The US and Japan are preparing for a possible Chinese invasion of the Senkaku Islands. Using a small island off the coast of California, US and Japanese forces are mimicking an armed invasion and an amphibious assault to prepare for a real-life scenario.

The unprecedented drills, code-named Dawn Blitz, are being conducted on San Clemente Island, which is 75 miles northwest of San Diego, the Christian Science Monitor reports.  They began with an assault led by 80 US Marines and three MV-22 Osprey aircraft, and were followed by a Japanese counterattack using 1,000 troops and two warships. Although Japanese officials claim they are not preparing to target a third country, the exercises have made Chinese officials uncomfortable.

China and Japan have long disputed the Senkaku Islands, which are located in the East China Sea but which the Japanese government purchased from private owners in 2012. The islands are uninhabited, but believed to hold rich oil and gas deposits. The purchase triggered violent protests that tens of thousands of Chinese took part in, and harmed Sino-Japanese relations.

In the months after the purchase, the Chinese navy practiced military exercises near the islands, and joint US-Japanese naval drills subsequently occurred in the waters of the island chain. The latest drills off the California coast are only adding to tensions regarding the Senkaku Islands. Chinese officials reportedly objected to the drills, but their concerns were ignored by Washington, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

"We're aware of China's objections, but from a Japanese and US perspective, the object of the exercise is to build a powerful deterrent and demonstrate that the two forces are seamlessly connected – to show the Chinese that they are battle-ready," an official source familiar with Dawn Blitz told the Monitor on condition of anonymity. "There is nothing unusual in that."

The exercises began just two days after President Obama met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping at a California summit on June 8. But even though some believe the US is in a tricky position, the official does not believe the US is in the wrong, since the US-Japan security treaty requires the country to help Japan deter any attacks on its territory.

"I don't think Dawn Blitz puts the US in a tricky position," the official said. "They started the drill just after the Obama-Xi summit to avoid any diplomatic repercussions. But the fact that Japan and the US went ahead with the exercise also sends a message – that they are on the same page when it comes to deterring possible Chinese aggression."

Lt. Gen. Koichi Isobe, Japan’s vice chief of staff, told reporters that Japan’s self-defense forces (SDF) need to develop the capabilities to ward off any attacks that might occur on the remote islands.

"The defense of remote islands is a pressing issue, but the SDF [Japan's self-defense forces] has just begun training to develop such capabilities, which are required of US Marines," Japan's vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Koichi Isobe, told reporters. "Japan needs to determine its defense strategy and procure necessary equipment and train SDF members for this purpose."

The US has publicly refused to take sides regarding the Senkaku Islands, but its training exercises with Japan may inadvertently cause a shift in its neutrality.

US military commanders are examining ways the US could bolster security in Syria’s neighboring countries, and have recommended sending military trainers to Lebanon and Iraq.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, on Wednesday revealed US plans to strengthen military assistance in Lebanon and Iraq as the conflict in Syria begins to spill over its borders. Dempsey noted that Iraq is suffering the re-emergence of al-Qaeda. Terrorist fighters, including members of the al Nusra Front, are crossing from Iraq into Syria, he said.

"We've made a recommendation that as we look at the challenges faced by the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a re-emerging al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work with them to help them build additional capability," Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday.

To strengthen US security assistance in the region, he recommends that the US accelerate arms sales and send military training teams to Lebanon and Iraq. He already asked Gen. Lloyd Austin, the head of the US Central Command, to consider small deployments in upcoming weeks, Dempsey spokesman Col. Edward Thomas told CNN.

Thomas said that “it’s in the realm of the possible” that training teams will be sent back into Iraq – a move that would mark the first significant deployment since the US withdrew its troops in 2011. Dempsey emphasized that the US was not sending combat troops into Lebanon or Iraq, but noted that a Patriot missile battery and about a dozen F-16 fighter jets had already been left in Jordan, bringing the total number of American forces in the country to 1,000.

"Militarily, what we're doing is assisting our partners in the region, the neighbors of Syria, to ensure that they're prepared to account for the potential spillover effects," Dempsey said during Pentagon briefing. "As you know, we've just taken a decision to leave some Patriot missile batteries and some F-16s in Jordan as part of the defense of Jordan. We're working with our Iraqi counterparts, the Lebanese Armed Forces and Turkey through NATO."

Syria’s two-year war has already killed more than 100,000 people, and both Iraq and Lebanon have witnessed an increase in violence as the Syrian conflict has divided supporters of President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian rebels.

Ali al-Moussawi, the media adviser for Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, on Thursday told AP that Baghdad would be welcome to increased arms sales and US training teams to address instability in the region.

The US has long maintained that its involvement in the conflict would be limited. But if military commanders agree to send trainers to the region, the US would have a more direct role in addressing the violence along the Syrian border.

“When you say would we send the United States Army or the United States military into Lebanon, I'm talking about teams of trainers, and I'm talking about accelerating foreign military sales for equipment for them," Dempsey said, trying to reassure Americans that combat troops would not be deployed. "This is about building their capability, not ours."

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom may be suing server hosting company Leaseweb over a “data massacre." The Dutch company says it deleted files from 630 servers due to lack of interest in them, but Dotcom has revealed letters proving otherwise.

The revelation comes a week after Dotcom accused the US government and Leaseweb of deleting millions of personal files without warning, including “petabytes of pictures, backups, personal & business property.”

Most of the permanently deleted data came from European users, with servers then re-provisioned to other customers – despite the fact that Megaupload had specifically requested that the hosting provider preserve the information.

“They deleted petabytes of data in the face of Megaupload’s data preservation notices. Our legal team asked them multiple times not to delete the data while the US court is deciding the pending cases including the rights of our users,” TorrentFreak quoted Dotcom as saying.

But Leaseweb’s senior regulatory counsel, Alex de Joode, said his company deleted the data and re-provisioned the servers “after a year of nobody showing any interest” in them.

“We did inform Megaupload about our decision to re-provision the servers,” de Joode said in a June 19 statement, thus disputing Dotcom’s accusation that the decision was made "without warning.” De Joode said that Leaseweb received no answer from the Megaupload team, so they “commenced the re-provisioning of the servers in February 2013.”

“To minimize security risks and maximize the privacy of our clients, it is a standard procedure at Leaseweb to completely clean servers before they are offered to any new customer,” he said.

To back up his accusations, Kim Dotcom has published an email which was sent from Megaupload’s legal counsel to Leaseweb in March 2012. The letter allegedly shows that Megaupload did, in fact, request preservation of the files.

"Megaupload continues to request that Leaseweb preserve any and all information, documentation and data related to Megaupload - as destruction by Leaseweb would appear to be in violation of amongst other things the applicable civil litigation data preservation rules and would interfere with evidence in a criminal matter [...]," said the letter. The email is signed by Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken and addressed to Leaseweb’s A.H. Bram de Haas van Dorsser.

The email adds that “the Mega data on the servers at Leaseweb contain private and sensitive customer data and is subject to applicable privacy and data retention laws.”

“Megaupload is negotiating with the United States to discern feasibility of consumer data access and the conditions for the same," Rothken wrote in the letter. 

 The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) representing the file-sharing website in court made a similar request to Leaseweb USA in April.

“We now write to formally request that you preserve that material both for purposes of contemplated future litigation and as a matter of obligation and courtesy to the innocent individuals whose materials have unfortunately been swept up into this case,” the EFF letter reads.

According to Dotcom, Megaupload’s legal team is analyzing whether Leaseweb violated the law.

“I can tell you that we are contemplating legal action against Leaseweb,” he told TorrentFreak on Wednesday.

“We believe that Leaseweb acted inappropriately under the circumstances when they destroyed data,” Rothken told the blogging website. “Ultimately we blame the United States who exercised constructive control over Megaupload’s assets and who had the obligation, resources, and ability to preserve all relevant and exonerating evidence including the data located at Leaseweb and failed to do so,” he added.

But Leaseweb claims it done nothing wrong. In a June 26 statement, the company stressed that “the contract between Leaseweb B.V. and Megaupload was governed by Dutch law.”

“This means the termination, and subsequent data retention needs to be valid under Dutch law. As there was no claim from the Dutch authorities on the data, the data was not subject to evidence rules. Also Dutch and European Privacy legislation prohibit giving third parties (i.e. MegaUpload customers, or Instra) direct access to their data,” the statement read.

Dotcom, who made a fortune from his file-sharing service Megaupload, is currently under a federal investigation, launched by the US Department of Justice after police raided his home. He is currently free on bail in New Zealand, with an extradition trial set for August.

The US has charged the Megaupload founder with facilitating copyright fraud on a massive scale, racketeering, and money-laundering, which carries maximum sentence of 20 years in jail.

Authorities claim Megaupload has cost copyright holders upwards of $500 million in lost revenues, due to content being illegally uploaded to its servers. The Department of Justice also believes Dotcom illegally earned $175 million by selling ads and subscriptions on the site.

On the anniversary of his arrest last January, Dotcom launched a new file-hosting site called ‘Mega.’

Hundreds of ethnic Albanians have been pepper sprayed and around 70 arrested amid clashes with riot police in Kosovo’s Pristina. The violence came as Parliament approved an EU-brokered agreement aimed at normalizing ties with neighboring Serbia.

Demonstrators aimed at preventing lawmakers from entering the Parliament building prior to voting threw cans of pink paint at police. Some 17 officers were wounded in a scuffle in front of the government and parliament buildings in the capital, according to local police.

The protest has been called by Vetevendosje (Self-Determination), an opposition nationalist party which fiercely opposes the implementation of the 15-point pact which was signed in Brussels in mid-April. The party insists the pact will create an autonomous Serb region within Kosovo and would therefore undermine the young country's sovereignty. The movement also fears the deal will cement ethnic partition, which currently exists in Kosovo between the Albanian majority and about 50,000 Serbs who live in the northern town of Mitrovica.

Serbia approved normalizing ties with the breakaway region on April 22. More than two months later, the deal has been passed by Kosovo’s 122-seat assembly with 84 votes in favor. 

Kosovo’s prime minister, Hashim Thaci, has admitted that achieving normal relations with Serbia will be difficult and complicated, but insisted he would pursue talks with Belgrade.

Kosovo Police splashed with paint clash with demonstrators in Pristina on June 27, 2013.(AFP Photo / Armend Nimani)

"The independence road is irreversible and the process of normalizing relations between the two independent countries is unavoidable," he told legislators.

On June 17, Serbia and Kosovo exchanged liaison officers – a step which should assist in the implementation of the EU-brokered deal.

The agreement, which was reached during the EU-mediated negotiations between Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic and his Kosovo counterpart Hashim Thaci, calls for the merger of the four Serb municipalities in the north - North Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic. The urban district would have power over economic development, education, healthcare and town planning. Under the deal, Serbs in northern Kosovo will have their own police and appeals court.

Kosovo Police splashed with paint clash with demonstrators in Pristina on June 27, 2013.(AFP Photo / Armend Nimani)

 The agreement is widely regarded as a step toward Serbia’s entry into the European Union. Both Belgrade and Pristina have agreed not to block each other's efforts to seek EU membership. So far, Kosovo has been Serbia’s main obstacle to joining the bloc

Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and is now officially recognized by 100 nations - including the United States and 22 of the EU's 27 members.

Kosovo Police detain a demonstrator following clashes in Pristina on June 27, 2013.(AFP Photo / Armend Nimani)

Kosovo Police splashed with paint clash with demonstrators in Pristina on June 27, 2013.(AFP Photo / Armend Nimani)

A US hospital deported an unconscious stroke victim after noticing that the patient was an undocumented immigrant from Poland. Polish health officials are furious that the man was “dumped on their doorstep” before the transfer was approved.

“Imagine being carted around like a sack of potatoes,” Polish Consul General Ewa Junczyk-Ziomecka told New York Daily News, describing the incident in which 69-year old Wladyslaw Haniszewski was unconsciously deported to his homeland.

Haniszewski, who suffers from a blood disease, lived in Perth Amboy, N.J., for 30 years. He recently lost his job, apartment, and health insurance, and was forced to move into a homeless shelter, the Daily News reports.

After the man suffered a dangerous stroke, a friend named Jerzy Jedra took him to the New Jersey hospital for treatment. When officials at the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital noticed that the patient had no health insurance and lived in the US without documentation, they sent the comatose man to Poland. US hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, but are allowed to deport stabilized undocumented immigrants.

But in order to deport someone, a US hospital must first get consent from either the patient, a family member, or a court guardian. Officials at the Polish consulate claim that no one was contacted, and that Haniszewski’s family was never informed that the man was deported.

Meanwhile, Haniszewski was left at the doorstep of a hospital in Boleslawiec, Poland. The facility is now being forced to take care of the man’s medical payments, which have cost “a few hundred dollars” a day, the hospital’s deputy director told TVN.

Junczyk-Ziomecka, who works at the Polish consulate in New York City, said she was trying to help the comatose man, only to realize last week that he was gone. Polish officials are furious about the deportation, especially since the 69-year-old patient was not in a healthy state to sign off on the transfer.

“Behind our backs they transported the unconscious man to Poland,” she told TVN, noting that she was most furious about the hospital’s decision to dump the man at the facility. “I cannot imagine such a situation that the decision about transporting an unconscious person could be made without agreement. Between the two institutions must be a contract, there must be documents. You cannot simply leave a patient at the door and drive away.”

At least 800 people have been deported from US hospitals without consent over the past six years in 15 states, the Associated Press reported in April. Medical repatriation has become increasingly common, but AP suggests that the actual number of such hospital deportations is much higher than figures show. Some health advocates are afraid that repatriations will occur more frequently after major components of Obamacare are implemented in 2014, since the US government will reduce its payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of uninsured patients.

Shena Erlington, director of the Health Justice Program, told the Daily News that although hospitals may face the burden of paying for uninsured patients, medical care providers should not have the ability to deport patients.

“It’s an incredibly disturbing case,” Lori Nessel, director of the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University School of Law, said about the Haniszewski repatriation. “This kind of action seems clearly illegal and also not ethical, but it’s hard to bring forth a legal action.”

The New Jersey hospital denies any wrongdoing and claims that the patient was informed of his discharge and care plan. The patient is awake, but unable to speak or communicate with doctors.

The city of West, Texas, has filed a lawsuit against the owner of the fertilizer plant that exploded in April, as well as the chemical company that supplied two 100-ton shipments of ammonium nitrate in the weeks before the deadly blast.

The city has filed a suit against Adair Grain Inc. and ammonium nitrate supplier CF Industries, claiming that the chemical shipments were improperly stored and caused the explosion that killed 15 people and destroyed more than 150 homes. A high school, middle school, apartment complex and a nursing home were also destroyed in the April 17 blast.

The lawsuit claims that 30 tons from the first 100-ton shipment of ammonium nitrate had not yet been sold and were being dangerously stored in the plant at the time of the explosion. The city has accused the supplier of failing to properly inspect the fertilizer mixing facility to determine whether hazard mitigation was necessary or to provide recommendations for safe storage. Even though the Illinois-based CF industries knew that the plant was located within a community of homes, parks, and schools, it chose to blindly sell hundreds of tons of the hazardous material to the facility, the suit states.

“The explosion happened when a substantial portion of the thirty tons of ammonium nitrate stockpiled in the fertilizer mixing building was heated to the point of detonation,” the complaint states. “This explosion occurred at approximately 7:50 p.m., some twenty minutes after a fire had been detected in the same building at the fertilizer facility.”

The lawsuit also accused CF Industries of providing outdated safety information to West Fertilizer, and failing to provide a material safety data sheet for either of the two shipments.

After investigating the blast for a month, Texas fire marshals said they could not determine a cause. Investigators have launched a criminal probe, but no one has yet been charged.

The city of West is seeking $17 million in damages for negligence and product liability. The city says it needs the money to fix its streets, water and sewer lines that were destroyed by the explosion. The deadly blast resulted in an estimated $57 million in damages, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency has refused to provide funds to help rebuild the devastated town.

But Scott Deatherage, a Dallas attorney specializing in environmental law, told CBS News that this would most likely be a difficult case for the city to win, since the chemical in question is used extensively throughout the US. Ammonium nitrate can be found in products ranging from fertilizer to instant cold packs used as first aid on injuries.

“Consider ammonium nitrate is a very common material sold all over the country, all over Texas, and it’s used everyday,” he said. “So to argue that particular product is somewhat defective is extremely difficult. It’d be like saying gasoline is defective because it exploded somewhere.”

CF Industries provided a statement to WPTV, claiming that there is “no basis for this suit”, but that it was “sympathetic to those whose lives were affected by this unfortunate incident.”

“The CF Industries’ companies will seek dismissal of this lawsuit and otherwise defend the company vigorously in court,” it said in a statement to CBS.

A Virginia IT company inappropriately secured $500 million worth of IRS contracts based on false statements and ties to an agency official, according to a congressional staff report released on Tuesday.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report accusing an Internal Revenue Service employee of procuring inappropriate contracts for a small business called Strong Castle, which was founded in 2011 by a man named Braulio Castillo.

In 2012, Castillo received more than $500 million in IRS awards for his technology firm and a mere $465,780 from other federal government agencies. The report accuses IRS deputy director Greg Roseman, a close friend of Castillo’s, of “influencing the selection process” to benefit his friend.

“The IRS – where Strong Castle received well over 99 percent of its 2012 revenues – employs Castillo’s long-time friend, Greg Roseman, who oversaw each and every contract awarded to Strong Castle by the IRS in 2012,” the report’s authors wrote.

The congressional committee also found that before launching the IT company, Castillo filed for “disability rating” with the Veterans Administration, claiming he suffered from a foot injury he obtained at a military prep school in 1984. The rating qualified Strong Castle as a “service-disabled, veteran-owned small business," which gave it preferential treatment in bidding competitions. But Castillo never served on active duty, and played college sports after the alleged injury.

“The case of Strong Castle and its cozy relationship with the IRS is but one example of a deeply flawed procurement process in the federal government,” the report says.

The congressional committee on Wednesday summoned Roseman to interrogate him about the IRS contracts and his relationship with Castillo.

“Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company called Strong Castle Inc.?” Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked the IRS employee.

Roseman invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer any questions. He has been removed from his position as IRS deputy director pending the outcome of an inspector general investigation into the contracts.

Strong Castle denies any wrongdoing and claims that it obtained the contracts legally.

"Throughout our work with the IRS, we have never received any improper preferential treatment and have competed fairly for every contract that we have received,” the company told Reuters in a statement.

But the report claims Castillo and Roseman met in 2003, frequently exchanged phone calls and text messages, and formed a long-lasting friendship. Upon the launch of Strong Castle, Roseman sent Castillo a congratulatory text message which stated, “U will be fortune 500 in no time.”

Issa started a probe into the potentially-inappropriate contracting in February, and believes that there is “at least an appearance of impropriety between the two men.”

“The IRS and Strong Castle have made a mockery of fair and open competition for government contracts,” Issa said in a statement.

ARCHIVE PHOTO (AFP / Khaled Desouki)

 At least one person was killed and 162 others were wounded as hundreds of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's supporters and opponents clashed in the Nile Delta city of Mansoura, the Ministry Of Health confirmed.

More than 5,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties staged a demonstration in Mansoura under the name “No to violence, Yes to Legitimacy” in support of Morsi.

In street clashes that ensued, three shops were destroyed and four cars damaged as the Islamists met their opponents – the Tamarod campaign, the Popular Current, and the Constitution Party, local media said. Molotov cocktails and tasers were reportedly used in the violence; witnesses also heard gunfire.  

Initially, Reuters reported 2 people were killed in the city.

Abdel-Hamid Rashed, a member of the Popular Current, one of the opposition groups, told The Daily News Egypt that the violence was started by Islamists who were carrying shotguns and sticks, prompting local residents to retaliate. 

The local Freedom and Justice Party department claimed their pro-Morsi rally was attacked by “thugs” who fired birdshot at them and brandished other weapons. “Dozens have been taken to the Mansoura International Hospital with serious, minor and birdshot injuries,” their statement read.

Clashes were also reported in nearby Tanta, where according to Twitter reports dozens were hurt.

The violence comes just hours before Morsi is due to address the nation in Cairo. Amid calls for his resignation, the president is expected to urge for unity and calm. In his speech, he is also expected to blame the deadlock that has aggravated the country’s economic crisis on resistance from those loyal to his predecessor Hosni Murbarak, who was overthrown in a popular uprising in 2011.

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, announced his party’s entry into the Syrian conflict on May 25, 2013. The Syrian National Coalition immediately denounced Hezbollah while the US Department of State reacted to Nasrallah’s announcement on May 29 by demanding an immediate withdrawal of Hezbollah’s fighters from Syria. The rubber stamp Arab League would eventually, and very predictability, condemn Hezbollah’s entry into the Syrian conflict, whereas it has ignored the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and their allies. 

Qusayr, situated on the road between Damascus and the Mediterranean coastline of Syria in the northwestern portion of the Syrian Governate of Homs, would become a central focus of Hezbollah’s involvement inside Syria. After the victory in Qusayr, the war hawk Charles Krauthammer would embarrassingly proclaim that the US was hesitating too much while Russia and Iran were taking charge of the situation in Syria with Hezbollah.

The US had not hesitated in reality, but had failed to topple the government in Damascus. Most probably prompted by the pressure of their Saudi and Qatar paymasters, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government would react to the victory in Qusayr by cutting its ties with Syria, calling for a no-fly zone, and attacking Hezbollah for its involvement in the Syrian conflict. As an indicator of the failure of its regime change project, the Obama Administration would leak to the press that it was considering a no-fly zone too. Ironically, Egypt’s President Morsi and many of the same people that criticize Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia for their involvement in Syria refuse to criticize Turkish, Saudi, Qatari, British, French, Jordanian, Israeli, and American involvement.

Undoubtedly Hezbollah did discuss its intentions to enter the Syrian conflict with its patrons in Tehran and coordinated with Iran and then, to a lesser extent, with Russia through Iranian officials and through consultations with Aleksandr Zasypkin, Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon, and then Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov during his April 2013 visit to Beirut. The involvement of Hezbollah in Syria, however, is purely defensive. Moreover, Hezbollah is one of the last external players to be involved in Syria.

It is the same type of reports that constantly claim there is a substantial Iranian military presence in Syria, but can never manage to give solid proof or any form of confirmation about their claims, that are the ones that simplistically de-contextualize Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria. For example, rockets were launched into Dahiyeh, the working class southern suburb of Beirut that is the political stronghold of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s capital district, and the town of Hermel, in Bekaa, hours after Nasrallah announced his party would enter the Syrian conflict.

Most reports about this failed to recognize the nature of the rocket attacks. The rocket strikes were more than a mere warning from the anti-government forces inside Syria, in fact they were part of a steady stream of escalation that deliberately aimed at expanding the war into Lebanon and spreading the fires of sedition. Attacks were being conducted in areas inhabited by Hezbollah supporters much earlier and before Hezbollah even intervened in Syria. Whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally, this type of reporting conceals the fact that Hezbollah intervened in Syria mainly to protect itself and Lebanon’s diverse population, and it fails to identify who the real perpetrators of the violence are. The mainstream media in places like the US and UK also fails to mention that key divisions of the anti-government forces inside Syria have sworn to kill all the Shiite Muslims they get their hands on, and to march straight into Lebanon after Syria. 

Syrians and Lebanese wave Syria's former independence flag which has been adopted by the rebels forces fighting agianst Syrian pro-government forces in Syria, and the green Sunni Muslim Jamaa Islamiya flag as they gather in the main sports stadium in the southern Lebanese city of Sidon on June 9, 2013 in solidarity with the Syrian central city of Qusayr which fell to government forces, aided by Lebanon's Hezbollah fighters, earlier in the week. (AFP Photo)

 From the beginning of the Syrian conflict Hezbollah agreed that the Syrian people should have the democratic freedoms that Hezbollah itself enjoys in Lebanon and it has agreed that Syria is in need of political reforms. Its entry into the Syrian conflict is aimed at preventing the takfiri death squads that have amassed in Syria from marching against Lebanon and committing the same type of crimes in the towns and homes of the Lebanese people they have been committing against the Syrian people. Because the takfiris have announced that they will purge the Levant of the Shiite Muslims and all others that they do not accept, the conflict was unavoidable. Rather than wait, Hezbollah chose to act in a war that the anti-government forces in Syria deliberately initiated against Hezbollah through a stream of assaults on the Shiites living on the Lebanese-Syrian border. As a preview of what is in store for the Shiites, after their defeat in Qusayr, the anti-government militias marched into Hatla and massacred many of its residents, including old people and young children who all had their throats slit. One video of the massacre titled “The storming and cleansing of Hatla” surfaced with the man filming it stating that all the Shia Muslims would suffer the same fate. What happened in Hatla, including stories about vicious rapes and mutilations, has only strengthened the support in Lebanon for Hezbollah’s intervention.

Hezbollah is protecting Lebanon and the Levant’s minority groups

On July 14, Nasrallah went on Lebanese television to say that Hezbollah was fighting to defend both the people of Lebanon and Syria from the abominations of “an American, Israeli and takfiri project to destroy not only Syria but the entire region.” Speaking on Al-Manar, he told his supporters and allies that the entire world had gone to Syria to fight in one way or another using their money or shipping weapons or through media warfare. It was only natural for Hezbollah as one of the main targets of the war to get involved. He added that the Lebanese government had unfortunately failed to protect the 30,000 Lebanese Christians and Muslims that have been attacked by the Syrian anti-government forces on their borders. Hezbollah acted to protect them. Nasrallah’s sentiments are widely shared inside and outside Lebanon.  According to Mohsen Saleh, a professor of political philosophy at the Lebanese University and an expert on Hezbollah, the threat of “takfirism” is now working to terminate all diversity in the region in league with Israel and the US. The Muslim Brotherhood is tied to this project too, but “it is now collapsing and in a state of decay” according to Saleh. “The Brotherhood came into power a hundred years too late,” he told me. While visiting him at his office, he explained that all of Lebanon’s different communities are afraid of the takfiris as they have witnessed their crimes in Syria. This is why the Maronite Catholic Church and the multitude of Christian denominations in Lebanon are increasingly standing behind Hezbollah. He confidently said that all of Lebanon’s different sects will improve their relations with Hezbollah due to the mutual threat they all face. When I asked Saleh about Lebanon’s Prime Minister-designate, who is linked to Hezbollah’s rivals in Lebanon, he pointed out that Tamman Saeb Salam is not a puppet. In a discreet gesture of support distinguishing him from the Hariri camp, Tamman has said that Hezbollah will remain a resistance group no matter what happens due to its intervention in Syria.

Sunni Muslim gunmen roam the streets and block roads with burning tires, expressing their solidarity with Salafist leader Ahmad al-Assir in Tripoli, northern Lebanon, June 23, 2013. (Reuters)

 The Druze community, which is the Lebanese group that is the most vulnerable to a takfiri attack on the country, is reconsidering its relationship with Hezbollah. The Druze community is also unhappy about the statements of Walid Jumblatt, its prime chieftain, which have been supportive of anti-government activities in Syria. Trying to please his Saudi paymaster in Riyadh, Jumblatt has gone as far as to say that he personally supports the Saudi-backed Jubhat Al-Nusra. Well aware of the dangers to their community, the Druze of Syria have shunned Jumblatt and continued to support the Syrian government. Russian officials have also supported Hezbollah’s stance, Moscow views Hezbollah’s position as one that aims to protect the different people of Lebanon and Syria. Moscow does not want the takfiri brigades to enter the North Caucasus or to attack any of its sister-republics and allies in Central Asia. As opposed to the United States and its allies, Russian foreign policy in the Middle East openly promotes diversity and the protection of Christians and minority groups.

Unlike Hezbollah, the US Does Not Give a Damn about Arab Christians

Dr. Naji Hayek, a Lebanese Christian, sums it all up by stating: “Hezbollah is fighting for us, for me!”  He made the statement after we watched Michel Aoun live on Orange TV declaring that he supported Hezbollah after fighting erupted in the Lebanese city of Sidon. If the takfiris make inroads into Lebanon, he assured me that he would pick up his gun and fight too. Hayek, a surgeon, a professor at the Lebanese American University, and an advisor to Michel Aoun - the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, the largest Christian political party in Lebanon—helped draft the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act and used to submit intelligence reports about Syrian activities in Lebanon to the US Senate. He was once a member of Lebanon’s National Liberal Party and a close friend of Samir Geagea, the Christian warlord extraordinaire allied to the US and Saudi Arabia. Hayek was even injured while fighting against the Syrians for Michel Aoun.

A man carries a placard bearing the portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, during a gathering to celebrate the capture of the city of Qusayr by Syrian pro-government forces, in the southern Lebanese city of Sidon, on June 6, 2013. (AFP Photo)

Things have changes since then and new alliances have formed. Syria is an enemy no longer and Samir Geagea is no longer a friend. Hayek told me bitterly that the US has never hesitated to manipulate and then drop the Christians in Lebanon. He even showed me a heated email exchange between him and Jeffrey Feltman, while Feltman was serving as a US assistant-secretary in the US  State Department, where Feltman in reference to Hezbollah accused the Free Patriotic Movement of being aligned with “evil.” In retrospect, Hayek realizes that the US had different motives when the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act was drafted. Furiously, he talked about “the twenty-five year old kids working at the Lebanon Desk in the [US] State Department with [Bachelor of Arts] in history” that are disconnected from reality in the Middle East which he has had to deal with.

“I am not a fan of Bashar Al-Assad, but I support him one hundred percent, because the alternative in Syria is an extremist government,” Hayek emphasized. Should the Syrian government fall, Hayek’s fear was that the corrupt Hariri family and the March 14 Alliance would invite a Muslim Brotherhood government in Damascus to invade and occupy Lebanon. As a key interlocutor between Michel Aoun and the United States, he explained to me that the Hariri family had no problem with the Syrian presence in Lebanon and in fact they were opposed to a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and would obstruct his work in the United States. He explained that the reason for this was that the Hariris used the Syrian military to enforce their hegemony in Lebanon. “Hariri corrupted the Syrians,” he explained. The Hariri clan would bribe all the high ranking Syrian officers in Lebanon by paying them millions of dollars. The problems between the Hariris and Syria began when Bashar Al-Assad wanted to put an end to corruption in Syria and refused to let the Hariris continue with their game.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The UK’s austerity policy is ideologically driven and is aimed at diverting finance from the poor to the rich under the pretext of the economic crisis, writer John Wight told RT.

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is announcing billions more in the government spending cuts while austerity measures are already biting for many people across the UK.
Osborne claimed that British economy is “out of intensive care.” RT asked Wight if he thinks that is really the case.

John Wight: Only in a fine world of the Tory party would that be the case. The country’s seen 1.1 percent growth in the last three years – the worst level of growth in this country’s economy over the last 100 years. That can by no means be considered a success. 

RT: Who's going to be the most affected by these latest cuts?

JW: Clearly the poor are going to be hit harder as a continuation of the mass experiment in human despair, which this coalition government has cheated to describe as an economic policy. It is ideologically driven and we see economics of the madhouse. And it is done with the objective of affecting the transference of wealth from the poor to the rich under the pretext of an economic crisis – not reason, it’s a pre-text. The economic crisis which hit this country in 2007 was their economic 9/11.

RT: Official figures show the deficit has been growing last year, despite previous cuts. So is there any point to them?

JW: Well, that’s what I’ve just said: this is ideologically driven. If you are considering these policies on the basis of economics, then clearly it is completely irrational. The US economist Paul Krugman lately described it as “a medieval doctor draining a patient’s blood,” and when that doesn’t work, draining more blood from the patient. This is entirely appropriate to describe this economic policy, this austerity. Austerity historically has been discredited. It doesn’t work in times of recession. At a time of recession the government needs to spend more to reintroduce the man which is contracted as profits stumble. And you must place this along the fact that the Office of Financial Statistics, the government’s own body set up to monitor these things, came up with a figure in April which stated that in the final quarter of last year UK businesses, excluding banks, were sitting on 318 billion pounds of surplus. And that money is money we need in the economy. They are not investing, they spend all the inducements from the government by the way of tax subsidies and tax cuts for the rich that the government has given to the rich over the last three years. 

RT: What do you think is the best way that the government can fight the deficit?

JW: It has to start investing in the real economy. It has to start directing banks to lend rather than pleading with banks, especially banks in which we own a majority share, such as RBS. The government should take over RBS’s operations and start lending in the interest of the real economy. The economy needs it. We have a housing crisis in the country, it’s the worst in the world, it’s a scandal. And we need to start investing in affordable homes. Rather than punishing the poor for being poor we should start actually diverting money from the rich to the poor, as befitting a civilized society. 

RT: Osborne announced cuts to the police budget. Do you think that will affect the crime rate?

JW: Well, not really, because based on what we know now a lot of criminals are actually in the police. They are also sitting in the boardrooms and in the House of Lords. It may have an effect. But I think they’ve consolidated the police and taken away the regional power from the police. It is yet to be seen. But as I say the cuts in the police budget are minimal compared to the cuts for the poor in terms of benefit cuts and so on.

 A divided US Supreme Court voided a central part of the Voting Rights Act, a law put in place during the Civil Rights movement to prevent historically racist states from creating obstacles to voting, Tuesday.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Supreme Court’s opinion in Shelby County vs. Holder on Tuesday. The 5-4 decision, evidence of clear partisan lines in the nation’s highest court, was celebrated by Southern states and criticized by President Barack Obama for declaring federal oversight on state election changes unconstitutional. Roberts did not specify which, if any, part of the Constitution the rule violated.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), invalidated by Tuesday’s decision, explained the formula used by Congress to identify regions of the US subject to extra scrutiny when local lawmakers try to change election rules. Section 4 was the precursor to Section 5, which gives the federal government the power to “preclear” any state or local changes in election rules that could potentially prevent minorities from voting.

Both the Justice Department and individual voters were able to file suit if they believed a state or local municipality was instituting a law that would put undue burden on a specific demographic, a protection that saw its end on Monday.

Under the formula, Congress singled out states based on their history of past abuses. Most of the states affected by the ruling are in the South, where politicians frequently signed laws meant to silence the black population by way of making their votes count less through redistricting and other tactics. The VRA of 1965 nullified the systemic discrimination allowed by the Jim Crow laws, adopted in the century following the abolition of slavery.

States that prevented African Americans from, in addition to other infractions, registering to vote, voting of running for office were singled out by Section 4.

The Supreme Court’s majority ruled that, because the VRA was enacted decades ago, Congress must use updated criteria to determine which states are subject to the federal oversight. In a seeming contradiction, the Court cited the VRA’s success in protecting an equal voting system as a reason to void Section 4. 

Mario Tama / Getty Images / AFP

  Roberts asserted that “things have changed dramatically” over time. Since 1965 voter registration, voter turnout and the number of African American political leaders have all vastly increased, Roberts claimed, “in large part because of the VRA.” Yet Roberts and four other justices called for new criteria not “based on decades-old data” and voter suppression methods, such as literacy tests, that have been rendered irrelevant by Section 4. Roberts' claims are wrong, though, some reporters pointed out on the day.

“The regions covered by the part of the Act that was struck down, Section 4, have, in recent years, been twice as likely as those not covered to have proven violations under other sections of the Act,” wrote The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson.

Without a new formula for Section 4, which most experts agree is unlikely after years of Congressional gridlock and polarization, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act cannot be implemented.

Roberts also wrote that Congress “cannot justify the considerable burdens created by Section 5,” despite overwhelming numbers in each chamber voting to reauthorize the VRA in 2006. In the seven years since that renewal, 31 discriminatory voting laws were blocked by Section 5, according to The Nation magazine, with six of the nine southern states covered by Section 4 enacting new voter suppression laws since 2010.

“Texas’ voter ID law, which was blocked under Section 5 by a federal court last year and could disenfranchise up to 800,000 registered voters without government-issued photo ID, will immediately go into effect,” wrote Ari Berman in The Nation. “The states of the Old Confederacy will return to the pre-1965 playbook, passing new voter suppression laws that can only be challenged, after years of lengthy litigation, in often-hostile Southern courts, with the burden of proof in those subject to discrimination, rather than those doing the discriminating.” 

Mario Tama / Getty Images / AFP

  Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, who serves in one of the states previously covered by Section 4, announced Tuesday that the “process for implementation of Constitutional Voter Identification begins today.”

Chief Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Each of the Justices in the majority was appointed by a Republican president, while the dissenters were appointed by Democrats. 

President Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

“Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA,” Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. “Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled … One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation.”

Ginsburg, appointed by former president Bill Clinton in 1993, noted that the “racial polarization in voting” means the issue is especially pressing today. While Ginsburg delivered her remarks, though, Alito visibly rolled his eyes in dismissal, leading to gasps from several audience members.   

“His treatment of the 80-year-old Ginsburg, 17 years his senior and with 13 years more seniority, was a curious display of judicial temperament, or, more accurately, judicial intemperance,” wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. “Typically, justices state their differences in words – and Alito, as it happens, had just spoken several hundred of his own from the bench. But Alito frequently supplements words with middle-school gestures.”   

Congressional leaders pledged discussions on Section 4 over the summer, but admitted doubts over whether Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on the issue. 

The release of data about US hack attacks on China has deprived the West of the moral high ground in the cyber-war, Hong Kong City University Professor Joseph Cheng told RT. This could give China diplomatic ammo in future negotiations with the US.

RT: Nations have been spying on each other for as long as we can remember. Do you think there is any surprise here on China’s part?

Joseph Cheng: I don’t think it is a surprise for the Chinese authorities. Basically, China and all major powers in the world understand that internet capabilities and capabilities in outer space will be crucial in future warfare. It is very likely that the major powers would like to test their own capabilities, as well as those of their opponents and competitors. So China is probably a bit relieved at this stage that the Western governments and the Western public opinion no longer enjoy the moral high ground to criticize China.

RT: There's the opinion that goodwill between the US and many nations worldwide may have been degraded. But there is the argument to be made that China needs the US as much as it is vice-versa. What do you think?

JC: I agree with that. The recent summit between [President] Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama was a very important symbol, demonstrating that both leaders want to reduce mutual distrust and that they certainly would not like to see a deterioration in bilateral relations. In the handling of this incident it was obvious that the Chinese authorities did not want to further publicly embarrass the Obama administration. The Chinese authorities chose to allow Mr. Snowden to leave. And of course domestically the commentaries were very critical, but they were not the official position of the Chinese government. The Chinese government also did not make any attempt to exploit the presence of Mr. Snowden to extract information from him. So I think that the Chinese authorities would like to demonstrate that they value good relations with the US.

RT: Do you think China will play this to its advantage in the future armed with sympathy and confirmation that it is being spied upon by the US? How do you think China will use this going into the future?

JC: China will probably let it die down. But when Western governments pick up the issue again, China will feel it has a strong case for criticizing the double standards of Western governments. Ideally, it can be hoped that various governments throughout world will come together eventually to establish a set of norms governing surveillance of the internet. But this is of course a very idealistic view.

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan)

President Barack Obama’s environmental speech outlined his second term plans to reduce carbon emissions and boost renewable fuels, but the controversial Keystone XL pipeline may soon be approved.

The president’s address at Georgetown University detailed his agenda to tackle global warming, but environmental activists may be disappointed to hear Obama's plan on the obscure pipeline project that has triggered rallies and protests from environmentalists across the US and Canada.

A YouTube video preview of the president’s speech depicts an oil refinery, not a coal-fired plant. Obama then announces his upcoming “national plan to reduce carbon pollution.” Obama will put the Environmental Protection Agency in charge of drafting a plan to set carbon emission limits on US power plants by June 2014. The EPA would also be in charge of finalizing plans for carbon limits on new power plants..

“We already set limits for arsenic, mercury and lead, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want,” one official told Reuters.

The White House is expected to issue its final verdict regarding the Keystone pipeline in September or October. Today Obama said that building the pipeline will only serve US interests if it doesn't significantly exacerbate problem of carbon pollution. Given the State Department's recent conclusion that the Keystone XL would have small impact on climate and tar sands, Obama's words seem to hint that the project will be approved soon.

The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil sands bitumen from Canada to the Gulf Coast, stretching through the entire United States. Critics warn that constructing the pipeline would lead to drilling in Canada’s oil sands, thereby releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide that would further harm the atmosphere. Former NASA researcher and climate scientist James Hansen told the New York Times that the Keystone pipeline would be “game over for the climate.”

There has been speculation that the president would sign off on the project, despite the extensive opposition against it and his plans for clean energy. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson allegedly told anonymous sources that the president would sign off on it in the spring, but he has not publicly made a decision on it. Some Republicans and businesses argue that the pipeline would create jobs and help the economy, and a recent Pew Research survey found that 66 percent of Americans who know about the pipeline support its construction.

But climate activists say it would make little sense for the president to approve the pipeline, since it would counter his plans for clean energy

“I do think that if they’re serious about carbon, and then they let Keystone go, it’s pretty hard to figure out what’s going on because the two are so in conflict,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Politico.

Some environmentalists remain hopeful that the president will disapprove of the pipeline, despite his recent lack of discussion on it.

“The president is a logical man, and hence it would seem so odd to take two steps forward and then two back,” anti-Keystone activist Bill McKibben told Politico. “And I’m certain he understands that KXL is the environmental fight of our time, the place where he’ll be finally judged.”

A senior administration official told Reuters that a decision on Keystone has not been made, but the president’s lack of comment on it may indicate that his decision may go against the will of environmentalists.

The US has gone from ‘model of human rights’ to manipulator of internet rights, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party wrote. China has struck back at the US over its allegations that Beijing allowed NSA leaker Edward Snowden to leave Hong Kong.

The damning article in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, the party’s official newspaper, came in response to Washington’s accusations of the “deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant.”

Addressing Washington’s allegations, the People’s Daily wrote that China could not accept "this kind of dissatisfaction and opposition.”

"Not only did the US authorities not give us an explanation and apology, it instead expressed dissatisfaction at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for handling things in accordance with the law,” wrote Wang Xinjun, a researcher at the Academy of Military Science in the People's Daily commentary. 

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying also denounced the US accusations as "groundless and unacceptable.”

The Hong Kong government released an official statement on Sunday, saying that US fugitive Edward Snowden had left the Chinese territory for Moscow legally and voluntarily. The statement also mentioned that the extradition documents submitted by the US on charges of espionage were not sufficient to warrant Snowden’s arrest under Chinese law. 

 The column praises the former CIA contractor for “his fearlessness that tore off Washington's sanctimonious mask."Snowden has been branded by the US as ‘traitor’ by US politicians for the leaking of classified documents to The Guardian newspaper that revealed the existence of the spy program PRISM.  

"In a sense, the United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries' networks," the People's Daily said. 

The case of Edward Snowden has captivated world media since he fled from the US in May. Although the fugitive’s whereabouts are unknown, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirmed to RT that Snowden was en route to Ecuador via Moscow accompanied by WikiLeaks legal representative Sarah Harrison.  

 Snowden was checked in for a flight from Moscow to Havana, Cuba, yesterday, but there was no sign of him on the plane, according to RT’s correspondent Egor Piskunov. As a consequence, it is now thought that he is still in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. 

The whistleblower has applied for asylum in Ecuador and the country’s government confirmed that it is processing the application.

Amnesty urges US: ‘Refrain from manhunt’

The US has called on all countries in the northern hemisphere to surrender Snowden to US jurisdiction and has resolved to seek cooperation from his destination country. However human rights organization Amnesty International has launched an appeal, urging the US not to prosecute anyone who discloses data on US government human right violations.

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

In addition, the organization also stressed that an individual who has an asylum bid underway cannot legally be extradited.

Taliban has launched an attack in central Kabul, targeting the presidential palace, the CIA and ISAF headquarters, the Ministry of Defense, as well as an international hotel. All the assailants have been killed in the 90-minute showdown.

A Reuters reporter who was at the palace to cover a presser by president Karzai along with some 20 other journalists said heavy gunfire was heard, and smoke from an explosion had blanketed the area.
First of all, one insurgent reportedly opened fire with an automatic rifle at a gate to the palace.
Then, palace guards, as well as guards from the adjacent CIA compound, reportedly fired back when several attackers fired on the west gate as journalists were waiting to enter the compound for the president’s press conference.

All the insurgents were killed in the 90-minute showdown, according to Kabul police chief Mohammad Ayoub Salangi. 

“What I saw from the outside of that gate is more of a blast wall around the green zone area, as there were giant holes in the concrete walls, and the entire gate was destroyed. Apparently, one vehicle was able to get inside, and one vehicle was stopped at the gate, and that’s when the attack began,” local journalist Courtney Body told RT.

It was not immediately clear whether Karzai was in the compound at the time. The area of the city where the attack took place is the site of several important organizations, including the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, as well as the headquarters for the CIA and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Up to 10 blasts heard in Kabul, near Palace, CIA, ISAF HQ, UNAMA. Smoke rising over central #Kabul pic.twitter.com/9F54LmmdAb via @nohodge
— Harun Najafizada (@BBCNajafizada) June 25, 2013

The American Embassy in Kabul was reportedly placed on lockdown, with ISAF confirming a lockdown over its Twitter feed; other facilities in the area are said to be under lockdown as well. According to the BBC, SMS messages were sent on behalf of the Taliban stating that targets were the presidential palace, the Ministry of Defense, as well as the Ariana Hotel, which is popular with international visitors.  

The CIA building in central Kabul was reported to be on fire shortly after the attack, according to 1TV News, a local news broadcaster.

Ambassador James Dobbins, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was currently in Kabul after returning from Doha over the weekend, where talks with the Taliban were derailed after the insurgent group opened an embassy-like compound, declaring it the 'Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.'

Taliban officials stated that the newly opened office in Qatar was a response to calls by opponents for the launch of a political process to reach some measure of peace, and end three decades of fighting in Afghanistan. 

Steve Zunes, a professor of international studies at the University of San Francisco, pointed out to RT, that the Afghan army would never succeed unless the Afghan people support the country's leadership in the first place.

“Even if they are very well trained, even if they have the very best equipment, the strength of the Afghan government <…> doesn’t have credibility with the Afghan people. While the Afghans don’t subscribe to the Taliban’s ideology, they are very frustrated with corruption, inaptitude, and arbitrariness of the Afghan government, including the ongoing repression. They’re resentful of the foreign presence to prop up this government. And it’s this kind of environment that leads to the rise of extremists. So it’s not a security question.”