More campaign hypocrisy from a wanna be who has lied her way through one disaster after another and believes she is entitled because she is a women. Call me a sexist.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/
===
If ain't black or Muslim, does Obama have an objectivity problem? (See 1 below.)
===
Just more of the same. (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
Russia and Crimea. Which way will Putin go? (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Netanyahu Not the Cause of Obama's Dislike of Israel
Much has been said about the strange behavior of Barack Obama, who can’t let a day go without maligning Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. In contrast, he displays friendship to a thug and anti-Semite like Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, palled around with the deceased communist Hugo Chavez, and keeps standing up for the Iranian mullahs who want to kill us all or make us slaves to Islam. Those in the media who see politics simply as a stand-off between personalities ascribe all this to a clash of personalities: Obama doesn’t like PM Netanyahu and Netanyahu returns the dislike.
No doubt the dislike is there, but what underlies the animosity of Obama toward PM Netanyahu goes beyond schmoozability to seismic differences in outlook and policy. In fact, at Mr. Netanyahu’s very first White House meeting, before they really knew each other, Obama purposely mistreated PM Netanyahu by forcing him to enter through a side entrance and, then, abruptly left the meeting and went upstairs by himself for dinner while leaving PM Netanyahu and his staff without hospitality or even a piece of bread. This was a deliberate, unheard of disparagement, directed more at Israel, the state represented by Netanyahu, than it was at Mr. Netanyahu per se.
Just last month, Barack Obama published classified information showing the world photographs of Israel’s hidden nuclear site, and its inner workings. It was his gift to Iran, Hamas, and ISIS. This puts Israel and her citizens, not just Mr. Netanyahu, at great risk. But, Obama had his people darken out all the information on that page regarding the nuclear sites of other countries.
At a meeting at the White House in 2009, Obama stated early-on that “it’s time to put daylight between Israel and America”. This was done before Obama had even met Benjamin Netanyahu.
Last month, Obama again singled out Israel by crudely questioning Israel as a democracy, though it’s Israel that has an Arab Supreme Court Justice, provides medical for all, and has four Arab political parties that just won 14 seats. Obama is throwing out these malicious daily barbs so as to brainwash Americans into believing Israel and America do not share the same values. He wants to break the historic bonds between America and Israel, between Israelis and Americans. His intent is to permanently tarnish Israel, not just hurt its present prime minister. In that vein, Obama has denied visas to Israelis more than any other group, all the while zealously providing visas to those from Arabic/Muslim countries.
Our president has no condemnation for Arab countries where Jews and Christians are forbidden their own political parties nor allowed to sit as judges judging Muslims. Obama accepts the shariah that forbids this.
Further proof of Obama’s scheme: he had his young underlings call Israel a “racist” state, something he never says about Islamic countries which, in principle under shariah, actually do consider non-Muslims as infidels and second class, that their churches and synagogues be destroyed, where Christian and Jewish women are treated as fodder and permissible meat, and our bibles banned and thrown in the garbage. Yet, we hear no condemnation from Obama. It is reserved for Israel. When a person singles out Jews or the Jewish state for things he finds acceptable in others… that’s anti-Semitism.
Recently, he let Israel’s enemies know that he, Obama, will not support Israel, which encourages and provides a Green Light. The physical attacks will be against Israel, not just Netanyahu… and Obama knows it. To that end, he has taken Hizb’allah and Iran off our list of terror organizations. Instead, he has the State Dept. deny Israeli generals visas. His heart is darkened against Israel.
He prohibited flights to Israel for almost two days during her recent defensive war against Hamas missiles being shot from Gaza. He has not done this in other war zones. He even stopped the routine supply of needed ammunition to Israel during the war. He is deaf to Israel’s concern over ISIS, Hamas, and Iran pitched at Israel’s borders, and he insists that Israel relinquish these lands to make a Palestinian state that he knows will be a launching pad for these terrorist groups against Israel and her children.
The Netanyahu story is a cover, a convenient excuse and ruse to weaken and stigmatize Israel. Unfortunately, many are falling for it. Obama’s everyday bullying is exclusive to Israel. So, let the truth be said: Obama doesn’t like Israel. There is something in his ethnic background that teaches, as part of its outlook, the need to not only vanquish but also humiliate the Jew, the Christian. More than a clash of personalities, it centers on Obama’s dislike of a truly sovereign and independent Israel living proudly in its biblical homeland, and his intense dislike for Israeli nationalism.
Similarly, he dislikes American patriotism, demonizing those affectionate about America as people who cling to flag, religion, and guns. He dismisses those unwilling to renounce America’s Judeo-Christian underpinning, as well as those not gullible enough to buy into the foolish and false narrative of America being, as he says, the “largest Muslim country in the world, where Muslims have contributed to its development since America’s founding”.
