Saturday, April 4, 2015

In the Iran Talks, Does a Missed Deadline Matter?


Share

In the Iran Talks, Does a Missed Deadline Matter?

Text Size
The Obama administration has slipped past self-imposed deadlines and minced words over red lines before. Although certainly an embarrassment for the White House, another missed deadline in the seemingly never-ending Iran nuclear negotiations — which stretched beyond the latest deadline of March 31 — may not matter much in the end.
From Iran's point of view, it was a deadline to be exploited, not one to fret over. Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, had expressed misgivings about a framework agreement, insisting that the deal is not done until all core issues are resolved in a final deal. The White House imposed the March deadline to prove to Congress that enough progress was being made to hold off on sanctions. Still, a dodged deadline and a diluted progress report are unlikely to calm dissenters in Congress. Even if a bill calling for additional sanctions in the event of a violation of an agreement makes its way through Congress, it will be vetoed in the Oval Office. Congress overturning that veto is a less likely prospect.
What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman Explains.
Ironically, the U.S. congressmen vehemently threatening more sanctions are working in Iran's favor in this stage of the negotiating process. The more effort the U.S. negotiating team has to put into keeping Iran at the table, the more leverage Iran has in the talks. So, as the plethora of leaks on Monday all pointed toward the drafting of an agreement, Tehran strategically dropped a bombshell at the last minute. It said that while it would agree to reduce the number of operational centrifuges to 6,000 — going against the supreme leader's earlier demand for at least 10,000 centrifuges to remain in operation — it would pull back on an earlier concession to ship its low-enriched nuclear fuel to Russia.
This is a classic negotiating tactic: One party throws up a flare, panic ensues and once all sides return to the table, any further concessions from the instigator appear that much more generous. The next three months will be filled with such twists as the window for negotiations narrows.
In Iran's neighborhood, states like Saudi Arabia do not have the luxury of betting against the United States and Iran and have to prepare for the worst. The developing U.S.-Iranian relationship is what has driven Saudi Arabia into action in leading its Sunni allies against Iran across multiple fronts, with Yemen now in the spotlight.
Israel may also be upset at the United States for negotiating what it considers a bad deal with Iran, but it cannot deny that the upsurge in Sunni determination to contain Iran is a good thing. For example, Sudan's recruitment into the Saudi-led alliance had been months in the making, but the end result is that Iran has lost a critical conduit to supply arms to militant groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad through supply routes that run from Port Sudan up through the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip. So long as Hamas struggles to replenish its weapons, including long-range rocket components, Israel has less to worry about.
Egypt is another beneficiary of the Saudi-led "Decisive Storm" operation. The White House never abandoned its close relationship with Cairo, but it became entangled politically by branding the deposal of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi a coup and demanding steps toward democracy before resuming aid. While the United States was trying to maintain its political correctness, Russia took the opportunity to court Egypt with military and energy deals, trying to broadcast the message that Washington's role had been filled in the Middle East.
Cairo simply used the attention from Moscow to bargain with Washington, waiting for the politics to become conducive enough to normalize relations with the United States with the understanding that a relationship with Washington would matter much more than one with Moscow. Egypt has yet to reschedule its elections, yet its participation in the Yemen operation gave the White House the justification it needed to show that Cairo is still a key Arab ally worthy of a dozen F-16 fighter jets that are now being delivered.
Much will be made of a missed deadline in Lausanne. Doubts will be cast over a potential agreement. But it is important to keep some perspective. This deadline over an interim agreement did not mean much to Iran in the first place. Progress, however uneven, is being made in the nuclear negotiations, and a U.S.-Iranian understanding is already having reverberations across the region.
Share
Iranian Nuclear Game Timeline

Get our free weekly Intelligence Reports

Warren Buffett: Artificial Intelligence Will Decide Whether Humans Live or Die


Warren Buffett: Artificial Intelligence Will Decide Whether Humans Live or Die
"It will be the computer that makes the decision in a nanosecond"





by Paul Joseph Watson | April 2, 2015
Share on Facebook3376Tweet about this on Twitter258Share on Google+47Email this to someonePrint this page

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett says that the decision on whether humans live or die will be left to artificial intelligence when self-driving cars become a reality.

Speaking at a forum hosted by the National Automobile Dealers Association, Buffett said that he thought self-driving cars wouldn’t be widely adopted for a long time but that when they were, moral considerations in traffic accidents could be taken out of human hands.

“There’s some interesting questions. I mean, let’s just say you have got a self-driving car and you are going down the street and a 3-year-old kid runs out in front of the car and there’s another car coming the other direction with four people in it and the computer is going to make the decision as to whether to hit the kid or hit the other car,” said Buffett.

“And I am not sure who gets sued under those circumstances, you’re going to kill somebody, and it will be the computer that makes the decision in a nanosecond and it will be interesting to know who programs that computer and what their thoughts are about the values of human lives and things,” he concluded.

During the forum, Buffett also noted how safer driving would be bad for his insurance business and that he “would not be holding a party” if that came to fruition.

The ethical conundrum of how a computer driven car would react in a situation where a traffic accident is unavoidable has been the subject of intense debate for years.

The arrival of self-driving cars, which some predict could be on the roads within 10 years, has also prompted questions as to the fate of conventional vehicles.

Last month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk predicted that in the future human-driven cars will be banned by authorities because they are “too dangerous”.

“You can’t have a person driving a two-ton death machine,” said Musk, before later clarifying that he wasn’t advocating the banning of human-driven cars, but that it could eventually happen.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
Receive The Underground Insider!

