Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
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?
2/9/2017 4:05:01 PM

WORLD’S YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MOST AFRAID OF TERRORISM AND EXTREMISM: REPORT


BY

Terrorism and violent extremism are the top concerns among the world’s young people, according to a new, far-reaching report.

In a survey of 20,000 young people conducted by the Varkey Foundation, a global education organization, 83 percent of people aged 15 to 21—including 82 percent of young Americans—said their No. 1 fear for the future is the rise of terrorism and extremism. Slightly fewer, 81 percent, said the possibility of conflict and war kept them afraid.

More than 20,000 members of Generation Z—those born between 1995 and 2001—across 20 countries were surveyed between September 19 and October 26 for the poll.

China is the sole country where young people cite climate change as a top fear for the future, and is the only country where terrorism and extremism is not a priority concern. China produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, which are a contributing factor in climate change. For young Americans, climate change is less of a major concern; 59 percent said it made them fear for the future, one of the lowest percentages across all countries polled. Young Americans are as afriad of climate change as they are of a global pandemic, according to the survey.

Like their international counterparts, young Americans are pessimistic about their future. Among Americans, 40 percent think the world is becoming a worse place, twice as many as believe it’s becoming a better one. Comparatively, the majority of young people surveyed in China and nearly half of young people in India think the world is becoming a better place to live.

Young Americans stand out in the survey for having the highest support for legal migration among Western countries. In the U.S., 38 percent of teens and young people believe it should be easier for migrants to live and work legally in the U.S., while 22 percent think it should be more difficult. Although participants were surveyed before President Donald Trump signed a contentious executive order limiting travel into the U.S. from seven Muslim-majoirty countries, it’s a particularly striking figure.

Trump's order also included a temporary suspension of the U.S. refugee resettlement program. Nearly half of young Americans don't think the government is doing enough to help with the global refugee crisis, while 14 percent believe the U.S. is doing too much, according to the survey.

The U.S. also shows noticeably low support for legal and safe abortion. Among young Americans, 63 percent believe “safe abortion should be available legally to women who need it,” the lowest percentage among Western countries and lower than the average of 66 percent across all countries.Young Americans also have the highest support for non-violent free speech in all circumstances, "even when what they are saying is offensive to minority groups," the highest percentage among Western countries. Support for various social issues was more varied: 75 percent of young Americans think transgender people should have the same rights as non-transgender people (compared to 83 percent in Canada, the highest support) and 71 percent said they support same-sex marriage, the lowest percentage among Western countries.

“At a time of nationalist and populist movements that focus on the differences between people, the evidence shows that young people—whatever their nationality or religion—share a strikingly similar view of the world,” Vikas Pota, chief executive of the Varkey Foundation, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Teenagers in Nigeria, New Delhi and New York share many of same priorities, fears, ambitions and opinions.

“There is far more unity among young people than a glance at the headlines would suggest.”


(Newsweek)


"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?
2/9/2017 4:24:05 PM


Trump’s USDA could be a disaster for farms and forests

U.S. food security, forest health, and the ability of farmers to respond to climate change are all at risk if President’s Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture brings climate change skepticism to the agency, agricultural researchers and environmental law experts say.

That concern takes root not only in Trump’s own statements scoffing at climate policy, but also in the words and actions of his nominee for agriculture secretary — former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, who in 2007 resorted to prayer as a strategy to deal with a severe drought Georgia was enduring.

usda-farmer
U.S. Department of Agriculture

“Snowstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes have been around since the beginning of time, but now they want us to accept that all of it is the result of climate change,” Perdue, whose Senate confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled, wrote in a 2014 National Review column. “It’s become a running joke among the public, and liberals have lost all credibility when it comes to climate science because their arguments have become so ridiculous and so obviously disconnected from reality.”

In fact, the science of human-caused climate change is far from a running joke.

Established climate science shows that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are quickly warming the planet, leading to melting polar ice caps, rising seas, and more frequent extreme weather. Sixteen of the world’s 17hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000 — a level of global warming leading to more frequent, more intense, and more deadly heatwaves and extreme drought.

Though climate models are less certain about the role of global warming in hurricanes and tornadoes, they suggest that hurricane intensity will increase as the atmosphere warms. Major hurricanes are already becoming more common in the Atlantic, and landfalling typhoons have become more intense in the Pacific, threatening millions of lives in coastal cities.

Responding to climate change is a key mission of the USDA, which is America’s chief supporter of agriculture research, forestry, and rural development. The agency funds millions of dollars of research at land grant universities across the country such as Cornell, Clemson, and Texas A&M to help farmers learn the risks they face from a world that has been largely warmed by pollution from carbon emissions.