Mr. Obama seems irritated and indifferent to non-Islamic, non-black narratives. He expects others to feel guilty and burdened by their own history, making themselves, in repentance, secondary and in service to the aspirations of groups he prefers.
Obama doesn’t like an Israel proud of itself as a Jewish state, nor does he like an America loyal to its heritage and unique values, be it free enterprise, taking responsibility for one’s fate, or the make-up of its historic middle class. He wishes to transform both countries, denude them of their historic identity. He wants to do to Israel what he has been doing to America: change its demographics by bringing in those who, when offered freebies, will vote for left-wing parties, who think little of a nation’s specific history and unique ethos. He does so here by flooding our country with illegal immigrants, and in Israel, by insisting that Israel allow into its borders millions of Arabs who will vote to make Israel’s Jewishness a thing of the past, something illegal. Mr. Netanyahu stands in his way!
What Mr. Obama wants above all else is to strip Israel of David’s city, its eternal capital, Jerusalem, and hand the ancient, historic city to Islam. Obama knows that whoever controls and manages historic Jerusalem can lay claim to the Land’s entirety. Jerusalem is the heart and pride of Israel. He wants to snatch the pride Israelis have in Jerusalem as surely as he tries to take from us our pride in American Exceptionalism, something he denies and derides. Toward this end, he is fervently trying to decouple liberal American Jews from Israel. By constantly accusing Israel of "racism, extremism, colonialism, lack of compassion and soul” -- the effective buzz phrases -- he hopes liberal Jews will be embarrassed to support Israel. He is succeeding, similar to how he is turning the Democrat Party away from Israel.
Talking heads, who make their living jawboning in conventional, boiler-plate paradigms, think of Obama as they would other presidents, instead of seeing him the way he must be seen. He is not like other presidents, nor is he simply more to the Left than previous presidents. He is an ideologue through and through, and his ideology is rooted in Marxism and certain forms of Islamism. We need to see in Obama’ actions not the political maneuverings we suspect in others, but direct, unalloyed, reflections of his dogmas and goals.
He wants the treaty with Iran not because it’s a feather in his cap. Let’s be more direct. He wants it because he wants it. He wants Iran to have the bomb. Not to use it, necessarily, but for the power and leverage it will give Iran over Israel, and the pride and strength it will furnish the Ummah. He wants a stronger Iran, not a weaker or checked Iran.
He dislikes Netanyahu because he dislikes an Israeli leader who wants to keep Israel Jewish, who stands for Jerusalem, and won’t have his people bandied about to satisfy Obama’s’ lust for Islamic hegemony. Obama is used to Jews, the Hyde Park Chicago Jews and other liberal Jews, who see Jewish needs as secondary and sacrificial to the demands of other minorities; liberal Jews who subsume Jewish aspirations and needs for whatever is considered the “civil rights” fashion of the day. To them, ironically, Jewishness is authentic only when Jewishness becomes a vehicle for a cause outside of any specific Jewish need and identity. They have redefined Jewishness to be political universalism. Obama is uncomfortable with a Jewish-Jew like Netanyahu who does not define nor limit the existence of Jews to self-nullification in behalf of the latest leftwing Cause. He has Jews in his administration and among the liberal fraternity who are all too willing to do his destructive bidding… in the name of “Judaism”, of course.
Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and stepfather were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, and attended Islamic madrassa and grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes. As I grew up to favor Israel, he grew up to dislike it. Simple as that. Most of my Christian friends, Bible believers, were also raised with the biblical narrative, which admires Israel’s place in our theology and in the cosmos.
The Marxism Obama was fed, from very early on, made him viscerally dislike successful Western countries, such as America, Israel, and Britain. He was taught they were colonizers and imperialist. Yet, he finds nothing imperialistic or colonial about Islam’s takeover, throughout the centuries, of northern and central Africa, Lebanon, Babylon and Persia, the Balkans, the Mediterranean areas, Malaysia and Indonesia, and other parts of Asia, vast tracts of what was India, and countless Christian and Hindu neighborhoods and cities. Not to see colonialism and imperialism in these conquests tells us a lot about Obama’s perspective. Love is blind. We don’t see flaws in that and those we love. But, we sure see them, always, in that which we dislike. Obama’s dislike for a strong, independent, proud Jewish renaissance in the Holy Land predates Netanyahu.
