|
Death And Resurrection In North Korea (Updated)
Updated below
—
Huffington Post – August 30 2013
Hyon Song Wol, Kim Jong Un’s Ex-Girlfriend, Reportedly Executed For Making Sex Tape
Unconfirmed reports claim the ex-girlfriend of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was executed by firing squad along with 11 others, after the group allegedly made and sold a sex tape.
Hyon Song Wol, a singer in North Korea’s famed Unhasu Orchestra, was killed by machine gun along with 11 other members of the orchestra and the Wangjaesan Light Music Band, another popular state-run music group in North Korea, according to a report in The Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s largest daily newspaper.
The report, which cites an anonymous source in China, says the group was arrested Aug. 17 for filming and selling a pornographic video featuring themselves.
New York Post – May 17 2014
Kim Jong-Un’s ‘executed’ ex seen alive on TV
Pyongyang’s state TV showed Hyon Song-Wol, the head of a band known as Moranbong, delivering a speech at a national art workers rally in Pyongyang.
She expressed gratitude for Kim’s leadership and pledged to work harder to “stoke up the flame for art and creative work”.
In 2017 Hyon Song-Wol was elected to the Workers Party’s Central Committee.
—
New York Times – February 10 2016
Top North Korean General Is Said to Be Executed on Graft Charges
A top general in North Korea was executed this month on corruption charges, around the time the nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, warned the party and military elites against abuse of power and other misdeeds, a South Korean official said Wednesday.
The general, Ri Yong-gil, chief of the North Korean Army’s general staff and ranked third in its hierarchy, was executed on charges of “factionalism, abuse of power and corruption” in the latest episode of Mr. Kim’s “reign of terror,” the official said.
Washington Times – May 10 2016
North Korean general thought to be executed is actually alive
A top North Korean military general reported to have been executed three months ago is actually very much alive and has now been appointed to two senior-level positions within the nation’s ruling Workers’ Party.
—
New York Times – May 30 2019
South Korean Daily Says That Kim Jong-un Executed and Purged Top Nuclear Negotiators
North Korea has executed its special envoy to the United States on spying charges, as its leader, Kim Jong-un, has engineered a sweeping purge of the country’s top nuclear negotiators after the breakdown of his second summit meeting with President Trump, a major South Korean daily reported on Friday.
Kim Hyok-chol, the envoy, was executed by firing squad in March at the Mirim airfield in a suburb of Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s largest daily, reported on Friday, citing an anonymous source. Mr. Kim faced the charge that he was “won over by the American imperialists to betray the supreme leader,” the newspaper said.
We are now awaiting news of Kim Hyok-chol’s promotion to an important Workers Party position.
Update June 3 2019
As expected it turned out that Kim Hyok-chol is alive and well. He is also holding on to important party positions.
Yonhap News Agency – June 3 2019
Top aide to N.K. leader appears in public despite rumors of purge
SEOUL, June 3 (Yonhap) — A top aide to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un watched an art troupe’s performance together with the leader, Pyongyang’s state media reported Monday, belying rumors that he was purged for the leader’s embarrassing no-deal summit with U.S. President Donald Trump. Kim Yong-chol, who served as Pyongyang’s chief interlocutor and counterpart of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, attended Sunday’s performance by amateur art groups made up of the wives of military officers, together with leader Kim and other top officials, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.
…
In the Supreme People’s Assembly in mid-April, he was also appointed as a member of the State Affairs Commission, the communist state’s most powerful administrative apparatus, of which Kim Jong-un was re-elected as chairman.
Open Thread 2019-30
Mueller Punts On Obstruction Charges – Impeachment Would Hurt The Democrats
The Special counsel Robert Mueller today closed his investigation into alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with alleged Russian interference with the 2016 election.
Mueller said nothing that goes beyond his already published report. But he empathized that his report did not absolve Trump of obstructing his investigation. Mueller said:
“If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
and
“Charging the President with a crime was [..] not an option we could consider.”
It is the long standing legal opinion of the Justice Department that it -as part of the executive- can not indict a sitting president for a crime. The only entity which can do that is Congress through the impeachment process. Mueller had to follow that opinion. He now punted the issue to Congress.
Even before Mueller’s statement some Democrats strongly argued that such an impeachment process is warranted. Mueller’s statement today will be seen as support for that demand.
The leader of the Democratic party in the House Nancy Pelosi so far rejected to make that move. She fears that an impeachment process will only help Trump during the upcoming campaign season. He would certainly try to block the process. He would play the victim and demonize the Democrats over it. The media noise during a running impeachment process would also drown out any other policy issues the Democrats might want to highlight. Russiagate already did that throughout the last two and a half years. It didn’t help the party.
But there are also arguments that an impeachment process could damage Trump and increase the chance that he loses the 2020 election. Professor Alan Lichtman, who correctly predicted all presidential election since 1984, uses 13 true/false statements to judge if the candidate of the incumbent party will get elected. His current prediction:
“Trump wins again in 2020 unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of a foreign policy success, and the president’s limited appeal to voters.”
One of Lichtman’s key factors is 9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Lichtman thinks that an impeachment process would be negative for Trump:
Cont. reading: Mueller Punts On Obstruction Charges – Impeachment Would Hurt The Democrats
U.S. Government Seeks NGO Help For Removing Iran From Syria
The U.S.Department of State is offering a grant of $75,000,000 to non-government-organizations to help it to further meddle in Syria.
The grant SFOP0005916 – Supporting Local Governance and Civil Society in Syria will go to "Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education".
bigger
The task description is quite interesting as the NGOs which will eventually get the grant will have to commit to counter one of Syria's military allies:
The purpose of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is to advance the following U.S. Government policy objectives in Syria:
- Ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and counter violent extremism, including other extremist groups in Syria;
- Achieve a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
- End the presence of Iranian forces and proxies in Syria.
The Department of State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Office of Assistance Coordination (NEA/AC) aims to advance these policy objectives by supporting the following assistance objectives:
- Strengthen responsive and credible governance and civil society entities to capably serve and represent communities liberated from ISIS.
- Advance a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
- Counter extremism and disinformation perpetuated by Iranian forces, designated terrorist organizations, and other malign actors through support for local governance actors and civil society organizations.
The operational field for the grant is not only the Syrian northeast which U.S. troops currently occupy, but also the al-Qaeda infested Idleb governorate as well as all government controlled areas.
The related Funding Opportunity Description (available through the above link) does not explain what an NGO could do to advance the highlighted U.S. government goals.
Work on the three year project is supposed to start on January 1 2020. It must be applied for by August 2 2019.
—
h/t @domihol
New York Times Supports False Trump Claims About An “Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program” That Does Not Exist
During a press conference in Japan U.S. President Donald Trump today said (video):
And I’m not looking to hurt Iran at all. I’m looking to have Iran say, “No nuclear weapons.” We have enough problems in this world right now with nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons for Iran.
And I think we’ll make a deal.
Iran said: "No nuclear weapons." It said that several times. It continues to say that.
Iran does not have the intent to make nuclear weapons. It has no nuclear weapons program.
But Trump may be confused because the U.S. 'paper of the record', the New York Times, recently again began to falsely assert that Iran has such a program.
A May 4 editorial in the Times claimed that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps was running such a nuclear weapons program. After a loud public outrage the Times corrected the editorial. Iran's UN office wrote a letter to the Times which was published on May 6:
In an early version of “Trump Dials Up the Pressure on Iran” (editorial, nytimes.com, May 4), now corrected, you referred to a nuclear weapons program in describing the reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
…
The editorial is correct in criticizing the punishing aspects of the Trump administration policy toward Iran — one that has brought only suffering to the Iranian people and one that will not result in any change in Iran’s policies. But it was wrong to refer to a weapons program — a dangerous assertion that could lead to a great misunderstanding among the public.
Unfortunately that did not help. The NYT continues with the "dangerous assertion".
On May 13 the NYT reporters Eric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes wrote in White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War:
At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.
One can not accelerate one's car, if one does not have one. The phrase "accelerate work on nuclear weapons" implies that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. It may that the White House falsely claimed that but the authors use the phrase and never debunk it.
A May 14 NYT piece by Helene Cooper and Edward Wong repeats the false claim without pointing out that it is wrong:
The Trump administration is looking at plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported.
Also on May 14 the NYT's editorial cartoon was published under the caption Will Iran Revive Its Nuclear Program? The caption of the orientalist cartoon falsely asserted that Iran had enriched Uranium to weapons grade. And no, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program in its freezer.
bigger
On May 16, after another public outcry, a correction was added to the cartoon:
An earlier version of a caption with this cartoon erroneously attributed a distinction to Iran's nuclear program. Iran has not produced highly enriched uranium.
After this onslaught of false New York Times claims about Iran NYT critic Belen Fernandez asked: Has the New York Times declared war on Iran? She lists other claims made by the Times about Iran that are far from the truth.
Three days later, on May 25, Palko Karasz reported in the New York Times on Iran's reaction to Trump's tiny troop buildup in the Persian Gulf region. Again the obviously false "accelerate" phrase was used:
Cont. reading: New York Times Supports False Trump Claims About An “Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program” That Does Not Exist
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2019-29
Last week’s posts at Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2019-29
Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs
The fleet of Boeing 737 MAX planes will stay out on the ground longer than anticipated. Boeing promised a new software package to correct the severe problems with its Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The delivery was supposed to be ready in April. A month later it has still not arrived at the Federal Aviation Agency where it will take at least a month to certify it. The FAA will not be the only one to decide when the plane can come back into the flight line. Other country's agencies will do their own independent review and will likely take their time.
The 737 MAX incident also revealed a problem with older generations of the 737 type of plane that is only now coming into light. Simulator experiments (video) showed that the recovery procedures Boeing provided for the case of a severe mistrim of the plane is not sufficient to bring the plane back under control. The root cause of that inconvenient fact does not lie with the 737 MAX but with its predecessor, the Boeing 737 Next Generation or NG.
This was known in pilot circles for some time but will only now receive wider public attention:
The Boeing 737 Max's return to commercial airline service is reportedly being further delayed by the Federal Aviation Administration.
US government officials told The Wall Street Journal's Andy Pasztor that the FAA is evaluating the emergency procedures for not only the Max but also the older generations of the 737 including the [once] hot-selling Boeing 737 NG.
According to the officials, the broadened evaluation will take a look at how pilots of all 737 variant are instructed to respond to emergency situations.
Here is a detailed explanation why the FAA is now looking into the pilot training for older 737 types.
The 737 NG (-600/-700/-800/-900) was the third generation derivative of the 737 and followed the 737 Original (-100/-200) and Classic (−300/-400/-500) series. The first NG flew in 1997. Some 7,000 were build and most of them are still flying.
Two technical modifications that turned out to be a problem during the recent incidents occurred during the redesign of the 737 Classic into the New Generation series.
In the NG series a new Flight Management Computer (FMC) was added to the plane. (The FMC helps the pilots to plan and manage the flight. It includes data about airports and navigation points. It differs from the two Flight Control Computers in that it has no control over physical elements of the plane.)
The FMC on the NG version has two input/output units each with a small screen and a larger keyboard below it. They are next to the knees of the pilot and the copilot They are located on the central pedestal between the pilots right below the vertical instrument panel (see pic below). The lengthy FMCs did not fit on the original central pedestal. The trim wheels on each side, used to manually trim the airplane in its longitudinal axis or pitch, were in the way. Boeing's 'solution' to the problem was to make the manual trim wheels smaller.
737 NG cockpit with FMC panels and with smaller trim wheels (black with a white stripe)
bigger
737 Original-200 cockpit with larger trim wheels (black with a white stripe)
bigger
The smaller trim wheels require more manual force to trim with the same moment of force or torque than the larger ones did.
Cont. reading: Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs
‘Troops To Iran’ Scare – The Mountain Brings Forth A Mouse
On May 13 a leak to the New York Times launched an 'troops to Iran' scare:
The US military is exploring a plan to deploy 120,000 troops to the Middle East as tensions with Iran intensify – NYT/Business Insider, May 13
On May 14 we wrote:
The 120,000 troop deployment is the third option. The number is too high for an attack by air and on sea and too low for an attack on land, i.e. an invasion of Iran. Releasing the third option number is likely designed to rally against such a move.
From there on varying numbers were all over the news:
Trump denies U.S. plan to send 120,000 troops to counter Iran threat – Reuters, May 14
Trump says he'd send 'a hell of a lot more' than 120,000 troops to fight Iran if it came to that – Business Insider, May 14
Pentagon mulling military request to send 5,000 troops to Middle East: officials – Reuters, May 23
Trump: No plan now for more troops to confront Iran – Washington Times, May 23
The Pentagon’s plan to send up to 10,000 troops to the Middle East is about Iran – Vox, May 23
US officials: Plan may send up to 10,000 troops to Mideast – AP, May 24
Finally Trump put out a real number:
Trump says US to send 1,500 more troops to Middle East – AP, May 25
Unfortunately it was still wrong. Here is the real one:
Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan notified Congress on Friday that he had authorized a request from U.S. Central Command to send the additional forces – an Air Force fighter jet squadron, an engineering element and combination of manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets – into the Middle East, he said in a statement. The Pentagon will also extend the deployment of some 600 soldiers from a Patriot missile battalion already serving in the region.
There seems to have been a minor war between John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, and the State Department or Pentagon. Bolton is longing for his war on Iran and sending lots of troops would eventually provide for that. The State Department and the Pentagon want to prevent that catastrophe from happening and preferred to send none. Trump eventually agreed to minimal number.
There are in total some 20,000+ U.S. troops in the various countries of the Middle East. The additional 900 send now will not make any difference.
The idiocy of the whole discussion was well captured by the German satire site Der Postillon. On May 16 it headlined (translated):
US sounds alarm: "Iran is moving its country ever closer to our troops!"
Tensions between Washington and Tehran continue to increase. Now the United States accuses Iran of moving its borders ever closer to US troops. In part, American soldiers were almost in firing range. 
bigger
"Iran is using its territory to harass our peacefully deployed troops," said US National Security Advisor John Bolton. "Some of the country's borders come dangerously close to our soldiers – almost in range, Iran must stop doing that right away!"
…
The US threatened to mobilize its troops. Bolton: "We are a peaceful nation, but if Iran dares to let its borders cross below the feet of our soldiers, that inevitably means war!"
Five days after later Reuters converted the satire into news:
Iran's reach puts U.S. forces, allies in striking range
Sure, Iran's reach did that …
The Leaden Lady Steps Down
It was high time for this to happen:
Theresa May has announced she is to stand down as Prime Minister on 7 June following months of mounting pressure over her failure to deliver Brexit.
…
Mrs May will remain in post until a successor is chosen
The final straw of her doomed premiership came when a last-gasp effort to win support for her Withdrawal Agreement Bill backfired spectacularly and it became obvious her Brexit deal was dead in the water.
Brexiteers within her own party were enraged by the concession of the offer of a potential second referendum and customs union arrangement announced on Tuesday.
Boris Johnson is the leading candidate for May's job of not delivering Brexit.
bigger
Trump, who will visit Great Britain on June 10 while May is still in Downing Street, will likely weigh in for him.
Why Trump’s Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist
The Washington Post World page summarizes a piece about consequences of Trump's ban on the Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer Huawei:
A key chip designer and British telecom companies suspended some dealings with the Chinese tech giant over security concerns.
However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)
The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation with Huawei:
The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating the United States or China.
Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.
An Arm spokesman said some of the company’s intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore “subject to U.S. export controls.”
Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:
BT Group’s EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google‘s move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software from future Huawei phones.
These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.
That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.
After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish their utility for many users.
The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.
The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles) directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning Post only have short excerpts of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:
Cont. reading: Why Trump’s Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist
Venezuela – After Opposition Support ‘Deflated’ – U.S. Targets Food Aid Supply
The hot-air figures the U.S. used for its regime change efforts in Venezuela failed to do their job. The New York Times declares their movement "deflated".
Eleven hours after the story went live (and the White House had called?) the headline changed.
While it still repeats propaganda claims, the report makes clear that Guaidó is lacking public support:
CARACAS, Venezuela — It was a daring gambit: Juan Guaidó, Venezuela’s opposition leader, stood by a military base alongside dozens of uniformed officers and political allies, calling for a military uprising against President Nicolás Maduro.
…
Three weeks later, Mr. Guaidó is shuttling among a half-dozen safe houses to escape capture. … And the protests that filled the streets with Mr. Guaidó’s supporters are dwindling ..
…
Weakened and unable to bring the political crisis gripping Venezuela to a quick resolution, Mr. Guaidó has been forced to consider negotiations with Mr. Maduro. Both sides have sent representatives to Norway for talks, a concession Mr. Guaidó previously rejected.
This change is a turning point for the opposition, which in January had gathered momentum, attracting broad international backing and huge crowds of supporters. Now, that momentum has nearly dissipated — a testament to Mr. Maduro’s firm hold on power even as the country crumbles around him.
The government of Venezuela is talking with some of the opposition parties, there is no confirmation yet that Guaidó's party, which is the most radical opposition element, is actually involved. It is doubtful that the government would want to 'negotiate' with it.
Interestingly the NYT now leaves out the false "interim president" attribute that it previously used to describe Guaidó.
That Guaidó failed with his clownish coup attempt does not mean that the U.S. will give up on its regime change efforts.
Venezuela's economy is in a deep economic crisis. The cause are not the minor socialist attempts its government made, but the economic war the U.S. is waging against it:
Cont. reading: Venezuela – After Opposition Support ‘Deflated’ – U.S. Targets Food Aid Supply
Uber Drivers Learn To Game Its Antisocial System
Uber and other ride-hailing companies use surge pricing, also known as “dynamic pricing” or “demand-based pricing.” They increase the ride fare if the demand for rides is greater than the available capacity. In moments of heavy demand, they increase their fare up to three times the normal price.
A 2015 Uber and University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, study claims that such surge pricing is beneficial for both sides, the drivers and for those that use the service:
Uber operates in a market with large fluctuations in demand and a variable supply of driver-partners. Driver-partners are free to work whenever they want and must be incentivized to provide services. Under these conditions, economic theory tells us that using prices to signal to riders that rides are scarce and inducing driver-partners to forgo other activities will close the gap between supply and demand and lead to improved outcomes for both riders (as a whole) and driver-partners.
Reality disagrees with what the economic theory tells us. In the U.S. Uber drivers are seen as independent contractors. The drivers say that the standard fare is too low, or Uber's 35-40% share of it too high, to make a living. They therefore looked for and found ways to game the system:
Every night, several times a night, Uber and Lyft drivers at Reagan National Airport simultaneously turn off their ride share apps for a minute or two to trick the app into thinking there are no drivers available—creating a price surge. When the fare goes high enough, the drivers turn their apps back on and lock into the higher fare.
…
“All the airplanes we know when they land. So five minutes before, we turn all our apps off all of us at the same time. All of us we turn our apps off. They surge, $10, $12, sometimes $19. Then we turn our app on. Everyone will get the surge,” one driver says.
It is wonderful to see such worker solidarity:
"And does everyone oblige? Does everyone do it?, Sweeney asks.
“Yes 100 percent. Everyone do it. Everyone knows it’s not worth it. They know if they take a ride from here without surge, without pumping the surge up, it’s not worth it.”
In less than a minute, about 50 drivers are locked into the surge.
“It’s like we work as a family, like a team together. Like as a team. We do it. Every night. We do it again. We drop off, come back again, it’s a routine. We do it to 12 o' clock."
The business idea on which Uber is based is not profitable. From its beginning it grew by breaking the law:
Cont. reading: Uber Drivers Learn To Game Its Antisocial System
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2019-28
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
See also: Rob Slane at The Blogmire – The Sinking Credibility of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
John Bolton created the crisis by claiming that Iran put some imaginary missiles on a boat. When Trump told him to stop the campaign, at least for now, the imaginary missile had to be removed. The NYT willingly stenographed the "news": U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Removed Missile Threat From Some Boats
I don't expect that Bolton will let the issue go. He will find or create an incident sufficient to convince Trump to go to war with Iran.
My hunch is that China will -in the end- win through the trade war. Others disagree.
Christopher Whalen at the American Conservative: China Has Already Lost the Trade War
—
Other issues:
The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a fistfight.
The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting.
This Scientific American piece about Game of Thrones (of which I have seen only half an episode) touches on the differences.
The Real Reason Fans Hate the Last Season of Game of Thrones
It's not just bad storytelling—it’s because the storytelling style changed from sociological to psychological
Use as open thread …
Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel published (German) reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid, German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them. He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws. They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung, Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
Cont. reading: Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right
Open Thread 2019-27
Propaganda Intensifies Trade War With China
The dwindling empires' main propaganda outlet, the New York Times, continues its anti-China campaign. It is now by blaming China's president for the failure of trade negotiations with the United States.
How Xi’s Last-Minute Switch on U.S.-China Trade Deal Upended It:
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.
He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.
But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.
As typical for U.S. propaganda the piece goes on to personifying the decision China made when confronted with overreaching U.S. demands. It is Xi personally, says the Times, who is to blame:
In China’s top-down political system, where President Xi has amassed formidable power, …
… it is clear that Mr. Xi misjudged …
Now Mr. Xi risks being backed into a corner, …
For Mr. Xi, such a move could be seen …
Mr. Xi’s frenetic schedule and highly centralized style of policymaking …
“No doubt Xi has tightened the overall policy atmosphere …
U.S. propaganda is always pointing to one person that solely cases everything and therefore deserves all the hate. It once was Saddam, Saddam , Saddam. Then Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Assad, Assad, Assad, Putin, Putin, Putin. Now it is Xi, Xi, Xi.
In the real word hardly any person leading a state has as much power as such villainizing propaganda tries to make one believe. Countries have interests that define their policies through processes that are often incomprehensible to the cursory observer. Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below. It should be the task of the press to untangle and explain the processes instead of demonizing their representing face.
So what really happened?
Cont. reading: Propaganda Intensifies Trade War With China
Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims
On Tuesday Russia's President Putin again rejected U.S. claims that his country interfered in the 2016 elections in the United States. Additional statements by Foreign Minister Lavrov provide that there is more information available about alleged Russian cyber issue during the election. He pointed to exchanges between the Russian and U.S. governments that Russia wants published but which the U.S. is withholding.
On Tuesday May 14 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Sochi to meet with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov and with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. It was Pompeo's first official visit to Russia. Pompeo's meeting with Lavrov was followed by a joined news conference. The statements from both sides touched on the election issue.
The State Department published a full transcript and video of the press conference in English language. The Russian Foreign Ministry provided an official English translation of only Lavrov's part. Both translations differ only slightly.
Here are the relevant excerpts from the opening statements with regard to cyber issues.
Lavrov:
We agreed on the importance of restoring communications channels that have been suspended lately, which was due in no small part to the groundless accusations against Russia of trying to meddle in the US election. These allegations went as far as to suggest that we colluded in some way with high-ranking officials from the current US administration. It is clear that allegations of this kind are completely false. […] I think that there is a fundamental understanding on this matter as discussed by our presidents during their meeting last year in Helsinki, as well as during a number of telephone conversations. So far these understandings have not been fully implemented.
Pompeo:
[W]e spoke, too, about the question of interference in our domestic affairs. I conveyed that there are things that Russia can do to demonstrate that these types of activities are a thing of the past and I hope that Russia will take advantage of those opportunities.
During the Q & A Shaun Tanron of AFP asked Pompeo about the election issue:
[I]f I could follow up on your statement about the election, you said that there are things that Russia could do to show that election interference is a thing of the past. What are those things? What do – what would you like Russia to do? Thank you very much.
Lavrov responded first to the question. He said that there is no evidence that shows any Russian interference in the U.S. elections. He continued:
Speaking about the most recent US presidential campaign in particular, we have had in place an information exchange channel about potential unintended risks arising in cyberspace since 2013. From October 2016 (when the US Democratic Administration first raised this issue) until January 2017 (before Donald Trump's inauguration), this channel was used to handle requests and responses. Not so long ago, when the attacks on Russia in connection with the alleged interference in the elections reached their high point, we proposed publishing this exchange of messages between these two entities, which engage in staving off cyberspace incidents. I reminded Mr Pompeo about this today. The administration, now led by President Trump, refused to do so. I’m not sure who was behind this decision, but the idea to publish this data was blocked by the United States. However, we believe that publishing it would remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make these exchanges public, but I would still like to make this fact known.
The communication channel about cyber issues did indeed exist. In June 2013 the Presidents of the United States and Russia issued a Joint Statement about "Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)". The parties agreed to establishing communication channels between each other computer emergency response teams, to use the direct communication link of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers for cyber issue exchanges, and to have direct communication links between high-level officials in the White House and Kremlin for such matter. A Fact Sheet published by the Obama White House detailed the implementation of these three channels.
One inference from Lavrov's statement is that the "fundamental understanding on this matter" between the two presidents that has "not been fully implemented" is the release of the communications about cyberspace incidents. The Russians clearly think that a release of the communications with the Obama administration would exculpate them. That would also exculpate Trump from any further collusion allegations. Why then does the Trump administration reject the release? Who is blocking it?
Cont. reading: Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference Claims
The Lunacy Of Waging A War On Iran From Which China And Russia Will Win
The scare mongering about an attack on Iran continues. Bolton must be laughing his ass off how easy he can play the issue based on nothing. He simply counters any debunking of the alleged 'thread from Iran' by upping the ante. Yesterday a British general in Iraq denied that any such threat exists in the area of his responsibility:
“No – there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” Maj. Gen. Christopher Ghika, deputy commander of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the coalition responsible for counter-terrorist operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, said in a video briefing, according to the Guardian.
Today Bolton countered that by again raising the noise level around the imaginary threat:
The U.S. Embassy in Iraq says the State Department has ordered all non-essential, non-emergency government staff to leave the country right away amid escalating tensions with Iran.
The alert, published on the embassy's website on Wednesday, comes after Washington last week said it had detected new and urgent threats from Iran and its proxy forces in the region targeting Americans and American interests.
Bolton is for now achieving the results he wants. He systematically fills the public space with talk about the non-existing 'threat from Iran'. If that threat is established in the public mind by its constant repetition, it will be used for the usual false flag incident to justify to launch a war on Iran.
Bolton's power might change though. The knifes are out against him and there are rumors that he might get fired:
Two sources familiar with the matter tell me President Donald Trump’s rumbustious National Security Council chief is headed for the exits, having flown too close to the sun on his regime change efforts for Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. “Hearing that Trump wants him out,” a former senior administration official told me.
Bolton (and maybe Trump too) want a war on Iran because Bibi Netanyahoo asked for one, because the anti-Iranian MEK cult and Zionists paid him to wage one, and because he thinks he can do so without damaging the United States.
by Ted Rall (used with permission) – bigger
It is the last point where he is completely wrong. The war on Iraq destroyed the position of the U.S. as the 'sole superpower'. Russia used the aftermath to come back into the Middle East while China gained time to fortify its position in Asia. The once sole superpower is now only a primus inter pares with China and Russia. A U.S. war on Iran would further diminish its position. China and Russia would both end up with an increased standing in the world while the U.S. would lose out.
Here is why.
Yesterday the New York Times promoted the options the Pentagon gave to the White House for a war on Iran. It led with the 120,000 troops option which made no sense:
The number is too high for an attack by air and on sea and too low for an attack on land, i.e. an invasion of Iran.
Newsweek now says that the 120,000 troop option is only the prelude for an invasion of Iran:
Pentagon officials told Newsweek that if deployed, the role of the 120,000 U.S. forces would center on logistical support and developing infrastructure to preposition U.S. forces for the option of a ground invasion. The original 120,000 would integrate into an additional surge of U.S. forces sent into the region.
These "Pentagon officials" are not "military officials", i.e. not soldiers. They seem to have no idea what they are speaking about. An invasion and occupation of the mountainous Iran would require over half a million soldiers just for the start. Even an invasion of only the oil rich areas on Iran's west coast and on its border with Iraq would require a force of some 300,000 men. Without a draft the U.S. military is unable to sustain such a large operation for more than two or three months.
And invade from where please? Iraq would certainly not allow U.S. forces to attack its neighbor from its grounds. An invasion by sea is prohibited by the confined water of the Persian Gulf, the lack of minesweepers, and of other maritime assets.
The people who talk up such a war have a serious case of delusion:
Cont. reading: The Lunacy Of Waging A War On Iran From Which China And Russia Will Win
U.S. Increases Risk Of War On Iran Without A Path To De-escalation
Is the U.S. military, which lost its powerful positions in the White House, trying to get National Security Advisor John 'Stache' Bolton fired?
A 'leak' to the New York Times accuses Bolton of preparing for war on Iran:
At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.
The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. It does not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.
The development reflects the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.
If asked for 'options' the military typically lays out three scenarios. The first is very minor action unlikely to have any effect. The second is what the military sees as reasonable or wants. The third option is fantastically exaggerated. The 120,000 troop deployment is the third option. The number is too high for an attack by air and on sea and too low for an attack on land, i.e. an invasion of Iran. Releasing the third option number is likely designed to rally against such a move.
More than a half-dozen American national security officials who have been briefed on details of the updated plans agreed to discuss them with The New York Times on the condition of anonymity.
…
Among those attending Thursday’s meeting were Mr. Shanahan; Mr. Bolton; General Dunford; Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director; and Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.
In a possible quit pro quo the delivery of 'options' by the Defense Department happened on the same day that acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan was finally nominated for the permanent position. The previous Secretary of Defense James Mattis had ignored similar options requests from the White House. Trump fired Mattis at the end of last year.
An alternative view is that Bolton himself leaked the briefing to shore up the Trump administration's propagandistic threat against Iran.
Still, it is obvious that that some of those present at the meeting disagree with whatever Bolton's plans are.
In another sign of disagreement within the Trump administration the State Department just fired a Bolton ally:
Cont. reading: U.S. Increases Risk Of War On Iran Without A Path To De-escalation
Syria – OPCW Engineering Assessment: The Douma ‘Chemical Weapon Attack’ Was Staged
On April 7 2018 Syrian 'rebels' claimed that the Syrian government used chlorine gas and Sarin in an attack on the besieged Douma suburb near the Syrian capital Damascus. They published a series of videos which showed dead bodies of mainly women and children.
The claim of the 'chemical attack' was made shortly after U.S. President Trump had announced that he wanted U.S. troops to leave Syria. It was designed to "pull him back in" which it indeed did. In an illegal 'retaliation' the U.S., Britain and France launched a number of cruise missiles against Syria. Most of them failed to reach their targets.
Moon of Alabama published a number of pieces on the issue which are listed below.
It seemed obvious from the very first claims of the 'gas attack' that it did not happen at all. The Syrian government had no motive to use any chemical weapon or an irritant like chlorine in Douma. It had already won the battle. The incident was obviously staged, like others before it, to drag the U.S. into a new attack on Syria.
Of special interest on the incident scene were two gas cylinders which were photo- and video-graphed near to where the dead bodies were found. It was claimed that the cylinders were dropped from Syrian army helicopters and crashed through concrete roofs. One cylinder allegedly 'bumped' after completely penetrating the roof and came to rest on a bed. The other cylinder allegedly broke a roof open and came to rest on a balcony.
To anyone with a bit of 'feel' for material behavior of concrete and metal on impact, it was obvious that the damages caused on the concrete and on the cylinders were incompatible with each other. The concrete, reinforced with steel, was thoroughly penetrated while the cylinders showed only minimal damage. The roofs were most likely penetrated by artillery impact while the cylinders were most likely put there by hand.
bigger
bigger
Cont. reading: Syria – OPCW Engineering Assessment: The Douma ‘Chemical Weapon Attack’ Was Staged
|
