Category Archives: Politics

The pope’s mobile is on the clock

 

Hickory Dickory dock, the pope ran up the clock,

The clock struck one, and hit his bum, Hickory Dickory dock.

An old rhyme slightly adjusted and gives light to a joke that mattered, it is old and it goes like:

Q: Why does the pope kiss the ground when he arrives?
A: You’ve never flown with Alitalia have you?

That is where we are, the clock is counting down; Alitalia is on its last legs and merely has two weeks left. As sources report that EasyJet pulled out of the race and even as Delta is still on board, someone needs to be found for the remaining 40% and that is the hard ball, consider on how much of an issue Alitalia is when people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates will not take a shine to it, it might be too harsh to call Alitalia a money pit, but that is what is amounts too. The flight market is close to saturated, even as we all needed to fly (quite literally) 20 years ago, the companies started to figure out not to give their profits to the airlines. On a global scale close to 9750 planes were in the air last year at any given time, transporting up to 1.3 million people. The operative part is ‘at any given time‘, so how much travel is required nowadays? In 1998 I was flying close to 21 weeks that year, giving trainings and doing consultancy round the clock, at times living from a suitcase with added support from my laptop giving IT trainings and software training. I circled the planet twice that year, from Amsterdam, New York, Atlanta, Sydney, Singapore, Istanbul, via Munich and back to Amsterdam. I thought it was great and as long as the profits were outshining the costs, my bosses kept on sending me to more locations, it was all fine by me. These days are over, even as we see more and more airports expanding to ‘facilitate’ for more passengers, we see a dangerous curve, Stockholm Arlanda is expanding to facilitate for 40 million visitors a year. The numbers give us that the top 25 carriers facilitated for 13,718,655 passengers and if they are all tourists, that would be fine, yet the business side is not adding up. You see 15 out of the 25 had a decrease the went up to 27.3%, the lowest 10 were below 4.5%, still they were all still decreases and the largest increase came from Riga, Latvia.

Now consider that on the other side, on the airline side, apart from the element where we see that Alitalia had no operating profit between 2009 and 2015 with added low points of well over minus a quarter of a billion, the setup of airlines seems to be too odd.

I do get it, a nations having a national airline is a matter of pride, we get it, but at what cost? The airline has about 100 planes as part of the mainline fleet and the cost of doing business is just too high, there is no decent chance that whomever owns the airline might do so, so that they can say that they own an airline, it seems the weirdest of reasons, but from the financial view that is as much as we are going to get and the bad news is not done at this point.

You see, the work I used to do can be done remotely more and more, when 5G is totally here, we can see the shift where the classes can be given remotely with a phantom screen and with the presentations running in the background, the speed will enable us to give individual service to all the participants in up to three locations at the same time, almost like remotely run classroom software with camera’s in all locations. At that point we will see even less traffic required implying that the business classes on these flights will be close to a thing of the past.

The more immediate and difficult part is that none of this is the fault of Alitalia. Yes, we can look at the scandals and the past sting operations, yet the foundation is not that, it is the need of people to travel. In that light the traveller will be the one using their local airline (like many would), some will select airlines for their service and there we see groups of people seeking flights by Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways and Emirates. So these airlines are also poaching local travellers as they have shown and proven themselves to be a cut above the others. When it comes to business and tourist Italy, we see decline of both and falling harder, yet Italy is still the destination to several countries, namely Germany, France, UK and US as the largest four. These four add up to 23%; the rest is from all over. So, what makes me the specialist? I am not; I am merely using common sense. 100 planes, in an age where their power is tourism and we are going into the summer season, but that setting is a stage that represents merely 18 weeks out of 52, the numbers and the economy do not support the fleet, or so it seems.

when we consider that Rome Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino supported 42,995,119 passengers last year, there is a decent case that I am seeing it wrong, but that is from all airlines, beside Alitalia, we see Air India, Emirates, Turkish Airlines, United, Etihad Airways, Thai Airways, Asiana Airlines, Qatar Airways, Cathay Pacific, Air China, Lufthansa, Ethiopian Airlines, Finnair, British Airways, SWISS, EL AL Israel Airlines, Air France, Saudia, Ukraine International, Jet Airways, Air Canada, Egypt Air, KLM, Kuwait Airways, Brussels Airlines, Aeroflot, Korean Air, China Airlines, Singapore Airlines, China Southern, Iran Air, all flying to Rome, now we see a different picture, even as the airport needs the space and growth, we see no decent numbers on how the Alitalia flights are doing, some sources were giving me ‘No Data‘ and that is fair enough, but it makes a much stronger case that unless there is someone with deep pockets that Alitalia is on its last legs and in its final stage of a mere two week notice until it shuts down. Planes would be auctioned off and the lot to be repackaged for other management styles. And I do believe that the end is not in sight, Alitalia is not the only one in such a sordid state of affairs. I believe that the business case of airlines should have changed a long time ago, and it will get worse soon enough, as the oil price goes up, so do the prices of flights. You see the one element we seem to ignore is not the drop in non-tourist passengers. It is the fact that one barrel of crude oil only facilitates for up to 4 gallons of jet fuel, the turnaround is that high, 42 gallons can only make 4 gallons of jet fuel, after that it boils down to gasoline, diesel and other items, so when the barrel goes up in price, the impact is seen quite fast. Consider that a flight from Rome to New York takes 9 hours and 40 minutes (or 2,088,000 seconds), now consider that a 747 needs 1 gallon a second, so if the oil goes up by $1, the maximum cost of a flight would go up by 2 million times the price increase and we can only get 4 gallons bet crude oil barrel making it an optional increase of $500K per flight (which is not completely true as diesel and gasoline would need to bear part of those costs too, but with only 4 gallons to the barrel, jet fuel would take the hardest hit).

That part counts too and as such tourist numbers would go down to some degree, especially from America. These are all still mere elements in the hardship calculations, but the elements are starting to add up, more optional other choices, more localised incentives and less options for Alitalia, that is the sad reality for Alitalia. As far as I was able to see, the press (the non-Italian press) did not take a look at these elements. Even as the BBC did look at one element “At the time the Irish airline was struggling to contain the fallout from a pilot shortage, which led to the cancellation of flights for about 700,000 passengers“, the abundance of competition, as well as the dangers of fuel changes were not looked at. Yet there are other sources, Bloomberg (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-18/easyjet-drops-from-alitalia-bidding-in-setback-to-government) gave us a month ago that Delta is “exploring ways to work with Ferrovie dello Stato and maintain our partnership with Alitalia in the future“, yet I am not convince that they are in it with their heart and soul. Merely a stage where their accountants can optionally see plans for the Alitalia infrastructure and options to give Delta a streamline boost and let Delta grow in other ways accepting Alitalia to some degree for some time, yet how that ‘for some time‘ develops will remain an unknown. Part of it is seen with “Delta would take a 10 percent stake, which would double within four years if certain business goals are met“, yet these business goals are not really heralded by any party. In that regard Lufthansa was open and clear by stating that Alitalia needs to shed 40% of the workforce and that is where the cost of the Delta business goals are likely to be seen as well and that 40% will remain part of the problem. The Italian government would had to euthanise 40% of the workforce in a time when it could not afford to do so and that is the issue to the larger extent. If that knife is thrust hard and deep Alitalia might be around on April 30th, yet at present that is not a given, the pressured parties are not willing to get to that point until the 11th hour and at that point it might just be too late, because in the end the airline is not the only player, the airports will try to make sure that their part of the equation remains safe and there are plenty of airlines offering to ferry people to these locations making the equation unbalanced and unrealistic for the bookkeepers of Alitalia, a sad story for an airline that only recently made it to its 10th year.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Creating denial as an option

