Category Archives: Politics

One view is not another

There was a scene and I took it in to some degree and I merely cast it aside the other. It was all about Meghan Markle, a lady who became Meghan, Duchess of Sussex after she married Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. I am for the most part a royalist, just like my grandfather was before me, the only part that is not equal is that he was British and participated in WW1, I did not. Yet, I remain royalist in nature. So when the interview was on, I avoided it, my reason was that for the most, I do not trust the media, they adhere to shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and they will use whomever they can to achieve what needs to be achieved and for the most, they see royalty as cannon fodder for their cannons. Yet, I do not attack media people directly unless it is about a specific article, and for the most part that viewpoint is in my scope. So when Piers Morgan went the other way regarding the Duchess of Sussex, I merely shrugged, so many articles, so much media, there will be views on both sides of the field, it is unavoidable.

As such I went on my merry way, that partially changed after the show on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, when his remarks also set the stage for him leaving the show. So when we see ““Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report. “The fact that she’s fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible” I initially shrugged, the media will take one side or another, it is what the media does and whether this falls into their personal views is a matter of debate, there is little option for me to change my views, I have seen thousands of articles over the last 10 years and that is the stage I am stuck in. 

And then Amol Rajan (in the BBC article) gives us “There is a culture war going on, and Piers Morgan’s job on Good Morning Britain has fallen victim to it. That’s different from saying Morgan himself is a victim of it; in some ways he has been a beneficiary. But when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject, at a time of such heightened tensions, something has to give. Tonight, it did.” In this take particular notice of ‘when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject’ this is where we see that some stakeholders call the CEO, this is not about him versus him, this is an optional example of Piers Morgan versus THEM, them being the people who prefer that the UK becomes a republic, there is more easily made profits that way, that is how I feel. And this is not a new point of view, I have been warning about the media, their shareholders, their stakeholders and their advertisers for years and the people get to see that freedom of speech and freedom of points of view does not hold water when the CEO has an opposite view. And in reality ITV’s Good Morning Britain is not a news organisation, even if they mention that they bring the news, it is as I personally see it a ‘catering entertainment program’. And it seems that Piers Morgan in this case had enough.

It does not matter that I stayed away from the interview. We all know that Oprah Winfrey is an absolute master in playing on emotions, it made her very very rich and her dedication to her causes and how it inflamed Americans have made her even richer. Sincere dedication cannot be feigned, it can only be real, making her an even more precious commodity. 

So is Piers right or wrong? That does not matter, I actually do not care, but it was his view and there are plenty accepting his view and to those stakeholders that view is detrimental to their needs. In a stage where everyone is bitching about their right to speak, getting rid of the person not agreeing to your views is something entirely different, it is called censorship. What struck me is ‘Meghan Markle among the 41,000 people who filed a formal complaint against Piers Morgan’s comments’, you see when you look at the big picture, we see that this amounts to 0.06% of the population, we cannot get the BBC to give the British people the goods on what is actually happening in Yemen (the Iran involvement part), a setting that has caused the death of well over 100,000 people in a population of formerly set to 29 million, as such we are getting inflamed by the wrong numbers. It does not matter whether Piers Morgan is right or wrong, it was HIS point of view, as such the stage is calling for a lot more questions on the amount of stakeholders that ITV’s GMB at present has, this is how I personally see it, I will let you make up your own mind. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The broken record

That is how I feel at times, all the instances that people come and parrot like repeat the accusations left, right and center. All those times I feel like I am in a losing war, a shouting match and my voice is gone, but here I go again and this time two events took place, but the BBC set them off and it starts with the interview with Ian Murray giving us the headline ‘Meghan racism row: Society of Editors boss Ian Murray resigns’, at first I was not that interested, to be honest, in the world of journalism, or what some call journalism, the value of a journalist tends to be lower than the value of a crack pusher. Yet this interview gave me a few nice parts. It starts at 00:53 (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56355274), when questions are asked on the headlines, yet Ian Murray deflects it all, changing the conversation (or trying to), in the end he never answered the question, he tried to change the conversation. This is the larger problem with the media, the media is not here to support and to inform you the reader, the listener or the watcher. Here we see the dangers of the Society of Editors. These people have a charter, an unspoken one. They protect the share holders, the stakeholders and the advertisers, after that it becomes as emotional as possible, so that flaming will ensue more and more revenue. The actual journalism is left to a chosen few and that group is exceedingly shrinking. It is the most clear example, but it is not the only one.

The second part is the Jamal Khashoggi joke. This senseless form of humour gives us headlines in nearly all papers, with live interviews with UN essay writers, but not any evidence, or better stated quality evidence that could be regarded in a court of law. CNN gives us ‘White House won’t punish Saudi Crown Prince for Khashoggi murder’, all whilst there is no evidence at all, there is a source (the one that promised that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), but they water it down to highly probable to probable that it happened. The factual stage is that something most likely happened to Jamal Khashoggi, but there is no evidence, mere speculation. And in part it (optionally) helps me. I will happily take the $6,800,000,000 revenue and courier the papers between Riyadh and Beijing for a nice fee (the 3.75% commission I mentioned in previous articles). I already have the dream house I deeply desire lined up. You see there needs to be an actual cost to doing business and the media is due its invoice too.

The Guardian in July 2019 reported (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/09/most-uk-news-coverage-of-muslims-is-negative-major-study-finds) ‘Most UK news coverage of Muslims is negative, major study finds’, and as the arms industry is a buyers market, I am happily willing to facilitate towards China, did you think that all the BS and negativity is accepted? At some point buyers will look at the other delivering parties and what the CAAT did not screw up, the Yanks themselves did, as such 2 slices of cake (a yummy multi billion dollar one) will go towards other hungry players. A setting that the media and politicians staged. So whilst the Conversation gave us a little over a week ago ‘Jamal Khashoggi: why the US is unlikely to deliver justice for the murdered journalist’ (at https://theconversation.com/jamal-khashoggi-why-the-us-is-unlikely-to-deliver-justice-for-the-murdered-journalist-156165) with the part that is essential “the White House has tried to send signals to Saudi Arabia and may not favour Prince Mohammed, it is likely he will take over the throne from his father and rule the kingdom for decades to come. The Biden administration may dislike Prince Mohammed personally, but they will probably need to work with him if the US is to maintain a working relationship with Saudi Arabia”, in this the US has no options, they have the option of releasing actual evidence, but I would not hold my breath on that one. They need to find a way to restore billions in optional lost revenue and I hope they lose out so I can get my dream house. You see in a commercial world it is about who has the goods and who can deliver the goods and at present Saudi Arabia has the cash. So whilst we see more and more visible BS on a whodunnit level whilst the evidence is a lot less than the one Ellery Queen ever had to work with. 

And in all this the media has a much larger role to play, a lot more than you think. And if one would ask Miqdaad Versi of the Muslim Council of Britain today, I wonder how the stage has negatively reverted. Even as we saw then “The findings come amid growing scrutiny of Islamophobia in the Conservative party and whether its roots lie in rightwing media coverage.” It is a much larger setting, it is the media in general, for them Islam is an easy mark to have, a mark that upsets the least and that is where the shareholders and stakeholders are most likely to be, the creation of emotional flames and the Khashoggi flame was one of the brightest they had seen in a decade as such Saudi bashing continues. We see an alternative/additional version in Judith Escribano article “In The role of the media in the spread of Islamophobia Sam Woolfe argues that “the media uses bold and harsh language to promote this kind of fear because bad news sells”. This constant drip feed of bad news focussed on Muslims and Islam merely “propagates and reinforces negative stereotypes of Muslims (e.g. that Muslims are terrorists, criminals, violent or barbaric)”” (at https://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/islamophobia-in-the-media-enough-is-enough/), I disagree in part. You see the media never had their ducks in a row and to sell advertisements, they need to turn the people into ‘click bitches’, the more emotional an article is, the more enflaming an article is, the better the changes of a click and a click translates to roughly $0.01-$0.03 per person per visit, as such the media flames as much as they can every day. They never realised the setting has no long term benefit and I reckon that is why the Australian one is crying like little bitches against mean mean mean Google (and its papa Smurf Sergey Brin). 

So how do Prince Harry and Meghan relate to Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman? Emotion! Emotion is the stage that levels the playing field for the media, a stage that enraged millions, make them click on their website, the ultimate click bitch paradox that is as close to a perfect digital storm as we are likely to see in the next decade, that is until Iran does something extreme again, but I set a new stealth weapon system online for the innovator to turn into something factual and sink their navy, I roll like that.

The problem with the stage we see is that for the most, the media refuses to investigate the media and the moment they figure out that they are under investigation, we will see all kinds of barricades. Even the Guardian (one of the more reputable ones) gave us a day ago ‘What is journalism for? The short answer: truth’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/11/journalism-truth-strong-regulation-us-media-uk) there is nothing wrong with the article, but consider the stage they start up with “Who, what, where, when and why? Five questions that are at the heart of our trade. Answer those questions in relation to any news story, and we’re doing our jobs as journalists” and that stage is not wrong, but there is a setting between editor and journalist that is missing and that accounts for filtered information versus news. In this filtered information is news that has been approved by the shareholders, the stakeholders and the advertisers. That difference is at the core of Islamophobia, the false accusations against Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the continued covering of a columnist that vanished years ago and almost no one cares about. It is smitten with the essential need for digital revenue. That is at the heart of it all and whilst the royal stage might depose Saudi Arabia from a number one digital bashing position it is a mere temporary one. In 2009 James Murdoch gave us “The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit”, and how can the news be profitable? When the news is filtered and for the most (and more secure way) to the extent that meets with the approval of share holders and stake holders, yet how independent is that exactly?

I apologise for sounding like a broken record, but this stuff is important, and when the escalations start you will see why, which is why I hope you are on the ball before that happens. Have fun!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Reprieve the explosives

The Guardian woke me up this morning with ‘MI5 policy allowing agents to commit crimes was legal, say judges’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/mi5-policy-agents-take-part-crimes-lawful-appeal-court-judges). Here we are told that Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve is challenging the case that “The idea that the government can authorise undercover agents to commit the most serious crimes, including torture and murder, is deeply troubling and must be challenged”, now, I agree that this is probably an ideological approach to the matter, but this is not some scuffle with the local constabulary, when you are active enough for MI5 to look into the matter, you are an actual optional problem (read: danger) to the British people. 

We look at the example “Home Office sources cited the case of Naa’imur Zakariyah Rahman, who was jailed for life in 2018 for plotting to kill the former prime minister Theresa May. He was caught following an undercover operation in which he was provided with what he thought was a jacket and rucksack packed with explosives.”, or as one might say, he went to the target holding a block of grey putty, 5 wires and an egg timer. The issue is not what they do, the issue is for MI5 agents to get into the fold and those folds are extremely paranoid of the people they allow in but do not know, they tend to demand extreme examples of their commitment. Some sources in the political field give us “Ayman al-Zawahiri isn’t trying to plan another 9/11 attack—because he doesn’t need to.” Yet in this MI5, if not all the people in the UK cannot take that lacks a standing, What if the next time it is not the World Trade Centre, what if it becomes the Shard? That building is visible to the largest part of London, right in front of a train station. The chaos would be visible for months, and it is for that reason that players like MI5 need as large as possible a leeway to get their job done. We will never hear of their successes, but any failure will be front page news for years to come and the stakes are only getting higher. OK, I admit by creating IP that could sink the Iranian fleet, I did not help any, but I am not some Reprievalist, I created a solution to get things done (that’s how I roll).

Yet the article is not all ‘problems’, there is validity in “a limit to what criminality may be authorised”, I get it, there should be some form of limit, but that also means that the players will go that far in finding a solution to weed out any legal interference brought to them by MI5 (and like minded opposition) and that is definitely not a good thing. We might think that this is ‘common’ ground, but the Dutch AIVD, French DGSE and let’s not forget the American bringers of fairy tails, the CIA. They are all wielding their limited bat because of similar restrictions. In opposition to the FSB, GRU, the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan, Iranian VEVAK (now VAJA), as well as the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS), aka Guoanbu. These 5 players do not have such restrictions. The best way to lose a war is to state that you can only play soldier with a M1 Garand, a rifle with a range of no more than 500 metres. All whilst the rest have the equivalent of a Druganov, or the Chinese QBU-88 both have an effective range well over twice the distance, as such it is like sending your own troops to get slaughtered. Yes, there is appeal in the moral high ground, but how high is that moral ground when you worship your convictions like a golden calf? A stage where we say, this is how it is and this is what our troops (read: intelligence operatives) need to adhere to, isn’t that just another form of targeted killing (in the most negative way)? And the politicians waving it away with ‘Our people are just so much more intelligent’ they are required to put their own children in the field, in harm’s way so to speak. I wonder how long it takes for them to get off that high moral horse. So when we see a person like Maya Foa take the limelight with a big eyed smiley face, consider who she is willing to lead to the slaughter in this. 

And that is when we consider state actors, Terrorists have access to much of the needed hardware and none of the governmental restriction and that is what MI5 faces. She is not alone, we are seeing the CAAT now limiting British economy (a setting I am happily willing to take advantage of). We see more and more of these moral high ground settings, all whilst the people around us have no such restrictions and they are all helping the abyss creep up closer to our way of life, in a time when no one can afford such changes. Even now (read: two weeks ago) as we were told “Salini Impregilo has won a contract in Saudi Arabia: a project worth about $1.3 billion in Riyadh with the Saudi Arabia National Guard”, the setting not mentioned is that the project was a lot larger and other construction players (read: Rusian/Chinese) are getting a slice of that. The size of that slice is not known, but as they become more and more adept in negotiating, the slices of WeBuild (Salini Impregilo) will get smaller and smaller in an economic setting that the EU cannot afford. WeBuild is now facing increased competition from China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC), as well as the Russian PIK group. Even as Russia has a few issues to work from, the Chinese side has a diminishing threshold to deal with and over the next few years it could cost the EU billions. One group, one industry and that much damage, is the Reprieve danger sinking in? The stage is a lot larger than we think because any action here by terrorists will have larger repercussions on the international stage and all whilst we give some moral high ground against terrorists. It’s like telling Ken McCallum that he can only kill the nasty troll with a butterknife. How screwed up is that setting?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Where the media should never be

A case was brought to my attention, normally it goes nowhere, but this article (at https://millichronicle.com/2021/03/opinion-ghada-oueiss-lies-about-saudi-and-american-spies/) struck a nerve. In all this, there were a few unknowns. I had never dealt with the Milli Chronicle, I did not know the writer and it was against Al Jazeera, a news outlet that had shown to be often enough to be in good faith, but the article still stung. Lets take a look

There was ‘Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss sues Saudi and UAE crown princes over phone hack, harassment’ (at https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3113604/al-jazeera-anchor-ghada-oueiss-sues-saudi-and-uae-crown), the South China Morning Post gives us this last December. It is there where we see “She sued Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to silence her”, this is interesting because it is not the first time that Mohammed bin Salman is accused of this. I am wondering how much of it is actually true. You see one definite part in this is that one should always keep their hands clean, as such there is a larger debate on who did the deed, and as such how is any evidence of this tested and validated? Perhaps Ghada Oueiss is seeing a pay day? When we look back at a similar accusation we saw the failed papers and the debatable papers by FTI consulting. There was clear evidence that his phone was hacked, but there is also a decent setting that MBS was framed and that a third party hacked his phone.

All this becomes a second stage when we see ‘Al Jazeera anchor’s anti-Semitic Twitter persona’ (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1704376/media) a setting that was seen last July. There we see “On July 8, Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss wrote an opinion article for the Washington Post in which she detailed her alleged struggle with cyberbullying campaigns on Twitter at the hands of — as she claims — droves of Saudi and Emirati bots”, so in all this we see another Washington Post mention all towards a columnist no one gives a fuck about (pardon my French). Isn’t it interesting that they all knew one another and they are all the making the ‘alleged attempt’? As I see it Al Jazeera just entered the frame where they should not be ‘Creating the no news’ and there is every chance that this will now hit their credibility. We are also given ““Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others, calls for chaos in its support for militias and violence against the state and calls for hatred in any form possible to defy and distort the image of those who oppose its sponsors in Qatar and its ally Turkey,” Egypt-based media expert Hani Nasira told Arab News.” This requires me to have more in depth knowledge of Hani Nasira which I do not have, but it also gives (optionally plasters) Ghada Oueiss as a tool for usage as we are treated to “Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others”, gives rise to a different kind of journalism, I wonder who was looking that deep? So as we return to the Milli Chronicle and “Ghada needs defendants who reside in Miami, Florida in order to bring her lawsuit there. Two of the USA Defendants live in Miami, Florida—which is why Ghada made them defendants in her lawsuit. Ghada complains that these two Americans joked about eating dinner at the Olive Garden Restaurant in Miami, so now, Ghada no longer feels safe in Miami—even though she lives in Qatar.” And perhaps this reminds you of something? I wrote about it a few weeks ago and let me get a sample. It is seen in my article ‘Number of states’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/06/number-of-states/) there we see (at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747.66.1.pdf) at [4] “Fortunately, in the United States, justice is measured not by the might of one’s arms; what is lawful is measured not by the reach of one’s sword; and the law itself is not laggard when faced with a prince who, having directed the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist overseas, also dispatched a team of hunters and killers into the United States and Canada to murder again”, it is interesting that all the elements were outside the USA, more important, there is a lack of Canadian Courts in play when it comes to Dr. Saad Aljabri. And personally, it might be me, yet how much value do we give a complaint when it starts with “Richard III, William Shakespeare” a play that is seen as a tragedy, just like that court case, so why was the intending ‘victim’ not in a Canadian court? And it does not end there, the opposition (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is shown in the Guardian ‘Saudi state companies sue ex-spy chief in Canada over alleged $3bn fraud’ with the additional part “Aljabri, exiled in Canada, was a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was deposed as heir to the throne by Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a 2017 palace coup.” I am not stating that one is true and one is false, but which journalist dug into the finances of Dr. Saad Aljabri? $3,000,000,000 is a lot more than most will ever make, and even as a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef there is a decent option that Dr. Saad Aljabri would end up being a millionaire, even a multi millionaire, but not a billionaire. 

I feel certain that I can live like a king in Monaco for €250,000,000, so why would I need more? Some do and for a top-aide to end up being a multi billionaire, that requires some doing and no one is asking those questions, they are all doing the same thing from different directions, like a bachelor getting to work in the morning every day from a different direction, someone is getting screwed. The people expecting neutral news is one, there are a few more but I will let you decide on that.

You see, we all want confirmation, one stating that fraud was not committed whilst the court case is filed in the US, not in Canada. So what investigation took place in Canada? Then when we see the Milli Chronicle with “It seemed like a crazy joke until the reporter said there was actually a lawsuit number, 1:20-cv-25022– and that I was personally named as a member of a shadowy, nefarious, evil-doing operation that Ghada calls “The Network” on pages 19 and 20 of her 93-page diatribe”, who investigated this stuff? The fact that it makes the Milli Chronicle and not the NY Times is a valid question, but there is every indication that the Washington Post system is working full throttle in their attempt to paint a target and they are using all they can and the non-friends of Saudi Arabia are the helping hands that the Washington Post is seeking. It is speculative, but it is my view and the evidence is stacking up against the Washington Post and now against Al Jazeera as well. I do hope that the chief editor is taking a hard and a very critical look at the work of Ghada Oueiss. I will let them decide and figure out what is actual truth and I do hope that they will inform the audience, they allegedly have credibility to repair.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

There is a voice

There is always a voice, it goes into one direction, it goes another way, but there is always a voice.  In my Cale the voice belongs to Reuters and it gave us all yesterday ‘Don’t bully Riyadh, Saudi columnists tell Biden administration’, it is nice to see this, especially after stating that very thing for weeks. The article (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-khashoggi-media/dont-bully-riyadh-saudi-columnists-tell-biden-administration-idUSKCN2AS0BN) gives us “Saudi Arabia, which has relied on the United States for its defence including during the first Gulf War and after 2019 attacks on its massive oil infrastructure, could look to China and Russia for weapons”, the writer Malik states this and I think he is right, in my case the optional $75,000,000 meal ticket has almost nothing to do with it, my larger frame is the sickening hypocrisy that I see from both the US as well as the UK and the EU, so as I am trying to optionally increase that meal ticket to $225,000,000 we need to realise that these three dumbo’s are about to lose billions in revenue in a time where they cannot afford it, but I do not care, hypocrisy comes at a cost and whilst they fail another nuclear accord with Iran, whilst they fail to see the larger stage that Iran cannot be dealt with anymore than a petulant 5 year old will listen to the summarisation of responsibilities and I reckon we need to prepare Saudi Arabia for the larger problems coming their way and if the EU and the US will not prepare them China who is roaring to set the Chengdu to a larger field, they will have they option of raking in the gold and other benefits. The Biden administration and its tools had their misfortune and now they will get some more, it is a simple application of protocol NAH5 (nah, nah, nah, nah, nah).

And me ending optionally (read: hopefully) up with up to $225,000,000 is just icing on the cake. So not only did tools at the CAAT end up missing their goal, they are also the larger party responsible for the UK missing out on billions. Good luck with that!

It gets to be worse when you consider “Abdullah al-Otaibi, writing in London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper which is Saudi-owned, said the kingdom, Washington’s oldest Arab ally, was “not a banana republic to be shaken by threats”” the people need to realise that in 2021 and 2022, companies like Salini Impregilo (now: WeBuild) could miss out on hundreds of millions in contracts, contracts that China and Russia will be quarrelling over. And that is merely the tip of the iceberg, So now we have optional contracts that could aid the coffers of the US, UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, now all going towards China and Russia. It is a buyers market and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the buyer, make no mistake about that. So when we see these facts and we add ““We want to strengthen deep-rooted ties (with the U.S.) but not at the expense of our sovereignty. Our judiciary and our decisions are a red line,” Fahim al-Hamid wrote in Okaz newspaper” all whilst I have written about the issues in both the UN and the US reports, a stage that I showed a mere three days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) in the article ‘That was easy!’ And then consider what the well (read; overly) paid people claim all whilst they cannot legally back it up. They are now setting the stage of you all to be in extended poverty. When exactly was that ever a good idea?

And you do not need to take my word for it, I included the documents, make up your own mind and see how the legal bitches are all relying on emotion to set the blame whilst making sure that Iran is not mentioned at all (or to the minimum extent) and Iran has been part of the problem for well over a decade, wonder why you will have to pay for that, especially as these people are relying on ‘guilty until proven innocent’ all whilst they are making sure that there is too much confusion in the entire process. If I get to pick up some nice bits because of their stupidity, it will suit me just fine, and let’s be clear, when you rely on populism and emotion to bring legal settings to a place where none apply, it is stupidity plain and simple.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

That was easy!

Yup, the report (all three pages) took seconds and the setting of the non-guilt setting of MBS is seen on page 2. Even if we want to give weight to “We base this assessment on the Crown Prince’s control of decision making in the Kingdom”, it was never going to be hard, but the setting of ‘We base this’, ‘we’ being the people who claimed that there were WMD’s in Iraq was never going to be realistic, but you know, we all get surprises at time. The three pages (optionally a much larger report that is still classified) is not enough and even as we can giggle over “We have high confidence that the following individuals participated in, ordered, or were otherwise complicit in or responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi”, it has no legal value. It is what you can prove that matters. And in that we need to return to the UN essay that Agnes Callamard wrote. There we see (and it matters). 

This start at [29] where we see “Mr. Khashoggi’s execution is emblematic of a global pattern of targeted killing of, and threats against, journalists and media workers that is regularly denounced by States, UN agencies, Special Procedures, and by numerous international and national human rights organisations.” You see, my issue is with the word ‘execution’ which means “the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person”, meaning that there is a body (at least one would think), then there is ‘a global pattern of targeted killing’ which is a different can of worms at present. Yet it is at [39] when we are given “Intelligence gathering is an open-ended process, and there is rarely a definitive point at which “enough” intelligence has been harvested. Think of a conveyer belt moving information from often disparate sources constantly in front of intelligence officers.  At some point, there comes a time when an intelligence service or operative simply has to make a stab at assimilating what all this means.” It is a fair assessment, and like the WMD’s in Iraq, we need to consider ‘an intelligence service or operative simply has to make a stab at assimilating what all this means’, this can be surmised into one single word ‘Speculation!’, it is fair for Intelligence operatives to do, but in law it is set to evidence and there is none, something I saw in 10 minutes into the initial report. This is about petulant children complaining that the next regent of Saudi Arabia is one that they do not like. Oh, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo! Go cry me a river somewhere else please.

The one lollipop I was keeping back was seen at [41], it is “Recordings of only seven different conversations over a two-day period were made available to the inquiry. Combined these amounted to 45 minutes of tape, when, according to Turkish Intelligence, they had access to at least seven hours of recordings. The remaining six hours and 15 minutes may or may not be relevant to the inquiry, but without doubt there remains much more recorded information than that made available to the Special Rapporteur”, as well as “The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to obtain clones of the recordings so she could not authenticate any of the recordings. Among other aspects, such authentication would have involved examination of the recordings’ metadata such as when, how the data were created, the time and date of creation and the source and the process used to create it.” As such we are given that they merely got a partial recording, the stage where recordings were not copied, implying that there is a bigger mess and one that surpasses ‘when, how the data were created’, and the bigger issue is that there is no digital forensic evidence that the person on the tape is actually Jamal Khashoggi, lets not forget that in the proxy war against Iran, Turkey supports Iran, as such they have all kinds of reasons to make the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia look bad. And that is merely assuming that the hardware is of a nature that it allows the creation of metadata in the first place. 

And the noise is completed at [44] where we are given “To evaluate the recordings, in the absence of copies or clones, she asked for the expert opinion of others who had access to the recordings, including representatives of foreign governments. Their opinions were given to her informally. She also, to the extent possible, triangulated Intelligence (information and analysis) with other facts, such as CCTV footage, interviews, contextual information, historical patterns”, as such, the word ‘experts’ is seen 13 times, but where is that list of experts exactly? And in light of ‘others who had access to the recordings’, it comes with ‘Their opinions were given to her informally’, in what court of law would that hold up? All this analyses, informal, and the setting os speculation and assumption is all over the place, all whilst in law we have a setting that is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, a threshold that is never ever met in anything here. There is a lot more, but I will not bore you with that, I will merely add both documents at the bottom

Even that work of fiction ‘Blood and Oil’ uses rhetoric to make a case that never was. I honestly had expected a much larger task in determining guilty or not-guilty in the entire Khashoggi mess that the media was trying to hold over our heads, and I can clearly state that in all this Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is not guilty.

All the time we were given ‘it could be’, or ‘what we were able to gather’ was a stage for all the click bitches in the world to click on article after article, the media has become this pathetic to get some revenue (and visibility). All whilst the report that gives us “the Crown Prince’s support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad”, a stage that is not met with actual facts and factual evidence. When we call for that the only thing we will get is a lot of silence. 

Is anyone catching up on that yet? What are you still missing in this? I got some of the answers, but watching you find them is so much more fun, because it also proves just how unreliable some of the media has become.

10 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Which is it?

I woke up in tears today, not tears of sadness, but tears of joy and it baffled me for a second, the dream was weird, optionally among the weirdest. This brought forth a thought, sometimes the tory is for the reader, sometimes it is for the writer and sometimes it is for the bystander, the trick is not knowing which is which, but for the writer the trick becomes which story is not meant for the writer, most writers have a problem there. It is not a natural one, it is the ability to look into a mirror and see nothing, no one at all. In this case ego gets in the way, it does not matter whether it is intentional or not. 

So in the dream it is about an aboriginal who served in WW1, it had to look it up, I never considered or realised that aboriginals were in WW1. This one had a passion for strawberry and pecan cones (I never saw that before), as such it is weird by my nose is filled with the smell of sweet overwhelming strawberries. There is a cart, a girl named Mabel and her sister, they sell the cones and they look lovely, but the aboriginal man has only eyes for the cones, he is addicted to these strawberry pecan cones. And as I watch him, I see the three white buildings. I think that they are hospital buildings, the soldiers are in barracks. I cannot tell where I am, but I noticed the soldier, he is driven by the fear of disappointing his family, his fellow soldiers and it gives him a drive, one I have never seen before. In the onslaught I see him stand firm, the opposition breaking like waves on a rock, he never wavers, fear of failure had turned into determination to stop the enemy, around him are four fallen soldier, not dead but wounded, seriously wounded and they are too poorly to act and to fight, but the aboriginal soldier stands firm, stopping the enemy again and again. For a moment I see the name f his father, but it eludes me now, more details are eluding me. Yet the aboriginal man is never celebrated, I cannot tell whether the officer in the regiment is a bigot or merely in fear that he could never match the determination of this soldier, he get the normal awards like any other soldier, but the overwhelming valour that this man showed is hidden in papers, it seems like someone fears that this shame becomes known. It is much later now, I cannot tell how much later, but the soldier is now an old man, in what seems to be hospital barracks. The man looks at me like he recognises me and I see his eyes look towards me wondering and pondering questions. I look at him, smile, and say “You need not worry, you did so much better than anyone else could have ever achieved, you surpassed them all, you should feel pride. Rest now, your next journey awaits and you never need fear ever again, fear is now afraid of you”, I kiss him on the forehead, I pick him up and walk away carrying the old man. Whilst I did that, the other old men in the room, they get out of bed, stand to attention and salute the empty body in the bed. Doctors and nurses are running into the room, a room that was abandoned by an old soul who was wronged and will be wronged no more. 

I still feel the tears well up as I write this, yet I am not sad. Was the story for me, for you the reader or for the people who knowingly and willingly wronged a soldier whose actions made them ashamed of being the broken pieces they were? I honestly cannot tell, but for some reason I need to find out if there is such a thing as strawberry pecan ice cream. I need to taste some of that and summer is drawing to a close. 

For now, I have a report to read, the BBC reported on that report less than an hour ago, so I need to get my fingers on it and educate a few people on the stupidity of recklessly blaming people for political points. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Careful what you wish for

Yes, that applies today, it also applies to me, we all and always need to be careful what we wish for. There are tales in the Arabian Nights, there are tellings in Norse Mythology and there is a decent abundance in ancient Greek writing. Why does this apply?

Well, this applies to those playing the mis-representation game, and those who played the anti-KSA cards. As we are told ‘Khashoggi killing report will test US-Saudi relations’ (at https://www.ft.com/content/b2817e43-7a47-43b9-9900-42c77ff0a5fa), I will take that report apart and sift through it. When I see mention of the alleged plight of a princess, all whilst the larger papers were able to ignore the Argentinian Femicide issues that have been playing for a week, and whilst media sources, Australian media sources have been crying like little bitches, it is time to see what I can find. A stage where the media hides behind “There was “no way” Khashoggi’s murder was carried out without either the knowledge or direction of Prince Mohammed” as well as “Riyadh could still avoid the toughest sanctions by taking more responsibility for the crime”. It is all implying that some people want to push for some form of confession because there is NO EVIDENCE. This matters, even as civil law and common law have differences, most of us have the stage of murder and beyond all reasonable doubt, and the UN Essay on the matter (by Agnes Callamard) took close to none away. But the warning also applies to me, I might find more than I bargained for and I get that, but so far the people involved lacked a minimum level of intelligence, as such I feel decently certain I will find enough to voice the reasonable doubt in this. We have seen two years of presented anger whilst there was no evidence and that same media goes on ignoring all kinds of events (like bombing of civilian targets by Houthi and as I personally feel certain about Iranian forces), yet the media tends to remain silent, focusing on the $500,000 reward on Lady Gaga’s missing dog. 

Yes, the media has its work cut out for them and I will not pull punches, not on this one. And as we take notice of “Chris Murphy, Democratic senator from Connecticut, told news channel MSNBC that he wanted “a much broader set of accountability measures” for anyone involved in the murder, identifying financial sanctions and visa withdrawals. He is among a number of members of Congress who have called for the US to take tougher action against the kingdom”, I wonder if he reconsidered the setting where Former President Trump was left with an acquittal on the second impeachment, all whilst there were close to a hundred sources, they got nothing and now they suddenly have a case without evidence? Go cry me a river, please!

So as I feel certain that I can debunk that report, I accept the notion that I might fail, anyone making any claims of success before the report is out is nuts, and I feel certain that I am not nuts (I am a Mars bar).

And I do have an advantage, the quote “The intelligence assessment, based largely on work by the CIA, is not new; NBC News was among the organisations that confirmed it in 2018” by NBC (at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/new-public-report-blame-saudi-crown-prince-2018-killing-jamal-n1258800) gives us “based largely on work by the CIA”, you know the people claiming that there were WMD’s in Iraq. So, how did that end? Remember that US Rockstar with his silver briefcase (Colin Powell)? He went on a wild tour all over the world, but how reliable was that report in the end? Now, there are at least two elements that I can rely on, but I will wait until the report, it is so much more satisfying to be ahead of the curve. Yet, in the end I could be wrong and I will learn that I was wrong and I will bring that too, I am never afraid to be wrong, I am more worried about bing indecisive. So there will be more to come, quite soon I expect.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Filter by Gender.

Yup we have all done it, we tend to filter. The horny (especially teenagers) want to talk, chat and video whatever to the members of the other gender (well, most of them anyway). We filter by the needs we have, business needs, personal needs and artistic needs, we filter. There is for the most nothing wrong with that. Yet it also tends to keep you in a little box. I come from the previous internet era, I never got into Napster but I loved Audiogalaxy. I had it so I could listen to music when I was travelling and it opened up doors. I learned about the Corrs, Bond, the Dixie Chicks, Linkin Park, Orbital and a few others. It grew my CD collection by leaps and that made me happy, in an age where my work kept me from MTV, Audiogalaxy showed me other venues of music. I forwent the filter and I learned about and got to appreciate bands I would never have considered. Filtering is not all bad.

Yet what happens when filtering goes overboard in another direction? Today I learned a new word, I word I should have been aware of but I do not remember hearing it. The word is ‘Femicide’ and it is not a good word. It was Al Jazeera that made me aware, the article ‘Rage boils over amid Argentina’s unrelenting femicide crisis’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/rage-boils-over-amid-argentinas-unrelenting-femicide-crisis). It got my attention in the first as it was about Argentina and my mother was from there. In the second it was the by-line “Femicide of 18-year-old Ursula Bahillo pushed thousands into the streets of Buenos Aires this month to demand action”. In this there are two parts, the first is “About 87,400 results” (when we look for Ursula Bahillo) and the second part is that the big newspapers are missing on the news search result on the first page. A Spanish version from the BBC is at the bottom of the page, no Washington Post, no NY Times, no Times, no Guardian (the list goes on) and it sickens me for another reason. You see, one hour ago the Guardian gives us ‘Princess Latifa letter urges UK police to investigate sister’s Cambridge abduction’, some princess gets the news on optionally being abducted and whilst Al Jazeera reports “Nearly 300 femicides were reported in the country in 2020”, other newspapers keep us in the dark and these idiots demand money from Facebook and Google, whilst not informing us? I see this as one of the clearest ‘What the Fuck?’ moments of the year.

I never felt comfortable bout honour killings. I understand that it exist and in those countries there is an issue, I am massively against that setting in other nations. I cannot convict it as I am not Muslim, yet outside of Muslim nations it is an issue, yet femicide should not be ANYWHERE and the fact that we are kept in the dark by most papers is a larger issue, but I will let you worry about that. It kind of intersects with ‘Australia urged to follow allies in denouncing China’s repression of Uighurs as ‘genocide’’, the fact that genocide is happening and someone needs to ‘urge’ Australia shows that we are not as evolved as we think we are. By the way, the first 5 pages of that search shows no Australian papers at all, as such should they be allowed to exist? That is a more serious question than you think. If the ACCC are all about media laws and the need to blame tech companies, in this my message after seeing ‘ACCC chief claims victory after Facebook standoff’ to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Sims will be “Sir, I consider you to be a fucking joke! You are hereby responsible to make sure that the events around Ursula Bahillo are to be seen in EVERY Australian newspaper as per immediate. If you (as it seems) champion discrimination, you need to be openly told this”, my issue here is that Microsoft was left out of the media consideration, they were waiting all their resources on their Azure cloud and now that we see “Microsoft will ensure that small businesses who wish to transfer their advertising to Bing can do so simply and with no transfer costs.  We recognise the important role search advertising plays to the more than two million small businesses in Australia” (source: Microsoft) all whilst we see western media absent to the plight of Ursula Bahillo and hundreds more shows that the media was never to be considered any options (if the Leveson report was not enough evidence). As such, how much action did the UN take to the Femicide cause? I know they have done some work, yet when I see ‘United Nations asks UAE for proof that Princess Latifa is alive’ all whilst the Google Search “Ursula Bahillo United Nations” gives no real links on the western media, why is that? That is even beside the fact on how active UN essay writers became against the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they even went so far to push for issues regarding  cyber crimes on an American Industrial (Jeff Bezos) all whilst the presented evidence had several shades of debatability. As I see it, we need larger changes and if the media relies on political bitches (as one might say) to do their revenue work for them, they will need to be held liable, yet I reckon that some editors will cry like little bitches and point towards ‘freedom of the press’, I wonder how long it will take for someone to consider that ‘accountability of the press’ is also a matter that needs consideration. Al Jazeera brought more to the surface than some media players are happy with. Consider your paper, or their website (whichever it is) and look for Ursula Bahillo, how many articles did you find? What we are shown matters, whether is be Femicide in Argentina, persecution of Uighurs or any other news. As I personally see it when we filter by gender and the filtering agent is the media we have lost control and the insane are at the helm of a ship called sanity. That’s merely my $0.02 on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

A desk and screen

It is not the stage I am facing, it was the idea for a short film the story itself might seem known, it was a stage that several have used before, but here I am trying to invoke a darkness from within. A stage we face when we are all alone in an office. We tend to hear things, but not always are these sounds in our minds, they are the sounds all around us. And in some cases for moments our sense of hearing increases with factor 50, as such we cannot identify the noises we hear. Then there is the application of shadows, in this I call towards Nightwatch, the 1994 version by Ole Bornedal, not the remake. The bonus is that we get to see a young and innocent Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, before winter came (ha ha ha). The two elements came to me as a setting on a simple GI at the console of a missile silo, his partner has suddenly taken ill, and that man is releasing his diner through the mouth (aka vomiting), it is at that point that the alarm goes off and the console room becomes isolated. That is the setting, I will not bore you with the details (aka the ending) but as a short movie it should be worthy of some recognition (aka my ego in action). Yet that is not the setting that matters, or the central point of discussion. 

You see, there are bigger fish to fry (optionally served with garlic sauce). Who took notice of ‘Where are Cape Town’s great white sharks?’, as well as ‘Extinction: Freshwater fish in ‘catastrophic’ decline’ (source: BBC). We have been seeing stuff like that for a while, yet to politicians are seemingly in denial. We see this again and again, yet they are ignoring a larger problem, an environmental source gave us 5 years ago “A world without fish is a scary prospect. Without them, life as we know it will not be possible. The ocean will no longer be able to perform many of its essential functions, leading to a lower quality of life. People will starve as they lose one of their main food sources”, now I have had my issue with overextending environmentalists for a long time, but I do not think that this person is wrong. And a key part here is ‘Without them, life as we know it will not be possible’, the stage is even less good when we consider that this decline has been going on for 30 years, as such, which politicians did something about that? To give you a boost with a setting of horror, consider that marine life in 30-40 years will be gone and as such, your grandchildren will at least starve to death (if they are lucky), did you consider this?

So was the environmentalist wrong, perhaps exaggerating? Well we might think that but the impact is already reported on BBC, and the great whites are merely the tip of the mountain, the inaction by politicians and government is a much larger stage, they are all in denial, or perhaps more subtle voiced, they have a Trump view of democracy. 

Sometimes we read things, we see things and we hear things, yet share holders and stakeholders are doing their best to make sure that the noise does not each too many people, it might adversely affect their need for profit. Yet as I mentioned “they are the sounds all around us” and we need to start taking notice. There is overfishing and pollution. If it was only pollution, in my case micro plastics, I would have had an optional solution. The idea came to me when I was watching a woman open her pack of cigarettes, I thought that it might be a solution in solving the micro plastics in the ocean. I am emphasising ‘might’ as it is untested and there is an optional danger to marine life, so I am a little hesitant. The solution comes in two forms a coastal and a deep water solution, one cannot do the other, but I was prepared, or perhaps better stated, my mind was and two versions came to mind. I wonder at times how we can wake the people up, we can argue that this world is better off with 7,500,000,000 less citizens, and it would preferable if the animals are still around when that happens, but I tend to be an optimist. 

I am also considering that we have had 4000 years to grow and we screwed up the planet in the last 100 years, which is quite the achievement. As such when we look at movies like the 5th wave, or play games like Mass Effect where our world is under attack from aliens, these people were optimists. They can just park on the dark side of the moon and wait for 20 years, they can claim the planet, free of life and optionally all the buildings are still there. 

We did this to ourselves, we can only blame us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies, Politics