USA - War or Bluff?

Former Kremlin advisor gives Russia's view of the crisis in Ukraine Chris Uhlmann reported this story on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 07:19:43 [ Alexander Nekrassov, a former adviser to the Kremlin -] ... the economic situation in the European Union and America. Now, if you look at the G7 countries, they are all insolvent. They are all bankrupt. Their total debt is about $30 trillion and growing. And of course we understand that when countries are in a desperate economic situation and they don't really know what to do with it, they try to stage all sorts of spectacular foreign policy stunts, which we are witnessing now. Now America is facing default in two years time, and America is very aggressive across the world and in Europe as well. Now, the cynics in Russia are saying that America needs a big war. I think that the best possible way to solve this situation is for everyone to take a step back, because all this rhetoric does not help, all this aggressive rhetoric does not help anyone. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3985549.htm

G7 Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper France President François Hollande Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel Italy Prime Minister Matteo Renzi Japan Prime Minister Shinzō Abe United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron United States President Barack Obama European Union (2014 Chair) Council President Herman Van Rompuy Commission President José Manuel Barroso The European Union is also represented within the G7. The G7 are the seven wealthiest major developed nations by national net wealth, representing more than 63% of the net global wealth ... (2013). The IMF's Managing Director usually participates. [source - wikipedia - here]

Although this dates back to April 2014, it's useful to bear in mind the economics mentioned.

How's the remark about US need for a 'big war'?

Some blog I was on said it was a toss between Japan, China or Russia. 

Not sure why Japan was mentioned, as it's got very close ties to the US (as I understand).

I'm guessing Russia is 'it', although the US looks to be a 'challenger' in the Pacific region, given it's reportedly planning on focusing it's aircraft carrier naval fleet (I think it was) in the region over the next decade.

So what's going to happen?  Is the US going to go to war?  Will it be with Russia or with China?

Most likely Russia, I reckon.  China's where US probably produces their cheap goods, so they're probably not bent on disrupting that.

Russia is singled out for constant Ma-look-what-he-did! (but got no proof) accusations, vilification as an 'aggressor', singled out for sanctions, singled out for a press smear, singled out for 'shunning' and so on -- so it's 'henpecked' by the US-NATO mob as well as the EU arm of this 'thing' that seems to call the shots on a collective, bullying basis.

It's like a form of international 'mobbing' behaviour, that's usually confined to toxic organisations and workplaces.

So is this all bluff or is Russia 'it'?

HSBC - Closure of Muslim Bank Accounts

30 July 2014 Last updated at 04:00 HSBC closes some Muslim groups' and individuals' accounts By Dominic Laurie Reporter, Radio 5 live HSBC bank has written to Finsbury Park Mosque and other Muslim organisations and individuals in the UK to tell them that their accounts will be closed. The reason given in some cases was that to continue providing services would be outside the bank's "risk appetite". The wife and teenage children of a man who runs a London based Islamic think tank have also been contacted.  ...  "The letters that have been sent and the letters that we received do not give any reason why the accounts were closed in the first place," he said. "That has led us to believe that the only reason this has happened is because of an Islamophobic campaign targeting Muslim charities in the UK."  ... The mosque's chairman Mohammed Kozbar told the BBC: "The bank didn't even contact us beforehand. Didn't give us a chance even to address [their] concerns. "For us it is astonishing - we are a charity operating in the UK, all our operations are here in the UK and we don't transfer any money out of the UK. All our operations are funded from funds within the UK." Until 2005, the mosque was run by Abu Hamza, who in May this year was convicted of terrorism offences in the United States. ... Jeremy Corbyn, the local MP for Finsbury Park, says he has worked with the mosque ever since it was built. ... "I am shocked and appalled at the decision of HSBC." Anas Al Tikriti was born in Baghdad but has lived in the UK for several decades. His family has also received letters. He runs the Cordoba Foundation, a think tank on Islamic issues set up in 2005 in order to address, he says, the relationship between Europe and the Middle East. He, his wife and his sons aged 16 and 12 all received separate letters this week from HSBC informing them that their accounts would be closed in September. This time, no reason was given. ... "I can only speculate - and I wish someone from the bank could explain [why the accounts were closed]. The organisations are mainly charities and the link is that many of them if not all of them are vocal on the issue of Palestine."   ... His think tank, the Cordoba Foundation, which also banks with HSBC, was also told that its account will close, with an almost identical letter to that sent to the Finsbury Park Mosque, and dated the same day. 'Alternative arrangements' Ummah Welfare trust, based in Bolton, has distributed £70m to projects in 20 countries. It has had a presence in Gaza for 10 years. ... HSBC gave Ummah the same reason for closing its account that it had given to the Finsbury Park Mosque - that "provision of banking services now falls outside our risk appetite". ... Mohammed Ahmad, who runs Ummah, says it is a dream customer for a bank and always in credit. He asked HSBC in a meeting why the accounts were closing, but says the bank's representative gave them no answer. ... Mr Ahmad says he thinks HSBC has made its decision because of its work in Gaza, where he says Ummah provides "ambulances, food aid, medical aid, and grants." "We make sure we go out of the way to work with organisations that are non-partisan. What we do now is we do a check on Thomson Reuters and make sure that there is no link whatsoever with blacklisted organisations. We don't want to damage our relief efforts. We have tried our best to be non-partisan as much as possible." A government official the BBC spoke to said they did not believe this was the result of government action but reflected a decision the bank had taken itself based on its own risk analysis. In December 2012, HSBC had to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case. It was alleged to have helped launder money belonging to drug cartels and states under US sanctions. In August last year, it was reported that HSBC asked more than 40 embassies, consulates and High Commissions in the UK to close their accounts. At the time, the bank said "HSBC has been applying a rolling programme of "five filter" assessments to all its businesses since May 2011, and our services for embassies are no exception." The Charities Commission has confirmed that it is not investigating any of the organisations involved and says that if the charities don't have a relationship with a bank it could harm public trust in their work. EXTRACTS ONLY ... complete @... SOURCE - http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28553921?ocid=socialflow_twitter --------------------------------------------------------- HSBC   HSBC Holdings plc is a British multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is one of the world's largest banks. It was founded in London in 1991 by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to act as a new group holding company.  [Wikipedia]

----------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Does this strike anyone as creepy?

Since when are banks in the business of closing accounts?

If they're that worried about money laundering, maybe they should get out of banking?

MIDDLE EAST - Who's Who

TURKEY - SUNI

• Suni cold war (Saudi Arabia + Qatar)
• Pro Gaza / Hamas
• Rivalry with Egypt and Saudi Arabia

QATAR - SUNI

• Suni cold war (Turkey and Saudi Arabia)
• Pro Gaza / Hamas
• Rivalry with Egypt and Saudi Arabia

IRAQ

• Sunni-Shiite rivalry
• ISIS

SYRIA

• Authorities vs Islamist
• 170,000 Syrians have been killed in civil war
• ISIS

SAUDI ARABIA - SUNI

- SAUDI ARABIA | QATAR | TURKEY - 'COLD WAR'

• Intra-Suni - 'Cold War'
• Saudi-Iranian rivalry
• Saudi-Iranian Jostle for regional control and a nuclear arms race
• Saudis (and Egyptians) surreptitiously backing or rooting for the Israelis, in hopes that the Israeli force will weaken Hamas.
• Rivalry with Turkey and Egypt

EGYPT

• Authoritarians and Islamists have been waging a fight for control of Egypt
• Post 'Arab Spring' - Muslim Brotherhood government fell, the military leaders cracked down
• hundreds of the Brotherhood’s leadership class sentenced to death
• closed roughly 95 percent of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza (economic devastation to Gaza's Hamas)
• Egyptians (and even the Saudis) are surreptitiously backing or rooting for the Israelis, in hopes that the Israeli force will weaken Hamas.
• Rivalry with Turkey and Qatar

GAZA

• Brotherhood’s offshoot, Hamas, holds power
• Egyptian closure of tunnels = economist estimated the economic losses at $460 million a year, nearly a fifth of the Gazan G.D.P.
• Hamas needed to end that blockade, but it couldn’t strike Egypt, so it struck Israel.
• Aim: public outrage to force Egypt to lift the blockade.
• Hamas conflict with Israel deemed 'proxy war'
• Turkey and Qatar, backing Gaza/Hamas (in regional rivalry with Egypt and Saudi Arabia)

ISRAEL vs PALESTINE

• Ongoing conflict (deemed 'proxy war' - see Gaza)
• Israel allegedly used for 'advantage' by those in region taking shots at one another
• Israel, like the U.S., will be called upon to at least weaken some of the more radical players, like the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) and Syria and Hamas.

A clash within Arab civilization, over its future.

Source - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/david-brooks-when-middle-east-conflicts-become-one.html?smid=tw-share

Extracts/summaries - from New York Times (hopefully, correctly applied!)

Would you believe I'm still not that clear when it comes to keeping in mind the cross-cross of rivalries and common interests?

Is Turkey moving away from secularism?

Re:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/29/turkish-deputy-prime-minister-says-women-shouldnt-laugh-out-loud/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Could the Turkish government somehow be falling out of favour with Washington ... or maybe only with the Washington press?  Or perhaps it's just a topical report and there really is no agenda, and I'm just a weirdo to even dream there could be one. 

The Washington Post reports what we would perhaps call misogynistic comments (ie women should know their place type comments) expressed by the 'Justice and Development Party (or AKP)' Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc.

The political party which is currently in government is described as one where:

moderate Islamist politics are steadily transforming a country founded upon secularism.

 So the country is becoming less secular in an 'appeal to conservative Turks"?

The guy also doesn't like soap operas, women nattering on mobile phones day long, or driving around needlessly.

Agree with him on the soap operas.  Absolutely detest them.  But what do I care if people watch them.  

Suppose he's OK with men drive around needlessly.  LOL.

I'm so glad I live in a secular society where women can do pretty much whatever they want.

------------------------------------------
 Postscript

Independent (UK) - here.

Independent going with this story.  In more detail. 

Coincidence?  Topical?  Or a quiet 'anti-Islamic' type of atmosphere likely to arise in the press?

Bear in mind, this is purely my speculation and I'm no expert.

USA - National Security - Intelligence Agencies - Carte Blanche

CIA spying on its own “internal channels” for whistleblowers Posted on July 28, 2014 McClatchy reports that the Central Intelligence Agency may be “intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s classified 6,000-page report into the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation programme is still yet to be published and the Committee has already accused the agency of illegally spying on that probe. Now it has emerged that the CIA retaliated against an official who cooperated with the Senate investigation, and Senate members emailed one another to accuse the agency’s inspector general of failing to investigate that retaliation – and the CIA has obtained at least one of those emails. As McClatchy writes, “The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence community’s whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight.” If the Senate cannot investigate the CIA independently and free of retaliation fears, who can? How can intelligence agencies be held accountable if they even intercept communications into their own operations? ... Thomas Drake’s criticisms of US warrantless wiretapping Drake subsequently blew the whistle to the media, and before the government’s case collapsed just days ahead of trial, he was facing an Espionage Act charge that could have imprisoned him for decades. Similarly, Edward Snowden made enquiries within the NSA about the legality and morality of that agency’s mass, unchecked surveillance. He spoke up at least ten separate times — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in fact released one of Snowden’s emails. When he was ignored, Snowden was compelled to give documents detailing the NSA’s spying programs to investigative journalists. Insufficient security or insufficient democracy? The Insider Threat programme and the stated attitudes of the very officials responsible for facilitating internal channels draw a picture of a US administration that is deeply hostile, not only to disclosure of government information, but to internal criticism of its activities from those charged to carry them out. Famously, President Obama has overseen the prosecution of more Espionage Act cases than all previous presidents combined. The majority of those cases concern individuals trying to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Within their number include cases, like that of Thomas Drake, where employees have tried to make their case within the ‘official channels’ ostensibly created to facilitate internal whistleblowing. It is ironic that the United States has responded to disclosures of illegality and abuse, not by subjecting its programmes to democratic input or ensuring that future whistleblowers have better options, but by cracking down on those who speak up and the journalism they enable. The US administration has treated whistleblowers as an issue of insufficient security rather than insufficient democracy. ...EXTRACTS ONLY...full article @... https://couragefound.org/2014/07/cia-spying-on-its-own-internal-channels/

Doesn't sound too good when agencies under the US government appear to be able to do whatever they want.

AUSTRALIA - PRESS GAGGED - SUPPRESSION ORDER 'SUPER-INJUNCTION' - WIKILEAKS - CORRUPTION SCANDAL COVER UP

Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story Date July 30, 2014 - 12:55PM Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'. Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court. The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+. Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication. It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order. Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges. Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned. Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents. However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute. "Unless someone within Australia somehow authorised or was deemed to have published that suppression order on Wikileaks it would be difficult to find someone to prosecute," Mr Bartlett said. "The person within the state of Victoria who has sent the suppression order to Wikileaks themselves has breached the suppression order so if police could find that person they could prosecute them." Mr Bartlett said he did not know of any person being prosecuted for sharing a court order on social media. A case involving former Manchester United player Ryan Giggs sparked debate in England about the effectiveness of court orders given the prevalence of social media. Giggs went to court to try to stop The Sun newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The court initially banned the publication of his identity but the court's order was then widely disseminated through social media and tweeted by about 500,000 people. Giggs' case against the newspaper was eventually thrown out of court and no one was charged in relation to the tweets. The Victorian Supreme Court has been contacted for comment. SOURCE - BRISBANE TIMES - HERE.

First of all, the government uses 'national security' grounds to obtain a court 'super-injunction' suppression order to gag media coverage on some kind of international corruption scandal involving the Australian government, and THEN the press is gagged AND every Australian is threatened with imprisonment -- for the sake of this government cover up -- according to WikiLeaks.

Bloody, hell.   It would help knowing in advance which information can get you in strife.  Not clear to some (namely blogger) ... Doh!  

Will let you know how gaol was, if I've breached anything.  LOL. 

Anyway, this is democracy, freedom of press and freedom of speech at work in Australia.

----------------------------------------------------
P.S. 

What is the point of these gag orders when overseas press is reporting pretty much on the contents, the issue and on prior arrests of overseas people?

RUSSIA - MORE SANCTIONS

RUSSIA HIT BY NEW WORLD SANCTIONS By Press Association Published: 10:35 AEST, 30 July 2014 The European Union and US are to impose new economic sanctions against Russia following the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which has been blamed on Moscow-backed rebels in Ukraine. ... arms embargo, a ban on the sale of dual use and sensitive technologies, and a ban on the sale of bonds and equities by state-owned Russian banks in European capital markets. Eight more officials ... expected to be subjected to asset bans and travel freezes. David Cameron said the new sanctions should send a message to Mr Putin that his behaviour in Ukraine was unacceptable" and Russia could expect "tough action" from the international community until it changed course. [DAVID CAMERON TAKING NICK CLEGG'S POSITION ... RIGHT DOWN TO THE PUTIN'S 'BEHAVIOUR' BULL ...  THESE U.S. SOCK PUPPETS AREN'T EVEN ORIGINAL ... LOL] The measures were agreed as world aviation chiefs set up a "senior level" international task force to deal with the threat to passenger planes following the downing of flight MH17. [NOT JUST ANY 'CHIEFS' ... WORLD! AVIATION CHIEFS ... NOT JUST ANY LEVEL ... 'SENIOR LEVEL'! ... TO DEAL WITH THE NON-EXISTENT THREAT TO PASSENGER PLANES, AS AIRCRAFT ARE EXPECTED TO BE DIVERTED FROM A THE UKRAINE WAR ZONE. EXAMPLE OF BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA RIGHT THERE, FOLKS.] ... EU sanctions had been imposed after Russia ignored calls to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, with arms and fighters continuing to flow across the border in support of the pro-Moscow separatist rebels. [SAY THE ALLIES OF THE US, WHOSE PUPPET GOVERNMENT IS INSTALLED IN UKRAINE, WHILE U.S. MAKES A CORPORATE & MILITARY, IMPERIALIST GRAB IN EUROPE.] "It is meant as a strong warning: illegal annexation of territory and deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country cannot be accepted in 21st-century Europe," he said. [WHO HAS A LONG AND DELIBERATE RECORD OF DESTABILISING AND COLONISING THE WORLD? THE SAME PARTIES WHO ARE SELF-APPOINTED ARBITERS OF WHAT IS 'ILLEGAL'.  LOL.] Signs were emerging of concern in the City of London about the possible blowback sanctions on Russia could inflict on the UK economy. Energy giant BP - which owns a 20% stake in Russian oil firm Rosneft - warned that further international sanctions could have a "material adverse impact" on the company's business in Russia and its own financial position. [PERFECT THEN. KEEP 'EM COMING.  LOL.] The EU discussions on enhanced sanctions came as the US accused Moscow of increasing troop numbers on its border with Ukraine and shipping more heavy weaponry to the pro-Moscow rebels. [TROTTING OUT THE SAME-OLD SAME-OLD ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN 'BOGEYMAN' ... ON RUSSIAN SOIL.  MUCH THE SAME MOB WHO INVADED RUSSIA IN 1918.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2710280/RUSSIA-HIT-BY-NEW-WORLD-SANCTIONS.html

This is a wonderful lesson on 21st century imperialism and propaganda in action.

It's basically a how-to, if you observe the parties carefully.

That headline ought to read 'Hit by New World Order' sanctions.

An alternate take on the anti-Russian sanctions - here.