All nations change, there is no way avoiding it. Sometimes we all wish that the setting is set in stone. Some would want to be philosophers in ancient Greece, some prefer the scandalous lives of ancient Rome, some see the comfort being a non-poor person in Victorian England and others seek the renaissance of Roma, Venice and Florence. We all have wants, needs and desires. We all wish it was another time. Yet some seek denial, some seek a change that requires events of the past to be deniable. If they succeed they can push for larger changes that are optionally profitable form them. That is how I see the news (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/12/academics-launch-petition-against-racist-mural-in-french-parliament), where we are treated to ‘Academics launch petition against ‘racist’ mural in French parliament‘. The news gives us: “Two French academics have launched a petition to remove a parliament mural commemorating the abolition of slavery, which they said was a racist, humiliating and dehumanising depiction of black people“, I am not sure if these two appreciate the impact and history of art. One is a French writer (Julien Suaudeau), the other a film director (Mame-Fatou Niang), so when it comes to art, their view of art is likely to be better than mine, let’s put that up front. When I see the art, I see no negativity, I see the happiness and joy of the end of slavery, chains broken, so when I see “Its presence – in complete indifference – at the heart of one the highest sites of the Republic adds insult to injury”, I honestly don’t get it. The work is 28 years old, if it was truly racist, papers all over the world would have written about it for the longest of times. I personally believe that those who want to make a new move to the new iconographic of denial through art believe that this work of art is in the way. Perhaps it is just my shallow look, I will not deny that it might be me and that I am totally wrong, but I feel that after 28 years with non reported complaints I actually might have a case here.

The New Yorker (at https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-campaign-to-remove-a-shocking-painting-from-the-french-national-assembly) gives us only hours ago: “The painting, by the French artist Hervé Di Rosa, comprises nine panels, each depicting a key moment in the annals of French lawmaking: the institution of paid holidays, the recuperation of Alsace-Lorraine. Since 1991, it has hung in a hallway outside of the Assembly’s auditorium. Each year, thousands of tourists and schoolchildren pass by the work, as do their elected representatives. One panel is meant to commemorate the abolition of slavery in France, in 1794, but, to Niang and other observers, it perpetuates grotesque racial stereotypes.

And when we see “It features “two huge black faces, with bulging eyes, oversized bright red lips, carnivorous teeth, in an imagery borrowing to [sic] Sambo, the Banania commercials and Tintin in the Congo” we might initially think that there is a case, yet the painting is about iconography and when we consider Tin Tin, from the world famous Belgium artist Hergé, we need to take a step back and it is then that we should realise (those who have seen the murals), that the mural ‘1948 Le suffrage universel‘ shows similar iconography and that is not about black people.

The fact that the New Yorker went with ““I was just shocked,” Niang recalled. “I’m a French black person. The piece tells me that this is how my country sees me”” making the issue (from my personal point if view) a strange turn. They also give us: “Di Rosa says that his style is influenced by pop culture: comic books, science fiction, and punk. He often paints white people with similarly exaggerated features and considers “big red lips” a signature of his mythological world.” OK, that makes sense, and it is in the end not a photograph, it is art.

Yet, when we learn more on the two individuals (or better stated as the New Yorker hands it to us, we see: “Niang and Suaudeau’s ultimate goal, they say, “is to raise French people’s awareness of the colonial wound.” Both of them live in the United States. She is an associate professor of French studies at Carnegie Mellon; he is an instructor in the French and Francophone studies program at Bryn Mawr. Their insistence that a black woman’s experience of a work of art is as important as a white man’s aims in making it—their insistence on acknowledging context, subjectivity, and identity—has been taken by some French commentators as an attempt to inflict American notions of political correctness upon French culture.” I am faced with two parts. The first is ‘awareness of the colonial wound‘, which is fair enough. Yet that requires new art, new (read: different) views and view that creates a ripe stage of creating awareness, this assault on one of nine murals will not achieve that, it merely shows some level of subterfuge to remove 9 murals for whatever reason and not willing to come out loud stating that they want these walls for their needs or the needs of their friends. This is merely my personal view on the matter, the fact that they have gotten 2,500 votes so far seems to support my view, set that number against 70,000,000 voices on some view regarding Jamal Khashoggi whilst none of them had any view on actual evidence supports the numbers game. The second one is ‘inflict American notions of political correctness‘ is a much larger issue. It almost sets the stage where Walt Disney put Donald Trump in the White House telling the world that Technicolor productions are a thing of the past, how is that for analogy? I believe that there is a shift and in that shift the directness of some works of art are too much of a reminder that some shifts are actually a bad thing. The New Yorker also gives us: “On social media, the two have been inundated with vitriolic comments (more often targeting her than him, as is the custom). In the French press, they’ve been depicted as, at best, “fervent promoters of the black identity,” and, at worst, “fanatics in need of publicity.”” I refuse to target them, it is not my thing, as for ‘fanatics in need of publicity‘, I would need to know both a lot more than I currently do, yet one of my first thoughts was that: “They are probably in need of attention“, which is not a given, and ranks on the same page as people thinking ‘that person probably asked for a raise‘ when a cast member of a TV series is written out of the show.

And then we get the gem that matters, the part the New Yorker is getting right. With: ‘the history of slavery and racism in America is not the same as that of slavery and racism in France‘. It is an important distinction as it is a much larger issue. The Dutch had the colonies in Indonesia, that is, until 17 August 1945 when Sukarno read a statement on the radio and became the first president of Indonesia. Belgium had issues with the Congo and the list of events goes on. What some see in one light, other see different? Yes the US has slavery for the longest times, and the Dutch were not innocent as they traded New York for Suriname merely for the profit of slaves. The Dutch abolished slavery in 1863, 2 years before the US, 69 years after the French, and 30 years after the British, in that light the French were the most enlightened of the 4, a small fact we do not get to see here either.

Making denial an option is the most dangerous of all settings, even if this might not have been the case here, the event make me consider the dangers of creating denial. We see it around us all the time, the filtering through the media and the adjustment of perception, the outside intervention of awareness and social adjustments, the second part that we saw with ‘inflict American notions of political correctness‘ is the first indication of social adjustment, social adjustment “is an effort made by an individual to cope with standards, values and needs of a society in order to be accepted. It can be defined as a psychological process“, yet that’s not all and there lies the danger. You see from my personal point of view we should also consider “social adjustment is an attempt to shift standards to introduce adjusted standards, values and needs to make a new society acceptable, which facilitates for the needed psychological process“. It makes me wonder whether this was really about the mural or about the need to see other standards in a stage where the world economy is in a stage to push for changes on behalf of the largest corporations to make legalised slave labour a future option, in that stage the mural of Hervé Di Rosa becomes the largest eye sore in sight for those needing certain essential changes.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

As perception becomes awareness

That is the stage we often face, we perceive we acknowledge, we become aware and that awareness becomes the reality we face towards the new reality we did not comprehend before. It is usually not that great a path to be on, especially when you see that the path you are on has a distinct route taking you to exactly the place no one wanted you to be.

Yet for the CAAT (Campaign against the Arms Trade), especially Andrew Smith, and optionally both Martin Chamberlain QC and Liam Fox as well. It is important to see that these people are not evil, they are not delusional and they are not entirely wrong, yet the reality that was given by CNBC half a day after my article ‘When the joke is on us all‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/04/07/when-the-joke-is-on-us-all/) is now entering a new dimension. As CNBC gives us ‘Russian expansion in the Middle East is a ‘clear reality on the ground,’ WEF president says‘, we are also given: “Moscow has signed technical agreements and memoranda of understanding to sell its S-400 and other weapons to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar“, there is now optional noise that this could include a nice batch of shiny new MIG’s, as well as a few other items where we see that the UK is soon to lose the option to make £5 billion for its treasury giving the BAE Systems now headaches to content with. Anything that is related or connected to the UK facilitating to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia could optionally not happen, or will be receiving the standard ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you‘ status. Isn’t ideology great?

We might all (including me) accept the quote: “There is “overwhelming evidence” of violations of human rights law by both the Saudi-led coalition and other forces in Yemen, lawyers for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) told the court on Tuesday.” Most will be forgetting that to all interpretation, the Houthi forces are terrorist forces. Their connection with Hezbollah and Iran is not enough, the short and sweet is that they were not an elected government, they merely moved towards a coup d’état and instigated the war we see now.

So there we are, I now have to talk to the United Aircraft Corporation, owned and founded by Vladimir Putin and the parent organisation of the makers of the MIG, so as I try to get a meeting with the ‘Pоссийская Самолетостроительная Корпорация‘, on being their new exclusive contact for sales to Saudi Arabia (yes, I know, I have no chance in hell there, but I remain an eternal optimist), we see on how the high nosed ideologists are costing the UK billions, all that whilst the opposite of what the Saudi coalition is facing has been ignored or trivialised by a lot of people. You merely have to see what you can on Al-Manar (Lebanese satellite television station affiliated with Hezbollah, broadcasting from Beirut, Lebanon) to realise that Hezbollah is still a player there, it is less visible when it comes to Iran, Iran is playing the field low key and on what some call the down low. Even as the evidence is clear that Houthi forces have Iran drones, the way they got them remains unclear, speculated, but not proven and that too must be noted.

Yet in this era, and under these settings we now see that due to the CAAT, the UK will lose more footing and will have less of a voice at the grown up table that is trying to resolve the issues in Yemen. In the end the CAAT achieved nothing but the dwindling revenue stream for the UK, yet the Russian Federation will be grateful and if I get the job, I will send a huge hamper to the three parties involved (after my first bonus payment that is), the voice makers so to say.

This is the setting that governments and large corporations created form 2004 onwards, we all might have a huge national pride, but in the end, we need to sell, we need to make the cash that is required for rent and food and those in a stage where they set high moral borders in places where the impact is actually zero, you have no value, you have no gain, you merely end up with unpaid bills.

Now if governments had done something about the FAANG group 15 years ago, it would be different, but that is not the case, that is not the reality we face. You see, the fighters are just the start, as we enabled the Russians to get a foot in the door, they now have a direct path to both Syria (they already had options there) as well as Saudi Arabia (and optionally Qatar) to start deploying (read selling and training) these nations on the Altius-M drone. Especially in places where the price of a fighter is basically the same as three drones, drones will be the path many nations go and even as the America Predator looks leaner and meaner, the acts of US Congress as well as that from UK Parliament is now opening the doors for Russia, which is not a good thing (except if I get the job, it will be awesome at that point).

It goes from Bad to worse, especially for America. You see, the MIG-35 and the Altius-M are merely the start. In the end, the gold is found (for Russia that is) with the Sukhoi Su-57, I know little about that plane, yet the stories that it can outperform the F-35 are from sources that are not to be ignored, so even when we hear that the US has plans to counter that, in light of their failed USS Zumwalt comedy caper, those plans can be sneered at until they prove to work. And in the end it is almost as simple as: “Do you want this flag to be on a British, American, or Russian product?

This all matters!

You see, the arms race is important not because they are weapons, but because the economies get huge incentives through those commercialised items. The fact that at present 6 nations are on the list for that new gadget and in light of the high winded American response in the past on who was allowed to buy a F-22 Raptor and it was vetting its allies in a crazy way. Now, in all truth there might be a case for that (I honestly cannot tell), but now that we see that Russia is willing to sell to sovereign states and they have no bar, whilst we see the unconfirmed part of: “State-run Chinese media is claiming that the People’s Liberation Army has been able to track the U.S. Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor” implies that the stealth part is less stealthy than we thought it was, and any evidence will drive sales towards Russia too. All parts that had much less chance of happening as the UK systems were proven, they were great and now, or optionally soon, we get the resolution that sales to Saudi Arabia are off. Whether that is right or wrong is not for me to decide, but the fact that the £5 billion loss of revenue is triggering a $12 billion shift in other directions, optionally towards Russia is a part that most ignored to the larger extent, a sales path denied because people forgot that in any war, especially against terrorist forces, the people will always be in the middle. Oh, and if you think that it is all bad, consider that the makers of the F-22 Raptor (Lockheed Martin) also has other paths, so the F-22 profits also forges upgrades and new options in commercial flying, cyber solutions, Radar solutions, Communication platforms and a lot more, in that we see BAE Systems that has services in finance, Cyber security, Compliance solutions and a lot more. Now, the one sale towards Saudi Arabia might not impact it to the largest degree, but a change has been made and the competitors now get a larger slice to play with, and it can lead to additional repeat business, it is not a secret, it is not even an unknown, any person with a decent knowledge in Business Intelligence could have told you that and there is the problem, the one-sided ideology of CAAT is now optionally going to cost the UK a lot more than anyone bargained for.

As I said, I have nothing against ideologists and ideology is great when it can to some degree adhere to commercial reality, and selling to a sovereign nation is intelligent and common sense packaged together, yet when soft-hearted people overreact on events in Yemen, whilst the stage comes from Iranian funded terrorism, how can we go against that? The fact that 16 million Yemeni’s are in danger form several sides (disease and famine) whilst the Houthi terrorists are depriving these people of food, whilst they do everything to stop humanitarian aid via Hodeida and other places, are we not buttering the bread of terrorists?

How can you sleep knowing that this is happening?

BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and United Aircraft Corporation are not evil, they are not a danger, they sell to governments and all three want to sell to the same governments making this a buyers’ market. The moment you forgot about that part of the equation, that did not make you an ideologist, it made you short sighted and that is my largest concern on CAAT, the fact they are needlessly depriving the UK government of treasury income, yet speaking for selfishly coated me, if it pays my bills, I am all fine with that in the end.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

When the joke is on us all

We all have moments where we imagine that the dice is cast, yet we play roulette, we think we have the numbers down, yet did you know that the roulette number sequence is different in Europe compared to America? These are all elements in a play of high stake gambling. That same setting returns when we look at the Guardian article ‘Campaigners head to court to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia’. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/06/campaigners-court-bid-to-stop-uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia) holds two sides (apart from it being partially a joke in my eyes). You see, I have no issue with people who have the principle of being against weapons. That is their prerogative. What does bug me is that these same people will suddenly blame the government for all kinds of issues and they will scream that they want higher taxes for the rich, ignoring the fact that they are the cause of several issues that are the consequence of some faulty misdirected version of ideology.

So even as I am happy to step in and take over the arms trade to Saudi Arabia, mainly because I do not have the luxury of walking away from a multi-billion pound deal, you see the rent is due next week and I would like a nice mince pie after I pay my rent, the £3,576,229,000 will enable me to get both. OK that amount would not all be mine, but 20% could be and that is still £715,245,800.

My entire pension issue solved overnight. The article takes us a step further. With: “The UK court case comes amid the continued fallout from the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was tortured and assassinated by Saudi agents“, I am fine with that step for the mere reason that there are too many question marks in that case. The evidence on several levels is missing proper scrutiny, the fact that Turkey has other agenda’s in play is ignored, and the involvement of Iran in all this is ignored on several levels. I am not stating that things did not happen, there is clearly a massive lack of proper scrutiny and people like the Campaign against Arms Trade are fuelling my opportunity and I am fine with that, if stupid people enable me to become wealthy, why would I oppose?

How Come?

Well, we are decently certain that something happened to Jamal Khashoggi, yet to what degree can government actions be proven? That is the issue, there is no evidence and as such can you, or should you stop dealing with a sovereign nation with a lack of evidence? In addition, in the other direction, we have seen a massive indecisive move towards Iran whilst Iran fuelled activities go on in Europe, October 2018, January 2019, covering Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the UK. Yet over at that point, we see an utter lack of actual actions (merely considerations).

Does it matter?

Well that is in part the question, we can accept that Campaign against Arms Trade wants it all to stop, but what is ignored is that merchants have markets and the UK cannot evolve next level defences if they cannot be sold. So whilst places like Saudi Arabia are still opening their internal market to have quality defence gear, places like the UK, Russia and America are looking to sell defence solutions to places that can afford them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Taiwan, South Korea and a few more players), yet the well is drying up, more and more countries have their own solutions and the size of the cake is getting smaller.

The next part is seen where we get Andrew Smith of Campaign against Arms Trade giving us: “This case could set a vital precedent and end UK complicity in the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world.” In that I respectfully disagree, the catastrophe was that too many people sat on their hands for too long, the fact that Yemen is not just the Saudi-led coalition, the other side, the terrorist side is more than Houthi fighters, it includes Hezbollah as well as Iranian forces, by leaving that out, we see an unbalanced stage and in all this we see a deterioration of events, so even as we accept (to some degree) “civilian targets in Yemen have regularly been hit“, in addition we need to accept the Human Rights Watch who gives us clearly: “Houthi forces have repeatedly fired artillery indiscriminately into Yemeni cities and launched indiscriminate ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia. Some of these attacks may amount to war crimes. Houthi attacks have struck populated neighbourhoods in Yemen, having a particularly devastating impact on Taizz, Yemen’s third largest city.” There is more than one player, yet these focus groups have merely looked at the Saudi side and that needs to stop, not because of what they are trying to achieve, but because the actions are much larger then they proclaim and there are two sides. In addition to what was given we need to consider the fact that Houthi forces have been staging some of the events. Al Jazeera gave us more than once: “The war has been at a stalemate for years, with the coalition and Yemeni forces unable to dislodge the Houthis from the capital, Sanaa, and other urban centres.” This indicates that the Houthi forces are in-between the population, with 16 million on the verge of death by starvation, is inaction even a problem?

Yet, from one point of view, I do not mind. If I get the option, I will sell it to the Saudi government and I will send Andrew Smith an authentic Fortnum and Mason hamper, just so that he knows I appreciate him enabling me to write a multi-billion pound invoice. Of course, the optional impact that the UK faces if the profitability of Britain’s largest defence company, BAE Systems is set to zero. I feel certain that Andrew Smith can explain it to the thousands of workers out of a job if I am given the assurance that I can get a much better margin by selling the Saudi government 47 Mikoyan MiG-35, complete with training and proper service level agreements. That puppy is a direct superior option against the Typhoon, the Super Hornet and a few others; my upside is that if I get Saudi Arabia on board, I am likely to get additional requests from Pakistan and at least three other governments.

So at that point, how exactly did Campaign against Arms Trade achieve anything (other than making me filthy rich and I will thank them in person for that). In this day and age where the markets and economies cannot take these hits, it is the ability of Andrew Smith that Europe fears, you see commerce is at the heart of the matter, and at this point, any nations bringing in bad news will stop being an asset, that is the Wall Street premise we all signed up for in 2005 when things started to get bad, we never corrected for any of it.

Distasteful like a Vegan

We can all consider where our ethical boundary is, yet in all this, we seem to forget that any sovereign nation has the right to self-govern, Europeans with their gravy train, ECB and shallow morals seem to have forgotten that. In all this having commerce allows diplomats to find a path that steers some nations away for certain practices and that path will be denied to them soon thereafter. Consider that I am all about profit and the Campaign against Arms Trade allowed for that change, how did they achieve anything? Because the UK misses out on have a dozen billions a year less? How many projects and funding issues will dry up the year after that starts? We have settings and measurements, most do not deal with terrorists, most do not sell to individuals, and the Campaign against Arms Trade is starting to allow for the return of those markets.

Sidestepping into art

Consider John Wyndham’s 1951 novel The Day of the Triffids. Some saw the movie, some read the book. Yet what happens when the sequel is a direct horror story? What happens when the sequel gives us the stage where the Triffids land on a planet ruled by vegans and vegetarians? How scared will they be (the Triffids that is)? This relates to the setting we have, you see, we seem to push towards everyone becoming a vegan and vegetarian (non-weaponised), because that is what their norm states, yet what are we going to do about the hunters (lion), the carrion eaters (Hyena) and other non-vegetarians? What do we do when people have certain norms and will not be told by anyone how to act? Is that such a weird issue?

You merely have to look at football hooligan UK to see that part of the equation, and there is no end in sight. It is a shallow connection, I agree, yet that is the ball game, someone wants to pressure towards an ideology whilst the other players are not interested. Now that does not invalidate the ideology, yet the fact that the reasoning is one sided, whilst the entire economic premise requires selling to other governments is a factor that cannot be ignored.

Who are we to dictate rules and manners? I get it, by denying the Saudi government one’s own screwed up values is all good, yet when the act does the opposite of what they are trying to achieve, can we agree that the action is not that bright? I am not comparing the Saudi people with either the Lion or the Hyena. I am merely stating that there is more than one option and that is fine for all concerned. How can any nation, most of them either dealing with their own levels of corruption, or facilitating to massive corporate tax evasion, as these elements also impact whatever was to be part of a government budget, do we have any business impeding the other paths that were available? Consider that we were treated only a month ago to ‘HMRC’s first probes into corporate tax evasion facilitation‘, the stage where we are seeing “HMRC has confirmed that it has opened its first investigations into the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion, using new powers to tackle corporate fraud contained in the Criminal Finances Act, introduced in the wake of the Panama Papers leaks“, an event that is close to 15 years late. How can we see the actions of a group stopping billions the UK government desperately needs? Don’t worry, in the end I might be ecstatically happy regarding their act, I am not so certain the British people will love the impact of what Campaign against Arms Trade invoked to happen. We can see that there is a lot that needs fixing, I am not sure that international arms trade to other governments no less is a first problem to solve, not with the competition and not with much larger issues in play.

And it is here where we see the delusional part of Andrew Smith, with “BAE’s solution will always be the same: it wants to sell more weapons, regardless of the atrocities they are enabling. Wherever there is war and conflict, there will always be companies like BAE trying to profiteer from it“, we get to see just how whacked his view is. Well, to be honest, he is allowed to have that view, it just does not add up. You see, the actual premise is: “BAE’s solutions are designed to keep Britain safe. Yet the development will cost 155 billion, to assure the top state of defence for the UK, who will only buy for up to 100 billion requires additional sales to global governments who could need that solution, even as the US buys a lot, it is not enough to fill the gap and that is where other nations come in. There is the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan and a few others. In addition Andrew Smith seems to forget (or he does not care)that others like the US, France, Italy and Russia all have solutions to sell, so we need to ensure our survival for the need of growing British defence and keeping it as high as possible. This part is extremely important, because whoever has the best deals with places like Saudi Arabia is also in the best position to aid and guide international development in places like that. As Saudi Arabia is about to become a 5G powerhouse, that path is more and more important for everyone. Consider the impact if Campaign against Arms Trade is successful. Do you think that British Telecom has a chance in hell to grow the 5G options to the degree they could if their portfolio is auto rejected in several Middle Eastern nations, or only accepted at a mere 2% margin? Commerce is so intertwined in so many ways on a global level that the entire premise Campaign against Arms Trade is to regarded as too ideological, whilst ignoring common sense; it would be nice if this was a setting where there was only the US and the UK, yet there is a strong defence field that includes Russia and China, whatever the UK loses, China and optionally Russia will gain and in that regard, how did that help the British people?

The fact that we see a one-sided part against Saudi Arabia, whilst there is a large and utter denial (or silencing) on the acts from Hezbollah and Houthis firing Iranian missiles into the Saudi population is not mentioned. The article (at https://www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/stop-arming-saudi) gives more, yet leaves the atrocities of the Houthi and Hezbollah terrorists out of that equation, that part alone should be cause for concern. The small fact that at present there is no evidence, evidence that could stand up in court giving us a clear path that the Saudi government murdered Jamal Khashoggi, is also part of concern. As I stated earlier in other articles, I am not stating that they are innocent, I am stating that the evidence has gaps, large ones and the conviction through some political hacks came via a CIA report stating ‘high confidence‘, which is not the same. When did we allow the courts to decide on ‘confidence‘? The fact that the acts in all this (Yemen and Jamal Khashoggi) from both Iran and Turkey is largely ignored is making the entire stage even more appalling.

Yet, I will thank Andrew Smith in person when I get to deliver the goods making me rich, I do however expect him to be not so appreciative of it all in the end, even less so when others with no scruples at all (like myself) start delivering goods instead of BAE Systems, and deleting the job security of 83,200 employees? Well, it is ideology, is it not? They will just have to find another job.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Saudi Arabia stands alone

I have seen hypocrisy in my time, people selling others down the river for the mere pleasure to afford their share of cocaine and hookers, or as they state it themselves, extra bonus for a family house. The benefit of selling whatever needs be short to afford a lifestyle their ego demands yet, it is a style usually preserved for CEO’s and higher.

It is not always the case, not 100%, sometimes people get ahead because they know someone; they have friends in housing, perhaps a police commissioner who gives them the goods in advance. These things happen. That is not corruption; that is at times merely a small advantage and we can agree that no hard was done, these things just are.

I have always believed that we need to do something when something wrong is done. Yet, what happens if we get played? What happens when there are too many questions and we see governments act on half-baked information? That is at the core of it all. This all started three days ago when I decided to write (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/03/28/because-skills-lacked/) ‘Because skills lacked?‘, It was all about the arms embargo for Saudi Arabia, enforced by Germany making both the UK and France uneasy. Yesterday (at https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-extends-saudi-arms-embargo-with-concessions-to-allies/) we saw that it was extended by six months, even as concessions have been given to UK and France, the issue is actually much larger and it is time to call for evidence.

In the first, my emotional response to issues is the question whether Agnes Callamard knew what she was doing. You see, Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/rapporteur-khashoggi-murder-perpetrated-saudi-officials-190207171824211.html) gave us a few things, issues repeated by many news casters. First there is “her three-member team had access to part of “chilling and gruesome audio material” of the murder obtained by Turkish intelligence agencies“, it is important we see no establishment of identity, we see no mention on authentication as that is unlikely to happen. Then there is “Woefully inadequate time and access was granted to Turkish investigators to conduct a professional and effective crime-scene examination and search required by international standards for investigation“, as well as “US intelligence agencies believe Prince Mohammed ordered the assassination“, and finally there is “His body has yet to be found“.

