Five Possible Repercussions of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria

5 Possible Repercussions of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria

August 29, 2013

ABC News - A U.S. missile strike on Syria could trigger an explosive chain reaction involving from Syria or its allies like Hezbollah and Iran, and the blowback could hit U.S. targets or Israel, experts told ABCNews.com.

Or Syria might simply stop using chemical weapons and there is no retaliation at all.

Gauging the ripple effect of a U.S. strike on Syria is part of the calculations of the Obama administration, but it is an imprecise science.

"When you do a military strike it often has ramifications you don't anticipate," said Dan Byman, a senior fellow of foreign policy at Brookings Institute.

Here are five scenarios the the U.S. could face in coming weeks.

1. Syria Will Try to Retaliate
 
Syria has already made bold threats toward the U.S. and its allies, specifically Israel, about retaliation for any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war.

"If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a licence for attacking Israel," Iran's Fars News Agency quoted a Syrian military official as saying. "If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria's neighbors."

But U.S. policy experts say it is unlikely that Assad's military forces have the capabilities to launch another large-scale attack at this point, given how committed their troops already are fighting the rebels within Syria. Any retaliation by Assad's military will largely be small-scale and symbolic, aimed at generating headlines and support rather than hurting U.S. allies or targets, according to Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Syria can have a token form of escalation, although it's essentially committed almost all of the power it has (to the civil war)," Cordesman said. "If they did do something large-scale, their reprisal risk could outweigh their gains. In a world where every rocket is massive in terms of media reporting, they could do low level stuff to get a lot of propaganda gains, and do a lot of that without provoking response (from the U.S.)."

2. Iran Will Take Aim at Israel
 
Iranian leaders also issued strong rhetoric in recent days, warning the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threatening to retaliate against Israel in response to any military meddling. One official was quoted in Iran's Fars news service saying that Iran would "flatten the place (Israel) that is tied to the U.S.'s national security."

But if Iran launched an attack on Israel, Cordesman said it is unlikely that the U.S. would come to its ally's defense.

"Iran could try to demonstrate its power by either using elements of the Al Quds Force or sponsoring a third party attack on anything from U.S. targets to Israeli targets to Jordanian targets," Cordesman said. "Israel will probably manage it own defense. We have strong reason not to get too involved at a time when we are working with so many Arab states," he said.

If Iran opts not to strike Israel or Jordan, it could still bolster its support for Assad, according to Byman. 

"Iran and Russia might step up their response, sending more fighters, encouraging more fighters from Iraq and Lebanon, sending more arms, and using more diplomatic pressure," Byman said.

3. Radical Groups Could Retaliate
 
Islamic extremist groups and militant groups such as Hezbollah could also plan retaliations against U.S. targets or allies, according to experts.

"There is always the possibility that Hezbollah might act out," Cordesman said. "Islamist extremist action is a possibility."

"A lot of (the reaction) depends on the specifics of how visible this strike is," said Byman. "Iran's biggest client is Hezbollah, which has problems of its own and is already deeply involved (in Syria's civil war). Iran could encourage them to be more involved, but to what degree?"

But Mike O'Halloran, of the Brookings Institute, says he thinks it's unlikely that any major actors in the region will want to entice the U.S. into becoming more involved in Syria.

"It's not exactly clear why they would want to do anything more," O'Halloran said. "Why rouse a sleeping giant? The U.S. will still be, after this, a country unlikely to become a participant in the conflict - even arming the rebels will be something we handle with kid gloves - so why would anybody on Assad's side want to change that?"

4. U.S. Accused of War Crimes

"The charges that we've faked the intelligence are already taking place," said Cordesman of the Obama administration's assertion that chemical weapons had unquestionably been used by Assad's forces on civilians.

One strategy that Syria could employ to retaliate against the U.S. is to accuse them of war crimes, Cordesman explained.

"The broader issue is what happens after the strike? (Syria) may focus on any collateral damage, real or false, to accuse the U.S. of war crimes, to go the U.N. with that," he said.

5. No Repercussions, U.S. Succeeds at Deterring Use of Chemical Weapons
 
Of all the potential repurcussions that could come from a strike, one U.S. expert is convinced that the biggest one will be success.

"The most likely, and it's always important to underscore that you can never count on the most likely, is it's a one-off," said O'Halloran. "It's very clear that President Obama has no more interest than that, and President Assad would be foolish to give Obama a reason or justification or necessity for doing more."

"I don't think President Obama is going to do any more than punish and deter any further chemical use, and to reestablish deterrents about weapons of mass destruction issues and behavior around the world," he said.

"He will feel he's succeeded if there's not, in fact, a subsequent attack and Iran and North Korea take note."

Cordesman and Byman agreed that, if the U.S. is successful at striking Syria once, the region will be waiting to see what we do next in the broader context of the Syrian war. 

"We face major uncertainties regardless of what we do," Cordesman concluded.

War with Syria: U.S. Builds Case for Military Action Against Syria

US builds case for Syria strikes

August 26, 2013

AFP - The United States Monday built a humanitarian and legal case for military action against Syria, rooted in the proposition that an "undeniable" chemical attack had shattered international codes of war.

US rhetoric, led by an emotional indictment of Syria by Secretary of State John Kerry, is suddenly hawkish: a remarkable turn, since the White House has spent months trying to halt a slide into another Middle Eastern war.

Officials cautioned that no final decisions on force nor a timeline for action had been made.

There was however a growing sense in Washington that the clock was relentlessly ticking down towards US strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's regime: the only questions were when and how.

The shift in tone has been swift.

Late last week, President Barack Obama was warning about the danger of new entanglements in a blood-soaked region, which may not "turn out well and get us mired in very difficult situations."

But it was clear a combination of what Kerry called "gut-wrenching" footage of dying children in a Damascus suburb last week, and what officials see as solid intelligence of regime culpability, shifted the US position over the weekend.

The administration made a dual case: that the use of such heinous arms against civilians, regarded by the world as taboo for decades, must not stand. Also, they argue, US national interests are now at stake.

Kerry -- perhaps eyeing Russia, the Syrian ally which has warned the West not to make a "grave mistake" -- said "common humanity" dictates the need to ensure the attack last week is not repeated.

And with polls showing antipathy among Americans for another Middle East misadventure, the White House began to make a domestic political argument.

"The use of these weapons on a mass scale, and the potential risk of proliferation, is a threat to our national interests," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Any final case for military action would likely be made by Obama himself to the American people, in a national address, for which Kerry's remarks at a State Department press conference clearly laid the groundwork.

It was unclear exactly which international law statutes the administration will use to build its case, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol -- though never fully ratified -- provides a codified framework outlawing the use of poison gases in war.

The administration has also made clear that it will not go it alone.

While a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force would likely draw a Russian veto, the precedent for action by an international coalition without such a mandate was set by the 1990s Kosovo conflict.

Any US military action in Syria would likely be constrained in scope -- likely to start with cruise missile strikes launched from US, and possibly allied, ships and submarines.

Analysts say possible targets could include military units implicated in the attack last week, which opposition forces say killed up to 1,300 people.

Any strike must be sufficiently punitive to deter further use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons.

But there is no appetite in Washington for prolonged involvement -- the mantra is "no boots on the ground" and senior officials say the notion of a "no-fly" zone in Syria is not on the table.

Stiffened US rhetoric appears to offer Obama little wiggle room. The same is true of his warning a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a US "red line" -- comments which placed presidential credibility on the line.

"I think a response is imminent," Republican Senator Bob Corker said Monday.

"I think you are going to see a surgical, proportional strike against the Assad regime for what they have done and I support that," Corker said on MSNBC.

Republican House Armed Services committee chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon agreed, saying there can be no impunity for the use of chemical weapons.

"The president cannot fail to act decisively," he said.

Obama has spent months trying to avoid being sucked into a war which has killed at least 100,000 people, after extracting US troops from Iraq, and as he brings them home from Afghanistan.

His defenders point out he is hardly a reluctant commander-in-chief: He leads a ruthless drone war worldwide and risked his presidency to kill Osama bin Laden.

But his instincts are to avoid new foreign quagmires and he built his political career on raging against "dumb wars."

A Syrian campaign would also threaten Obama's chosen legacy -- one of ending wars, not of opening new fronts.

Syria Warns U.S. Not to Intervene Militarily, Saying It Would Set the Middle East Ablaze

Syria warns US not to intervene militarily

August 24, 2013

AP - The Syrian government accused rebels of using chemical weapons Saturday and warned the United States not to launch any military action against Damascus over an alleged chemical attack last week, saying such a move would set the Middle East ablaze.

The accusations by the regime of President Bashar Assad against opposition forces came as an international aid group said it has tallied 355 deaths from a purported chemical weapons attack on Wednesday in a suburb of the Syrian capital known as Ghouta.

Syria is intertwined in alliances with Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas and Palestinian militant groups. The country also borders its longtime foe and U.S. ally Israel, making the fallout from military action unpredictable.

Violence in Syria has already spilled over the past year to Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Battle-hardened Hezbollah fighters have joined the combat alongside Assad's forces.

Meanwhile, U.S. naval units are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers a military response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's government.

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss ship movements publicly.

Obama emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike.

After Obama met with his national security team Saturday, the White House said U.S. intelligence officials are still trying to determine whether Assad's government unleashed the chemical weapons attack earlier this week.

The White House statement said Obama received a detailed review of the range of options he has requested for the U.S. and the international community to respond if it is determined that Assad has engaged in deadly chemical warfare.

Obama spoke by telephone with British Prime Minister David Cameron about Syria, the White House said.

A statement from Cameron's office at No. 10 Downing St. said the prime minister and Obama are concerned by "increasing signs" that "a significant chemical weapons attack" was carried out by the Syrian government against its people. Obama and Cameron "reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community," according to the statement.

Syria's Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi dismissed the possibility of an American attack, warning that such a move would risk triggering more violence in the region.

"The basic repercussion would be a ball of fire that would burn not only Syria but the whole Middle East," al-Zoubi said in an interview with Lebanon-based Al-Mayadeen TV. "An attack on Syria would be no easy trip."

In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Abbas Arakji, warned that an American military intervention in Syria will "complicate matters."

"Sending warships will not solve the problems but will worsen the situation," Arakji said in comments carried by Iran's Arabic-language TV Al-Alam. He added that any such U.S. move does not have international backing and that Iran "rejects military solutions."

In France, Doctors Without Borders said three hospitals it supports in the eastern Damascus region reported receiving roughly 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on Wednesday morning, when the attack in the eastern Ghouta area took place.

Of those, 355 died, the Paris-based group said.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Saturday that its estimated death toll from the alleged chemical attack had reached 322, including 54 children, 82 women and dozens of fighters. It said the dead included 16 people who have not been identified.

The group said it raised its death toll from an earlier figure of 136, which had been calculated before its activists in the stricken areas met doctors, residents and saw medical reports. It said the dead "fell in the massacre committed by the Syrian regime."

Death tolls have varied wildly over the alleged attack, with Syrian anti-government activists reporting between 322 and 1,300 killed.

Al-Zoubi blamed the rebels for the chemical attacks in Ghouta, saying that the Syrian government had proof of their responsibility but without giving details.

"The rockets were fired from their positions and fell on civilians. They are responsible," he said.

With the pressure increasing, Syria's state media accused rebels in the contested district of Jobar near Damascus of using chemical weapons against government troops Saturday.

State TV broadcast images of plastic jugs, gas masks, vials of an unspecified medication, explosives and other items that it said were seized from rebel hideouts Saturday.

One barrel had "made in Saudi Arabia" stamped on it. The TV report also showed medicines said to be produced by a Qatari-German medical supplies company. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are strong supporters of the Syrian rebels. The report could not be immediately verified.

An army statement issued late Saturday said the discovery of the weapons "is clear evidence that these gangs are using chemical weapons against our people and soldiers with help from foreign sides."

The claims could muddy the debate about who was responsible for Wednesday's alleged gas attack, which spurred demands for an independent investigation and renewed talk of potential international military action if chemical weapons were used.

Just hours before the state media reports, the U.N. disarmament chief arrived in Damascus to press Assad's regime to allow U.N. experts to investigate the alleged Wednesday attack. The regime has denied allegations it was responsible, calling them "absolutely baseless" and suggesting they are an attempt to discredit the government.

The U.S., Britain, France and Russia have urged the Assad regime and the rebels fighting to overthrow him to cooperate with the United Nations and allow a team of experts already in Syria to look into the latest purported use of chemical agents. The U.N. secretary-general dispatched Angela Kane, the high representative for disarmament affairs, to push for a speedy investigation into Wednesday's purported attack. She did not speak to reporters upon her arrival in Damascus Saturday.

The state news agency said several government troops who took part in the Jobar offensive experienced severe trouble breathing or even "suffocation" after "armed terrorist groups used chemical weapons." It was not clear what was meant by "suffocation," and the report mentioned no fatalities among the troops.

"The Syrian Army achieved major progress in the past days and for that reason, the terrorist groups used chemical weapons as their last card," state TV said. The government refers to rebels fighting to topple Assad as "terrorists."

State TV also broadcast images of a Syrian army officer, wearing a surgical mask, telling reporters wearing similar masks that soldiers were subjected to poisonous attack in Jobar. He spoke inside the depot where the alleged confiscated products were placed.

"Our troops did not suffer body wounds," the officer said. "I believe terrorist groups used special substances that are poisonous in an attempt to affect this advance."

Al-Mayadeen aired interviews with two soldiers hospitalized for possible chemical weapons attack. The two appeared unharmed but were undergoing tests.

"We were advancing and heard an explosion that was not very strong," a soldier said from his bed. "Then there was a strange smell, my eyes and head ached and I struggled to breathe." The other soldier also said he experienced trouble breathing after the explosion.

Al-Mayadeen TV, which has a reporter embedded with the troops in the area, said some 50 soldiers were rushed to Damascus hospitals for treatment and that it was not yet known what type of gas the troops were subjected too.

In Turkey, top Syrian rebel commander Salim Idris told reporters that opposition forces did not use chemical weapons on Saturday and that "the regime is lying."

For days, the government has been trying to counter rebel allegations that the regime used chemical weapons on civilians in rebel-held areas of eastern Damascus, arguing that opposition fighters themselves were responsible for that attack.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius dismissed the Syrian government's claims.

"All the information we have is converging to indicate there was a chemical massacre in Syria, near Damascus, and that Bashar Assad's regime was behind it," Fabius told reporters during a visit to the West Bank city of Ramallah. He did not elaborate.

France has suggested that force could be used against Syria if Assad's regime was proven to have used chemical arms.

The new talk of potential military action in in the country has made an independent investigation by U.N. inspectors critical to determine what exactly transpired.

The U.N. experts already in Syria are tasked with investigating three earlier purported chemical attacks in the country: one in the village of Khan al-Assal outside the northern city of Aleppo in March, as well as two other locations that have been kept secret for security reasons.

It took months of negotiations between the U.N. and Damascus before an agreement was struck to allow the 20-member team into Syria to investigate. Its mandate is limited to those three sites, however, and it is only charged with determining whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

Leaders of the main Western-backed Syrian opposition group on Saturday vowed retaliation for the alleged chemical weapons attack.

From Istanbul, the head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad Al-Jarba, also criticized the lack of response to the attack by the United Nations and the international community, saying the UN was discrediting itself.

"It does not reach the ethical and legal response that Syrians expect," he said. "As a matter of fact we can describe it as a shame."

Israeli Settlement Expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank Threatens to Bring a Premature and "Disastrous" End to Palestinian Peace Talks

Gaza protests against peace talks

August 24, 2013

AFP - Hundreds of people in the Gaza Strip protested on Friday against Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, in marches organised by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Marchers set off from mosques across the coastal strip before converging on a square in the middle of Gaza City, with protesters brandishing signs saying "No to negotiations" and slamming West Bank-based Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's "political failure."

Hamas's religious affairs minister Ismail Ridwan addressed the group's arch-rival Abbas in a speech during the protests.

"All the Palestinian factions say you don't have the right to relinquish any piece of our land, or to give up Palestinian rights," he said.

Hamas says Abbas's decision to return to the negotiating table with Israel is not representative of the will of the Palestinian people.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators held another round of US-brokered talks on Tuesday in Jerusalem.

"Returning to talks is a blow to the jihad and to the sacrifices of our people, the blood of our martyrs and to our prisoners behind bars in Israel," Ridwan said.

Israeli plans to build another 2,129 settlement units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, announced days before the latest talks started, angered Palestinian officials, who have said the plans threatened to bring a premature and "disastrous" end to negotiations.

NSA Spent Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Making Sure Internet Companies Were Compliant with International Surveillance Program, Prism

NSA paid millions to Internet companies to cover surveillance program costs

August 23, 2013 

RT.com - Top-secret national security documents leaked to the Guardian newspaper reveal that the United States government compensated the tech companies that signed on to participate in the controversial NSA spy program known as Prism.

The Guardian published on Friday new documentation attributed to former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in which it’s suggested that the US National Security Agency spent millions of dollars making sure the biggest names on the Internet were kept compliant with an international surveillance program disclosed by the leaker earlier this year.

According to the paperwork provided by Snowden and discussed by the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill on Friday, the NSA emptied millions of dollars on ensuring Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook were able to share information sent over the Web with the federal government.

“The material provides the first evidence of a financial relationship between the tech companies and the NSA,” wrote MacAskill.

The Guardian article cites a top-secret NSA document from December 2012 in which the agency said through a newsletter that it spent millions to keep the tech companies cooperating with the government after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that it was a violation of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment to be collecting purely domestic communications through the Prism program.

"Last year's problems resulted in multiple extensions to the certifications' expiration dates which cost millions of dollars for Prism providers to implement each successive extension – costs covered by Special Source Operations," it reads in part.

Snowden, the 30-year-old leaker who has exasperated the US and British governments through a steady stream of classified disclosures, told the Guardian that the Special Source Operations unit handles surveillance programs, such as Prism, in which telecommunication companies and Internet providers sign-on to “corporate partnerships” with Uncle Sam.

Asked about the latest disclosure, a representative for Yahoo told the Guardian,

"Federal law requires the US government to reimburse providers for costs incurred to respond to compulsory legal process imposed by the government. We have requested reimbursement consistent with this law."

Facebook denied that it received compensation from the US government ever for facilitating the flow of private data. A representative for Google told the Guardian,

"We await the US government's response to our petition to publish more national security request data, which will show that our compliance with American national security laws falls far short of the wild claims still being made in the press today."

In the wake of the first NSA disclosures leaked by Mr. Snowden, lawmakers in the US and abroad have debated whether or not the secretive surveillance programs, such as the Internet one operated under the name Prism, strike the proper balance between privacy and security. President Barack Obama and his administration have made numerous claims that those operations exist with significant oversight to prevent any errors, including constitutional violations, but other documents released by Snowden in the wake of the first disclosures have shown that the NSA has accidentally collected the personal correspondence of Americans at least thousands of times annually. According to their latest report, the federal government is spending millions to find a way to keep those companies only collecting data that invades the privacy of those outside the US. 

Israel Strikes Lebanon After Rocket Attack

Israel strikes Lebanon after rocket attack

August 23, 2013

AFP - The Israeli air force struck a Palestinian group in Lebanon on Friday, officials said, hours after a different organisation said it fired four rockets at the Jewish state from Lebanon.

Israeli aircraft "targeted a terror site located between Beirut and Sidon in response to a barrage of four rockets launched at northern Israel yesterday (Thursday)," the military said.

"The pilots reported direct hits to the target."

Lebanon's NNA news agency said the target was a position of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a hardline but secular militant group which said it had nothing to do with Thursday's rocket fire.

The salvo of four rockets, which caused damage but no casualties, was claimed by the Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an Al-Qaeda-linked group which claimed similar rocket fire on Israel in 2009 and 2011.

Israeli army spokesman Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai said on Thursday that the rockets were "launched by the global jihad terror organisation" -- an apparent reference to Al-Qaeda.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had threatened retaliation. "Anyone who harms us, or tries to harm us, should know -- we will strike them," he said on Thursday.

Two of the four rockets fired from Lebanon on Thursday hit populated areas of northern Israel, causing damage but no casualties.

One struck in Gesher Haziv, a kibbutz east of the Mediterranean coastal town of Nahariya, AFP correspondents reported. Another hit Shavie Zion, a village between Nahariya and Acre, further south, Israeli media said.

A third rocket was intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome defence system, the army said. The fourth apparently struck outside Israel.

Thursday's attack was the first of its kind since November 2011, when the same Palestinian jihadist group fired a volley of rockets from southern Lebanon at Israel. That fire too provoked retaliation by the Israeli military.

Defence sources said that the PFLP-GC base hit was in the Naameh valley. The Palestinian group has a number of heavily fortified positions in Lebanon.

Headed by Ahmed Jibril, the group is known for close ties with the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

PFLP-GC spokesman Ramez Mustapha denied any link between his group and the rockets fired at Israel on Thursday.

In its Friday statement, the Israeli army again said it "holds the Lebanese government accountable for the attack".

On Thursday, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman described the rocket fire as a violation of UN resolutions and of Lebanese sovereignty, and urged security forces to hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Palestinians Insist That a Peace Agreement Include a 'Right of Return' to the Villages They Fled in 1948, But Israelis Say There is No Room for Any of Them in Israel

As peace talks pick up, Palestinians demand a return to villages fled long ago

August 18, 2013

Christian Science Monitor - Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will be hard pressed to sell any peace deal reached with Israel in crowded and drab refugee camps like Dhaishe, near Bethlehem.

There is an enormous chasm between what Palestinian refugees and their descendants view as a just solution to their displacement and the Israeli negotiating position that not a single Palestinian refugee will be repatriated in Israeli territory as part of a final agreement. As the weaker negotiating party, Mr. Abbas has significant limitations.

Only the mosque of her native village of Zakaria inside Israel remains, but Dhaishe resident Fatima al-Haj Ali Adawi, only a child when her family left, still holds on to her memories of the village west of Jerusalem that was transformed into a farming community for Kurdish Jewish immigrants after its last Palestinians were expelled in June 1950. It was renamed Zecharia. Both the Hebrew and Arabic versions of the name refer to the Old Testament prophet revered in both Judaism and Islam.

The buildings she remembers were razed as part of an Israeli government policy of destroying the remains of Palestinian hamlets to discourage the idea of a return by their former inhabitants. But the emotional attachments to the ancestral homes were carried from generation to generation.

"I want to die in our village. Our house is in Zakaria. I don't forget my country," Ms. Adawi says.

Her great niece Marwa al-Adawi, a 24-year old lawyer, has never seen the site, now a quiet town of red-roofed houses near the city of Beit Shemesh.

"I am from Zakaria, not Dhaishe, and to anyone who asks me where I'm from I answer Zakaria," she says. "This is the village of my grandparents and we are hoping to return back to it. This is our right and our dream."

"Anything taken by force is unacceptable," she says of the Israelis living there. ''This is a question of justice and dignity. No president or any other man can give this up."

RETURNING IS 'IMPOSSIBLE'

But Abbas has shown signs that he intends to do exactly that in order to reach an agreement establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas has endorsed the Arab League's position espousing an ''agreed'' solution to the refugee issue, a stance that in effect gives Israel a veto over any return.

More than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled when Israel was established in 1948. Today, including their descendants, there are more than 4.7 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations and living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. About 13,000 of those live in Dhaishe in an area of roughly one square kilometer.

Last year, Abbas infuriated some Palestinians by saying he did not have a right to live in Safed, the town in northern Israel where he was raised, only to visit it, and that to him Palestine was the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Following a barrage of criticism, he later said he was voicing his ''personal stance'' and that his remarks had no bearing on the ''right of return'' Palestinians assert to their former homes inside what became Israel.

But a Palestinian legislator who supports Abbas also struck a moderate tone on the refugee issue in remarks to the Monitor this week.

"The main issue is having our right to self-determination and to establish our state in the territories occupied in 1967," says Abdullah Abdullah, deputy head of international relations for Abbas's Fatah movement. "That's the start and the end, and in between whatever issue arises is solvable. We can't abandon our right of return but we are willing to discuss how we implement this right so that it won't be at the expense of anyone."

He added that any peace deal will be put to a referendum. If public opinion is largely opposed to any tenets of the agreement, voters could scuttle the deal.

Not everyone in Dhaishe is fixated on a return to their ancestral villages. Lutfi Sayed, a barber, says that a peace agreement that gives Palestinians all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, ensures open access to Jerusalem, and makes it possible for people to make a dignified living would be acceptable to him.

Asked why he had given up on the idea of return to his now destroyed ancestral village of Zikreen inside Israel, Mr. Sayed, a father of six, responds: "Because it is impossible."

ERASING THE PAST

The elder Adawi recalls growing up in a house in Zakaria with six rooms.

''It was good, the people were good. We had fig trees, grape vines and a lot, a lot of olive trees. There were no hungry people in Zakaria.''

During fighting in October 1948, Jewish forces shelled the village, she says. But they also told villagers they could remain in their homes if they surrendered. The vast majority of the population – which numbered 1,180, according to a 1945 count – fled, fearing the Jewish forces would kill Arabs, she says.

"We were afraid after Deir Yassin,'' she said, referring to the April 1948 massacre of about 250 Palestinians near Jerusalem by right-wing armed groups.

Adawi and her family fled on foot into the nearby hills, then walked to the town of Hebron behind Jordanian lines. Eventually they were given a tent and taken to Dhaishe, which, like the other refugee camps that have become permanent fixtures, began as a tent camp.

After the fighting ended, the new state of Israel made a deliberate decision to empty Zakaria of its remaining Palestinians, eyeing it as a site to settle Jewish immigrants. Israeli historian Benny Morris writes in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49" that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion decided in January 1950 to evict the 145 Arabs who remained in Zakaria. The removal was carried out in June 1950 and a Jewish communal farm, or moshav, was soon established at the site.

ISRAEL: NO RIGHT TO RETURN

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev says Israel has no historic responsibility for the refugee problem.

"The Israeli position is that the refugee problem is a result of Arab aggression against us. The Arab side rejected the 1947 partition [of Palestine] and launched their aggressive war to kill the Jewish state. The primary responsibility is therefore on the Arab side," he says. 

According to Mr. Regev, the new Palestinian state that could emerge from peace talks – not Israel – is the place that should absorb refugees.

"Israel has absorbed millions of [Jewish] refugees and for the Palestinians to say they want a state for their people and simultaneously demand that Israel take responsibility for the Palestinian refugees is a contradiction in terms and runs counter to the goal of two states for two peoples," Regev says.

Most Israelis appear to agree. A late July poll by the Israeli Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University showed that 77 percent of Israeli Jews oppose allowing the return of even a small number of refugees.
In Zecharia, which means "God has remembered," the memory of Zakaria has been completely erased. The mosque's windows are sealed with concrete and litter is strewn outside. A sign warns that the dilapidated structure is a ''dangerous building'' but makes no reference to its religious significance. Residents say they are very attached to their community.

''We love the place,'' says Sara Levy, 67, who has lived there for 49 years. 

She says that today most residents work in Jerusalem or nearby towns, through previously many residents grew wheat and raised poultry for a living.

Ms. Levy, who has born in Iraqi Kurdistan, has little sympathy for Dhaishe residents who want to return to the area.

"They are stupid," she says. "This place is named after the prophet Zecharia. It is a place for Jews, not Arabs. It is not theirs."

Israeli settlers defy stereotype amid peace talks

August 17, 2013

AP - Micha Drori is living the Israeli dream: a house, a yard, a wife and three kids. The 42-year-old businessman has found an affordable alternative to Israel's booming real estate market in a quiet community he loves, with a commute of less than half an hour to his job near Tel Aviv.

What's the catch? He's a West Bank settler.

The fate of Jewish settlements took center stage this week with the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state. In contrast to the prevailing image of settlers as gun-toting religious zealots, the majority are in fact middle-of-the-road pragmatists seeking quality of life. Many shun the settler ideology and say they will uproot quietly, if needed, for the sake of peace.

"We will not sit here and burn tires if the government will tell us to leave. We will just leave," Drori said in his quiet garden, smack in the middle of the West Bank. "When the proper solution will be found I don't believe that something will stop it like settlements. Houses can be moved ... I don't think the settlements are a problem."

For the Palestinians, though, the settlements are a huge problem. They seek a state that includes the West Bank and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war. The Palestinians, and most of the international community, consider any settlements built beyond the 1967 borders to be illegal land grabs.

For five years, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refused to engage in talks while settlement construction continued. As talks finally got under way this week, the Palestinians threatened to walk away again after Israel announced plans to build more than 3,000 new apartments.

In all, Israel has built dozens of settlements since 1967 that are now home to about 550,000 Israelis. Settlements dot the West Bank, the heartland of a future Palestine, and ring east Jerusalem, the Palestinians' hoped-for capital, making it ever more difficult to partition the land between two states. Jews now make up 17.5 percent of the population in both areas.

While religious Jews, attracted to the West Bank because of its biblical significance, pioneered the settler movement four decades ago, the settlements today have expanded into a more accurate reflection of Israeli society. The profile of a settler can vary from a suburban Jerusalemite to a non-partisan ultra-Orthodox seminary student to a commuting high-tech executive to a socialist farmer in the Jordan Valley.
Drori, for instance, is secular and never imagined living outside central Israel. But he has found a home in Barkan, an upscale settlement of nearly 400 families with red-tiled rooftops and a vibrant community center. From his backyard Drori has a clear view of the Mediterranean coast.

"The air is nice, the weather is good, the view is wonderful. I think this is most of the reason that people come here," he said.

About a third of all West Bank settlers could be defined as "ideological," according to Yariv Oppenheimer, director of the anti-settlement watchdog group Peace Now. He said these settlers, the driving force behind the settlement enterprise, are politically active and tend to live in the more outlying areas, often closer to Palestinian villages and ancient Jewish religious sites.

"The irony is that the believers are the ones who are more likely to be ultimately removed," he said.

The rest are "economic" settlers who take advantage of the benefits available to live a higher quality of life than they could have afforded in Israel proper. While these settlers tend to still hold hawkish political positions, they are not as hard-core over territorial compromise. Some, particularly those in and around Jerusalem, don't even realize they are settlers.

In fact, the two largest settlements, Modiin Illit and Beitar Illit, were established as a housing option for ultra-Orthodox Jews, the poorest segment of Israeli society. Some of the ultra-Orthodox may even have no other choice but to live in the settlements, Peace Now acknowledges.

Oppenheimer said the economic settlers were less combative and rejectionist, but because of their sheer growth posed an obstacle.

"If everyone behaves like them and settlements continue to expand, there will be no place for a Palestinian state, even if they are not ideological," he said.

Many of these settlers would evacuate quietly in return for fair compensation, but likely won't have to because they are within the major blocs Israel would probably keep in a land deal. In previous rounds of negotiations, the Palestinians agreed to swap some West Bank land for Israeli territory to allow Israel to annex the largest settlement blocs adjacent to its border.

Even if the current talks can reach a similar understanding, most experts believe that more than 100,000 settlers in outlying communities would have to be evacuated. It won't be easy.

In 2005, Israel evacuated all 9,000 of its settlers from the Gaza Strip. Despite months of protests by pro-settler demonstrators and widespread resistance by the settlers themselves, the pullout passed with relatively little violence.

Settlers have vowed to put up more of a fight under any West Bank withdrawal. Israelis in general are hesitant to pay what they consider a steep price — more than 53 percent would oppose any peace deal that included major withdrawals from the West Bank, according to a poll of 506 released by the Maagar Mohot research institute Friday. Dividing Jerusalem, home to sensitive religious sites, would be the hardest challenge of all.

Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian official, said distinctions between settlers and their various motivations could be taken into consideration during negotiations. Regardless, she said they were all part of the problem.

"They are all illegal and people will find any rationalization to explain why they are there," she said. "If anyone has any sense of justice they would understand that they are living on other peoples' lands ... You are all contributing to sabotaging peace."

Save for a brief building showdown in 2009 and 2010, construction has continued unabated under all Israeli governments despite continued international condemnation.

Just last week, Israel announced new building plans and added more settlements to its "national priority" list of communities eligible for special government subsidies. In all, roughly three-quarters of Jewish settlements are on the priority list.

In addition to the Palestinian outcry, the plan triggered international condemnations. It also angered many Israelis who accused the government of neglecting a periphery in the south and north that does not get the benefits of the settlements and is plagued by poverty, unemployment and housing shortages.

Despite their uncertain future, Israelis continue to flock to the settlements. Government statistics show the settler population growing at about 5 percent annually, compared to 2 percent elsewhere. At this rate, the settler population will grow by more than 10,000 people during the nine months of negotiations allotted by the U.S.

While most of the surge is attributed to the higher birthrates of ultra-Orthodox and other observant Jewish settlers, there are other factors. Recent parliamentary data showed that between 2001 and 2011 the settlements gained 38,880 people, with more than 170,000 moving in and just over 131,000 moving out. The 11 percent migration spike marked the second highest in any Israeli district over that time.

Some settlers are drawn to community life in the countryside, others to cheaper housing. Some seek a spiritual connection to the land of the bible, others an escape from the density (and humidity) of central Israel.

The settlements are now an even more enticing destination, with the construction of new highways that make the commute to central Israel much quicker. Most importantly, the settlers have now enjoyed a long period of relative calm after enduring years of roadside shooting attacks and other Palestinian violence. The major violence began to subside in 2005.

When Drori's wife first suggested scoping out the settlements, he refused. But after discovering that a private home in central Israel, which can cost well over $750,000, was out of their price range, he reconsidered. First they rented and then built their own house for about 40 percent less than it would cost in Israel.

"The main decision was the community. I live here with people like me," he insisted. "We were looking for quality of life: a home, a community."

The future of Barkan is uncertain. Unlike the blocs near the border, it lies deep into the West Bank and creates an enclave that would hinder Palestinian territorial continuity.

But Drori is not concerned. He's skeptical a peace accord will be reached, and if it is, he is open to various options, including living alongside Palestinians. He says he has moved many times before, and will do so again if required.

"God is not my guide," he said. "My guide is conscience and economy and community."

U.S. and Its Western Allies are Pressing Iran to Curb Its Uranium Enrichment Program

Iran has 18,000 uranium centrifuges, says outgoing nuclear chief

August 18, 2013

Reuters - Iran has installed 18,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges, the country's outgoing nuclear chief was quoted as saying by Iranian media on Saturday.

The U.S. and its Western allies are pressing Iran to curb its uranium enrichment program, which they suspect is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability, but Iran refuses and insists its nuclear activity is for purely peaceful purposes.

New Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a former nuclear negotiator who oversaw a previous deal to suspend Iran's uranium enrichment, has welcomed new talks with world powers over the program but has insisted on Iran's right to enrich uranium.

Iran has 17,000 older "first-generation" IR-1 centrifuges, of which 10,000 are operating and 7,000 are ready to start operations, the ISNA news agency quoted Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, outgoing head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), as saying.

A May report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog indicated that Iran had by then installed roughly 16,600 IR-1 machines in two separate facilities.

Abbasi-Davani also said there were 1,000 new, more advanced centrifuges ready to start operations, in a reference to IR-2m centrifuges, which once operational would allow Iran to enrich uranium several times faster than the IR-1 machine.

The IAEA in its last report in May said Iran had installed a total of 689 such centrifuges and empty centrifuge casings.

Rouhani on Friday appointed Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's previous foreign minister, to take over the AEOI. Salehi, who once headed the agency, is seen as a pragmatist, as opposed to the more hardline Abbasi-Davani.

U.N. Chemical Weapons Inspectors Arrive in Damascus, Syria

U.N. chemical weapons inspectors arrive in Syria

Aug 18, 2013 
 
Reuters - A team of United Nations chemical weapons experts arrived in Damascus on Sunday to investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

President Bashar al-Assad's government and the rebels fighting him have accused each other of using chemical weapons, a step which the United States had said would cross a "red line" in a conflict which has killed 100,000 people.

Like the broader Syrian conflict, the issue of chemical weapons has divided world powers. Washington said in June it believed Assad's forces have used them on a small scale, while in July Moscow said rebels fired sarin gas near Aleppo in March.

The U.N. team, including weapons experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, will try to establish only whether chemical weapons including sarin and other toxic nerve agents were used, not who used them.

The 20-member team declined to comment to reporters as they checked into a hotel in central Damascus.
Led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, the team had been on standby since early April to visit Syria but the mission was held up for months by negotiations over the access Damascus would grant them.

Syrian officials originally insisted they should only investigate claims of chemical weapons use in Khan al-Assal, near the northern city of Aleppo, but the team has been urged to look into at least a dozen other incidents, mainly around Damascus, Homs and the northern town of Saraqeb.

The experts now plan to visit Khan al-Assal and two other sites which they have not yet specified.
Syria is one of seven countries that has not joined the 1997 convention banning chemical weapons. Western nations believe it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.

Your Household Items Could Be Spying on You

9 Household Items That Could Be Spying on You

August 15, 2013

Credit.com - For Americans concerned about their privacy, the NSA data grabs are daunting, but what about the data grabs happening inside your own home, perpetrated not by the government, but by your coffee machine?

Consider every appliance and every piece of home electronics that you own. Does it gather data about how you use it? Does it connect to the Internet? If so, it could be used to spy on you. Your mobile devices, your TV, and now various other types of home appliances can be wired into a network that can track you. If those networks are hacked, information about your habits and behaviors could be available to people with nefarious goals. The same technological innovation that empowers us also makes us vulnerable to those who would exploit such advances against us.

Here are nine appliances and other systems inside your house that may be spying on you right now, or used to spy on you in the future.

1. Your Television

Ever wonder how your TV remembers what shows you’ve watched, which ones you plan to watch, and how long you watched last episode of  “Homeland” before falling into nightmare-ridden sleep?

It does it all by connecting to the Internet. Therein lies its weakness. Computer Security firm ReVuln proved last year that it could hack Samsung’s newest televisions, accessing users’ settings, installing malware on the TVs and any connected devices, and harvesting all the personal data stored on the machine. They could even switch on the camera embedded in the TV and watch viewers watching the set.

Samsung says it patched the security flaw. That said, who’s to say that Samsung is the only brand to have experienced a security issue?

2. Your Cable Box

Companies including Google and Verizon are reportedly developing cable boxes with built-in video cameras and motion sensors. The idea is that if the camera detects two people canoodling on the couch, they might be delivered ads for a new romantic movie, while a roomful of children would see ads for an Air Hogs remote control helicopter.

If that freaks you out, think what government intelligence agencies or hackers could do with such a device.

3. Your Dishwasher, Clothes Dryer, Toaster, Clock Radio and Remote Control

This may sound fantastical, but no less an expert on spying than former CIA Director David Petraeus believes that even mundane appliances like your dishwasher could soon be used to gather intelligence about you. Appliances including dishwashers, coffee makers and clothes dryers all now connect to the Internet. This helps the manufacturers troubleshoot performance and improve energy efficiency, and it gives owners the chance to order a fresh cup of coffee or a dry bin of clothes from their phone, computer or tablet.

Knowing when you make your coffee sounds innocuous enough, but that little piece of data could help snoopers geo-locate you, and learn your habits and schedule for all manner of malfeasance. Petraeus told a group of investors last year that such technology will be “transformational” for spies –could “change our notions of secrecy.” I think it could help criminals, too.

4. Your Lights

The same technology that enables monitoring of your home appliances also could allow would-be spies to monitor your lights. In addition to tracking your schedule, taking control of your home lighting system could help robbers invade your home by turning off the lights and keeping them off during an invasion.

5. Your Heat and A/C

The Nest thermostat tracks homeowners’ heat and air-conditioning habits, learns their preferences, and over time tweaks their HVAC systems to reach the desired results with the least electricity. Users also can change the settings via the Internet when they’re away from home.

Hackers already have started taking apart the Nest thermostat to customize it. Thieves and snoopers could do the same.

6. Security Alarms

For years, home security systems were hardwired to a service provider’s operations center. Now they are wirelessly connected to many users’ phones and tablets. This allows us to keep tabs on our homes at all times, from all places. But what’s the point of having a security system if robbers can hack it?

7. Insulin Pumps and Pacemakers

Forget about hacking your house. What about hacking your body? In 2012, White Hat hacker Barnaby Jack proved he could kill a diabetic person from 300 feet away by ordering an insulin pump to deliver fatal doses of insulin. This summer he announced he could hack pacemakers and implanted defibrillators.

“These are computers that are just as exploitable as your PC or Mac, but they’re not looked at as often,” Jack told Bloomberg. “When you actually look at these devices, the security vulnerabilities are quite shocking.”

8. Smartphones

Think of every spy gadget dreamt up by Q in James Bond films. Microphone, still and video camera, geo-locating device, and computer software that can steal your personal passwords, hack your bank accounts, hijack your email and take control of other devices.

Your smartphone has all these things. In addition, the U.S. military disclosed last year it created an app called PlaceRaider that uses a phone’s camera, geo-location data and its accelerometer to create a 3D map of the phone’s surroundings.

9. Your Tablet and Computer

Most tablets and computers have all the same tools as smartphones and some have even more. If your phone can spy on you, they can too. Even more so than our smartphones, we unwittingly stuff them with every imaginable tidbit of sensitive personal information from lists of passwords, to tax and financial information, to geo-tagged photographs, to the innermost secrets that we exchange with our friends.

Our privacy is threatened. Every day our most precious asset (our identity) is put at risk by us and those who wish to track our every movement, word, thought and search. We need a national conversation – where everyone participates – about just how widespread such monitoring has become. General Petraeus is dead on. Such devices could and inevitably will change our notions of secrecy. Let’s not simply opt for progress without proper safeguards.

Federal Workers Don’t Want Obamacare

Here’s Why Federal Workers Don’t Want Obamacare

August 17, 2013

Wall St Cheat Sheet - “If the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, along with all their staffs, are required to go under Affordable Healthcare Act, I would not object,” read one response to a survey conducted by FedSmith.com, a portal for information regarding issues — like the Affordable Care Act — that impact federal workers. “But if it’s not good enough for the heads of the 3 branches of Government, it isn’t good enough for the rest of us.”

In responses in total, a great majority of them expressing the same idea: Federal employees are not pleased at having the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program replaced by Obamacare.

The underlying complaint running through a majority of these opinions was that members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff, and Obama administration appointees will not be affected by potential Obamacare flaws — like premium hikes — as much as the average American.

“When they ‘live it,’ they will know how to improve it,” another respondent wrote.

The survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent of them believe workers and retirees should keep keep their current health insurance and not be forced to purchase coverage through the exchanges. Only 2.9 percent thought the opposite. The preference for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program was even more obvious when survey respondents were asked whether they think federal employees should carry their health insurance into retirement, as is the current policy, or enroll in Medicare; 96.1 percent said the current system should not be changed.

When Congress first passed the health care reform, known colloquially as Obamacare, three years ago, attached was an amendment requiring all lawmakers and their staffs to purchase health care insurance via the online exchanges. This meant lawmakers would lose the generous coverage they were granted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program – where the government [taxpayers] subsidized as much as 75 percent of the premiums.

It was written into the bill in the first place on the theory that if Congress was going to make Americans live under the provisions of Obamacare, those who authored it should, as well. But because the language of the amendment contained no guidance on whether the federal contributions toward their health plans was allowed, Congress began to worry.

However, the Office of Personnel Management, with President Barack Obama’s consent, ruled August 7 that Congress members and staff would continue to receive the federal contributions toward their health insurance costs

.

In April, Michigan Republican Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation that would shift all federal employees from FEHBP to the exchanges. 

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement.

And now that the Office of Personnel Management has made its decision regarding benefits for Congress, all other federal workers are becoming more worried.

The National Treasury Employees Union — which includes employees of the Internal Revenue Service — asked its members in late July to write to their representatives regarding their concern about Camp’s legislative efforts.

“I am a federal employee and one of your constituents,” began one letter. “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair.

“It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. 

“I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

Related:

• Federal Employees' Database of Salaries 
• Public Sector v. Private Sector Employees: Higher Pay, Secure Jobs, Lifetime Benefits, Generous Pensions, No Competition, No Accountability at Taxpayers' Expense
• The Public Sector Menace   
• The Elite Island of Federal Workers: They Are Above the People They Serve
• Public Sector v. Private Sector Employees: Higher Pay, Secure Jobs, Lifetime Benefits, Generous Pensions, No Competition, No Accountability at Taxpayers' Expense   
• Inequality is on the Rise in America; the Ruling Class Has Redistributed Private Sector Middle Class Wealth to the Public Sector Until They Finally Redistribute It All to Themselves   
• Collective Bargaining Laws Give Enormous Political Power to Public Sector Unions   
• The Ruling Elite's Wealth Redistribution Plan  
• The Economic Elite v. the People of the United States of America 
• Transferring Wealth to the Ruling Elite in Name of the Environment 
• The Elite Ruling Class Owns the Government and Funnels Taxpayer Money to Themselves 
• A Tiny Elite Owns 80% of the World's Wealth 
• Politicians March to the Tune of the Controlling Elite
• 'Think Tanks' of the Elite Guiding U.S. Policy   
• The Ruling Elite Want Our 401(k)s to Pay Down the Federal Debt; Debt Deal Establishes 'Super Committee', Promises Future Cuts, and Includes Constitutional Amendment Requiring the Feds to Balance the Budget
• Elite Private Equity Firms are Buying Farmland to Control the Food Supply 
• We Are Information-age Serfs Ruled Over by a Global Elite, Our Minds Enslaved to Celebrating Diversity, Embracing Tolerance, and Worshipping Mother Earth 
• The Ruling Elite Will Incite American Youth Through Social Networking to Protest Just Like Their Counterparts Around the World 
• America's Perpetual, Multi-generational Global War on Terror is Profitable for the Ruling Elite
• The Financial Elite Are Intentionally Tanking the Economy to Usher in a One-world Government
• The Financial Oligarchy's Plan for the World
• We Have Become a Nation of Takers, Dependent on the Government to Care for Us, and Perfectly Primed By the Elite to Willingly Accept Their One World Order
• Those Accustomed to Sucking Off the Government Teat Will Embrace the New World Order

Intercepted Al Qaeda Communications Indicate Planned Attack ‘Big,’ Terrorists Carrying Surgically Implanted Bombs - Report Comes Just in Time to Support Ever-Expanding NSA Surveillance of U.S. Citizens

Senior U.S. Official: Intercepted Al Qaeda Communications Indicate Planned Attack ‘Big,’ ‘Strategically Significant’

August 4, 2013

ABC News - On the day that almost two dozen U.S. embassies and consulates across North Africa and the Middle East are closed following the identification of a significant threat from an al-Qaeda affiliate, a senior U.S. official is providing new details about the communications intercepted from the terrorists, telling ABC News that al-Qaeda operatives could be heard talking about an upcoming attack. The official described the terrorists as saying the planned attack is “going to be big” and “strategically significant.”

“The part that is alarming is the confidence they showed while communicating and the air of certainty,” the official said, adding that the group — Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — appeared to have a media plan for after the attack.

Authorities do not know the exact target of the planned attack, according to the official.

“We do not know whether they mean an embassy, an airbase, an aircraft, trains,” the official said.

Today on “This Week,” Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD — the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee — said the intercepted communications called for a “major attack.”

“We received information that high level people from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack,” Ruppersberger said. “And these are people at a high level.”

“It’s a very credible threat and it’s based on intelligence,” Ruppersberger continued. “What we have to do now is the most important issue, is protect Americans throughout the world.”

Ruppersberger also commented on the threat’s al-Qaeda connection, saying “We know that al-Qaeda and other people out there want to attack us and kill us and our allies.”

Read Gen. Martin Dempsey’s comments on the latest overseas terror threats here. 

The senior U.S. official said there is concern about devices that could be implanted inside the body of a terrorist.

“We are concerned about surgically implanted devices,” they said. “These are guys who have developed the techniques to defeat our detection methods.”

The official also said authorities were stunned that the group broke “operational security” — meaning they talked likely knowing it would be picked up by intercepts.

ABC News reported Thursday that embassies across the Middle East and North Africa - including those in Egypt, Iraq and Kuwait – would close today because of “a specific threat against a U.S. embassy or consulate.”

The next day, the State Department issued a global travel warning to all U.S. citizens around the world, alerting them to the “continued potential for terrorist attacks.”

During an interview for “This Week,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told Martha Raddatz that there is “a significant threat stream and we’re reacting to it.” 

Highest Cost of Living States

The States With the Highest Cost of Living

August 4, 2013

 

Motley Fool - Few people would argue that it's easy to make ends meet with a minimum-wage job. Given that the federal minimum wage makes no allowance for different costs of living, it's been left up to states in some instances to boost the amount they make employers pay their workers. Yet even with efforts like the recent D.C. measure that would raise minimum wages to $12.50 for certain large retailers -- and was targeted specifically to include Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) while excluding other stores including Safeway (NYSE: SWY  ) -- minimum-wage earners still have trouble earning enough to cover even basic living expenses.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently created a living-wage calculator intended to show the minimum amount that families can earn in order to cover basic costs that low-income families have to bear. Using a methodology similar to the Economic Policy Institute's metropolitan living wage tool, the MIT calculator puts a new spin on affordability and regional differences across the nation. Let's look at the highest-cost states in the country for a family of four to see how well minimum-wage workers are able to make ends meet.

5. Connecticut
Families of four need to earn wages of $21.47 an hour to cover basic living expenses in Connecticut, according to the MIT calculator. Even with a minimum wage of $8.25 that's $1 above the federal minimum, families with two adults in full-time minimum-wage jobs would fall 23% short of covering basic expenses. Costs are even higher in certain parts of the state, especially those closer to New York City. Living wages in Stamford would need to be $4.25 higher to meet the difference, and beyond professional occupations, most jobs don't come close to providing enough income.

4. California
Living costs in California are even higher, at $22.15 an hour, and an $8-an-hour minimum wage leaves double-income families 28% short of covering those costs. As you can expect, city-specific costs are often much higher, with San Francisco requiring more than $3.25 in additional hourly wages to make ends meet. High-paying computer and technical jobs cover those higher costs, but supporting service workers stand little chance of earning enough to reach a living wage.

3. Maryland
In Maryland, a living wage would be $22.41 an hour, yet the federal $7.25 minimum that applies leaves a two-income family even further behind, fully 35% below basic living expenses. Areas close to Washington have even higher expenses, but even at statewide levels, few basic occupations approach what would be necessary for families to make ends meet.

2. Hawaii
At $24.10 per hour, Hawaii's living wage reflects the high costs of living off the U.S. mainland in a resort environment. The $7.25 federal minimum wage leaves two-earner families 40% short of covering that living wage, with construction workers being the only non-professional service-industry jobs that pay enough to meet cost needs. Given the difficulties among low-income families in getting affordable transportation off the islands to lower-cost locales, it's even harder for Hawaiians to deal with high living expenses.

1. District of Columbia
Topping the list is not a state at all, but the District of Columbia. D.C.'s living wage sits at $24.92 per hour, but its $8.25 minimum wage leaves it a little less repressive for double-income earners, falling short of the living-wage level by 34%. With the entire district being an urban area, housing costs are generally higher, and while wages are also at generally higher levels than you'll find elsewhere, they nevertheless make it difficult for low-income workers to cover all the expenses of living in the nation's capital.

When wages fail to keep up with costs

Interestingly, the $12.50-per-hour minimum that D.C. proposed would just barely cover its living wage for a family of four with two minimum-wage workers. But in general, even areas that already offer premiums to the federal minimum wage don't require enough additional wages to offset the higher costs of living. Still, with limited resources to finance moves to less expensive locales and with many urban areas having higher-paying jobs than less costly areas, low-income residents often have little choice but to make the best of a tough situation where they already are.