SYRIA - Yaquoub Al-Omar assassination confirmed

Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:32 Syria: Notorious Al-Nusra Commander Killed in Idlib Yaqoub Al-Omar was killed in Khan Al-Sabal district in the Southern parts of the Idlib city, Al-Mayadeen satellite news channel reported. Al-Omar was killed after a bomb went off inside his car near Khan Al-Sabal district. The conflict in Syria started in March 2011, when sporadic pro-reform protests turned into a massive insurgency following the intervention of western and regional states. The unrest, which took in terrorist groups from across Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa, has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history. As the foreign-backed insurgency in Syria continues without an end in sight, the US government has boosted its political and military support to Takfiri extremists. Washington has remained indifferent to warnings by Russia and other world powers about the consequences of arming militant groups. Source - Fars Newsagency - here.

Looks like it's real news.

Twitter reports said house was bombed.

Judging by this report, the US is arming extremists?

Finding it hard to follow who the extremists are.

TWITTER - BREAKING NEWS - ASSASSINATION - SYRIA

TWITTER - BREAKING NEWS SYRIA - ASSASSINATION - IED BOMB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
source re following:

Jabat an Nusra means:   'al-Nusra Front'

Al-Nusra Front is described as a Sunni Fundamentalist 'Salafi Jihaddist' organistion - for specifics see here.

Wikipedia indicates that:

In 2011, Salafi jihadists were actively involved with protests against King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the kidnapping followed by a swift murder of Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni in Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Salafist jihadists groups include Al Qaeda ... [as above here]

Caucasus Emirate

In the North Caucasus region of Russia, the Caucasus Emirate retains a hard-line Salafist-takfiri jihadist ideology:

Tawhid / Monotheism in Islam

Reject practice of the following:

• Shirk [idolatry]
• taqlid [belief in fundamentals of faith with own insight]
• Ijtihad [independent reasoning interpretation of Islamic law] 
• Bid'ah [newly invented beliefs or action]

Endorse:

Complete separation between Muslim and Non-Muslim

by propagating Al Wala' Wal Bara' :

[No idea what this is.  Relates to 'one hand' pleasing to the Messenger and the 'other hand' (ie non believers)  is not.]

and declaring takfir 

[excommunication - unbeliever or kafir (infidel)] 

against any Muslim who is a mushrik (polytheist) and does not return to the observance of tawhid [doctrine of oneness .. monotheism/Islam]

and the strict literal interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah 

["Sunnah is the way of life prescribed as normative for Muslims on the basis of the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and interpretations of the Quran"]  ...

SYRIA

In Syria, the group Jabhat al-Nusra has been described as possessing "a hard-line Salafi-Jihadist ideology" and being one of "the most effective" groups fighting the regime.

[source - wikipedia - as above]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like big news.

But unsure whether to post this or not, for two reasons:

1.  Could not see news report apart from Twitter, so maybe it's a hoax?
2.  Group sounds a really scary to me, to be honest.

LATIN AMERICA - US 'COUP SCHOOL' - Fort Benning, Georgia

FACTS SCHOOL OF AMERICAS It was founded in Panama in 1946 with the stated objective of promoting stability in the region. However, it soon acquired the nickname, the "School of Coups". Under the terms of the 1984 Panama Canal Treaty, the School of the Americas was forced out of Panama and was relocated to Fort Benning in Georgia. Under pressure from Congress it was officially closed in 2000; however the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation was opened on the same site in 2001. It currently trains about 2,000 soldiers from across Latin America and the Caribbean. Source - aljazeera - here.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the US Army School of the Americas, ... [US] ... provides military training to government personnel of Latin American countries.

... founded ... 1946 ...

...  from 1961 was assigned the specific goal of teaching "anti-communist counterinsurgency training," a role which it would fulfil for the rest of the Cold War.

In this period, it educated several Latin American dictators, generations of their military and, during the 1980s, included the uses of torture in its curriculum.

In 2000/2001, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC.

[wikipedia]

.................................................................................................
COMMENT
 
There's actually a 'coup school'?

This is a must for the blogger's 'Ways to Control the World' List.

When I'm done, the world is MINE -- all MINE!!!    LOL

Check out the 'torture' subject on the curriculum.  Brilliant!  LOL

Guessing this is where all those fascist Latin American dictators were trained.

I think the US should be commended for their ingenuity.

Talk about evil masterminds.  It's like something out of North Korea.  Only it isn't.  LOL

It's quite remarkable and determined.  Well worth emulating.

LATIN AMERICA - US TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTS & CIA

CIA in LATIN AMERICA "Fuelled by the Cold War and transnational corporate interests, the U.S. has covertly tinkered with the governments of Latin American countries since World War 2, producing an extremely violent and unstable political climate. This history gives context to the growing anti-Americanism in Latin America, most visibly illustrated in the open defiance of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales to US policy. It also gives context to the recent trend in Latin America to elect left-wing governments." Source - Sakura Saunders - Geopolitical Monitor - here. .................................................................................................

British Guiana (Guyana) 1953-64 Cuba 1959 Ecuador 1960-63 Peru mid-1960s Dominican Republic 1963-65 Uruguay 1964-1970 Chile 1964-1973 Bolivia 1964-75 Argentina 1970s Nicaragua 1978-1990 Honduras 1980s Grenada 1979-1983 El Salvador 1980-92 Haiti 1987-94 Panama 1989 Venezuela * Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile have all elected left governments within the last 5 years. Source - Sakura Saunders - Geopolitical Monitor - here.  .................................................................................................

This article is a good read for anyone who wants a quickie CIA in Latin America overview

Article @ Geopolitical Monitor - Sakura Saunders - here.

Wow, they've been busy!

Argentina - what's likely to happen following default

 LAHT Article

"Barings tried for years to reach a settlement on the debt, repeatedly sending representatives to Buenos Aires, but it was not until 1857 – 29 years after the default -- that Barings and bondholders (backed by the threat of some stiff English gunpowder diplomacy) reached a settlement with what was now the Republic of Argentina -- by issuing new bonds, of course.

And with Argentina’s credit now restored with a £1.6 million Barings recapitalization of the arrears, Barings went on to market another £550,000 for Argentina in the first portion of a £2,500,000 33 year Argentina 6% bond maturing in 1899 and even more issuance followed.

By 1890, however, Argentina was on the brink of default again and almost took Barings down with it. With the Bank of England becoming the world’s lender of last resort, it was Baring’s old rival, Rothschild, who would persuade the British government to put together what became a £17 million rescue on the principle that the collapse of Barings would be a “terrific calamity for English commerce all over the world.” [LAHT]

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

The world of bonds/debt and investment seems to have:

* a villain (defaulting debtor)
* a victim (investor)
* a rescuer (financial group or even foreign government bank)

What seems to happen is that someone comes along (a group of big investors or a goverment) and offers a bail-out and restructured terms ... and the debt carries over in some shape or other.

If nations that are indebted aren't careful, they stand to lose territory (and maybe even sovereignty), is what I got out of it. 

So that maybe explains why people are prepared to continue to invest in a 'bad' lender.  Countries have value:  resources, territory, strategic location etc.

What's going to happen?  I'm guessing there's going to be a buy-out and restructuring on terms that probably aren't favourable to Argentina? 

But having read about the 65% 'haircut' or whatever it was, it doesn't sound like the terms are all that great for the lenders.  But it depends on how you view profits, I guess.  In other words, how much profit is enough profit?

Argentina - Bonds - And history of 'bondage'

Eighth time unlucky 

Cristina Fernández argues that her country’s latest default is different. She is missing the point 

Aug 2nd 2014 

ARGENTINA’S first bond, issued in 1824, was supposed to have a lifespan of 46 years. Less than four years later, the government defaulted. Resolving the ensuing stand-off with creditors took 29 years. Since then seven more defaults have followed, the most recent this week, when Argentina failed to make a payment on bonds issued as partial compensation to victims of the previous default, in 2001.

Most investors think they can see a pattern in all this, but Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, insists the latest default is not like the others. Her government, she points out, had transferred the full $539m it owed to the banks that administer the bonds. It is America’s courts (the bonds were issued under American law) that blocked the payment, at the behest of the tiny minority of owners of bonds from 2001 who did not accept the restructuring Argentina offered them in 2005 and again in 2010. These “hold-outs”, balking at the 65% haircut the restructuring entailed, not only persuaded a judge that they should be paid in full but also got him to freeze payments on the restructured bonds until Argentina coughs up.

Argentina claims that paying the hold-outs was impossible. It is not just that they are “vultures” as Argentine officials often put it, who bought the bonds for cents on the dollar after the previous default and are now holding those who accepted the restructuring (accounting for 93% of the debt) to ransom. The main problem is that a clause in the restructured bonds prohibits Argentina from offering the hold-outs better terms without paying everyone else the same. Since it cannot afford to do that, it says it had no choice but to default.

Yet it is not certain that the clause requiring equal treatment of all bondholders would have applied, given that Argentina would not have been paying the hold-outs voluntarily, but on the courts’ orders. Moreover, some owners of the restructured bonds had agreed to waive their rights; had Argentina made a concerted effort to persuade the remainder to do the same, it might have succeeded. Lawyers and bankers have suggested various ways around the clause in question, which expires at the end of the year. But Argentina’s government was slow to consider these options or negotiate with the hold-outs, hiding instead behind indignant nationalism (see article).

Don’t try to flee, Argentina

Ms Fernández is right that the consequences of America’s court rulings have been perverse, unleashing a big financial dispute in an attempt to solve a relatively small one. But hers is not the first government to be hit with an awkward verdict. Instead of railing against it, she should have tried to minimise the harm it did. Defaulting has helped no one: none of the bondholders will now be paid, Argentina looks like a pariah again, and its economy will remain starved of loans and investment.

Happily, much of the damage can still be undone. It is not too late to strike a deal with the hold-outs or back an ostensibly private effort to buy out their claims. A quick fix would make it easier for Argentina to borrow again internationally. That, in turn, would speed development of big oil and gas deposits, the income from which could help ease its money troubles.

...

EXTRACTS ONLY ... FULL @ ...

SOURCE - Economist - here.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21610263-cristina-fern-ndez-argues-her-countrys-latest-default-different-she-missing

----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Good article.  

Never imagined I'd find something to read in this kind of publication.  Barely know what a bond is.  LOL

Bond issuer is indebted to bond holders and the bond issuer must pay interest (coupon ... periodic interest rate to maturity) to bond holders, or pay up the principal and interest owed.

Banks and financial organisations buy bonds and on-selling them to investors. 

Argentina issued it's first bond 1824 -- so this is when it made it's first big borrowing.  

I thought it was a typo so I checked it out elsewhere.

Bond was $1mil to mature 46 years later, underwritten by Baring Brothers [LAHT].

The first default 4 years later was because of a war with Brazil [LAHT] that began a couple of years after the bond was issued (or borrowing was made).

British bondholders ('lenders/investors') were pissed off that Argentina couldn't repay its debts:

disgruntled bondholders in 1832 took to the London papers in a huge press campaign against Argentina, vilifying the Argentine government for its delinquency, and later that year, Britain would send ships to occupy the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. [LAHT].

Check out the LAHT article - it's got some awesome history ... Argentina almost took Barings down with them ... Rothschild to the rescue ... forced 'pegging' peso to gold ... history repeats itself 100 years later with IMF as lender of last resort.

I'm still learning, but it looks pretty exciting to a learner.

Looks like the technicality clause expires at the end of the year.  But what does that mean?  

Is Argentina going to renegotiate or is Argentina going to fight it out with appeals?

The writer says to look to history, so I'm going to have a closer look at the article.  :)

Argentina - Injustice?

Updated August 1, 2014 3:29 PM The Justice of Argentina’s Default A federal judge in New York has ruled that Argentina must pay a small group of creditors in full — about $1.5 billion — even though it got 93 percent of its other bondholders to accept partial payment in a debt restructuring after its 2001 default. Now it faces default again because the judge has refused to let it pay any other creditors until it pays these hedge-fund investors, whom critics call “vultures.” Critics of the ruling say it will encourage other creditors to demand full payment, scuttling the debt deal and make future debt restructurings elsewhere impossible. Is it fair to make Argentina choose between defaulting and paying some of its past creditors in full? Could that help prevent struggling countries from recovery economically? Source - New York Times - here.

Hmmmm ... I'm a tad confused.

Argentina didn't choose to default, if the bank Argentina paid the money into was barred from making the transfer.

Shouldn't the headline read:  'The injustice ... "