Her report might end up being more likely than not a failure (I have not read the full report as I have not been able to obtain it at present, and I might not be able to until the presentation this upcoming June. The initial issues seen at present are (with a lot more when we dig deeper):

  1. The authenticity of the tapes have not been verified, Turkey has been facilitating to Iran to the largest degree (who is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia), in addition several published quotes give a different light of the activities of Turkey (see previous blogs on the matter).
  2. As I mentioned, there is an issue on Turkey and Iran, making Saudi Arabia a little hesitant to give any credibility to Turkey. In addition to all this, the Consulate is Saudi grounds, It is Saudi territory, as such Turkey has no rights on those grounds. Three weeks after the event refused to share all Khashoggi evidence with Saudi Arabia. If it was actual evidence sharing it would not have impacted the evidence, the fact that it was not shared implies optionally that it did not exist. In effect the Saudi prosecutor did not have access to all evidence.
  3. Are those the same US intelligence agencies that vowed that there were WMD’s in Iraq? What evidence did the US intelligence submit? When we consider the Washington Post, we get: “the CIA examined multiple sources of intelligence, including a phone call that the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, had with Khashoggi, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence. Khalid told Khashoggi, a contributing columnist to The Washington Post, that he should go to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so. It is not clear if Khalid knew that Khashoggi would be killed, but he made the call at his brother’s direction, according to the people familiar with the call, which was intercepted by U.S. intelligence.” I am not stating that this is false or inaccurate, yet the parts ‘according to the people familiar with the matter‘, as well as ‘he made the call at his brother’s direction, according to the people familiar with the call’; these two parts call doubt into the complete stage.
  4. The absence of a cadaver also implies that there is no forensic evidence of any kind (at present or ever).

These four parts do not make Saudi Arabia innocent, yet the guilt cannot be established to any definite degree. I am not trying to twist anything, anyone on a jury in a capital crime knows that the establishment is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ and that cannot be proven, even manslaughter cannot be proven at present. Consider that there was a beating, perhaps interrogation with a heavy hand; can we see evidence that this was the case? The audio is not evidence by itself, the simplicity is that we do not know whether the tape is a fake, is there any way to tell that the person in discomfort was Jamal Khashoggi? I have not heard the tape, I cannot tell, how was Agnes Callamard able to tell? In addition, if Turkish intelligence is so good, how did they get the body away and out of sight? The fact that the Turkish intelligence remained clueless should be an answer by itself. The newscasters go all out to contain people on their page, so when the Daily Mail gives us (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD06WLJH3Wk) ‘Khashoggi’s body parts carried into Saudi Arabia’s consul residence‘, what evidence is there that it was what they claim it to be? I cannot even tell whether they are carrying trash or books, let alone optionally part of a cadaver. CNN at least used the optional word ‘may’, there have been so many speculations, that and the fact that the Turkish government seemingly did not share all the evidence makes this a lost case.

And now for Germany

So in a stage where something went optionally wrong, yet no way to tell how far it actually goes, the Germans started an embargo on a non-event. There is no conviction, there has been no court on the matter, but for Germany it was enough to set the stage for the embargo. For me it is great, I need a second income and I will happily sell any weapon system to Saudi Arabia if that pays the rent. I see no problem to sell any weapon system to the Saudi government that I can lay my hands on. It is the simple application of American entrepreneurship: Ca$h is king!

So when I see: ‘Riyadh denies the powerful prince had any involvement, alleging “rogue” Saudi elements acted on their own accord‘, I am not willing to dismiss it, the optional evidence does not allow me to do so. In addition, “A confidential report prepared by Kroll, a large private security firm, for the Saudi public prosecutor found that none of the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Prince Mohammed and his top aide, Saud al-Qahtani” I see the reinforcement of that part. I wonder if the actual people who optionally caused the passing of Jamal Khashoggi will ever be found, the media made that close to impossible and Turkish posturing helped in the event, the fact that they have the most incarcerated journalists in the world does not help their attempts for the limelight and the Turkish use of the New Zealand tragedy is further evidence still that the Turkish government cannot see the difference to posturing and doing the right thing, making all the evidence they present even less valued and requiring more and more scrutiny to optionally see it as valid and not tainted.

It is the simple application of the Evidence Act 1995. When we look towards Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital 17 NSWLR 553, we see that it was: ‘open to a Court to disbelieve evidence tainted by hindsight‘, it is not about the case, but on the state of the evidence and there is a massive wave of actions giving a large rise to the fact that evidence is optionally tainted. I use the word optional as it would be to a judge to state it to be so, but the quotes and the application of what is not presented makes it optionally so. Time is the tainting factor on all the evidence. The Washington Post adds to this when the readers are treated to: “The accepted position is that there is no way this happened without him being aware or involved“, ‘Accepted position‘? By what standard, what definition and on what premise and applied evidence is that? The overall usage of ‘people familiar with the matter’ makes the issue worse. The stage of manslaughter and higher requires ‘beyond all reasonable doubt‘, whilst in the current state it is becoming less and less likely that the Torts premise of ‘is it more likely than not‘ would be reached.

And that is the foundation of Germany to stage an embargo? Well, if that is to be the case, than for the next 6 months I will try to find a way to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia. I have rent to pay, taxes to pay and I need a wardrobe as well as a new desktop (and iPad), all these things cost money and I have no issues to sell to most governments if the opportunity arrives.

As the media is showing us how Saudi Arabia stands alone, all whilst they seem to overlook the Iranian actions, they are ready to pound others whilst there is a lack of evidence, seems odd does it not? Although, according to the Hollywood Reporter, people in Saudi Arabia have nothing better to do than hack the phone of some Amazon CEO and gives us: “Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details” less than a day ago (at https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeff-bezos-investigator-claims-saudi-arabia-behind-leaked-texts-1198348). I have absolutely no idea where that came from, it is not like that guy Jeff Bezos is a famous person, is he?

So is it about that optional famous person, the event, the leak, or is it about the new application of ‘several experts concluded with high confidence‘, exactly like the CIA used. It is a claim that cannot be vouched for; cannot be proven (or disproven) and no evidence is there, but the finger needs to be pointed at someone and the FBI learned the hard way on how blaming North Korea on Sony events was a bad idea. It is basically the Dutch building fraud example of: ‘Dat meen ik mij niet te herinneren‘, which means ‘I don’t think I can remember that‘, the trained response of a politician facing governmental scrutiny in a commission. That is the one sentence they had down perfectly (the Dutch denial version of a 5th amendment), and we see it applied in too many fields. So especially as it impacts larger government concerns, it seems that we need to take a look at the application of evidence towards assigning blame and guilt. Although, if this gets me my retirement fund of $24,445,000, so that I have a golden parachute. I would personally like to thank the German government, as well as the participating media for being this short sighted.

Saudi Arabia does not stand alone, there is always a person willing to facilitate to any government. It was the basic lesson Mossack Fonseca left the people on a minimum income, when a firm is facilitating within the confines of legal structures for 45 years, do you think that governments did NOT know? Give me a break, they merely played the flustered emotional card to keep the people at peace, in the end nothing changes and a new player takes over from the previous one.

The EU grave train provides one way or another, yet in the end it will provide and not to the people the taxpayers believe it does, on the larger international scale, especially in light if so much evidence failure, it was up to all of us to ask the hard questions but the media prevented it, the emotional curve are all the shareholders and stake holders required.

I think I will start Chapman Calibre Ballistics (CCB) and offer my services to the Saudi Arabian Defence Forces procurement division, so that others will readily confuse my acronym it all with either Child Care Benefit or China Construction Bank, giving the media more things to blame China for, because that is apparently how the game is supposed to be played.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

It is still a man’s world

It has always been a man’s world; it will remain a man’s world. If that upsets you, then so be it. We see all these pro-women events and so called pro-women options, but it seems like a scam and three days ago I was proven correct. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/25/nasa-all-female-spacewalk-canceled-women-spacesuits), here we see some so called excuse: ‘Nasa cancels all-female spacewalk, citing lack of spacesuit in right size‘, the very first though (optionally a wrong one) would be the idea that there is either one spacesuit for every crew-member, or that there are suits that fit any crew-member. The idea that we see: “Nasa said its plans had changed, “in part” due to a shortage of outerwear. McClain had “learned during her first spacewalk that a medium-size hard upper torso – essentially the shirt of the spacesuit – fits her best.” Only one such top can be made by Friday, the agency said, and it will go to Koch“.

Frustrated to the max

In part my frustration goes to Anne McClain, especially when the NASA spokeswoman states: “Anne trained in ‘M’ and ‘L’ and thought she could use a large but decided after [last] Friday’s spacewalk a medium fits better“. At this I would initially argue ‘Are you out of your flaming head? It is not a fashion parade, suck it up!‘ In addition, the issue that the suits were not ready is perhaps a larger issue still. So even as some proclaim: “An all-woman spacewalk WILL eventually happen“, we could optionally go with the response of: “well, you had your chance; you get another one in 2057“. You see, you cannot get a quicker deal than the time sequence of African American actors winning an academy award that would just be too unfair. You see, there was Sydney Poitier in 1963 and then we get Denzel Washington in 2001, so you cannot get a quicker deal, just one at the same length at best.

The entire mess of space suits gets me going into another direction too. Perhaps some may realise that ships have lifeboats, you see, in 1912 there was this dinghy called Titanic and the events lead to an extreme evolution of strict requirements to keep as many people alive as possible, should the requirement be any less in space? Even if that spaceship gets hit by a pebble, I saw the movie Gravity, I know that if we all give them a suit, they could ‘swim’ (read: spacewalk) to the nearest space station. The fact that they have to toss a coin on who is allowed to swim to safety seems a little too far-fetched for comfort.

This all seems like a rant and it seems to be told in anger and that is true. The fact that NASA was not ready in this day and age for an all women event is one part, the setting that in that same stage an all-male event was possible makes it the largest of failures to the human condition. Of all the progressive places on the planet it is NASA that failed the equality test, making them nothing more than a political red tape convention player at present.

How wrong am I?

The fact that there was more than one woman on that event and the situation that for whatever reason only women were left and it was up to them to save the day, NASA did not account for that? A situation that would have been a given, as it is coming from the one place that is known for having up to three redundancies for every condition? That place did not anticipate a situation where the women had to carry the ball to a required solution? I am not buying that story, so in this I wonder if NASA spokeswoman Stephanie Schierholz can live with herself having to sell the world the story that there was a lack of right sized spacesuits. The Titanic taught us what happens when we run out of lifeboats, in addition if we accept the definition: “Space suits are often worn inside spacecraft as a safety precaution in case of loss of cabin pressure, and are necessary for extravehicular activity (EVA), work done outside spacecraft“, so if we accept: ‘as a safety precaution in case of loss of cabin pressure‘, can we assume that NASA was operating this flight with an additional risk towards loss of life?

Are men so afraid that they can no longer compete on skill levels, so that they have to tilt the seesaw of achievement towards their gender giving limitations to the other side? I am actually baffled that this is seemingly so readily accepted. In all the news we see all kinds of contemplated news on how acceptable this event was, in all the news pretty much only Stephen Colbert and a few true news cover people gave NASA a run for its money. For the most nearly all failed to spot the utter failure of their contemplated issue on what is supposed to be required. None of the redundant spokespeople seemed to have noticed the flaw either.

That is perhaps the saddest part of news in all this.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Because skills lacked?

You have heard it, you have read it (in trashy novels), the lady waiting for an orgasm lets the plumber have a go because her man just can’t get it up, or comes before her oven warms up, so the croissant tastes as natural as it can be, like wet dough and tastes like nothing you would ever want to try.

But there is the plumber and he has loads of lead in his pencil so the problem is solved. Yet, what happens when it is not merely a domestic inconvenience?

That is the part we see in Politico a mere 4 hours ago. When we see ‘German divisions over Saudi arms embargo upset EU allies‘, the article (at https://www.politico.eu/article/german-divisions-over-saudi-arms-embargo-upsets-eu-allies/), here we see the foundation with: “Germany imposed an embargo in October after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi but the measure has annoyed France and Britain, whose giant arms makers require German components that are now banned“. The issue is not that Jamal Khashoggi is still alive. He optionally left with a headache and was lost somewhere. The problem is that there is no evidence, not evidence that holds up in court and the players all know this. Moreover, there is no evidence (other than circumstantial) that it was done on orders of a government, in this case the Saudi Royal family. That is at the crux, so the entire ban is on other merits. We could argue that America likes to push, with an optional setting of growth of billions as Germany stopped the processing of commerce. If there was actual evidence, it would be a different matter. The fact that an ally of Iran who is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia has been taking the limelight with accusations and innuendo, but this has not been met with evidence. The fact that most players know this and continue on the present path is a much larger concern.

It becomes even more of an issue when we see: “whether to extend or lift its ban on arms’ exports to the Middle Eastern country, which is also a leading participant in the war in Yemen” we see even more issues. Even as we saw a few hours ago ‘Saudi Airstrike Said to Hit Yemeni Hospital as War Enters Year 5‘, the people to a much larger degree are kept in the dark on ‘Yemen’s Houthi say ready to strike Riyadh, Abu Dhabi if coalition moves on Hodeidah‘, ‘Yemenis rally in support of Houthi to mark war anniversary‘, as well as ‘Arab coalition neutralize Iranian officers, dozens Houthis in Yemen‘, outside of a few select reporting sources as well as Reuters, the people are kept in the dark regarding these events. The fact that the news has been this one sided for well over a year is more than despicable. It is a stage where the players are all stopped form resolving the issues. The fact that Houthis have been delaying talk after talk and not committing to any resolution option, stopping humanitarian aid is at the heart of the problem and that is the overwhelming evidence that Iran is directly involved, including Iranian officer, currently posing as cadavers.

Yet these same players are eagerly lining up to see commerce (read: profit) go to their places of residence as 5G, construction as well as consultancy projects are raking in billion after billion. For example the intrusion detection market (the market that opposes people engaged in discrete entry and removal operations) was a mere $3 billion last year and is expected to be at $5 billion in 2020. In this light, whilst they are vying for a slice of that cake against the Netherlands, Australia, France and Canada, why is Germany optionally allowed a piece of that cake? If they cannot act on evidence, how could their intrusion system seen as reliable? When did you last buy an intrusion detection system that gave the alarm on the foundation of ‘hunch expected‘?

It would be a different setting if clear evidence and clear evidence beyond all reasonable doubt was delivered. The CIA gave a mere ‘highly likely’ that Saudi Royals were involved, highly likely? They gave much more certainty on WMD in Iraq and none were ever found, so at this point I think it is important to see that there is a much larger play being made against certain players, whilst their opponent (Iran) is given the clear marks in too many places; it is more than buttering the bread of opportunity, it is the core foundation of staging deception against certain people on a global scale.

  1. You can fool some people all of the time.
  2. You can fool all people some of the time.
  3. You cannot fool all people all of the time.

Several players have moved between stages 2 and 3, trying to set the surroundings so that they can try to get option three in play and it is important for us all to realise that this should not be catered to and we need to make certain that those trying this approach are pushed into the limelight, showing us their faces and their identities.

Even as the deadline to lift the ban does not come until Sunday, we need to see that there needs to be an account with markers on both sides of the balance and we should be told on the names of those involved. The embargo in its initial stage is an issue, but to some degree it makes sense, or better stated we understand that it happened. Yet at this stage as there is clear no evidence, at that point impede any government of tools for their defence is an issue and it also shows that Saudi Arabia is well placed to grow their own defence systems. Personally I should advice the KSA to consider buying Remington arms as it is up for sale cheap and it would also give them a global export item (not the worst idea to have), from there on, as Saudi Arabia grows more options we will suddenly see players like Germany suddenly do a 180 degree on their own actions and try to ‘smooth things over’, yet at the core of that form of diplomacy, could any player have any faith in their value as an ally, especially as the foundation was not set on something called ‘clear evidence’?

Politico gives one more gem that has larger implications. With: “both countries signed the Treaty of Aachen in January in which they agreed “to develop a common approach for arms’ exports” that applies to all joint defense projects” we see a larger issue, even as the stage was set on common sense, the polarisation in the EU at present shows that what was common sense is now stopping nations to do proceed on their common sense and value of commerce. If the evidence was clear it might have been a topic of debate, now without that it is a cinder block of discontent on two (read: four) players with skin in the game. Germany by itself, up against the commerce needs of the UK and France and Saudi Arabia as a victim of wrongful applied leverage through a treaty that did not require proper evidence to support the openly given embargo. At what point was that not clearly looked at?

You see, it goes beyond the openly seen parts. The fact that in all this the questionable part of Turkey in all this was kept below the surface and the fact that the EU players have been catering to the ‘needs’ of Turkey in all this plays a much bigger part, giving a stage of selective discrimination for the needs of the businesses of the EU in a much larger degree. It is seen in in one way (to some extent) in the Jerusalem Post, a paper that is decently obvious in their anti-Iran writing. Yet the stage we see with: ‘Germany Refuses To Disclose Iranian Attempts To Buy Nuclear, Missile Technology‘, it almost reads like ‘where there is smoke, there is a huge fire‘ which is obviously not the case, yet the stage where Germany is unwilling to disclose the materials optionally releasing Iran from blame is still a larger issue. If proven that it was the case, it would show the German government as hypocrite in their embargo of goods for Saudi Arabia, all whilst there is a clear proven case that Iran is involved in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia, it is actively engaged in support of Houthi fighters in Yemen and foundational acts that Iran is not allowed to make are being made. These elements alone should be evidence to ban Germany from all Saudi Projects (an exaggerated move mind you), but the fact that this is not out in the open, proves to some extent the points of view that I am giving here. The article (at https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Germany-refuses-to-disclose-Iranian-attempts-to-buy-nuclear-missile-technology-584512) also gives us: “FoxNews.com reported on Germany’s concealment of important data that could establish Iranian regime violations of the 2015 nuclear deal – formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic’s missile program“, the fact that we see the EU keeping out of the light the evidence of an optionally failed JCPOA as well as the face that the EU is still protecting a stage that has failed is voice to even more issues (like the gravy train for those on the JCPOA committee), the fact that the media is not taking this into the light (proving or disproving) is a much larger issue still.

It almost reads like the story of a man who could not get his business done, so he hopes that the other interested party has a desire to read William Shakespeare and markets all the attention and optional needs in that direction, so that the actual issue can be ignored. The analogy fits to the extent that whatever there is, it is not a marriage, it is not a relationship, merely a sliding acquaintance, and that is the foundation for less and less. In finality getting back to the Iran situation, the mere setting of “The Post reviewed a German intelligence report from 2018 that wrote, “Iran continued to undertake, as did Pakistan and Syria, efforts to obtain goods and know-how to be used for the development of weapons of mass destruction and to optimize corresponding missile delivery systems.”” has nothing to do with the actual embargo and the reasoning, yet as the reasoning of the embargo is not set on evidence, the continued support and protection of Iran makes even less sense and as such we see embargo’s, accusation all linked to evidence that is not there.

It becomes even worse soon enough. It is a side that no one has looked at, but got some illumination only 15 minutes go. It is a book by Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum called ‘A Lot of People Are Saying‘, it is a book about conspiracism targeting democratic foundations. We might think it is a laughing matter, but it is not. The problem is not that people think that there is a conspiracy, the actions of the media themselves are partly to blame, the sides I exposed today. Issues that can be easily provided for through merely seeking the web and reading the newspapers, is a stage that shows the unbalance, the discrimination of one and the hiding of another party in all this, the media is part of it. Merely digging into the events that surround American Big-Pharma, the events on Khashoggi, the ‘protection’ of Turkey and Iran, the non-reported acts of Hezbollah in Yemen, as well as the issues shown in the last few days regarding Huawei. There is a much larger play based on commerce, profit and greed and the media is merely a tool to be exploited, whether the party has the word ‘news’ in its name or not.

We need to start looking without blinkers and see the whole playing field, not one that is merely being reported on for the need of emotion, lacking clear information. If certain ways are not amended, the matter will only get worse.

We can make it a tale of adultery, or a tail of incompetency, yet the foundation remains, we set in place core values and then reset the stage through presentations and require the presentation to be accepted on face value innuendo, ignoring the originally required evidence levels to be adhered to, and the media? Well, in one specific Dutch case, the event involving Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel in Nice got the front page, yet when White extremists attacked a Mosque; it was all about a racer taking a selfie, on the front page, which should be evidence enough and make my case for me. How much longer until the people are given the factuality of the world, not the perception the media gives us by making sure there is no space left to report on 50 kills and 50 non-fatal injuries. And it goes further than that; we could argue that Google is supporting that point of view. Consider the two mentioned events. Google represents the two events in a very different light, diminishing the danger of one and embossing the other, the media and digital media has gone that far out of balance, was it merely because skills lacked, or because they want the lacking skills shown so that perception shifts, I will let you decide that part.

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Religion