kscarbel2

If one didn't know better, you'd think there is a confidential agreement that the Middle East countries will not actually "use" their armed forces, rather, the west will always come in and [try to] save the day. When have they done so? Why didn't the Arab League push Iraq out of Kuwait? Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East countries didn't lift a finger, but rather did little more than allow us to stage from their lands (western blood was spilled....rather than their own). Any ordinarily prudent person would find this extremely odd. The Middle East isn't our neighborhood. When it has issues, the Arab League should man up and deal with it. If and when Middle East evil flows beyond that region's borders and threatens the U.S., only then should we become involved (and strike with unforgettable fury).

Again, I deeply value the relationship between the U.S. and France. However, the woes that Western Europe have now due to these people, particularly France and Belgium, are self-inflicted (plus the UK and Sweden....Germany is about to get a wake-up call). That they invited tens of thousands of these people, without background checks, defies the imagination. And remember, only a small portion of these "refugees" are actually refugees (from Syria). The 1995 Schengen agreement (the abolishment of border controls) was a huge security mistake and now the EU countries are all realizing it. The fight against ISIS should be led by the Arab League headed by Saudi Arabia. Given their punishments rival those of ISIS, including flogging, amputation, eye gouging, death-by-stoning and beheading, there's every reason to believe that Saudi Arabia is the ideal country to lead the Middle East countries against ISIS.

In dismissing the idea of a large-scale military strategy as misguided (the failed US strategy with al-Qaeda), Obama has a point. 'We can retake territory, and as long as we leave our troops there we can hold it, but that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating the dynamics that are producing these violent extremist groups,' said Obama. Americans do not want to station U.S. troops in the Middle East, in yet another vain attempt to create peace, over a time frame that amounts to.....forever. The occupation of Iraq has broken us......and for what benefit? We haven’t the desire, or the finances, to be the region’s baby-sitter for an indefinite period of time. The Arabs have been fighting for a thousand years. We tried bringing milk and sliced bread to Iraq. It didn’t work, because they are obsessed with a war of religions. Only the Arab world can help itself. Only when they are forced to change, will they change. Allowing the population of the Middle East to flood Europe and America isn’t the answer. (12,000 alleged Syrian and Iraqi refugees, whose backgrounds are impossible to factually check, are set to arrive in Australia. God save the Commonwealth) Under the banner of the Arab League, the armed forces of Arab countries need to clean up their own neighborhood. Bahrain Iran (taking part) Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria (taking part with Russian support) United Arab Emirates (UAE) Yemen One more point needs to be made. When people in other global regions are in trouble, they “expect” the US to come running and provide assistance. If/when we don’t, the US is ridiculed as selfish. But when we spread our wings and try to maintain peace in the world, the very same people complain that the US is undesirably acting as the world’s policeman, and attempting to dictate how the rest of the world lives (They want us to go away). We’re criticized for not doing, and also ridiculed for doing. Meanwhile, our coffers in 2015 do not allow us to participate around the world as we did in decades past. We already spend more on defense and counter-terrorism than any other country in the world, and after Paris, that amount is going to leap upward. The world is changing.......the U.S. no longer has deep pockets (we can't even keep up with road repair). Global regions are going to have to learn to help themselves, because the U.S. no longer has the deep pockets and large footprint of the past.

Fleet Owner / November 16, 2015 When Matthew Thiese and his team set out to learn why truck drivers crash, they looked at about 25 different variables including age, gender, weight, experience, heart disease, feeling tense, low back pain as well as alcohol and tobacco use. After recruiting drivers at truck stops, truck shows and on line – and ultimately including 797 in their analysis – three factors consistently stood out: pulse pressure, feeling physically exhausted after work and cell phone use. While cell phone use makes intuitive sense as a crash factor, because of the obvious distraction, the other two factors – pulse pressure and feeling physically exhausted after work - are baffling, says Thiese, Assistant Professor at the University of Utah’s Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. His work was supported by the federal government. "In terms of looking at crash risk, I was surprised that feeling physically exhausted after work was related to being involved in a crash," he says, "but then I was also surprised at how many drivers had uncontrolled hypertension or uncontrolled high cholesterol, so those two were both surprising to me, too - more so the hypertension." He notes that many drivers who said they were on medication, about 100 of the participants, still had high blood pressure. "I was surprised by that. I would've thought there would be more people who had it under control especially because they need certification every two years to drive. There are no outward signs of high blood pressure and some medications have side effects which affects compliance. I absolutely understand that, but it was still surprising." The study, funded by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, part of The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had a specific goal of looking at doing a large study of truck drivers to describe their health. "There's really not much out there looking at it," Thiese says. "To my knowledge this is the largest study that's ever address all of these different factors. Our objective was to look at these data and how they associate with crashes." In future studies, Thiese wants to learn why pulse pressure and feeling physically exhausted correlated so high with crashes. "We know that these medical conditions occurred before the crash, so it's more suggestive of causation. We're working on a grant to actually perform a longitudinal study, where we enroll drivers and actually follow them through time, so that we can really get a handle on that strength of relationship between the predictive elements of a medical factor and having a subsequent crash." [Note: Pulse pressure is different than blood pressure which reads the diastolic and systolic pressures like 120/80. Pulse pressure is the difference between the two and represents the force that the heart generates each time it contracts. A high pulse pressure is believed to be a predictor of cardiovascular disease.] What can drivers take away from the study? "I want drivers to consider that there is not one risk factor for being involved in a crash. There are a lot of different factors, which also gives drivers many opportunities to try and reduce their own crash risk. There's been a lot of focus on sleep apnea. There's increasing focus on diet and exercise, and for some drivers, positive changes are feasible. There are other things that they can do, but for some drivers, it's just really hard to eat healthy, or they don't for one reason or another." He concludes: "Being physically exhausted after work, your pulse pressure, not talking on a cell phone - these are three very different things that, in theory, if you're able to address, you should be able to reduce your crash risk." The study was published in the October, 2015 issue of Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