Subscribe to the Underground Insider for Exclusive Content, Breaking News, Messages from Alex and More...

    facebook
    twitter
    googleplus

  Print this page.
Ads by Adblade
Trending Offers and Articles
These celebs will motivate you to want to work out!
These 12 super foods speed up your weight loss and can potentially help melt fat!
The worst things about Airline Travel
Do You Have the Traits to Be a Good Leader? Find Out Now!
10 ideas for a great first date
Surprising Facts About Fast Food Burgers. Did You Know?
Infowars.com Videos:

Kansas Allows Conceal Carry Without A Permit
[Kansas Allows Conceal Carry Without A Permit]

VA Forces Vet Prove Leg Amputation with X-Ray
[VA Forces Vet Prove Leg Amputation with X-Ray]

Break Free From Mental Slavery With This Simple Trick
[Break Free From Mental Slavery With This Simple Trick]


    CONNECT WITH US
    GET INFORMED NOW

    Receive the INFOWARS underground insider!

Steve Quayle: Jade Helm 15 Will Change America Forever


Can-Do Lee Kuan Yew

 
The 20th century produced few greater statesmen and perhaps no greater pragmatist.

The New York Times
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Can-Do Lee Kuan Yew
MARCH 23, 2015

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/01/opinion/cohen-circular/cohen-circular-thumbLarge-v3.jpg
HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — The Vietnamese, like many Asians, flock to Singapore to shop.  They hit those cool, fragrant malls on Orchard Road. A few among the affluent go there to see a dentist or a doctor or have a baby.  They are drawn, also, by something less tangible, the sense of prosperity and purring efficiency, as if by some miracle the Alpine order and cleanliness of Switzerland had been conjured up in the Tropics.  They exhale, freed from the raucous agitation of modern Asian life, and are rocked in a Singaporean cradle of convenience where, it seems, nothing can go wrong.
You don’t have to like Singapore to admire it.  Once you begin to admire it, of course, you may discover in yourself a sneaking affection. The achievement of Lee Kuan Yew, the nation’s founding father, who died Monday at the age of 91, is immense.  The 20th century produced few greater statesmen and perhaps no greater pragmatist.
The measure of that achievement is that the ingredients of disaster abounded in Singapore, a country that is “not supposed to exist and cannot exist,” as Lee said in a 2007 interview with The New York Times. “We don’t have the ingredients of a nation,” he noted, “the elementary factors: a homogeneous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.” Instead, it had a combustible ethnic and religious hodgepodge of Chinese, Malays and Indians gathered in a city-state of no natural resources.

Yet Lee made it work, where many nations with far more of those attributes of nationhood — Argentina prominent among them — failed, and where, from the Balkans to the Middle East, sectarian differences have proved insurmountable and often the catalyst of war and national unraveling.

The fact that the elements for cataclysm exist does not mean that cataclysm is inevitable.  Lee demonstrated this in an age where the general cacophony, and the need to manage and spin every political minute, makes statesmanship ever more elusive.  The determining factor is leadership.  What defines leadership above all is conviction, discipline in the pursuit of a goal, adaptability in the interest of the general good, and far-sightedness.

Lee’s only religion was pragmatism, of which religion (as generally understood) is the enemy, because, to some adherents, it offers revealed truths that are fact-resistant. Any ideology that abhors facts is problematic. (If you believe land is yours because it was deeded to you in the Bible, for example, but other people live there and have for centuries, you have an issue pregnant with violence.) Lee had one basic yardstick for policy: Does it work? It was the criterion of a forward-looking man for whom history was instructive but not imprisoning. He abhorred victimhood (an excuse for sloppy thinking and nationalist delusion) and corruption. He prized opportunity, meritocracy, the work ethic of the immigrant and education.

Western democracy was not for him. It was too volatile for a nation that had to be forged and then fast-forwarded to prosperity. He was authoritarian, harsh when necessary. Free speech and political opposition were generally suppressed; the only liberalism was of the economic variety. Lee tapped into an Asian and Confucian inclination to place the communal good above individual rights; he also cowed Singaporeans into fear. Overall, it worked. Singapore became a booming commercial and banking center. Prosperity elided differences, even if the yawning gap between rich and poor is a growing issue, as throughout the world.
There is no single model for all humankind, even if there is a universal aspiration for freedom and the means to enjoy it. Technological hyper-connectedness does not produce political consensus. Pragmatism also involves accepting this, weighing the good against the bad (while standing against the heinous) and exercising patience.

The Singaporean miracle became an Asian reference.  If Asia has been pragmatic about conflict — notably in the handling of tensions between India and China — it owes much to Lee. China’s model — authoritarian, free-market, economically open but politically closed — was plainly influenced by Lee’s Singapore. Narendra Modi’s push to clean up India has led to talk of an Indian Lee Kuan Yew. One measure of Lee’s greatness is that, as Singapore’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Tommy Koh, put it to me in an email, the strong institutions he planted ensure that “his passing will have no negative impact on the future of Singapore.”\

How much more demanding of open political systems will prosperous Asians be? We will see, but I would not bet on rapid change. Desirability does not equal necessity, at least not yet. Lee made one other big Asian contribution: He valued American power, believed in its stabilizing regional influence. He was not an American declinist, once telling the political scientist Joseph Nye that China could draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States could draw on the world’s seven billion people and recombine them in a diverse culture that exudes creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism cannot.
In this, too, Lee was right.

You can follow me on Twitter or join me on Facebook.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 24, 2015, in The International New York Times. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Related Coverage
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/14/world/asia/00lee-kuan-yew-adv-obit-slide-A21E/00lee-kuan-yew-adv-obit-slide-A21E-thumbStandard.jpg
A memorial at the Tanjong Pagar Community Club in Singapore on Monday after the death of Lee Kuan Yew, the city-state’s founding father and first prime minister.

The comments section is closed. To send a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com.
  • All 144
  • Readers’ Picks 91
  • NYT Picks 5
  • See All Comments
newest
NYT Pick
Chris Brady
Madison, WI Yesterday
I was skeptical about Singapore when I was growing up in the 80s, and all you'd heard about it was with regards to the severe punishments meted out for misdemeanor crimes.

