5,000 Baloch youth to be inducted in Pak Army in March, 2011

[The way things are, it makes you wonder how he will find 5,000 “volunteers” from Balochistan, if they are to be volunteers.  Does this mean that Baloch have been banned from the Pak Army until now?]

5,000 Baloch youth to be inducted in Pak Army in March, 2011

Quetta: A total of 5,000 youth from all over Balochistan Province will be inducted in Pakistan Army in March 2011, said Major General Tariq Javed on Monday.

Pakistan Army in collaboration with Balochistan government is committed to play its role in the development of the province, he said at concluding ceremony of ISSB classes at Quetta Cantt.

“In pursuance of Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani’s directive, Army in collaboration with provincial government launched projects in education, health, and other sectors,” he added.

He said conversion of Sui cantt into military college, training classes in Balochistan Institute of Technical Education BITE, renovation, construction of damaged health and education structures in flood-stricken areas are some of major steps taken by Army for development in Balochistan.

Major General Tariq Javed lauded dedication of Baloch youth during training session and said Balochistan is rich in talent and efforts afoot to bring them on par with students of other provinces.

Advertisements

Stuxnet could have caused “new Chernobyl,” Russian ambassador says

Stuxnet could have caused “new Chernobyl,” Russian ambassador says

Russian ambassador says NATO should be investigating the Stuxnet further.

By Ellen Messmer, Network World

The Stuxnet worm attack known to have struck computers at the Russian-built Iranian Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran has serious implications and could have caused “another Chernobyl,” a Russian ambassador is said to have advised NATO yesterday, according to a Reuters report.

The Reuters report says Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, called the Stuxnet virus “very toxic, very dangerous” and said it had caused centrifuges to spin out of control and was dangerous enough to have possibly caused “a new Chernobyl,” an allusion to the devastating nuclear-plant accident in the mid-1980s in Ukraine.

Is Stuxnet an Israeli-invented attack against Iran?

According to Reuters, Russian ambassador Rogozin said NATO should be investigating the Stuxnet matter.

Security experts have spent considerable time examining Stuxnetcode, with many regarding it as weaponized malware that was likely used by an enemy of Iran to slow down development of Iran’s nuclear program, with some believing that Israel or the U.S. or both having had a stealthy hand in Stuxnet’s creation as malware targeted Iran industrial control systems in the plant..

Fire in arms depot “strange”: Venezuelan president

English.news.cn

Fire burns at a Venezuelan army ammunition depot in Maracay, Venezuela, on Jan. 30, 2011. A fire set off a series of explosions at a military arms depot, killing at least one person and leading authorities to evacuate about 10,000 people from the area.(Xinhua/STR)

CARACAS, Jan. 30 (Xinhua) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said that the fire in the arms depot in central Venezuela, which killed one people and wounded some 40 others, was “strange.”

According to Chavez, the fire, which began on Sunday at 4:00 a.m. local time (0830 GMT)in Maracay city, Aragua state, was suspicious as it occurred during a night in a high and large storage without electrical system and where nobody should be there at that time.

However, “everything is possible, so we will launch a scientific investigation and will get the pertinent conclusions,” he said.

Chavez went to the scene of the fire to inspect the damage caused by the fire.

Chavez congratulated the Armed Forces for their work and congratulated the firemen in charge of controlling the fire.

“We must congratulate them, because they did a heroic action, putting on risk their lives due to the risk of explosions. Without their work, it could have turned into a bigger tragedy,” he said.

Chavez also expressed his sympathy to the relatives of the only fatal victim.

Editor: Fang Yang

 

Elite Desperation Over Failing Middle East Psyops

Elite Desperation Over Failing Middle East Psyops

by  Anthony Wile

Once again, the power elite manipulates the Middle East for its own gain. It is a dangerous game, especially in Egypt, which controls the Suez Canal. Because of the violence, gold is up and oil, too. And just as I finish writing this article, the UK Telegraph has released an extraordinary story. It claims that the United States leadership not only secretly backed the current uprisings in Egypt, it was actively aiding and abetting the protestors. Hello rewrite!

