Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Promote
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/30/2014 3:53:42 PM

3 Times Obama Administration Was Warned About ISIS Threat

ABC News


CBS-Newyork
Obama: US 'Underestimated' Islamic State Threat


Watch video

Did the intelligence community underestimate ISIS or did the president?

In his "60 Minutes" interview, President Obama seemed to put the blame on the intelligence community, saying, “I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” At the White House daily briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest cast the net quite a bit wider.

“Everybody was surprised to see the rapid advance that ISIL was able to make from Syria across the Iraqi border,” said Earnest. “To be able to take over such large swaths of territory in Iraq did come as a surprise.”

ISIS Trail of Terror

Obama Pledges to 'Degrade and Ultimately Destroy' ISIS: What You Need To Know

But for nearly a year, senior officials in the U.S. government have been warning about the alarming rise of ISIS, or ISIL as the terrorist group is also known, and the inability of the Iraqi government to confront the threat.

Here are three examples:

BRETT MCGURK

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran

On Nov. 14, 2013, State Department official Brett McGurk testified before a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee extensively about the growing threat of ISIL/ISIS.

“We face a real problem,” McGurk said. “There is no question that ISIL is growing roots in Syria and in Iraq.”

McGurk was quite specific about the extent of the threat. He cited the group’s alarming campaign of suicide bombings, its growing financial resources and its expanding safe haven in Syria.

“We have seen upwards of 40 suicide bombers per month targeting playgrounds, mosques, and markets, in addition to government sites from Basra to Baghdad to Erbil,” he said.

He was also specific about the inability of the Iraqi government to deal with it.

“AQ/ISIL has benefited from a permissive operating environment due to inherent weaknesses of Iraqi security forces, poor operational tactics, and popular grievances, which remain unaddressed, among the population in Anbar and Nineva provinces.”

ROBERT BEECROFT

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

In January, ISIS/ISIL gave a strong indication of just how much of a threat they posed when the group took over the Iraqi city of Fallujah and part of Ramadi. At that point, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Robert Beecroft said it could get a whole lot worse.

“It's a very precarious situation,” Beercroft told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz. “And a misstep anywhere could set off a larger conflict in the country.”

Lt. Gen. MICHAEL FLYNN

U.S. Army Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

On Feb. 11, 2014, the Pentagon’s top intelligence official, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned the group would likely attempt to take over even more territory.

“ISIL probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014, as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah, and the group’s ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria,” Flynn told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That’s a prediction, unfortunately, that proved to be right on target.









Senior government officials publicly told the Obama administration about the militants' alarming rise.
'We face a real problem'



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/30/2014 4:18:11 PM
Global wildlife numbers plunge

Wildlife numbers halved over past four decades: WWF

AFP


CBC.ca Videos
Global wildlife populations down by half since 1970: WWF report

Paris (AFP) - Wildlife numbers have plunged by more than half in just 40 years as Earth's human population has nearly doubled, a survey of over 3,000 vertebrate species revealed on Tuesday.

From 1970 to 2010, there was a 39-percent drop in numbers across a representative sample of land- and sea-dwelling species, while freshwater populations declined 76 percent, the green group WWF said in its 2014 Living Planet Report.

Extrapolating from these figures, "the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish across the globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago," it said.

The 52-percent decrease confirmed mankind was chomping through Nature's bounty much faster than the rate of replenishment, the WWF warned.

The last Living Planet Report, in 2012, found a 28-percent drop in numbers from 1970-2008, but that was based on only 2,688 monitored species.

The new report tracks the growth or decline of more than 10,000 populations of 3,038 species ranging from forest elephants to sharks, turtles and albatrosses.


It stressed that humans were consuming natural resources at a rate that would require 1.5 Earths to sustain -- cutting down trees faster than they mature and harvesting more fish than oceans can replace.

"We are using nature's gifts as if we had more than just one Earth at our disposal," WWF Director General Marco Lambertini said in the foreword to the biennial publication.

"By taking more from our ecosystems and natural processes than can be replenished, we are jeopardising our very future."