Having visited Singapore twice in the past 3-4 years, though, my opinions on it changed greatly. It was probably a better exemplar of modernity than most places I've been to in the US, with great standards of food, culture, and education.

It was particularly striking when one reads about where they started from, particularly after WWII. The differences were easy to cast into relief when you cross the border into Malaysia, and see what Singapore could have become had they not pursued independence - a more middling society, strewn with garbage, with potential to break out into modernity, but stuck under the thumb of religious backwardness that would do all possible to not allow that to happen.

I'll never be 100% onboard with the punishments in Singapore, but everything I was told by friends who were from there is that the reasons Singapore gained that harsh reputation have gradually been eroding and may have been temporarily necessary to spur some of the differences you see between them and their neighbors. It's a possibility. In any case, I became a fan of the country Mr. Yew played such a part in and mourn his passing. For what there was to criticize, there is a lot that went right.
  • Flag
  • 34Recommend
  • Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT Pick
Condelucanor
Colorado Yesterday
All the media seems to be eulogizing Mr. Lee as a benevolent leader who accomplished great things for his city state. Of course there is the "minor" difficulty of his decades long authoritarian rule. Rome appointed dictators for only 6 months and only in a time of existential crisis. Problems arose when these terms of office were extended, until eventually the Republic fell and the Empire followed. I know of few "benevolent" dictators in history and Mr. Lee's political opponents would probably question the application of that term to his rule. A country, even a city state, is not a corporation. While someone might admire Bill Gates or Steve Job as corporate leaders, I wouldn't want their style of corporate rule to become my government. Likewise, I wouldn't want Mr. Lee's style of economically progressive despotism to be adopted in this country. I am surprised that Roger, who is typically one of the voices of reason in the syndicated media has written about Mr. Lee's "success" with so few reservations.
  • Flag
  • 17Recommend
  • Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT Pick
Global Citizen
USA Yesterday
One measure of a great leader is whether he was good for his people and country and if he left it better than when he found it. LKY was indisputably great by that measure. Similarly Churchill was an imperialist and his policies towards British colonies (especially India) were exploitative but he was great leader for his people. That being said, founding fathers have a special place among leaders because they are revered for giving birth to their countries.

I lived in Singapore for nearly four years in recent past. I had heard American stereotypes of Singapore as "twelve whips for chewing gum" and "cabbies as secret police" variety. I found it to be one of the most comfortable, safe, clean and orderly places I have ever seen. If cities were watches, Singapore is a chronometer! It is safe enough for an eight year old to take a taxi or ride MRT (subway) alone.

When I asked my Singaporean secretary if she would rather have democracy, she replied that what good is democracy if it can't give me a security, order and a good life. Most Singaporeans I met admire US creativity, power and vibrancy but they intensely dislike our politics, the disrespect we show our leaders, circus-like election process and our arrogance.

LKY's true legacy is long term thinking, the values he imparted and the institutions he founded. I have no doubt that those will serve Singapore well into the future.
  • Flag
  • 52Recommend
  • Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT Pick
R. Rodgers
Madison, WI Yesterday
In the 1970s I was skeptical about the argument that the authoritarianism and forced-march industrialization in the Asian tigers would be worthwhile in the long run because the ultimate result would be more widespread prosperity and hence a more open and democratic society. By now, the record of Taiwan and South Korea (and many other countries to some extent) shows that the optimistic model can work. On the other hand, Singapore still stands out as a country where prosperity and a growing middle class has not yet resulted in a transition to a more democratic and open society. Perhaps now it will finally start to change, but I wouldn't bet on it. I wonder how many people -- in Singapore or elsewhere -- still really care about democracy.
  • Flag
  • 5Recommend
  • Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT Pick
http://pimage.timespeople.nytimes.com/4992/3880/cropped-49923880.jpg?0.980964150512591
Principia
St. Louis 16 hours ago
It's not unusual for small countries WITHOUT natural resources to become richer than neighboring countries who are "burdened" with natural resources and leaders vying to control the resources. This vying for control destroys creative democratic systems. Think Saudi Arabia v. Hong Kong.

Books have been written to explain this small country effect and Singapore is certainly not alone. So, on that score, I cannot heap congratulations on Lee as a mastermind of planning. Instead, heap the congratulations on the people of Singapore and Hong Kong and some luck being situated as small port city states where creativity and creating value instead of pumping mining it or pumping it out of the ground are rewarded. Both of these city-states situated around heavy, burdened and always trading super-states. A perfect situation.

But to write these articles without mentioning Singapore's Internal Security Act, much like Malaysia's, allowing preventative detention and branding political opponents "subversive" is incredible. I'm stunned by all the praise and am reminded once again that our own intellectuals are rethinking democracy as perhaps not the best system among the rest. Real people, leaders of pro-democracy movements, have been thrown in jail and had their lives ruined.

Over the last decade, I see a real gravitation among American intellectuals, including liberals, to what Plato might have referred to as "benevolent dictatorships". This makes me wonder where we're headed...
  • Flag
  • 3Recommend
  • Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
Recent Comments
bebopluvr
3 hours ago
I would have hoped Mr. Cohen would have stronger sympathies for his colleagues in Singapore. He enjoys the right of saying nearly anything...
celeste
5 hours ago
Call me a pragmatist. We are who we are. As a Singaporean, I'm very proud to be a Singaporean. Just like any countries, our leaders may not...
Lynn
12 hours ago
"China could draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States could draw on the world’s seven billion people and recombine...