“America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising,” the article reads. It explains that The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York. “On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.”

What an expose! Unfortunately the story is developed from cables recently leaked by WikiLeaks. And here at the Bell, we don’t trust WikiLeaks. Julian Assange himself may be an asset of Western intel. Of course, from the perspective of Western intel, tying Egyptian yearnings for independence to WikiLeaks may have seemed a brilliant stroke. Perhaps they believe it provides both WikiLeaks and the American ruling establishment with enormous credibility: Each can be seen as supporting freedom.

But on a deeper level, it reveals the desperation and the unraveling of this entire operation. The Anglo-American power elite has apparently decided to destablize the Middle East in order to create regulatory democracies with an Islamic tinge (an arrogant assumption in my view). The ultimate goal is to butress the war on terror and deliver enhanced authoritarianism to the West – and the Western middle classes that are always the targets of the elite.

But as usual, the Internet has apparently upset elite plans. How does one run a “black ops” of this magnitude while being exposed in real time? In fact, WikiLeaks could have released these cables at any point. They did it yesterday, apparently. It is as if the collective hand of the elite has been forced.

Yes, it seems to me that with plans exposed, Western elites may have decided to take credit for the Middle Eastern uprisings. Why is it a desperate manuever? Because the averge youthful Egyptian or Tunisian is not going to look kindly on the idea that he and his world is being manipulated yet again by ruthless Western powers-that-be. This is the reason that such operations are usually kept quiet. Nobody likes to feel manipulated.

What now? We continually document the struggle between the truth-telling of the Internet and the fear-based promotions of the elite. The elite seems increasingly tortured by the Internet, which is a process not an episode. Usually elite promotions take decades to develop. The EU was 50 years in the making. Global warming nearly as long. But everything the elite is trying to do these days regarding its promotional methodologies has a rushed, error-prone feel about it.

It is not going to help relations with the Egyptian man-on-the-street to have the information broadcast that America was behind – and actively planning – the current disturbances. As of this writing, the Egyptian government has lodged a protest against American interference. US Foggy Bottom types have taken to the airwaves blathering about the “values” of American democracy, but after years of reports of American torture, Western rendition, endless drone attacks that kill women and children in Afghanistan, it’s certainly an open question as to whether America can effectively pose as a beacon of democratic values.

The ramifications are endless. Exposed endlessly on the Internet, the elite may have decided to take credit for the “democratization.” But do the Western powers-that-be really believe they control these uprisings now? A dozen powder kegs have been lit. Blowback – serious blowback – is on the way. In a sense, no matter how the elite’s involvement is portrayed, it would seem a botch. If you are going to destabilize some of the most ancient cultures in the world, you better be able to do it secretly. It’s not something you want to take credit for, or not while the operations are ongoing.

Perhaps the disclosure was planned all along to give WikiLeaks additional credibility (which it sorely needs). But the trouble is that on the ‘Net anyway there has been enormous speculation that neither Assange nor WikiLeaks are exactly what they seem. Thus, WikiLeak’s release of documents about American involvement may be viewed as manipulative itself … artificial and even unconvincing. Here are some previous Bell articles on the subject:

http://www.thedailybell.com/1717/Fall-of-Saudi-Arabia-to-End-Dollar-Reserve-System.html

http://www.thedailybell.com/1714/Tunisia-Promotion-Now-Failing.html

http://www.thedailybell.com/1711/As-Predicted-Tunisian-Islamists-Emerge.html

http://www.thedailybell.com/1691/Western-Elites-Secretly-Still-Building-Islam.html

Credit where credit is due. The above articles have benefited from the insights of reporter and author William Engdahl who understands well the essential manipulation of the late 20th century world by the powers that be. In his book Full Spectrum Domination, he pointed out that the various color revolutions that occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union were essentially manipulated affairs.

He tells us that the leading actors in these revolutions were essentially coached by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies. The end result was essentially a series of bloodless coup d’etats that left leaders sympathetic to Western style regulatory democracy in charge of the affected countries. What is going on in the Middle East is no different.

But Engdahl, as bright and sophisticated as he is, seems to see the world through a quasi-socialist prism. For him, it is governments orchestrating events and large, evil corporations coming up with the ideas that governments and fatcat politicians then orchestrate. That is why he mentions that it is the Rand Corporation that he claims came up with the idea for the current crop of “bloodless” revolutions. Our point of view is different. We ask who stands BEHIND corporations and governments. You can see a Bell article on Engdahl here:

http://www.thedailybell.com/1272/Western-Wars-Are-Preplanned.html

It seems fairly obvious that a Western power elite stands behind much of what goes on in the world today. There are central banks around the world, and they didn’t happen by accident. The world’s entire financial infrastructure was created by certain elite individuals after the Second World War, although the plans were drafted well in advance. To claim the world is run by “governments” is to miss the point. It is run by powerful banking families and their allies – mostly out of London – using the levers of power that governments provide to the truly wealthy. The mechanism of this governance is called mercantilism.

Elites are always at war with their middle classes, and the preferred techniques, in this epoch anyway, are the fear-based dominant social themes that the Bell tries to cover every day. By using these fear-based promotions, the elite attempts to stampede the middle class into surrendering both wealth and power. There is pressure for constant convergence of power; the preferred governance is regulatory democracy. In the Middle East, no doubt, the evolution of these revolutions will bring to power moderate Islamic entities that will provide a boon to yet another elite promotion: the so-called war on terror. All these promotions are interlinked.

There are other sorts of promotions that the elite uses as well, mostly to piggyback onto existing trends. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange would seem to be one of them. Aljazeera would seem to be another. Aljazeera was initially staffed by the BBC; Assange has released few leaks that harm Western powers in any significant way. By promoting Assange and Aljazeera, the elite is able to control the larger dialogue. It is a version of the Hegelian dialectic that the elite loves to use. Control both sides of the argument and the results are bound to further one’s agenda, whatever it may be.

In this case, the goal is creating much closer and better-coordinated world government run by the Anglosphere. That’s why we’ve suggested at the Bell that one of the outcomes of the Middle East unrest will likely be Islamic governments of a sort that will polarize public opinion in the West and add credibility to the current war on terror – which definitely needs a pick-me-up. If the West is to continue down the path of authoritarianism, it certainly needs to create a larger Islamic bogeyman.

It also seems to me that these revolutions could be used to destabilize a strong American ally, Saudi Arabia – and thus destabilize the dollar-reserve currency as well. (We’ve written about that.) Again, this benefits an Anglo-American power elite that is determined to transition from national currencies to one global currency – reason enough for the destruction of the dollar. The wealthiest sheiks won’t be damaged were this to occur. They’ll simply seek asylum in Britain, (or perhaps France) as so many of the West’s wealthiest allies seem to do when they are toppled.

We live in the age (era) of the Internet. The manipulations of the elite have withstood the test of time, but I would suggest that in the 21st century there is a greater perception of the manipulations than ever before. The Internet was not foreseen by the elite. So many of elite promotions are compromised now; when the elite releases a new one, it would seem that the law of unintended consequences almost immediately takes hold.

In the 20th century, the elite controlled the message and thus much of the world. In the 21st century, the power of the Internet has exposed many of these promotions and given us real insight into the current matrix of control. I have this to say about the current color revolutions: Be careful what you wish for!

No Need for a Draft When the Brightest Young Men Are Eager To Kill for a Job–Literally

[The Beast- Masters learned a great lesson from the Vietnam War–shanghai men out of their own lives and force them to fight against their wills, and they won’t fight.  After that, they learned that an “all volunteer Army” cannot function in a thriving economy.  So this time, they got it right–first they killed the economy, then they started their war, so that suddenly, a million jobs became available when there were no other jobs.  If college graduates face a choice between flipping burgers forever, with zero chance of ever paying back all those college loans, or selling their souls to the devil for a chance to “be somebody,” even though the job description includes committing murder, how many of them will be moral enough to resist the devil/recruiter’s seductive appeals?

