新疆囚戴頭巾女生千人抗議遭血腥鎮壓

新疆阿克苏地区库车县当局週二囚禁不愿摘 头巾的女生，引发近千人抗议。军警现场开枪镇压，

目击者称有至少4人被枪杀，70多名示威者被捕，该镇现已实行军管。

美国自由亚洲电台维语部报导，近期库车县各乡镇在抓蒙面、戴头巾的妇女，以及留大鬍子男士，其中阿拉哈格镇將不愿摘头巾的妇女关在镇政府大 院。
週二，该镇中学校长將未摘头巾的女生也送往该大院关押，激起不满。下午，有约1000名学生和家长前往镇政府要求放人，先后殴打了中学校长和 镇长，並向镇政府扔石头。
报导指，隨后县当局用几辆军车及装甲车调来军警，当场向抗议群眾扫射了3次，目前死伤人数未確认，只知有70多名抗议学生被捕。
官方封锁消息
报导引述目击者称，听到多次枪响，示威者四散，听说有三四人当场中弹倒地，另有多人腿部等处受伤，「警察抓了很多人」。
此外，报导还称，事后官方封锁消息，並在当地加强监控手机和网络，严禁民眾传播相关信息。
香港《苹果》记者週三致电阿拉哈格镇中学，一名女教师证实当地不允许女学生包头巾：「不准，学生不让带。」
当记者问到週二的抗议事件，该名教师则连称没有、匆忙掛线。镇政府电话无人接听，该县旅游局的工作人员也矢口否认有示威。
自由亚洲电台报导还引述居民称，事发后到处都是军警巡逻，民眾不敢上街，当局甚至一度断电。当地警方回应，事件已平息，但拒提供详情。

11 Prominent People Who Compared Putin To Hitler

Underscoring the ongoing geopolitical crisis in eastern Europe, Vladimir Putin’s meddling in Ukraine under the pretext of protecting Russian speakers has important people invoking Hitler’s machinations before World War II.

Here are 11 prominent instances where Putin has been compared to Hitler recently:

• Prince Charles to a woman whose ancestors were murdered in the Holocaust: “And now Putin is doing just about the same as Hitler.”

• German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble: “We know all about that from history. Those are the methods that Hitler used to take over the Sudetenland.”

•  Vladislav Inozemtsev of The Moscow Times: “Like Hitler before him, Putin has no new ideas on how to create a stable global system in place of the current one. He only wants to secure new territory as Hitler tried to guarantee a vast Lebensraum for the German people.”

• Former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential contender Hillary Clinton: “Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s. … Hitler kept saying [German citizens abroad were] not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous.” 

• Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezisnki called Putin “a partially comical imitation of (former Italian Prime Minister Benito) Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler.”

• Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.): ““If Putin is allowed to go into a sovereign nation on behalf of Russian-speaking people, this is the same thing that Hitler did prior to World War II. “

• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “Claims that [Russia] needed to move into a neighboring country to protect an ethnic group tied to them is certainly similar to the argument that Hitler made in the 1930s.”

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If you could go back in time, would you have allowed Adolf Hitler to host the Olympics in Germany? To have the propaganda coup of inviting the world into Nazi Germany and putting on a false front?”

• Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “We haven’t seen this kind of behavior since the Second World War.”

• Russian activist and former chess champion Garry Kasparov: “Intentionally or not, the Putin regime has followed the Berlin 1936 playbook quite closely for Sochi.”

