Thursday, February 28, 2013

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

Fire: The Overlooked Threat
February 28, 2013 | 1000 GMT


Stratfor

By Scott Stewart
Vice President of Analysis

People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weapons, electromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack. In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.

Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves.
Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused extensive damage to the adjacent American school.

Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.

Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition, which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in Israel and the West Bank.

But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation.

Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much higher.

Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be easily obtained or even produced at home.

Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks, such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.
Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world they are not required.

When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.

One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico, the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that had been chained and locked shut.

While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses are present.

In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies, it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80 percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S. office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the smoke.

As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.

Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.

Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.
- See more at: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

February 28, 2013 | 1000 GMT
 76  36  241  33

Text Size
Stratfor
By Scott Stewart
Vice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weaponselectromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack. In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition, which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks, such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico, the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies, it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80 percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S. office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.
- See more at: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

February 28, 2013 | 1000 GMT
 76  36  241  33

Text Size
Stratfor
By Scott Stewart
Vice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weaponselectromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack. In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition, which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks, such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico, the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies, it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80 percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S. office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.
- See more at: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

February 28, 2013 | 1000 GMT
 76  36  241  33

Text Size
Stratfor
By Scott Stewart
Vice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weaponselectromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack. In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition, which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks, such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico, the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies, it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80 percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S. office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.
- See more at: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Japan-Philippine Relations: New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership

RSIS presents the following commentary Japan-Philippine Relations: New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership by Julius Cesar I. Trajano. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at  RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg



No. 037/2013 dated 28 February 2013
Japan-Philippine Relations:
New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership
 By Julius Cesar I. Trajano       
Synopsis

Japan and the Philippines have  reinvigorated their security cooperation with new joint initiatives. The vibrancy of their partnership is influenced by the perception of a common security threat from China and domestic political and economic concerns.
Commentary
JAPAN AND the Philippines have recently taken joint initiatives in security cooperation that reinvigorate their strategic partnership. Seven decades after Japan’s invasion of the archipelago, Tokyo announced a donation of 10 brand-new patrol ships to the Philippine Coast Guard - an unprecedented initiative reflecting a renewed vibrancy in Japan-Philippines bilateral ties.

Also, Japanese and Filipino diplomats and maritime officials met in Manila on 22 February 2013 to discuss maritime cooperation in the South China Sea, maritime security and safety, anti-piracy measures, fisheries and marine scientific research. The patrol vessels, each costing one billion yen (USD 11 million) vividly indicate how the former wartime enemies have become allies.
 
China as an existential threat
The reinvigoration of their bilateral relations in recent years is driven by two key factors: their common perception on China as an existential threat; and domestic political and economic considerations by the Philippine government. With the return of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to power, Japan is making its own ‘pivot’ to Southeast Asia and the Philippines can play a vital role in Japan’s nascent realignment. Meanwhile, the Philippines is bolstering partnerships with its regional allies, including Japan, to strengthen its defence capabilities.

The joint initiatives to revitalise their security cooperation are in response to Beijing’s assertiveness in the East and South China seas. China is challenging Japanese sovereignty over Senkaku/Diaoyu and has now the de facto control over the Philippine-claimed Scarborough Shoal.

During talks in Manila last January, the foreign ministers of Japan and the Philippines expressed “mutual concern” over China’s increasing assertiveness in staking its territorial claims. The Philippine government would staunchly back a rearmed Japan shorn of its pacifist constitution as a significant balancing factor in the Asia-Pacific. President Benigno Aquino stated that a stronger Japan can challenge the “threatening” presence of China in the region.

The transfer of new patrol boats, expected to be delivered within 18 months, can be perceived as a shot in the arm for the Philippines. Even though it will not unduly tilt the naval balance in the South China Sea it will nonetheless boost the Philippines’ maritime domain awareness and advance Japan’s strategic overtures in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines Coast Guard can help Japan by monitoring China’s maritime activities in the South China Sea. For Japan, the South China Sea is a test case of how China would behave in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute. Moreover, Japan sees that by increasing the number of available vessels that the Philippines can use in securing its territorial claims, the attention and resources of Chinese maritime agencies will be potentially divided between the East and South China seas.     

Enhancing the capability of ill-equipped Philippine maritime agencies will also enable them to contribute to the protection of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, including the unhindered flow of Japanese maritime traffic.

