Mid-East war fears after Iranian base blasts, Syria's Arab League suspension
The potential for a regional flare-up shot up Friday and Saturday, Nov-11-12, with the blasts at two Iranian arms bases which killed at least 32 Revolutionary Guards men including Iran's top missile expert, and the Arab League Foreign Ministers' decision to suspend Syria's membership over Bashar Assad's brutal military crackdown on civilians.
Hours after the base explosions in Iran, the Arab League decided to suspend the membership of its ally Syria and impose political and economic sanctions on the Assad regime. Members were advised to withdraw their ambassadors form the Syrian capital until their Nov. 2 peace plan was implemented.
No one any longer credits his word after his repeated promises in the nine-month uprising against him to pull his troops out of city centers, release prisoners and enact reforms, while only piling on the savagery. His army is turning against him.
Even before the Arab League struck home, the tens of trained fighters going over to the opposition in the early months of the conflict were swelling in the last two weeks to hundreds, taking their arms with them. The ruling Assad clan and military command have reached a crossroads in the pact they concluded in March to extinguish the uprising regardless of the cost in blood.
He could make good on his threat to start a Middle East conflagration along with Iran and Hizballah. Most of the action would be aimed against Israel forcing the Arab League to go along with Syria and restore its status.
The war rumors sweeping Tehran after the explosions at the Revolutionary Guards bases and the hard choices confronting the discredited Assad regime have generated a highly perilous climate in the region. All its capitals are on edge for trouble.
Revolutionary Guards commander killed in Iran blast
A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander in charge of the force's self-sufficiency unit was killed in a blast at a military base near Tehran Saturday, semi-official Fars news agency reported. A mysterious and massive explosion rocked the military arms depot near Tehran, killing 17 Revolutionary Guards Corps officers and wounding 17 others.
Work accident or sabotage?
Iranian officials said the blast was caused by an accident as soldiers moved munitions at the base in Bidganeh, near Shahriar, 45 km. west of the Iranian capital. The base is also believed to be the storage center for some of Iran’s most-advanced long-range ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab 3.
“So far, 27 personnel of Revolutionary Guards have been martyred and 16 others wounded, some of them are in critical condition,” Iranian broadcasting quoted Revolutionary Guards spokesman Ramezan Sharif as saying. The causality numbers were subsequently lowered to 17 dead and 15 wounded.
Armed Mobs Storm Foreign Embassies in Syria
Violent armed mobs stormed foreign embassies in Damascus and Latakia on Saturday after the Arab League suspended Syria.
The rioters hurled rocks at the building, beat a guard and broke into the embassy of Saudi Arabia, located three blocks away from Assad's office.
At least one Arab media report said that the embassy of Qatar in Damascus was also attacked.
Similar violence was perpetrated against the French and Turkish consulates in Latakia, 330 kilometers (210 miles) north of Damascus on the Mediterranean coast, residents reported.
The Arab League decision included a sweeping package of measures designed to significantly raise the pressure on President Bashar al-Assad to either comply with the agreement he made, or to step down from office.
Among those were a set of economic sanctions, recommendations for those Arab countries who have not yet done so to recall their ambassadors from Syria and a decision to seek the help of the United Nations in ending the violence.
PA Threatens 'Violence and Anarchy'
Palestinian Authority officials warned Thursday the region would descend into "violence and anarchy" because of the failure of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas' statehood bid at the United Nations.
Officials in Ramallah refused to say what they were planning to do now that they have conceded the measure does not have sufficient support in the UN Security Council to be passed on to the General Assembly for a vote.
Also see:
Regime backers express anger at other nations after Arab League suspends Syria
The Devil's Smile
Why is Ahmadinejad smiling? The answer is not a terribly complicated one. With every step he takes and every day that he remains in power, he discredits the most deeply held ideas of Western liberals about the power of diplomacy to resolve conflicts and internal civil disobedience to achieve peaceful regime change. Despite years of diplomatic and hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets—Ahmadinejad’s grip on power remains as secure as ever.
Ahmadinejad’s smile is nurtured by the toxic self-assurance of a monster who knows he is unstoppable. Hitler wore that same smile as his armies tore across Europe, and only when those same armies were finally shattered and sent back in retreat at a terrible cost, did his madness finally turn on him and drive him deeper and deeper into delusion, and finally suicide.
Hitler believed he was unstoppable, because the only thing his enemies seemed willing to throw at him was diplomacy and more diplomacy. This only fed his grandiose complex and his sense of omnipotence, for how better to encourage a madman who believes that nothing can stand in his way, than to fail to stand in his way.
But Ahmadinejad’s story is also the larger tale of the Middle East. Where the world turns its face away from genocide, terrorism, oppression, gender apartheid and slavery by oil rich Muslim nations, while lambasting Israel in the hopes of winning their favor.
The Muslim world has gone from a fetid swamp to a radioactive dump, its green glow shining poisonously into the sky. And there is a very simple reason for that. Because when you do not oppose evil, or worse when you actively pander to it, the evil grows that much worse.
And lastly, this commentary is worth reading:
Why Did Sarkozy and Obama Disrespect Bibi?
15 comments:
I'd read a story on YNews this morning that blogger Silverstein was claiming Mossad was responsible for the explosion in Iran. This is the first I've heard there were explosions at TWO different munitions facilities. Certainly blows the "official" word from Iran and Al-Arabya out of the water.
Hello Robin
If I remember rightly, Iran didn't openly admit when Ahminajad got 'worms' (Stuxnet). It was just after he went to the Lebanese border to throw stones at Israel! :-\
Similarly I suspect the same has happend here. It is VERY careless for TWO people to get 'butterfingers' at TWO separate sites at the same time. The explosions were so bad people thought it was an earthquake.
Accident my foot!
THEN it was announced about Syria -Too much of a coincidence methinks.
I have to agree Sue. They go for how many years without this happening..and two back to back. And what type weapons depots were there....their bases for the potential nuclear delivery system missiles. These are designed to go into the field....that's pretty rugged. And they blow up just moving "stuff". Two at the same time at different locations!
Nope! Don't buy it.
Shucks, not only do it not pass the sniff test, it makes putrid smell like peach cobbler.
BOTTOM LINE >>>>>>
Why has nothing happenned yet ??
In other words, fufillment of
END TIME prophecies just before
the 7 year TRIB period.
the answer is very easy >>>>
The BULL.....
that's right
You see, the POWERS that be really
do NOT want the bull to die, so they will do ALL THEY CAN to stop
anything from rocking the boat.
That would explain why stocks refuse to come down and major
prophecies have NOT YET been
activated.
Yes, I know, the spiritual reason
is that it is NOT time yet.
But i am NOT talking about that at the moment. I am talking about the
SECULAR reasons.
think about it.
the rich little bulls ON WALL STREET and all over have set
up such a HUGE chasm between
them and the poor people, and
they are enjoying it.
That is WHY this is taking so long.
OH, BUT THE Elliott Wave Model
is against bulls. VERY SAD they
have not yet figured it out.
and that will be their downfall.
Stay tuned.
Stephen !!!!!!
Yes, but oddly enough . . .in the usual "Fact Check" AP puts out following debates, the AP says:
THE FACTS: It is widely believed that the Obama administration has been covertly attacking the Iranian nuclear program. By definition, covert action is not publicly acknowledged, so criticizing Obama for not doing something that he might very well be doing adds little to the debate. On just one front, there are strong suspicions the Obama administration either unleashed the sophisticated Stuxnet computer worm on Iran's nuclear program or supported Israel in that effort. The attack infected systems at the Bushehr power plant and set back Iran's nuclear
development.
***
Forget the FACT that no where is mainstream media reporting that Obama has covertly been bombing Iran or that Obama is responsible for that nasty worm. So if they were doing THEIR jobs, the candidates would have the information they need . . .indeed, that we ALL need. Personally, I don't believe for a second the US is responsible for either . . .its merely the AP's lame attempt to shore up the faltering Jewish vote.
Stephen, unless tragedy strikes over night, you're going to have a very disappointing day tomorrow . . .with Futures up and Japan reporting 6% growth this quarter not to mention Berlosconi and Pappadrieu getting the boot, tomorrow's shaping up to be a decided bull day.
Yeh, Robin, you may be right...
Well, as i have SAID before, the
Wave Model is not perfect....but
one thing I noticed is that the
MODEL tends to turn bearish when
there is a HEAVY BULL turnout with
the public, like RIGHT about now.
AND THAT is why CAUTION is needed.
i would NOT be buying this silly
rally since 4 OCT, not now, I would not.
It is MORE THEN LIKELY a number
(2) UP, with the next wave a
HUGE (3) down.
Please go to www.elliottwave.com
for more info on the wave theory.
Stephen !!!!
“The Fundamental Error of Elliott Wave Theory”
by Orvin Five
The underlying premise of Elliott Wave theory is that human behavior—as manifested in the movement of the stock market—can be modeled mathematically as a series of patterns expressed by a deterministic function. This conclusion arises from a mistaken analogy between stock price movements and other phenomena found in nature. For centuries, people noticed that there were patterns in snail shells, planetary orbits, ocean tides, and many other phenomena. Often, these patterns were so consistent that they could be mapped to mathematical functions with a high degree of accuracy. Crucially, it was not necessary to understand why a particular mathematical function was able to predict a natural pattern. In other words, the underlying inputs (causal variables) of the pattern could remain unknown for centuries even though the mathematical model continued to forecast the pattern accurately. As an example, people were able to predict the movements of celestial bodies long before they had identified and understood the main underlying input (gravity) responsible for the model.
If you want to understand why Elliott Wave theory is flawed, it is important to distinguish between two very different categories of knowledge (and/or ignorance) about an underlying input. The first, which I will call the “Input Identity” or “Input Existence”, is simply the identification that the input exists at all. The second, which I call the “Input Degree” is the quantitative (or at least, relatively ordinal qualitative) value for the underlying input once its existence/identity has already been determined.
Input Existence and Input Degree are two very different things. To illustrate this idea using our example of celestial motion, early astronomers had neither (1) identified that a force yet to be called “gravity” existed at all (i.e. they lacked knowledge of the Input Existence), nor had they (2) the means to assign any value (Input Degree) to this input, regardless of whether they had yet identified its existence or not. Thus, it was an “unknown unknown”.
Once both the gravitational force and the tools for calculating it were discovered, the patterns of celestial bodies suddenly made more sense. The history of science is full of such examples of discoveries of underlying input(s) that explain particular mathematical models of natural patterns. What’s important to note here is that the explanatory variables for these patterns were most often (1) relatively few in number (2) not considered to be exhaustive and/or capable of making the mathematical model perfect. In the case of the movements of celestial bodies, we know that the basic gravitational calculation of masses and distances won’t be enough to predict a planet’s movement with 100% accuracy, since there are relativistic and other effects at play as well (including even changes in mass due to atmospheric dissipation, etc.). But what’s important is that the errors are small—in other words, our knowledge of the Input Existence and Input Degree for celestial motion is robust enough to facilitate launching probes to other planets.
To quickly recapitulate: (1) an apparent pattern in nature is observed, (2) a mathematical model is developed which robustly expresses the pattern and has predictive power, (3) the mysterious underlying causal inputs of the natural phenomenon are finally discovered/identified, (4) a means of properly calculating the values of the underlying inputs is finally discovered/identified, and (5) the pattern is now robustly (though perhaps not 100%) understood.
More coming
Error of Elliott Wave theory
This brings us to the fundamental error of Elliott Wave theory. Looking at a stock index chart, we see an apparent series of loosely identifiable patterns, some of which seem to repeat sporadically. We then ask ourselves if it is possible that these patterns can be modeled mathematically in the same way that other natural phenomena have been. For this to be true, we would have to first (1) identify the main underlying inputs to the model, and (2) assign such inputs their respective degrees of value. Even though we might miss a few inputs, our model should still be robust enough if we catch the main ones.
So, is it possible? The answer is no.
We can state the reason as follows: Stock prices do not move as a result of unknown unknowns that have yet to be BOTH identified and THEN valued. We’re not looking for something mysterious and new--we in fact ALREADY KNOW the handful of main Input Identities that robustly explain stock price movements. We also already know that these inputs (often correlated) are themselves dependent on countless other, secondary inputs that we cannot accurately value, even if we occasionally can estimate some of them correctly. And here is our theoretical lynchpin: We ALREADY KNOW, a priori, that no single theory or mathematical model can accurately predict the values (Input Degrees) of certain of these secondary inputs.
Or more verbosely and accurately, we already know that no single theory or mathematical model can accurately predict the values of the members in any arbitrary subset of these secondary inputs, as long as such arbitrary subset contains only members that are themselves substantially independent of each other. For the purpose of our analysis, we will focus on subsets of variables consisting of only two members (i.e. pairs of secondary inputs).
To clarify the above more concretely, let’s start by looking at an extremely important underlying “main input” that should enter into any mathematical model purported to predict the price movement of the S&P 500: next year’s earnings. Although a massively important input, the exact value of “next year’s earnings” would not alone allow you to predict the price direction of the stock market, although knowing this input’s exact value would give you a major advantage and probably make any model much more accurate. If you were to couple this input with a precise knowledge of the U.S. dollar’s value relative to other currencies at the end of next year, it would make your model even more robust. There are probably just a dozen or less such “most major” inputs that, when put together, would produce a mathematical model that was strikingly predictive if the actual (quantitative or ordinal qualitative) values of such inputs were known with certainty. The fact that many of these inputs (economic, behavioral, social, etc.) are correlated to various degrees does not change matters. Nor does it matter that these dozen inputs could be “swapped” with a dozen other similar inputs to yield a similar result (i.e. tell me next year’s Nasdaq earnings instead, and my S&P stock price model will still work robustly, due to correlation). As stated above, what’s important is that these dozen (or so) interchangeable “main inputs”, or “input categories”, are themselves functions of countless (effectively billions) of other, secondary inputs that no one mathematical model (including EWT) can predict.
More to come
Error of Elliott Wave theory
But how can we claim that we know this a priori? Firstly, we can show (in practice actually, not just in theory) that within the set of billions of secondary inputs, there are countless pairs of any two such inputs that cannot be expressed as predictive functions of each other no matter how much we try. Usually, basic common sense alone will identify such pairs of inputs (for example, “average summer temperature in North America” and “probability that the Chinese minister of finance unexpectedly dies” are two inputs that have miniscule mathematical interdependence, while both influence the S&P 500 to at least some very small degree). By definition, if the two secondary inputs making up any particular pair showed a strong enough degree of correlation (or indeed any strong enough mathematical relationship), then either one of the inputs would become redundant. This is because that particular input would not add much explanatory power to a mathematical model that already contains the other input in the pair. But we find instead (in practice) that when we do properly estimate secondary inputs individually, our overall predictions meaningfully improve in increments. In addition to this, we also know that the values of our countless “non-interdependent secondary inputs” are not totally random. If they were totally random, then we would have to treat them as errors (or potentially disregard them) within our main mathematical model. Note that I use the word “totally” because all of these inputs reflect at least some degree of effective randomness (even prior to being deconstructed down to the physical level of quanta, if that were even possible). Now—how do we know that these secondary inputs are not totally random? Because IT IS POSSIBLE to sometimes predict, very accurately, the values of some of these inputs using direct, observational methods—i.e. imperfect but reliable, fundamental analysis. For example, a diligent analyst rolls up his sleeves, pours over tons of data, and then accurately (or at least robustly) predicts next year’s corn harvest. At the same time, he also correctly predicts some changes to certain of next year’s tax rates, after reading 21 articles on the subject. He looks at the data historically, and finds that the corn harvests and the tax rates show no meaningful correlation or other mathematical relationship to each other.
He plugs both of these values into separate areas of a larger mathematical model that he uses to predict agricultural sector profits for next year. He then plugs this figure into an even bigger model and uses it to predict the value of the S&P 500 slightly more accurately than he would have otherwise.
Note that our analyst has arrived at a value for each input “deterministically” from even more basic constituent data, and in total mathematical isolation from the other input in the pair. Now for Elliott Wave theory to make any sense, one would have to take the absurd position that these two inputs in fact are indeed mathematically related at an even higher functional level than what the analyst understands (perhaps you might refer to it as holistic or biblical?). With all due respect, I believe that it would be the Elliott Wave theoretician who should have the responsibility of proving this mathematical interdependence to the analyst, and not the other way around. It would need to be proven for each and every pair (or at least a heck of a lot of them) for the main mathematical model to be valid.
More on the way
Error of Elliott Wave
What our analyst has done is use two secondary inputs, each of which somehow fulfills the seemingly “miraculous” criteria of (1) being individually predictable by fundamental analysis of more basic data, (2) not mathematically interdependent with its counterpart, and (3) partially explanatory for the future value of the market. There is nothing odd about this unless you look at the problem with deterministic preconceptions. Now—the fact that ALL THREE of these criteria have been fulfilled proves that the two inputs cannot both be variables within any deterministic mathematical function whose final output value (the market) we already know. If they were, you would be able to use such a mathematical function in reverse to robustly predict either of the inputs themselves in terms of the other. Try using Elliott Waves to predict next year’s tax rates in terms of corn harvests, and you’ll see what I mean. At the same time, nobody could argue that tax rates have absolutely no influence on the S&P 500. You could repeat this argument using thousands of other examples. Every time, you would find that no “global” mathematical function (such as Elliott Wave theory) would be able to robustly predict your independent variables in reverse. By their absolute (rather than just marginal) nature, these thousands of predictive errors do not “cancel out” each other in the aggregate to yield a convergent result. Elliott Wave theory just can’t work, by definition.
theres more
At this point in the argument, an Elliott Wave adherent may cry foul. How could you use Elliott Waves “in reverse” to predict the value of just one variable in a massive function, when you don’t know all of the other variables (and their relative influences) within the function as well? My answer to this question is that you can’t have it both ways. If you accept the idea that fundamental analysis works at all (which I do), then that means that you also accept the idea that sufficiently robust (though hardly perfect) mathematical models of stock index movements can be constructed using values determined by rigorous fundamental analysis (otherwise there would be no point to fundamental analysis). Now take your pick from any of these fundamental models that you care to choose. One by one, strip away the rigorously, independently determined value of each variable and replace it with the value (of that same specific variable) implied by plugging in the Elliott Wave prediction for the final output result (i.e. the future value of the stock market) while keeping the other variables the same. Soon, the model will begin to spit out nonsensical retro-predictions of crop harvests, tax rates, Alt-A mortgage defaults, or any other variable you care to name that might legitimately contribute to stock market movements. I bring this up because many Elliott Wave adherents claim to jointly use fundamental analysis, as if the two methods were complementary to each other. Ironically, they are in conflict. According to the logic behind the above refutation of Elliott Wave theory, every input variable correctly determined by fundamental analysis constitutes yet another reason why the remaining, undetermined input variables are not part of a deterministic mathematical function.
Bit more still
Error of Elliott Wave theory
As you can see, the relationships of underlying inputs to stock values are totally different from the relationships of underlying causes to natural patterns that intrigued R.N. Elliott. When 19th century chemists could not understand why the elements of the periodic table displayed predictable, recurring patterns, it was the concept of electrons/orbitals that finally explained it all (just as gravity did for astronomers). For stock traders, there is no analogy—no all-encompassing force, particle, or wave that will one day be identified, valued and then plugged into an equation to predict the future. Rather, there are dozens of major factors that have ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED, yet whose values are known to be unpredictable in the aggregate—even if we can occasionally predict some of them individually by rigorous analysis of their constituent elements.
Proponents of Elliott Wave methods are likely to contend that my theoretical arguments are not relevant if the EW theory yields practical trading results. I will not dwell on the many arguments against the notion that an individual trader’s success necessarily proves the perpetual validity of the underlying method that he/she uses. But I will point out that it’s impossible to either prove or disprove the Elliott Wave theory’s validity by reference to its practical results. For this praxeological reason, a purely theoretical analysis is obligatory.
Finally, I should point out that, in practice, most Elliott Wave practitioners admit that their system is only meant to be a “general guide” with many possible outcomes (i.e. additional randomness and variability is introduced). That is, there is an “ideal” wave pattern according to the theory, but in practice there can be deviations from this pattern. Nothing about this admission refutes the above arguments, nor does it strengthen the underlying predictive power of Elliott Waves.
Finish
so don’t say you did not know no different.
You're gonna make Stephen yell at you like he did to that other person that called him out on his flawed theories.
Anon, thanks for your research. Stephen , you are entitled to your opinions, as are we all.
All that really matters is what the Lord thinks, and that our trust is "anchored beyond the Veil" in Him .
God knows the End from the Beginning ! I.E. : Jesus to Peter before his denial: Not "if" but "when" you repent, strengthen your brothers. I prayed for you. (Luke 22:32)
Blessings, Diane
i think there is a serious diference between opinions about flawed theories and obsessions.
i think sue properly saw it manifesting best when she said-- Stephen seeks to side-step Jesus’ words and considers them as ‘nothing’ as he thinks the Eliot Wave is better than the Word of the Lord. Stephen’s obsession of the ‘Elliot Wave’ is divination. http://prophecyupdate.blogspot.com/2011/11/un-report-due-next-week-on-irans.html
who cares about trying to save money for a rally and a stock crash when the rapture and tribulation are so close. what good is it then.
i was very alarmed also when he said--
(2) I do NOT see you
I do NOT hear you.
and i DO NOT want to know who
you are ok ????
NOW LEAVE ME ALONE !!!!
and STOP judging me >>>>>..."
I wish i had the identity to Irritated;..."
--and then he did a very bizzare change from singular to plural--
I am NOT happy with their comments.......they act like
they KNOW everything..."
he seems like a very conflicted personality that is potentially threatening. its always fear fear fear of a crash any day for at least a year.
Post a Comment