts its crisis, the cost — and the inevitably of the cost — will become clearer.

A large number of elections are scheduled or expected in Europe in 2012 and 2013, including a French presidential election in 2012 and German parliamentary elections in 2013. At the moment, these appear set to be contests between the conventional parties that have dominated Europe since World War II in the West and since 1989 in the East. In general, these are the parties of the elite, all more or less buying into Europe. But anti-European factions have emerged within some of these parties, and as sentiment builds, new parties may form and anti-European factions within existing parties may grow. A crisis of this magnitude cannot happen without Tea Party- and Occupy Wall Street-type factions emerging. In Europe, however — where in addition to economics the crisis is about race, sovereignty, national self-determination and the moral foundations of the European Union — these elements will be broader and more intense.

Populist sentiment coupled with racial and cultural concerns is the classic foundation for right-wing nationalist parties. The European left in general is part of the pro-European elite. Apart from small fragments, very little of the left hasn’t bought into Europe. It is the right that has earned a meaningful following by warning about Europe over the past 20 years. It thus would seem reasonable to expect that these factions will become much stronger as the price of the crisis — and who is going to bear it — becomes apparent.

The real question, therefore, is not how the financial crisis works out. It is whether the European project will survive. And that depends on whether the European elite can retain its legitimacy. That legitimacy is not gone by any means, but it is in the process of being tested like never before, and it is difficult to see how the elite retains it. The polls don’t show the trend yet because the magnitude of the impact on individual lives has not manifested itself in most of Europe. When it does show itself, there will be a massive recalculation regarding the worth and standing of the European elite. There will be calls for revenge, and vows of never allowing such a thing to recur.

Regardless of whether the next immediate European crisis is focused on Spain or Italy, it follows that by mid-decade, Europe’s political landscape will have shifted dramatically, with new parties, personalities and values emerging. The United States shares much of this trend, but its institutions are not newly invented. Old and not working creates problems; new and not working is dangerous. Why the United States will take a different path is a subject for another time. Suffice it to say that the magnitude of Europe’s problems goes well beyond finance.

The European crisis is one of sovereignty, cultural identity and the legitimacy of the elite. The financial crisis has several outcomes, all bad. Regardless of which is chosen, the impact on the political system will be dramatic.

Europe’s Crisis: Beyond Finance is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Rethinking American Options on Iran

Nov 8th, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

By George Friedman

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.

In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations.

The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter — and far more urgent — than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria’s close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz

I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would “just” leave the major issue — Hormuz.

The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming.

There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren’t going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran’s maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.)

Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn’t deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran’s conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.

The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.

It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran’s conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed.

Just as Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran’s nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus.

In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That’s not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran’s conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is merely an added benefit.

Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran

At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad’s handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don’t yet know, but the internal tension is growing.

The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy.

From the Iranian point of view — and from ours — Washington’s intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration’s stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don’t, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Pat Condell Tells The Truth About The Great Palestinian Lie

Nov 7th, 2011
by EdTroy.
Comments are off for this post

And, as rebuttal to comments critical of his above posting, he posted the following.