- NATO Begins Encirclement Of Russia
Via German Economic News, translated by Eric Zuesse,
NATO prepares a veritable military buildup in Eastern Europe: German soldiers are operating in Lithuania, the British take over Estonia, and US soldiers move in to protect Latvia. The Canadians will be in Poland. Also in the Mediterranean, combat units are being increased. Russia perceives the activity as a threat, but hasn’t yet announced any countermeasures.
At the NATO summit during July 8th-9th in Warsaw, the Alliance will adopt a massive military presence along Russia’s border. Russia is classified by NATO as a threat. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said in Washington that the US and the EU have the right in the form of NATO to defend its territories on foreign soil. Critics of this strategy believe that it’s possible this upgrade will increase significantly the danger of a conflict between the superpowers. Wednesday in Brussels, the defense ministers want the military alliance to take decisions which will then be sealed by the leaders in Poland. NATO wants to strengthen its military presence on its eastern borders significantly, and to position foreign combat troops battalions in Poland and the three Baltic states. Germany is the core of the Association in Lithuania, the British in Estonia, and the United States is expected to be that in Latvia. What remains unclear, however, is who will be sending troops to Poland.
Maybe Canada will take on this task, it was last reported from Polish diplomatic sources as quoted by Reuters. “’The summit in Warsaw will be President Obama’s last (NATO summit) and the U.S. wants it to be a success. It will ensure that the fourth framework country is found, possibly by leaning on Canada,’ the source said. ‘Washington will bend over backwards here.’”
Germany wants to send at least 600 soldiers to Lithuania, which will constitute the core of the local battalion there with about 1,200 soldiers.
The battalions are to include around 1,000 soldiers each, and are not permanently stationed in the eastern countries, but replaced regularly. By means of this rotation, the military alliance wants to avoid a formal breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997, which prohibits the permanent stationing of a “substantial” number of combat troops in the east. What specifically “substantial” means, however, is controversial. [In other words: Obama wants to be more aggressive than the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 might allow; he wants to violate the treaty in such a way that he’ll be able to say he’s not really breaking the treaty.]
Poland and the Baltic countries want to push NATO to be even more aggressive. They demand among other things, increased aerial surveillance by fighter jets of the alliance partners on the Baltic. Poland had in the past also repeatedly demanded the permanent stationing of NATO combat troops [which would clearly violate the NATO-Russia Founding Act]. The Baltic States and Poland have been feeling threatened since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.
NATO defense ministers will also discuss a new mission in the Mediterranean. What exactly is planned there, is difficult to judge. Officially the rise of extremist ISIS militias and the refugee crisis are given as reasons for that expansion of NATO. ISIS is financed and otherwise supported by Saudi Arabia, the closest ally of the West in the Middle East. A good reason why NATO, the most powerful fighting force in all of the world’s military, have not coped with that group of more or less random ragtag mercenaries, is not known. Russia is fighting on the side of Syria against ISIS and against previously officially the US-backed al-Nusra Front [Al Qaeda in Syria — the Syrian affiliate of the group that did 9/11].
The NATO alliance is looking for a new combat mission in the Mediterranean, as the 11 September 2001 NATO response “Active Endeavor” patrolling the Mediterranean to stop terrorists there, has actually become obsolete. The ministers therefore want to consider whether the mission should be transformed into a more general one to strengthen security in the Mediterranean. Also being considered is to transform that mission to a closer cooperation with the European Union, which maintains its own naval deployment off the Libyan coast against human traffickers and the rescue of refugees in distress under the name “Sophia”. At dinner on Tuesday therefore also the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and government representatives from the non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden will also be in NATO headquarters.
The agenda on Wednesday also includes the future of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. According to current plans, the US wants to reduce the number of its troops in Afghanistan from its current 9800 to 5500. Whether Obama will hold to that objective despite the poor security situation in Afghanistan isn’t yet clear.
- Decoupling FOREX investing from trading
Forex is a trader’s market. So many complex factors go into foreign exchange rates, it’s really impossible to conclude what will be the EUR/USD in 1 year, 10 years, or 50 years – as explained in Splitting Pennies. Investing in Forex is like betting on the weather. And frankly speaking, given the right climate, it can work. For example, during the post 9/11 global market, it was assumed that USD would go down, and it did – thus propping currencies like NZD, EUR, GBP, and others. Take a look at the monthly GBP/USD chart – interesting to ponder also because of possible Brexit looming:
It took the credit crisis of 2007 to reverse the trend. And in the end – looking back 15 years, what changed with the GBP/USD rate? Right back to where it was, 1.41 handle. With talk of Brexit, Bremain – what is a Forex investor to think? Flip a coin – you’ll have better odds. Psychological factors in Forex work against investors as well. Do you really have what it takes, to sit on a GBP/USD position for 6 years? From 2001 to 2007, it would have been without leverage, a 48% gain – with 10x leverage, or 10:1 – that’s 480% – plus the swap (which still would have been positive for a GBP/USD long in that time). So here’s a situation where the climate was ripe for long term Forex investment. Since then, such an opportunity hasn’t presented itself, with the majors. Maybe Brexit will be a new trend of GBP/USD – the start of a new super cycle. But it’s too complicated to bet on. There are other examples, such as the 4 decade long CHF bull run that ended with the SNB (Swiss National Bank) bending over for their US masters. Investors who bought CHF post Nixon shock, would have had without leverage 400% + return, since the recent super cycle top, and final meltdown and manipulation of the Swiss Franc.
Everyday, we wake up and check the markets – what’s the news? Even with a 24/7 dedicated analysis team, it’s difficult to even conclude what the market outcome will be, based on the facts. Market perception in Forex can be completely off. For example there are those that believe Brexit can be GBP positive post vote.
Investing in Forex requires years of experience, a crack analysis team, loads of investment capital to weather any short term storm, and nerves of steel.
Trading Forex
So, let’s explore ‘trading’ Forex – meaning – day trading, short term, to capture price movements, regardless of direction – as an investment strategy PER SE.
If anyone has ever tried trading Forex manually – it’s nearly impossible. Statistics about individual Forex traders can be misleading. Brokers are now required to publish statistics about accounts, how many are positive, and other data. But this data doesn’t include how many accounts are managed, or use signals, algorithms, or other robot-assisted trading. Because trading Forex is so difficult, many traders will develop or purchase trading algorithms (such as this one named “Liquidity”) to assist their trading. It’s similar to hiring a manager such as an RIA (Registered Investment Advisor), the difference being it’s a software system that manages your account, placing trades based on a proprietary algorithm. (An algorithm is a series of steps)
This type of algorithmic trading in Forex is so common, it’s almost unheard of that someone will blindly trade Forex without the aid of an algorithm, signal system, or other aid. A technical indicator system such as technical analysis, qualifies as a signal system. So, is it possible in Forex to find good algorithms, and trading systems, that work? Yes – of course it is! Companies such as Fortress Capital, offer Forex Managed Accounts services (in the case of Fortress, for QEP (Qualified Eligible Person) only ). Other companies such as Elite E Services, offer algorithms for purchase and lease, for traders to trade their own accounts. But of course, it’s an ever growing problem for US Citizens, who are only allowed a few small choices of Forex brokers, who are over regulated (due to the overwhelming Forex fraud which is .. knock knock .. a thing of the past).
One day, perhaps the Forex regulations will change, and robo-advisors will be an asset class by itself. This is happening outside of the US, as the lax rules and higher leverage allow algorithms to live and breathe. Until that day, US investors who are interested in Forex, are left with the difficult choices of expatriation, qualifying themselves as QEP, or sticking to the good ol’ stock market, where it’s possible to buy products that you enjoy every day, like Microsoft (MSFT).
In conclusion, here we have simply decoupled Forex investing from trading, and hinted at the hybrid mix – when a trader uses an algorithm, it becomes an ‘investment’ just as one invests in a currency, one ‘invests’ in a robotic strategy. But the good news about robots, they can be tested, and used in a plethora of ways. Whereas, with simple vanilla currency investing, there’s only so many ways to sell a covered call on a GBP/USD position to earn extra ‘dividends.’
If you’re interested in learning more about what Forex is – the starting place is to checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex. It’s only $6.11 on Kindle, about $1 in 1970 when Forex was created. For those who remember when markets were traded on paper, there’s a paperback edition of the book Splitting Pennies for only $14.98. The book was published by Elite E Services, Inc. – a Forex technology company.
- Paul Craig Roberts' Skeptical Take On The Orlando Shooting
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
Some readers have asked for my take on the Orlando Shooting.
I don’t have one. Let’s see if together we can form a reasonable view.
Let’s start with the basic first question. Before there can be a murder declared, there must be a body. Has anyone seen on TV or in newspapers pictures of dead bodies? Bodies should be readily available if the reports are correct that fifty people were killed and 50 or more were wounded and in hospital.
I cannot bear the presstitute TV and print media. These are full-time propaganda organizations. Hopefully, some of you hold your nose and watch the news and can fill in the spaces. Has anything we have been told been confirmed by any real evidence?
Initially, I saw a CNN newscast and a RT report. The reports were heavy with verbiage of blood being all over the place, but the only visual evidence offered were three people, supposedly injured, being helped, not by medics or first responders, but by ordinary folks. A couple of people were helping a guy with tattoos in place of a shirt, but there was no sign of blood. Several people were helping people in police uniforms to carry a person who they dumped in the back of a pickup truck, not in the cab. About 6 people were carrying a person stretched out prone (no stretcher) down a street.
There was no blood and it looked like a crisis acting performance. Why prone? Is an injured person really able to keep his body stiff so that he can be carried along prone parallel to the ground? Where are they taking him? Is this just a camera walk-by? http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-witness-sot.cnn/video/playlists/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ What has become of the protocol that untrained people are not to attempt to help injured people? When police arrive at a scene, they usually run off bystanders, not recruit them to assist their activities or allow them to carry away the wounded and dead.
Readers have noticed that the visual evidence does not match the verbal reports. Readers report that Fox “News” and MSNBC repeatedly show the same footage described above of bystanders carrying supposedly injured victims whose facial expressions are completely unstressed and show no pain, fear, or blood.
So has anyone seen any dead bodies? Any body bags? Any wounded taken to hospitals in ambulances? Any of the hospital wounded interviewed by TV reporters? Has any reporter checked with the morgue?
Allegedly, people inside the massacre location made cell phone calls and texted. But no one took photos or videos? Are there no security cameras? No doormen to notice a heavily armed person enter?
With 50 people killed and 50 or more wounded and reports of oceans of blood, there should be plenty of evidence Have any of you seen any of it?
As far as I know, dead bodies, other than those of the perpetrators themselves, seldom if ever emerge from the terrorist attacks. No dead bodies materialized from the Paris attacks except those of the alleged perpetrators. No dead bodies ever emerged from the Sandy Hook shootings. The only dead bodies I recall from the San Bernardino shooting were the husband-and-wife-alleged-perpetrators, and their hands were handcuffed behind their backs. Do police handcuff dead people who the police have shot to pieces? I don’t remember dead bodies from Brussels, just reports of dead bodies.
One could say that the media is averse to invading the privacy of dead people and their relatives by showing dead bodies, or that the media doesn’t want to show gruesome scenes—except for the videos of Muslim terrorists cutting off people’s heads. But by now the unanswered questions from the various shootings have created so much skepticism that a person would think the media would provide corroborative evidence for the official claims.
Maybe they have. As I admit, I don’t watch the presstitute news.
In order to shoot 100 people, the principal weapon allegedly used, an AR-15, would have had to have been reloaded several times, a procedure that takes enough time for people to rush the shooter and overpower him.
Is it possible for one person to shoot 100 people successfully but not be able to shoot even one cop when police appear? Remember the Charlie Hebdo event. The two killers were highly professional when they wiped out the magazine staff and a policeman in the street, but later when confronted by police they were so hapless and incompetent as to suggest that they were not the same people. Remember the San Bernardino shootings. Three eyewitnesses said that the shooters were three muscular males dressed in black, not a husband and diminutive wife with a new baby.
What is most troublesome about these shootings is that the story seems already prepared by the government and is immediately set. We are fed the story before there is time for investigation by government or media. The media never investigate. The media just repeat the government’s story over and over until it is set in everyone’s mind. Contrary evidence is just discarded.
The alleged perpetrators are always killed, so we never hear from them. The only survivor of the various terrorisms is the younger Tsarnaev brother who has been held incommunicado. We have never heard directly from him.
One might think that by now the US media would have at least a smidgen of skeptcism. After all, for the past 15 years we have wasted trillions of dollars in wars in the Middle East based on lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. So why is the media willing to accept whatever the government says without any investigation or even raising a question?
The chairman, co-chairman, and legal counsel of the official 9/11 Commission have said publicly that the commission was lied to by the US government, that information was withheld from the commission, and that the commission was “set up to fail.” If the government will not tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission, why would the government tell us peons the truth?
It is not reporting merely to repeat the government’s claim. But that is all we get from the payroll jobs, unemployment and inflation reports to terrorism reports and claims of “Russian aggression.”
Send your emails with URLs of news broadcasts showing dead bodies and other real evidence. Don’t send in your speculations. They might be interesting and on the mark, but what we are trying to do is to see if there is any real evidence in behalf of this latest story of mass slaughter inside a night club.
It will be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to get any truth out of the Orlando shooting. Too many vocal and well organized interest groups have a strong stake in the government’s explanation. It comes to the aid of the anti-Muslim lobby and the Trump campaign which want Muslims kept out of the US and those here arrested and deported. It comes to the aid of the gun control lobby. It comes to the aid of the progressive-left that wants to normalize homosexual and transgendered people, thus the outpouring of sympathy for those shot in the homosexual night club. It comes to the aid of the spy industry and the police state that want no check on their activities. It comes to the aid of Washington’s murderous foreign policy—so what if we blow up Muslim children—look what they do to us when they grow up, which is what the Israelis say about the Palestinians. It comes to the aid of the neoconservatives and the military-security complex for whom wars against Muslims advance their agenda and fatten their pocketbook.
All of these interests are far more powerful than the right of peons to know the truth.
- Visualizing The Over-Education Bubble – Student Loan Delinquencies Are Soaring
What do you get when you combine skyrocketing tuition costs, a lack of growth in high-paying jobs, moral hazard, and America’s largest-ever generation of students?
As VisualCapitalist's Jeff Desjardins explains, it’s a recipe for a mountain of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt – much of which is not being paid for.
Courtesy of: Visual CapitalistVery Delinquent Students
With many students graduating with high debt loads, a growing number of students are becoming delinquent on their loans. The most recent estimate by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates the percent of 90+ day delinquent loans to now be at 11.0%.
This puts student loans at a higher delinquency rate than credit cards (7.6%), auto loans (3.5%), and mortgages (2.2%). It’s also particularly interesting because historically credit cards have had the highest rates among all types of consumer credit. Despite this, student loans “passed” credit cards in delinquency frequency at the end of 2012.
Why are student loans the most troubled form of consumer debt right now? It’s the result of a clear mismatch between supply and demand for college-educated workers.
The Overeducation Bubble
Have college graduates been oversold on the prospects of a college degree? Or is the market for high-paying jobs not materializing as expected in the current low-growth economy?
Either way, many college grads are punching below their weight in the job market. In a 2014 study, economists affiliated with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that up to 49% of recent college graduates aged 22 to 27 were working in careers that do not requite any college education.
Based on this and other factors, renowned investor Peter Thiel has called higher education to be a bubble:
If a college degree always means higher wages, then everyone should get a college degree. But how can everyone win a zero-sum tournament? No single path can work for everyone, and the promise of such an easy path is a sign of a bubble.
He’s backed up his opinion with the Thiel Fellowship, a $100,000 grant for would-be students who want to “build something” rather than sit in a classroom.
Some Students Left Behind
A recent survey shows that many graduates are regretting their choices around student debt and education. Roughly 57% of millennials now say they regret how much they borrowed, and over one-third of respondents said they wouldn’t have gone to college if they knew the true price tag.
Massive debt loads and the increasing student loan delinquency rate translate into real consequences for the economy. Many graduates are deferring having families or owning homes. One study even says that a modest student loan debt of $30,000 could cut $325,000 from a person’s 401(k) balance by retirement time.
- The FBI And NSA Won't Keep Us Safe
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
The NSA was too busy spying on your family to stop the Orlando gunman. But why aren't night clubs keeping tabs on people who walk in with rifles?
According to various sources, the gunman in Orlando's Saturday massacre, Omar Mateen, was being investigated by the FBI. (See Judge Napolitano's interview for more, here.) But, as was the case before 9/11, the FBI keeps such a long list of so many many people, that the list tells them nothing about who is a real threat. Meanwhile, we have been told countless times that the NSA should be able to spy on anyone it wishes in order to "keep us safe." Given that Mateen was already on an FBI threat list, was the NSA eavesdropping on Mateen? If not, why not? Was the NSA too busy spying on dirt-poor backwoods members of "militias" to bother keeping track on Mateen, who, by many accounts, was a man who spoke often of his sympathy for terrorists? It's becoming increasingly evident the NSA simply collects so much information on so many people and casts far too wide of a net. What the NSA does is great for blackmailing powerful people. It's less useful in actually catching terrorists.
We have also learned that Mateen worked for a taxpayer-funded "private" security agency that is under contract with numerous government agencies around the world including the CIA. The company often provides security for Federal buildings, and presumably has access to numerous federal installations. His co-workers believed he was unhinged.
Basically, it sounds just like another "success" story we've come to expect from the FBI and the US federal government in general. The Feds maintain huge lists of "suspects" but have no way of separating out the real threats from the people who just say things. The Feds insist they should be able to spy on everyone, but ignore crucial information. The Feds pay private security firms that hire people like Mateen.
Meanwhile, the federal government insists on the prerogative to regulate the lives of ordinary people right down to whom they can hire, what sorts of plants they can grow, and of course — what kinds of self-defense they can obtain for themselves. Violations often come with long, draconian prison sentences.
But rest assured, the FBI and NSA will no doubt "rectify" the situation by lobbying for bigger budgets for themselves and giving pay increases to all involved.
Where Was the Private Security?
It should surprise no one that the FBI, yet again, has failed to use its already-vast powers to prevent a major act of terrorism. But, we're still left asking ourselves why it was so easy for a man with a long gun to walk into a private establishment and shoot dozens of people? Did the Pulse club in Orlando keep any tabs on its entrances, and did it allow anyone to enter?
By state law, the Pulse club was a "gun free zone" as people with a conceal-carry license are not allowed to carry in an establishment that serves alcohol.
In other words, the patrons at the club were denied the ability to defend themselves by state law. So, why did the club not provide any meaningful security of its own?
Will the Pulse club hide behind the claim that it could not "foresee" an event like this, and therefore need not provide any security?
That was the strategy used by the Aurora movie theater where James Holmes murdered 12 people. In that case also, the theater could not be bothered with noticing that someone had propped open a back door and walked to his car to put on body armor and walk back with several weapons, a gas mask, and tear gas grenades. Now that mass shootings have occurred at various types of theaters (including the Paris theater where dozens were shot in 2015), will owners continue to claim that there is no way to foresee such events?
Night clubs have been targets for terrorists for many years. The La Belle club in Berlin was bombed in 1986, resulting in 3 deaths and 230 people injured. The 2002 Bali Bombings — at a night club — resulted in 203 deaths. There have been other cases of shootings and arson attacks at night clubs. Was an attack on a night club so "unforeseeable" that it was no problem to allow a man with an assault rifle access to a dance floor?
Lawsuits will be sure to come alleging that the establishment in question should have provided better security. It will be interesting to see what arguments will be employed to demonstrate that private owners need not take steps to exclude bombers and gunmen from their clubs, presumably on the grounds that such events are "unforeseeable." How many bombings and shootings at public entertainment venues must take place before it is considered prudent to take steps to prevent such events?
Private Security Addresses Immediate Threats And Casts a Far Smaller Net
Indeed, decentralized, private security is far more likely to actually work — especially considering the "safety" provided by the NSA and FBI — than are broad regulatory approaches at the national level.
After all, harsh and broad gun control laws in France did not prevent the 2015 Paris massacres. More adequate private security at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, on the other hand, might have actually done some good.
Unfortunately, many people still subscribe to the idea that governments can "keep us safe" with gun control laws and mass spying programs and other massive nationwide programs that target the entire population. Not only are these programs extremely costly (in terms of both enforcement and administration) but they are incapable to identifying when and where these acts of violence will occur. After all, a nationwide program that targets everyone, must monitor and regulate 300 million people. Immense amounts of resources are spent monitoring, prosecuting, and regulating harmless people. Private security at a night club need only regulate the people seeking access to that specific location.
Private Security Is Prudent Even when Peaceful Individuals Can Carry Weapons
Naturally, many opponents of gun control will point out that private gun ownership is effective in providing both direct and indirect deterrence to gunman. That is often true.
Oddly, though, many of the same people who advocate for private gun ownership also deny that owners of public shops and venues bear any responsibility in securing their own property from bombers and gunmen. Not only is this view naive, but it also provides fodder to gun control advocates who believe that only centralized, regulatory efforts by governments can provide meaningful safety from attackers.
Patrons at public businesses should demand that the owners have taken steps to prevent gunmen with malicious intent from entering the premises. Not all citizens — a group that includes children and old people and the disabled — have the time and resources to train in self defense with firearms. Similarly, one might point out that not all people have the resources to train in other essential activities, including keeping automobiles in safe, working order, and building structures that don't fall down on us. While some amateurs are trained in those skills, most people rely on trained professionals for these services.
Naturally, we expect private owners to provide buildings that are structurally sound before we are willing to enter them. So, why should security be just an afterthought?
I suspect that many reasons for the the disconnect here is that people have a nostalgic and fanciful view of the world in which safety should just a "given" that is provided cheaply and easily by some government agency that's out of sight and out of mind. There is also a naive view that government can effectively prevent and combat violence everywhere by passing some laws. We've been conditioned to believe that we shouldn't have to worry about things like safety from murderers when we go to the hardware store. In the real world, though, it is extremely important to consider the real costs and benefits of providing private and decentralized safety measures at private establishments. As the Orlando massacre has demonstrated yet again, relying on government agencies for safety just isn't cutting it.
- Islamic State Leader Reportedly Killed After Coalition Bombing
Several months ago, when ISIS’ oil money started to dry up as a result of Russian airstrikes severing key supply routes with Turkey, we predicted that it is only a matter of time before the entire conflict (because technically there is no war) involving the Islamic State would quietly be swept away from the front pages, since the primary objective behind ISIS – the removal of Syria’s president al-Assad – had failed, with the arrival of Russian military forces in Syria. We also suggested that the most effective way to achieve this would be through the elimination of the Islamic State’s figurehead, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
And now that the conflict against Islamic State forces is making rapid progress both in Iraq and in Syria, with forces rapidly closing in on the ISIS capital of Raqqa for one final major battle before ISIS is relegated to the trash heap of US-funded “has been” terrorist organizations alongside Al-qaeda, it is only fitting to have a bin Ladinesque send off to Baghdadi as well.
Which is perhaps why on Tuesday morning, Asian, Iranian and Arab media all reported that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died on Sunday after his hideout was bombed by the U.S. led-coalition. The news about al-Baghdadi’s death, first reported by Western Journalism, came after an Iraqi TV channel reported last week that the ISIS boss had been wounded near the Iraqi-Syrian border.
Iraq’s Al Sumariya TV cited local sources in Iraq’s Nineveh province who told the channel that al-Baghdadi and other ISIS leaders had been injured by a coalition airstrike on the Islamic State’s headquarters near the Syrian border. When Col. Chris Garver, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, was asked if he could confirm the Al Sumariyah report, he said that he had “nothing to confirm” at that moment.
It wasn’t just the Iraqis: on Tuesday Indian and Iranian media also reported they had evidence of al-Baghdadi’s death and released a video with images of what seems to be the corpse of the ISIS leader. In Khabar, a Hindi-language news channel in India, was the first outlet that published the images.
Other media reported that Amaq News Agency, an outlet that is linked to ISIS, had published an official statement that read: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed by coalition air strikes on Raqqa on the fifth day of Ramadan.” Meanwhile, the British news site Mirror, cited Iraqi security officers who claimed al-Baghdadi died in Mosul, Iraq.
“Iraqi aircraft hit Baghdadi’s convoy as it was moving towards Karabla to attend a meeting of the Daesh [ISIS] terrorist leaders,” the Mirror reported, citing an unnamed source in Iraq.
A statement from Amaq news agency linked to Islamic State said: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed by coalition air strikes on Raqqa on the fifth day of Ramadan.” Another source claimed he died in Mosul, Iraq – another ISIS-held stronghold.
As we have reported previously, Al-Baghdadi has been traveling around to avoid being captured or killed by his many enemies. He traveled from Syria to Mosul at least twice over the last six months and reportedly visited Libya, where he helped organize the conquest of a large part of Libya’s coastal plain.
The self-proclaimed caliph was born as Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim al-Badri in 1971 in Samarra, Iraq. Al-Baghdadi later claimed the tribe he belonged to descended from the Prophet Muhammad. The ISIS leader obtained bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree and a doctorate in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. After the American invasion of Iraq, al-Baghdadi helped to found the Islamist group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah. He was arrested by U.S. forces on Feb. 2, 2004, but reportedly was released in December that year after he was designated “a low-level prisoner.” Other reports claim that al-Baghdadi remained in custody until 2009 and that he was imprisoned with other future ISIS leaders.
In May 2010, according to folklore, al-Baghdadi became the leader of Islamic State in Iraq, the official al-Qaida branch in the country, and organized a string of deadly suicide attacks that escalated after the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. He remained the group’s leader until the founding of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that came into being after the group expanded its activities into Syria.
On June 29, 2014, out of the blue, al-Baghdadi announced the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, a move that was harshly condemned by many Islamic governments and led to a conflict with al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. The move was also facilitated with the funding of various nations, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, while according to declassified reports, the CIA was also instrumental in ISIS’ formative years which would be used as a blunt object to eliminate Al-Assad from power.
The death of al-Baghdadi will likely be a serious blow to the Islamic State after the organization already lost more than 40 percent of its territory in Iraq and Syria and suffered a string of battle losses recently.
- Dear Janet, "No Surprises!" – China Devalues Yuan To Weakest Since Jan 2011
Just in case The Fed had any ideas of surprising markets with a “confidence-inspiring” rate-hike tomorrow, The PBOC just sent a message loud and clear to Janet as they devalued the Yuan fix by over 2 handles, above 6.60 for the first time since January 2011.
This is the 3rd major devaluation step in the last 10 months (remember when China said August was a “one off”?)
Bear in mind this kind of currency turmoil has not ended well for US equities in the past…
Which may help explain why funding market stress is starting to appear in Libor/OIS and basis-swaps (demand for USDollars), and why US and European banks are tumbling…
Charts: Bloomberg
- An Inconvenient Truth: How The Obama Administration Became Earth's Largest Arms Dealer
With the Obama presidency in its final year, there is one central element of his foreign policy that has received little attention – the dramatic acceleration of lethal weapons exports by the U.S. military and defense contractors. As Ammo.com details, the Obama administration has approved more lethal weapon sales to more foreign countries than any U.S. administration since World War II. Many billions more than G.W. Bush's administration, in fact. And some of these sales will likely result in unintended consequences i.e. "blowback" – especially as more than 60 percent of them have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
(After all, U.S. weapons supplied to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets were then used to help launch Al-Qaeda. Arms supplied to Iraqi security forces and Syrian rebels have been captured by ISIS. And “allies” from Bahrain to Egypt to Saudi Arabia have used U.S.-supplied weapons to defeat homegrown democracy movements.)
On May 23rd, President Obama announced at a press conference in Hanoi that the U.S. would be lifting its decades-long embargo on sales of lethal weapons to Vietnam. Such a reversal in U.S. foreign policy raises questions: How does the U.S. arms export market actually work? Which companies in the military-industrial complex profit from these sales? Who really ends up with U.S. weapons? And most importantly, how many of those weapons could eventually be used against us?
![An Inconvenient Truth: How the Obama Administration Became Earth's Largest Arms Dealer [INFOGRAPHIC]](https://i0.wp.com/ammo.com/media/images/infographics/obama-admin-earths-largest-arms-dealer-infographic.jpg?w=750)
Source: Ammo.com - Rent In London Is Consuming 57% Of Millennials' Income
While the luxury housing bubble has burst in the UK, one-bedroom rentals that are popular among millennials are still putting a dent in their discretionary cash flow.
A new study by Countrywide Plc, the UK's largest realtor, reports that a one-bedroom apartment in London now consumes 57% of a millennials net income on average, up 16% from 2007 which saw rent consume 41% of income.
The average cost of a small home in London now stands at $1,609 a month, up 48% in the past nine years, and well surpassing wage growth of 11% over the same period Bloomberg reports.
In Great Britain overall, one-bedroom apartment rents are taking up over 45% of income for millennials, up from 2007 levels as well.
With the price to own completely unaffordable due to the influx of foreign investors and cheap money, many individuals and especially millennials, have turned to renting, pushing rent higher as a result. It seems as though those millennials who expect to make hundreds of thousands after graduating school better track those jobs down quickly, lest they want to end up like many of their counterparts in the US who increasingly live with their parents.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...