Heavy Duty Trucking / November 16, 2015 For the first time in 25 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will increase its fines for safety violations in 2016. This came as a result of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314), signed by President Obama on November 2. Section 701 of the Bill, entitled the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, allows OSHA to increase its fines based on inflation, where it was previously exempt from doing so. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 gave most federal agencies the authority to review and adjust their civil penalties once every five years in order to keep pace with inflation. But OSHA was excluded form this legislation at the time, leaving OSHA fines stagnant for over two decades. Now OSHA will be required to make inflationary increases to its penalties every year, putting the agency in line with other federal agencies. OSHA will first enact a one-time catch-up assessment that will increase penalties to reflect the changes in inflation from 1990 - 2015, with a cap at 150%. Current estimates using October 1990 to September 2015 CPI data (the latest data available) allow for a nearly 80% increase in OSHA fines for 2016. This means that OSHA fines for willful or repeat violations could increase from a current maximum of $70,000 per violation to approximately $125,000 per violation. Fines for serious and other-than-serious violations could increase from $7,000 per violation to approximately $13,000 per violation. The law allows some leeway for OSHA to avoid inflicting the maximum catch-up penalty, but the general consensus is that employers should expect the worst. According to Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, David Michaels, "Simply put, OSHA penalties must be increased to provide a real disincentive for employers accepting injuries and worker deaths as a cost of doing business." The catch-up adjustment will take effect no later than August 1, 2016. Thereafter, employers should expect to see OSHA fine increases by January 15 of every year as the agency makes adjustments based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI. This potentially huge increase in the cost of OSHA fines makes it even more important for fleets to shore up safety programs and continue to stress a culture of safety.

U.S. States Shun Syrian [alleged] Refugees CNN / November 16, 2015 The governors of 31 (was 24) states have announced they will not accept Syrian refugees. All but one have Republican governors. The announcements came after authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October. Some leaders say they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats. Only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been accepted into the United States since 2011, but the Obama administration announced in September that 10,000 Syrians will be allowed entry next year. Authority over admitting refugees to the country, though, rests with the federal government -- not with the states -- though individual states can make the acceptance process much more difficult, experts said. American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: "Legally, states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government." But Vladeck noted that without the state's participation, the federal government would have a much more arduous task. "So a state can't say it is legally objecting, but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult." Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said one tactic states could use would be to cut their own funding in areas such as resettling refugees. The conference is the largest refugee resettlement organization in the country. But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said. In announcing that his state would not accept any Syrian refugees, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted Monday on his personal account, "I demand the U.S. act similarly," he said. "Security comes first." Texas will not accept any Syrian refugees & I demand the U.S. act similarly. Security comes first. https://t.co/uE34eluXYd — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) November 16, 2015 In a letter to President Barack Obama, Abbott said "American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger," referring to Friday's deadly attacks in Paris. In a statement from Georgia's governor, Republican Nathan Deal, he said Georgia will not accept Syrian refugees "until the federal government and Congress conducts a thorough review of current screening procedures and background checks." I've issued an executive order directing state agency heads to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in GA. https://t.co/4b41tsIYcm — Governor Nathan Deal (@GovernorDeal) November 16, 2015 Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley also rejected the possibility of allowing Syrian refugees into his state and connected refugees with potential terror threats. "After full consideration of this weekend's attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program," Bentley said Sunday in a statement. "As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way." I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way. We refuse Syrian refugees. https://t.co/HTpflJUiPc — Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) November 16, 2015 There is currently no credible threat against the state, the governor's office said, and no Syrian refugees have been relocated to Alabama so far. As the list of states blocking refugees grows, at least one state, Delaware, announced that it plans to accept refugees. "It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror," said Gov. Jack Markell. States whose governors oppose Syrian refugees coming in: -- Alabama -- Arizona -- Arkansas -- Florida -- Georgia -- Idaho -- Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Kansas -- Louisiana -- Maine -- Maryland -- Massachusetts -- Michigan -- Mississippi -- Nebraska -- Nevada -- New Hampshire -- New Jersey -- New Mexico -- North Carolina -- North Dakota -- Ohio -- Oklahoma -- South Carolina -- South Dakota -- Tennessee -- Texas -- Wisconsin -- Wyoming States whose governors say they will accept refugees: -- Colorado -- Connecticut -- Delaware -- Hawaii -- Pennsylvania -- Vermont -- Washington Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said the state would "put on hold our efforts to accept new refugees." "Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration. But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents," said Snyder. He demanded that the Department of Homeland Security review its security procedures for vetting refugees but avoided blanket suspicion of people from any region. "It's also important to remember that these attacks are the efforts of extremists and do not reflect the peaceful ways of people of Middle Eastern descent here and around the world," Snyder said. And Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson posted on his official Twitter account that he would "oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas." Action taken by some states is similar to several European countries who have forcefully opposed accepting refugees. Hungary built a razor-wire fence along its border, and neighboring countries have been following suit. And previously generous countries such as Sweden and Germany that welcomed thousands were already pulling back. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement, "(At) this time, I find the idea of accepting Syrian refugees highly concerning and have no plans to accept them into our state and believe the federal government has an obligation to carry out extensive background checks on everyone seeking to enter the United States." Mississippi, Ohio bristle at taking refugees The governors of Ohio and Mississippi also announced their states would not allow Syrian refugees. Jim Lynch, a spokesman for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, issued this statement: "The governor doesn't believe the U.S. should accept additional Syrian refugees because security and safety issues cannot be adequately addressed. The governor is writing to the President to ask him to stop, and to ask him to stop resettling them in Ohio. We are also looking at what additional steps Ohio can take to stop resettlement of these refugees." Kasich is a Republican presidential candidate. Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant wrote on Facebook that he was working with the state's homeland security department to "determine the current status of any Syrian refugees that may be brought to our state in the near future. “We don’t know who these individuals are. Any idea (that) you can do a background check of someone that’s been living in Syria is absolutely ridiculous,” Bryant said. “These are dangerous times, whether people want to admit it or not,” Bryant said. “We want to keep the war out of Mississippi, here on the homefront.” "I will do everything humanly possible to stop any plans from the Obama administration to put Syrian refugees in Mississippi. The policy of bringing these individuals into the country is not only misguided, it is extremely dangerous. I'll be notifying President Obama of my decision today to resist this potential action." Louisiana: 'Kept in the dark' Louisiana governor and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal complained bitterly in an open letter to Obama that the federal government had not informed his government about refugees being relocated to his state last week. "It is irresponsible and severely disconcerting to place individuals, who may have ties to ISIS, in a state without the state's knowledge or involvement," says Jindal. He demanded to know more about the people being placed in Louisiana to avoid a repeat of the Paris attacks and wanted to know whether screening would be intensified for refugees holding Syrian passports. And he suggested Obama hold off on taking in more refugees. "It would be prudent to pause the process of refugees coming to the United States. Authorities need to investigate what happened in Europe before this problem comes to the United States," Jindal said. Republican candidate Donald Trump called accepting Syrian refugees "insane." "We all have heart and we all want people taken care of, but with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 -- some of whom are going to have problems, big problems -- is just insane. We have to be insane. Terrible," Donald Trump said at a rally in Beaumont, Texas. While addressing reporters on Monday, Obama called out Republican candidates who have objected to admitting refugees to the United States. "When I hear a political leader suggesting that there should be a religious test for which a person who is fleeing from a war torn country is admitted... when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that is shameful," the President said. "We don't have religious tests to our compassion." New York: 'Virtually no vetting' A senior White House security official attempted to allay concerns about the vetting of Syrian refugees. On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, "We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who have come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counter Terrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security, so we can make sure that we are carefully screening anybody that comes to the United States." New York Rep. Peter King cast doubt on Rhodes' comments. "What he said about the vetting of the refugees is untrue. There is virtually no vetting cause there are no databases in Syria, there are no government records. We don't know who these people are." On Sunday, investigators said that one of the Paris bombers carried Syrian identification papers -- possibly forged -- and the fear of Syrian refugees grew worse. "It's not that we don't want to -- it's that we can't," Florida Sen. and Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "Because there's no way to background check someone that's coming from Syria." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press / December 2, 2015 Texas has sued the U.S. government in an effort to block six Syrian refugees from resettling in Dallas this week. The lawsuit filed Wednesday comes after the nonprofit International Rescue Committee defied orders from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to halt the arrival of Syrian refugees in Texas following the November attacks in Paris. Texas wants to delay the arrival of the refugees for at least a week, until a federal judge can hear the challenge. The Obama administration has said states don't have the authority to block refugees. Abbott is among more than two dozen governors, mostly Republicans, who have vowed to keep new Syrian refugees from resettling in their states. Abbott earlier Wednesday called the planned arrival irresponsible. .

Former CIA Director: ISIS Will Strike America Time / Michael Morell / November 16, 2015 The head of the UK’s domestic security agency recently warned that ISIS is planning mass casualty attacks in Britain. His concerns are well founded. We will not be far behind. I was an intelligence officer for 33 years. When intelligence officers write or brief, they start with the bottom line. Here it is: ISIS poses a major threat to the US and to US interests abroad and that threat is growing every day. The nature and significance of the threat flows from the fact that ISIS is— all at the same time— a terrorist group, a state, and a revolutionary political movement. We have not faced an adversary like it before. As a terrorist group, ISIS poses a threat to the Homeland. That threat today is largely indirect — ISIS’s ability to radicalize young Americans to conduct attacks here. The FBI has over 900 open investigations into homegrown extremists, the vast majority radicalized by ISIS and a large number of which relate to individuals who may be plotting attacks here. Such attacks have already occurred in the US. Others have been arrested before they could act. While the sophistication of such homegrown attacks is likely to be fairly low, the potential exists for the quantity of these kinds attacks to be large. The number of ISIS followers in the US is in the thousands. It dwarfs the number of followers that al-Qaeda ever had. Over time, if not significantly degraded, the ISIS threat to the Homeland will become a direct one—that is, an ISIS ability to plan and direct attacks on the Homeland from the group’s safe haven in Iraq and Syria— just like the group did in Paris last week. Such attacks are deeply concerning because they carry the potential to be much more sophisticated and complex—and therefore more dangerous—than than homegrown attacks, again just like in Paris last week, or London in 2005, or even 9/11 itself. And, in something that should get everyone’s attention, ISIS has shown an interest in weapons of mass destruction. “Over time” may be shorter than many think. The attack in Paris was the first manifestation of an effort that ISIS made to put together an attack capability in Europe—an effort that they began less than a year ago. The head of the UK’s domestic security agency recently warned that ISIS is planning mass casualty attacks in Britain. His concerns are well founded. We will not be far behind. As a state, ISIS poses a threat to regional stability—a threat to the very territorial integrity of the current nation states there, a threat to inflame the entire region in sectarian war. All this in a part of the world that still provides almost a third of the world’s oil supply; a region that is home to one of America’s closest allies, Israel; and a region that is home to a set of close American allies— the Gulf Arab states—that are willing to resist Iran’s push for regional hegemony. And, as a revolutionary political movement, ISIS is gaining affiliates among extremist groups around the world. They are signing up for what ISIS desires as its objective—a global caliphate where day-to-day life is governed by extreme religious views. In the mind of ISIS, its global caliphate would extend to the US itself. When they join ISIS, these affiliates evolve from focusing on local issues to focusing on establishing an extension of the caliphate themselves. And, their targets evolve from local to international ones. This is the story of the bombing of the Russian airliner by an ISIS group in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS has gained affiliates faster than al-Qaeda ever did. From nothing a year ago, there are now militant groups in nearly 20 countries that have sworn allegiance to ISIS. They have conducted attacks that have already killed Americans, and they carry the potential to themselves grab large amounts of territory. Libya is a place that this could happen in the near term. An intelligence officer has many jobs. One is to describe for a president the threats that we face as a nation, and that is what the previous paragraphs did. Another is to look a president in the eye when his or her policies to deal with these threats are not working and say so. Mr. President, the downing of the Russian airliner, only the third such attack in 25 years, and the attacks in Paris, the largest in Europe since the Madrid bombings in 2004, make it crystal clear that our ISIS strategy is not working. Michael Morell is the former deputy director of the CIA and has twice served as acting director. He is author of the book “The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism — From al Qa'ida to ISIS”, which warned against the types of attacks that occurred in the Sinai and Paris.

