Stolen: Fears of ISIS ‘Dirty Bomb’

Posted on February 17, 2016February 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

‘Highly dangerous’ radioactive material stolen, sparking fears of Isis ‘dirty bomb’

‘We are afraid the radioactive element will fall into the hands of Daesh’

Independent: Iraq is searching for “highly dangerous” radioactive material stolen last year amid fears it could have fallen the hands of Isis jihadis.

The material, stored in a protective case the size of a laptop, went missing from a US-owned storage facility in Basra last November, according to leaked environment ministry documents.

An unnamed senior security official with knowledge of the theft said: “We are afraid the radioactive element will fall into the hands of Daesh (Isis).

“They could simply attach it to explosives to make a dirty bomb”.

Click here for a photo essay 74 photos.

The document, dated 30 November and addressed to the ministry’s Centre for Prevention of Radiation, describes “the theft of a highly dangerous radioactive source of Ir-192 with highly radioactive activity belonging to SGS from a depot…in the Rafidhia area of Basra province”.

An anonymous senior environment ministry official based in the city told Reuters the device contained up to 10 grams (0.35 ounces) of Ir-192 “capsules”, a radioactive isotope of iridium also used to treat cancer.

The material is classed as a Category 2 radioactive by the International Atomic Energy Agency – meaning it can be fatal to anyone in close proximity to it in a matter of days or even hours.

So far there is no indication that the material has fallen into the hands of Isis – who do not control this part of southern Iraq – but they have begun using chemical weapons.

The terror group attacked Kurdish forces with mustard gas during a battle near Erbil – capital of the Kurds’ autonomous region in Iraq last August.

It is believed to be the first time chemical weapons have been used in the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

A “dirty bomb” combines nuclear material with conventional explosives to contaminate an area with radiation, in contrast to a nuclear weapon, which uses nuclear fission to trigger a vastly more powerful blast.

A security official said the initial investigation suggested the perpetrators had specific knowledge of how to handle the material and how to gain access to the facility.

An Iraqi pro-government soldier standing in the ruins of Ramadi. Isis currently only controlled territory in the north and west of the country

There were “No broken locks, no smashed doors and no evidence of forced entry”.

An operations manager for Iraqi security firm Taiz, which was contracted to protect the facility, declined to comment, citing instructions from Iraqi security authorities.

A spokesman for Basra operations command, responsible for security in Basra province, said army, police and intelligence forces were working “day and night” to locate the material.

Two Basra provincial government officials said they were told to work with local hospitals to identify possible victims on 25 November.

One said: “We instructed hospitals in Basra to be alert to any burn cases caused by radioactivity and inform security forces immediately”.

Additional reading here.

New Axis of Evil, Russia/China Surface to Air Missiles

Posted on February 16, 2016February 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

2015: China Signs Huge Arms Deal With Russia, Buys World’s Best Missile

PopularScience: China and Russia, as part of closer strategic ties, have finalized a long-awaited deal for very long range S-400 surface to air missile (SAM) system. The deal is not only the largest Sino-Russian arms deal in over a decade, but S-400 missile defense capabilities would provide China with a quick missile defense upgrade at the moment neighboring states like North Korea acquire more ballistic missiles, and the U.S. and Japan look to buy stealthy anti-ship missiles.

The Moscow Times reports that the deal was negotiated for $3 billion, to deliver 6 S-400 battalions. With each battalion consisting of 6 transport erector launch (TEL) vehicles, China would have 36 launch vehicles. The S-400 will supplement China’s Russian-made S-300 and domestic HQ-9 long-range SAMs, while its 30K6E command system can even interlink with other Russian made SAMs, like the S-400 and TOR-M1, both of which China already fields. The S-400s would likely be operated by the PLA Air Force (PLAAF), which has historically operated China’s land based long-range air defense systems. While the 40N6’s long range could theoretically cover all of Taiwan’s air space, they would most likely protect major bases like the Hainan submarine pens, important cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, or hide within the inland mountains of Fujian and Guangdong Provinces.

This is not new information for the Pentagon but it is new for the White House and Barack Obama as he hosted a ASEAN summit that includes leaders from the leaders in the region. Next month, Obama also announced his trip to Vietnam, a country in the group dispute with China over islands in the South China Sea.

Pentagon Wants ‘Arsenal Planes’ to Beat China’s Air Defenses

Diplomat: In order to remain stealthy, modern fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 have to carry all their weapons in internal bays, significantly reducing the payload they can carry. For example, the F-22 can fit four air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound bombs in its internal bay, whereas the F-35, next to two air-to-air missiles, can only carry two 2,000-pound bombs in its stealthiest configuration.