• Washington Post Editorial Writer Charles Lane: “Superficially plausible though the Hitler-Putin comparison may be, just how precisely does it fit? In some respects, alarmingly so.“

FCPO - It Was A Bull Trap But There Is Still Hope - 5/26/2014

 
 

Yes, it was a bull trap with the previous buy signal. But technical traders are not too worry about them. As long as I maintain a stop , I will close off my trade when things go wrong. In this case, I mentioned that stop should either placed at the previous Friday low of 2573 if your risk appetite is low or at recent lowest low of 2552 if you can stomach a bigger risk.
Anew sell signal was flashed on last Monday when price went solidly below the bottom band with the Stochastic turning negative. I sold on the next day when price went below the signal day low. I took profit when price went above the prior day high of 2525 on last Thursday. This is because the Stochastic has already inside the oversold zone. There is no new buy/sell signal as on last Friday. I am looking forward for a new buy signal as there is a chance that price may break above the bottom band again. The Stochastic looks like it may turn positive again. Of course I would let the market tells me what to do next.
The MACD and DMI stay negative. But I am watching the MACD intensely. If it stops falling and start turning upward from here, it would mean that it is going to form a new bullish divergence again. If this works out the way I wanted it, then the new bullish cycle story may still viable.





The weekly chart stays solidly on the side of the bear. Price has closed below the bottom band which is really a nasty confirmation of a bear cycle. The MACD and Stochastic continue to fall. The Stochastic may be going below its 20's signal line and the MACD is also fast approaching its zero signal line. Both usually mean more bearishness are coming. The DMI has just turned negative, it is the first time since mid October, 2013. If price goes below 2492 in the coming week, then it would flash the last sell signal in the current bear cycle.
A lot of fundamental experts have been getting very excited when someone start talking about the El Nino climate . No doubt the FCPO daily chart may also seem to hinting for some upside action next, but the timing of when investors/traders play will contribute a lot to their heartaches/stresses over their positions. We certainly do not want to see our positions go a few hundreds points against us with buy and hold approach.

FKLI -  It Is A Bad Feng Shui Year - Expect Bloodbath In Markets - 5/26/2014

 
 

I began to tighten my stop by using the prior day low instead of the original top band. It is because the Stochastic has already gone into the overbought zone and since the ADX is low at 14's area. So my stop was hit on last Tuesday. A new sell signal is flashed on last Thursday when price went below the top band with the Stochastic turned negative. But since it was still above the 80's line, so I would wait for another day to see it crossing down below the 80's signal line which I finally got it on Friday. So I would sell on the coming Monday if price can go below the signal day low.
As at last Friday, the MACD has also gone negative. The DMI remains positive but the D+ is declining and D- rising above the 20's signal line. This means the sellers are getting brave while the buyers have begun to quit their positions. But the ADX has been staying flat for the past 5 days at 14's, so there is no confirmation of a new trend yet.


 

The 3 weekly chart indicators stay positive. But the Stochastic may turn negative by the coming week. Since it is already inside the overbought zone, so I would pay a lot of attention to it. The Japanese Candlestick is a black body. It merely reflect a close that is low than the open. There is nothing of significance here yet. But if price closes below 1863 or the top band, then the Japanese Candlestick would confirm a reversal. The ADX continues to stay flat at 17's at the 7th week. No strong move indicated here.
The bearish divergences formed at both the daily and weekly chart are very clear. All I am waiting now is a confirmation from a price breakdown. Despite all the "rosy" statistics that came out on the country's growth, I have been getting more and more bearish. When a negative divergence appears in a daily chart, it could just be a major correction. But if they appear in a weekly chart , it usually mean we are near/at a major market terminal point. This kind of correction could last for months or even years. And if you subscribe to the Feng Shui school of thinking, you may have noticed that this year is really bad - there are conflicts and disasters popping out everywhere . So do not be too surprise when disasters also spread to the financial markets.

FCPO - Was It A False Breakup ? - 5/19/2014

Last week I mentioned the market could be near the end of its bear cycle and there is a possibility that a new bull cycle could begin soon. The market presented a new buy signal on last Wednesday when price closed above the bottom band with a confirmation from a positive Stochastic that crossed above its 20's signal line. The buy signal was confirmed on the next day when price went above the signal day high. But price came back tumbling down on last Friday and closed below the bottom band. If your risk appetite is not strong, then I would think you should place a stop at below Friday's low. Otherwise below the last low of 2552 should be logical.