While agricultural yield per hectare has improved through better farming and irrigation methods, the sheer human population explosion has reduced per capita "biocapacity", or available life-sustaining land.

Human population numbers shot up from about 3.7 billion to nearly seven billion from 1970 to 2010.

"So while biocapacity has increased globally, there is now less of it to go around," the report said.

And, it warned, "with the world population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100, the amount of biocapacity available for each of us will shrink further".

The survey highlighted differences between nations and regions in consumption and biodiversity loss.

"Low-income countries have the smallest footprint, but suffer the greatest ecosystem losses," it said.

The wildlife decline was worst in the tropics with a 56 percent drop, compared with 36 percent in temperate regions.

Latin America suffered the most drastic losses with an overall decline of 83 percent.

- Kuwaitis have largest footprint -

There were also vast differences in nations' "ecological footprint" -- the mark their consumption leaves on the planet, measured per capita.

The people of Kuwait had the biggest overall footprint, followed in the top 10 by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, Belgium, Trinidad and Tobago, Singapore, the United States, Bahrain and Sweden.

Rich countries' biggest mark was in carbon emissions, while the impact of poor countries, at the tail end of the list, was mainly in consumption of land and forest products.

"If all people on the planet had the footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets," the report said, and 3.9 at US rates.

Yet despite this vast consumption, almost a billion people do not have enough food and 768 million do not have access to clean water, it added.

Protecting nature's endowment is equally important for rich and poor nations, Lambertini said.

"We are all in this together. We all need nutritious food, fresh water and clean air, wherever in the world we live."

View Gallery





Human encroachment has reduced world wildlife populations faster than was previously thought.
Remedy still possible


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/30/2014 4:53:28 PM
Massive Honk Kong protests

Hong Kong leader rejects protesters' demands

Associated Press

Reuters Videos
Hong Kong protesters prepare for long-haul



HONG KONG (AP) — Pro-democracy protesters demanded that Hong Kong's top leader meet with them, threatening wider actions if he did not, after he said Tuesday that China would not budge in its decision to limit voting reforms in the Asian financial hub.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has taken a hard line against any perceived threat to the Communist Party's hold on power, meanwhile vowed in a National Day speech to "steadfastly safeguard" Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. He said Beijing believes Hong Kong will "create an even better future in the big family of the motherland."

China's government has condemned the student-led protests as illegal, though so far it has not overtly intervened, leaving Hong Kong's semi-autonomous government to handle the crisis. But Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's rejection of the student demands dashed hopes for a quick resolution of the five-day standoff that has blocked city streets, forcing some schools and offices to close.

Leung's statement drew a defiant response from the students.

"If Leung Chun-ying doesn't come out to Civic Square before midnight ... then I believe inevitably more people will come out onto the streets," said Alex Chow, secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, the organizer of the university class boycotts that led to the street protests.

Chow said the students were considering various options, including widening the protests, pushing for a labor strike and possibly occupying a government building.

Despite the hardening rhetoric from both sides, the mood Tuesday night as the crowds of protesters swelled was festive. Few police were evident, and those who were appeared relaxed.

Both sides appeared to be waiting out the standoff, as police continued the light-handed approach to the protests they adopted after their use of tear gas and pepper spray over the weekend failed to drive out tens of thousands of people occupying streets near the government headquarters. The sit-ins instead spread to the financial district and other areas.

A brief cloudburst Tuesday cooled the air, seeming to energize the protesters, a group of whom shouted "Jiayou," or "Keep it up," and waved their cellphones with bright LED flashlights sparkling in the dark.

The crowd had plenty of umbrellas and rain capes on hand, having stockpiled them as a defense in case police might again deploy tear gas and pepper spray.

"We are not afraid of riot police, we are not afraid of tear gas, we are not afraid of pepper spray. We will not leave until Leung Chun-ying resigns. We will not give up, we will persevere until the end," Lester Shum, another student leader, shouted to a crowd at Admiralty, near Hong Kong's waterfront.

Leung's blunt rejection of the demands from the students is not surprising. China's Communist leadership is wary of any conciliatory moves that might embolden dissidents and separatists on the mainland.