The agriculture industry is responsible for about 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. If confirmed, the decisions Perdue will make will influence whether farms shrink their carbon footprint and how farms and forests are managed to respond to climate-related disasters.

The USDA’s climate programs extend far beyond farms. As America’s largest forest manager, Perdue will determine the direction of the science conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and whether some of America’s most carbon-dense and diverse forests are clear-cut for timber harvesting or managed to sustain and blunt the impacts of climate change.

“Just about every activity that the USDA regulates is likely to impact climate policy,” said Mark Squillace, a natural resources law professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. “Forests and soils store vast amounts of carbon. When forests are logged or when they burn, much of that stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Crop farming also contributes to climate change by releasing large quantities of nitrous oxides, much of it from fertilizers, and animal farming contributes vast amounts of methane, especially from ruminant animals.”

If the USDA dismisses the threat of climate change, “then there is reason for grave concern,” said Michael P. Hoffman, executive director of the Cornell University Institute for Climate Smart Solutions, which focuses on sustainable agriculture.

“Those who grow our food in the U.S. are facing more extreme weather, more flooding and drought, more high temperature stress — in general, more risk due to more variability, more uncertainty,” Hoffmann said. “It will be a travesty if USDA cuts back on its support of climate change research and education.”

Allison Chatrchyan, a sustainable agriculture researcher at Cornell University, said the losses both farmers and the university’s research could sustain if the USDA cuts back on climate funding could be significant. At particular risk are the USDA’s 10 regional climate hubs, she said.

The Obama administration established the hubs in 2014 to coordinate with land grant universities to help private farmers, ranchers, and forest managers adapt to climate change. Through the universities, the hubs help farmers understand how global warming will alter weather patterns and affect their crops and irrigation methods.

“It is unlikely Cornell will get additional funding to work with the hub,” Chatrchyan said. “The hub has told us they will be looking to university partners to carry this work if the hubs are disbanded.”

usda-lab
U.S. Department of Agriculture

The USDA also provides scientists at land grant universities with small research grants. At Cornell, researchers are using $6 million in USDA grant money to study how climate change is affecting food security, corn crops, trees, and grasses in urban areas, the spread of invasive mussels in New York lakes, the spread of mosquitoes, and much more.

Chatrchyan said that if the USDA shuts off that funding, it would be a huge setback for farmers and the research that supports them.

“We have regions of the country and the world that are going to be less able to produce food because of more extreme drought and higher temps and more pests and disease pressure,” she said. “We have to be innovative. We have to be helping farmers. We can’t step back from that.”

The USDA manages 193 million acres of national forest and grasslands, including the rainforests of Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Those forests act as large“carbon sinks” because they store more carbon from the atmosphere in tree trunks, roots, and soil than any other type of forest in the country. Altogether, America’s national forests offset and store about 14 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year, according to the U.S. Forest Service.

The agency also works with state and local agencies to help manage nearly 500 million acres of local and city forests across the country.

“The U.S. Forest Service is heading in a direction both cognizant of problems posed by climate change in terms of wildfire and bark beetle infestation, and adaptation, resilience, and carbon sinks,” said Jack Tuholske, director of the Vermont Law School water and justice program. “The tone of the administration one week on the ground, they want to go back to the old days when public lands were viewed as commodity producers for private gain.”

Tuholske is referring to statements made by some of Trump’s other cabinet nominees during their confirmation hearings in January. Interior Secretary nominee Ryan Zinke, whose Interior Department is in charge of more federal land than any other, spoke of forests and fossil fuels the agency manages as “assets” to be harvested or extracted.

For decades, the U.S. Forest Service managed national forests mainly for commodity production in the form of timber harvesting, an approach that began to change in the Obama administration, which saw forests as important for their ecological value, Tuholske said.

“The U.S. Forest Service is like a big ship slowly turning,” he said. “It took them 30 years to reach this new vision of the forest as something more than logs on a stump.”

The stakes are high for USDA-managed forests because the way they are managed can help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, promote biological diversity, and store atmospheric carbon in temperate rainforests, such as those in western Washington state and the panhandle of Alaska.

“Federal lands managed by the USDA are increasingly a cost center for the effects of climate change on the United States,” said said Jayni Hein, policy director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law. “With more severe droughts and a warming climate, an increasing share of the U.S. Forest Service budget is directed at fighting wildfires. The new administration must keep its eyes open and focused on this growing, costly threat.”

gila-national-forest
Gila National Forest

Firefighting made up 16 percent of the U.S. Forest Service’s budget in 1995, but as climate change led to longer and more severe fire seasons, the share of the agency’s budget dedicated to fighting fires ballooned to 50 percent by 2015 — roughly $1.2 billion.