The MACD and Stochastic stay positive, but the MACD is still below its 50's signal line which is not too bullish yet. The DMI stays negative with D- rising again. This means the sellers are coming back again. The ADX has just gone flat after falling for a few days. The falling part means the prior trend has ended, but now by turning flat, it would mean the "end of prior trend" may has a second thought.

If price can just maintain around here without falling again, especially without breaking through the 2552 support level . Then my previous week's bullish view would still stand, otherwise, this market may just go further down to a new low. Of course it would all depend whether the indicators follow.


 
AT the weekly chart, both the MACD and Stochastic are still falling and negative. The DMI stays positive with the D+ stays flat which means buyers are indecisive. The D- is falling and this means the sellers are getting worried and quitting. The ADX continues its fall and it is now below its 20's signal line. This means there is little trend in the market. Again the most interesting item found here is the Japanese Candlestick as it is an inverted hammer. When they are found at around a bear cycle, they would mean a possible reversal can happen next. Of course it would all depend on the coming week's Candlestick.

The US Dollar index after staging a dramatic breakup after the previous week. It continued to push up a bit and then consolidate. But it has already broke above its recent fractal high, so there is chance that it may be getting ready to do another powerful move. And I sure hope they can encourage FCPO to follow suit.

FKLI - Writings Are All Over The Wall - It Is Coming - 5/19/2014

The market flashed another new buy signal last Wednesday when price closed above the top band with the Stochastic turning positive. The signal was confirmed on the next day when price went above the signal day high. If a new trade is taken, place stop at below the top band. I would advocate an even tighter stop at the prior day low in the coming week. This is because the Stochastic has entered above the 80's level which is considered as the overbought zone since the ADX is low and below 20's.

The MACD, Stochastic and DMI are all positive but the chart seems to forming another bearish divergence now. So I would stay even more cautious .

 
The weekly chart's all 3  indicators stay positive. The Stochastic is inside the overbought zone and this is something I would want to keep an eye on as the ADX remains flat. The weekly chart is also having a bearish divergence formed. With that is forming at the daily chart, this is certainly something to watch out for.

Though the market continues to go higher, with a bearish divergence presence at both the daily and weekly chart, I remain cynical about the current up move. When I take up a new buy signal, I would keep a very tight stop and keep the number of contracts low. And I would of course give more weight to the sell signals. The writings are already all over the wall that we may be near a powerful bear cycle soon

Why Australia Needs Nuclear Subs

Australia’s government is considering developing the country’s own submarine fleet. It would be better off buying American.

The Australian Government is courting disaster with its approach to this country’s largest-ever defense program, the purchase of new submarines. The government seems determined to spend over $30 billion designing and building in Australia 12 new submarines that will almost certainly have serious flaws, will be delivered late, will be unnecessarily expensive and will be inadequate for our defense needs.
How could the government get itself into such a bad position? Some key decision-makers have failed to appreciate that Australia now faces a much more demanding security future. As the Pentagon’s recently released annual report on China’s military development makes clear, Beijing’s surveillance, missile, air and naval developments are transforming the strategic balance in the Western Pacific. Indeed, by 2025 China’s military power will be predominant in parts of our region.

There’s also a need to take account of China’s much more aggressive recent military operations, especially in disputed areas of the South and East China Seas. Australian security planners should do everything in their power to negotiate peaceful resolutions of these issues. They would, however, be naive to neglect strong investment in defense capabilities that can deter coercion against us in the 2025-2050 timeframe.

Advanced submarines offer special strategic leverage in the more demanding security environment that’s in store. The best submarines are highly survivable in intense military operations and have the potential to force the leadership of even a major power to pause and think carefully before attacking Australia or our key interests. They are one of only two or three military capabilities that carry this game-changing leverage. So, while Australia will always need some surface warships, armored vehicles and transport aircraft, the truth is that advanced submarines offer unique strategic advantages for us in the troubled times ahead.

All this means we need to get the new submarine program right and do so quickly. Australia has three main submarine options. The government currently favors designing and building our own unique, rather large, diesel-electric submarines, essentially a Collins Mk 2. Second, we could purchase much smaller diesel-electric submarines that are currently in production in Europe. Third, we could purchase or lease from “hot” production lines advanced nuclear-propelled submarines from the United States or Britain.

Designing and building a Collins Mk2 would probably eventually deliver a class of the largest diesel-electric submarines in the world. However, given that the government has yet to launch even preliminary design work, the first of these boats couldn’t be delivered until at least 2028 and more likely 2035-2040. Because they would be a completely new design, they would inevitably experience technical problems, would probably possess some unreliable systems and we should expect them to have relatively low availability. As these Australian-designed boats would be “orphans,” they would also be expensive to maintain and update.

Another problem with the Collins Mk2 option is that buying these boats would be very expensive. Although some parts of local industry would wish us to believe otherwise, by the time that these boats are built, drive-away costs for each boat are likely to have escalated to between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. Moreover, managing a design, development and acquisition project of this complexity may be beyond the capability of the Defence Materiel Organisation. Far worse is the prospect that by 2035, these diesel-electric boats would be vulnerable to detection – and probably early destruction – in intense combat environments.

Australia’s second submarine option is to purchase one of the much smaller class of European diesel-electric submarines. The Spanish S-80 or the German Type 214 boats could be expected to be somewhat more reliable than Australian-designed and built boats. In their most basic form, they would also be less expensive at some $500-$600 million per boat sail away. However, by the time that these boats were modified to carry some of the modern U.S.-sourced sensor, fire-control, weapons and stealth systems, their sail-away price would climb to $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion.

Because of their modest power generating capacity, small diesel-electric boats are relatively slow, have limited endurance and lack the ability to power sophisticated long-range sensors. They would be outclassed in the Western Pacific towards the middle of this century, and they wouldn’t give Australia the powerful deterrent it needs.

The third option is an off-the-shelf purchase or lease of either American Virginia Class or British Astute Class nuclear-powered attack submarines. These boats are at the cutting edge of submarine technology, offer operational dominance in the Western Pacific till at least 2050 and would deliver powerful deterrence against any serious coercion of Australia in this timeframe.

The Virginia and Astute classes are fast and possess almost unlimited endurance. They carry sensors with extraordinary performance such that they can routinely “see” potential opponents well before they themselves can be detected, often at trans-oceanic distances. They have also been designed from scratch to be very flexible and perform a broader range of functions of relevance to Australia.

Both of these submarine classes are in series production. The contract for the 14^th Virginia was recently signed for a price of $1.2 billion, but by the time that they are fully fitted out, the sail-away price is $2.5 billion. These boats have now been thoroughly sorted, are demonstrating exceptional operational performance and high reliability and would bring with them class-wide training and upgrade programs.

The most obvious obstacle to an Australian purchase of Virginias or Astutes is that these boats are nuclear-powered. However, their propulsion systems have an exemplary track record, their reactors never need to be refueled and if the boats were leased – say for 30 years – they could be handed back to the suppliers for disposal.

Given these circumstances, one would think that the choice of new submarines for Australia was clear-cut. By far the most capable, lowest risk, most reliable and probably in the long run the most affordable submarines are the Virginias (and possibly the Astutes). The acquisition of 12 of these boats would herald a new level of operational partnership with the United States and substantially strengthen Australia’s contribution to allied operations in the Western Pacific. Canberra’s diplomatic clout in Washington and across the Asia-Pacific would be greatly enhanced. But, most importantly, Australia would have bought an effective insurance policy against the danger of serious coercion or attack during the coming 40 years.