The protesters want a reversal of a decision by China's government in August that a pro-Beijing panel will screen all candidates in the territory's first direct elections, scheduled for 2017 — a move they view as reneging on a promise that the chief executive will be chosen through "universal suffrage."

Occupy Central, a wider civil disobedience movement, said in a tweet that the deadline set by the pro-democracy protesters includes a demand for genuine democracy and for Leung's resignation. It said it would "announce new civil disobedience plans same day," without elaborating.

China took control of Hong Kong from the British in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" arrangement that guaranteed the former British colony separate legal and economic systems and Western-style civil liberties.

Hong Kong's free press and social media give the protesters exposure that may help prevent China from cracking down in the same way it has on restive minorities and dissidents living in the mainland, where public dissent is often harshly punished.

"The people on the streets are here because we've made the decision ourselves and we will only leave when we have achieved something," said Chloe Cheung, a 20-year-old student at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. "We are waiting for the government to respond to our demands for democracy and a say in what the elections will be like."

With dozens of bus routes canceled and some subway entrances near protest areas closed, Hong Kong's police and fire departments renewed their calls for the protesters to clear the streets.

The protests have been dubbed the "Umbrella Revolution" by some because the crowds have used umbrellas to block the sun and to deflect police pepper spray.

Many of the protesters were born after an agreement with Britain in 1984 that pledged to give China control of the city of 7 million, and have grown up in an era of affluence and stability, with no experience of past political turmoil in mainland China.

Their calls for a great say in their futures have widespread support among many in Hong Kong disillusioned by a widening gap between the city's ultra-wealthy tycoons and the rest of the population.

"I am committed to taking part in the protests as long as they remain peaceful," said Peter Chin, a 22-year-old student at Hong Kong University.

"We are really basically just calling for the government to speak with us but they've been mute. We'll keep staying here until they're ready to consult with us," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Elaine Kurtenbach, Louise Watt and Kelvin Chan in Hong Kong and Aritz Parra in Beijing contributed to this report.








Protesters set a deadline for the government to meet their demands, but the city's chief executive says China won't relent.
Festive mood




"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/30/2014 11:56:12 PM

Islamic State fight seen costing U.S. $2.4B or more annually

Reuters


Wochit
Obama: US Not At War, Says ISIS Not Most ‘Difficult’ Situation Faced During Presidency


By David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military efforts against Islamic State have cost nearly $1 billion so far and are likely to run between $2.4 billion and $3.8 billion per year if air and ground operations continue at the current pace, according to a think tank analysis.

But a ramp-up, including more air strikes and a significant boost in ground forces, could send costs soaring to between $13 billion and $22 billion annually, said the analysis released on Monday by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"Future costs depend, to a great extent, on how long operations continue, the steady-state level of air operations, and whether additional ground forces are deployed beyond what is already planned," said the report by Todd Harrison and other analysts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters last week that the Pentagon has spent roughly $7 million to $10 million per day on operations against Islamic State since June 16, when it first deployed troops to assess the Iraqi military and advise its leaders.

The United States began air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq on Aug. 8 and expanded them to Syria on Sept. 22. Coalition forces have carried out 290 air strikes in Iraq and Syria, of which the U.S. military has conducted 265.

U.S. planes are flying about 60 reconnaissance sorties per day, and some 1,600 U.S. troops are being deployed in Iraq.

The think tank's analysis estimated the cost of U.S. operations against Islamic State through Sept. 24 at between $780 million and $930 million. That agreed roughly with Hagel's estimate of the cost per day.

If air operations continue at a moderate level and deployed ground forces remain in the range of 2,000, then the cost of the U.S. military effort against the militant Islamist group would likely run between $200 million and $320 million per month, the report said.

But increased air operations, coupled with the deployment of up to 5,000 ground troops, would cost between $350 million and $570 million per month. High-intensity air operations with a deployment of 25,000 troops could cost $1.1 billion to $1.8 billion per month, the report said.

Defense officials have indicated they will have to seek more funding because of the fight against Islamic State.

Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that the Pentagon's 2015 budget proposal assumed stable or declining commitments abroad and some flexibility to adjust military pay and healthcare and to retire weapons systems.

"Commitments have gone up," Dempsey told reporters, noting that Congress has rejected some proposals to retire weapons and adjust military compensation.

"So if you're asking me do I assess right now ... that we're going to have budget problems? Yes."

The center said its cost estimates were based on publicly available information about the types of aircraft and munitions being used, as well as expenditures in previous operations.

(Reporting by David Alexander; Editing by David Storey and Jonathan Oatis)









The U.S. is spending $7 to $10 million per day fighting the jihadi group, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says.
Estimated annual cost



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/1/2014 12:12:33 AM

Afghanistan and US sign long-delayed troop pact

AFP


Wochit
Afghan, U.S. Officials Sign Long-delayed Security Pact


Afghanistan and the United States on Tuesday signed a deal to allow about 10,000 US troops to stay in the country next year, as new President Ashraf Ghani took a major step towards mending frayed ties with Washington.

Hamid Karzai, who stood down as president on Monday, had refused to sign the deal -- a disagreement that symbolised the breakdown of Afghan-US relations after the optimism of 2001 when the Taliban were ousted from power.

Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar and US Ambassador James Cunningham inked the bilateral security agreement (BSA) at a ceremony in the presidential palace in Kabul as Ghani looked on.

"We have signed an agreement which is for the good of our people, the stability of the region and the world," Ghani said, adding it would allow continued US funding for the 350,000-strong Afghan security forces.

"Threats exist to our joint interests, and this gives us a common goal," Ghani said after fulfilling his campaign vow to have the deal signed on his first full day in office.

President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it was an historic day in US-Afghan relations.

He said it provided "the necessary legal framework to carry out two critical missions after 2014: targeting the remnants of Al-Qaeda and training, advising, and assisting Afghan National Security Forces."

US-led NATO combat operations will finish at the end of this year, and the Taliban have launched a series of recent offensives that have severely tested Afghan soldiers and police.

NATO's follow-up mission, which will take over on January 1, will be made up of 9,800 US troops and about 3,000 soldiers from Germany, Italy and other member nations.

The new mission -- named Resolute Support -- will focus on supporting Afghan forces as they take on the Taliban, in parallel with US counter-terrorism operations.

Many long-term international aid pledges were also dependent on the BSA being signed to strengthen security.

- 'Holy jihad' -

Negotiations over the pact saw Karzai, who came to power in 2001, at his most unpredictable as he added new demands and shifted positions, infuriating the US.

He eventually refused to sign the agreement last year despite a "loya jirga" grand assembly which he had convened voting for him to do so. There was also widespread public support for US troops to stay.

On the election campaign trail, both Ghani and his poll rival Abdullah Abdullah vowed to reverse Karzai's decision.

Without a deal, Washington had threatened to pull all US forces out by the end of the year, but it chose to wait through a long election deadlock until Afghanistan finally got a new president on Monday.

After month of disputes over fraud, Ghani agreed to a power-sharing deal with Abdullah, who has taken up the new role of chief executive.

NATO support next year is seen as essential for national stability -- though the limited size of the mission and the fact that it will be scaled back during 2015 will restrict its capabilities.

Obama has previously announced that the US force will be halved by the end of next year, before being reduced to a normal embassy protection presence by the end of 2016.

The failure to sign a similar deal with Iraq in 2011 led to a complete withdrawal of US troops from the country, which is now engulfed in Islamist violence.

The Taliban described the signing of the BSA as "embarrassing and regrettable".

"We tell America and its slaves that we will continue our holy jihad until our country is liberated from the claws of savage Americans," the group said in a emailed statement.

The security threat in Kabul was underlined on Monday by a suicide attack outside the airport's main entrance that killed four members of the Afghan security forces and three civilians.

The inauguration marked the country's first democratic transfer of power, although the UN said the election was beset by "significant fraud".

There are currently about 41,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of 130,000 in 2012.









The U.S. will fund the 350,000-strong Afghan security force while keeping 10,000 troops of its own.
3,000 more allies



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!