Loading...
Read More
View all 144 comments
144 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To send a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com.
  • All 144
  • Readers’ Picks 91
  • NYT Picks 5

What Psychiatric Drugs was Germanwings Co-Pilot Andreas Lubitz Taking? A List of Questions That Need to be Answered

What Psychiatric Drugs was Germanwings Co-Pilot Andreas Lubitz Taking? A List of Questions That Need to be Answered

Global Research, April 01, 2015
pills

“Even at normal doses, taking psychiatric drugs can produce suicidal thinking, violent behavior, aggressiveness, extreme anger, hostility, irritability, loss of ability to control impulses, rage reactions, hallucinations, mania, acute psychotic episodes, akathisia, and bizarre, grandiose, highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder.
“Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs can cause agitation, severe depression, hallucinations, aggressiveness, hypomania, akathisia, fear, terror, panic, fear of insanity, failing self-confidence, restlessness, irritability, aggression, an urge to destroy and, in the worst cases, an urge to kill.” – From Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 296: “Drug Studies Connecting Psychotropic Drugs with Acts of Violence” unpublished.
Anybody with an inquiring mind and a bit of common sense already suspects that psychiatric drugs were likely the most important contributing factor in the aberrant Lufthansa airline crash last Tuesday (3-24-15). Many truth-seekers have been frustrated by the road blocks that the “authorities” including those who manage the media – have inserted that has kept the obvious part of the story out into the open. It has now been seven days since co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally, murderously and suicidally crashed the Germanwings airliner into the French Alps, instantly killing him and 149 innocent passengers and crew members.
What could possibly have been among the motivational triggers that finally made this obviously troubled and angry young man to plan and then execute such a heinous mass murder/suicide? So far the most likely candidate is being cunningly evaded by every entity that has control of the known information.
There has actually been a number of tantalizing details that have been carefully metered out to the press, including the fact that the 26-year-old co-pilot had been in a psychiatric hospital – allegedly for suicidal thinking – years before he qualified for his pilot’s license.
It was also reported that Lubitz had recently been, for undisclosed reasons, “seeing neurologists and psychiatrists” (known for their propensity to use a lot of synthetic brain-altering drugs). It is safe to assume that it was those physicians who prescribed “the plethora of medicines that were taken from his apartment in Dusseldorf and from his parental home”.
The “plethora of drugs” was found by investigators on Day One. But so far, there has been no mention of what precisely were the drugs that were found nor has there been any public comment from the physicians or clinics detailing the reasons the drugs were prescribed. Good forensic psychologists, investigative journalists – not to mention the rest of us heathen – need to know this information.
What Drugs was the Perpetrator Taking or Withdrawing From?
Since Day One, millions of aware folks around the world have been trying, in vain, to get the answer to the common-sense question that needs to be asked whenever irrational acts of violence or suicide occur: “What psych drugs, if any, was the perpetrator of the irrational violence taking or withdrawing from?”
One wonders if the real facts will ever come out. The track record of the American “authorities” in charge of catastrophic events, false flag or not, is not good. (Think about how the “authorities” handled in deep secrecy – the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and Paul Wellstone. Think about the “authorities” and the media who are shamefully ignoring the 90% of school shooters that had been taking brain-disabling and violence-inducing psych drugs over the past 30 years (drugs that had never been approved for use in children).
Think about the massive cover-ups that we got from the official commissions that White House insiders appoint to investigate assassinations and other calamities, especially the Warren Commission that covered up the fact that there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy and then the mother of all conspiracies and cover-ups, the 9/11 Commission that shamefully ignored the massive scientific evidence and witness testimony that proved a conspiracy that planned and then brought down, by documented controlled demolition, the three (not two!) WTC towers on 9/11/01.
Consider also the shameful media black-out of the well-advertised public testimony of dozens of haunted Vietnam veterans (including John Kerry) back in 1971 when they courageously came before cameras and movingly testified about the atrocities that they had committed or observed while they were “serving” in Vietnam. And consider the media black-balling of the courageous, equally tormented military veterans who also testified about US military atrocities in their MidEast wars just a few years ago.
The US media also shamefully refused to attend and report on the 1999 court trial at which a Memphis jury totally absolved James Earl Ray of the assassination of Martin Luther King and simultaneously implicated a variety of government agencies (CIA, FBI, US Army) and local Memphis police members of the conspiratorial deed. With that track record, how can anybody unequivocally trust those who are in positions of power?
As Per Usual, the Truth About Lubitz will Embarrass a Lot of Powerful Entities
There are a lot of powerful and profitable entities that could have their reputations besmirched if or when the raw truth about the Lufthansa crash ever comes out, not the least of which are the giant pharmaceutical corporations that manufactured and cunningly marketed their toxic (and always inadequately tested) products that Lubitz had been taking or withdrawing from. We need to know which one he took.
But the “authorities” have been staying mum. Eventually the “authorities” instead of full disclosure that would be a good teaching moment (that would go a long way towards prevention of future incidents) will probably claim “patient confidentiality” when the truth of the matter is that the claimed “confidentiality” will be protecting prescribing physicians, clinics, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance. I would like to think that the journalists who are supposed to get all the facts and then report them are simply ignorant of the well-established fact that most, if not all, psychotropic drugs can cause violent, homicidal and self-destructive behaviors. (See the Appendices below.)
A List of Questions That Need to be Answered
So I submit the following list of questions that need to be answered, hopefully long before the case is prematurely deemed by the powers-that-be to be closed:
1) “What were the specific drugs Lubitz was taking and in what cocktail combination had he been taking them?
2) How long had he been taking the offending drugs?
3) What dosages had he been prescribed?
4) Had Lubitz had a CYP450 2D6 assay done before he started taking his drugs (CYP450 is the complex of hepatic enzymes that metabolizes drugs and the absence of the 2D6 component (which occurs in 6-10 % of Caucasians – see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP2D6) and would have made him an unknowing victim of serious, potentially fatal, drug intoxication and irrational behaviors, like ordering two new unaffordable Audis days before his suicidal act!
5) What drugs, if any, might he have been withdrawing from? And
6) What were the reasons behind his physicians prescribing neurotoxic drugs?
Depressed People Tend to Hurt Only Themselves; Adding Brain-disabling Drugs May Make Them Want to Hurt Others as Well
Dr Peter Breggin is a practicing psychiatrist, author (of Toxic Psychiatry, Medication Madness and Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, among many other books) and an expert in clinical psychopharmacology. He is considered the father of ethical psychiatry. He has often said that, by and large, people that have a depressed affect may sometimes feel like hurting themselves, but they are unlikely to want to harm anybody else, unless they have been seriously humiliated by their targeted group or individual or their brains have been intoxicated and disabled into irrationality by brain-altering substances like alcohol, illicit street drugs or the activating, agitation-inducing prescription SSRIs or psychostimulants.
So I leave readers to ponder the information in Appendix A below about what is currently known about the Lubitz case. I have gleaned these quotes from the major media reports that Google has placed at the top of its most favored links, which are mostly major print and wireless outlets that, incidentally, probably take advertising money from the pharmaceutical and airline industries, two of the many giant multinational industries that prefer to hide behind their boardroom walls whenever the lethal toxicity of their flawed products or procedures becomes newsworthy.
Further below are lists of widely published (in the professional literature) and commonly known adverse effects of psychotropic drugs (or their withdrawal symptoms) about which readers will want to educate themselves as they try to draw their own conclusions about this case and the many other bizarre acts of violence that can often be linked to the use of brain-disabling prescription drugs. For my last column on drugs and violence, including a list of some of the recent school shootings and the drugs involved, click on http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/03/26/5031_the_red_lake_school_shootings_10th_anniversary

Appendix A:
What the Media is Telling Us About the Humiliation, Shaming, Embarrassment, Bullying and Fear That Lubitz was Exposed to:
“Lufthansa pilots began the first of two days of strike action on Wednesday (March 18) in a long-running dispute over early retirement benefits and the carrier’s cost-cutting plans which show no sign of ending.”
“He became upset about the conditions we (airline employees, including his airline hostess ex-girl friend) worked under: too little money, fear of losing the contract, too much pressure. ...he would wake up from nightmares, screaming ‘we are crashing’.”
“A former partner described him as a tormented, erratic man who was a master of hiding his darkest thoughts and would wake up from nightmares screaming ‘we’re going down’.”
Lubitz told his ex-girlfriend last year: ’One day I will do something that will change the whole system, and then all will know my name and remember it.’
Lubitz showed “increasingly erratic and controlling behaviour which made her fearful for her own safety during his rages.” “He had problems with mood swings.”“Lubitz had reportedly ordered two new Audis for them (his fiancé and him) just before the tragedy in an apparent desperate last attempt to win her back. But she appeared to have rejected his offer, as only one car was ever delivered.”“It is not known why they split but it has been claimed their relationship broke down because he was secretly gay and was suffering torment over hiding his homosexuality.”“One report claimed he was taunted by fellow pilots for previously being a ‘trolley dolly’ airline steward and dubbed ‘Tomato Andy’ a derogatory gay slur by colleagues.““Bild said that the 27-year-old co-pilot had been treated by ‘several neurologists and psychiatrists’.”
“The German weekly Welt am Sonntag revealed on Saturday that police have discovered drugs used to treat psychological disorders and proof of a serious ‘psychosomatic [sic] illness’ of co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who is thought to have deliberately crashed a Germanwings Lufthansa passenger jet on Tuesday into the French Alps, killing 150 people.”
“Police said they took away a plethora of medicines from his apartment in Dusseldorf and from his parental home”
“Officers reportedly found a variety of drugs used to treat mental illness at his flat in Dusseldorf, appearing to substantiate claims he was severely depressed.”
“Medical documents that suggested an existing illness and appropriate medical treatment. They also found torn-up and current sick-leave notes, among them one covering the day of the crash.”
“The disintegration of his eyesight, according to investigators, fuelled his chronic anxiety that his flying career the career he lived for since he was a teenager was coming to an end.”

Appendix B:
Brain-disabling Psychotropic Drugs That can be the Trigger for Irrational Suicidality and Violence
“Frowned-upon” or illicit brain-disabling drugs like alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, “synthetic marijuana”, PCP, LSD, etc are well-understood to adversely affect behavior and have been out-lawed or highly controlled.
FDA-approved, legalized, brain-disabling psychotropic drugs are also well-understood (except by poorly-informed patients and all-too-often their prescribing practitioners) to cause potentially serious adverse effects. The increasingly popular (partly because many of them are addictive or dependency-inducing and cause serious symptoms if the patient tries to stop the drug abruptly) drugs can be categorized roughly into a six groups. The drugs in those groups have seemingly been handed out like innocuous candy in developed countries like the US for several decades now.
The groups include 1) “antidepressants“ (like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc), 2) anti-anxiety/”minor tranquilizers” (like Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Ativan, etc), 3) “major tranquilizers”/antipsychotics (like Thorazine, Haldol, Risperdal, Zyprexa, etc), 4) “mood stabilizers”/anti-epileptic drugs (like Neurontin, Tegretol, Lyrica, etc), 5) psychostimulants (like Ritalin, Adderall, Strattera, Provigil, etc), and 6) hypnotics/sleeping pills (like Ambien, Halcion, Lunesta, etc).
Appendix C:
1) Common Adverse Psychological Symptoms of Antidepressant Drug Use
Agitation, akathisia (severe restlessness, often resulting in suicidality), anxiety, bizarre dreams, confusion, delusions, emotional numbing, hallucinations, headache, heart attacks hostility, hypomania (abnormal excitement), impotence, indifference (an “I don’t give a damn attitude”), insomnia, loss of appetite, mania, memory lapses, nausea, panic attacks, paranoia, psychotic episodes, restlessness, seizures, sexual dysfunction, suicidal thoughts or behaviors, violent behavior, weight loss, withdrawal symptoms (including deeper depression)
2) Common Adverse Psychological Symptoms of Antidepressant Drug Withdrawal
Depressed mood, low energy, crying uncontrollably, anxiety, insomnia, irritability, agitation, impulsivity, hallucinations or suicidal and violent urges. The physical symptoms of antidepressant withdrawal include disabling dizziness, imbalance, nausea, vomiting, flu-like aches and pains, sweating, headaches, tremors, burning sensations or electric shock-like zaps in the brain
3) Common Adverse Psychological Symptoms of Minor Tranquilizer Drug Withdrawal
Abdominal pains and cramps, agoraphobia , anxiety, blurred vision, changes in perception (faces distorting and inanimate objects moving) depression, dizziness, extreme lethargy, fears, feelings of unreality, heavy limbs, heart palpitations, hypersensitivity to light, insomnia, irritability, lack of concentration, lack of co-ordination, loss of balance, loss of memory, nightmares, panic attacks, rapid mood changes, restlessness, severe headaches, shaking, sweating, tightness in the chest, tightness in the head.

Copyright © 2015 Global Research

Revealed: What You Need to Know About the Iranian Nuclear 'Framework'


Revealed: What You Need to Know About the Iranian Nuclear 'Framework'

Guy Benson

4/2/2015 6:45:00 PM - Guy Benson

The deal is not done -- as the Iranians are eager to remind everyone -- because various particulars must still be hammered out between now and the end of June. The devil still lurks in crucial details, and potential sticking points abound. That said, the framework announced earlier today is more specific that many had expected. It contains elements that both sides will point to as meaningful wins, though Iran appears to have gotten the better of the agreement on the whole. Based on a State Department "fact sheet" summary -- worded, unsurprisingly, to reassure skeptical Americans -- and other reporting, here's what we know:

What Iran Gets:

(1) An active nuclear program with international legitimacy: The Obama administration's original goal at the outset of these talks was to eliminate Iran's nuclear program; the Washington Post's editors write that the White House's stance has since "evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict [Iran's nuclear] capability." Their infrastructure stays intact. They don't have to shut down any existing nuclear sites, including the ones they illegally developed in secret.

(2) Thousands of operational centrifuges: Despite agreeing to effectively uninstall (but not destroy) roughly two-thirds of their centrifuges (although that statistic is actually inflated), Iran is permitted to keep 6,100 on line, with just over 5,000 actively enriching low-grade uranium. The US' reported initial aim was to reduce this number to between 500 and 1,500. Hundreds of centrifuges (sans uranium) will continue to spin in Iran's once-covert, difficult-to-penetrate Fordow mountain facility, which was discovered by Western intelligence agencies in 2009.  Iran says it will convert the facility into a nuclear "research" center, used for purely peaceful purposes.

(3) Expiration dates on restrictions: Virtually all of the major Western-imposed restrictions on Iran's program "sunset" after a period of 10 to 15 years.  Iran's chief negotiator described these limitations as temporary, lasting only "for a period of time."  These are gigantic, consequential concessions. President Obama confirmed these points in his Rose Garden statement this afternoon, but Sec. Kerry later told reporters that there was "no sunset" in the deal.  Kerry may have been referring to the IAEA inspections regime, which does not appear to have any expiration date, meaning that Iran has, in theory, agreed to perpetual inspections over an unlimited time horizon.

(4) Major sanctions relief: Crucially, all American and international nuclear-based sanctions against Iran are to be lifted immediately upon an initial IAEA (the UN's nuclear watchdog) affirmation that Tehran has so far lived up to its end of the bargain.  Kerry stated that the exact timing of this major event is still under discussion, but if it goes through, Iran will receive immense sanctions relief in exchange for going along with the program at its earliest stages.  There does not appear to be any phase-in of sanctions reductions over time, contingent on continued Iranian compliance.  This would be an enormous boon to Iran's economy (freeing up cash for the regime to fund its continued malfeasance around the world), with Western "strings attached" getting severed very early on.  In addition to the sanctions, existing anti-Iran UN resolutions will be ripped up.  They would be extremely challenging to re-impose, for reasons discussed below.

(5) No action on other abuses and rogue programs: The regime's sponsorship and direct facilitation of terrorism, malignant meddling in the region, egregious human rights abuses, and rogue missile program are all untouched by this agreement.  Obama acknowledged all of these ongoing sins in his statement, noting that US sanctions attached to the regime's other bad behavior will remain in place.  America is cutting a deal with a regime that it admits is still engaging in international lawlessness and terrorism on a massive scale.

What America and the West Get:

(1) A relatively robust-sounding inspections/verification regime: Again, this might have been what Kerry meant when he was boasting about the deal's lack of a "sunset."  In fact, really important parts of the agreement would expire after just ten years, but it seems as though the inspections aren't among them.  We'll see if indefinite, unlimited inspections makes the final cut of this still-unwritten "deal."  It appears for now that by accepting the IAEA's so-called "additional protocol," Iran has effectively agreed in principle to allow "snap," or unannounced, inspections.  They've also granted international inspectors access to known and suspected nuclear sites.

(2) Limiting Iran's enrichment to low levels, with rudimentary technology: For now, that is.  These limitations start to go away after 10 years, with others following five years on.  The discussed restrictions would apply to the number of centrifuges enriching uranium, the important enrichment levels (which determine whether nuclear materials can be used in a bomb), and the sophistication of centrifuges being used and developed by Tehran.

(3) A lengthened Iranian nuclear "breakout" period: At present, Iran is estimated to be two-to-three months away from achieving "breakout" (the process of enriching enough nuclear material to the necessary level of purity to make the bomb).  The terms of this framework would extend Tehran's breakout period to one year.  That's an improvement that would theoretically allow the world community extra time to identify and punish any Iranian subterfuge.  Why "theoretically"? Stay tuned.

(4) Iran reduces its current stockpile of nuclear materials:  In addition to cutting its number of operational centrifuges, Iran agrees to scale back its stockpile of existing low-enriched uranium from 10,000 kg to 300 kg.  The West insisted upon removing that stockpile from the country, but the Iranians started resisting that course of action as a deal-breaker in the last few days.  The State Department's summary doesn't make clear what happens to the nuclear material in question.  Does it get shipped out of Iran?  Does it get diluted by international monitors?  Unclear.

Outstanding Problems and Concerns:

Well, let's start with Iranian officials' various triumphant pronouncements, including throwing serious shade at the State Department's "fact sheet," which is dismissed as "spin."  Which of its elements does Tehran view as illegitimate or misleading? One supposes that Kerry and company will find out in the next few months, as the nuclear clock ticks away, of course:


Beyond that, the agreement appears to punt on the important question of how Iran will address concerns about previous alleged military applications of their nuclear program, which the IAEA has been insisting they do for some time.  "Coming clean" about past activities a developments is an important step in ensuring that the international community can effectively monitor Iran's nuclear progress, or lack thereof.  How this gets resolved is another TBD component of the "understanding."  Also, let's say Iran were to violate the terms of a finalized deal (as they did with the interim deal, which was dismissed as a "mistake" by the Obama administration).  Then what?  Then, in theory, the international community could quickly reimpose "snap back" sanctions, and consider other options -- including even harsher sanctions, or military action.  But this would require a difficult-to-achieve consensus at the UN Security Council, with always-looming vetoes resting in the hands of the Chinese, and...Putin's Russia, which rarely misses a chance to frustrate American designs and embarrass our leaders.  And this all assumes the vaunted international community would even be able to agree that Iran was cheating at all.  These disputes could drag out for long periods of time, experts warn, presenting logistical and geopolitical delays of which Tehran would no doubt take full advantage.   In other words, reinstating lapsed sanctions and taking corrective action against will be a laborious, improbable undertaking.  Iran also knows that it doesn't necessarily need to push its luck with dramatic breaches; the regime can cheat at the margins, and wait out certain restrictions in the deal, after which they'd be legally free to move ahead with an extensive nuclear program, the existence of which had been effectively blessed by the West.  The Israelis, who have the most to lose at the hands of an intensely anti-Semitic nuclear-armed Mullahocracy, are, shall we say, alarmed:


Finally, a few notes on President Obama's Rose Garden remarks, after which he took no questions: He gave a short history lesson about recent US-Iranian relations, correctly stating that stepped-up sanctions hurt Iran's economy and forced them to the negotiating table.  He didn't mentioned that he'd strenuously resisted those very sanctions.  This is a reflection on his judgment.  Obama went on to claim that the current interim agreement has worked flawlessly, despite cynics' complaints when it was unveiled. This brag ignores an inconvenient little "mishap" that we oughtn't worry about.  Let's also recall that a major reason that additional sanctions were slapped on Iran in the first place is that they were caught cheating on another international nuclear treaty -- because that's what they do.  They cheat.  The State Department's fact sheet assures us that even when various provisions of the new would-be deal expire, Iran would still be bound by that same treaty (NPT) it has already breached.  In an attempt to fortify the mullah's good intentions on the nuclear front, Obama cited a religious order, or "fatwa," issued by Ayatollah Khamenei that forbids nuclear weapons. Two problems: The fatwa doesn't actually exist, and Iran has a history of ignoring their own fatwas in order to achieve their military goals.  Obama's reference to this nonexistence edict is misleading and naive.

Obama also stated his administration's intention of "fully briefing" Congress on any eventual deal, and to seek out a "constructive role" for them to play.  Will the president deign to "allow" a coequal branch of the United States government to vote on what amounts to a foreign treaty, as required by the Constitution?  He didn't say.  Perhaps encouragingly, he warned Congress not to kill the deal (which may signal that a vote will be held, as key leaders on the Hill are pushing hard), lest the failure of international diplomacy be "blamed" on America.  He, of course, resurrected his straw man that opposition to a very flawed deal is tantamount to adopting a pro-war stance.  He basically said straight-up that only a negotiated agreement, not harsh sanctions or military action, can solve the Iranian nuclear problem -- which at the very least undermines is own leverage moving forward.  Last but not least, Obama is asking the country to trust him that this "good deal" is "by far" our best option.  This is a man who repeatedly made false assertions to Americans about his healthcare overhaul, was humiliated and routed by adversaries in the Syrian 'red line' debacle, and green-lit and (attempted to whitewash) an unpopular (and unlawful) deal trading five top-level terrorists back to the Taliban in exchange for an accused American deserter.  His credibility on foreign policy is quite low, as is the American public's overall opinion of Iran's trustworthiness and intentions:



German Intransigence Raises Spectre for ‘Grexit’



03.04.2015 Author: Nile Bowie

German Intransigence Raises Spectre for ‘Grexit’