As with America, the next two years will be difficult, for Obama has set his antagonistic sights on America and Israel… as well as its citizens. Obama has spent the last 50 years waiting for these next two
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Obama Hid North Korea Rocket Component Transfer to Iran
by Ari Yashar
US intelligence officials revealed that during the ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations, North Korea has provided several shipments of advanced missile components to the Islamic regime in violation of UN sanctions - and the US hid the violations from the UN.
The officials, who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday on condition of anonymity, said more than two shipments of missile parts since last September have been monitored by the US going from North Korea to Iran.
One official detailed that the components included large diameter engines, which could be used to build a long-range missile system, potentially capable of bearing a nuclear warhead.
The information is particularly damaging given that Admiral Bill Gortney, Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), admitted this month that the Pentagon fears that North Korea and possibly Iran can target the US with a nuclear EMP strike.
Critics have pointed out that the nuclear framework deal reached with Iran earlier this month completely avoids this question of Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, which would allow it to conduct nuclear strikes.
US President Barack Obama was given details of the shipments in his daily intelligence briefings, but the officials say the information was hidden from the UN by the White House so that it would not take action on the sanctions violations.
Back in 2010, the UN Security Council put sanctions on Iran's illegal uranium enrichment program. Those sanctions prohibit Iran from buying ballistic missile parts, and any "technology related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons."
The US officials said the recent transfers fall within the scope of the sanctions.
In confirmation, a spokesperson for Spain's mission to the UN, now in charge of the UN's sanctions committee, said the committee has not been told about the incidents by the US since Spain took over in January.
White House and State Department spokespersons contacted by the paper refused to comment on the report.
Hiding transfers from the UN - "typical" Obama
A wave of experts came out with criticism against Obama's administration for hiding the missile part transfer from the UN.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton said the shipments violate UN sanctions on Iran, as well as those imposed on North Korea back in 2009.
"If the violation was suppressed within the U.S. government, it would be only too typical of decades of practice,” Bolton said. “Sadly, it would also foreshadow how hard it would be to get honest reports made public once Iran starts violating any deal.”
Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz shared his assessment, saying "while it may seem outrageous that the Obama administration would look the other way on missile shipments from North Korea to Iran during the Iran nuclear talks, it doesn’t surprise me at all."
"Iran’s ballistic missile program has been deliberately left out of the talks even though these missiles are being developed as nuclear weapon delivery systems," noted Fleitz. "Since the administration has overlooked this long list of belligerent and illegal Iranian behavior during the Iran talks, it’s no surprise it ignored missile shipments to Iran from North Korea."
The mounting criticism was added to by Thomas Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee arms control specialist, who told Washington Free Beacon that the transfer "certainly points out the glaring omission present in the Iran deal: the total lack of anything on its missile threat."
“If true, allowing proliferation with no response other than to lead from behind or reward it, let alone bury information about it, is to defeat the object and purpose of the global nonproliferation regime - the only regime Obama may end up changing in favor of those in Tehran, Havana and Pyongyang,” Moore said.
And Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said the missile transfer "more than suggests why the administration had to back away from securing any ballistic missile limits in its negotiations” with Iran.
Exposing the Iran-North Korea missile partnership
The Washington Free Beacon went into detail about the relationship between North Korea and Iran in building the latter's advanced missile program, which is poised to construct ICBMs capable of delivering a strike with a nuclear warhead at astounding distances.
A classified State Department cable from October 2009 that was exposed by Wikileaks details that Iran is the leading missile customer of North Korean.
It stated how since the 1980s North Korea has been handing Scud missiles and technology for developing Nodong missiles with a 620-mile range to Iran.
"Pyongyang’s assistance to Iran’s [space launch vehicle] program suggests that North Korea and Iran may also be cooperating on the development of long-range ballistic missiles," read the cable.
Another cable from September 2009 posited that the steering engines in Iran's Safir rocket likely come from North Korea, and are based on Soviet-era SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missiles.
Importantly, that transfer of technology let Iran develop a self-igniting missile propellant that "could significantly enhance Tehran’s ability to develop a new generation of more-advanced ballistic missiles."
“All of these technologies, demonstrated in the Safir [space launch vehicle] are critical to the development of long-range ballistic missiles and highlight the possibility of Iran using the Safir as a platform to further its ballistic missile development," read the cable.
The assessments of the classified cables were confirmed by Joseph DeTrani, former director of the US intelligence agency National Counterproliferation Center, who said North Korea has kept "close and long term" relations with Iran in transferring missiles and related technology.
“U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibit this type of activity, and continued missile-related transfers from North Korea to Iran would be in violation of these Security Council resolutions,” added DeTrani, a former CIA officer and special envoy to North Korea nuclear talks.
by Tova Dvorin
Less than one year after Operation Protective Edge in Gaza fizzled out, Hamas is already building new terror tunnels under Israel.