Manila’s political and economic interests
The burgeoning Japan-Philippines partnership should also be assessed within the broader context of the Philippines’ effort to internationalise the South China Sea disputes. The Philippines has consistently sought wider support from its allies in dealing with China’s assertiveness. Manila has also brought territorial disputes with Beijing to an Arbitration Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

While the strategic impact of the ‘China factor’ is crucial, the political and economic considerations of the Aquino administration likewise shape the current contours of the Philippines-Japan strategic ties. As Japan ably exercises its ‘soft-power’ in an effort to raise its profile in the Asia-Pacific, the Philippines benefits from Japan’s soft power diplomacy.

Being the world’s third largest economy, Japan is highly considered by the Aquino administration as a major driver of the Philippines’ economic growth. Although China is ASEAN’s biggest trading partner, Japan is the Philippines’ number one trade partner with total trade exceeding US$13 billion last year. Japan also remains  the Philippines’ top export market and primary source of approved investments, comprising around 35% of the total foreign direct investments (US$1.5 billion) in 2012.

Unlike his predecessor Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President Aquino has appeared to be less receptive to Beijing's dangled commercial incentives. Elected on an anti-corruption platform, President Aquino cancelled certain Chinese-funded projects which were marred by irregularities. While Manila is currently repaying a concessional Chinese loan for a now-scuttled railway project, Tokyo is generously extending official development assistance (ODA) to support President Aquino’s big-ticket infrastructure projects.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida recently announced that his government will provide loans for the MRT extension and airport construction projects of the Aquino administration. Japanese loans had the highest share (36.7%) of total ODA commitments from January to September 2012, with a total amount of US$3.24 billion.

Japan’s soft power in Mindanao

Assistance for Mindanao is one of the three main pillars of Japan’s ODA for the Philippines. As President Aquino views a final peace agreement with Muslim rebels as his key legacy, Japan significantly contributes to the Mindanao peace process through development projects. The Japan-Bangsamoro Initiatives for Reconstruction and Development has already implemented socio-economic infrastructure projects amounting to US$136 million. Japan is also a member of both the International Monitoring Team and the International Contact Group as an observer in the peace talks.

Indeed, the convergence of threat perception determines the depth of security cooperation between Tokyo and Manila. But domestic political and economic concerns have also influenced Manila’s receptivity to Tokyo’s soft power diplomacy and strategic overtures. More important to Manila is that the bilateral engagement has gone beyond platitudes and rhetoric as it receives enormous investments and ODA from Tokyo.

Nevertheless while the Philippines-Japan strategic partnership is strengthening, both countries will not easily find equanimity as China will hardly  be intimidated by their reinvigorated alliance.

Julius Cesar I. Trajano is a Senior Analyst at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

Austerity USA Begins March 1st: Bipartisan Project to Impoverish the American People

Austerity USA Begins March 1st: Bipartisan Project to Impoverish the American People

Global Research, February 25, 2013


U.S. politicians have cried wolf over austerity long enough for the public to ignore them. A perfect time, then, for politicians to actually unleash the wolves. Barring an unlikely last minute deal, here’s a short list of some of the massive, national bi-partisan-created austerity cuts, according to the New York Times:
-600,000 food stamp recipients will be cut from the program
-Massive education cuts. According to President Obama:
“Once these cuts take effect thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off and tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. ”
-12 billion in Medicare cuts (more to come after 2013)
-Millions receiving unemployment will see their checks cut by 11% (an average of 132 a month)
-Federal funds to state governments will be cut, creating even more deficits for states and municipalities, and thus more localized cuts (the states have already made austerity cuts of $337 billion!)
Also, 700,000 jobs are expected to be loss, while 70,000 kids are also expected to be kicked off of Head Start
And this is just for 2013. The current plan for the austerity “sequester” cuts is $100 billion of federal cuts every year for ten years, equaling massive cuts to jobs, Medicare, education, and completely destroying federally funded social programs.
Will it actually happen this time? The New York Times reports:
“In private, Capitol Hill staff members and members of Congress have admitted that there are no viable plans on the horizon to delay or offset the cuts.”
The finger pointing in Washington, D.C. has already reached a crescendo, with the perverted logic being that, if both parties are to blame, it’s really no one’s fault. In reality Democrats and Republicans created these “sequester” cuts, and they can just as easily undo them with a snap of the finger.Both parties are choosing not to delete the cuts. They just don’t want political responsibility for the fallout, which many economists have predicted will push the U.S. economy over the edge into official recession.
Obama has predictably blamed the Republicans for this mess, even though he personally began this process by creating the “deficit reduction commission” that helped shape the cuts (keep in mind there is zero debt crisis that calls for such drastic measures).
Obama could also just as easily appeal to the American public —over the heads of congressmen — to demand that the cuts be shelved forever. Instead, he’s proposing a “grand bargain” deal that he knows the Republicans won’t go for.
What’s in Obama’s grand bargain deal? According to the White House website:
-$130 billion in “savings” [cuts] to Social Security, by implementing a “superlative CPI.”
-$35 billion in “savings” [cuts] to the retirement of federal employees.
- $400 billion in health care “savings” [cuts], much of it Medicare cuts.
Obama cynically fails to mention the words Social Security or Medicare in the above plan, choosing instead to write in code (“superlative Consumer Price Index”). Obama’s plan to avoid the March 1st cuts still assumes that $500 billion in cuts will be implemented over the next ten years, as opposed to $1trillion.
But his plan is just a distraction. Obama knows his plan has no chance of being passed by March 1st. He’s falsely portraying his plan as the only alternative to the March 1st cuts, even though a far better idea — the one preferred by a vast majority of Americans — is to simply to shelve the sequester cuts forever. To not put forth this option makes Obama complicit in the cuts.
Many pundits have speculated that Congress will allow the cuts to go into effect for three weeks, since March 27th marks a fiscal deadline that will pressure Congress to maneuver anew. This might trigger a new round of haggling over a new “grand bargain” that again targets “entitlement programs” and re-packages the massive cuts into a prettier box. The party that does the most effective finger pointing after the March 1st cuts will be in the best position to dictate matters post-March 27th, so say the pundits.
Whatever the actual result, the Democrats and Republicans share similar enough visions that massive cuts to cherished social programs appear to be inevitable. Much of the made-for-TV bickering is pure political posturing, meant to fool the working people most affected by these cuts into believing it’s “the other party” that’s responsible.
Politicians have been able to get away with this disgusting behavior because there are very few independent voices telling the truth about what’s happening. Many labor and progressive groups are consciously lying about the dynamic, placing blame squarely on the Republicans, thus allowing the Democrats not to be held accountable for their pandering to the corporate elite’s demand to use austerity to attack the social safety net. In reality both parties are jointly attacking working and poor people via austerity, on a city, state, and national level.
If Labor and community groups united in a demand of ‘No Cuts, Tax the Rich’ and organized massive mobilizations, there would be a very different public debate happening right now. It’s not too late for these groups to tear themselves from the jaws of their attackers.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com
 
Copyright © 2013 Global Research

The South China Sea’s “Cold War”

The South China Sea’s “Cold War”