Legacy aircraft like the B-1 and B-52, however, can carry up to 75,000 pounds (34,000 kilograms) of weapons and are available in large numbers. The U.S. Airforce still operates 62 B-1B Lancer and 58 B-52 Stratofortress (with 18 in reserve).(Lockheed-Martin has built 195 F-22s, half the number requested by the Airforce, while the U.S. military has so far only received a little over 150 F-35 aircraft out of a total of 2,500 ordered.)

The arsenal plane/fifth-generation fighter jet interaction would be similar to the artillery observer and artillery battery in ground warfare: The fifth-generation aircraft will first identify and then direct fire from the arsenal plane unto a target. Depending on the battlefield environment, the arsenal plane would carry long-range standoff missiles such as the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) to in order to stay outside the enemy’s air defense perimeter, or — when engaging a technologically less advanced adversary — move closer and drop precision-guided bombs.

“There is little doubt that the Pentagon’s third offset strategy primarily aims to offset recent advances in military technologies made by China and Russia. The Pentagon lists both countries as two out of five strategic challenges that the United States will have to remain focused on in the new fiscal year.”

So, what is China doing with the surface to air missiles?

FNC: The Chinese military has deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile system to one of its contested islands in the South China Sea according to civilian satellite imagery exclusively obtained by Fox News, more evidence that China is increasingly “militarizing” its islands in the South China Sea and ramping up tensions in the region.

The imagery from ImageSat International (ISI) shows two batteries of eight surface-to-air missile launchers as well as a radar system on Woody Island, part of the Paracel Island chain in the South China Sea.

It is the same island chain where a U.S. Navy destroyer sailed close to another contested island a few weeks ago. China at the time vowed “consequences” for the action.

Woody Island is also claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and by Vietnam.

The missiles arrived over the past week. According to the images, a beach on the island was empty on Feb. 3, but the missiles were visible by Feb. 14.

A U.S. official confirmed the accuracy of the photos. The official said the imagery viewed appears to show the HQ-9 air defense system, which closely resembles Russia’s S-300 missile system. The HQ-9 has a range of 125 miles, which would pose a threat to any airplanes, civilians or military, flying close by.

This comes as President Obama hosts 10 Asian leaders in Palm Springs, many of those leaders concerned over China’s recent activity in the South China Sea. “The United States will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows,” Obama said Tuesday.

The Pentagon was watching the developments closely, a defense official told Fox News. “The United States continues to call on all claimants to halt land reclamation, construction, and militarization of features in the South China Sea,” the official said.

In the past two years, China has built over 3,000 acres of territory atop seven reefs in the area. There are a total of three runways built on three of the artificial islands.

This development comes weeks after the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island, part of the Paracel Island chain in the South China Sea.

The incident drew strong condemnation from China’s defense ministry who vowed there would be consequences.

A Chinese military spokesman said the U.S. warship “violated Chinese law” and was a “deliberate provocation.” The Chinese issued warnings to the U.S. ship and “expelled it swiftly,” according to a statement from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying. The U.S. Navy denied that any warnings took place.

The statement from the Chinese defense ministry warned sailing that close to the island “may cause extremely dangerous consequences.”

The incident in the South China Sea in late January came days after Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing to discuss regional issues including China’s contested islands in the South China Sea.

During a press conference in Beijing with Kerry, China’s foreign minister pledged not to “militarize” the disputed islands.

“China has given a commitment of not engaging in so-called militarization, and we will honor that commitment. And we cannot accept the allegation that China’s words are not being matched by actions,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

But Wang left himself some diplomatic space for the deployment of weapons to protect the islands. “There are some necessary facilities for self-defense,” he added.

Kerry said the United States “does not take sides on the sovereignty questions underlying the territorial disputes.”

But his Chinese counterpart was less ambiguous.

“I pointed out to Secretary Kerry that the South China Sea Islands have historically been China’s territory. China has a right to protect its own territorial sovereignty,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

In early January, China tested one of the runways by landing two civilian airliners on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly island chain of islands. Pentagon officials are concerned that military aircraft could be next.

Monday, the commander of the Navy’s 7^th fleet, responsible for the waters of the western Pacific, told reporters, “We are unsure where they are taking us,” and urged Beijing to be more open with its military operations.

It could relieve “some of the angst we are now seeing,” Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin said, pledging that the U.S. military would continue to conduct freedom of operations missions close to the contested Chinese islands, including flying aircraft overhead.

Drugs, money and violence: The toll in Mexico

Posted on February 16, 2016February 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

(CNN)Mexico is home to world-class museums, archaeological sites and cultural events — but in the past decade, drug cartel violence is often the first thing that comes to mind. The illegal drug trade has had an enormous cost on Mexico in lives lost.

Here are some statistics to put the drug war in context:

Killings in Mexico are trending up after a decline

The number of homicides in Mexico peaked in 2011 and then declined for three years. But the latest statistics show the trend reversed in 2015. Estimating how many homicides are related to drug violence is an imprecise science, but leading newspapers in Mexico estimate that since 2006, organized crime-style homicides account for 40% to 50%.

Mexico is NOT the deadliest country in the Americas

The grisliness of some of the drug cartel violence in Mexico — beheadings, mass killings, torture — gets a lot of attention. While there are some hot spots of violent activity, Mexico’s homicide rate is actually closer to the middle of the pack than the top, compared with other nations in the hemisphere.

Many kingpins have fallen, but the smuggling industry survives

The Mexican government points to evidence of its successes in the war on drugs: The leadership of the biggest cartels has been captured or killed (or recaptured, as in the case of serial escapee Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman). Critics of the so-called “kingpin strategy” say the focus on the bosses has only created more factions of traffickers. Go here to see all graphs.

****

‘Narconomics’: How The Drug Cartels Operate Like Wal-Mart And McDonald’s

On how the Mexican gang ‘The Zetas’ franchise

In part, NPR: The Zetas are one of Mexico’s biggest drug cartels, and they’ve got a reputation for being one of the nastiest ones, so when you see pictures of people who’ve been beheaded or hung up from bridges, these are often the guys who are responsible. And while I was in Mexico, the Zetas expanded more quickly than any other cartel. It was extraordinary. Originally they came from the northeast of Mexico, but within a very short space of time, they spread across all of Mexico and in fact down into Central America as well. So I got to thinking about how they’d done this, and when you look at the way that they spread, it seems that what they do is that they go to local areas and they find out who the local criminals are, people who do the drug dealing and extortion and all the other kinds of crime, and they offer them a crime, they say, “OK, you can use our brand, you can call yourself the Zetas, just like us,” and they give them, believe it or not, baseball caps with embroidered logos and they give them T-shirts with their logo on and they train them in how to use weapons sometimes, and in return the local criminals give the Zetas a share of all of the money that they get from their criminal activity. In other words: It’s exactly like the kind of franchising model that many other well-known companies use.

And it comes with all the same advantages and disadvantages [of franchising]. One of the big advantages is that it has allowed the Zetas to grow much more quickly. One of the disadvantages though, and this is something you often see in the legitimate franchising business, is that the franchisees often start to quarrel among each other, and the trouble is that the interest of these franchisees, the local criminals, aren’t very well-aligned with the interests of the main company. Because as far as the main company is concerned — and this applies whether it’s the Zetas or McDonald’s — if you’ve got more branches, more franchises in a local area, that means more income for the main company, because they take their money as a slice of the income of the local franchisees. But the local franchisees have totally different motives. They want to be, if possible, the only ones in the area. They want as few branches as possible. And so you’ve had very often cases of franchisees suing the main brand over what they call “encroachment” — in other words, when the main brand has too many branches in the same area.

The Feds Borrowing Your Retirement

Posted on February 16, 2016February 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Here’s Why (And How) The Government Will “Borrow” Your Retirement Savings

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Zerohedge: According to financial research firm ICI, total retirement assets in the Land of the Free now exceed $23 trillion.

$7.3 trillion of that is held in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).

That’s an appetizing figure, especially for a government that just passed $19 trillion in debt and is in pressing need of new funding sources.

Even when you account for all federal assets (like national parks and aircraft carriers), the government’s “net financial position” according to its own accounting is negative $17.7 trillion.

And that number doesn’t include unfunded Social Security entitlements, which the government estimates is another $42 trillion.

The US national debt has increased by roughly $1 trillion annually over the past several years.

The Federal Reserve has conjured an astonishing amount of money out of thin air in order to buy a big chunk of that debt.

But even the Fed has limitations. According to its own weekly financial statement, the Fed’s solvency is at precariously low levels (with a capital base of just 0.8% of assets).

And on a mark-to-market basis, the Fed is already insolvent. So it’s foolish to think they can continue to print money forever and bail out the government without consequence.

The Chinese (and other foreigners) own a big slice of US debt as well.

But it’s just as foolish to expect them to continue bailing out America, especially when they have such large economic problems at home.