But while the evidence that terror activity has resumed has been lingering for months, sources now say that the terror group has taken the digging to the next level.
Hamas has switched from manual slave labor to machinery to dig terror tunnels under Israel, Palestinian Arab sources revealed to Walla! News Wednesday.
The group is using a Bagger 288, a German-produced mining machine known as a bucket-wheel excavator.
A damning letter emerged from Gaza in August 2014 from a Palestinian Arab who was forced to dig terror tunnels after he accepted a cryptic job offer from Hamas; the group plucked him from his home in a truck and forced him down into a tunnel. At least 160 Palestinian Arab children have also died digging terror tunnels, the same report revealed.
Unlike workers working by hand, however, the Bagger can dig far faster and burrow into smaller spaces, the sources revealed.
In addition, bulldozers can clearly be seen from the Israeli side of the border doing at least part of the digging and cleanup; Hamas is using a mixture of cement (when available) and wooden boards for the construction.
Senior security sources confirmed the report, adding that Hamas's true aim is to dig the tunnels at high speed and that they are focusing on producing short-range rockets and mortars - which are more difficult for the Iron Dome Missile Defense System to shoot down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retained a military presence in Central Asia and played a major role in regional conflicts, such as the 1992-1997 Tajik civil war. Today Russia still has military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Kazakhstan is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military bloc dominated by Moscow. And while Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are not members of the bloc, they do have important security and military ties with Russia through arms purchases.
Russia has echoed this fear. Russian President Vladimir Putin's special representative for Afghanistan alleged that Islamic State fighters in the north are training thousands of militants near the Tajikistan and Turkmenistan borders. Collective Security Treaty Organization summits have focused on the issue, and Tajikistan urged the bloc to do more to counter the threat at the April 1-2 Dushanbe summit.
Despite a definite uptick in militant attacks in northern Afghanistan, no concrete evidence has emerged of attacks over the border in Central Asian states. Central Asia's last major wave of regionwide militancy was 1999-2001, when the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan conducted attacks in the Fergana Valley in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan following 9/11, however, wiped out much of the group. Surviving elements then dispersed throughout the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.
Since then, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan have seen some attacks by Islamist militants. But many were related to political dynamics, not the movement in Afghanistan. A spillover of Afghan militancy is possible, but so far the threat is minimal.
The United States has also been active in Central Asia, particularly from a security standpoint. The United States no longer uses Central Asian military bases that had been logistical centers for operations in Afghanistan, such as the Kant Air Base in Kyrgyzstan or the Karshi-Khanabad Air Base in Uzbekistan. These bases, however, have left a regional legacy. Washington maintains some security operations that include counternarcotics training with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The United States has also expressed interest in increasing its commitment. The commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Lloyd Austin, said the United States was willing to provide military equipment and technology to support Turkmenistan's efforts to secure its border with Afghanistan. The United States also announced in January that it would grant over 200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to Uzbekistan previously used in the U.S. Northern Distribution Network in Afghanistan. Such gestures point to a U.S. desire to develop more cooperative security relationships with Central Asian states.
Moscow's military and security expansion efforts stem partly from its concern about these gestures. But Russia has not limited itself to deploying military personnel. Moscow has expanded the scope and membership of its Eurasian Union to include broader cooperation on issues including border controls. Kazakhstan is already a member, and Kyrgyzstan will soon join. Russia increased the number of exercises held by Collective Security Treaty Organization members. It also called on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to cooperate more with the security bloc, though both have been hesitant.
However, Moscow's ability to solidify its position in Central Asia will be limited. Russia has a weak economy. Already, many Central Asian migrants who once worked in Russia have left, causing a decline in Russian remittances to the region. The West, and particularly the United States, will continue to have influence in the region. China, too, will continue to make economic and energy inroads.
Meanwhile, instability in the region will probably increase. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both have potential succession crises in the offing. Moreover, demographic growth and competition over water resources are likely to threaten the region's security. Russia will see its position in Central Asia tested in the coming years. Islamist militancy is just one concern among many for Moscow and Central Asian governments.
3)
Why Russia Will Send More Troops to Central Asia
Summary
Russia is making a concerted effort to increase its military and security presence throughout Central Asia, just not for the reasons it would have you think. Though the Kremlin is concerned with the threat of spillover violence from Islamist militancy in Afghanistan — its purported motive for deploying more troops — it is far more alarmed by what it sees as Chinese and Western encroachment into lands over which it has long held sway. It is this concern that will shape Moscow's behavior in Central Asia in the years to come.