There will never be an end to all of these little “piss-ant wars” that plague mankind until normally sane young men wise-up and  stop volunteering to be “hitmen” for the “godfathers” of American crime.]

More college grads signing up for military

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ben Harris volunteered as a tour guide at the Ohio Statehouse to bolster his resume, to no avail. Now he plans to join the military.

FRED SQUILLANTE | DISPATCH
Ben Harris volunteered as a tour guide at the Ohio Statehouse to bolster his resume, to no avail. Now he plans to join the military.

|

More than two years out of college, Ben Harris finds himself working in a chicken-finger place and living with his parents in Hilliard.

This is not what he expected as a double major in political science and communications at Ohio State University. He would like to be an educational ranger in the National Park Service, or possibly a political journalist.

He’s gone so far as to volunteer as a Statehouse tour guide to juice his resume, but no job he wants has come through.

So he’s turning to a place that does have jobs to fit his interests. He is joining the military.

“Now, it seems like a viable option,” said Harris, 25, who is still deciding between the Army and the Air Force. “I’ll get more skills and more education.”

In this tough job market, an increasing number of college graduates agree. The number of military recruits with bachelor’s degrees jumped from 2008 to 2009, then again in 2010. The only service branch without noticeable gains in that category is the Marine Corps.

The number of recruits with college degrees and no military service remains a small part of the whole.

The Army brought in 5,725 new active-duty and reserve soldiers with bachelor’s degrees out of about 83,000 recruits in 2010, said S. Douglas Smith, a public-affairs officer for the Army Recruiting Command. But that college-educated recruit class is up by about 200 from 2009 and by more than 2,000 compared with 2008.

The Navy enlisted 1,425 college graduates in 2010, up from 1,011 in 2008. The Air Force enlisted 920 college graduates into its active-duty force in 2010, up from 553 in 2008.

Like Harris, other new recruits from central Ohio say they might have joined the military even in a booming economy, with desirable jobs available. College graduates can more easily become officers, because a degree is required, and they receive paychecks while the military pays down their college debt.

“I’ve always had in the back of my head that it was either law school or working for the government,” said Josh Gibson, 23, of Plain City, a 2009 graduate of Otterbein University in Westerville. “I know the economy kind of pushed (my decision).”

So did the need to serve his country, he said. He turned down a job in deciding to join the Army.

“I always tell people when they come in, if you are joining for money, you need to walk away,” said Army Staff Sgt. Andrew Thatcher, who commands a Sawmill Road recruiting station that covers the Ohio State campus area and Dublin.

“I try to tell them it’s a lifestyle, not a job,” said Staff Sgt. Brandon Ross, a recruiter at the same station.

Still, Thatcher said, recruiters don’t have to go out and look for people as much as they used to. College graduates and others are walking into the office on their own. The average age of a recruit at the Sawmill Road station is about 26, he said.

The Marines did see a rise between 2008 and 2010 in the number of new college-graduate recruits, but that’s because 2008 was a little down from previous years. The numbers don’t fluctuate much over the long haul because of the culture of the Marines, said Maj. John Caldwell, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

“Young men and women join our ranks to become a United States Marine,” Caldwell wrote in an e-mail. “They do not see the Marine Corps as a path to something else but rather as a destination unto itself.”

Some college graduates feel exactly that way about their decisions. Kevin Saarie, 26, of Dublin has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Ohio University in Athens. He has a job he has enjoyed with the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission and no school debts.

He leaves for Army basic training in May. He plans to then attend officer-candidate school and begin a career as an active-duty Army officer.

Both of his parents were in the Air Force. He has decided a military career fits with his values and what he believes is important.

“I think it’s a great honor and privilege to serve my country,” he said.

jeb.phillips@dispatch.com

Two Key Bush Policies Have Broken the US Job Market

Two Key Bush Policies Have Broken the US Job Market

J.E. Robertson

There is little doubt that the United States is experiencing a long-term crisis in the scarcity of gainful employment. It is, in fact, persistently difficult for many laid off workers to find jobs even at a steep pay cut. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did a great deal to staunch the bleeding, and has helped move the economy toward a grudging reversal in job trends, but we are still saddled with two major Bush-era policy shifts that are hampering job creation almost across the board.

The first is the unprecedented giveaway of nearly $2 trillion in tax revenues, during the years 2001-2010, to mostly the wealthiest Americans. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were in fact the largest single transfer of wealth in American history, a giveaway of needed government revenues to those who least required a handout. The Bush team’s thinking was trickle-down economics to the extreme: if we give more than a trillion dollars to the wealthiest Americans, they will have to pass on that wealth by “creating jobs”.

The flaw in this reasoning was that the real impact, the real incentive of the Bush handout was: if the wealthiest interests in our society can earn more than a trillion dollars without lifting a finger, why should they waste money creating jobs? This latter logic has proven to be much closer to the economic shift we experienced in the wake of those tax cuts. American businesses began moving jobs overseas at record pace, and even pressed for the further relaxation of labor laws, so job creation wouldn’t be “so costly”.

The transfer of wealth was further exaggerated when the Bush administration persuaded Congress to overhaul bankruptcy laws, making it much harder for individuals to escape crippling debt through bankruptcy protection, while making it easier for corporations to do so. Banks whose balance sheets were riddled with bad debt resulting from mathematically unsustainable and predatory lending practices could hide their exposure by taking advantage of both sides of that bankruptcy reform.

The second major economic policy shift that took place under George W. Bush was the near total deregulation of the banking sector. Pres. Clinton had signed major bank deregulation legislation in the late ’90s, but the intention was not to give major banks carte blanche to set up a fictional trading regime which no human being could track and in which the private wealth of most Americans could be made vulnerable to systemic fraud. The Bush years, however, saw a shift in regulatory infrastructure which invited (and brought) such abuse.

Allowing major banks to not only hold deposits and make loans, but to sell stock, to convert loans into securities, to gamble with pension plans, to sell insurance, some of which was designed to insure against the collapse of their other financial products, was a calamitous miscalculation. It is what invited and brought about the worst financial abuses in generations and led to the worldwide financial collapse of 2007-2008.

If banks are not accountable for the truthfulness of their wealth claims, they have every incentive to first begin, then expand, the very risky fictionalization of wealth that we saw in the years 2001-2008. With unprecedented amounts of free cash floating around in the bank accounts of the wealthiest of the wealthy, the financial sector experienced an incredible boom in dollars invested. The comprehensive deregulation of the financial sector then allowed them to use this new economic reality to vastly inflate the value of that private wealth, by investing not in productive business opportunities, but spurious and ill-designed financial “instruments”, the true value of which was simply the point-blank multiplication of wealth.

To say that wealth is fictionalized is a specific charge: the entire financial services sector embarked on a complicated re-engineering of the meaning of investment. No longer was the smartest gamble the investment of hard cash into real businesses producing actual products and services with corresponding measurable market value; now, the focus shifted to investments in securitized investments, pools of wealth claims not corresponding to any measurable, grounded economic activity.

Building “instruments” designed to expand the financial holdings of clients was the new game. Bad loans were bundled into “mortgage-backed securities”. One could buy one-tenth of 1% of a bundle of 1,000 home loans, the total cash value of which can never exceed the contracted amount plus interest over time, in hopes that other investors will throw so much money at the same security that its financial value (wholly detached from its real economic value) will escalate wildly.

If this sounds risky, your bank could secure its other holdings against the risks of mortgage-backed securities by engaging in “credit default swaps”. The simplest way to explain these is to say that two or more banks agree to shore each other up against massive credit losses, to provide baseline security to the already improbable investment values tied to the pooling of mostly risky mortgages.

These two policy shifts saw the United States government give away $2 trillion, at the beginning of a decade which would cost nearly $2 trillion in war spending, only to throw in another $1 trillion at the tail end, to pay for the clean-up, leaving major financial institutions not only intact, despite systematic abuses, but far wealthier with respect to the average American business or household than ever before. This policy shift was undertaken deliberately by the Bush administration, and to some extent, the policy goal of putting more power into the hands of a concentrated minority of the wealthiest interests was achieved.

The current administration is dealing with the aftermath of this decade of decadence; Pres. Obama has the unenviable task of wrestling with the resulting wave of unemployment, challenging deeply held assumptions about the American genius for creating wealth and reminding citizens and politicians that free as we are, most individuals have little control over their economic circumstances. Should he raise taxes? Fine the banks? Institute wage controls on investment bankers? Ban irrationally huge executive bonuses?

His critics allege he is desperate to do each of these, and yet he has never attempted even one of them, as a response to the financial crisis. The only area where taxes have been increased during Obama’s presidency, is on the wealthiest recipients of the most expensive health insurance policies. Economists of every stripe agree this will help to bring down costs and insure more people.

Pres. Obama’s approach to the financial collapse, the government’s fiscal crisis and persistent unemployment, has been to seek solutions that will allow private markets to deal better with the challenges of the day. The bluster and character assassination from his critics has been relentless, but the fact is, he has not proposed socialist fixes to the converging crises in American markets; he has, instead, sought to make it possible for individuals and businesses to fare better, while aiming to defictionalize the investment markets without prompting a sudden collapse of values in any sector of the economy.

In this sense, Obama has been largely successful. Most economic trend lines appear to be moving in the right direction, including job-creation. In 2009 and 2010, the US economy created far more jobs than during the Bush years, 2001-2008. But employment is lagging desperately behind other economic indicators. The weakness in the US jobs market can be traced directly to these two vitally ill-conceived economic policy shifts: the massive transfer of wealth the wealthy (an incentive large enough to remove all incentives) and near total free rein to the financial sector (allowing the wealthy to isolate their wealth without losing it, undermining the capitalist-democratic model whereby wealth flows throughout the society).

Financial regulatory reform, passed by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by Pres. Obama, was a significant step in the right direction, banning some of the worst abuses, targeting crucial conflicts of interest, and instituting a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will, for the first time in US history, give ordinary Americans a regulatory watchdog specifically designed to protect against systemic fraud and abuse in the financial sector.

But we are still dealing with the bulk of the costs of these two key Bush-era policies, and the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans may serve to stabilize the slow jobs recovery, but it is unlikely to accelerate it. We have to examine whether, as a democratic republic, we have any reason for giving such massive new wealth and such unconstrained privilege, to the already wealthy and privileged, without even asking anything in return.

In a free society, the rule of law should grant each of us the core democratic liberties that make us whole people, able to act freely in the public sphere, but the system should not be so easily redesigned to serve the personal or corporate interests of a limited few or to impede the flow of capital (as a percentage of overall investment) to ordinary people and small businesses. The folly of the Bush years was to pretend that an economy planned for the select few would work for everyone. An economy aligned to privilege market dynamics that elevate working families, citizens and communities, will enrich the wealthy, but not at the expense of everyone else.

The narcissism of the neo-cons, Egypt edition

The narcissism of the neo-cons, Egypt edition

by Jay

“It seems that a democratic revolution is sweeping the Middle East — spurred, I am sure, by American and allied actions in Iraq. (Our chattering classes will never admit this.)
– Jay Nordlinger, National Review

At last count, at least 50 Egyptians have been killed, more than a thousand injured and probably thousands arrested and imprisoned under what must be extremely frightening conditions. They have made those sacrifices and taken those risks for reasons that are very much their own, reasons born out of decades, centuries, even millenia of cruel repression and corruption.

To claim that they are instead taking such risks because they were inspired by the U.S. invasion of Iraq nine years ago is to attempt to rob them of credit for their own bravery. It is an act of theft by people who sit thousands of miles away in perfect safety, trying to boost their own self-regard by wrapping themselves in the courage of others.

– Jay Bookman