CHRISTINA HÃ…KANSSON
The Lund Association of Foreign Affairs (UPF Lund)
The busy geography of the South China sea. Image: University of Texas
The busy geography of the South China sea. Image: University of Texas
After many years of peaceful agreements and conflict resolution attitudes from the ASEAN free trade area countries, 2012 was filled with heated discussions and humiliating summit meetings. The core of all these disagreements was the South China Sea conflict. The islands situated in this territory called the “cow’s tongue” are rich in natural resources, trade routes, and have been military strategic points for several years. The fact that China claims sovereignty over this territory has raised many concerns among the neighboring countries, with the Philippines and Vietnam being the strongest opponents. In addition to these disputes, the U.S. has started a “pivot” military strategy towards Asia, increasing tension in the area. Will this divide the ASEAN countries and start a new conflict?
The South China Sea is about 1.4 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean, and it is one of the most profitable fishing spots in the world. It consists of hundred islands, most of which are uninhabited, making the conflict even more difficult to solve. Who has sovereignty over these islands? It is not an issue limited to land, but also to natural resources. Each country in the region has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) determined in 1982 by the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that includes 200 nautical miles from the coast of each nation’s territory. The UNCLOS recognizes the “common heritage of the world’s oceans” and with a set of laws defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the oceans. The law is not clear, however, on the matter of islands.
With increasing international trade coming from Asia’s industrialization and the oil imports, the South China Sea has become a major economic hub. “Just more than half of the top ten shipping container shipping ports are located in or around the South China Sea” according to David Rosenberg, professor of political science at Middlebury College. It is very important, therefore, that this remains a free access territory, where no restrictions are imposed where commerce can continue freely.
Furthermore, the rapid urbanization of coastal cities in China has fostered huge competition over the resources. The resources are scarce, and in order to continue growing and developing, China needs as many as they can obtain. But the South China Sea has oil reserves that could be an interesting opportunity for other rapidly emerging economies such as the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Some countries -Vietnam with the collaboration with India and China-have already started cooperating with other nations in order to develop oil in disputed waters angering those left out.
Other confrontations that have taken place are related to the interception of illegal fishing vessels in the region. The Philippines claimed that eight Chinese fishing vessels were caught illegally in their waters. This is one of the greatest potential conflicts, since 1.5 million people in the area depend on fishing and due to overexploitation in the South China Sea’s overlapping water territories.
The HQ of the ASEAN free trade area in Jakarta. Image: wikimedia commons
The HQ of the ASEAN free trade area in Jakarta. Image: wikimedia commons
These disputes are of great importance for the ASEAN countries, which are in need of resources to continue growing, but also for other high income countries. The fact that it is one of the busiest international sea-lanes, and a strategic link between the Pacific and Indian Ocean, intensifies the need for the region not to close its waters. The U.S. has stated its intentions of making a “pivot” movement – a shift of their forces and strategy – towards Asia, and this conflict is putting a lot of pressure on the emerging economic power. Vietnam and the Philippines have asked the U.S. to increase its presence in order to counterbalance China’s rising economic power. The latter even doubled its defense budget in 2011 and considered a five-year joint military exercise plan with the U.S. Despite pressure from some Asian countries for more American presence, other countries believe that they should reduce their influence on the region. In particular, China is insisting on bilateral agreements, while rejecting any of the UN mechanisms for arbitration as well as the ASEAN countries cooperation with external actors. These bilateral agreements entail cooperation of the countries that are affected by the conflict in making arrangements on territorial issues. The problem here is that China has greater power than the other emergent countries, and these fear an unjust territorial distribution.
Unlike NATO for developed countries, ASEAN countries do not have any military cooperation, so it will be difficult for solutions to arise since each country will defend its own interest. With the emerging conflict, fears of a new “Cold War” in Asia have started to materialise. Experts, however, believe that common interests between the Asian nations arising from economic integration will provide an incentive to harmonize the management of the resources and resolve the other conflicts. China and Vietnam, for example, have started to cooperate on a common fishery zone. Is this enough to start resolving the conflicts? One can only hope that the ASEAN cooperate more enthusiastically again and find a solution to the sovereignty problems in the South China Sea so that the development of the region can continue unabated.

Who is Aquino’s adviser on Sabah issue?

Who is Aquino’s adviser on Sabah issue?

Making life worth living
By Ellen Tordesillas
Aquino to Kiram III: “….desist from this hopeless cause.”
Aquino to Kiram III: “….desist from this hopeless cause.”
In his Facebook wall, Cotabato-based Fr. Eliseo Mercado of the Institute for Autonomy and Governance in Notre Dame University yesterday said, “After the President’s press statement on the Sabah issue, I am continued to be deluged with question,’Who is the adviser of the President on the Sabah issue?’
“Sagot ko: Ambot… baka ang Malaysian PM. From the tone and the content would show that he/she is either Malaysian or Malaysian-Philippine.”
In his statement, which came on the second week of the standoff in Lahad Datu, a seaside village in Sabah, President Aquino several times spoke of peace. Yet, the language he used reeks of arrogance that could only come from ignorance of the root of the issue.
He described the cause that the Sultan of Sulu Jamalul Kiram III and his younger brother Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, who is the leader of the group in Lahad Datu as a “hopeless cause.”
Addressing Kiram, Aquino said: “You are a leader of your clan, and every leader seeks the well-being of his constituents. These times require you to use your influence to prevail on our countrymen to desist from this hopeless cause.”
Does this mean the Aquino government has given up the Philippine government’s claim on Sabah?
In his statement, Aquino seemed not sure about the legitimacy of the Philippine claim which was initiated in the 1963 by President Diosdado Macapagal. He said: “This issue is complex: from the basis of our claim, to the question of the rightful heirs, and even involving the translation of documents from an era when our grandparents weren’t even born.”
Princess Jacel Kiram reads statement of her father, Jamalul Kiram III
Princess Jacel Kiram reads statement of her father, Jamalul Kiram III
Responding to the President’s statement Kiram III, though his daughter Princess Jacel Kiram said: “ Mr. President, what more proof do you want us to show that Sabah is ours?”
This standoff came about because the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu decided to do it their way after Malacañang snubbed Kiram’s request for a meeting.
Aquino revealed this in his statement: “Let me say to Sultan Jamalul Kiram III: I have just been made aware that a letter to me, from you, was sent through OPAPP in the very first weeks of my term, when we were organizing the government. Unfortunately, this letter was lost in the bureaucratic maze. Let me make clear that there was no intention to ignore your letter. Knowing this now, will you let your mistaken belief dictate your course of action?”
Aquino also said, “The avenue of peaceful and open dialogue is still available to us. Let us therefore sit down as brothers to address your grievances in a peaceful, calm manner according to our laws and according to correct processes when your people arrive home.”
Yet in the same statement he warned Kiram that his patience is running out:
“As President and chief executor of our laws, I have tasked an investigation into possible violations of laws by you, your followers, and collaborators engaged in this foolhardy act. May I remind you as well that as a citizen of the Republic, you are bound by the constitution and its laws.
“Among your possible violations is Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, the enabling law of which is Article 118 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes those who “provoke or give occasion for a war…or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.”[1] Thus, you are now fully aware of the consequences of your actions.”
“We have not yet reached the point of no return, but we are fast approaching that point.”
To which Kiram stood firm: “As far as we are concerned, we haven’t committed a crime.”
But he also talked about peace: “The sultan of Sulu’s action is a benevolent aspiration and not a violent reaction to fight.”
Will the real diplomats please take over?

TRANSCRIPT: "Hyperinflation: A Graphic Presentation by Dennis Small"

The following link is a 25 minute video titled:  "Hyperinflation: A Graphic Presentation by Dennis Small."
I strongly encourage you to watch it and circulate it widely.It demonstrates with graphics the fact that the "quantitative easing" in the US (and similarly in Europe) has done nothing but pump more than  $3.5 trillion dollars into the banking system, mostly to bail out nearly worthless derivatives, while the banks have loaned out $1 trillion LESS during the same period, and killer austerity has been imposed on the populations of the trans-Atlantic region. That mass of phoney, printed money is now beginning to flood out into the real economy, with a hyperinflation which will wipe out the savings, wages, and the very lives of millions. Nothing short of a Glass Steagall reorganization can prevent this already unfolding disaster.   Mike Billington
 
 

TRANSCRIPT:  "Hyperinflation: A Graphic Presentation by Dennis Small"
 
February 23, 2013
 

 On February 15th, Lyndon LaRouche in his Friday webcast,
stated emphatically, that the options facing the United States
and the world, were "Glass-Steagall, or Die!``  -
Glass-Steagall, or genocide. And he went on to explain more
specifically, that a process of hyperinflationary explosion hat
been unleashed, of such proportions, that not only was there no
way to maintain that fictitious bubble, but furthermore, that
growing layers in the British imperial faction running today's
system had become aware of the fact that this was not the case,
and that therefore, what was in the works, what was coming
on-line - regardless of whether those responsible were actually
aware of it - was a situation, where they would be replacing the
existing financial system, the existing money in circulation,
collapsing it down to zero, writing it off, and simply, from one
day to the next, issuing new currency - which they also control -
for the purpose of using that money and that credit, only for
their chosen few, their select few. And the rest of the world,
and the rest of the financial system be damned.
 The consequences of this would be - as has occurred
previously in history - a massive deflationary collapse: a free
fall, like in an elevator (I hope it's never happened to you),
and the thing simply collapses down to the ground. Under those
conditions of a massive deflationary collapse, what would happen
as a consequence, would be that, the physical economy would
plunge down at a rate even exceeding current rates, to a
situation where the population of the world - as per the
actually intention of the British Empire - from some seven
billion today, down to the range of one billion.
 One of the indications of a certain awareness of the
problem, came interestingly at right about the same time, from
one of the world's leading sponsors of the cancer that has
actually taken over the financial system. I'm referring to Bill
Gross - aptly named - head of a company called PIMCO - also quite
aptly named -, which is the world's largest bond-trading company.
What happened is that Bill Gross wrote an article named "Credit
Supernova``, which became somewhat of a scandal in informed media
and circles in Washington and elsewhere, because what he stated,
is that the entire world financial system had become a
self-consuming firestorm, where you had to feed in more and more
financial instruments, simply to maintain $1 in output of GDP.
The way he formulated it was  a little bit strange, which is that
it took, for example back in the 1970s/1980s, $4 of debt to
``produce a dollar of GDP'', and of course I beg to differ which
that verb, because the debt does not produce the GDP. But
nonetheless, what he was looking at, was the relationship of
growing indebtedness - of US debt - and a flat GDP.
 Mr' Gross' graphic, is one that we have available here,
which he called, that of the ``exploding supernova''. What he
shows here, simply, is the rapid growth of total US credit, which
includes household, corporate and government debt, rising from
some $4 trillion dollars back in the 1975 period, up to about
$55-$60 trillion today. His explanation is - as you can see from
this - whereas it would take $4 of the debt in 1975 per unit of
GDP, it's now in the range of $20. And he described this as a
credit supernova. Now, the fact of the matter is that, although
Gross' argument is interesting, and points in the direction of a
problem, it actually vastly understates the nature of the
hyperinflationary bubble which has been built and is in the
process of exploding, today. It is a hyperinflation which has in
fact run amok.
 We have developed the following graphic, just to give an
idea to you, of just how much worse it is, that even Gross'
estimation. [And this] is also clear from Gross' own discussion
of the matter, because in a footnote to his article he states,
that he was excluding from consideration in the figures, what he
calls ``shadow debt''. Now, ``shadow debt'' is in fact a
reference to the existence of an enormous bubble of financial
aggregates - of derivatives in particular - which have grown more
rapidly than the debt has grown, which has grown more rapidly
than the GDP. In other words, the rate of increase of the
financial aggregates has been greater by an order of magnitude,
even than the figures Mr. Gross chose to present. And what we
have here, as you can see in the this graphic representation, the
blue line, which is down near the x-axis - which I showed you
earlier, which is Gross' relationship of debt-to-GDP - but like
they say, ``that ain't nothin'''. You need to look at the
totality of world financial aggregates, which is principally
derivatives, i.e. bets, on bets, on bets. [These have] grown in
the ratio of those aggregates to the GDP not five-fold, as the
Gross number on the debt indicates, but has actually grown
fifty-fold, over this period. [This means], that today you have
$500 of debt per unit of GDP.
 Now, what you've got is a situation which has in fact spun
completely out of control. First of all, let me point your
attention to what the composition is of those world financial
aggregates.
 You'll notice, that these numbers only go through 2005,
which is the last time we did a detailed calculation of this, but
the total world financial aggregates at that time, were close to
one quadrillion dollars, which is 1,000 trillion dollars - which
is as meaningless, actually, as the total aggregates themselves.
But the point that I want to get to here, is that the actual
picture of world financial aggregates, is not made up,
principally, by the stock market - as overvalued as that is -,
it's not made up, principally, by the debt (which is what Gross
was looking at) of the United States, or of all the countries of
the Third World, or all of the other direct debt. The Lion's
Share of the whole thing, are financial derivatives.
 Now, what's a derivative? Good question! Derivatives have
been described, I believe accurately, as, essentially, a way to
lie and cover up about a loss, which you have suffered,
financially. So, rather than saying, ``Oh my gosh, I'm bankrupt,
I can't pay that debt'', what you say instead is, ``no, I'll make
another debt, to cover that loss, in the hopes that eventually I
won't have to pay that increased loss coming from the derivatives
bet.'' So, another way of describing derivatives, is, the
perennial gambler - who's always losing at the Roulette table -
and rather than pay up and call it a day, he says, ``no, let's
play double-or-nothing!'' And he loses again, and rather than pay
he says, ``no, double-or-nothing!'' Derivatives are a
double-or-nothing approach to the massive losses which are being
suffered throughout the economy. And that is the nature of the
financial aggregates which have grown, and which constitute the
explosive charge of this hyperinflationary situation run amok,
which Mr. LaRouche has been talking about.
 Now, let me just say, that the usual definitions of
inflation are complete poppycock - it's nonsense. Especially if
you've studied economics, because what they tell you there, is
that there's different kinds of inflation. Inflation, they say,
is more money chasing fewer goods - which is ridiculous; that's
not where it comes from. Or they say, there's ``cost-push
inflation.'' What they mean by cost-push inflation is that they
blame the rise on prices, on the wages being paid to workers, and
that that cost is supposedly pushing the inflation. So that's
just a transparent excuse for trying to cut wages further. Then
there's ``demand-pull inflation''. If you can understand that
you'll earn at least one or two degrees in economics, and
understand absolutely nothing. ``Demand-pull,'' as far as I'm
concerned, is basically the economists who are pulling your leg,
to try to make you understand that something is going on here.
That's not what is actually going on.
 Nor should people try to locate the process of
hyperinflation today in a simple expression, such as, rising
prices on the consumer market. It does show there too. You do
see, that on Obama's watch, that the price of gasoline at the
pump has doubled. You do see it in food prices at the
supermarket, also soaring. Because this financial bubble gets
translated into the consumer economy, through speculation in
derivatives in the future market, in commodities, and so on and so
forth.
 But, what is actually going on with the hyperinflation,
people should think of it rather as a huge pressure-cooker. And
what's going on, is that the hyperinflation is occurring within
the financial aggregates themselves. You can see that, for
example, in this growth here. But it's a pressure-cooker which is
building up and it's going to blow to smithereens, at which point
you'll see the transfer of this thing out into all different
areas of the economy. Right now, what you have is the rapidly
escalating - hyperbolically escalating - financial aggregates,
circulating on the basis of absolutely nothing, increasing on the
basis of the double-or-nothing principle, of covering up losses.
 But the real problem of hyperinflation, occurs when you
actually go and look at what Lyndon LaRouche developed as a
pedagogical way of understanding the process in the economy, his
famous typical collapse function, or ``triple curve.'' [You see
it] on the screen now. Now, really the only surprise in what Bill
Gross said, was that people were surprised about it, because
Lyndon LaRouche developed this representation back in 1995-96. So
this is almost two decades old: LaRouche talking about this
explosive charge within the global financial system, that at some
point was going to blow sky-high, and this was a heuristic model
which he developed, for presentation at a conference which he
addressed in the Vatican, back in that period, in the mid-1990s.
 Now, on the Triple Curve function. The thing that's most
relevant here - and where I think the part where people have the
most difficulty in understanding what LaRouche is getting at - ,
is you're looking at a single unified process, not three
separate distinct curves. A single unified process, where you
have the growth of the financial aggregates, the growth of
monetary aggregates - which, at a certain point, the rate of
growth exceeds the growth of the financial aggregates, if you've
got a cancerous bubble developing, as we have today - and, mind
you, let me just clarify. What we're showing you is not an
increase in absolute amounts, this is the rate of change: the
rate of growth of the monetary aggregates exceeds the rate of
growth of the financial aggregates, because it's simply
required to keep this double-or-nothing bubble growing. But the
crucial figure - and this is where LaRouche's economics is
absolutely singular - is understanding the relationship of this
to the third, lower curve of physical economic input/output.
 The problem of hyperinflation is not too much money chasing
too few goods. This has nothing to do with GDP or gross domestic
product, because GDP does not reflect the actual physical
economy. GDP is a monetary calculation based on basically what
the market will bear, in other words whatever sells. And
therefore you have, for example, the International Monetary Fund
stating explicitly, in published documents, that their argument
is that drug production in countries such as Colombia must be
included in the calculation of gross domestic product, because it
sells! If it sells, somebody wants it, that's called effective
demand, and therefore it's gotta be counted in GDP.
 So, GDP is a completely phony measure; it's phony not only
because its content includes actually unproductive and
destructive things such as, for example, drug production or, for
example, payments made to the economics profession for teaching
at universities - that's almost as destructive as, maybe
more so, than the drugs, because it justifies the drugs in point
of fact - but it's also false in it's axiomatics. The premise of
the whole thing it that there's a one-to-one monetary calculation
that can be made, a monetary unit of account that can be used to
describe an economy, a physical economy, where what actually is
involved in a physical economy, what is really the metric that's
needed, against which you have a hyper-inflationary blowout
going, is the expansion of the productive powers of labor.
 The crucial question in the success or failure of a physical
economy is the degree to which your policies increase the
productive powers  of labor, that is to say, the efficiency of
man's general activity based on creative advances, science and
technology, to be able to mobilize an increasingly dense
energy-flux, in other words growing energy flux density, through
the=2