Analysis
Central Asia has played an important role in the projection of Russian military power since the Russian Empire's expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries. During this period, Russia established military outposts as it competed with the British Empire for influence in the region. By the mid-19th century, Russia had brought modern-day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan into its empire. In the early 20th century, the countries were incorporated into the Soviet Union.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retained a military presence in Central Asia and played a major role in regional conflicts, such as the 1992-1997 Tajik civil war. Today Russia still has military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Kazakhstan is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military bloc dominated by Moscow. And while Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are not members of the bloc, they do have important security and military ties with Russia through arms purchases.
Concerns of Militancy
Russia's long-standing influence in Central Asian military affairs frames several of the country's recent moves. On April 2, the base commander of Russia's 201st military base in Tajikistan said Russia would increase the number of troops stationed there from 5,900 to 9,000 over the next five years and add more military equipment through 2020. Then on April 3 an unnamed source in the General Staff of the Russian armed forces told Kommersant that Russia was prepared to grant Tajikistan $1.2 billion in military aid over the next few years. Russian military specialists were reportedly dispatched to Turkmenistan's border with Afghanistan on March 24 as well. Turkmen officials have yet to confirm this, but local media report that Ashgabat requested Russian assistance to protect the Afghan border.
Officially, these developments are tied to growing concern over violence spilling over from Afghanistan into Central Asia. It is a legitimate fear for many Central Asian governments as NATO and the United States draw down their forces in Afghanistan. Regional governments have voiced discomfort with the increased militant presence in northern Afghanistan, including the Taliban and theIslamic State.
Russia has echoed this fear. Russian President Vladimir Putin's special representative for Afghanistan alleged that Islamic State fighters in the north are training thousands of militants near the Tajikistan and Turkmenistan borders. Collective Security Treaty Organization summits have focused on the issue, and Tajikistan urged the bloc to do more to counter the threat at the April 1-2 Dushanbe summit.
Despite a definite uptick in militant attacks in northern Afghanistan, no concrete evidence has emerged of attacks over the border in Central Asian states. Central Asia's last major wave of regionwide militancy was 1999-2001, when the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan conducted attacks in the Fergana Valley in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan following 9/11, however, wiped out much of the group. Surviving elements then dispersed throughout the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.
Since then, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan have seen some attacks by Islamist militants. But many were related to political dynamics, not the movement in Afghanistan. A spillover of Afghan militancy is possible, but so far the threat is minimal.
More Pertinent Factors
Because Islamist spillover from northern Afghanistan is still a relatively minor threat, Russia's push into Central Asia may have other motivations. Moscow is engaged in a tense standoff with the West over Ukraine, just one theater in the competition for influence along the former Soviet periphery. Central Asia is another key region in this contest. The region possesses sizable oil and natural gas resources that are attractive to the European Union as it seeks to diversify energy supplies and end its dependence on Russia. Europe has already pursued Turkmenistan to join the Trans-Caspian pipeline project.
The United States has also been active in Central Asia, particularly from a security standpoint. The United States no longer uses Central Asian military bases that had been logistical centers for operations in Afghanistan, such as the Kant Air Base in Kyrgyzstan or the Karshi-Khanabad Air Base in Uzbekistan. These bases, however, have left a regional legacy. Washington maintains some security operations that include counternarcotics training with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The United States has also expressed interest in increasing its commitment. The commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Lloyd Austin, said the United States was willing to provide military equipment and technology to support Turkmenistan's efforts to secure its border with Afghanistan. The United States also announced in January that it would grant over 200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to Uzbekistan previously used in the U.S. Northern Distribution Network in Afghanistan. Such gestures point to a U.S. desire to develop more cooperative security relationships with Central Asian states.
Moscow's military and security expansion efforts stem partly from its concern about these gestures. But Russia has not limited itself to deploying military personnel. Moscow has expanded the scope and membership of its Eurasian Union to include broader cooperation on issues including border controls. Kazakhstan is already a member, and Kyrgyzstan will soon join. Russia increased the number of exercises held by Collective Security Treaty Organization members. It also called on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to cooperate more with the security bloc, though both have been hesitant.
However, Moscow's ability to solidify its position in Central Asia will be limited. Russia has a weak economy. Already, many Central Asian migrants who once worked in Russia have left, causing a decline in Russian remittances to the region. The West, and particularly the United States, will continue to have influence in the region. China, too, will continue to make economic and energy inroads.
Meanwhile, instability in the region will probably increase. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both have potential succession crises in the offing. Moreover, demographic growth and competition over water resources are likely to threaten the region's security. Russia will see its position in Central Asia tested in the coming years. Islamist militancy is just one concern among many for Moscow and Central Asian governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment