Category Archives: Politics

The afterthought

It is Reuters that gave us ‘Exclusive: Stop Israel from bombing Iran’s oil sites, Gulf states urge US’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/stop-israel-bombing-irans-oil-sites-gulf-states-urge-us-2024-10-11/) Now normally this doesn’t bother or alert me, but after the 6th when I wrote ‘Is it merely political?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/10/06/is-it-merely-political/) where we got to see “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” Now we see Gulf states all ‘worried’ about Iran, or are they perhaps worried about the cheap deal they have from Iran counting in the billions? A setting that most of us ignored as we were unaware of the loophole. But now, even after Iran threatens Israel, we are given “Gulf states are lobbying Washington to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil sites because they are concerned their own oil facilities could come under fire from Tehran’s proxies if the conflict escalates, three Gulf sources told Reuters” and in the article we aren’t given any names are we? Which Gulf sources? I think that we are entitled those answers, are we not? Isn’t it interesting that Reuters missed that beat, but then the media is becoming less and less reliable. And it makes sense that the first thing Israel goes after is the money, hence the oil. And in all of this Gulf states are urging the US to stop Israel from bombing oil sites? Who are the stake holders, what Gulf nations are involved and how is that money flowing? More important how can we track that money. How can we expose these exploiters? 

These are all questions that are derived from the article on the 6th of October that Politico gave us. If they rebranded 2 billion of Russian oil, there is nothing to stop us thinking that Iran gave others a lot more and from the gulf states there is plenty of players around to do whatever it takes to get a share of a mere 50 million and this has been going on for a while (a speculative thought). The Russia story came out relatively fast, but the Iran dilemma has been going on for decades and now with the Hezbollah eradication as well as the pounding of Hamas, these stake holders are worried that their well dries up and now they are speculatively crying like little bitches that their free ride is drying up. OK, that might have been a little over the top but the sentiment comes across, does it not? Now, I could be wrong, one sides does not prove the other. To put it simplistically every cube is a orthotope, not every orthotope is a cube. As such what is happening in Russia might not happen in Iran. On the other hand, what was set in motion to be applied to Iran was pretty much a setting for Russia as well. And the media isn’t asking questions, why not?

Until recently when Politico showed us the loophole no one asked questions and now they should have asked a few questions, yet they still are not. How weird is that?

Apply that to the fact that we are merely give “three Gulf sources told Reuters” and no one wakes up? Why is that?Journalists are not that dim, as such, I suspect that at least one stakeholders has a larger finger in the journalism pie of Reuters. Just a thought to consider.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Is it merely political?

That was the thought I had. It came from Politico, as such I would believe that it was political. Yet the larger premise is on the setting of circumstance. This sounds weirdly spooky, but it is the best I can offer. The story (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) starts with ‘Putin’s war economy faces pain if Saudis sink global oil prices’ which is a partial truth, but it goes further then that. We are given “A Saudi move to grab market share will squeeze the Kremlin’s finances, experts argue” which is only a partial truth. The entire part is followed by “Riyadh is increasingly frustrated with other petrostates’ failure to coordinate on cutting supply to raise oil prices to about $100 per barrel — up from the current $70. Oil traders say Saudi Arabia is now set to respond by flexing its muscles and turning the tables on smaller producers, exporting more oil itself to grab market share and profits, even as prices fall.” We are also given “The Financial Times reported last week that Saudi Arabia could abandon its long-held ambitions to limit the crude supply to push prices to around $100 a barrel. Oil market experts have little doubt that Saudi Arabia has the enormous production and export capacity to change tactics and gun for market domination through volume instead.” In this view I need to align a few positions. What is missing is that America (the United Kingdom also) are depending in keeping oil cheap. So that is missing. Hanging it on the Russian needs is a bit dorky. Yes, they both matter, but the US an EU need for cheap oil missing as a pre-made need, is just dorky (I can’t find a better word for this). You see when there is a lack of a commodity prices go up and now this fails? The world requires (at present) that 2.4 million barrels per day pumped more than now and that is not done. I actually speculated this a year ago when I stated that we can pump 4 barrels at $3, or 3 barrels at $4. The amount gained is still the same but at 25% less oil. It is a simple equation (and an incorrect version) but the the premise remains. I went through to the next stage that Saudi Arabia could pump 2 barrels as the price goes up to $6, still the same revenue but now at half the oil delivered. This is how commerce works on commodities. I still doubt the statement that the $100 per barrel cannot be reached, I merely believe that certain stakeholders want the premise to keep their pockets lined. How? I cannot tell, I am not an oil person, I merely use it through various means. So what gives? 

When we get to ““The global economy is fairly sluggish and oil demand is not as high as the Saudis would want,” said Ajay Parmar, director of oil markets analytics at commodities intelligence firm ICIS.” I have issues here. You see, this means that the Russia delivers all oil. There is not a lack of demand, some people are playing a high end game to keep their pockets lined. If I had it my way (pretend that I am the new CEO of Aramco, a very fake one) I would stop 5.5 million barrels a day from reaching the US, EU and UK, in the combination 3,2 and .5 it would take less than 90 days for it all to implode. As Tesla is more and more lacking is quality, the other nations will need 2-3 years to overcome their downfall and in that time China is the new superpower with America stumbling over the edge of the abyss. That is clear in my (optionally wrong) point of view. The setting that Politico gives is too partial and slightly too flawed. 

Yes Russia has a problem and they are welcome to the problems they get to harvest now. A second problem is “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent in the first half of this year alone, according to Moscow’s finance ministry, despite Western sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.” I don’t doubt these numbers, but who paid for that oil? I doubt is was merely China, North Korea and India. Although these countries were involved. I saw last year that India was buying some of the oil, China is a definite and I guess that North Korea had to pay for their weapons and it seems like a logical choice for them to accept oil as payment. So who more? 

Politico should have stated “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent (from 1M barrels to 1.41M barrels)” but they didn’t if Russia only sold 50,000 barrels it will not be an issue, but that is not the case, is it?

Now if you doubt my reasoning. That is fine. But we have seen plenty of issues where prices go up the moment that commodities has a higher demand. Yet the article does not give us that does it? And who is Ajay Parmar? This article leaves me with plenty of questions and no answers. So in all this, Is Russia in actual trouble? To some degree, but I see this as an alternative way for Saudi Arabia to give in to the west requiring cheap oil. I personally believe that Politico missed their mark and as such loses credibility as such. The one part that I do see is “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” As such that should be the story and the story is that more and more nations are fuelling Russian revenue through refining Russian oil and filling their pockets. As such there is a momentum being built, one that is not addressed and one that is trivialised as such I expect that plenty of newspapers will fuel their revenue by posting this story. The 41% is now shown to be big business, especially when we see Turkey and India and how they are short on cash pretty much all of the time.

So we are seeing a larger stage. In the first on where is Russian oil going to and in the second what countries are fuelling their demands for cheap oil? A nice spreadsheet would have been nice, but that was a part that Politico oversaw (I guess).

Still as we see one part, we also see the part that some want us to see, appointed awareness. A combination of social awareness and the influence of appointing. A formal arrangement to create a designed social awareness. The ability to understand a situation as the offical parties would like others to see them. But as I see it, this will be at the expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Is that fair all whilst Russia is handed loophole after loophole, as long as the west gets its oil cheap. How is this not exploitation? 

Consider what is being done and at what expense? The question is simple enough. 

Enjoy the Sunday you have left to you.

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Accepted doubt

This is on my, or better stated my view on matters. In this case it is the Reuters article ‘Exclusive:  Kushner has discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Saudi crown prince’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi-diplomacy-with-saudi-crown-prince-2024-10-04/) which was released less than 30 minutes ago. I have had serious doubt on the media on a near global stage and at this moment Reuters has gained several points towards doubt. Yet, in this case I am willing to put doubt on my ability to see things clearly. 

So, lets take a look.

The news that Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader discussed a peace accord”, here we see the statement “de-facto leader”, we know that Saudi Arabia still has a king, but what stops Reuters to state “The news that Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed a peace accord”, both are in principle correct. Yet the Reuters statement comes across as Saudi bashing. ‘To put a person in its place’ might be the interpretation as many would see it, especially in the Middle East. Then we get “renew questions about whether Kushner’s financial ties with Riyadh could influence U.S. policy under his father-in-law”, so what is the issue here? It is a serious question because the article does not give us a complete report on what those ties are, we get a link to the Hill, there we see ““crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House” my question in this is were laws broken? You see, the investment was done AFTER he left the White House. So were laws broken, or were they not. 

Then we get “To encourage Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, the Biden administration has offered Riyadh security guarantees, assistance with a civilian nuclear program and a renewed push for a Palestinian state. The deal could reshape the Middle East by uniting two long-time foes and binding the world’s biggest oil exporter to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region” How come that China is diminished with “when China is making inroads in the region” and what is this about “assistance with a civilian nuclear program”. My issue is that China has been making inroads for the better part of two years. As such making inroads, comes across as a joke, massively inaccurate. So why was the civilian nuclear program added? Could be true, could be anything. But the media at present has a massive credibility issue and whilst space on a webpage is nearly free, Reuters is a little stingy on using it.

