Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 13, 2018

Syria - Volume of Al-Qaeda Propaganda Forecasts Syrian Army Success

The success of the current Syrian government operations against al-Qaeda in Idleb governorate can be measured by the volume of U.S. propaganda against it. A similar situation occurred when Aleppo was liberated from al-Qaeda's control. Certain U.S. media, (non-)government-organizations and politicians obviously prefer Takfiri al-Qaeda rule in Syria over control by the legitimated secular government.

According to the various streams of such propaganda Idleb is crowded with hospitals, bakeries and little children who all get "barrel bombed" by the nefarious Iranians and Russians while no Takfiri militant can ever be seen.

Amnesty International, which famously begged "NATO: KEEP THE PROGRESS GOING" in Afghanistan, is again on the forefront:

Amnesty International‏ @amnesty - 3:41 PM - 12 Jan 2018
We’re outraged by the attacks on civilians in #Idlib governorate which hosts thousands of internally displaced people from across #Syria. They now have nowhere else to flee to anymore.

The tweet is decorated with a picture of al-Qaeda's first aid mercenaries, the White Helmets, who are paid by the British and other governments and receive propaganda cover from British media.

The overpaid (more than $450,000 pa) eternal leader of Human Rights Watch, Ken Roth chips in:

Kenneth Roth @KenRoth - 11:47 PM - 12 Jan 2018
Putin-Assad fooled Great Negotiator Trump into believing Syrian "de-escalation zone" would mean a halt in attacks on civilians rather than just a lull to regroup.

Roth links to a Washington Post editorial which finds that fighting al-Qaeda in Idleb is not in the interest of the United States:

[Trump officials] are playing down the Idlib fighting on the grounds that the area is dominated by al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups.
...
While extremist groups control a large part of Idlib, Turkey says moderate Free Syrian Army units are involved in the fighting — an assertion that we also heard from several FSA leaders now visiting Washington.
...
[I]f the offensive is successful, the result will be the further entrenchment in Syria of not just Russia but also Iran, the Assad regime’s closest ally.

The United States, in short, stands to lose — again — to Russia in Syria.

The Washington Post bureau chief in Beirut adds her half cent by lauding a propagandist for the al-Qaeda death-cult in Idleb as "brave journalist":

Liz Sly‏ @LizSly - 9:06 PM - 11 Jan 2018
This Syrian journalist, standing in an open field while bombs explode all around him, is very lucky to be alive. No flak jacket or helmet. You can barely hear him above the explosions. He and his colleagues are very brave.

The neoconservative WaPo editors picked their idea from the notorious propaganda outlet Institute for the Study of War. When the de-escalation zones where introduced in Syria through negotiations between Russia, Iran, Turkey and the U.S., al-Qaeda and the Islamic State were excluded. Associated Press reported at that time:

[The deal] also calls for the continued fight against IS and former Al-Qaeda affiliate Fateh Al-Sham Front

Al-Qaeda itself denounced any de-escalation agreement and promised to continue fighting.

The ISW recognized that at that time and pointed out that al-Qaeda is the real danger in the deal:

The ceasefire deal will provide Al Qaeda with time and space to further network itself within the opposition, including through local governance and security structures.
...
Syrian rebels have expressed dissatisfaction over U.S. demands to abandon the fight against President Assad and decreased U.S. support to rebels. Al Qaeda will exploit these grievances and attempt to fill the vacuum. Al Qaeda will position itself to eventually spoil the agreement, but will do so in a timeframe that supports its own interests.

That al-Qaeda is the main ruling and fighting power in Idelb, is excluded from the de-escalation deal and tries to break it is now conveniently forgotten. In its newest efforts the ISW even claims that attacks on al-Qaeda violate the de-escalation agreement:

Russia, Iran, and Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s regime launched a joint operation in northwestern Syria against the al Qaeda stronghold in Idlib Province in November 2017.
...
The pro-regime offensive violates the “de-escalation” zone in Idlib Province.

That is an obvious lie. The various UN Security Council resolutions on Syria demand "to eradicate the safe haven [al-Qaeda and ISIS] have established over significant parts of Syria". But the ISW now believes that fighting al-Qaeda is not in U.S. interests:

A pro-regime campaign to seize Idlib Province is not in America’s interest. The extension of Assad’s control produces a corollary extension of Iran’s military footprint and leverage in Syria.
...
Neither Turkey nor Russia can deliver an outcome in Syria that supports US interests. The US should help Turkey block pro-regime operations that will cause further humanitarian catastrophe. The US must refrain from accepting either Russia’s diplomatic play or Turkey’s relationship with al Qaeda, however. The US must instead retain freedom of action and avoid the temptation to outsource American national security requirements to regional actors already at war in Syria.

What does that actually say? What action would the ISW or the Washington Post editors like to see? Turkey attacking Syrian and Russian forces in Syria  to prevent further attacks on al-Qaeda? An occupation of al-Qaeda held Idleb by U.S. forces against the will of Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia? By what means?

Neither the ISW nor the Washington Post offer concrete advice. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do not further any idea on how to solve the issue. They seem to prefer that civilians living in Idleb stay under the deadly ruled of religious fanatics who's ideal of "liberated women" (video) are walking black tents.

Thankfully larger scale military action against Syria by either Turkey or the U.S. is now unlikely. The bloody liberation of Idleb governorate from al-Qaeda will proceed. The propaganda wave against it lets one assume that it will be successful. This makes it even less understandable why the above outlets continue with their efforts. What again do they hope to achieve?

Posted by b on January 13, 2018 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

Comments

This situation in Syria is obvious, the empire's goals are the same as they ever were. To maintain a presence, no matter the legality, to effect regime change.

Russia, Syria and Iran should give the U$ a time frame for their withdrawal, and enforce it. But, they won't, so, it's more of the same for the indefinite future...

Posted by: ben | Jan 13, 2018 11:22:04 AM | 1

again, thanks b.

Posted by: annie | Jan 13, 2018 11:33:51 AM | 2

I see Masdar is going wild today with Syrian army advances in Idlib. Sounds significant.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 13, 2018 11:34:47 AM | 3

thanks b.. the lack of success on the ground is probably proportionate to the degree of propaganda spewed..as you note - same deal in the earlier war in aleppo.. funny how it never happened with raqqa, but that was because the usa's saints were doing it...

would be nice if the usa regime propagandists stopped using such words as regime to define others.. it must be embarrassing for them at some point.

Posted by: james | Jan 13, 2018 11:42:25 AM | 4

About successes of SAA: in the last 2-3 days the map of control changed quite a bit. While the Tigers were stopped in front of Abu al-Duhur town and airports, and had to repel the initially successful attack on their west flank, some chaos ensued to the east, with many "moderate jihadists" switching to ISIS, ISIS advancing againt jihadists and having some fights with SAA, and in the same time, non-Tiger SAA forces advanced, now from at least 3 directions and they seem to be in the process of taking over the entire area to the north-east of Abu al-Duhur: some putative defenders defected to ISIS, some are going west, perhaps to defend Abu-al-Duhur.

Soon Aleppo will be connected to the rest of government controlled Syria by at least two additional highways, each much shorter than the current Khanasser route, and it will proceed to regain its place as the most economically important city of Syria. Jihadists will be consumed by recriminations and apparently futile search for effective leadership.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 13, 2018 11:45:46 AM | 5

Thank you b, I was confused by what seemed to be happening/not happening there. In answer to "What again do they[US] hope to achieve?" What they want to achieve is chaos. It's their brand.:)
It feeds the end of civil liberties at home, justifies ever increasing reductions in public services funding in favor of ever increasing military expenditures, all a win-win for Team Chaos.

Posted by: frances | Jan 13, 2018 11:46:23 AM | 6

Washington and Foggy Bottom surely are running (have run) out of concrete options if all they can do is trot out #HolocaustSyria2.0. Bravo on HRW and AI for jumping on the bandwagon and further discrediting themselves in the eyes of the world. Less and less people are buying into their BS, and the ones who do are getting quieter and quieter. Even Ms Sly (what an apt name!) had to go into damage mode, saying she didn't "praise" Abu Omar, merely just commenting on his objective "bravery", LO-f-ing-L.