US taxpayers own the largest share of the debt, mostly through various trust funds of Social Security and Medicare.

But again, given the $42 trillion funding gap in these programs, it’s mathematically impossible for Social Security to continue funding the national debt.

This reality puts the US government in rough spot.

It’s not like government spending is going down anytime soon; it already takes nearly 100% of tax revenue just to pay mandatory entitlements like Social Security, and interest on the debt.

Plus the government itself estimates that the national debt will hit $30 trillion within ten years.

Bottom line, they need more money. Lots of it. And there is perhaps no easier pool of cash to ‘borrow’ than Americans’ retirement savings.

$7.3 trillion in US IRA accounts is too large for them to ignore.

And if you think it’s inconceivable for the government to borrow your retirement savings, just consider the following:

1) Borrowing retirement funds is becoming a popular tactic.

Forced loans have been a common tactic of bankrupt governments throughout history.

Plus there’s recent precedent all over the world; Hungary, France, Ireland, and Poland are among many governments that have resorted to ‘borrowing’ public and private pension funds.

2) The US government has already done this with federal pension funds.

During the multiple debt ceiling fiascos since 2011, the Treasury Department resorted to “extraordinary measures” at least twice in order to continue funding the government.

What exactly were these extraordinary measures?

They dipped into federal retirement funds and borrowed what they needed to tide them over.

In fact, the debt ceiling debacles were only resolved because the Treasury Department had fully depleted available retirement funds.

3) They’ve been paving the way to borrow your retirement savings for a long time.

Two years ago the government launched a new initiative to ‘help Americans save for retirement.’

It’s called MyRA. And the idea is for people to invest retirement savings ‘in the safety and security of US government bonds’.

Since then they’ve gone on a marketing offensive involving the President, Treasury Secretary, and other prominent politicians.

(Most recently Nancy Pelosi published an Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle a few days ago promoting the program.)

They’ve also proposed a number of legislative reforms to ‘encourage’ American businesses to sign their employees up for MyRA.

Just last week, Congress introduced the “Making Your Retirement Accessible”, or MyRA Act, which would charge a penalty to employers whose workers don’t have a retirement account.

The proposed penalty is $100. Per worker. Per day.

Imagine a small business with, say, 10 employees who don’t have retirement accounts. The penalty to Uncle Sam would be a whopping $30,000 PER MONTH.

There’s a word for this. It’s called extortion.

Obviously when facing a $30,000 monthly penalty, an employer will pick the easiest option.

Given the absurd amount of government regulation on the rest of the financial industry, MyRA is the fastest choice.

This isn’t about fear or paranoia. It’s about facts.

And the reality is that the government in the Land of the Free is moving in the direction of borrowing more and more of your retirement savings.

If you still remain skeptical, remember that last year the government stole more from its citizens through Civil Asset Forfeiture than thieves in the private sector.

Or that just 45-days ago a new law went into effect authorizing the government to strip you of your passport if they believe in their sole discretion that you owe them too much tax.

No judge. No jury. No trial. They just confiscate your passport.

*** Getting arrested for non-payment of student loans:

US Marshals are arresting people who haven’t paid back student loans

US Marshals in Houston are arresting residents who are behind on their student loans.

Paul Aker told Fox 26 Houston that he was arrested by seven deputies with automatic weapons—for a $1500 outstanding student loan he recieved back in 1987.

“I was wondering, ‘Why are you here? I’m home and I haven’t done anything… Why are the Marshals knocking on my door?’ It’s amazing,” he said.

Mr Aker says he was arrested, placed in shackles and taken to the downtown federal courthouse where he was placed in a holding cell for several hours.

Later, he was taken to court for a payment agreement surround by “70 Marshals.” Mr Aker said that he was never read his rights.

“I just couldn’t believe it,” he said.

Representative Gene Green said that it’s troubling to see private debt collectors use US Marshals to go after people who owe student loans.

“There’s bound to be a better way to collect on a student loan debt that is so old,” Mr Green told Fox. “The federal government is now using private debt collectors to go after those who owe student loans.”

A source familiar with the US Marshals in Houston told the news station that anywhere from 1200 to 1500 warrants would be served to those who’ve failed to keep up with their loans.

The average student loan debt for 2015 graduates in the US reached $35,000, according to an analysis by Edvisors, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Who is Fighting in Syria and Who Wins?

Posted on February 16, 2016February 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

A mind-boggling stew of nations is fighting in Syria’s civil war

MilitaryTimes: Armies and militias from more than a dozen countries have joined the Syria conflict, making for a mind-boggling and dangerous stew of shifting and competing alliances.

Even as a proposed cease-fire is scheduled to begin as early as this week, more nations are escalating their roles in the nearly 5-year-old civil war: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey said they may send ground troops to fight.

Here’s how different countries are currently aligned:

Pro-Syrian government

Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad are backed by two nations, Russia and Iran, and many Shiite militias from across the region who are organized by Iran. The combatants include:

Syrian government troops

Iran

Afghan Shiite militia

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia

Iraqi Shiite militia

Russia. Russian airstrikes target the Islamic State and what Russia says are other “terrorist” groups. But the U.S. military says most Russian airstrikes are aimed at opposition groups threatening Assad’s forces.

Anti-Syrian government

Many rebel forces fighting to overthrow the Syrian government are backed by arms, funds and airstrikes by a U.S.-led coalition. The CIA vetted Syrian rebel groups and helped train them in Jordan to use advanced anti-tank weapons against Assad’s forces. Saudi Arabia and Qatar supplied the weaponry and funds. These rebels are being supported by:

Jordan

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

Qatar

United Arab Emirates

United States

Israel, on Syria’s southern border, provides some assistance to rebel forces fighting the Syrian government and has also launched airstrikes against Syrian and Hezbollah targets to prevent the transfer of “game changing” technology and weapons to Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Anti-Islamic State

The U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria and Iraq includes:

Australia

Bahrain

Canada

France

Jordan

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom.

Russia is not part of the U.S.-led coalition, though it has also hit Islamic State positions.

Other fighters

Kurdish militia from Turkey, Iraq and Syria are fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. But the Kurds are sometimes aligned with the Syrian government and seen as a threat by Turkey, which has fought for years against a Kurdish separatist movement threatening its territorial sovereignty. Syrian Kurds are backed by Russia, the United States and Iraqi Kurdish groups.

The Islamic State, a vicious al-Qaeda spinoff, and Jabhat al Nusrah, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria that works with many Sunni Arab opposition groups in Syria, have attracted foreign fighters from across the Arab world and Europe. Both have expanded during the chaos in Syria.

Who wins in the end?

The Syrian ceasefire is a big win for Russia, Assad, and Iran

AEI: The Syrian ceasefire agreement of February 11 is a big win for the Russians and the Syrian regime. Russia, Iran, and Syria are in the midst of a major military offensive that has allowed them to besiege Aleppo and has them poised to make gains across the battlefield. This so-called “cessation of hostilities” agreement allows them to consolidate and prepare for further advances, while preventing the opposition that the US ostensibly supports from attempting to undo any of their gains.

It does not require the Assad coalition to allow humanitarian access to the hundreds of thousands they have just trapped in and around Aleppo itself, and it leaves them fully in control of what humanitarian aid goes to the other areas they themselves are besieging and deliberately starving. It was concluded without the participation of the opposition, and is thus an imposition of a truce on the fighters the US is theoretically supporting at a moment when they have lost vital ground.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura (L-R) arrive for a news conference in Munich, Germany, February 12, 2016. REUTERS/Michael Dalder.

The Russians, moreover, define all of the opposition groups in northern Syria as either ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today,

… if liberation of the city that has been taken by illegal armed groups can be qualified as aggression, then, well, yeah, probably. But to attack those who have taken your land is necessary – is a necessary thing. First of all, this has been done by Jabhat al-Nusrah, and also the western suburbs of Aleppo are still being controlled together with Jabhat al-Nusrah by Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham.

The Russians will read this agreement as letting them continue operations against all opposition groups in Aleppo and continue their encirclement, siege, and targeting of that city. They will therefore continue to weaken the non-Jabhat al Nusra, non-ISIS opposition now concentrated in Aleppo, and likely strengthen the hands of the terrorist organizations they purport to be attacking.

This “cessation of hostilities” also continues the policy of requiring the opposition to make concessions in order to get the regime temporarily to stop committing what the UN has called crimes against humanity.

This agreement is a ceasefire in the manner of the Minsk agreements that shaped the supposed ceasefires in Ukraine — ceasefires that have been nominally in effect throughout all of the major Russian and separatist military offensives since February 2015. The Russians posed as a neutral third party when in fact they are a belligerent in the conflict, and have continued to escalate and de-escalate military operations in Ukraine in order to extract concessions from the Ukrainian government.

Not only will this Syrian “cessation of hostilities” also fail, but it will fail in a way that further alienates the non-ISIS, non-al Qaeda Sunni opposition groups and populations on which any meaningful political settlement of the conflict in accord with America’s vital national security interests must rely.