Column: Economics
Region: Europe

EU45345345Greece’s newly elected government, led by the leftist Syriza coalition that swept into power in January on an anti-austerity platform, finds itself in a highly unenviable position. Athens is burdened by colossal debt, imminent liquidity problems and a looming banking collapse. What is at stake for Greece now is its very ability to survive economically within the euro-zone.
The Syriza coalition emerged from various offshoots of the Greek radical left, which set itself apart from the political mainstream by taking an anti-capitalist position emphasizing wealth redistribution and class struggle, while allying itself with alter-globalization movements and trade unions. The ascension of Syriza represents the most leftward shift in European politics in decades.
Once a negligible force at the ballot box, Syriza has gradually succeeded in commanding support among the wage-earning class and the urban unemployed, who view the coalition as the only political force capable of pulling the country off the trajectory of austerity, imposed by Greece’s creditors – primarily Germany.
The new government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has captured the broad popular support of Greek society as the country faces an asymmetric struggle to negotiate a restructuring of Athens’ debts and a reversal of austerity policies attached to a previous €240 billion bailout agreement, which Germany and the European Central Bank (ECB) remain inflexibly opposed to.
Austerity Assault
Greece’s debt crisis reflects the contradictions of the European monetary union, which has benefited the economies within the euro-zone’s core at the expense of those of the periphery. German banks, flushed with cash from Germany’s sizable trade surpluses between other euro-zone members, played a primary role spurring on the Greek insolvency dilemma.
Berlin, benefiting from lower exchange rates than it would have under its own currency regime, recycled capital from euro-zone export markets back into periphery economies in search of higher returns, fueling asset bubbles, predatory lending and severe deflation in debtor economies.
Greece’s public debt, the majority of it held by German banks, became unserviceable in 2010. In exchange for a €240 billion bailout agreement used to recapitalize the Greek banking sector, Athens was obliged to accept rigid austerity measures that mandated mass privatizations, drastic cuts in public expenditures, the selling-off of public assets and across-the-board deregulation.
Greece’s wage earners and pensioners have shouldered the burden of German-imposed austerity at great human cost. Since 2010, the Greek economy has contracted by 26 percent, while wages have declined at least 33 percent. Unemployment has risen from 8 to 26 percent, whereas youth employment has hovered at 60 percent. Spending cuts and tax increases have amounted to more than 45 per cent of household disposable income.
Homelessness increased by 25 percent from 2009 to 2011, imperiling members of the middle-class with medium or higher educational backgrounds. Access to healthcare has eroded, while incidents of suicide have reached record levels, increasing by 65 percent from 2009 to 2011. Greece is now cut off from markets, having endured thousands of job losses and the massive scaling-back of social protections.
Syriza’s Objectives
Syriza is committed to ending austerity in the belief that Athens’ ability to service its debt is conditional to growth-stimulating policies. The current gridlock between Germany and Greece can be explained as the latter seeking a window of financial stability to implement growth-inducing reforms and humanitarian policies, while the former has frozen the remainder of bailout financing until Syriza consents to continued austerity.
Yanis Varoufakis, the Syriza government’s finance minister, explained this position in his column in the New York Times: “The great difference between this government and previous Greek governments is twofold: We are determined to clash with mighty vested interests in order to reboot Greece and gain our partners’ trust. We are also determined not to be treated as a debt colony that should suffer what it must.”
The latest round of negotiations between the Greek government and its creditors in late February has been a major subject of contention within the Syriza coalition and the international left more generally. Some have characterized the Greek government’s negotiating strategy as capitulating to the Eurogroup, while others have argued that Syriza has opted for a tactical retreat that succeeded in buying time.
Syriza essentially entered into the negotiations with inadequate leverage, seeking financing to ease imminent liquidity fears and enact basic redistributive measures, but unwilling to play the ‘Grexit’ card. Athens is keenly aware that the effects of a disorderly exit from the euro-zone would be domestically destabilizing, at least in the near term, with ramifications that could potentially see other euro-zone debtor economies default, causing a humanitarian crisis and wider political upheaval.
Athens has resisted austerity in the short-term, but reluctantly consented to the February 20 agreement, committing it to continuing ongoing and outstanding privatizations, and measures that would require Greece’s creditors to approve prospective state policies to determine whether they can be implemented. It is on this basis that the European Commission condemned Greece for acting ‘unilaterally’ when it recently attempted to pass a law enabling social assistance.
Creative Solutions, Negotiated Exit
It is utterly untenable for Greece’s creditors to continue maintaining the delusion that the country would ever be able meet its obligations through tighter, growth-contracting austerity. German intransigence has inevitably raised the spectre of Grexit, having pushed Athens into a corner where it can only resist austerity and avoid a banking collapse by tapping into the cash reserves of pension funds and public sector entities.
Though the Greek leadership should certainly be encouraged to propose alternative solutions to ease deflationary pressures and address the liquidity crisis as practical measures to implement in the near term, the unwillingness of Athens’ lenders to concede to a modicum of relief for the social economy renders ineffective any strategy to restructure Greece’s debt within the euro framework.
If all options are exhausted, Syriza should be prepared to implement an alternative strategy that would imply a negotiated exit from the euro-zone, so as to regain sovereignty over monetary policy and open up a process of debt restructuring. Any exit would be chaotic due to the immense organizational and logistical challenges demanded by a new currency regime, which would allow Athens to regain a competitive advantage conducive to stimulating productive activity. 
Strict public control would need to be exercised over the banking system, while a parallel currency denominated in euros could be utilized during a transition to provide short-term liquidity in concurrence with stringent capital control measures to prevent any excessive devaluation of a successor currency. Yanis Varoufakis has also discussed a variation of this option, advocating a state-backed cryptocurrency built on a transparent algorithm that could be utilized to hedge against deflation independent of the ECB.
If Germany and the Eurogroup intend to keep the monetary union together, which is certainly in their interest, a reduction in the nominal value of Greece’s outstanding debt and basic flexibility on social expenditure would be enough to ensure that Athens remained in the euro-zone. A growth-focused debt restructuring strategy centered on a repayment scheme tethered to GDP would be another measure in the interest of both Greece and its creditors.
There is no shortage of policy alternatives that can be explored to address the ongoing deadlock. If Syriza fails to steer Greece toward a new trajectory, elements of the extreme right – such as the Golden Dawn party, an openly neo-Nazi political force fast gaining momentum among disaffected segments of society  – will ultimately stand to benefit from the fallout. As it stands, the primary obstacle facing Greece is the rigid inflexibility at the heart of European institutions.
Nile Bowie is a political analyst based in Malaysia who has written for a number of publications, his expertise lies in a number of areas, with a particular focus on Asian politics and geopolitics, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/04/03/german-intransigence-raises-spectre-for-grexit/