With Erdogan coming out and stating that Manbij and Afrin must kick out the YPG within a week or else the Turks will, I'm wondering if that's the reason for Putin's seemingly unending patience with the Turkish Sultan-in-waiting. Let Turkey did the dirty work of smashing the Kurds before delivering (willingly or not) the area back to Russia and Syria. Once again, I'm envisioning a de facto buffer zone being granted to them for their troubles. Either way, Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow will continue to reclaim the entirety of Syria.

Posted by: Don Wiscacho | Jan 13, 2018 11:50:16 AM | 7

Looks as though the SAA are doing well in East Ghouta too:

"Syrian war: Reports of chlorine gas attack on rebel-held Eastern Ghouta"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42675657

Posted by: johnf | Jan 13, 2018 12:28:02 PM | 8

i agree with amnasty huma rights watch brookings and chatham house rules in these regardings.
like libya and saddam hussein new hitler and now assad new new hitler we need to help these innoscent.
we all read the story arc of anne franks trapped in the cellars of belgo antwerp writing in her diary with ball point pens not yet invented.
we saw the bbc film of the kinder transport think of the childs.we said nevers again and here we are agaian and and again and a gain.
always the usual suspects let us get behind erdogan,netanyahoo,donald trumpet and his generals cia and the city of london eyes wide shuts masons.

give israel the compensations funds and depleted uranium munitions to finish this arab iran problem off for at least the half life of plutinium 232/

Posted by: dirk vanderpumpsachscoburgotha | Jan 13, 2018 1:25:23 PM | 9

The Hats and uniforms are too clean. People that rely on safety equipment fetishize their stuff for good luck, and have serious demeaners (another selfie , dude?). I realise that the Oscar Awards (and all TV) is a national security interest, but the Art Director, the script girl, and continuity people of Bell Potted-grr Productions only deserve Emmy's. There, I fixated it for me.
Nepotism has brought progressively less- worthwhile people to power. !Jeb! versus Hillarity was the card, but the coin landed on it's edge, with another spoiled (with love) knob in search of ideas. How about a reconcilliation tour for all that approved of this shit. I thought, maybe, start at Abu Graib, but that's as far as I got.
Good health, and luck in love for the change of seasons b, and all

Posted by: failure of imagination | Jan 13, 2018 1:55:02 PM | 10

This makes it even less understandable why the above outlets continue with their efforts. What again do they hope to achieve

well, $450,000 a year is certainly a great motivator. pay these goobers 10 or 15 bucks an hour and you'd probably have an unruly stable.

as far as what they hope to achieve, well, i doubt many of them even think that far.

Posted by: john | Jan 13, 2018 2:18:21 PM | 11

9
tim bellend pottinger is a fine man who loves childrens like many of margaret thatcheds queens men.
nobody has done more aprt from sir jimmy of saville for charity in this regards.
so what if mi6 sas assassin are in white hell mutts this is a goodly thing.
it is only when you have killed many for oded yinon and the city of london new york
only when you have much blood on your clothing from masonic ritual can you have the corrected mindset to do the brave messy tight filming shooting schedules of the hell mutts.
bell potty syriania produxtions may have been given a billion but imagine how good the movies and story would be if they had of been given a decent budget.
tim bo does the best he can with the pounds,dollars and sheckles he has

Posted by: dirk vanderpumpsachscoburgotha | Jan 13, 2018 2:24:09 PM | 12

I'm starting to really like this dirk vanderpumpsachscoburgotha guy...

This situation now requires a little levity...

It is quite funny to see AI and HRW now going into contortions...but too bad Nobody is watching...

Syria is over as far as Joe and Jane Lunchpail are concerned...

the fake news networks will get the message soon enough that the sheeple have moved on and do not care to see any more about Syria on their idiot screens...

It's all pretty funny now really...tragicomedy at best...

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 2:30:17 PM | 13

IMO, no one in the world except for the Langley boys, care to read, fallow or listen to what the shitholes like amnesty international or Human fuck watch says.

Posted by: Kooshy | Jan 13, 2018 2:59:21 PM | 14

"... The bloody liberation of Idleb governorate from al-Qaeda will proceed. The propaganda wave against it lets one assume that it will be successful. This makes it even less understandable why the [Institute for the Study of War and The Washington Post] continue with their efforts. What again do they hope to achieve?"

There's a term used in economics and behavioural psychology, "escalation of commitment", that describes the thinking and behaviours behind this phenomenon of throwing more effort, time, money and resources into a failing project in the vain hope that one day the pay-off (in spite of past results) will be huge. A related phenomenon, well known in economics, is the sunk cost fallacy. In popular parlance, this is "good money being thrown after bad".

Barry Schwartz, "The Sunk-Cost Fallacy - Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2005/09/the_sunkcost_fallacy.html

In the context of this MoA post, the sunk costs are the extent to which media outlets like The WaPo, The Guardian, the BBC and others have gone, the amounts they have spent, and moreover the risks they have taken with their reputations (and the consequences that would follow) and in judging the gullibility and loyalty of their audiences, in propping up a false worldview that continues to fall apart, to appease their masters.

Posted by: Jen | Jan 13, 2018 3:16:57 PM | 15

We interrupt our regular propaganda for
this important message:
"The guy in North Korea has fired several
missiles targeting Hawai'i. Please return
to your homes and stay calm".

No, this is not a joke. This happened this
morning when I was driving to our village.
Cops were driving around with their windows
open, telling everybody the above lines.

People freaked out quite easily, but some
did not. I was one of them. This was the
official alert message on my 'smart' phone:

"EMERGENCYALERT: EXTREME
08:07:29 AM 01-13-2018
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND
TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER.
THIS IS NOT A DRILL."

Followed by:

"EMERGENCY ALERT: EXTREME
There is no missile threat
or danger to the State of
Hawaii. Repeat. False Alarm."

So much for promoting Hawai'i
as a highly sought tourist
destination.

Back to regular business as
usual now.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: nottheonly1 | Jan 13, 2018 3:31:55 PM | 16

Thank you b for this post and may the year be kind on your spirit. Yesterday while chasing middle east news I came across a bs story of chlorine barrel bombs being dropped on poor defenceless al qaeda in east damascus. Laughed and laughed at the pathetic propaganda drivel and then there was a picture of a brave defender with a çlean, freshy ironed handkerchief covering their nose and mouth. I poured a margarita and sipped tequila and visualised peace. No wonder the mexicans despise the yankees, what ugly neighbours.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jan 13, 2018 3:32:21 PM | 17

@17

I forgot to add the time for the
second message:
08:45:21 AM 01-13-2018

So, we had 38 minutes of Dr. Stranglove,
but nobody in East Hawai'i gave a shit.

Posted by: nottheonly1 | Jan 13, 2018 3:48:13 PM | 18

@nottheonly1 | Jan 13, 2018 3:31:55 PM | 15

It seems that someone pushed the wrong button in the change over of a shift...

‘This is not a drill’: Hawaii gets ballistic missile alert ‘by mistake’

I hope The Donald in his usual delusional megalomaniacal mood does not push his mega nuclear button by error in a hangover out of one of his usual bellyful of Big Macs...

Posted by: elsi | Jan 13, 2018 3:54:11 PM | 19

Including a video with the confession:

A member of the White Helmets confesses before the cameras the manipulations during the Syrian War

A member of the White Helmets has confessed before the cameras his manipulations during the Syrian War, in which they staged alleged massacres including underage children to discredit the government of Bashar Al-Assad.

The White Helmets are a part of Al-Qaeda created in 2013 and, as it could not be otherwise, there is nothing else behind that the war propaganda, the smoke screens and the media intoxication. Let's see some headlines of fascist media, only a few, not to exhaust the patience of the long-suffering reader:

- The only crack of light in a particularly dark world (La Sexta)
- The 'white helmets' that save lives amid debris in Syria (El País)
- The 'White Helmets': volunteers offering primary care to the wounded in Syria (Doctors Without Borders)
- Who are the 'White Helmets' and why do they consider them heroes (One Magazine)
- The anonymous saviors of Syria (The Day)

This false humanitarian organization has not only falsified its work but has been one of the elements of struggle used by imperialism against Syria. They are the humanitarian front that detracts from the reality of a war of aggression.

Posted by: elsi | Jan 13, 2018 4:17:02 PM | 20

Allow me to summarize the 'human rights' philosophy of Ken Roth and HRW:

"We are sincerely for the human rights of whoever is fighting against the official enemies of the USA. We don't care about the human rights of anyone else."

Posted by: WorldBLee | Jan 13, 2018 4:19:03 PM | 21

Kooshy@13 - "IMO, no one in the world except for the Langley boys, care to read, fallow or listen to what the shitholes like amnesty international or Human fuck watch says.

Huh? Why would we care? We're busy gathering actionable (profitable) capital markets intel for our bosses at Goldman-Sachs. When we're not doing that, we're feeding fake leaks to Fox News for Trump's consumption and running our arms ratlines to various Iranian opposition groups. We're at war with them, you know.

Syria is so... how should I say? So yesterday here at Langley. I think the U.S. State Department knuckle-draggers and a few MI6 bankster-waterboys trying to remain relevant are still involved. There *is* still a boatload of MB jihadi support cash to be had from the stupid Qataris (at least until we regime-change them with our UAE mercs - then their damn gold is OURS). The Israelis and their armed forces (CENTCOM) are still flailing about in Syria, but accomplishing nothing since their embarrassing defeat. We pulled the plug on our Rojava project, but Mattis won't let go of that train-wreck quite yet. Not sure why, but we don't really care - the Pentagon is mostly irrelevant as usual. Turkey is... well, we're not sure what Sideshow Recep is up to. Don't care there, either, but certainly wouldn't want to be a Kurd nowadays. They knew the backstabbing was coming. Hope they're prepared.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jan 13, 2018 4:40:21 PM | 22

The empire is desperate, its whole Middle East policy is bound up in regime change in Syria [the low hanging fruit] without such change in Syria, Hezbollah and Iran grow stronger and the US friends Israel and Saudi Arabia grow noticeably weaker. In fact the plight of the middle East depends on Syria surviving as an intact independent sovereign state. The last card the US has is a partitioned North Eastern Syria led by however many Kurds are influenced by US promises. If such an entity is set up [outside Syrian Sovereignty] It would be landlocked and at war with Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran with no hope of success. I suspect all those opposition states will make the Kurds an offer they cannot refuse [some kind of administrative devolution], firmly within a Syrian sovereign state, and on the basis that their are no US troops on Syrian soil. Those negotiations are only weeks away at Astana

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 13, 2018 4:41:56 PM | 23

Institute for the Study (and Promotion) of War is led by 4-star Jack Keane, who is on Fox Business News and Fox News five times a week, several shows a day. He has a stellar career of failure to earn those 4-Stars.

The Ghoul and his staff of specialists, most of whom have no or weak credentials, gin up the need to wage war everywhere.
Ukraine, Korea, South China Sea, Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Libya (again), Horn of Africa, Sub-Sahara, and wherever a Russian, a Chinese, an Iranian has ever set foot. Everywhere is strategic and in need of war.

Glad to see the ISW featured here for the dolts and idiot warmongers they are.

The basis of their ideology is the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are in an unholy alliance to knock off the US from its hegemonic rule of the world. Imagine the fear and loathing produced by that concept. The US must be the one Kingdom ruler of the planet, Space and Cyberworld. Anything that changes that paradigm is evil and must be bombed forthwith.

If only General Jack Keane had more cruise missiles—

He'd "Study War" on every hectare of Earth held by a Chinaman, Russian or Iranian. General Jack loves to fire those missiles.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Jan 13, 2018 4:57:43 PM | 24

@PavewayIV

The shithead boys in Langley, have been kicked in thier asses in every thater in ME ever since the Iranian revolution, they all know that and nothing can change that fact.

Posted by: kooshy | Jan 13, 2018 5:22:17 PM | 25

Erdogan is desperate for a success to boost his prestige after the succession of diplomatic failures: The EU says NO to access negotiations, the USA threatens of economic sanctions over Turkey's illegal deals with Iran, Russia is pushing to destroy Turkey's Syrians opposition proteges and the Syrian army may cause another wave of refugees 'invading' Turkey.
Erdogna now announces military action on the Syrian Kurds, an invasion of Syrians lands.
That would be another disaster and Erdogan will come out even weaker.
Hopefully, elections in 2019 may see the end of his political career.

Posted by: Virgile | Jan 13, 2018 5:50:07 PM | 26

kooshy@24 - Awww... You still think that the US deep state objectives in the Middle East are 'successful regime-change' and we just keep getting our asses kicked. Yeah, sure... that explains everything. Let's go with that.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jan 13, 2018 5:53:47 PM | 27

From James Carden's article in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/new-poll-shows-public-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-endless-us-military-interventions/

(this may come as a shock but this is what the American people, not their leaders want)

The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter sentiment “increases significantly” when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid—including money and weapons—should not be provided to such countries.

The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas in three specific ways:

* by requiring “clearly defined goals to authorize military engagement” (78.8 percent);
* by requiring Congress “to have both oversight and accountability regarding where troops are stationed” (77 percent);
* by requiring that “any donation of funds or equipment to a foreign country be matched by a pledge of that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention” (84.8 percent).

The survey found that 78 percent of Democrats, 64.5 percent of Republicans, and 68.8 percent of independents supported restraining military action overseas. “Rarely,” noted the report, “does opinion research reveal issues that enjoy shared sentiments on a bi-partisan level.”

The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War.

Posted by: SteveK9 | Jan 13, 2018 6:07:18 PM | 28

@27 -- "...a pledge of that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention” (84.8 percent)."

So perhaps that explains why Cuba won't get any help until they close that shithole torture camp on their Island called Gitmo Bay?

Posted by: x | Jan 13, 2018 6:31:53 PM | 29

Heads up...great segment on RT news about the terrorist 'journalist' and the WaPo's Liz Sly tweet praising his bravery...[starts at 7 munute mark...]

It seems this Taher Al-Umar is quite the piece of work...in one of his tweets from last August he crowed this...

'...Shiite militia turned into minced meat on Syria-Iraq border. Five ISIL vehicles packed with explosives went off.

60 killed, dozens inujured.Now I'm satisfied...

The segment shows his links with top level terror leaders...

Even the 'reporter' Liz Sly responded to a call for comment from RT...trying to defend the indefensible...

'...I dispute that I gave "praise" to the journalist or his journalism...

I pointed out that standing in a field and continuing to talk while explosions are going off all around you is brave...'

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 6:45:15 PM | 30

@27 ....requiring Congress “to have both oversight and accountability regarding where troops are stationed”

Congress already has that. They just don't use it.

Posted by: dh | Jan 13, 2018 6:51:46 PM | 31

I must confess that I failed to realize that Amnesty International was little more than a front for US/UK foreign policy interests until a few years ago. Here is some history that I just learned last week (surely many here are and have been aware of this). Peter Benenson founded AI in 1966 and was the first executive secretary from 1961-1967. In 1966 he complained that British intelligence had infiltrated AI at the operational level and the Board of Directors. Later he claimed that the CIA had also penetrated AI. These claims could not be confirmed by an "independent" investigation and Benenson was forced out as Director.

In any case it looks like AI as well as HRW are barely concealed fronts for American and British foreign ministries and their intelligence agencies. And this has been going on for many decades.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 13, 2018 6:56:25 PM | 32

@ 29

It must be good to be so full of yourself

Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 13, 2018 7:02:19 PM | 33

31
so what if mossadcia and mi6mossad run amnasty internashpullit is it better to infiltrate the host and direct it rather than let it run about lost and out of control.
where would are lambs be without are judas goats
up in the hills and not on the plates no sir that wil not do
every organ and system has been vaccinated against anti semitism by the prudent injection of sayanim hasbara anti virus

Posted by: dirk mantherpump icebergahead | Jan 13, 2018 7:10:38 PM | 34

Good info @31 about AI...

I think everyone knows by now that Soros in 2007 gave $100 million to HRW...to be spread over 10 years...

HRW even brags about it on its own site...

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 7:15:43 PM | 35

@ 29

Haw Haw Haw: Haw: the fruit of the hawthorn. Village idiot.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 13, 2018 7:18:23 PM | 36

Guttersnipe @32 wonders...

'...It must be good to be so full of yourself...

Not bad actually...thanks for asking...

Regards,

FB

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 7:18:31 PM | 37

Lochearn @35...

Holy smokes man...do you need to take some kind of pill...?

Bitterness is not good for you...

Regards,

Yours Truly...

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 7:21:04 PM | 38

@20 worldblee.. that sums roth up pretty well. thanks.

@27 stevek9 quote from article you link to

"The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War."

yes, and yet nothing ever changes in all of it.. there is money in pushing war and the prospect of war.. the think tanks, media outlets and political class all know this, as they cater to the financial, military and energy complex.. they could just as easily work for the white helmets, or be lucky enough to get a gig like liz sly at some foreign bureau of bullshit... kenneth roth - another loser who has made his fortune peddling lies and supposition thru hrw is another example... but indeed - it is not what most americans want and that can't be stated often enough.. thanks for your post highlighting this.

@31 toivos.. thanks.. i didn't know that history.. i have seen too many fabrications spread by hrw to believe it was anything other then a slightly more sophisticated way to spread propaganda.. many folks won't question hwr thanks the guise of a humanitarian organization which is obviously the right image to use to get a pass.. image is everything, substance often times, not so much..

Posted by: james | Jan 13, 2018 7:29:43 PM | 39

The US plan is to maintain 3 enclaves of opposition to Damascus. Idlib, east of euphrates and East Ghouta. It was always in the plan to seize the land east of the euphrates. They will attempt to set up an alternative Syrian government there in Raqqa. If hostilities arise, they will establish a no fly zone east of the euphrates.

Posted by: Hermius | Jan 13, 2018 8:25:02 PM | 40

'...If hostilities arise, they will establish a no fly zone east of the euphrates [sic]...'

That's only in the wet dreams of the armchair generals at ISW...

Only UNSC can authorize a no-fly zone...never gonna happen...

US is lucky Russians are still letting them fly over Syria at all...

Besides US no fly zones only work against defenseless third world countries...Russian pilots will call any US bluff...you can be sure of that...and USAF knows this...

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 8:38:04 PM | 41

"The poll brings home just how divorced the Beltway—and its think tanks, media outlets, and political class—is from the expressed desire of a large majority of Americans for a responsible and reasonable foreign policy, a policy that, arguably, has been absent since the end of the Cold War."

Personally, I think that a jab against the Beltway is not warranted, from my experience it is a rather inoffensive structure, and quite frequently you can drive there at a decent speed -- I mean, you do not get traffic jams all the time but only at certain hours. The poll was about rather inane proposal of a new legislation, so "overwhelming support" means that American public likes inane legislation, something like putting Lake Champlain on the list of Great Lakes. Is it really inane? Military actions should have

1. Clearly define goals. Like spreading truth, justice and American way. If this is not sufficiently clear, look into you old copies of Marvel comics, and if you do not have any, order from an online vendor of your choice. Another good clear goal is throwing a gauntlet in the face of tyranny. More recent, heeding the needs of victims of the worst tyrant EVER, topping Attilla and Gingis Khan (explanation to protesting Mongolian embassy: we are specifically claiming that Gingis Khan is not the worst ever, so please do not take an offense). And most seriously, how one can define what a "clearly defined goal" is? We know the current practice -- some lowly official in DoS will head a committee that will duly certify that the goals are clear.

2. Congress should have oversight and accountibility concerning where our troops are stationed. At the first glance, seems clear. Like authorization to invade Tuvalu, which I always advocate, should not be used to occupy New Zealand. But we would need some logistic chain, and thus a few troops guarding the supplies for Tuvalian campaign that are positioned in New Zealand. Following that logic, few countries are not graced with at least several active duty members of US armed forces, like several US Marines guarding the embassy. So we do have men in New Zealand already. Perhaps we want to restrict their activities in some way? But which way -- as I wrote, not clear.

3. ... “any donation of funds or equipment to a foreign country be matched by a pledge of that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention” (84.8 percent). He he. Another lowly official in DoS will have to produce the pledge.

=====

It would be a bit bolder to forbid activities that violate the law, including UN Charter and other international treaties that were ratified before "we knew any better." Even if it just requires another pile of paper work that uses twisted logic, that would be somewhat more tangible.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 13, 2018 8:56:24 PM | 42

Which way Erdogan goes is perhaps key to what happens in Syria next. On one hand the US are backing the Kurds, plus the attempted coup, on the other, Russia is destroying the jihadists in Idlib that are interchangeable with his support/voter base. On the one hand he will work with Russia if that helps stop Kurds grabbing more territory, on the other he will work with US/Saudi ect to prevent defeat of of his jihadi's in Syria. Erdo also recently moved some air defences into Syria.

Enjoyable checking on the Syrian Civil War map lately, watching Erdo, MBS, Langley boys being rolled out of southern Idlib, south west Aleppo so quickly.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 13, 2018 9:18:16 PM | 43

"The basis of their ideology is the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are in an unholy alliance to knock off the US from its hegemonic rule of the world."

Posted by: Red Ryder | Jan 13, 2018 4:57:43 PM | 23

In fact, they are. I'm rootin' for 'em.

Posted by: William Rood | Jan 13, 2018 9:27:08 PM | 44

Jewishpress claiming another chlorine attack on civilians by Assad.
Haven't seen it anywhere else yet.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle-east/syria/assad-regime-attacks-civilian-area-near-damascus-with-chemical-weapons/2018/01/13/

Posted by: Wwinsti | Jan 13, 2018 9:40:41 PM | 45

WR @ 43 said:"In fact, they are. I'm rootin' for 'em."

I'll second that...

Posted by: ben | Jan 13, 2018 9:58:24 PM | 46

It's safe to say that all patrons of MoA are rootin' for 'em.

Posted by: Ian | Jan 13, 2018 10:02:31 PM | 47

yep, count me in

Posted by: annie | Jan 13, 2018 10:54:48 PM | 48

reply to 44
The Daily Mail, bless 'em have a story up on that "attack" and are getting trashed by their readers, no one is buying the story. Nice to see how quickly false flag stories are outed now in most MSM by their readership when allowed to comment.

Posted by: frances | Jan 13, 2018 11:07:51 PM | 49

What do they hope to achieve? Seriously, has nobody come to grips with the fact that this is all about economics, that’s why America and Russia are contesting Syria? Like the Soviet citizen said, you can’t trust the governments on this, they lie about themselves, but not about their opponents.

“13. (S/NF) Sheikh Khalid voiced concern about the proposed Qatar-Iran-Turkey oil pipeline. This pipeline would only strengthen Iran. The FM thought it would be wiser if the pipeline were redirected to run through GCC countries instead of Iran. He stated that Qatar should be convinced of this as well.
CLINTON “

https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE26756_a.html

That’s the game; the US doesn’t want Iran and Syria and Lebanon to open a gas pipeline to Europe; Russia wants Gazprom to have access to that corridor, end of story. Of course, with global warming on the horizon, we should all just go with China’s renewable energy play, something neither the Russia-bots nor the America-bots want to contemplate, as it puts them in second-class status, right?

That’s what they hope to achieve, anyway. . . Just a couple of sad ex-superpowers trying to retain their relevance in a changing world. The whole Middle East should kick out both Russia and America, and instead cut a deal with China for vast renewable solar power production, that’s the way forward. The only obstacle is the House of Saud and the Israeli nuclear weapons program, both of which have to be talked down gently - let them know they won’t be excluded, that’s all.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jan 13, 2018 11:27:07 PM | 50

Now I see why they call you the nonsense factory...

China's renewable energy chimera...?

Come on man...who do you think you're kidding...?

What's going to happen when one billion Chinese all have cars...?

Have you ever done the math on solar energy...?

You would need to cover every square foot of land surface on earth to make enough electricity to run the modern world...

And don't tell me about the battery car hype...I know all about it...where's the electricity going to come from to charge those batteries...?

What about trucks...are they going to run on batteries too...?

100 years ago all land freight went by train or mule...today it is all trucks...ever been on a highway lately...anywhere in the world...?

All big diesel rigs spouting pollutants into the air like there's no tomorrow...which there isn't...as long as you need to fill zillions of walmart and amazon shelves with crap...

Day in and day out...it all goes by truck...even the food you eat is trucked all the way from Mexico...

Besides you are missing the point badly...

The pipeline war is not nearly as important as how the hydrocarbons are going to be paid for...not going to be petrodollars for much longer...

As soon as that free ride ends the US turns to dust overnight...

Syria is important for one reason only...

Stopping the US war/business machine in its tracks...the first and key step to many more successes to come...

Posted by: FB | Jan 13, 2018 11:54:58 PM | 51

FB says:

All big diesel rigs spouting pollutants into the air like there's no tomorrow...which there isn't...as long as you need to fill zillions of walmart and amazon shelves with crap...

yeah, whenever the bin laden wars finally wind down, and the middle kingdom gets its polyester, err, i mean silk road up and running, i think we'll see the last onslaught of economic activity on planet earth...

...then it's back to donkeys and carts.

Posted by: john | Jan 14, 2018 6:58:36 AM | 52

Said it for me too to nonsense factory, FB

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Jan 14, 2018 7:46:39 AM | 53

John...

I actually think there is a lot to be said for the donkey cart...

I fled the urban jungle for hillbillyland 25 years ago...have a couple of horses on the farm...beautiful animals...

Some of my neighbors even have restored or new-built carriages...there's guys setting up shop making wood wagon wheels...horse tack etc...

Nothing like a ride in the country in a nice carriage...four-in-hand with some good trotters and you will get there quick enough...

I'm still punching my card until I live there permanently...but this is the life...we put in a truck garden every year and have enough to feed not just our family but plenty to give away...the health aspect is incredible...

Ever had a real hobby farm egg...the kind where a handful of hens is out grazing all day...?

I only mentioned China...what happens when another billion Indians and two billion Africans all have cars too...and all those trucks shipping in crap for even more zillions of shelves...

Solar is a PR stunt driven by the mighty semiconductor industry...yes...solar panels are wafer semiconductors...

It is amazing how stupid people are...

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 9:28:56 AM | 54

FB says:

I actually think there is a lot to be said for the donkey cart...

yeah, me too, i wasn't being facetious.

Posted by: john | Jan 14, 2018 10:04:48 AM | 55

John...didn't mean to imply you were...I know an intelligent comment when I see it...

Cheers...FB

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 10:06:18 AM | 56

@54 Donkeys may be in short supply soon if the demand for their skins keeps up.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/29/donkey-skin-chinese-medicine-slaughter-price

Posted by: dh | Jan 14, 2018 10:56:41 AM | 57

excellent post!

'What again do they hope to achieve?...'

these people have become mini-industries. sadly, they continue to carry on, at this point, simply to justify their own existence :) ...

Posted by: semiconscious | Jan 14, 2018 11:08:47 AM | 58

Surely the only endgame that US, Saudi and Israel are interested in is whether the natural gas (2/3rds in Iran, 1/3rd in Qatar) eventually travels via the Shia crescent or via Saudi and a Syria under their control

Posted by: Johnny | Jan 14, 2018 12:18:21 PM | 59

FB @ 51 says: You would need to cover every square foot of land surface on earth to make enough electricity to run the modern world..

Say FB do you have a link to this claim. I have wondered about this myself. I did a quick check and found that there is about 5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet. You do seem to have some technical knowledge about how this world works so I am interested in how you came up with that above statement.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 14, 2018 2:41:00 PM | 60

Toivos...

to get a precise answer as to how much solar panel area is required to meet the entire world energy needs is not a difficult problem...

...but it does involve a lot of work and much data about hours of sunlight in various places and latitudes...how much the sun energy on a plane varies with inclination [ie sun angle at various times of day] etc...

There is much more to consider however...which many of these PR claims do not even know are real physical facts...

Let us start with the basics...

The foundation of our planet's entire biosphere is our atmosphere...

The atmosphere is driven by one thing and one thing only...energy from the sun...

The sun heats up the land surface...and to a lesser extent the sea surface by means of radiation...

This causes an increase in temperature of those surfaces...both land and water...which then pass that heat on to the air layer directly in contact with those surfaces...by means of conduction...

Once those lower strata of the atmosphere have been warmed...the process of natural convection takes over and distributes that heat energy throughout the atmosphere...

This is most evident in rising air columns on which eagles and other birds glide...[as well as sailplanes and hang gliders]...

All of this is what drives our entire planetary climate system...all of our planet's weather is driven by one single energy source...the sun...

Now...using your figure of one fifth of that energy to be diverted to making electricity...what do you think would happen to our biosphere...?

It would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions...

You cannot simply drain away a big chunk of the driving energy of our biosphere and just wave it off...

That is not how nature works...this is all part of the science of Thermodynamics...

Consider for a moment what happens when you put a refrigerator in a room...

the refrigerator motor will give off heat to the room...while taking heat out of the space within the refrigerator...

In fact...it will give much more heat off..than it will take away...for the simple reason that no energy conversion can be 100 percent efficient...and the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle is far from even 50 percent efficient...

The guiding physical principle behind this is the Law of Conservation of Energy...

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed...

If we were to draw off huge amounts of solar energy it would quite simply devastate our entire biosphere...that is simple physics...

So it matters not how much area it would take to make the electricity we need...the limiting factor is the ability of our energy-driven biosphere to sustain itself once we start taking energy out...

There is no free lunch...you won't hear this from the PR hype funded by the semiconductor industry...

The bottom line is that even if we could...we could only divert a very small fraction of the sun's energy reaching our planet...unless we want to destroy it...

There is no free lunch in the physical world we live in...

The best method for generating energy...all things considered...is nuclear...

Look at the energy density of various fuels...Uranium contains 80 million Megajoules per kilogram...

Gasoline is 46 MJ/kg...that means that one single kg of Uranium contains as much energy as 17 million kg of gasoline...

Of course nuclear energy must be handled very seriously...you cannot have private capital involved in this kind of activity...look at what happened in Japan...

In Chernobyl it was a similar case of not private capital but a ridiculous bureaucracy that also did not care much about cutting corners...

These are the realities...

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 4:08:33 PM | 61

FB #61.

I said "5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet."

I granted in an earlier post that you knew stuff about drones that I do not. Fine. However this is a topic that I do know some things. Your response is full of irrelevant filler. I know all about the things you are saying. My statement was "5x more "unused" solar energy potential than current fossil fuel consumption across the planet." Now when I said "unused" I am factoring in the fact that solar energy supplies photosynthesis and that solar panels cannot compete with that natural process. Unused solar energy means the regions above parking lots, house roofs, highways and the great deserts with little plant activity. That goes without saying. It does not refer to farm land, grass lands and the great forests covering NA, Africa and SA.

Your entire response is an elementary lecture in why all of solar energy influx impacting earth is not available for humans to use to make electricity. This question has been addressed by scientist for the last century. What I referred to is solar energy that humans could practically extract without destroying plant life on the planet. The amount of that energy is 5X what is currently being consumed by earth people.

Go back to your text books FB and stop giving us elementary lectures in the earth's energy balances.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 14, 2018 6:27:51 PM | 62

Listening to Toibois lecturing someone about how gosh darn smart Toibois is, never ceases to amuse.

Especially when, in the middle of it all, it becomes obvious heshe doesn't even seem to understand the implications of what FB has just told him, let alone understand the implications of what he himself is claiming.

For example the village idiot tries to deflect by waffling on about photosynthesis, despite it not being mentioned, thus showing his ignorance and inability to understand the points made regarding the workings of the atmosphere, and how solar energy keeps the temp of our atmosphere at a level which allows life as we know it, to exist.

All this while pompously attacking others for, it seems, simply knowing and being able to explain how the atmosphere works and how solar energy (in the form of heat) is distributed throughout that atmosphere (hint: not by photosynthesis).

While photosynthesis undoubtedly plays a major role in energy distribution, it plays only a minor role in heat distribution.

Its no wonder Toibois regularly gets called a village idiot

Posted by: Just Sayin' | Jan 14, 2018 8:16:46 PM | 63

Oh...I see 'Prof.' Toivos...

You actually 'know' something' about 'this' subject...

Whatever 'this' subject may be...I'm guessing solar panels...[of which you probably know diddly squat...]

And you already know all about how our climate system is powered by energy from the sun...

Interesting...

'Prof.' Toivos says...

'...What I referred to is solar energy that humans could practically extract without destroying plant life on the planet...'

You see I didn't mention a single thing about photosynthesis...or 'plant life'...

I talked specifically about the energy balance of our planet's atmosphere...

My mistake was actually taking you seriously...and not realizing you are a complete dolt...

So all the sun's energy that is not used in photosynthesis to support plant life can be extracted eh...?

This is 'unused' solar energy...?

So answer me this...when you extract this 'unused' solar energy to make electricity with solar panels...what energy is going to drive our planet's atmosphere and climate system...?

Let me guess...the huge gas energy reserves blowing out from your derriere...?

What a clown...

PS: also try giving some citations instead of blowing figures about 'unused' energy out your cornhole...

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 8:26:18 PM | 64

Just Sayin' @ 63...

Thanks for actually understanding what I was trying to say...

There is in fact a lot more to it than just the basic temperature distribution mechanism I briefly described...

The ocean currents are driven by the same solar energy absorbed by the water at tropical latidues...

Also the rising air currents create our atmospheric pressure systems...ie as warm air rises its pressure decreases...eventually creating a low-pressure system...some of which are so huge they are cyclones [aka hurricanes in the western hemisphere]...

These pressure distributions are crucial also to the rainfall cycle of evaporated water from the seas eventually being caught up in these rising air currents to the point where they condense into precipitation...

Toyvos is making a farce out of what I tried to call attention to...which is the serious disinformation surrounding solar power...

As always there is some interest group or other behind these things...

Glad my efforts here are at least useful to some...that makes it all worthwhile...

Regards,

FB

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 9:25:12 PM | 65

Just Sayin' | Jan 14, 2018 8:16:46 PM | 63

My my, I have no idea who you are but that little rant is scientifically incoherent. It is hard to even begin to refute such stupidity.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 14, 2018 9:46:46 PM | 66

FB responds with this: So answer me this...when you extract this 'unused' solar energy to make electricity with solar panels...what energy is going to drive our planet's atmosphere and climate system...?

OK. Photons from the sun that support photovoltaic cells are those that are produced by the 6000 degree black body radiation from the sun-- i.e. those photons responsible for visible light but mostly in the blue spectrum (those in the UV spectrum never make it to the surface). 80% of that energy impacts over the earth's oceans (about half of this does not hit the surface but is dissipated as heat which is big factor in the heat that drives our planet's climate system) and those photons that do hit the surface support photosynthetic life in our oceans (yet again, this process losses about 60% of the energy as heat while the rest becomes fixed in high energy chemical bonds through photosynthesis that becomes the basis for all animal life in the oceans). The same process occurs over land for the remaining 20% of solar energy.

So what I referred to usable energy from the sun is a small fraction of the sun's energy impacting earth. If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would have any affect on the earth's heat balance. One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work. (You should go back to your undergrad physical chemistry notes and see the difference between total energy and free energy available for work).

FB you should sit back and think a bit -- you are getting in over your head.

And who said I was a professor?

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 14, 2018 10:12:31 PM | 67

Toyvos @67...

Why don't you quit while you are ahead...?

You are only piling on more nonsense and trying to do some fancy footwork by mentioning things like black-body radiation which has nothing to do with this discussion...

Neither our sun nor any star is a black body since they are not in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings...

And the black body math is only used as a rough way to approximate [first order] the energy celestial bodies emit...this is an application of astronomy...and has zilch to do with how the sun's energy powers our atmosphere...

So I have already exposed yet more BS from you...

Here is more...

The UV spectrum is absorbed in the ozone layer of the atmosphere...so your brilliant observation that it doesn't make it to the surface is quite an astounding insight...quick...somebody send a telegram to the Nobel committee...

You say this...

'...One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work...'

Which is gibberish...

What energy is 'dissipated' as heat...?

'What 'free energy'...?

What 'work'...?

You have just conflated several completely different physical concepts...

Light energy is dissipated somewhat as it passes through the air in our atmosphere...ie it loses intensity...

The process of this is mainly Rayleigh scattering...which is the reason for the sky being blue...

But there is no loss of energy in Rayleigh scattering...because it is elastic...

There is also Raman scattering that occurs where photons are scattered by air molecules which are excited to higher vibrational energy levels...

Raman scattering is an inelastic method which does result in energy loss...

This excitation of the molecules by the photons increases their temperature obviously and hence the transfer of heat energy from photon to air molecule...

However...

The vast majority of light molecules are scattered by the Rayleigh mechanism...so there is no energy loss...

Only one in ten million photons is scattered inelastically...

So here is where I am calling your full BS...

Where is the 90 percent light energy that is dissipated in the atmosphere...?

Please point to a citation in peer-reviewed literature...

That should be easy enough...[yeah right...]

What a dolt...do you not stop to think that people who actually know physics will spot a total faker as soon as he opens his mouth...?

I will be waiting for that citation of the 90 percent energy 'absorption' of light in the atmosphere...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 11:15:40 PM | 68

And I should add here for any readers who are maybe confused by some of the concepts presented here like light scattering in the atmosphere...

To put this in context...the photons from the sun are the source of heat for the earth's atmosphere...as I have discussed in simple terms...

The mechanism is as I outlined in my first post...photons mainly pass through the medium of air...ie radiation...

...because they have the property of a wave...they are after all part of the electro-magnetic radiation spectrum...

That means they mostly pass through the air without heating the air itself...but only heat a solid or liquid surface once they hit that surface...

Only a tiny amount of the heat energy from the sun is actually absorbed by the atmosphere directly...

This is because photons also have the property of particles...ie the wave-particle duality...

So my simplified initial explanation of how the sun's energy powers our atmosphere is completely correct...

I simply had to drill down a little more into particulars in order to debunk this latest massive gas release from Toyvos...

Bottom line is that sun heat passes through [radiates] through the air medium in the atmosphere...and the energy transfer occurs when that radiation strikes land or sea...

Then conduction and convection as outlined...

The idea that 90 percent of the sun's heat energy is 'absorbed' in the atmosphere is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard...

Not even a physics dropout could come up with such a statement...

Posted by: FB | Jan 14, 2018 11:40:58 PM | 69

FB @61
Now...using your figure of one fifth of that energy to be diverted to making electricity...what do you think would happen to our biosphere...?

It would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions...

Toivos @62

Now when I said "unused" I am factoring in the fact that solar energy supplies photosynthesis and that solar panels cannot compete with that natural process. Unused solar energy means the regions above parking lots, house roofs, highways and the great deserts with little plant activity. That goes without saying. It does not refer to farm land, grass lands and the great forests covering NA, Africa and SA.

FB @64
You see I didn't mention a single thing about photosynthesis...or 'plant life'...

Sic. And a catastrophe for the biosphere. And for good measure:

FB @68
Which is gibberish...

What energy is 'dissipated' as heat...?

'What 'free energy'...?

What 'work'...?

So FB has not the basic understanding of thermodynamics to know the difference between total and free not available energy. @FB, go read up on Gibbs free energy, assuming that you have a clue about differential equations. Then go read up on the conservation of energy principal and the typical efficiencies of photovoltaic and heat engine (solar thermal) systems. Hint: Carnot cycle, energy source, energy sink.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jan 15, 2018 12:00:07 AM | 70

Johan, yep you point it out. FB does not have the slightest understanding thermodynamics. Free energy, heat and work are very precisely defined concepts that this poor boob does not understand at all. All that flack about light scattering, elastic, non-elastic, etc are important details but they do not negate thermodynamic laws but do provide some insights into the mechanisms responsible for, well heat transfer and work.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 15, 2018 12:21:59 AM | 71

Johan Meyer @ 70...

Are you some kind of mental patient...?

I have forgotten more about thermodynamics and heat transfer than you will ever learn...my tiny little friend...

Besides...I just deciphered the Toyvos gibberish...

He said actually in an earlier paragraph that 'half' of the sun's energy is 'dissipated' in the atmosphere...which is still just as preposterous...

The 90 percent part is where he appears to be talking about the supposedly 'free' electrical energy that is gathered by solar panels and is then converted to work energy...

He appears to then claim that 90 percent of that work energy will be returned back to heat energy...

...which is again preposterous...since that would imply an electric motor with only 10 percent efficiency...the rest being wasted as heat...

As for your complete gibberish about Gibbs free energy...man you are what we call a hopeless case...

Do I have to explain the Basics of the Second Law...?

You start yapping about Carnot cycle and heat engines and then you jump like a monkey to 'Gibbs free energy'...which has to do with chemical potential

Do you even realize what you have just said...?

I don't believe you do...because I am convinced you are in fact a mental patient...

Or more precisely you are the intellectual equivalent of the perpetual motion device...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 12:44:29 AM | 72

Ok Toyvos...

Here is a very simple yes or no question...

Mental Patient Johan just mentioned Gibbs free energy...

Here is my question...

In your statement...

'...If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would [not] have any affect on the earth's heat balance.

One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work...'

The free energy you are referring to is specifically Gibbs free energy...?

Yes or No...

You see my two little know nothings...now I have trapped you both like the little rodents you are...

Any way you answer you are toast...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 12:56:17 AM | 73

For the thermodynamics of chemical reactions (electrochemical, photosynthesis, carbon fixation, etc) Gibbs energy is usually used to describe the process. It seems to be an archaic usage but yes free energy refers to Gibbs energy. So this is a trap?? You are starting to sound downright unhinged.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 15, 2018 1:45:18 AM | 74

Yes or No Toyvos...?

Of course dear onlookers to this slaughter...the Toyvos dolt is not going to answer a simple yes or no question...

...which asks specifically whether he was referring to Gibbs free energy when he made his statement about free energy

And here is why...because he knows if he says he was referring to Gibbs free energy there is no way he can make sense of that statement...even Einstein couldn't help him here...

But he knows full well...like I do...that he was not even thinking about Gibbs free energy when he made that statement...

He was talking specifically about the supposedly 'free" electrical energy from a solar panel...

But then when the Mental Patient Johan came to his aid...the dolt Toyvos quickly jumped on the Gibbs free energy canard in a desperate attempt to wriggle out...

So which is it Toyvos...?

I am asking one more time...

You made the statement about free energy in a specific context...now you need to answer a yes or no question...

Were you or were you not talking about Gibbs free energy...?

Of course you can always do the smart thing and admit you are full of crap...at least you will gain some respect from everyone who sees you are wriggling like a pathetic worm on a hook...

You already have lots of pity...even from me...nobody likes to see even a dolt so thoroughly taken apart...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 2:13:28 AM | 75

Dear FB you are totally unhinged. I answered your question, if you can't see that you are blind as well.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 15, 2018 2:38:45 AM | 76

66

Lol Toiboi,

You're even dumber than I thought. I didn't think it possible.

Your contention that , if I have understood the intent of your garbled attempts at pseudo-scientific gibberish, some approx 40% of solar energy somehow "does not reach the surface" (of the planet) but yet (miraculously?) is somehow "dissappated as heat" is frankly noting but retarded.

Your level of idiocy seems to increase dramatically the more you speak on this subject.

I don't know where you learned any of this nonsense you've been apouting but you really should go back and demand a refund.

As FB points out "that means they mostly pass through the air without heating the air itself..."
You will disagree with that of course but then that's exactly what I would expect a complete idiot to do


Posted by: Just Sayin' | Jan 15, 2018 2:57:07 AM | 77

Just Sayin'...

The readers of this thread deserve a 'refund' from Toyvos...or at least an apology...

He has been trying to pull the wool over people's eyes here with crap about black bodies...Gibbs free energy and other completely unrelated and off the wall garbage...

I feel I have an obligation to readers like yourself...to which Toyvos is doing a great disservice by sowing confusion...to set the science straight...

This jagoff doesn't have the ethics to be involved in science in any way if he thinks he is allowed to deliberately confuse people and muddy issues that are crystal clear, even to the layman...as you have demonstrated...

He is going to be completely exposed here for the fraud he is...you watch and see...he should do the honorable thing and just admit he went out on a limb and couldn't find his way down...

He refuses to answer a yes or no question...

A simple question about his very own statement...

That tells you everything about his dishonesty...

I felt pity for him until this point...but not anymore...now he must pay...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 8:37:34 AM | 78

Oh and btw Just Sayin'...

He can't and won't disagree about the part you quoted me about photon energy passing through air without heating it...

He realizes that is a dead issue...after I had to go into light scattering...which he had to admit to...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 8:44:09 AM | 79

Look Toyvos...

Stop deceiving and obfuscating here...

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake...but dishonesty cannot be tolerated...especially when that dishonesty is aimed at non-technical people in the audience...

That is a serious breach of scientific ethics...

I will not allow it...

You have made me extremely angry now with your latest prevarication...so I am going to grind you to dust without mercy...

I asked you on two occasions a simple yes or no question about your statement regarding 'free energy'...

You have refused to answer on both occasions...

What part of 'yes' or 'no' do you not understand...?

Here is your blatant dishonesty from your #74...

'...For the thermodynamics of chemical reactions (electrochemical, photosynthesis, carbon fixation, etc) Gibbs energy is usually used to describe the process...'

Every thermodynamicist and chemist knows what Gibbs free energy is...

It has specifically to do with chemical energy...

And yes Gibbs free energy can be applied to understanding the energy aspect of cellular chemistry such as photosynthesis...

That is a science known as bioenergetics...

So let's take stock here and analyze your obvious attempt at deception...

You refused to answer yes or no to the question of whether you were referring to Gibbs free energy in this statement...

'...So what I referred to usable energy from the sun is a small fraction of the sun's energy impacting earth.

If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would [not] have any affect on the earth's heat balance.

One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the free energy for doing work...'

Instead of answering yes or no to the question of whether the 'free energy' you are referring to here is Gibbs free energy...or something else...you now point to photosynthesis...

Ok...is that your answer then...?

I am going to be very precise here...

Are you in fact saying that in that statement you really were saying this...

'...One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the [Gibbs] free energy for doing work...'

Please confirm for me that is what you are saying...

Then we will proceed...

Now again I have to pause and make some kind of attempt to explain to the non-technical reader what is going on here...

Photosynthesis is the process in 'which solar energy is used to synthesize glucose from carbon dioxide and water...'

So in your statement from #67...which I just quoted above [for the umpteenth time]...you are referring specifically to photosynthesis and Gibbs free energy...correct...?

Just answer that please...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 9:41:14 AM | 80

FB in my response @74 I said "It seems to be an archaic usage but yes free energy refers to Gibbs energy." That seems clear to me that you have a serious problem in reading comprehension. Also thermodynamics (and Gibbs equation) applies to energy flows and work even if the energy comes in the form of photons.

Your outbursts on this thread was the result of my criticizing your statement above, namely:

Have you ever done the math on solar energy...?

You would need to cover every square foot of land surface on earth to make enough electricity to run the modern world...

Yes you actually said that. That is blatantly wrong. You have attempted divert attention to that error by going into a long discussion on thermodynamics which you have proven you do not understand at all.

However returning to your first error on solar energy if all of the sun's solar radiation that reaches the earths surface exceeds human energy needs by well over 1000 times. Given that solar panels cannot cover the entire earth (for example the oceans and those that support plant life) it has been estimated that there is usable space to produce 4 times as much electricity equal to current human energy consumption.

Therefore, your original statement was egregiously incorrect and you have amplified the problem by displaying your laughable comprehension of thermodynamics. You have greatly exceeded that ancient Chinese saying: at times it is better to sit silently and be thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: Toivos | Jan 15, 2018 12:37:13 PM | 81

Ahh...the Whirling, Dancing Toyvos...what a spectacle...

But no fancy footwork is going to stop me from dismantling a faker like you...

You said this...

'...It seems to be an archaic usage but yes free energy refers to Gibbs energy...'

We note your weasel words...you still refuse to explicitly state that you were referring to Gibbs free energy when you said free energy in the context of that paragrapgh in your #67...

But no matter...now you are saying flat out that you did in fact mean 'Gibbs free energy' in that paragraph...

And that it was my reading comprehension that was at fault...

Please forgive my reading comprehension Toyvos...but it seems you never did answer either yes or no to a yes or no question...but whatever...

So we have now established that you have answered positively Yes to my repeated question...correct...?

Just want to make sure there is no miscommunication now...

So what you really meant to say was this...[although you used the 'archaic' expression unintentionally...]

'...'...So what I referred to usable energy from the sun is a small fraction of the sun's energy impacting earth.

If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would [not] have any affect on the earth's heat balance.

One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the Gibbs free energy for doing work...'


Are we agreed then...?

The above text is what you meant to say...just you left out the word 'Gibbs'...?

We have to be sure and not rush this dissection...or should I say vivisection [on a fake thermodynamicist whose gas eruptions have now turned to a more liquid efflux...]

but before we get into that...we first need to clear up something that you have just introduced in your latest comment #81...

You said this...

'...Also thermodynamics (and Gibbs equation) applies to energy flows and work even if the energy comes in the form of photons.

Ah so now we have another monkey-jump...

Are you trying to tell me that the Gibbs Equation is the same thing as Gibbs free energy...?

Again this is a yes or no question...?

Also there is yet another possibility here...maybe you never meant to say 'Gibbs free energy' after all...but meant to say 'Gibbs Equation'...?

Please provide the answer and then we will proceed...

Do not rush...I have not forgotten all the other issues that you have gushed out here in what looks to me like a desperate attempt at deflection...or should I say defecation...

But don't worry...I give you my word we will work through everything...

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 2:41:23 PM | 82

Ohh...and Toyvos...

Interesting progeression we see here...

First...'free energy' morphs into 'Gibbs energy'...

Which then morphs into the 'Gibbs Equation...'

Where have I seen this before...?

Oh yeah...dolts who flunk out of thermo...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: FB | Jan 15, 2018 3:29:55 PM | 83

I see the dolt Toyvos has tucked tail and ran away...

Little wonder...

His statement here is already becoming famous...

'...So what I referred to usable energy from the sun is a small fraction of the sun's energy impacting earth.

If we extract all of that small per-cent of high energy photons into photovoltaic cells to produce electricity it would [not] have any affect on the earth's heat balance.

One reason is that 90% of that energy will be dissipated as heat in the process of extracting the Gibbs free energy for doing work...'

I have emailed this to several colleagues and have printed out a copy of this to hand out at the office...

You will be glad to hear Toyvos that you are becoming something of a celebrity in thermo circles...

What is it they say about savants...?

There is a fine line between the idiot and the genius...

...Hence the term Idiot Savant...

This concept of your of extracting 'Gibbs free energy' from photovoltaic cells is truly revolutionary...

No one I have presented this theorem to has any idea how this would actually work...but I can tell you that it is the topic of much shall we say 'brainstorming...'

Especially over libations...

Some of the 'devices' that have been submitted as suggestions...besides being side-busting...are really quite ingenious...

Of course I don't expect that you will share the working principles of the device you have come up with...

This would be too valuable...and I'm sure you are seeking patent protection right now...as it appears to involve hitherto unknown physical principles...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Posted by: FB | Jan 16, 2018 10:11:40 AM | 84

...
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
Posted by: FB | Jan 16, 2018 10:11:40 AM | 84

Congratulations!
That's the only coherent thing you've said since you decided not to respond coherently to the simple question Toivos posed at # 60.
Where did that "every square foot of land surface on earth" horseshit come from, FB?
That's a rhetorical question, btw, so don't bother wasting more space by pretending to answer it.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 16, 2018 10:19:30 PM | 85

Hey Hoarseshitwhisperer...

Why don't you ask your fake expert Toyvos...?

Oh wait...he's run away after being exposed as a fake...because he knows zilch about thermodynamics or any other science...

He's been spouting horseshit here from moment 1...

I said quite clearly that removing the huge amount of solar energy that would be required to satisfy all human energy needs would seriously disrupt the earth's energy balance...

...for the simple reason that solar energy drives our entire climate system...

I have caught the dolt Toyvos in a trap of his own making like I said I would...

What he has said here is scientific gibberish...which I have proceeded to dismantle...

That is why he has run away...

I said already I would cover all issues about everything I have said here...

But first things first...the faker Toyvos must extricate himself from the deep hole of scientific falsehoods he has dug himself into...

Posted by: FB | Jan 17, 2018 3:35:29 AM | 86

Oh and btw...Hoarseshitwhisperer...

Since you already know everything via the method of received wisdom...

...there is no use for you to actually review some of the recent news about the environmental impact of solar panels...which are still on a microscopic scale at this point in time...

In the very first study of its kind [as of 2013]...researchers...

'...found that solar parks altered the local climate, measuring cooling of as much as 5 degrees Centigrade under the panels during the summer...'

Gee who would have thought...?

Not our fake genius Toyboy...who tells us that we could run our entire planet without any disruption to the earth's crucial energy balance...

Here is the peer-reviewed paper [pdf] of this one single study...which lists plenty of citations of relevant peer-reviewed sources for further review...

We can of course expect that no further research funding will be extended to these kinds of efforts...[which are sorely needed...]

Since the political and corporate machinations are not going to be stopped by such frivolous questions as actual science...

And since the deafening roar from the hoi polloi like yourself...and the fake experts like Toyboy who have leaped on the solar bandwagon without looking...is going to drown out any rational voice that advises basic scientific prudence and a fuller understanding...

Posted by: FB | Jan 17, 2018 6:07:24 AM | 87

And yet more actual scientific literature [pdf] proving my point about solar panels potential for negative climate change...

'...massive-scale installations of solar panels can generate enough power for human usage now and in the future, although there are consequences that involve impacts on the climate system...
'...Such a large number of solar panels redistributes the incoming solar radiation and changes the local radiation balance,resulting in changes in atmospheric circulation, thus affecting regional and global climate...'

Gee...who would've thought...?

After all...we have Toyboy's ironclad science telling us it's perfectly ok...

Posted by: FB | Jan 17, 2018 6:51:53 AM | 88

FB said in #86:

I said quite clearly that removing the huge amount of solar energy that would be required to satisfy all human energy needs would seriously disrupt the earth's energy balance...

The paper FB linked in #88 says:

We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation.

In other words, solar energy is not removed from the earth, it is simply moved, e.g. from deserts to cities, and that is what has an impact on global climate.

Posted by: Chris | Jan 17, 2018 9:56:42 AM | 89

Thermal energy is turned into electricity...not moved somewhere else...

It's turned into electricity which is then moved somewhere else, where it is used.

The electricity to power radio tv and other communications...?

That's one I hadn't considered. I suppose broadcast signals (electromagnetic energy) can find their way into space, and thus cool us off a bit. I don't see that being affected by the source of the energy though. Nor do I see it as a big factor in any case.

What about the electricity to power cars and other transportation...?

Why do electric cars have limited range? Because of losses in the conversion of chemical energy to electric energy to kinetic energy. If there were no losses, the cars could run forever. But there are losses, and they all manifest as heat. So all the energy you put in your car ends up as heat, whether it came from solar panels or fossil fuels. (Excepting the case where you drive up a hill and stay there, thereby converting some to potential energy, and maybe some other cases I'm not thinking of.)

I don't pretend to know what the major consumers of energy are on this planet. I understand lighting is a big one, and I imagine (from listening to the local power companies) that heating and cooling are significant too. But when you use energy, it seems to me you can either store it or convert it to another form of energy, or radiate it, as you pointed out. But converting it to another form isn't actually using it; when it's actually used, things get hot. You can tell how much electricity a computer is using by how much heat it gives off. Flipping bits about only takes energy because of inefficiency: charging gate capacitance and so on.

This discussion has veered way off the rails. Not much to do with Al-Qaeda propaganda any more. Probably time to move on. Sorry we disagree.

Posted by: Chris | Jan 17, 2018 8:17:19 PM | 90

This will damage Trump with his base, particularly if a couple of the bases are hit with ISIS/Al Qaeda/HTS SVBIED attacks. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and I suspect quite a few of his base are disappointed. If its in the region of a couple of hundred thousand of them then there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. If the Democrats forget about Russia-gate because there is nothing there but focus on his foreign military involvements and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help as she is one of the few Democrats the "deplorables" might trust. Unfortunately I suspect the Democrats are too stupid and too attached to the Wall Street/MIC money spigot to do anything about this. The other reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 19, 2018 6:43:59 PM | 91

The comments to this entry are closed.