Last we get to “The Saudi relationship with Trump was notably close. Trump’s first foreign trip as president in 2017 was to Riyadh, accompanied by Kushner. After Saudi expatriate opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump stood by the crown prince in spite of a U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing. MbS denied involvement.” Is filled with inaccuracies. No clear evidence has been produced that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there was an assumption and the setting that “U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing” is even more inaccurate. The document A/HRC/41/CRP.1 which was given to the world by the Human Rights Council does not give us that either. In that report U.S. Intelligence is mentioned twice. In one case we are given “The Directive states that if a U.S. intelligence agency “acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping,” that agency has a duty to warn the intended victim.” No mention of authorisation or anything regarding an order by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I am adding that document at the bottom. As such I have issues with the Reuters article. 

There is more but read the article yourself. The article hands us a pice of evidence that Reuters is losing credibility. 

I am not a Trump fan, but at present there is a larger stage and the Biden administration of fumbling the ball, and as issues go at present, China will be a large bigger inroad in the Middle East (Saud Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) in 2025 and I have to wonder how much inroad they will make in Egypt in 2025.

But I hope that the message comes across. And in the second stage, what laws did Kushner break? Because in the end that is what matters. 

Have a great day

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The first stage in a setting

This is the first of two, the second is of a much lighter sense, as such I am leaving this for desert. The first one (this one) is heavy and will offend a whole lot of people. I have stated this opinion before, but that stage got back in my mind after I saw this article (at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-crown-prince-personally-doesnt-care-palestine-issue) where we are given ‘Saudi crown prince said he personally ‘doesn’t care’ about Palestinian issue’, it sounds nice. We are then given “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he does not personally care about what he referred to as the “Palestinian issue”, according to a report in The Atlantic.” I do Care and as the foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia (Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud) tells us “Saudi Arabia’s top diplomat on Thursday announced the launch of a new initiative to establish a Palestinian state and garner support for the implementation of a two-state solution after decades of international efforts failed, leading the region to the brink of an all-out war”, which several sources told us including Al-Arabiya (at https://english.alarabiya.net/News/saudi-arabia/2024/09/27/saudi-arabia-announces-new-global-coalition-to-establish-palestinian-state).

My view is that I have nothing against the establishment of Palestine, but it does urgently require the eradication of Hamas. Hamas is a hate only party and sooner or later they will abide by the ‘requests’ of Iran and hit Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Iran wants to be at the head of the table, or they will ensure that no one will sit there and destabilisation continues. That time has passed and Iran still depends on Houthi and Hamas to bring their point across in the most violent way possible. Now that Hezbollah has been carved into pieces by Israel, Houthi terrorists will think twice on continuing on a path where they ‘assist’ Iran in any way possible. And sooner or later (probably sooner) Iran will find a way for Palestinians or Yemeni’s to find a low paying jobs just to throw wherever they are (in the KSA or UAE) to foul things up. In simple ways that will demand long term repairs or even reconstructing parts that were already done and soon (either Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates) will through ‘anonymous’ sources to get a larger seat for Iran at the table. This is not speculation, it is presumption based on the actions of Iran over the last 20 years. And as such The eradication of Hamas is a given need. When they fall away Iran has merely Yemen to fall back onto and that stops Iran (for now) in its tracks. As Yemen (read Houthi terrorists) sees what damage Israel did to Hezbollah and Hamas next, they will choose a non-violent path, especially when Iran stops taking their calls. 

I believe that there are options especially as Iran loses the two terrorist allies they have. I don’t think it will be the end of it, but I believe that stability in the middle east is essential to a better world and too many power players think that destabilisation is key to their wealth. That needs to stop. I know that it is merely my view and many will state that I am wrong, but as I see it, there are too many people having blind faith in Iran turning a page to a better future, all whilst this path has been walked by administrations for 3 decades. It is time to call it quits. We need solutions there and they need to be made by the right people. Oh, and for those that think that this isn’t essential. Remember that Hamas on 7 October 2023 initiated a sudden attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip. As part of the attack, 364 individuals, mostly civilians, were killed and many more wounded at the Supernova Sukkot Gathering, an open-air music festival during the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret near kibbutz Re’im and they took 40 people hostage. As far as we know from those 40 hostages, 14 of the hostages are still being held captive. That has been the focal point for Israel. And the setting that we see with the ‘proclaimed’ 40,000 deaths and it was clear months ago that Israel stated ‘Let our people go’ that is what Hamas pushed for and now that Hezbollah has lost pretty much the complete top of their structure (pager by pager) Iran is worried and so should Hamas be. I get that Saudi Arabia wants to stand by Muslims and that is something a lot of people understand, but it does require the eradication of Hamas. Hamas did this to themselves on October 7th 2023. Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE) need to focus on stability for the middle east and in this case I count Egypt as a middle eastern player. Egypt will be important to Saudi Arabia down the line with 5G advancements as well as the fact that 111 million Egyptians are a great goal for the Saudi Broadcasting Authority, they could largely increase their visibility, moreover, it would allow Egypt to broadcast to Muslims in Spain, France, Italy and Greece. And from there, optionally to more nations in Europe. But that is merely my insight lacking view on the matter. OK, it has a personal view. As more islamic people get connected to streaming TV and streaming solutions, my script ‘How to assassinate a politician’ might actually be released at some point (my ego tends to seek solutions too).

It is almost Monday now. So have a great day and you will hopefully enjoy this Sunday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Religion

How I fall short

That is the stage, that is the setting. I do not know everything (too boring anyways) and even as I see how things develop and are optionally staged. The fact that I do not know everything gets in the way of some things. Now, I know very little about oil. It is a commodity everyone needs, it is a commodity only some countries have and the two biggest players in that field are Aramco and ADNOC, oil is black and it is needed for the production of petroleum. That’s about all I know. The current price is about $68 dollars per barrel. So when I saw ‘Oil price drops, and BP and Shell shares slide, as Saudi Arabia ‘prepares to abandon $100 crude target’’ I didn’t think too much of it. The story comes from the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/sep/26/european-reconstruction-bank-cuts-growth-forecasts-energy-ukraine-elon-musk-uk-investment-summit), there were more sources, but I am handing you this one. We get “Saudi Arabia is reportedly ready to abandon its unofficial price target of $100 a barrel for crude as it prepares to increase output” yet Oil&Gas journal gives us “Saudi Arabia is preparing to abandon its informal target of $100/bbl for crude oil as it plans to increase production, signalling the kingdom’s acceptance of a period of lower prices and intentions to take back market share, according to sources cited by the Financial Times”, now in my book the shortage of one commodity means prices go up. I do understand that any player will protect market share, as such I get the increase of product to protect your market share. That makes sense. And as such we see Saudi Arabia deciding an increase for about 1 million barrels per day as per December 2024. There are a few players on this field and I like the idea that the increase will make sure that Russia has less customers to get it from Russia is not happy. And as several media are giving us the goods, there is no other way for me than to agree with the setting. In overall there is still a larger concern I have. Oil is a commodity with a finite supply, so how much supply is there? I believe that the middle east has the bulk of it, but the finite session gives us the dangerous setting that at some point, the three countries with supply will be Russia, Iran and Venezuela. That is not a setting I want to wake up to, although at present it is highly unlikely that I will be around the morning we get that piece of news. In the meantime there is a larger issue at stake. How will Aramco increase its creation of oil with an additional 159,000,000 litres of that black fluid. You see everyone is looking at the end result and no one is looking at the how. What is required to that level of increase? I feel certain that it will require a lot more than one pump. It is the increase of 10% (near to that) and comes from 300 rigs. The simpleton in me sees this as an additional 30 rigs. It takes 18 months to five years to commission a rig, the construction timeline for an oil rig can vary significantly depending on several factors and that is if the oil comes from rigs. Saudi Arabia has one hundred oil and gas fields, so if it comes from there, other means are needed. The largest oil field is the Ghawar field. So how can you increase the production there? And is that the only place? We are so desperate for oil that the basic security is overlooked and there is at present Iran, Houthi forces and a few others who are very willing to hurt Saudi Arabia. So what more is needed, because when by November that increase is realised, some will take offence to this and that problem will possibly create all kinds of new problems. And we do not see enough information on that side of the equation.

And advice from me? Nope, I know next to nothing on that topic. I can merely see hurdles and optionally a personal belief that I see options, but that is not what the actual expert on the topic has. And the media? Solutions do not make their digital wallet fat, flames do that and in that view it is not a good idea to put flames close to oil, a mere personal view on the matter.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

The partial view that is seen

This partial view comes from the BBC. When I looked at the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04depp2nro) the headline gave us ‘Can diplomacy bring Middle East ceasefire? Early signs don’t bode well’ it was the second part of the headline that woke me up. We are given “What they meant was they saw getting an agreement from key European countries and Arab states, led by Washington, as a big diplomatic achievement during the current explosive escalation. But this was world powers calling for a ceasefire – not a ceasefire itself.” It holds part of the problem I see. We also get “The statement urges both Israel and Hezbollah to stop fighting now, using a 21-day truce, “to provide space” for further mediated talks. It then urges a diplomatic settlement consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented. It also calls for agreement on the stalled Gaza ceasefire deal.” The first part that got to me was “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” There were ‘signals’ that were seemingly ignored. “It was unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council on 11 August 2006. The Lebanese cabinet unanimously approved the resolution on 12 August 2006. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a ceasefire. He also said that once the Israeli offensive stops, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel would stop. On 13 August the Israeli Cabinet voted 24–0 in favour of the resolution, with one abstention. The ceasefire began on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 8 AM local time, after increased attacks by both sides.” Now we ‘see’ the message that the resolution (1701) was never properly implemented. It has been basically 18 years. So what wasn’t properly implemented? Why do we see this now after 18 years? My issue is that there are a number of issues, and there are more players than Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas involved. The journalists taking a back seat to whatever digital dollars they are trying to get. The second are the politicians, both the involved and those connected. So why did we not see the repeated messages (via the media) to state who is was lacking in implementation and why?

So there is more than the early signs. As I personally see it there is a lack of follow up in these cases. 

We then get “intensive diplomacy led by Washington has failed to reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, with the US currently blaming a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel. Meanwhile, the US has continued to arm Israel. That doesn’t inspire confidence that Washington and its allies can now strong-arm Israel and Hezbollah into a quick truce, especially given the fighting on the ground, the intensity of Israel’s air strikes and last week’s explosive pager attacks on Hezbollah, which has continued to fire into Israel.” The part that I do not agree with is “a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel.” My issue is that (possibly) both players here have seen a massive lack of commitment from several sides. The very first is given through “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” I cannot tell who dropped the ball first, or which players lacked in their ‘commitments’ but there were players who failed (optionally merely Hezbollah and/or Israel), the simple setting taking us back 18 years as well as the fact that nowadays media (this last decade) is more driven to chase digital dollars then the news. That gives doubt to how far this thing goes. And it goes beyond the Lebanese borders. The setting that exists with Gaza is still evolving. The US administration, as well as the EU have been playing these settings fast and loose is a dangerous setting and these players are no longer regarded as reliable. That becomes the ball game. Mediation only works when the mediator or mediators are no longer trusted, no ceasefire will ever work. 

It is my speculation, one I had for many years is, that the EU and the USA have been playing a dangerous game, optionally staged towards ‘a one step tactic from destabilisation’ and in this the games that Iran is playing do not help and now that it all goes to (assumed) shit, no amount of ceasefire prays will offer any decent insight into any resolution. So the ‘early signs don’t bode well’ is to be expected. That is clear, is it not? 

If you wonder what can be done I am, like many others at a loss for words or advice. The problem is that too many player have had their own agenda in mind. That is less speculation, more presumption. In this I call for the first piece of evidence “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” and the evidence is that in 1982 I worked for the United Nations Security Council, and they have failed to keep the audience (as far as I know) properly informed for 18 years? So what good were they? I understand that they do not inform the audience, but they do report, usually governments, and this gets to the media one way or another. As such I see a massive failure in play. And you wonder why either Israel or Hezbollah has issues with either (or both) America and the EU? I wonder if this setting is not better served by mediation through a joined council of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and USA. The USA is essential to get Israel on board. I doubt that they will accept merely the other three parties but that is merely my speculation in this.

So as I just sailed into the night of Saturday, have a great day and as Vancouver is trailing us by 17 hours. I can report to them that nothing is happening at 00:03. Have a great day, wherever you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is a real thing, it is not the version we see in Star Trek. Xenophobia quite literally translates to ‘foreign fear’. The fear of foreign issues. The media exploits it for any flames it can create, as fear invites flames, flames create ‘clicks’ and clicks translate to advertisement money. It is the simplest way for media to use people to generate revenue for them. Yet I saw the other f this exploited fear in another way last night. I was about to write an article to something related to this, as such that story gets pushed back and now I focus on this as it is related to the bigger picture. 

The first trigger were the Crusade memes we have seen this year (there were a few). Now I like the age of Crusades to some degree, but we were deceived to a much larger degree. The crusades were mostly the nobles pillaging the Arabian lands and it was done with the blessing of Pope Urban II. The treaty of Claremont (1094) gave rise to this and many people (often in states of near starving) rallied to the sound of the the call to free the land of Christ, which was largely ludicrous as that was Jerusalem and that was debatable Jewish/Saracen (Muslim). So here came the crusades and that was a massive slaughter around Accra, Jerusalem and a few other places. Yes, there are a few inaccuracies here, but the sentiment is decently sound. An interesting telling is seen in the movie Kingdom of Heaven by Ridley Scott. The western world had a decent technological advantage, but they could not stop the Arabian nations to unite in their anger to the west. Between 1092 and 1291 approximately 1.7 million people died. These people died by warfare, disease, starvation, and murder by banditry. In the current Russian losses against the Ukrainian defenders there were merely 647,800 losses, so the losses were then 300% larger. So what do you think will happen now that the Arabian lands have an economic advantage and the west no longer have a technological advantage? Did the Karen’s of this world consider that small setting in ‘their’ crusades?

And when you consider that stage, we get to the article that ‘set’ me off. It was the Daily Mail (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-13889805/Anthony-Joshua-Daniel-Dubois-selling-national-soul-Saudi-PR-silence-criticism-SIMON-JORDAN.html) where we see ‘SIMON JORDAN: We must stop selling our sporting soul to the Saudis, I don’t like the sense that everything in this country is there solely to be bought’ It is a weird sense. You see, the owners of whatever is there to be sold, because they want money and the Saudi’s (and other nations) have it. The byline “I found it a tad perplexing to sit in our own Wembley stadium on Saturday night and listen to the national anthem of Saudi Arabia” which is nice, because on September 23 1932 the country Saudi Arabia was established. The Saudi’s are proud of this and they should be allowed to be proud. So I went over to YouTube and I found the Saudi National anthem. It was beautiful. Now, I was lucky because I cannot speak Arabic to any degree. I cannot even order a Shawarma if my life depended on it (as I die of starvation), as such YouTube was the answer as the movie had the song and the texts both in Arabic and English. 

That is the larger stage, the media is losing more and more reliability as they more and more depend on ‘clicks’ from flames. We do not know what to believe and the article does not help. For one, an no point do we see who the owner of Wembley Stadium is, as far as I know it is still owned by the Football Association. The article does not bear that out, not even once. Weird isn’t it. Oh and before you start a crusade, remember that wars are won by those who are better informed and as such you would get a massive beating from whomever represents the new Saracens. Something to think about.

Have a lovely day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, sport

Good News

Well, it is good news of a sort. The Guardian reported yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/23/violent-crime-murder-rate-fbi-2023) that ‘FBI confirms US murders declined in 2023, contrary to Republican claims’, it is here we get “Murder dropped by more than 11% in largest single-year decline in decades while rape and other crimes also fell”, as plenty of us consider the one nation that is mostly in decline (due to the Karen’s) it is nice that we see an article like this. We also get “Meanwhile, the broader category of violent crime nationwide decreased about 3%, said the data, which is audited and confirms earlier reporting from unaudited statistics”, as well as “the FBI said rape decreased by an estimated 9.4%, property crime dropped 2.4% and burglary fell by an estimated 7.6%”. Some say that it is nothing to write home about. The larger setting is that in a country as overloaded with 343,477,335 people both good and less so. These drops are nothing to be sneered at. I say hurrah to the police and FBI department on a national scale. I am still of the mind that criminals tend to find other ‘activities’ to fuel their need for greed and violence. What it is is anyone’s guess. In certain fields I tend to be a gloomy source of skepticism. And it is here that Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said: “Data drives policy, and without having a complete understanding of the problem, we cannot effectively address this significant surge in hate violence” OK, I will agree with that. Data tends to be the driving instigator in understanding certain crimes. It is also a little weird that hate violence would be the driving power against sexual assaults and burglaries. One does not optionally fuel the other side and as such I feel uncertain what to think. That is the other side of data. The lack of numbers does not fuel the understanding into another side. It is not that we can state with any kind of ‘comprehension’ that (2022) 16 sexual assaults + 84 burglaries = 14 sexual assaults + 58 burglaries + 28 hate crimes (2023) it just presumptuously does not work that way. But in the end crime went down to some extent and for that we can say ‘hurray ye police departments’ and ‘hurray ye FBI’. We then get ““Our administration has improved and expanded background checks, announced the single largest investment in youth mental health in history, and been an unprecedented resource to states, cities, and local communities,” said Kamala Harris” I am less convinced here. I am not debating the soul and spirit of the thought, there is a larger stage to consider. I wrote a few years ago that the ATF is staggeringly underfunded and for the longest time there was no head at the organisation. There was a lack of IT funds and all kinds of settings that sets the ATF with decades of lack of innovations at their disposal. In addition, last year the WBUR (in 2023) gave its audience ‘Does the man enforcing the country’s gun laws have the tools to do the job?’ I had raised that amendment issue a few years earlier. They gave us “ATF protects the public from crimes involving firearms, explosives, arson, and the diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. Regulates lawful commerce in firearms and explosives, and provides worldwide support to law enforcement, public safety, and industry partners.” All whilst the gun lobby does everything to make things harder for the ATF. And all whilst all the Tech biggies (Amazon with AWS, Microsoft with Azure and Google with Gemini) have lacked in assisting the ATF in ways that work. I am not placing blame in any of those three, but the lack of innovation in IT power in the ATF is staggering. And in that setting the FBI and the local police forces need to do their work. Weird is it not? Then in 2020 we see ‘Rethinking ATF’s Budget To Prioritise Effective Gun Violence Prevention’ apart from the fact that the ATF was without a permanent director for seven years the wondering setting by Kamala Harris with “Our administration has improved and expanded background checks” but I have issues with the statement. I will fully agree with the statement that it was true, but consider a car in 2022 when it was going at a speed of 23 mph, the fact that it now does 43 mph makes the statement true, but when we consider that the fact that the ATF is to be seen as The Tiger Brigades (1974) where the officers relied on something not dissimilar of the Ford model T, the improvements would be impressive all whilst the criminals out there relied on their Lamborghini Countach LP400 (179 mph), you do see that the police has absolutely no way of winning. When we realise this a lot more could be done, but political players relying on the gun lobby donations are o so willing to throw a clog in the wheels (the origin of the expression saboteur) and the larger issue is not that America needs to stop crime. It is important that they are gaining access to the tools that allows them to do their job.

