Another Nuclear Arm For Israel

Big News Network
Germany is to provide the Dolphin-class submarines as a result of secret negotiations which have spanned the last few months.
Israel will pay a substantially discounted price of $1.3 billion for the three submarines.
The deal is expected to be finalised in early November.
Israel, which orchestrated the drive against Iran becoming a nuclear power, and has bombed emerging nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, has itself been developing nuclear weapons since the 1950s. The Dimona nuclear plant in the Negev desert had its origins in 1954, just six years after the birth of Israel. The late Shimon Peres as Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry was responsible for the development of the facility. A pact with France was secretly negotiated and hundreds of French scientists were brought in to develop the facility, in absolute secrecy.
To offset the concerns of satellite surveilance, the Jewish state publicly touted the facility as a business park or textile factory. When U.S. President John Kennedy aroused suspicions in 1963, Israel maintained its denials. Kennedy applied so much pressure, David Ben-Gurion resigned as prime minister of Israel just months before Kennedy was assassinated. Some researchers implicate the Israeli inteligence agency Mossad among those considered responsible for the assassination.
Peres himself was asked point blank by Kennedy if Israel was building a nuclear facility. Summoned to the Oval Room in the White House on a 1963 visit to Washington, the young Peres was asked in his words, ’30 rapid-fire questions,’ before Kennedy asked: “Are you building a nuclear option?” Peres said he changed the subject.
To this day Israel has neither confirmed or denied publicly it has a nuclear facility. The only official statement on Dimona was made on December 21 1960 when Ben-Gurion, in response to an aricle in Time magazine which spawned a flurry of media coverage, announced to the Knesset his government was building “a 24 megawatt reactor which will serve the needs of industry, agriculture, health, and science,” and that it “is designed exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
The Israel Navy until last year had a fleet of four Dolphin-class submarines operating out of its naval base at Haifa. A fifth submarine ariived in late December last year after which it was expected to be fitted with Iraeli-built systems which took several months. It is believed it is operational now.
“Submarines bring a level of intelligence to Israel that cannot be achieved by other units,” Lt.-Cmdr. Y., a past commander of the navy’s submarine school, told The Jerusalem Post in 2014.
“Drones that fly in the air can be shot down,” he said, “but a submarine can stay in enemy territory for weeks, and no one knows it’s there. It can lurk off coastal regions without any problem at all. The level of intelligence this brings is not heard about by the public. All of our operations build on past operations.”
In addition to the new submarines, the Israeli Navy has been working closely with Germany to upgrade its entire combat surface naval fleet. New German-built, Israeli-equipped Sa’ar-6 corvettes will be added to the fleet over the next few years, and new radars and electronic warfare systems are being added to existing Sa’ar-5 and Sa’ar 4.5 ships. By 2024, the upgraded corvettes and missile boats will be joined by four larger Sa’ar-6 combat ships, the result of a 430 million euro deal signed between Israel and Germany last year.
“All the top-side arrangements above the water line are basically a German and Israeli design, tailored for the needs of the Israel Navy and integrated with our own radar, electronic warfare and other systems,” Israel Navy Captain Ariel Shir, head of the Electronic Combat Systems Department in the service’s Materiel Command said when the deal was announced last year.
“Now that the contract is signed on the Sa’ar-6 ships, we’re starting to contract for the subsystems,” Shir said at the time.

Just The Tip of the Russian Nuclear Iceberg

Oren Dorell | USA TODAY22 hours ago
Worrisome signs include increased talk about using nuclear weapons, more military maneuvers with nuclear arms, development of advanced nuclear munitions and public discussion of a new war doctrine that accelerates the use of such weapons.
“Russia is exercising its military forces and its nuclear force more offensively than it used to do,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. How to respond “is hotly debated in NATO,” he said.
“Eastern European countries want a robust response, even on the nuclear side,” Kristensen said. “Western countries want NATO to take conventional steps. There’s a lack of appetite in NATO overall to go too gung-ho in the nuclear realm right now.”
The temporary deployment in Kaliningrad, which Russia retained after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, was part of a training exercise, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov.
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite called the deployment an “open demonstration of power and aggression against not the Baltic states but against European capitals.”
A senior Obama administration official told USA TODAY the United States and its European allies are closely monitoring the situation in Kaliningrad and encouraged Russia to refrain from actions that increase tensions with its neighbors. The official did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The official pointed out that last month, Russia pulled out of a joint U.S.-Russian agreement to monitor each other’s disposal of plutonium fuel from dismantled nuclear weapons. Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling risks creating miscalculations and misunderstandings in a crisis, the official said.
Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, have complained about Russia’s lack of compliance with its obligations under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The treaty bars the production, testing or deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles.
Russian officials have employed similar nuclear threats since the seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea province in 2014.
In March 2015, while Denmark considered participating in a NATO missile shield, Russia’s ambassador to Copenhagen, Mikhail Vanin, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten that Danes should consider that such a move would prompt Russia to target Danish warships with nuclear missiles.
In August 2014, after the Crimean invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded an audience at a youth camp “that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers,” and “it’s best not to mess with us.”
Analyst Peter Doran of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington said Russia’s foreign policy and war-fighting strategy are “evolving faster than our responses can keep up.”
Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said NATO officials and other observers disagree on whether the rhetoric and surge in nuclear activity is a bluff to counter superior NATO forces, or part of a new Russian strategy that combines nuclear threats, conventional warfare and low-yield nuclear weapons in the battlefield against NATO forces that are more numerous and technologically advanced.
“If you’re Vladimir Putin, you’re making an effort to portray Russia as a superpower,” Pifer said. “The only asset Russia has as a superpower is lots of nuclear weapons.”
Pifer said he would like to see U.S. leaders provide “more public pushback against the Russians” on the issue.
In a speech to U.S. nuclear personnel at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said American forces are working to match the Russian threat, though he acknowledged they have some catching up to do.
“We’re refreshing NATO’s nuclear playbook to better integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence to ensure we plan and train like we’d fight and to deter Russia from thinking it can benefit from nuclear use in a conflict with NATO,” Carter said.
The most likely scenario for nuclear weapons to be used in battle is not a massive and apocalyptic exchange, Carter said, “but rather the unwise resort to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks, for example, by Russia or North Korea to try to coerce a conventionally superior opponent to back off or abandon an ally during a crisis.”
Russia’s more advanced tactical nuclear arsenal is designed to blunt the advantage provided by superior U.S. technology and NATO forces.
To counter U.S. stealth aircraft that use jamming technology to keep their exact location invisible to enemy radar, Russia has nuclear-tipped supersonic anti-aircraft missiles that would create a large enough blast in the general vicinity to take out an entire formation of allied aircraft.
Russia also has nuclear-tipped torpedoes, depth charges and missiles to counter U.S. Navy nuclear-armed submarines and aircraft carrier groups. It has plans for a nuclear-armed submersible drone that would contaminate a port with radiation so it could not be used.
The United States had many of the same tactical nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it got rid of most of them after the Soviet collapse, said Matthew Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University.
If there’s a conflict, Russia has a strategy to use nuclear weapons on a limited basis to force the United States and the West to back down, he said.

The Ramapo Fault and the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Living on the Fault Line

A major earthquake isn’t likely here, but if it comes, watch out.
Posted June 15, 2010 by Wayne J. Guglielmo
‘); min-height: 95px; min-width: 60px; outline: transparent solid 0px; position: absolute; top: 50%; width: 384px; z-index: 100;”>EditRamapo_Fault_Line
The couple checked with Burns’s parents, who live in nearby Basking Ridge, and they, too, had heard and felt something, which they thought might have been an earthquake. A call by Burns some 20 minutes later to the Bernardsville Police Department—one of many curious and occasionally panicky inquiries that Sunday morning, according to the officer in charge, Sergeant John Remian—confirmed their suspicion: A magnitude 2.6 earthquake, its epicenter in Peapack/Gladstone, about seven miles from Bernardsville, had hit the area. A smaller aftershock followed about two and a half hours later.
After this year’s epic earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, Mexico, Indonesia, and China, the 2.6 quake and aftershock that shook parts of New Jersey in February may seem minor league, even to the Somerset County residents who experienced them. On the exponential Richter Scale, a magnitude 7.0 quake like the one that hit Haiti in January is almost 4 million times stronger than a quake of 2.6 magnitude. But comparisons of magnitude don’t tell the whole story.
Northern New Jersey straddles the Ramapo Fault, a significant ancient crack in the earth’s crust. The longest fault in the Northeast, it begins in Pennsylvania and moves into New Jersey, trending northeast through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic, and Bergen counties before terminating in New York’s Westchester County, not far from the Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant. And though scientists dispute how active this roughly 200 million-year-old fault really is, many earthquakes in the state’s surprisingly varied seismic history are believed to have occurred on or near it. The fault line is visible at ground level and likely extends as deep as nine miles below the surface.
During the past 230 years or so, New Jersey has been at the epicenter of nearly 170 earthquakes, according to data compiled by the New Jersey Geological Survey, part of the United States Department of Environmental Protection. The largest known quake struck in 1783, somewhere west of New York City, perhaps in Sussex County. It’s typically listed as 5.3 in magnitude, though that’s an estimate by seismologists who are quick to point out that the concept of magnitude—measuring the relative size of an earthquake—was not introduced until 1935 by Charles Richter and Beno Gutenberg. Still, for quakes prior to that, scientists are not just guessing.
“We can figure out the damage at the time by going back to old records and newspaper accounts,” says Won-Young Kim, a senior research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, directly across the New Jersey border. “Once the amount and extent of contemporary damage has been established,” Kim says, “we’re then able to gauge the pattern of ground shaking or intensity of the event—and from there extrapolate its probable magnitude.”
Other earthquakes of magnitude 5 or higher have been felt in New Jersey, although their epicenters laying near New York City. One—which took place in 1737 and was said to have been felt as far north as Boston and as far south as northern Delaware—was probably in the 5 to 5.5 range. In 1884, an earthquake of similar magnitude occurred off New York’s Rockaway Beach. This well-documented event pulled houses off their foundations and caused steeples to topple as far west as Rahway. The shock wave, scientists believe, was felt over 70,000 square miles, from Vermont to Maryland.