Here is another angle of the situation that all should know, the thought process of many people in that region. What is the truth? We common people simply don't have enough facts to make an educated guess. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US, ISIS and the conspiracy theory sweeping Lebanon BBC / August 12, 2014 Is America behind the creation of the Islamic State? The BBC's Suzanne Kianpour, in Beirut, looks at the latest conspiracy theory doing the rounds in Lebanon. "In the Middle East, conspiracy theories are in our blood," said one former Lebanese official. He was referring to the latest talk of the town: the United States is behind the creation of the Islamic State group (formerly known as Isis, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and Hillary Clinton admitted it in her book "Hard Choices". As Islamic State (IS) militants advanced into Lebanon last week - spreading terror into the village of Arsal, bordering Syria, and driving hundreds out of their homes - whispers pinned the blame for their actions on the US. Horrific videos of IS atrocities against Lebanese Armed Forces circulated on the internet. So did the theory that America is behind the existence and emboldening of the group. To back up their claim, conspiracy theorists online pointed to a powerful piece of "proof": the word of Hillary Clinton - the former US secretary of state widely expected to make a bid for the presidency. Dispelling rumours Screenshots of supposed "excerpts" from her book spread far and wide on social media in Lebanon, claiming the US created IS to instill instability in the region for American gain. The rumor even prompted the Lebanese foreign ministry to summon US Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale. Furthermore, to try and quash the gossip, the US embassy in Beirut issued a statement on Facebook: "Any suggestion that the United States ever considered recognising the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as anything other than a terrorist organization, or had any role in its creation, is patently false. Allegations circulating in Lebanon to the contrary are a fabrication." Instead, what Hillary Clinton has said is that the failure to help Syrian rebels led to the rise of IS. It's not completely shocking that such a theory may have started, given America's history of supporting militant and guerrilla groups; the mujahideen in Afghanistan, from which al-Qaeda emerged, quickly comes to mind. The fact that US allies in the Gulf are accused of supporting IS also doesn't help their case. "Such theories abound, largely because Washington has shown a propensity for outsourcing regime change. Support for insurgent groups in that context is certainly not a new practice and, as of late, has not been a particularly effective one," says Octavius Pinkard, a Brussels-based specialist in foreign policy analysis and Middle East politics, who has been conducting fieldwork in Beirut. Tarnished image Rumors like these risk harming US interests in Lebanon - a nation where they have a keen interest in maintaining soft power. Symbolic confrontation and proxy battles for clout with another group also seeking to win over the Lebanese people, Hezbollah, are nothing new. But a theory that America is to blame for beheadings and the barbaric acts attributed to IS can be severely damaging to the US image - leaving them at risk of losing support and the tide turning against them. Recently, the narrative on the streets of Beirut has increasingly been that Hezbollah won't let IS get to the Lebanese capital, not "America will help us." "Most people here believe the US and Saudi are one and when it comes strictly down to oil money, the ultimate benefactor from the whole IS debacle is Saudi/the US. As history has taught us, it is usually the benefactors who are the instigators," says Amer Murad, a native of Beirut. "An important development that we have seen is the collaboration between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah in their efforts to protect Lebanon from threats posed by the Syrian civil war spilling over into Lebanese territory," Octavius Pinkard says. As the conflict in Syria/Lebanon evolves, so does the perception of Washington. And it appears the Hezbollah/Damascus/Tehran trio is winning the propaganda battle. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United The New York Times / September 20, 2014 The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking. “We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.) When an American journalist asked Mr. Araji to clarify if he blamed the C.I.A. for the Islamic State, he retreated: “I don’t know. I am one of the poor people,” he said, speaking fluent English and quickly stepping back toward the open door of a chauffeur-driven SUV. “But we fear very much. Thank you!” The prevalence of the theory in the streets underscored the deep suspicions of the American military’s return to Iraq more than a decade after its invasion, in 2003. The casual endorsement by a senior official, though, was also a pointed reminder that the new Iraqi government may be an awkward partner for the American-led campaign to drive out the extremists. The Islamic State, also known by the acronym ISIS, has conquered many of the predominantly Sunni Muslim provinces in Iraq’s northeast, aided by the alienation of many residents to the Shiite-dominated government of the former prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. President Obama has insisted repeatedly that American military action against the Islamic State depended on the installation of a more inclusive government in Baghdad, but he moved ahead before it was complete. The Parliament has not yet confirmed nominees for the crucial posts of interior or defense minister, in part because of discord between Sunni and Shiite factions, and the Iraqi news media has reported that it may be more than a month before the posts are filled. The demonstration on Saturday was the latest in a series of signals from Shiite leaders or militias, especially those considered close to Iran, warning the United States not to put its soldiers back on the ground. Mr. Obama has pledged not to send combat troops, but he seems to have convinced few Iraqis. “We don’t trust him,” said Raad Hatem, 40. Haidar al-Assadi, 40, agreed. “The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States, and the United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State,” he said. Shiite militias and volunteers, he said, were already answering the call from religious leaders to defend Iraq from the Islamic State without American help. “This is how we do it,” he said, adding that the same forces would keep American troops out. “The main reason Obama is saying he will not invade again is because he knows the Islamic resistance” of the Shiite militias “and he does not want to lose a single soldier.” The leader of the Islamic State, for his part, declared on Saturday that he defied the world to stop him. “The conspiracies of Jews, Christians, Shiites and all the tyrannical regimes in the Muslim countries have been powerless to make the Islamic State deviate from its path,” the leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared in an audio recording released over the Internet, using derogatory terms from early Islamic history to refer to Christians and Shiites. “The entire world saw the powerlessness of America and its allies before a group of believers,” he said. “People now realize that victory is from God, and it shall not be aborted by armies and their arsenals.” Many at the rally in Baghdad said they welcomed airstrikes against Mr. Baghdadi’s Islamic State but not American ground forces, the position that Mr. Sadr has taken. Many of the 30 lawmakers backed by Mr. Sadr — out of a Parliament of 328 seats — attended the rally. Mr. Sadr’s supporters opposed Mr. Maliki, the former prime minister, and many at the rally were quick to criticize the former government for mistakes like failing to build a more dependable army. “We had a good army, so where is this army now?” asked Waleed al-Hasnawi, 35. “Maliki gave them everything, but they just left the battlefield.” But few if any blamed Mr. Maliki for alienating Sunnis, as American officials assert, by permitting sectarian abuses under the Shiite-dominated security forces. Omar al-Jabouri, 31, a Sunni Muslim from a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad who attended the rally and said he volunteers with a Shiite brigade, argued that Mr. Maliki had alienated most Iraqis, regardless of their sect. “He did not just exclude and marginalize the Sunni people; he ignored the Shiite people, too,” Mr. Jabouri said. “He gave special help to his family, his friends, people close to him. He did not really help the Shiite people, as many people think.” But the Islamic State was a different story, Mr. Jabouri said. “It is obvious to everyone that the Islamic State is a creation of the United States and Israel.”

This is a problem of the Arab World. This region's United Nations of sorts is called the Arab League. Why should western soldiers spill blood when the extremely-well equipped armed forces of wealthy Arab League member countries won't lift a finger ? I support helping countries and regions that are trying to help themselves. But I don't support helping those who refuse to act in their own neighborhood. Thus, we should use our time and resources to protect the United States from ISIS intrusion. I deeply value the relationship between the U.S. and France. However, if France wants to get revenge and attack ISIS in the Middle East, it has its own vast arsenal that easily wipe any entity off the face of the earth. Naturally the US can provide intelligence support, although I think the intelligence capabilities of the western powers in general is weaker than in decades past.

Where might terrorists source their weapons? ---------------------------------------------------- Weapons stolen from Army Reserve center in Massachusetts CNN / November 16, 2015 Weapons were stolen from an Army Reserve center in Worcester, Massachusetts, the FBI said. The agency and local police are searching for the weapons, spokeswoman Kristen Setera said late Sunday. They were found to be missing after a break-in at the Lake St. Army Reserve Center. CNN affiliate WCVB reported that the break-in occurred late Saturday. "We have entered those weapons into NCIC, a national database, and alerted our federal, state and local law enforcement partners," Setera said. "There is no indication that these missing weapons are connected to any kind of terrorism threat whatsoever. Nevertheless, every effort will be made to recover these weapons immediately," she said. The FBI refused to say what types of weapons went missing.

Paris attacks: The West’s fatal misunderstanding of Islamic State Reuters / Rasha Elass / November 15, 2015 The horrendous attacks on Paris have an eerie resemblance to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in that they seem to have caught everyone off guard. Until perhaps Friday, the main perception among Western intelligence agencies and Washington policymakers has been that Islamic State poses “no immediate threat” to the United States or the West. “Unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS is more interested in establishing a Caliphate and not so interested in attacking the West,” a retired CIA officer explained during a closed meeting at one of Washington’s think tanks. He was echoing a common sentiment, and insisted that “Al Qaeda remains the main threat.” Even U.S. President Barack Obama recently said with confidence that Islamic State was being “contained.” But we cannot forget that Islamic State came to the world stage barely over a year ago, when it took Mosul and subsequently one third of Iraq as well as one third of Syria in a matter of weeks. Some of the terror group’s major advances on the ground took mere hours, advances that Obama later said will take years to roll back. I remember covering the war at that time from Damascus, Syria, and later from Beirut, where I kept in constant communication via the Internet with the Syrian rebels and civilians who had suddenly found themselves under Islamic State rule in the eastern Syrian province of Deir al Zor. During those first few days, many went underground, not sure what to do about their new, brutal occupier, who proceeded to slaughter more than 700 men from the Arab Sunni Muslim tribe of Shueitat because the tribe did not pledge allegiance to Islamic State. The militant group commanded all men of fighting age in Deir Al Zor to report to Islamic State checkpoints, surrender weapons, and either pledge allegiance to Islamic State or leave the territory immediately. “We never thought the West would allow a group like ISIS to expand, but now I know that we have been played. We have been extremely stupid,” one anti-Islamic State rebel told me on condition of anonymity to protect his family. He sounded embittered by what he called a shocking and swift victory for the group, and he spoke to me from his car, which he said he had parked just outside an Internet cafe to piggy-back on the Wi-Fi signal without anyone hearing our conversation. He said Islamic State had setup checkpoints everywhere. “The only thing that makes sense to us is that the world wants to dump all its trash here,” he said, referring to the Islamic State jihadists, whom he said were mainly non-Syrian, but other Arab nationals, Chechens, and Westerners. “And then the West will come and bomb them all. This must be the strategy because nothing else makes any sense.” Conspiracy theories aside, there is some truth to the idea that some countries, as naive and misguided as they have been, privately sighed relief to see their own Islamist nationals travel to Islamist territory to meet their fate. “It’s better than having them stay in our country,” one Western diplomat told me on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. “Statistically, a newly arrived jihadist to ISIS territory is killed within weeks, so good riddance.” He added that all the West had to worry about were the “lone-wolf attacks” inspired by Islamic State. Unfortunately, the Paris attacks have disproved this theory, and it is time to shed other falsely comforting illusions as well. Namely, let us not forget that some of the United States’ staunchest allies have been, and remain, responsible for facilitating the arrival of money, materiel, and jihadists into Islamic State territory, not to mention providing the ideological guidance for the terror group. They have been doing so in the hopes of toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Jihadists have crossed the borders of Jordan and Turkey into Syria, seemingly at will. Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have not stopped their private citizens from sending money to various Islamist brigades, including Islamic State. They also give airtime to the muftis who provide ideological guidance to Islamic State, religious scholars who condone sectarian killing, gruesome beheadings, and sexual slavery on theological grounds. It has been too convenient a falsity also for the West to believe that Syria’s war is Syria’s problem, or at least someone else’s problem, when so many world players are already involved in the war there, either directly or by proxy.

In the worst of Friday's attacks, gunmen stormed the Bataclan theater during a rock concert, taking the audience hostage and firing on them repeatedly. 89 people were killed and many more wounded. Julien Pearce, a journalist at Europe 1 radio who escaped by crawling onto the stage, said he got a good look at one attacker who appeared "very young." "That's what struck me, his childish face, very determined, cold, calm, frightening," Pearce said.

At the Democratic presidential primary debate on Saturday in Des Moines, Hillary said of ISIS: "It cannot be an American fight." Rather, "We will support those who take the fight to ISIS." Now 24 hours later, she's done a total flip-flop saying: "This is a worldwide fight......I know America has to lead it, but we cannot and should not do it alone." If you're going to be president of the United States, you can't flip-flop on your position or you lose all credibility with both the American people and foreign leaders (that need to both respect and fear you). Why does America always have to lead.........and pay the bill. Frankly speaking, we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman (based on what we're told). The result is a 500-ship Navy shrunk to 273 ships, and inferior one-size-fits-all fighter-bombers with no range that put our carriers within range of hostile land-based missiles, our government having abandoned the purchase of vastly superior purpose-designed USN fighters and bombers that once upon a time gave us undisputed air superiority. Here's a thought, why not have our wealthy friend-of-convenience Saudi Arabia lead the effort? They're one of the king pins in ISIS's neighborhood. I support helping those who help themselves. But the Arab League is NOT trying to help itself and eliminate ISIS. Why spill American blood for countries that won't help themselves. Tens of thousands of able-bodied Syrian men ran to Europe, unwilling to fight for the homeland. And again, speaking of the Arab League countries, why aren't their armed forces fighting ISIS?

Detroit shifts car output to Mexico Automotive News / November 16, 2015 General Motors will be the only one of the Detroit 3 making compact or midsize cars in the U.S. by 2019, according to the companies' new UAW agreements. Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) are essentially giving up on trying to build mass-market cars profitably in this country, instead shifting most production of those nameplates to Mexico so they can dedicate U.S. plants to higher-margin pickups and SUVs. The UAW is accepting that trade-off to get rid of the two-tier wage scale that was vital to the business case for U.S.-made sedans and because it expects a net increase in jobs. The result: In a few years it will be far easier to find a Japanese or Korean car produced domestically than one designed in Detroit that's not imported. Foreign brands are expected to keep their U.S. plants churning out high-volume cars, such as the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. But, increasingly, Ford and FCA see the U.S. as a place to build light trucks. "You can afford to pay a little more when you're making trucks," said Dave Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research, "but the structural change in the industry has been so huge that I was kind of surprised by that -- trucks here and cars in Mexico." The Ford and GM agreements had not been ratified by UAW members as of press time. Space for Ranger, Bronco Ford's product comments to the UAW show that it plans to halt U.S. production of four car nameplates: the Fusion, Focus, Taurus and C-Max. The Focus and C-Max are moving out of Ford's Michigan Assembly Plant in 2018 to make way for two vehicles that sources have identified as the Ranger pickup and Bronco SUV. The Fusion is built in Mexico already, while the Taurus, with sales plummeting here but surging in China, may be discontinued in North America. Ford's factory in Flat Rock, Mich., will be the only one of its eight U.S. assembly plants still making cars. It loses the Fusion when the next generation arrives in 2019, keeps the hot-selling, higher-profit Mustang and gains the Lincoln Continental, another high-margin nameplate, which will replace the MKS. Meanwhile, FCA is expected to move the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 to Mexico after 2016 and will discontinue the Dodge Viper in 2017, which would leave no cars in the U.S. The Dart is leaving just four years after its launch in the U.S. allowed Fiat to gain an additional 5 percent stake in Chrysler under a deal with the federal government. The cars that Ford and FCA are moving out of the U.S. and the Buick Verano, which GM is expected to move to either Mexico or China, account for 45 percent of the domestic-brand car production in the U.S. for the first 10 months of this year, according to estimates. GM hasn't announced any sweeping changes in where it will assemble its cars. It makes most of its sedans in the U.S., including the Chevy Sonic at a plant in Michigan that reopened specifically because the UAW agreed to cut costs there with two-tier wages. CEO Mary Barra said in July that GM had no plans to move production of the Sonic, which it also builds in Mexico. GM spends an estimated $674 more on labor costs for each Sonic built in the U.S. than Ford does for the Fiesta built in Mexico, according to the Center for Automotive Research. In August. FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne said it makes financial sense to move "all the cars that we get killed on somewhere else" and keep trucks in higher-cost UAW plants. UAW President Dennis Williams went into this year's talks noting that he was concerned "when any corporation invests outside the United States," but negotiators and workers seemed far more concerned with wages and benefits than discouraging production shifts to Mexico. The union's deals include billions of dollars worth of investment in U.S. plants, and moving cars to other countries isn't expected to result in job losses -- so long as consumers buy enough SUVs and pickups to keep the plants here running at capacity. SUV evolution The plans undo most of the product diversification that the Detroit automakers had worked toward in the late 2000s to avoid the problems that occurred when SUV sales plunged after gasoline prices shot up. The danger in focusing U.S. plants on SUVs and pickups is what could happen if gasoline prices spike again. But Erich Merkle, Ford's chief U.S. sales analyst, said the booming popularity of SUVs is less a function of low gasoline prices than of how much the vehicles have improved and consumer needs have changed as baby boomers and their children get older. "The SUV has evolved dramatically over the last 15 years, and that's really helped to keep it at the forefront," Merkle said. "SUVs are actually a growing segment not just in the U.S. but when you look to Europe and parts of Asia and China. It's a worldwide growth story."

Owner/Driver / November 16, 2015 Generous truckies will head north on January 7, carting hay to drought-affected farms in central west Queensland. Founder of Burrumbuttock Hay Runners, Brendan Farrell, says over 100 trucks have already volunteered to cart donated hay from the Riverina, New South Wales, to Aramac in Queensland on January 7, 2016. He has issued an invitation for other generous truck operators keen to help drought-affected farmers in the north: "If they’ve got a heart of gold and they like thinking they’re helping someone they’ve never met, give us a ring." Brendan hopes to set the world record for the longest convoy of trucks carting donated hay. He says 100 trucks could cart 5000 big squares and rolls. And if more trucks take part "we could end up with 7000 squares". Brendan is a truck driver, farmer and hay merchant based in the Riverina. He carts general freight, grain and hay in a 1994 Kenworth K100E. He says most of the trucks taking part in the hay run belong to owner-drivers or small fleet operators. "It’s all about the heart of the small independent truckies. We don’t see many of the multinationals ever put their hand up for anything like this." The drivers are motivated by compassion for farmers suffering consecutive years of drought. "I’ve seen the toughest, roughest blokes in central Queensland burst into tears with this drought," Brendan says. This will be the 10th hay run Brendan has organised. The first nine runs carried a total of about 16,500 big squares and rolls to drought-affected areas. The Rotary Club of Sydney is collecting public donations which will be distributed between the participating truck companies to reimburse part of their fuel costs. To donate, visit the Burrumbuttock Hay Runners Facebook page for details. If you are a truck operator keen to take part in the convoy, or if you want to donate quality hay, phone Brendan on 0439 322 605.

Nextran still rolling trucks through southeast The Gainesville Sun / November 15, 2015 Fifty-three year old Nextran Corporation and Pritchett Trucking Jon Pritchett has made an impact on Gainesville, Florida, even though his network of 14 Mack and Volvo heavy truck dealerships, parts and service centers are elsewhere. Pritchett is president and CEO of the Nextran Corporation, with an office in Lake Butler where his father, Marvin, started Pritchett Trucking 40 years ago. Nextran Truck Centers can be found in Florida, Georgia and Alabama, with the closest in Lake City. But Pritchett makes his home here. He serves on the executive board of the University of Florida Foundation, raising money for the university, is on the Gator Boosters board and has attended nearly every UF home football game for 20 years. His wife, Kelly, is on the local board of the Children’s Miracle Network. In 2013, Jon and Kelly Pritchett were named event chairs of Noche de Gala, the Sebastian Ferrero Foundation fundraiser for the UF Health Shands Children’s Hospital. They attended the second event in 2009. He said that night he wrote “$1 million” on a napkin and told Kelly that one day, he hoped to donate that amount to the cause. That day came in 2013. They already planned to make the donation in his father’s name before Marvin Pritchett was killed by a former employee who also killed two other Pritchett Trucking employees before killing himself. At that year’s event, Jon and Kelly Pritchett, and his siblings, Phillip Pritchett and Robin Pruitt, donated $1 million in their father’s memory in a speech Jon called “The Promise.” Marvin Pritchett got his start in the timber business in North Florida for Owens-Illinois. “He was struggling to get product shipped to different mills so he bought trucks to do the trucking himself,” Jon Pritchett said. He saw more opportunity in trucking than timber and started Pritchett Trucking, he said. Today, that company has 360 employees, 275 tractors and 550 trailers hauling sand, limerock, stone, municipal solid waste, wood byproducts and other items in Florida and Georgia, with Jon as president, Phillip as vice president and Robin as payroll manager. Jon started working summers for his dad at age 10 and started his career after leaving UF’s business college during his senior year in 1984. He said he always wanted to go into the family business, but also wanted to own his own company. He started his own companies, buying and leasing trucks. In 1993, he went into the truck dealership business in partnership with his father when they bought Mack dealerships in Jacksonville and Orlando, adding Tampa the next year. Jon ran the dealership business and said his father provided insight. “It was an extremely trusting relationship. Unless I was traveling to a dealership, he and I and my brother had lunch together every day. There’s very few people who can say they had that opportunity. I was extremely fortunate to work together as many years as I did with him.” In 1999, he bought three dealerships in South Florida and changed the name of the company to Nextran Corporation. Nextran has 730 employees and expects to sell 2,500 Class A heavy duty trucks this year. Pritchett said 2015 is a big year for sales with over 250,000 expected nationwide as a result of pent-up demand from the recession and an improving economy. Sales are expected to drop to 215,000 next year as buyers are caught up on replacing aging fleets, but that would still be a very good year, Pritchett said. Over the next five years, Pritchett said Nextran plans to grow to 20 or more locations and 1,000 employees through a combination of acquisitions, expansions and building new locations. The company is in the process of building its 15th dealership in Duluth, Georgia, and plans to remodel and expand its Orlando location next year. “In the dealership business I felt I had an advantage having been a customer, so I felt like I understood what it truly took to service the trucking industry,” he said. “We’ve worked extremely hard to build this customer-focused culture and it truly has been very successful for us.”

Transport Engineer / November 13, 2015 Animal by-product renderer J G Pears is switching its truck fleet to Scania, after an extensive Euro 6 fuel trial of several marques, in which, says the operator, Scania “obliterated” the competition. The Penistone, South Yorkshire-based business has ordered 21 Scania R 450 trucks, which will go into service by the end of this year. Plated at 44-tonnes gtw, 20 of the trucks are 6x2/4 twinsteer tractor units, with one skiploader drawbar rigid. The tractors will each cover up to 300,000km per annum hauling J G Pears’ fleet of bulk tipping trailers. “Our fuel trials were conducted over a route we run twice a day between Newark, Sleaford and Newant in Gloucestershire,” says Andrew Bostock (pictured), J G Pears’ group logistics manager. “We trialled each truck repeatedly over this relatively easy-terrain route, with the same two drivers to eliminate any bias or road condition variations. In short, the Scania R 450 obliterated the competition by returning 10.2 mpg.” Some of the new trucks have already gone into operation and, says Bostock, are averaging 9.7 mpg when 30% loaded outbound and fully loaded on return. “This performance and the corresponding reduction in our carbon footprint has helped us secure a five star rating under the ECO Stars fleet recognition scheme,” he adds. The trucks are supplied by Scania’s Sheffield branch, which will also carry out fleet maintenance. .

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / November 13, 2015