So I am not attacking the good news we were given, but the fact that the truth is that certain organisations were supposed to do their job with one hand on their back. The lacking funds for infrastructure does not help I reckon. 

All reasons for applauding the local police departments and the FBI for getting some of the work done. So to all involved: “Well Done!

I am now pondering a thought I had yesterday and a larger premise. Not sure yet what to do, but it is a consideration to behold. And now, with my eyes on the Scotia bank on Yonge street (Toronto) I will sign off and enjoy a glass of ice tea.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Politics, Science

Two sides of technology

There are always two sides on any technology. The question is whether they are aligned or not. The first story is found at (at https://www.edgemiddleeast.com/ai/tsmc-and-samsung-consider-100-billion-uae-chip-projects) where the Edge Middle East gives us ‘TSMC and Samsung Consider $100 Billion UAE Chip Projects’, it all comes across as straight forward. We are given “Semiconductor giants TSMC and Samsung are in early talks to establish massive chip-making facilities in the UAE, potentially marking a significant expansion in global production.” It seems to me that this is a straight forward option, especially for the UAE. We are also given “develop potential chip projects in the United Arab Emirates, with investments that could exceed $100 billion. The discussions, which are still in the early stages, were first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday” and this article ends with “Should these plans move forward, they would mark a significant milestone in the UAE’s efforts to position itself as a global technology hub.” The second article was initially from the Financial Times (but they are behind a paywall), as such I I cannot give the link, but the headline reads ‘UAE president meets Joe Biden in push for more US AI technology’ where we are given “Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan seeks to formalise fledgling partnership between both countries” as well as “The United Arab Emirates’ leader met US President Joe Biden in Washington on Monday to advance artificial intelligence co-operation as the Gulf nation tries to secure easier access to US-made technology” and “The UAE is one of the US’s most important allies in the Middle East, but relations have been strained at times in recent years. Talks for a formal security pact with Washington have stalled, and Abu Dhabi was infuriated by what it saw as a lukewarm US response to attacks on the UAE’s capital by Houthi rebels from Yemen in 2022.” This is a dangerous time for America. The trivialisation of the Houthi terrorists will cost America dearly, it has before and it will cost America more than they imagined. You see, as I personally see it. There is a bigger fish. The option that China will play nice with Taiwan when there is a larger part of the $100,000,000,000 could give China the edge they need. And in this setting China will have several bonus options that would fall away from American. That alone would entice China to play nice with Taiwan to a whole larger degree. Is it viable? I honestly cannot say as the media is massively anti-China. Ask Huawei is you doubt my view on this issue. 

How could this happen?
There are several options, but if I were a betting man China would offer Taiwan independence UNDER China. Would Taiwan accept this? I don’t know, but if China would enable a diplomatic solution via the United Arab Emirates it could happen. China is more interested in the collapse of America sooner and will hand an independence ‘option’ to Taiwan. And the setting with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan gives China a larger option to manouver. It is my believe that the Biden administration is driven to not make my speculation happen and for that it needs a slice of the UAE AI business and America will offer whatever it has to to make their entrance a done deal. On the positive side if Microsoft gets involved there is every chance that their affinity to mediocrity will blow up in their faces and the American stance becomes a whole lot weaker. This is not ‘fear mongering’, this is merely the view I have on Microsoft and the blunders they have made in the recent past. The UAE embraces perfection, as such Amazon (AWS) or Google would be a much better fit. But this is not about bashing Microsoft (it is fun though). The AI investments that could be coming the way of the UAE, there is a larger field. We hear all about ‘AI’ and the developers (Amazon, Apple, Google, et al) but most forget that Huawei has its own system. The FusionMind AI platform. I don’t know how good it is. Whatever the media tells us, once Huawei gets to demonstrate their system. No matter what others think, if the UAE considers it good enough, the American race for revenues goes in the wrong direction (for America that is). Don’t ask me how good or how bad the Huawei system is, because I have never seen it, but I know about it and the media is doing its best to ignore Huawei, but I am not convinced that this is a good move to make. The IT people (like me) want to assist people with solutions that WORK. I do not think it is a good idea to ignore the Huawei system. And I believe that neither Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates are ignoring the Huawei technology side of it all. For me the larger setting isn’t merely what works, but it is the dim witted view of accusing Huawei whilst not offering ANY clear evidence. That is the larger stage and if Huawei, or the Chinese government can convince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to allow Huawei to present their case, American will have additional worries to deal with. I personally think that Google AI with Mandiant would be personally the better option. That is merely because I have have limited exposure to AWS and no exposure to Amazon security solutions. So my view is slightly biased. In all this, Google needs to convince the UAE that they have what the UAE needs. After that Saudi Arabia should be shown these solutions too (likely they have already seen them).