Among the largest sub-5 magnitude earthquakes with epicenters in New Jersey, two (a 3.8 and a 4.0) took place on the same day in 1938 in the Lakehurst area in Ocean County. On August 26, 2003, a 3.5 magnitude quake shook the Frenchtown/Milford area in Hunterdon County. On February 3 of last year, a 3.0 magnitude quake occurred in the Morris County town of Mendham. “A lot of people felt this one because of the intense shaking, although the area of intensity wasn’t very wide,” says Lamont-Doherty’s Kim, who visited the site after the event.
After examining the known historical and geological record, Kim and other seismologists have found no clear evidence that an earthquake of greater than 5.3 to 5.5 magnitude has taken place in this area going back to 1737. This doesn’t mean, of course, that one did not take place in the more remote past or that one will not occur in the future; it simply means that a very large quake is less likely to occur here than in other places in the east where the seismic hazard is greater, including areas in South Carolina and northeastern New York State.
Given this low-hazard, high-vulnerability scenario, how far along are scientists in their efforts to predict larger magnitude earthquakes in the New Jersey area? The answer is complex, complicated by the state’s geographical position, its unique geological history, the state of seismology itself, and the continuing debate over the exact nature and activity of the Ramapo Fault.
Over millions of years, New Jersey developed four distinct physiographic provinces or regions, which divide the state into a series of diagonal slices, each with its own terrain, rock type, and geological landforms.
The northernmost slice is the Valley and Ridge, comprising major portions of Sussex and Warren counties. The southernmost slice is the Coastal Plain, a huge expanse that covers some three-fifths of the state, including all of the Shore counties. Dividing the rest of the state are the Highlands, an area for the most part of solid but brittle rock right below the Valley and Ridge, and the lower lands of the Piedmont, which occupy all of Essex, Hudson, and Union counties, most of Bergen, Hunterdon, and Somerset, and parts of Middlesex, Morris, and Passaic.
For earthquake monitors and scientists, the formation of these last two provinces—the Highlands and the Piedmont—are of special interest. To understand why, consider that prior to the appearance of the Atlantic Ocean, today’s Africa was snuggled cozily up against North America and surrounded by a single enormous ocean. “At that point, you could have had exits off the New Jersey Turnpike for Morocco,” says Alexander Gates, professor of geology and chair of the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Rutgers-Newark.
Under the pressure of circulating material within the Earth’s super-hot middle layer, or mantle, what was once a single continent—one that is thought to have included today’s other continents as well—began to stretch and eventually break, producing numerous cracks or faults and ultimately separating to form what became the Atlantic Ocean. In our area, the longest and most active of these many cracks was the Ramapo Fault, which, through a process known as normal faulting, caused one side of the earth’s crust to slip lower—the Piedmont—relative to the other side—the Highlands. “All this occurred about 225 million years ago,” says Gates. “Back then, you were talking about thousands of feet between the Highlands and the Piedmont and a very active Ramapo Fault.”
The Earth’s crust, which is 20 to 25 miles thick, is not a single, solid shell, but is broken into seven vast tectonic plates, which drift atop the soft, underlying mantle. Although the northeast-trending Ramapo Fault neatly divides two of New Jersey’s four physiographic provinces, it does not form a so-called plate boundary, as does California’s infamous San Andreas Fault. As many Californians know all too well, this giant fault forms the boundary between two plates—to the west, the Pacific Plate, and to the east, the North American Plate; these rub up against each other, producing huge stresses and a regularly repeating pattern of larger earthquakes.
This second bit of uncertainty is especially troubling for some people, including some in the media who want a neat story. To get around it, they ignore the differences between plate settings and link all of New Jersey’s earthquakes, either directly or implicitly, to the Ramapo Fault. In effect, such people want the Ramapo Fault “to look like the San Andreas Fault,” says Gates. “They want to be able to point to one big fault that’s causing all of our earthquakes.”
Gates does not think that’s the case, and he has been working with colleagues for a number of years to prove it. “What we have found is that there are smaller faults that generally cut from east to west across the northeast-trending Ramapo Fault,” he explains. “These much smaller faults are all over the place, and they’re actually the ones that are the active faults in the area.”
But what mechanisms are responsible for the formation of these apparently active auxiliary faults? One such mechanism, say scientists, is the westward pressure the Atlantic Ocean exerts on the North American Plate, which for the most part resists any movement. “I think we are in an equilibrium state most of the time,” says Lamont-Doherty’s Kim.
Still, that continuous pressure on the plate we sit on causes stress, and when that stress builds up sufficiently, the earth’s crust has a tendency to break around any weak zones. In our area, the major weak zone is the Ramapo Fault—“an ancient zone of weakness,” as Kim calls it. That zone of weakness exacerbates the formation of auxiliary faults, and thereby the series of minor earthquakes the state has experienced over the years.
All this presupposes, of course, that any intraplate stress in this area will continue to be released gradually, in a series of relatively minor earthquakes or releases of energy. But what if that were not the case? What if the stress continued to build up, and the release of large amounts of energy came all at once? In crude terms, that’s part of the story behind the giant earthquakes that rocked what is now New Madrid, Missouri, between 1811 and 1812. Although estimates of their magnitude have been revised downward in recent years to less than magnitude 8, these earthquakes are generally regarded as among the largest intraplate events to have occurred in the continental United States.
For a number of reasons—including the relatively low odds that the kind of stored energy that unleashed the New Madrid events could ever build up here—earthquakes of plus-6 magnitude are probably not in our future. Still, says Kim, even a magnitude 6 earthquake in certain areas of the state could do considerable damage, especially if its intensity or ground shaking was of sufficient strength. In a state as geologically diverse and densely populated as New Jersey, this is a crucial wild card.
Part of the job of the experts at the New Jersey Geological Survey is to assess the seismic hazards in different parts of the state. To do this, they use a computer-simulation model developed under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as HAZUS, for Hazards US. To assess the amount of ground shaking likely to occur in a given county during events ranging in magnitude from 5 to 7 on the Richter Scale, NJGS scientists enter three features of a county’s surface geology into their computer model. Two of these features relate to the tendency of soil in a given area to lose strength, liquefy, or slide downhill when shaken. The third and most crucial feature has to do with the depth and density of the soil itself and the type of bedrock lying below it; this is a key component in determining a region’s susceptibility to ground shaking and, therefore, in estimating the amount of building and structural damage that’s likely to occur in that region. Estimates for the various counties—nine to date have been studied—are sent to the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, which provided partial funding for the project.
To appreciate why this element of ground geology is so crucial to earthquake modelers, consider the following: An earthquake’s intensity—which is measured on something called the Modified Mercalli Scale—is related to a number of factors. The amount of energy released or the magnitude of an event is clearly a big factor. But two earthquakes of the same magnitude can have very different levels of intensity; in fact, it’s quite possible for a lower magnitude event to generate more ground shaking than a higher magnitude one.
In addition to magnitude, other factors that affect intensity are the distance of the observer or structure from the epicenter, where intensity is the greatest; the depth beneath the surface of the initial rupture, with shallower ruptures producing more ground shaking than deeper ones; and, most significantly, the ground geology or material that the shock wave generated by the earthquake must pass through.
As a rule, softer materials like sand and gravel shake much more intensely than harder materials, because the softer materials are comparatively inefficient energy conductors, so whatever energy is released by the quake tends to be trapped, dispersing much more slowly. (Think of a bowl of Jell-O on a table that’s shaking.)
In contrast, harder materials, like the solid rock found widely in the Highlands, are brittle and break under pressure, but conduct energy well, so that even big shock waves disperse much more rapidly through them, thereby weakening the amount of ground shaking. “If you’ve read any stories about the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, you know the most intense damage was in those flat, low areas by the Bay, where the soil is soft, and not in the hilly, rocky areas above,” says Karl Muessig, state geologist and NJGS head.
The map that accompanies the online version of the NJGS’s Earthquake Loss Estimation Study divides the state’s surface geology into five seismic soil classes, ranging from Class A, or hard rock, to Class E, or soft soil (
Although the weakest soils are scattered throughout the state, including the Highlands, which besides harder rock also contains areas of glacial lakes, clays, and wetlands, they are most evident in the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. “The largest expanses of them are in coastal areas where you have salt marshes or large glacial lakes, as in parts of the Passaic River basin,” says Scott Stanford, a research scientist with NJGS and lead author of the estimate. Some of the very weakest soils, Stanford adds, are in areas of filled marshland, including places along the Hudson waterfront, around Newark Bay and the Meadowlands, and along the Arthur Kill.
Faults in these areas—and in the coastal plain generally—are far below the ground, perhaps several hundred to a thousand feet down, making identification difficult. “There are numerous faults upon which you might get earthquake movement that we can’t see, because they’re covered by younger sediments,” Stanford says.
This combination of hidden faults and weak soils worries scientists, who are all too aware that parts of the coastal plain and Piedmont are among the most densely populated and developed areas in the state. (The HAZUS computer model also has a “built environment” component, which summarizes, among other things, types of buildings in a given area.) For this reason, such areas would be in the most jeopardy in the event of a large earthquake.
For example, in the study’s loss estimate for Essex County, which includes Newark, the state’s largest city, a magnitude 6 event would result in damage to 81,600 buildings, including almost 10,000 extensively or completely; 36,000 people either displaced from their homes or forced to seek short-term shelter; almost $9 million in economic losses from property damage and business interruption; and close to 3,300 injuries and 50 fatalities. (The New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation has conducted a similar assessment for New York City, at
All of this suggests the central irony of New Jersey geology: The upland areas that are most prone to earthquakes—the counties in or around the Ramapo Fault, which has spawned a network of splays, or auxiliary faults—are much less densely populated and sit, for the most part, on good bedrock. These areas are not invulnerable, certainly, but, by almost all measures, they would not sustain very severe damage, even in the event of a higher magnitude earthquake. The same can’t be said for other parts of the state, where the earthquake hazard is lower but the vulnerability far greater. Here, the best we can do is to prepare—both in terms of better building codes and a constantly improving emergency response.
Meanwhile, scientists like Rutgers’s Gates struggle to understand the Earth’s quirky seismic timetable: “The big thing with earthquakes is that you can commonly predict where they are going to occur,” Gates says. “When they’re going to come, well, we’re nowhere near being able to figure that out.”
For the men and women of the state police who manage and support the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the response to some events, like hurricanes, can be marshalled in advance. But an earthquake is what responders call a no-notice event.
In New Jersey, even minor earthquakes—like the one that shook parts of Somerset County in February—attract the notice of local, county, and OEM officials, who continuously monitor events around the state from their Regional Operations and Intelligence Center (The ROIC) in West Trenton, a multimillion dollar command-and-control facility that has been built to withstand 125 mph winds and a 5.5 magnitude earthquake. In the event of a very large earthquake, during which local and county resources are apt to become quickly overwhelmed, command and control authority would almost instantly pass to West Trenton.
Here, officials from the state police, representatives of a galaxy of other state agencies, and a variety of communications and other experts would assemble in the cavernous and ultra-high tech Emergency Operations Center to oversee the state’s response. “A high-level earthquake would definitely cause the governor to declare a state of emergency,” says OEM public information officer Nicholas J. Morici. “And once that takes place, our emergency operations plan would be put in motion.”
Emergency officials have modeled that plan—one that can be adapted to any no-notice event, including a terrorist attack—on response methodologies developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. At its core is a series of seventeen emergency support functions, ranging from transportation to firefighting, debris removal, search and rescue, public health, and medical services. A high-magnitude event would likely activate all of these functions, says Morici, along with the human and physical resources needed to carry them out—cranes and heavy trucks for debris removal, fire trucks and teams for firefighting, doctors and EMTs for medical services, buses and personnel carriers for transportation, and so on.
This is where an expert like Tom Rafferty comes in. Rafferty is a Geographic Information Systems Specialist attached to the OEM. His job during an emergency is to keep track electronically of which resources are where in the state, so they can be deployed quickly to where they are needed. “We have a massive database called the Resource Directory Database in which we have geolocated municipal, county, and state assets to a very detailed map of New Jersey,” Rafferty says. “That way, if there is an emergency like an earthquake going on in one area, the emergency managers can quickly say to me, for instance, ‘We have major debris and damage on this spot of the map. Show us the location of the nearest heavy hauler. Show us the next closest location,’ and so on.”
A very large quake, Rafferty says, “could overwhelm resources that we have as a state.” In that event, OEM has the authority to reach out to FEMA for additional resources and assistance. It can also call upon the private sector—the Resource Directory has been expanded to include non-government assets—and to a network of volunteers. “No one has ever said, ‘We don’t want to help,’” Rafferty says. New Jersey officials can also request assistance through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), an agreement among the states to help each other in times of extreme crisis.
“You always plan for the worst,” Rafferty says, “and that way when the worst doesn’t happen, you feel you can handle it if and when it does.”
Contributing editor Wayne J. Guglielmo lives in M

How Obama Created The Libyan Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8)

The country is still in chaos, five years after the fall of former Libyan dictator October 20, 2011.
This article appeared on October 24, 2011 . We are republishing this October 20 on the occasion of five years of the death of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi .
Yielding to a feeling of overwhelming helplessness and vague absurdity, I borrowed an iPad Thursday afternoon to send my very first message with this tool. It was addressed to one of these distinguished French who asked the most active on the international community to dislodge Muammar Gaddafi from his obscene toad position in which, for over forty years, it is spread over the life of the people Libyan. Please, I wrote, intercede with your friends from the National Transitional Council , as well as with any of the revolutionary tribunal to be constituted, to stop the killing of Gaddafi family and ensure a smooth transition to the bench defendants from the Hague to those already charged with crimes against humanity.
A implicitly desired removal
Rather simple? This is a moment that the International Criminal Court in The Hague announced that it was ready to take charge of affairs of Libya. But now Gaddafi is dead and, it seems, that one of his son, Mouatassim [confirmed information from the writing of this article, ndt], and not a word about the legality or propriety of all this case has yet been uttered. No Libyan spokesman has even referred to the court in the ads of the late dictator disgusting.
The president of the United States made a speech that suggested the possibility of an indictment had not even been mentioned. And it was in this perfectly followed by his secretary of state, returning from a trip to Libya, who settled for a few joyful projections, noting in particular that the transition would be facilitated if Gaddafi were to die . British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has yet found time to mention the victims of international terror years of Gaddafi , has also failed to mention the possibility of a lawsuit.
This tacit agreement, among others, convinces me that no sort of general instruction was ever given to the forces tightened their noose on Gaddafi in his hometown of Sirte. No instructions like, kill it if absolutely necessary, but try to stop it and send it (along with others mentioned by name, be it family members or not) in the Netherlands. In any case, it seems certain that if an order of this style has been formulated, it has not been very strong.
Between revenge and healthy reconstruction
While ends obscene regime, which notably showed that he preferred to destroy society and the state, rather than give up power, it is very natural that people aspire to a kind of exorcism. It is satisfying to see the cadaver of the monster and make sure it will not come back. It is also reassuring to know that there is no leadership to which hate any kind of resistance “werewolf” could converge to perpetuate suffering and atrocities. But when he was killed, Gaddafi was wounded and out of harm’s way, and at the head of a small group of thugs terrified.
He was unable to resist in any way. And all positive results that I mentioned above could have been obtained by working simply to send it to the hospital and then in jail and from there to the airport. Indeed, a small living Gaddafi on the dock would surely have done much to enhance the positive impact, as the illusions of the poor misguided souls who were still trust him would not have survived shoplifting, even for a few hours , the mad ramblings of court.
And here is born the new Libya, including the birth is marked by a sordid lynching. Media correspondents did not hide a certain enthusiasm for the spirit of general tolerance shown by the rebels in the faithful location of Gaddafi and their property. This makes it even more regrettable that this principle could not be honored when it was most crucial. As I write this, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi , a son of Muammar, is still at large. This would be a real shame if he were also killed without any trial, or at least the NTC and the international community do not remind their soldiers he must be legally stopped.
My intention is not to show undue sympathy Saif or other wanted persons. But he, in particular, is the repository of a huge amount of potentially useful information about the nature of the fallen regime and perhaps even hiding concealing material strategic-not to mention the huge sums of money, property right of the Libyan people. It would be criminal in every sense, to participate in the destruction of evidence. And I have to clarify that Gaddafi grandfather utility in the still underdeveloped field of the study of megalomania had no price. Yet countless victims will have no other satisfaction than seeing a character wandering bloodied and treated with brutality and in full panic, whose sufferings were cut short by a shot that has absolutely nothing brought to safety from the country.
I was in Romania on the day that Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were hastily done , and Mosul yesterday from where Uday and Qusay Hussein were trapped, strafed and bombed fatally in a house without issue. In both cases, the relief felt by the population was palpable. There is no doubt that public disposal of old symbols of torture and fear has an emancipating effect, at least in the short term.
But I would say its profits decline rapidly, which became evident in Iraq when unpolished acolytes of Muqtada al-Sadr were instructed to drive the execution of Saddam Hussein . Sectarian scars of this sordid episode sloppy are still apparent, and I would be very surprised if the same kind of resentment was not born among many Libyans on Thursday. It is too late to repair. But it would be a shame that the Gaddafi family continues to be decimated, and insulting that the summons to the Hague remains ignored.
By Christopher Hitchens

The Scarlet Woman And The Nuclear Bomb (Rev 17:4)

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Hillary Clinton’s Disclosure of Nuclear Response Times During Debate Was ‘Unconscionable’
21 Oct 2016
On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, talked about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s clash over Russia at the third presidential debate.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, if there is anybody who’s been in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, it is Hillary Clinton. Everybody needs to have out there, the millennials that they know, their nephews, their nieces, just watch Clinton Cash on YouTube,” Gorka said. “The fact that 20 percent of our uranium was sold to Kremlin front companies, in a deal that was signed off by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, means if there’s anybody who can be bought by the Kremlin, it’s Hillary Clinton.”
“That happened when her husband was receiving $120 million speaking fee from the same companies that bought the uranium,” Gorka noted.
“I have to give great credit to your callers,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “Your show is really about the callers. They see through this. They understand that there’s the mainstream media spin, and most often, it is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If Trump were some kind of puppet for Moscow, wouldn’t this man have casinos in Kaliningrad? Wouldn’t he have giant Trump Towers in Moscow? He doesn’t. That tells you everything you need to know. Reality is completely the reverse of what anybody else inside the mainstream media would have you believe.”
One of those callers joined the conversation at that point to observe that audiences for mainstream media outlets like CNN were given a very different perspective on the debate than people who watched it without such a media filter.
“I think that the real story will be that there is, perhaps, a majority of people out there who simply have had enough,” said Gorka. “Look at the viewing figures for stations like CNN. I think it tells you everything. Look at the figures for Breitbart, the viewers and clicks. I think that’s the hidden story of this election – that the mainstream media believes they still dominate, but I think in two weeks’ time, two-and-a-half weeks’ time, there’s going to be potentially a very big surprise for those people who think they still speak for America and can control what America sees, whether it’s the debates, whether it’s any kind of reporting on any issue, whether it’s the border, or the economy.”
“Just the polls themselves – look at the poll figures, and then look at the Trump rallies,” he suggested. “Again, spin versus reality. Look at the fact that Hillary seems to be leading everywhere, if you listen to the polls, and then just watch the turnout for her campaign events. I think that tells you everything you need to know.”
Gorka was pleased that national security has been such an important theme in the 2016 presidential debates, pausing to issue a disclaimer that he has provided national security advice to Donald Trump in the past, “long before anybody took him seriously.”
“I’m not part of his campaign, but I’ve spoken to this man on more than one occasion about the big issues, such as ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” he clarified.
With that disclosure made, Gorka faulted Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their advisers for clumsy handling of major foreign policy issues, agreeing with Donald Trump’s criticism that Clinton and Obama constantly telegraph their moves to the enemy.
“It’s not just Hillary. It’s her coterie. It is the liberal elite. The Obama administration has done exactly the same,” he noted. “Every major deployment in Iraq, every major operation, has been announced in advance, which is anathema to just the most basic principles of warfare. And it’s fascinating. This isn’t a new thing. Her husband did exactly the same thing, during the Balkan wars. Your callers may not recall, but he actually announced before our engagement in the Balkans, he said, ‘I refuse, and I will never put boots on the ground in Yugoslavia.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar? Haven’t you heard somebody else say that, in this current presidential campaign?”
“Telegraphing in advance what you’re going to do is dynamite for the opposition, for your enemy, because then they will prepare to exploit that against you,” Gorka explained. “Look, even after the WikiLeaks became more and more uncomfortable for Hillary, what did we have the vice president do on national television? Announce that, well, they’ve decided Russia is behind all of this, and we’re going to launch a cyber-attack against them, at a time of our choosing. If you read that in a Tom Clancy novel, you’d say, ‘Has Tom lost it?’ Nobody does this.”
“Mr. Trump’s point that he understands we are at war – I can assure your listeners, he knows we are at war, and he wants to win this war, but he’s not going to tell the enemy what we’re going to do. It’s a very, very, valid point,” he said.
Marlow brought up an overlooked moment from the third debate, when Clinton inadvertently revealed some sensitive information about U.S. response times to nuclear attack. Gorka said he wanted to address this issue “in a certain way, if you’ll permit me, as somebody who actually cares for the security of the Republic and who lives in the national security arena.”
From that perspective, he declined to comment on “the veracity, or lack thereof, of what she said.”
“Just one thing has to be drawn, one conclusion has to be drawn: the whole platform of the Hillary campaign, that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief, he’s not stable, he can’t be trusted – all of that applies to her, and solely to her,” Gorka said. “Anybody who puts Top Secret/SCI super-classified information on a private homebrew server, and then talks about our nuclear reaction times on live television, in front of tens of millions of people – that woman should not be allowed – I know this is a line Mr. Trump has borrowed from me, but I have to use it – that individual should not be allowed to run for local dog catcher, let alone the most powerful person in the world. It is unconscionable what she did on national television, and the fact the liberal media is giving her heat on that tells you everything you need to know.”
Gorka turned to the chaos currently engulfing two key cities in the Middle East, Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Aleppo.
“What we have is this group of – a very heterogenous military force has deployed to Mosul. Again, this was announced weeks in advance by the current administration. We have the Sunni elements of the standing Iraqi army. We have elements of the Kurdish Peshmerga. And, on top of that – this is perhaps the most problematic – we have so-called ‘mobilization forces,’ which are made up Shia former militias, working together, hopefully, to take Mosul with our brave men, and some of our women, as well, as advisers providing training, providing intelligence, and also bombing capabilities for those forces,” Gorka explained.
“The idea is to recapture the second-biggest city in Iraq, which isn’t just important for the size of the city, but because this is the location where, in June 2014, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared formally the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the new empire of Islam,” he noted. “So Mosul is very, very important. The problem with this operation is the very mixed nature of who’s fighting. They have very, very different interests in terms of the future of Iraq.”
“And the biggest problem of all: you can launch an attack to capture a city – but what happens if you capture it?” he asked. “Are you going to stay there? Are the local Sunnis going to allow Shia or Kurds to stay in the region? And what happens when the fighters come back? It’s like squeezing a balloon. You can push the fighters out, but sooner or later, if you haven’t killed all of them, they will be back.”
As for Aleppo, Gorka called it a “tragedy,” saying that “the last five years in Syria are truly a humanitarian disaster.”
“Here again, we have reality, and we have spin,” he said. “The idea that somehow, we’re going to have a cooperative Russia assist us in stopping the killing and bring stability to that nation is a fantasy. The whole Obama administration’s policy is based on an article of faith that is, again, just phantasmagorical – the idea that Assad must go.”
“Whatever the desperate situation in Aleppo, Assad is not going anywhere,” Gorka noted regretfully. “As long as that man enjoys the support not only of Russia, but Iran and even China, this is a head of state that isn’t going anywhere – unless, of course, America wishes to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran, which is not advisable right now.”
“So we have to stabilize the region. We have to realize that only a political resolution is realistic. And unfortunately, the current powers-that-be in Washington simply do not understand that,” he said.
Dr. Gorka’s parting thought was to “reinforce that November the 8th is primarily about one issue, as far as I’m concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me: it’s about which person do you think is going to keep you and your family safe.”
“So when you’re going to the polling booth, and please bring as many people with you as you can, remember it’s a choice between Hillary – Servergate, Benghazi, nuclear launch times – and a man who believes we are at war with the jihadists and wishes to win. It really is quite that simple, Alex,” he said.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Turkey Will Be Cursed By The Antichrist (Daniel 8:8)

Al Monitor
Turkey’s foreign policy is subject to bizarre cycles, and nowhere is that clearer than in the following example:
As the dialogue between Ankara and Baghdad turned into angry threats, Erdogan warned, “We are determined to be in the Mosul operation. If coalition forces don’t want Turkey, then our B plan will enter into force. If not that, we have plan C.”
What plans B and C are is open to speculation. There are many who see Erdogan’s threat as a bluff he hopes will portray him as a strong leader, but there are also some who think Turkey is liable to seek a new adventure similar to its outing in Syria.
Plans B and C suggest Turkey is using tactics against the coalition to find a place in the Mosul operation or to create a buffer zone along the border, as was done in Syria. Should there be a massive refugee wave, Turkey could use that to legitimize active intervention. Turkey is working on emergency plans to cope with such a refugee influx or Islamic State (IS) infiltration attempts. There is talk of a 10-kilometer-wide (6-mile-wide) buffer zone in Iraq, similar to the corridor from Jarablus to al-Rai in Syria.
It will be difficult to establish a buffer zone without the consent of Erbil, Baghdad, Iran and the United States. Erdogan keeps saying, “We did it in Syria; we will do it also in Iraq,” but he forgets that the United States and Russia weren’t against Turkey entering Syria.
US Defense Secretary Ash Carter met Oct. 21 with Turkish officials in Ankara and said Turkey should play a role in removing IS from Mosul, but Iraq will make the final decision.
That’s quite a bit less supportive than a meeting that supposedly took place Oct. 18 in Washington, when the US reportedly gave Ankara the green light to participate in air operations in Iraq. Prime Minister Binali Yildirim announced an agreement between Turkish Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar and US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. He said the agreement stipulates Turkish planes will be directed by the Mosul Command Center in Kuwait and used to bomb IS targets where there are no risks of civilian casualties. Coalition planes based at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base are to be used for these operations, according to the announcement, and Turkey’s Diyarbakir air base is to be designated as the communications, search and rescue center of the air operations.
Yildirim said Turkey would join the coalition air operations if there is a need and request for it. Although it is not yet clear if the coalition will assign missions to Turkish jets, the reported green light from Washington is enough for Ankara to brag and say, “We pushed for it and got it.”
This agreement does not cover the Turkish soldiers at Bashiqa camp, although the main issue was about Turkey being in the field. Ankara wants to demonstrate its involvement by using its four howitzers at Bashiqa; but for that, the coalition has to provide the coordinates. So far it hasn’t, and the guns are silent.
Meanwhile, Turkey is pressing hard diplomatically to keep its soldiers at Bashiqa. On Oct. 18, a delegation headed by Umit Yalcin, the undersecretary of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, was in Baghdad to negotiate. On the table once again were Turkey’s warnings against Shiite militias entering Mosul, fear of possible massacres by Sunni Turkmens at Tal Afar and expansion of the Kurdistan Workers Party’s (PKK) presence in Sinjar. According to Al Jazeera, Ankara’s formula to retain the Turkish forces at Bashiqa is to place that camp within the coalition framework. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the talks in Baghdad were positive and negotiations will continue with an Iraqi delegation expected in Ankara. But the Iraqi Foreign Ministry announced no progress was made in the talks.
Turkey has been saying its ground forces have been invited to Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Turkmens. But no such request came from either camp. KRG leader Massoud Barzani knows that to consolidate his control of the disputed areas, he needs Baghdad’s partnership. That is why he is saying, probably much to Ankara’s disappointment, “There must be a way to reconcile Ankara and Baghdad about the presence of Turkish soldiers. We don’t think a force should participate in the operation without Baghdad’s consent.” He is simply not playing Ankara’s game. In return for his crucial contribution to the operation, Barzani wants to control the area east of the Tigris River that divides the city and to make his de facto rule of Kirkuk a permanent one.
Turkmens are already upset and desperate. Erdogan, by declaring that only Sunnis should have a role in the future of Mosul, actually delivered the final blow to fractured ties between Turkey and the mostly Shiite Turkmens.
Contradictions in the Mosul issue don’t end there. Ankara, while pressing with all its might to participate in that operation, is also claiming that the operation is actually against Turkey, according to sources who spoke to the daily Milliyet.
Relations are becoming more toxic as tensions mount, with a true risk of clashes. At the moment, the Bashiqa camp — with about 400 Turkish soldiers — is not secure because of Iraqi forces deployed around it. A source in Mosul told Al-Monitor that some heavy Iraqi guns are pointing at the camp.
This tension will also have implications for the economy. In some Iraqi provinces, there are calls for Turkish companies to be expelled. The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a warning about travel to Iraq. Nevertheless, Erdogan seems intent on punishing Iraq with his rhetoric. While doing that he is citing border arguments of 100 years ago. He has repeatedly referred to the “National Pact” of post-independence days that showed western Thrace, Mosul, Kirkuk and Erbil within Turkey’s borders. On Oct. 18, Erdogan said, “If we comprehend the National Pact, then we will understand our responsibilities for Iraq and Syria. Today we have responsibility for Mosul. If we are saying we will be both in the field and at the table, there is a reason for it. … What you call Baghdad today commands a totally Shiite army. Are we going to talk to those people? They are going to deliver Mosul to Hashd al-Shaabi [Popular Mobilization Units]. If they really want to come, we will teach them. We will be here, in the field and at the table. Talks at the table are going on and preparations continue for the field.”
Ankara feels that allowing a Shiite belt to extend to Mosul and Kirkuk would force Turkey to strategically withdraw.
Ankara also thinks the defense of Turkmens is one of Turkey’s primary interests in Iraq. But Turkey had lost ground on these parameters before the Mosul operation because of its policies of the past eight years. The status in Kirkuk has changed. Turkey designated Sunni Arabs as instruments of political patronage. Whatever Ankara wanted to play as a card did not succeed. Sentiments of the Justice and Development Party rule aren’t enough anymore to define the parameters of its classic foreign policy.
Turkey’s approach to Mosul may have given the impression that it has scored some minor gains, but they are not enough to reverse what has been long lost.
Ankara’s concerns
Ankara’s objections to the possible outcome of a Mosul operation without Turkey’s involvement and without addressing its concerns are the following:
The question asked in Ankara is, “Where will IS go after Mosul?” What is the objective of leaving Mosul’s western entry and its access to Sinjar in the northwest as a gap, as if telling IS militants “This is the way out”? Ankara thinks just as the Euphrates Shield operation has reached a critical phase, these IS fighters from Mosul could move on to Raqqa and al-Bab. Such a development could adversely affect Euphrates Shield.
Although the PKK is not involved in the offensive, participation of Yazidis trained by the PKK could be a security risk for Turkey.
There is serious concern that the entry of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi army into Mosul could set off a major sectarian war, with the Free Syrian Army’s capture of Dabiq in northwest Syria and the decision to move toward al-Bab.