Fire seasons now average 78 days longer each year than in 1970, according to the Forest Service.

The wildfire threat will not be reduced by efforts in Congress or in the Trump administration to increase logging, said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at the Geos Institute, a climate change think tank.

“As climate change results in more extreme fire weather in places, throwing more money at the problem won’t result in a fire-fix as climate increasingly becomes the top-down driver of fire behavior,” he said.

DellaSala said it’s also important that the USDA manage and preserve forests — especially Alaska’s rain forests — as carbon sinks in order for the U.S. to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement. The pact calls for countries to cut climate pollution to prevent global warming from exceeding 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), a level considered dangerous by the United Nations.

The Obama administration angered conservationists last year when it approved a plan to log some old-growth rainforest in southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, which is America’s largest and one of its most pristine national forests.

“Any additional logging that could come under a Trump administration or congressional efforts to give away large portions of the Tongass to the state of Alaska would make matters even worse,” DellaSala said. “I worry about how forest plans will be revised in this administration, which has signaled its intent to roll back the clock to unsustainable logging levels.”

It’s unclear how far Perdue’s USDA could go to roll back forest protections because many of them are mandated by law and regulatory changes require a time-consuming process to implement.

The law that governs how the USDA manages national forests mandates that forests be managed sustainably — not just for timber harvesting, Hein said.

“This requires attention to both the impact of climate change on our national forests and the preservation of these forests as carbon sinks,” she said.


(GRIST)


"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?
2/9/2017 4:37:06 PM


The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Arctic winter is about to get worse

Weird. Strange. Extreme. Unprecedented.

These are some of the words that describe what’s been happening in the Arctic over the past year as surge after surge of warm air has stalled, and at times reversed, sea ice pack growth. And the unfortunate string of superlatives is set to continue this week.

Arctic sea ice is already sitting at a record low for this time of year, and a powerful North Atlantic storm is expected to open the floodgates and send more warmth pouring into the region from the lower latitudes. By Thursday, it could reach up to 50 degrees F above normal. In absolute temperature, that’s near the freezing point and could further spur a decline in sea ice.

2_6_17_brian_warmairforecast
Climate Reanalyzer

Scientists have said the past year in the Arctic is “beyond even the extreme” as climate change remakes the region. Sea ice hit a record low maximum last winter (for the second year in a row, no less) and the second-lowest minimum ever recorded last fall. After a fairly rapid refreeze in late September, the region experienced a dramatic shift. Extraordinary warmth has been a recurring theme.

Sea ice growth reversed in November. Temperatures reached the melting point at the North Pole in December. Preliminary data from January indicates the Arctic was up to 35 degrees F above normal in some locations, including a mid-January mild wave.

That brings us to early February, which is setting up for another bout of mild weather in the Arctic.

A massive storm is swirling toward Europe. It’s a weather maker in itself, churning up waves as high as 46 feet and pressure dropping as low as is typical for a Category 4 hurricane as of Monday. The storm is to the southeast of Greenland and its massive comma shape has made for stunning satellite imagery. The storm is expected to weaken as it approaches Europe, but it will conspire with a high pressure system over the continent to send a stream of warm air into the Arctic through the Greenland Sea.

Temperatures are forecast to reach the melting point in Svalbard, Norway, an island between the Greenland and Karas Seas. The North Pole could also approach the melting point on Thursday.

It’s just the latest signal that the Arctic is in the middle of a profound change. Sea ice extent has dropped precipitously as has the amount of old ice, which is less prone to breakup. Beyond sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet is also melting awayand pushing sea levels higher, large fires are much more common and intense in boreal forests, and other ecosystem changes are causing the Earth to hyperventilate.

Together, these all indicate that the Arctic is in crisis. It’s the most dramatic example of how carbon pollution is reshaping the planet and scientists are racing to understand what comes next.


(GRIST)


"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?
2/9/2017 4:51:23 PM
Rocket

Iran war rhetoric and the 'Trump-ordered' dawn raid in Yemen: WWIII isn't 'coming' - It's happening NOW

© kokpit.aero
Unconfirmed photograph showing wreckage of the US MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which suffered a "hard landing" during a "dawn raid against Al-Qaeda" in al-Bayda, central Yemen, 28th January 2017
US government rhetoric against Iran has lately hit levels not seen since the Bush administration, and a string of events over the last couple of weeks in and around Yemen appears to be the reason for it. US drone strikes and airstrikes against targets in Yemen took place before, during and after Trump's inauguration, but it was the US Special Forces (Navy Seals 6) raid in central Yemen on January 28th that got the US media's attention.

Two days after Trump's inauguration, US drones "killed five Al-Qaeda operatives" in central Yemen. This operation took place without Trump's knowledge (and thus without his approval) because his predecessor freed the Pentagon from executive oversight when it comes to drone warfare. The US war machine is, in a sense, sentient. It generally operates without any official leadership, decision-making or input from 'the civilian government'. The same goes for the multiple drone strikes conducted in 'ISIS-occupied' Syria and Iraq over the course of Trump's inauguration and first days in office.

So while most people might assume that all such operations would cease during the few days between the removal of the old administration and the institution of the new, yet that is not what happens, which is pretty clear evidence that US foreign policy operates independently of the White House.

Seals' Dawn Raid in Central Yemen

But then came something that apparently did involve Trump. On Sunday January 29th, US Central Command (CENTCOM) issued an incredible press release, which stated that "one US service member was killed and four more injured" during a counter-terror "raid against al-Qa'ida-in-the-Arabian-Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen on January 28." The operation, they said, killed an estimated "14 AQAP members and the capture of information that will likely provide insight into the planning of future terror plots." Oh, and a US MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft used in the operation "experienced a hard landing," so it had to be "intentionally destroyed in place [by US Marine jets]."

© Unknown
Killed in raid: Nora al-Aliki, an 8-year-old daughter of Anwar Al-Aliki, a Muslim-American imam who was killed in Yemen by a US drone strike in 2011
This alarming development naturally raised all sorts of questions, the answers to which anonymous US intel officials were only too happy to provide in subsequent 'leaks' to the media. The story at this point is that US Special Forces, in conjunction with 'UAE Special Forces' (which are, by the way, led by a man named Mike Hindmarsh, former head of the Australian SAS), conducted a dawn raid on a village named Yakla, "a known AQAP stronghold", in al-Bayda province, southwestern Yemen. Their mission was to "collect as much intelligence on AQAP as possible in order to facilitate future raids and strikes against al-Qaeda down the road."

Local sources reported that as many as 57 people were killed in the operation, including eight women and eight children. One of those children was apparently the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Aliki, the 'terrorist mastermind radical Islamic cleric' (and US citizen) who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011 as punishment for 'influencing' (plotting with? 'jihadicalizing'?) 16-year-old son-of-a-rich-Nigerian-British banker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous 'underwear-bomber'. CENTCOM made sure to highlight this connection in a follow-up press release, pointing out that besides the bizarre incident on board that 2009 Christmas Day Amsterdam-Detroit flight, "the Boston Marathon attack and the attack on the Charlie Hebdooffices in Paris are all the responsibility of AQAP."

CENTCOM also released a video they claimed was "a small sample of the sort of intelligence information that was obtained at the site," which they described as a "staging area, propaganda center, and logistics hub for AQAP's terrorist network." This video "demonstrates the process for making Triacetone Triperoxide, an explosive used in numerous terrorist attacks, including the attempted 'shoebomber' attack in 2001 and the attacks across the London transportation system in 2005." The Pentagon was, however, forced to take the video down when someone pointed out that their "important intelligence information" was widely circulated 10 years ago by Rita Katz's SITE intelligence company, the private US-Israeli intel outfit that has done as much for publicizing jihadists' 'terror plots' as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has done for the demonization of Bashar al-Assad.

© Unknown
President Trump travels with his daughter Ivanka to the funeral of Navy Seal William Owen
The village in question, according to Baraa Shiban of British human rights group Reprieve, was hit by a US drone strike in December 2013, slaughtering a wedding party. The groom, who survived that strike, was killed this time, along with his son and daughter. Nora al-Aliki, daughter of the 'terrorist mastermind' (who may or may not have herself been a US citizen), bled to death two hours after being shot in the neck, according to her grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki. He and other survivors say that the village was not an 'AQAP stronghold', but rather hosting a meeting of tribal sheikhs who have actually been fighting with the Saudi- and US-backed government of Yemen, (which the ruling Houthi-led movement ousted in a coup in January 2015, precipitating the 'Saudi-led intervention' in Yemen to 'restore the legitimate, democratically-elected government' - an irony that is completely lost on the autocratic Gulf monarchs citing this 'just cause'). Grandpa Awlaki said the 'official' government (exiled in Saudi Arabia) has been delivering weapons to him and his relatives via its forces in Aden to fight against the Houthis.

Note the location of the village in question: it's nowhere near the supposed 'AQAP strongholds' (grey zones). In fact, it's right along the dividing line between 'Houthi rebels' (which is actually an alliance of Houthi tribesmen and those loyal to the country's former president, Ali Saleh) and fighters loyal to Riyadh's favorite, Mansur Hadi (who was once vice-president under Saleh).

© South Front
Not only were these fighters heavily armed, NBC reported suspicions that someone tipped them off about the raid. The Pentagon says the Seal Team was met with heavy gunfire ("even the women were shooting at us"), and it's likely the targets were also packing heavy weaponry if we assume that it was they who gave the US MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft a "hard landing" rather than US Marine jets "destroying it in place."

While Trump's spokesman characterized the operation as "successful", anonymous US intel officials laid the blame for why "almost everything went wrong" at Trump's feet, telling the media that "Trump approved his first covert counter-terrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations." As a result, the mission found itself dropping into "a reinforced al-Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger-than-expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists." To complete the messy tale, they're claiming the mission was planned months ago, considered by the Obama administration, but then put off till after Trump's inauguration "for operational reasons."

© Naval Special Warfare Command/Capt. Jason Salata
Chief Petty Officer William 'Ryan' Owens, who was killed in the dawn raid in central Yemen, which apparently went completely FUBAR
With the American public abruptly exposed to the reality of 'boots on the ground' in Yemen, Trump - who campaigned, among other things, on the basis of reining in military adventures abroad - was left holding a bloody knife. It reminded me of JFK's handling of the 'Bay of Pigs fiasco' during his first few months in office. The event has come down to us today as Kennedy either not knowing what the CIA was up to, or only discovering the plan at the last minute then blocking air-support needed for the operation's success. However, thanks to research in David Talbot's Devil's Chessboard, we now have evidence that CIA Director Allen Dulles never intended for the Bay of Pigs operation to be successful. He sabotaged it from the outset because his primary mission was to 'set the intel community against Kennedy', who was, among other transgressions, threatening to upend 'their' foreign policy.

In any event, the Trump administration has 'owned' the mission, although we cannot take this at face value. The Pentagon is seriously asking us to believe that after 8 years of conducting periodic airstrikes, cruise missile strikes and drone strikes against Yemeni civilians and rebels in a hi-tech war in the poorest country in the Middle East - the whole time during which it not once (officially) risked the lives of US troops - it suddenly, one week into his presidency, gave executive oversight and operational planning for an apparently hare-brained mission to 'collect hard-drives' from 'AQAP terrorists' hiding out in a village barely located within Saudi-backed, loyalist-held territory... to President Donald 'Celebrity Apprentice' Trump. I have serious doubts that he was fully briefed on the operation, then "gave it the green light." Nothing better illustrates the lack of real power held by US presidents - especially in foreign policy - than the seamless (and, in this case, apparently reckless) military actions carried out by the US, NATO and Gulf Monarchies during the transition from Obama to Trump.

Yemeni (Houthi) firepower

© Unknown
Cannon-mounted pick-ups used by Houthi rebels against the 'Saudi'-led forces: where are they getting these from?
Let's zoom out now and take in some other events taking place in the southern Arabian peninsula lately.

Two days before the US raid, Houthi rebels shot down a Saudi Apache helicopter near the Red Sea port city of Mokha in the southwest of the country. In December, another Saudi Apache helicopter was shot down by the Houthis, this time inside Saudi Arabia, in the kingdom's southern province of Najran. In fact, the Houthis have conducted dozens of cross-border attacks on military targets inside Saudi Arabia, especially since August last year. Most of them involved close-range shelling and fighting for control of border towns and outposts, but the Houthis have also launched ballistic missiles at Saudi military bases. In just one coordinated assault in early December, the Houthis simultaneously took out at least 4 Saudi military bases or command centers in the kingdom's south, with ballistic missiles, then followed those up with intense shelling. The Saudi death toll is unknown, but it's clear their forces took a serious hit.

Just two days ago, there were reports that a ballistic missile fired from Yemen successfully targeted a Saudi military base in Mazahimiyah, 60km from Riyadh. AMN News reported that the missiles used in the attack were surface-to-surface missiles called 'Borkan-2', a "variant of the Russian Scud missile." There is as yet no statement on this from the Saudis, though locals have reported on social media that they heard explosions. Iran's PressTV yesterday cited Houthi spokesmen, who confirmed the missile launches and issued photos of them pre-launch:
© Yemeni military (Houthi forces) via AMN News
And this is purportedly video footage of the missiles being launched Riyadh's way:


If confirmed, this would represent a significant improvement on the Houthis' previous attempt to launch missiles into Saudi Arabia. On October 27th, 2016, they fired a 'Burkan-1' missile at the main airport of Jeddah - which is closer to Sana'a, Yemen's capital, than Riyadh - on Saudi's Red Sea coast. Earlier, on October 11th, another ballistic missile launch targeted Taif, near Mecca, home to Saudi Arabia's King Fahd Air Base. The Saudis said both attacks were intercepted by batteries of US-supplied Patriot missile air-defense systems.

© Unknown
File photo of Iranian Navy vessels
On October 10th, the Pentagon reported that two missiles were fired at the USS Mason off Yemen's Red Sea coast, but "impacted the water before reaching the ship." Two days later, the Pentagon claimed that both the USSMason and the USS Ponce were targeted by Houthi missile strikes and that the ships "exchanged fire". The Houthis - who issue press statements each time they claim to launch attacks - denied firing missiles at either vessels, saying that they never fire at ships outside their territorial waters, and accusing the Americans of inventing these stories to justify intervening on behalf of the failing 'Saudi coalition'. The US then 'retaliated' by firing Tomahawk cruise missiles from the USS Nitze,knocking out three Houthi radar installations. Curiously, on October 13th, Iran then deployed a fleet of warships to the Gulf of Aden "to protect trade vessels from piracy," while the Pentagon told Fox News that "a Chinese warship and Russian intelligence ship were in the region" at the time.

My colleague Joe Quinn wrote here about the Houthis supposedly blowing up an Al-Madina Class Saudi frigate via 'suicide dinghies laden with fertilizer', out at sea mind you, on January 30th, two days after the US Seals' raid. This was no fluke. This is of course difficult to verify - the Saudis and their allies are, naturally, prone to minimizing their losses, just as the Houthis may overestimate their successes - but the Houthis claim that this was the 11th Saudi coalition vessel they've hit in two years of resisting the Saudi onslaught. Such attacks cannot take place without the kinds of radar installations that the US claims to have taken out back in October, so either the US didn't get all the installations or the Houthis are being resupplied with some significant tech. What kicked off the above sequence of events was a successful Houthi missile attack on a US-made, UAE-flagged hybrid catamaran, the HSV-2 Swift, again near the Red Sea port city of Mokha in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in early October 2016. The ship was completely destroyed:


Did you notice the radar technology they have? The missile used was apparently a "C-802, the export-upgraded version of the Chinese anti-ship missile, 'Eagle Strike' YJ-82."

Lately, intense fighting has been taking place in the southwestern tip of the country, where control of the Bab-el-Mandeb strait is a primary target for both sides. Saudi losses in recent battles have been heavy. Iran's Fars News Agency reports that, as of last week, about 450 'Saudi-backed militias' have been killed in the region, including the Saudi coalition's second-highest field commander(Saeed al-Samati al-Sabihi) and "including Saudi-hired mercenaries from other Arab and foreign countries."
© Emirates News Agency
Wreckage of the US-supplied 'UAE' vessel destroyed in a 'Houthi' ballistic missile attack off the Red Sea coast of Yemen in early October 2016.
The Houthis also claim to have knocked out another key installation on Zuqar Island in the Red Sea - with yet another ballistic missile - "killing at least 80 Saudi and UAE soldiers and officers." [See above map for location of Zuqar Island] The Houthi military source relaying this information went on to say that the Saudis' Bab el-Mandeb "operations center is located in Eritrea, and officers and experts from Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are present there." Interestingly, when asked about the US raid in al-Bayda province on January 28th, he said it likely signals a new US strategy to sue for splitting the country along existing battle-lines.

I could go on. Search on Youtube for 'houthis hit saudi tanks' and you'll return dozens of videos showing the Houthi-Saleh forces knocking out Bradley and Abrams tanks across Yemen over the last year or so. Saudi coalition tank losses have been so heavy that the US is having to send them hundreds more. Over his two terms, Obama oversaw the sale of $115 billion worth of weapons and military equipment to Saudi Arabia. I don't know how much of this includes mercenaries' fees, but we do know that Middle Eastern media has routinely reported massive casualty figures among the thousands of the House of Saud's foreign fighters. One report claimed over 4,000 of them had been killed by last March. The notorious US private army DynCorp reportedly entered the fray for $3 billion. As far back as December 2015, British authorities struggled to explain why former British soldiers now fighting under the UAE's flag were turning up dead in Yemen.

US Empire vs Eurasian Alliance


The two key shipping chokepoints either side of the Arabian peninsula
As we've explained elsewhere, the Saudi Royals and Gulf Emirs have no real military forces of their own. Their armies and weapons are Western (US, mainly) in almost every respect. Their 'national militaries' are literally staffed by soldiers, pilots, support crew and senior officers drawn from the ranks of US, British, Australian and other Western militaries. Thanks to the US obsession with the 'interoperability' of the weapons it sells, American, Israeli and British commanders can effectively direct 'Saudi operations' remotely, while passing this off as a 'Saudi' war. It's not; it's a wholly Western war to control Yemen and thus one of the key energy and trade shipping lane 'chokepoints' on the planet - the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean via the Red Sea.

But that's all fairly well established at this point - the US and its allies don't do a good job of hiding their involvement in Yemen. What is new, however, is what the 'opposing side' is doing in this conflict. This war is obviously not about 'fighting al Qaeda', whose head-choppers, we know - thanks to the machinations revealed in Syria - work for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and ultimately Western interests. And this is obviously not about 'fighting pirates' as the Iranians almost mockingly claimed. Between their ballistic missiles, accompanying radar, transport and deployment systems, man-portable air-defense and anti-tank systems, pick-up trucks retrofitted with canons, and apparently endless supply of small arms to successfully resist and defeat the (until now) overwhelming firepower thrown at them, it has become very clear that the plucky Yemenis resisting massive aerial bombardment are receiving some serious support from abroad.
© AP
Beijing and Tehran generals sign a cooperation agreement in November 2016 to "conduct joint military drills" and "create a collective movement to confront the threat of terrorism." This is code for "join forces and take the global proxy 'terror-war' to the US."
Of the original 'Decisive Storm coalition' of Muslim countries that got behind the Saudi invasion of Yemen, only one Gulf state abstained; Oman, and it'sprobably the mule through which most of the rebel forces' weapons are being funneled into the battle-zone. But Iran and Oman alone would not be able to do this without the protection of forces large enough to check US military might. I think what we're seeing here is the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran 'triumvirate' kicking into high gear against the 'Western Empire'.

I think US empire builders did not anticipate the war dragging on this long when they gave the Saudis a green light to blitz Yemen into submission back in January 2015. As a result of the Houthis' unanticipated successes, paranoia is running high in the Pentagon and Riyadh. The US and UK governments are taking a lot of flak back home for selling the Saudis such quantities of arms (for such little return), forcing them to at least officiallyscale down their operational involvement. It's in light of their heavy losses in Yemen that we should consider the recent war rhetoric against Iran.

'Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran' (in Yemen)

© Unknown
"This... this... this can't be happening!"
US National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - who was, ironically, bashed by the US media as being a 'Russian agent' until Trump's inauguration - fired the first volley when he announced that Iran was "being put on notice" for "testing a ballistic missile" in its own backyard, which, he said, "put American lives at risk." But it isn't ballistic missiles in Iran's backyard that concerns him - it's the ballistic missiles the Houthis are lobbing all over the place; missiles that are clearly being supplied to the Houthis by Russia and China via Iran. He also cited Iran for "weapons transfers and support for terrorism," clearly referring to Iran's support for the Houthis in Yemen. The US media - as always, with the kind assistance of anonymous military intelligence officials who are 'unauthorized to speak with the media' - filled in the rest of the story by referring to the supposed 'Houthi attacks' against US warships back in October, which the US used as justification to intervene directly on behalf of its failing proxy (Saudi Arabia). Those attacks probably didn't happen, so between the lines, the US is saying "our Saudi forces were attacked by Iran, and this gives us the right to retaliate directly against Iran." Except that it doesn't, and they know it. They know very well the rules of the game because they created them. And anyway, they can't do anything about it because they know that any potential conflict with Iran implicitly involves Russia and China in one way or another.

The second volley came three days later, when new US War Defense Secretary James Mattis declared that Iran is the world's "biggest state sponsor of terrorism," - like, ever! If, in trying to understand what Mattis meant, you had only the public narratives about Islamic terrorism, al-Qaeda and ISIS to go by, you'd be forgiven for thinking that he had lost his mind (or was just living up to his nick-name). After all, Iran is fighting against ISIS, al-Nusra and all the other jihadi mercenary armies in Syria and Iraq. Ergo, Iran is doing its part to prevent future terror attacks in the West. But if you understand that Mattis was referring to Iran's role in using the Houthis to 'give the Saudis their Vietnam', as the expression goes, then you understand the magnitude of Mattis' declaration. And then you also understand why he followed it up with a whimper:
"It does no good to ignore it [Iran's 'addiction to terrorism']. It does no good to dismiss it and at the same time I don't see any need to increase the number of forces we have in the Middle East at this time. We always have the capability to do so but right now I don't think it's necessary."
© Unknown
Hassan Rouhani, president of Iran: "We figured out the rules of your game, America. It's our time now!"
They can utter 'strong words' publicly, while discretely throwing more money, mercenaries and weapons at the Middle East, but that's about it. Otherwise, if they 'take the fight directly to Iran in Yemen', everything comes full-circle and Yemen becomes America's 'Vietnam'. Risks immediately go way up once you're directly engaging US forces with 'disguised' Russian-Chinese-Iranian forces. Trump then signed off on new anti-Iran sanctions while Israel's Netanyahu rushed to London to petition the UK government to follow suit with more sanctions, calling on all "responsible nations" to impose more sanctions and using his press conference with Prime Minister May to warn the world that "Iran seeks to annihilate Israel, it seeks to conquer the Middle East, it threatens Europe, it threatens the West, it threatens the world."

It's too late now for the Empire to act on such verbal threats to Iran. Trump can tweet late into the night that Iran is "playing with fire", but that doesn't change the fact that it now has the military capability to protect itselffrom US aerial bombardment. On the financial-economic front, thanks to patient diplomatic moves by Iran and its allies over the last decade, the 'Iran nuclear deal' (which of course had little to do with nukes) was agreed last year. That genie is already out of the bottle: mega trade and investment deals have now been lined up between Iran and corporations and governments - from both east and west. Iran is, if anything, emboldened by the shrill protests in Washington, London and Tel Aviv: their response has been to test more missiles and radar systems, and issue counter-sanctions against "US individuals sponsoring terrorism."

It's World War III, Jim, but not as we expected it

© Unknown
The 'petrodollar system' is coming apart at the seams
The stewards of Pax Americana are desperate. Their entire system relies on the petrodollar and control of the Middle East oil spigot. If they lose Yemen, Iran's rise to replace Saudi Arabia as the new regional 'top dog' is cemented. Iran will then be in a position to exert dominance over both of the region's key shipping lane gateways - the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Hormuz. Iran would then replace Saudi Arabia as the primary Middle East oil and gas supplier, and thus inherit the position of 'global energy spigot'. The House of Saud, whose rule is defined by its reliance on the Anglo-Americans, will likely be finished. Israel can kiss its Apartheid state goodbye as it's forced to cooperate with its Arab neighbors on a level playing field. All this adds up to the termination of Western hegemony, bringing the Anglosphere's three centuries of global domination to an end.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. There's 'many a slip twixt cup and lip' as they say.

What is unfolding in Yemen - and Syria, and Iraq, and elsewhere - is that the US is gradually being forced out of the Middle East, thanks to a set of coordinated moves by Russia, China and Iran. Envisioning 'World War III' as a 'grand spectacle' between great powers that ends in nuclear holocaust keeps people in fear and 'on side', distracting them from the ugly business of divvying up the planet's natural (including human) resources, and the real day-to-day horrors this brings to places like Yemen and Libya and Syria. It's not winner-takes-all 'world war'; it's risk-assessed proxy warfare. Non-western countries have learned the (until recently) hidden rules of the game; and they're in the process of applying those rules to turn the tables on the Empire.

'World War III', as it is actually being fought out - and as it has been since 9/11 - is the great unfolding civilizational struggle between 'the West' and 'the rest'.
Avatar

Niall Bradley (Profile)

Niall Bradley has a background in political science and media consulting, and has been an editor and contributing writer at SOTT.net for 8 years. His articles are cross-posted on his personal blog, NiallBradley.net. Niall is co-host of the 'Behind the Headlines' radio show on the Sott Radio Network and co-authored Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False-Flag Terror Attacks with Joe Quinn.


(sott.net)


"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?
2/9/2017 11:22:37 PM

Is Trump Pushing For War With Iran?

By Vin Armani

Trump continues the aggressive agenda against countries in the Middle East who have never harmed or threatened America. In this video, Vin Armani breaks down Trump’s drumbeat for yet another preemptive war with a new enemy – Iran.



Watch the full broadcast here
See Vin speak and hang out in person Feb 25-28th at Anarchapulco

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show on Activist Post, TV Star of Gigolos on Showtime and Agorist Entrepreneur. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher.


(activistpost.com)

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

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!