When we see these sides, one side is the technology, the other side is the software and when we optionally see these chip solutions the bigger winner becomes whomever sets the premise of their software to the hardware provided. I personally hope for Google (I am biased here), but the end game is nowhere near concluded at present. I reckon the Biden administration is hoping for a memorandum of intent, but that is something we might see on Wednesday. So keep looking.

It is almost Wednesday here and Vancouver is following in 18 hours. So anything is possible. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

A land in fear

That happens, countries like people can be in fear. The stand of a country is usually set by the speakers of that land. That is what I personally believe and behold, we get the Arab News giving us (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2572458/middle-east) with the headline ‘Iraq’s top Shiite cleric calls for end to Israeli ‘aggression’ on Lebanon’, which is fun, because at present the larger collection of western nations are trying to figure out how it was done. I think that the NSA had a direct line to DARPA and I reckon they figured it out. The DGSE, ASIO, MI6 and BND were pretty much in the dark (until they received a call that is). So as we are given “Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Shiite Islam’s highest authority in Iraq, appealed Monday for “every possible effort” to end Israeli “aggression” against Lebanon, where it is targeting the Shiite Hezbollah movement.” With the missing paragraph “On 8 October 2023, Hezbollah started firing guided rockets and artillery shells at Israeli positions in the occupied Shebaa Farms, which it said was in solidarity with Palestinians following the Hamas attack on Israel that took place a day earlier.” They have been attacking for the larger part of 26 weeks and now we get Iraqi clerics about the Israeli “aggression” on Lebanon? I think certain people are getting afraid. Allegedly Israel completed an attack against Hezbollah laid waste against the communications of Hezbollah. And no one really knows why. It happened under the noses of everyone and everyone missed it. 

So when we get to “Sistani called for “the exercise of every possible effort” to end this “barbaric aggression and to protect the Lebanese people.”” How about ending rocket launches on Israel? This has been going on and on (and on) and now people wonder what kind of creativity comes next. I am still in favour of my new solution to ment down the nuclear reactors of Iran and Russia. Then there is my stealth system that could end the use of harbours in several places. These are merely two solutions that are out in the open and I reckon that Iraq feels safe from my second system as they really do not have any naval bases, but for Iran and Russia it is a different matter. 

So when we get to “Sistani called for “the exercise of every possible effort” to end tensions” I wonder when he called Hezbollah to tone it down, but I feel fairly certain that this didn’t happen and in the mean time Hezbollah and the enemies of Israel will face a next wave of their creativity. As such we see Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Shiite Islam’s highest authority in Iraq speak his mind and subsequently his fear to Arab News. Yes, this has every chance of escalating in the near future. 

Why does this happen?
My issue isn’t Iraq, it is Iran and I reckon that they wanted someone else to speak their Shiite state of mind. I thinks it is too hypocritical (even) for Iran to ship weapons to Hezbollah whilst asking (read: demanding) for Israel to sit back and await the impact of the weapons. And in this it amounts to the fact that everyone (and I mean everyone) didn’t see coming what Israel had up its sleeve. I reckon that plenty of terrorist providers are shaking in their boots. They idea that pagers explode makes the entire communication realm they rely on, a little shaken. But that is merely my point of view. And the fact that they now optionally rely on foreign clerics on the one sided message is a much larger problem as I see it. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is merely the first but I doubt he s alone in this. If this is an Iranian move (as I speculate) there is every chance that Shiite clerics have an increasing problem in the nearby future. This is not a given, but other countries would possibly be taking a firmer stance on Shiite clerics. Am I right? I honestly do not know, but there are definitely markers that could imply this. 

It is a worry and a larger upcoming stage towards destabilisation. A setting Iran likes (Russia too), the rest of the country is not on board with this and I speculate that the Sunni clerics are not happy either. They have enough of an issue in foreign nations to get the Islamic message across, I doubt they want this, but that is merely my non-Islamic point of view.

Lets try to enjoy the day before we consider the hassles of tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion