News & views …
|
|
|
|
November 30, 2014
Open Thread 2014-29
News & views … November 29, 2014
Obama Falsely Claims Human Rights Law Does Not Apply To Syrian Mercenary Training
Buried down in a report about Pentagon plans to train more mercenaries to fight against Syria we find this declaration of intend by the Obama administration to (again) break the law:
Wait a second. The U.S. congress has set aside $500 million to train, equip and pay these fighters. The U.S. military will do the training. And the Obama administration claims that these are not "state-sponsored forces"? Is the U.S. no longer a nation state? Besides that the Leahy law as codified for the Pentagon in Section 8057 of the 2014 Omnibus bill does not say anything about "state-sponsored forces": Cont. reading: Obama Falsely Claims Human Rights Law Does Not Apply To Syrian Mercenary Training November 28, 2014
AP: U.S. Mercenaries Working With Al-Qaeda No Scandal – Just A “Difficulty”
Moon of Alabama September 15 2014:
Associated Press November 28 2014:
Ten weeks behind Moon of Alabama the Associated Press is recognizing the southern attack on Damascus. They get paid for (not) reporting, I don’t. But notice the last graph I copied and the last sentence in it. U.S. trained, supplied and supported mercenaries are openly cooperating with Jabhat al-Nusra which is al-Qaida’s Syria branch. This is not a “conspiracy theory” of some nutcase but official AP reporting. The people accused of bringing down the world trade center on 9/11 are openly working with U.S. (proxy) forces. And what does AP make of this? The cooperation points to the difficulty in American efforts to build up “moderate” factions while isolating militants. Ah – no. This is no difficulty in the effort. It is a huge scandal. The U.S. could simply tell its mercenaries (many of whom I believe are disguised al-Nusra followers) to stop cooperating with al-Nusra. It has all the leverage over these guys than one can possibly have. It provides them with money, weapons and ammunition. Their families are cared for in Jordan and anyone wounded during fighting will be taken to a hospital in Jordan or Israel. If the U.S. did not want these guys to partner with al-Nusra it would not provide for them. I find it quite astonishing that there is not any critical reporting in the Main Stream Media about this quite direct U.S. cooperation with al-Qaeda. It is nearly certain that this cooperation with al-Qaeda will, in two, five or ten years, come back to bite the U.S. in its ass. It will hurt U.S. people. But that by now seems to be not a bug but a feature. The “fear business” James Risen talks about is now driving billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars per year into a few private hands. Another 9/11 like event every few years will keep that business going. Letting al-Nusra get experience with U.S. tactics and weapons can only help to further that. But that’s just another “conspiracy theory” featured on MoA. How long will it take AP to report it as official news? November 27, 2014
Obama Regime Thugs Kill American Citizens
In Ferguson Obama regime thugs and shabiha beat up and shoot peaceful protesters. The regime even uses soldiers, SOLDIERS, against its own citizens. In Cleveland the regime kills (video) a twelve year old boy in cold blood. The kid wasn't even protesting but just playing around in a park. Why is Obama killing children? How long will the international community allow this illegitimate regime to continue its war against its own people?
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.): “Syrian, Iraqi Soldiers Are Klingons”
The Hill reports: US in talks over Arab boots on the ground
Wittman wants to deploy Jordanian soldiers in Iraq and Syria. He apparently believes that Jordan is an Arab country while Iraq and Syria are, in his mind, not Arab countries. In his view Iraqi and Syrian troops, who have been fighting the Islamic State and other Jihadists daily for several years now, do not wear "Arab boots". He likely believes that those soldiers are Klingons or some other alien form of life. Who elects such idiots? November 26, 2014
A Rescue Raid In Yemen That Might Not Have Happened
As we recently wrote about Yemen:
The chaos and anarchy was added to yesterday, according to the NYT, by a U.S. special force raid somewhere in Yemen:
So why did U.S. special force raid some hostage takers if none of the hostages is American? The Saudi freed may have been the Saudi deputy consul to Yemen who was captured two years ago. But I find it unlikely that the U.S. would risk boots on the ground in Yemen to free a minor Saudi diplomat. Rumor has had it for a few month that a U.S. marine had been taken hostage by the local al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen. Yesterday's raid may seem to confirm this. But the news about it still much too uncertain to know this. The BBC says the raid was in the Hajr al-Sayar district of Hadramaut governate. But local lawyer Haykal Bafana finds problems with a raid in Hajr al-Sayar described as in a "remote area" and a rescue from a "cave": Cont. reading: A Rescue Raid In Yemen That Might Not Have Happened
State Department Changes Rhetoric On Civilian Casualties In Syria
The Syrian air-force attacked some Islamic State targets in the eastern Syrian city Raqqa. Many were killed and wounded including civilians. During the last years the U.S. government would condemn and comment such an attacks as "Assad is killing his own people". That has changed. The US State Department Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) commented on Twitter on the air-raid on Raqqa:
So instead of a demagogic "Assad kills his own people" State CSO now comments "civilians caught in the crossfire". That quote demonstrates a remarkable change in the State Department's position. Unsurprisingly supporters of the Jihadists and mercenaries fighting the Syrian people were quite enraged about that comment calling it a "new low". That "new low" change in rhetoric may have come because the air raids by the U.S. air force on Jihadists in Syria also cause civilian death. Or it may be the expression of a genuine change in the position towards the Syrian government. We can not yet tell how far this may go. How will the State Department now comment when Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State or U.S. supported mercenaries kill civilians during their attacks on the Syrian government? Will those also be "caught in the crossfire"? When the State Department condemns those civilian death in stronger words than those killed during government action then a genuine, not just rhetoric, change of positions will have occurred. November 25, 2014
Hagel Firing Points To More War
Yesterday U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice fired Defense Secretary Hagel. It was a huge mistake for President Obama to agree to that move. There are many foreign policy problems the White House created for itself. None of those are the fault of Hagel but nearly all of them can be traced back to Susan Rice herself and her surreal management style:
After Obama and Rice, against earlier promises, secretly extend U.S. combat in Afghanistan, the number decided after 20 NSC meetings is already again up in the air and likely to increase. Such decision making exemplifies mismanagement by Susan Rice, not by Hagel. Rice wanted Hagel fired because she was pissed when Hagel called her out on the chaotic non-policy she developed against the Islamic State and with regard to Syria. As a realist he knows that the U.S. will need the Syrian army under President Assad to push the Islamic State back into the underground. Against the advice of the military Rice, a "liberal interventionist", insists on ousting Assad. The neocons, including the writers on Fred Hiatt's funny pages in the Washington Post, want Michèle Flournoy as replacement. She is a COIN propagandist who argued for both surges, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both surges as well as COIN failed to deliver what Flournoy and others promised. Adding more incompetence to the U.S. foreign policy process as a Flournoy nomination would assure will not promote world peace but more war. November 24, 2014
Extended U.S. Iran Talks Likely To Fail Again
The recent negotiations over limits of Iran's civilian nuclear program were unsuccessful. But instead of coming to that conclusions all parties agreed to prolong the deadline for another seven month. In fact two new deadlines were introduced. One in four month to reach a framework agreement and one in seven month to reach a complete understanding. The first deadline is very fuzzy as a "framework agreement" could be just anything. The second deadline is likely one that will not see any further extension. The open points at the end of this negotiation round were the same as at its beginning. What maximum numbers of centrifuges would Iran be able to use? What is the timeline for lifting sanctions? How long is the whole agreement to run? The first point, number of centrifuges, is irrelevant. The whole concept, introduced by the U.S., of a "possible breakout time for Iran to get material for one bomb" is nuts. If Iran would be interested in nuclear weapons it would produce those in secret and in numbers that would make them a viable deterrence. The difference between five thousand or fifty thousand centrifuges running under IAEA supervision would not influence that. The timeline for lifting sanctions could also be simple. As soon as Iran fulfills x% of the agreed upon steps x% of the sanctions should be lifted. Some U.S. sanction are related to other than the "nuclear Iran" issues and can only be lifted by the U.S. congress. Those would likely stay in place but could be reduced in their effects by executive orders. The timeline for the whole agreement is something that is also easy to do. Iran offers a three or five year limit, the U.S. wants a double digit number of years, the compromise is right in the middle. All this is easy and could have been done in a 30 minutes phone call. That the last days of negotiations in Vienna, with seven foreign ministers in attendance, could not reach a simple solution is likely because one side does not want one. I am sure that Iran wants a reasonable agreement. I am also quite sure that the U.S. is the blocking side. It wants to keep sanctions as future pressure points even as Iran agrees to limit its nuclear capabilities. The U.S. needs Iran to solve conflicts in Iraq, in Syria and elsewhere. But that need is not yet urgent enough to allow for some sensible position change in the general attitude towards Iran and its interests. Only if the U.S. faces more pressure from its deteriorating position in the Middle East is a change of mind in Washington likely. The seven month extension of the talks is too short to allow for that. I therefore find it likely that the next talks and the whole negotiation round will fail (again) and that the cooked up conflict will prevail. November 23, 2014
Haykal Bafana on Yemen, Three Years On
Some recent tweets, storified here, by Haykal Bafana, a Yemeni lawyer in Sanaa:
We wrote about the 1-candidate election "ballot":
We predicted:
Obama recently called Yemen a "model" for the fight against the Islamic State. He is right in one sense. The state of Yemen was destroyed by the clueless U.S. sponsored interventions. The Islamic State might get destroyed the same way. But the outcome will not be a new order but, like in Yemen, utter chaos and bloody anarchy. November 22, 2014
Open Thread 2014-28
News & views … November 21, 2014
How The U.S. And Israel Support Al-Qaeda in South Syria
When the Obama administration said it bombed the "Khorasan group" in north Syria experts wondered what that meant. There was and is no such group. What the Obama administration called Khorasan group were leadership people of Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syria branch of al-Qaeda, which years ago had been active in Afghanistan and Pakistan before coming to Syria. So why make a distinction between Jabhat al-Nusra active all over Syria and a leadership group of Jabhat al-Nusra situated in north Syria? My hunch is that there is active cooperation between Jabhat al-Nusra and the U.S. especially in south Syria and the distinction was made to keep some form of alliance in the south alive. The mercenaries of the Fee Syrian Army in south Syria have been trained and armed by the CIA in Jordan and are controlled through a multinational operations room somewhere in Amman. In the south Nusra is actively fighting on the side of the Fee Syrian Army which is also getting support from Israel. During the last months the FSA, with al-Nusra fighters as storm troopers in the lead, captured large parts along the Jordanian and Israeli border with Syria. There aim is, as we reported two month ago, to open a corridor towards Damascus. There progress against the Syrian army in the border area was made with the help of supporting Israeli artillery fire. Reuters confirms today that Nusra, as we wrote, is leading the fighting in the south:
In the north Jabhat al-Nusra fought mercenary groups supported by the U.S. and Turkey. In the south it cooperates well with such groups supported, equipped and trained by the U.S. from Jordan and by Israel. Al-Nusra in the north was renamed "Khorasan group" so it could be bombed without endangering the Fee Syrian Army alliance with al-Nusra in the south. The Nusra fighters in the south will of course use the weapons and other equipment the Fee Syrian Army groups receive from the CIA and other secret services. These groups are fighting together and are naturally sharing their resources. In October, a month after I reported about the operations in the south, the Washington Institute, part of the Israel Lobby in the U.S., acknowledged those plans and pushed for more U.S. and Israeli support at the southern front. It did of course falsely minimize the participation of Nusra.
The operation in the south has nothing to do with ISIS which has so far little presence in the south but is solely directed against the Syrian army, the government of Syria and the people of Damascus. The fighting is led, as Reuters today acknowledged, by Jabhat al-Nusra fighters and U.S. and Israel support is given to local Fee Syrian Army groups strongly aligned with al-Nusra. The U.S. and Israel will certainly have know what Reuters reports today and what we claimed earlier. They have been and are actively and knowingly arming groups who strongly cooperate and share their resources, received from the U.S. and Israel, with al-Qaeda. November 20, 2014
Samantha Power Warns Against Intervention Fatigue, Performs In “Rise Up” Stunt
UN Ambassador Warns Against Intervention Fatigue
What lessons, if any at all, has Power drawn from her Libya “intervention”? — In another appearance yesterday Power was interrupted by “protesters” at an event that launched a cable channel dedicated to “regime change” youth protests:
The whole story has the smell of an utterly staged “reality” show. “Protester on stage in three, two, one, now!” Power played her role as attacked “war hawk” – knowingly or not – pretty well. The new channel’s main task will be the enrichment of its owners. But it will also be used to further the projects of its political backers, including of Samantha Power. Its mission:
Translation: This is a propaganda shop that will engage pseudo liberal “youth” to created political “grassroot support” for U.S. regime change operations. That fits perfectly with Samatha Power’s projects. The new channel certainly has not “overdrawn lessons” from earlier interventions. Its purpose is to further new ones. November 19, 2014
How Can We Solve The Problem Of Fully Automated Production?
This 40 minutes video shows the production of the BMW i3 car. It is a fully electric car made from carbon fiber on an aluminum structure. (An ever longer video series showing more of the pre-production process – part 1, 2, 3 and 4.) The factory and the production process is all new. What is impressive and depressing is the lack of people. There are hundreds of robots doing their jobs and in total maybe 20 people feeding them materials and later on another 20 people outfitting the car interiors. An in depth report of the production process gives some impressions from the car body production line:
A high quality product, simpler to make than the older ones and in a nearly totally automated environment. In total some maybe 400 people are producing 40,000 new cars per year. Many of those cars will likely be sold through automated processes on a few internet sides. The factory shows a very high degree of automation that will become the standard of all production. In future hardly anyone of the population of industrialized nations will work in manufacturing industries. This immense automation push is historical comparable to the industrial revolution which put many people into poverty, emigration or death. One wonders then how people are supposed to get enough income to buy products like the i3. How can we handle the social disruption such technology leaps produce? One interesting concept I am learning about is a machine tax used to distribute a part of the income from production into a guaranteed basic income for everyone. Is that a possible solution? November 17, 2014
IS Promotes Its Bloody Multinationality – Obama Says Assad Stays
With a well planned media campaign in three acts the Islamic State announced its growth into a multinational entity and into more countries. Meanwhile the U.S president finally accepted that president Assad of Syria will, at least for the time of a "transition", continue in his position. A week ago Jihadist groups in five Arab countries published videos in which they pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State and its Caliph. The groups are in Algeria, Egypt (Sinai), Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The videos seemed to have been edited by the same professionals that edit all Islamic State official videos but they included local footage from each country. Last Thursday act two happened when a new audio tape with a speech from the Caliph was published:
As a third step a well produced video was published, some 16+ minutes long, which showed a row of 18 Islamic State fighters each beheading a captured Syrian officer or pilot. This is a picture from the video: Cont. reading: IS Promotes Its Bloody Multinationality – Obama Says Assad Stays November 16, 2014
This “Putin Isolated” Nonsense Is Dangerous
These headlines are silly:
Even more silly then those headlines was the German prime news Tagesschau which used a picture of Putin seemingly sitting alone at a lunch table to prove his "isolation". But news service pictures show that he is sitting with the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff waiting for the other lunch guests to sit down next to them. These were simply not visible in the frame Tagesschau selectively used. And do these headline writers, TV correspondents and politicians know what the 20 in G-20 means? The people who publicly miffed Putin in Brisbane were Obama, Cameron, Harper, Abbott and Abe. I count five out of twenty. Those leaders who did not "isolate" Putin by grandstanding in front of the media were from Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea and Turkey. Many of the leaders of those countries had one on one talks with Putin. Merkel alone had a three hour talk with Putin. Did that make him feel lonely? Fact is Putin is about as isolated as the Pope. Fact is also that those "world leaders" who "isolated" Putin represent a minority of people, military and economic power of the world. As Putin himself correctly pointed out before the G-20 meeting:
Now all this silly isolation talk would be funny if the people in power would recognize it for the bullshit it is. Unfortunately a lot of stupid people in Washington DC, politicians as well as media folks, believe in their own propaganda bullshit and therefore tend to miscalculate in their assessments of global policies. This is dangerous as it often has bloody consequences. November 15, 2014
Obama’s Mercenary Attacks On Syria Are Breaking The Law
According to the Washington Post the U.S. administration is discussing to increase the numbers of CIA trained mercenaries in Syria:
The piece mentions training in Jordan and Qatar. Hurriyet reports that training is also to start in Turkey:
No journalist seem to have asked the administration on what legal basis this training and inserting of mercenaries against the Syrian government is taking place. What please in international or even U.S. law allows a U.S. president to send a proxy mercenary force against the state of Syria or any other state? The administration knows very well that the legal ground it is standing on is very, very weak. The people it trains are criminals and do not observe basic laws of war or human rights. The administration's solution to breaking the law is trying to change it: Cont. reading: Obama’s Mercenary Attacks On Syria Are Breaking The Law November 14, 2014
Open Thread 2014-27
News & views …
Masha Gessen Is A Fact-Challenged “State Propaganda Agent”
UPDATED below Anti-Russia propagandist Marsha Gessen is a pet of neolibcons with regular space in Fred Hiatt's funny pages. Whenever she writes about Russia she gets, like the U.S. president, nearly every fact wrong. It is almost as if she has opinions and then creates facts to argue that her opinions are right and the only possible ones to have. Ohh – the paragraph above is prejudice and slander? But Gessen now confirms that she, in her own words, is not a journalist but a "state propaganda agent". She also confirms (again) that the facts she uses never cross the realm of reality. Yesterday Mahsa Gessen stormed out of the taping of a radio show as she was upset about the professional background of one of the participants of the show. Explaining herself Gessen wrote:
So if people who work for state sponsored media, like Russia Today, are not journalists but "state propaganda agents" what then is Masha Gessen?
Besides her obviously total lack of self awareness Gessen, who did not name the person she ranted against but used slander like "that woman", was completely wrong about the facts. Anna Arutunyan, the journalist with whom state propaganda agent Masha Gessen would not discuss, now responded:
So Masha Gessen, through her most recent hissy fit, proved what the first paragraph said. She acknowledges that she is no journalist but, as she worked for a U.S. government sponsored media outlet, is a state propaganda agent. She also proved again that she has no factual base for her opinions and seemingly does not even care enough about those to do some two minute research. But let me assure you that U.S. media will continue to love and pay her for her anti-Russian nonsense and for her oh-so-democratic calls for a popular coup against an elected Russian president with a 88% public approval rate. UPDATE: Gessen now posted a response to criticism of her rant. In it he gets, as you might have guessed, the "facts" wrong:
The facts marked bold are completely wrong. I dod not check the other claims. There was and is no holding named Russia Today. The Moscow News was since 2007 partially owned by RIA Novosty. At the end of 2013 RIA Novosty was merged with the international radio service Voice of Russia to create Rossiya Segodnya (which can be verbally translated as "Russia Today" but is a different organization than the well known TV station Russia Today). The Moscow News was killed in that process and Anna Arutunyan left. The TV station Russia Today was and is largely independent but is since a few month ago under the same top management as Rossiya Segodnya. Arutunyan never "hosted" a show on Voice of Russia. As one can clearly see from the transcript Gessen herself linked the host of the show was one Dmitry Babich and Arutunyan was one of five guests on a panel about Pussy Riot. Arutunyan has a total of six sentences in that panel and those are mostly about the church and the state. It is nothing nefarious about Pussy Riot in those. Gessen again is completely away from any reality. She is even wrong about the content of the transcript she herself links to. Then again – as she claimed herself she is no journalist but a "State Propaganda Agent" for the United States. Facts then don't matter. November 13, 2014
NYT Editors – Liars and Hypocrites
NYT Editorial Nov 13 2014: A Response to President Xi Jinping
NYT Dec 16 2005: Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
A “credible news organization”? Not. |
||