Tag Archives: Al Jazeera

The new bitches

Even though I made the exact reference towards Hezbollah: “he will want to hide behind any UN skirt hoping for talks” yesterday, not 8 hours ago we see reported. So as the Guardian reported “an offer from the country’s Houthi rebels to halt all attacks on Saudi Arabia, saying it could bring an end to years of bloody conflict“, we see happen what I expected. The bitch in question is Martin Griffiths from the United Nations and he is the bitch of choice for the Houthi forces. Hiding behind his skirt because Iran needs to dial it down by a lot at present.

The quote “Implementation of the initiative by the Houthis “in good faith could send a powerful message of the will to end the war,”” shows that UN envoys are just as misrepresenting political hacks as all the other hacks. If he was even just half a bitch he would have ensured that ALL UN aid will now be totally unhindered, would he? Yes, that is exactly what at present is not achieved, merely the Houthi forces trying to stall after they knowingly lied and giving Iran the breathing space they need, and they got lucky, they ended up with access to a tool like Martin Griffiths. In all this the Saudi response makes perfect sense. And the quote: “We judge other parties by their deeds, actions and not by their words, so we will see [whether] they actually do this or not“, I believe that this is correct and the fact that Martin Griffith has nothing to show than merely an optional notification of intent is just a joke, especially after all this time.

Why my anger?

The problem is not the anger; it is the frustration where the UN has become nothing more than a tool giving additional buffers and time barriers for organisations like Hezbollah, Houthi and IRGC forces to stall for the next batch of actions. If the Houthis were sincere for peace than no UN impediment to humanitarian aid would exist, that fact was seen last week as reports gave us “Last week, the Houthis indiscriminately fired artillery shells against the residential areas in Tuhyata district of Hodeidah, leaving nine civilians killed and 10 others injured, including women and children, so it is my advice to Martin Griffiths to start getting REAL results or consider a sidestep to becoming an Uber driver. This is not hard, it is not complex and it need not take forever. Merely give the ultimatum that no offers are accepted, or considered to be true until all UN humanitarian aid for sustenance and medical needs can continue unhindered.

He did not get that done, did he?

There is actually an additional part that the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/yemeni-rebels-warn-iran-plans-another-strike-soon-11569105344) gives to the readers. Now this is shallow, even for me, but consider the quote: “Houthi militants in Yemen have warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia’s oil industry a week ago, people familiar with the matter said“, the issue is ‘a follow-up strike‘, implies (not a given) that Iran also did the first one, now follow up is ambiguous, yet the fact that they were aware means that they are either still tools, or more closely connected to Iran in some way (or they were either bluffing or lying).

And as they contradict themselves with: “Mohammed Abdul Salam, the Houthi spokesman, denied Saturday that the group had delivered any warning to foreign diplomats about potential Iranian attacks” implies to me that they are still merely tools, and that in light of the revelation one day later gives us the stage that there is no real guarantee of non-shelling of Saudi Arabia, merely a set stage for denial and delays, and in that Martin Griffith was the perfect tool to use, he was seemingly all dressed up for a press conference, only to find that he is on a stage whilst he is the wild card on ‘Dancing with the stars‘ and he judges are not looking for a dance, they are watching out for diplomatic results, and he has none at all to offer.

And yet, I might be wrong, it was not Dancing with the Stars, it was Stand Up Comedy Hour, that part is seen when we consider: “Mohammed al-Bukhiaiti, a member of the Houthi political council, urged Saudi Arabia to join them in the cease-fire“, the attacks on Saudi soil does not warrant any cease-fire at present and by falsely taking the credit for something that Iran did, they are aligning themselves with the enemy of Saudi Arabia, a better reason for not handing out a cease-fire is unlikely to exist. And I must give credit where credit is due, the man is quite the comedian, when we consider “Yemen and Saudi Arabia have common interests and that is why we hope Saudi leadership will respond to this initiative“, one could argue that attacking Saudi airports and citizens imply that they have nothing in common and when we optionally consider that stopping the United Nations from giving aid to a desperate civilian populations implies that the Houthis only have their own needs in all this and at that point their comedy becomes a bad joke, an insincere one at that.

We see that the article ends with “Adel al Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s minister of state for foreign affairs, called the attacks “a criminal act conducted with Iranian weapons and so we hold Iran responsible for the attack that not only targeted the kingdom, but targeted the world as a whole.”” I respectfully partially disagree with the honourable Adel al Jubeir, it is not merely ‘a criminal act conducted with Iranian weapons‘, it is the connected reality that no other user could have gotten the results that were seen in the two attacks a week ago, that part also gives rise that only Iran could have done what was done.

So here we are giving consideration to the new bitches, those who will facilitate in useless ways to get the limelight of non-achievement, hoping that a stale mate stage will draw people to the table, yet that is not the case, there is no stalemate, with Saudi Arabia now gaining economic allies willing to act because of what they are about to lose gives a different light, it pushes the pressure on Iran, their mistake was to be too good in their assault on the Abqaiq oil facility and the Khurais oil field. It took consideration away from all the tools that Iran had and puts the guilt squarely with Iran, that and the impact on the oil prices now has every gun turned on Iran, that and the fact that the State of Israel has been angered just once to many gives rise that Iran will face the wrath and anger from three directions, optionally a fourth one as well. A stage they have not had before, so trying to soften the stage through a tool like the Houthi forces is almost the only action left, when we consider those facts, we see that there is a stage where Martin Griffith could have achieved a whole lot more straight off the bat, that realisation alone makes him bitch of the week, and that is me making the claim whilst I never got some degree like Ford Dorsey Master’s In International Policy (feel free to sponsor me). Two graduates and a master degree (in science and law) is all I can be proud of, and I am proud of achieving that.

My largest issue is that these overpaid people are all about not treading on toes and live by the Charlie Brown status of ‘Walk softly and carry a beagle‘, whilst that stage was over and done by well over a year ago. the moment we realise all that this has been a lost stage and force a crucible, that is when we could get actual results, but that is not the game Iran wants to see and when I pointed that out Yesterday in my blog in the partial opposition I had to the article by Sir John Jenkins when we look at ‘on someone else’s terms‘, as well as ‘a willingness to respond‘. whilst the operative part is ‘willingness‘ I showed the larger flaw in the west addressing the issues in Yemen and as I personally see it a full support towards the Saudi view was the only way to solve this, whilst the west is optionally guilty of intentional one sided reporting in this matter, keeping Iran actions and strikes against Saudi Arabia out of the news as much as possible, the impact on oil made the attack of last week impossible to ignore, but that was the first time the west woke up, this flawed strategy is actually directly linked to the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians, the unreported and one sided reporting part. The media has its own skirt to flaunt and that part has been visible for almost a year.

So when we take about the new bitches, there is definitely a plural in play, it is not merely Martin Griffith, he is merely the weakest United Nations link, and at present most visible link in all this.

Should you disagree (always a valid point of view) seek out the list of ALL attacks against Saudi Arabia (Arab News and Al Jazeera) since 2018 and try to find the ones that the west ALSO reported on, that list should scare you enough to realise that we are sold a bag of goods by the western media to a much larger degree and I am not becoming one of those bitches, so I will take notice whenever I can.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

The die is cast

it started Yesterday (well, it started earlier), the Guardian gives us ‘British-Iranian relations strained as oil tanker is seen off Syria‘, with the by-line “Adrian Darya, previously called Grace 1, photographed near Russian navy facility“. the starting quote “Britain is seeking to establish whether Iran has sold oil to Syria in breach of written undertakings given by Tehran to authorities in Gibraltar“, we can go with the speculative ‘yes’ on that answer, but it is not a given at present. The quote “Since leaving Gibraltar the ship had taken a peripatetic route towards Syria, but was last photographed off the Russian navy port of Tartus in Syria. TankerTrackers, a firm that monitors oil tankers, has seen no evidence that its 2.1m barrels of oil have been discharged” is no guarantee that it is not happening, or that it will not happen.

The issue is not the oil, the issue is what Al Jazeera reports (at https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/saudi-arabia-enrich-uranium-190909144444127.html), I tend to be in favour of ‘Saudi Arabia wants to enrich uranium but the US may not like that‘, I support the setting as the EU and the US no longer have any balls in dealing with Iran and Saudi Arabia has no choice but to be ready to deal with Iran. It is the consequences of inaction. We see the quote: “Saudi Arabia wants to enrich uranium for its nuclear power programme, the kingdom’s new energy minister said on Monday, potentially complicating talks with Washington about an atomic pact and the role United States companies might play in the arrangement.” We might think that this is the barricade that works, but you would be wrong, both Russia and China are chomping at the bits to deliver high technology power plants that can work with enriched Uranium, this is a billion per place and Saudi Arabia would need 4 straight off the bat. Two power plants to power the growing power needs of Neom City and One for Riyadh power needs and one for other power needs. Do you think that in this age where American and European abilities are downgraded time after time that both Russia and China do not stand a chance? The fact that in both the EU and US larger discrimination and anti-Saudi needs have been fuelled for almost two years, the Saudi government needs to find a solution that is best for Saudi Arabia, not a solution that makes them seem the nicest. That time has gone, that time was 2017, the actions of media since have shown that the anti-Saudi rhetoric is slightly too strong and the Saudi government knows that. In light of all information available, it is the Chinese government that has the strongest position of the three (when we include the US) giving them another benefit. The US has downplayed several parts and now that we see that the Chinese government is ready to step in, we also take notice of an earlier stage in October 2018 where the SCMP gave us ‘China may seek to boost ties with Saudi Arabia but it ‘can’t fill US arms sales gap’‘, I was never certain that it was ever completely true. I believe that China needed time to set things in motion, I also believe that in the gap between July 2018 and August 2019 they have been able to set that stage to a much larger degree and within a year that gap can completely be filled. One issue that was resolved was the Chengdu J-20, the Chinese answer to the F-35. the rumour is that the three weaknesses Canopy, fuselage and engines have been resolved, there was still some questions on the stealth coating, yet that would not prevent them from starting, there would merely be an upgrade of a delay in fulfilment of foreign orders.

With that larger issue out of the way, China is seemingly ready to hand out larger contracts, they might be in the running to aid Saudi Arabia in getting them on the road to keep the 50% promise of making SAMI products export ready, the question is which arms are the most viable ones at present. With the growing concerns and the fact that Saudi Arabia is ready to deliver gives a much larger concern that the US has been playing the wrong game for well over 2 years at present. Even now, less than a day ago, CNBC gave us ‘US wants energy dominance regardless of what happens to oil prices, deputy energy secretary says‘, a quote and a claim that is both flaccid and exaggerated. As such the quote: “The U.S. deputy energy secretary told CNBC Monday that America wants to achieve energy dominance regardless of what happens to oil prices” falls short on a few levels. It falls short not merely because of the additional “It just simply means that we are going to produce as much energy as we can, as cleanly as we can and as affordably as we can“, there is seemingly a line that goes from the US to all other nations, that is besides the issue that ‘clean‘ and ‘affordable‘ tend to be opposite in scope, clean power is not cheap and affordable power tends to be not clean. In there the balance is already out of whack when they want power creation dominance and if China is affirmative to the 4 nuclear power plants, the need for US power will fall to some degree, so the option of dominance goes out of the window. Not dealing with matters is what got the US in this stage, not dealing with Greece (via Wall Street), not dealing with Brexit (through arrogance), not dealing with Iran (through indecision) and not standing strong with their claimed ally (Saudi Arabia) has pushed them on a sliding scale of mind over matter. It is becoming more and more clear that nobody minds because the US no longer matters. As the EU and the US are downplaying the impact and chances of the next recession, or as the recession is used to create Brexit fear, we see a population that has had enough. That is the setting the US is facing and all the non-evidentiary stance on Jamal Khashoggi was not helping, that journalist’s missing cadaver has been milked for anti-Saudi media coverage for far too long.

In this stage, as we realise the factors we look at the stage where we see: ““We are proceeding with it cautiously … we are experimenting with two nuclear reactors,” Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said, referring to a plan to issue a tender for the Gulf Arab state’s first two nuclear power reactors. Ultimately, the kingdom wanted to go ahead with the full cycle of the nuclear programme, including the production and enrichment of uranium for atomic fuel, bin Salman told an energy conference in Abu Dhabi.” and his royal highness has to, he has little choice, it is not only because of the power requirements of the kingdom, Iran is still a threat and that threat can only be countered by having equal solutions at the kingdom’s disposal and in all this, the total lack of actual actions against Iran by both the EU and the US do not help matters. In this, when we consider “The tender is expected in 2020, with US, Russian, South Korean, Chinese and French firms involved in preliminary talks about the multibillion-dollar project” we need to realise that the US and the EU nations now have a disadvantage to this tender. So whoever wins the multi-billion dollar tender, the losers are going to get confronted on how their tender fell flat due to inaction. It also made me wonder on some of the processes and I know that the World Nuclear Association is the best source.

So I had a look at some of the information, and the stage is set at: “Uranium-235 and U-238 are chemically identical, but differ in their physical properties, notably their mass. The nucleus of the U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons, giving an atomic mass of 235 units. The U-238 nucleus also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons – three more than U-235 – and therefore has a mass of 238 units“. With the centrifuge principle of “The counter current flow set up by a thermal gradient enables enriched product to be drawn off axially, heavier molecules at one end and lighter ones at the other” and when you consider the image I wonder if it is the most efficient path. I wonder what happens, when we consider “heavier molecules at one end” it seems to me that the outer part (heavier molecules) when it is siphoned off, more uranium could be processed making the process faster. It was just a thought I was having, I remain in a creative stage. There is equally the option to see other solutions when we consider the Roman bath houses and 2 phase compressors. They did not get to their destination in one step, the compressor goes from zero to 5 atmosphere, the second stage takes 5 atmosphere and pushed it to 25 atmosphere, in the old days it was a lot more effective, even now we see the path where the centrifuge at its speed can do it in one go, yet consider a centrifuge park with 50% more units, yet creating enriched Uranium at twice the speed. I am not sure if it works, but I do know that we need to upgrade the technologies to make the Iranian technology obsolete, making the Iranians stop their intended steps, or being able to take the steps to end their actions altogether. People might not like that approach, but the stages we now see involving the Syrian delivery, the Houthi arms and drone supplies, it is clear that Iran has no peaceful intent in any direction. It is our responsibility to choose, either we support Saudi Arabia, or we move out of the Middle East altogether. Either way

This matters, because if we are to stop Iran, we need processes that are more advanced to give the clear signal that the actions of Iran should no longer be tolerated. There are two options in any war approaching disagreement, either you overwhelm them or make their solution obsolete. We have seen that advancing stronger gives the option for a peaceful edge and that should always be embraced, that is as long as you are willing to use that advantage effectively, the EU and US have shown that they are unwilling to do that. So another option is required. That path is seen in the Al Jazeera article with “Reuters has reported that progress on the discussions has been difficult because Saudi Arabia does not want to sign a deal that would rule out the possibility of enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel – both potential paths to creating a nuclear bomb“, whilst the intent might sound noble, it isn’t. This solution will not work because no one has a handle on Iran and no one is willing to deal with Iran and that is where the problem lies. As long as Iran is around the problem remains that much has been shown several times in several direction, only the arrogant and delusional political players in the EU and the US are still of the mind that a nice solution can be found, the problem is that Iran has been most effective in tailoring to those ego’s and it is time to give light to those tools and find a way to stop Iran, we have to because their willingness to transgress on nuclear limits has now been shown three times over. That is seen as the New York Post gives us less than a day ago: “The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog confirmed Monday that Iran has installed advanced centrifuges and is moving toward enriching uranium levels — another violation of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by world powers”. I believe that the best solution now is to make sure that Saudi Arabia gets to the Iranian destination faster, or we allow an open war with Iran, what would you chose? I believe that war is a last resort, yet I am willing to go there if needed, which makes me a better and more ample decider than either the EU or the US, indecision is the only agenda point they procrastinate on, a stage that is too dangerous for anyone at present.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Politics, Science

Unemployed or UN employed?

I got hit by the news last night and I had to sit down to settle a little. Now, I already had plenty of issues with the UN, the first one is Eggnog Calamari (aka Agnès Callamard) with her essay, several parts of that being debatable (as I personally see it) and too much on speculation and what might have been. OK, besides that point there are plenty of other issues, yet the news yesterday takes the cake. The news (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/france-britain-complicit-yemen-war-crimes-190903103122355.html) giving the headline ‘US, France, Britain may be complicit in Yemen war crimes: UN‘ makes the UN now come across as a joke. Even as we get the same approach with their ‘secret list’ the quote: “The United States, United Kingdom and France may be complicit in war crimes in Yemen by arming and providing intelligence and logistics support to a Saudi-led coalition that starves civilians as a war tactic“, it is the ‘as a war tactic‘ that is the part that bothers me. There has been enough news and enough mentions that Houthi forces took food from the people. In addition there is enough evidence that Houthi forces stopped the flow of food and medicine. There is equal sources (unconfirmed) that Hezbollah set that stage, in addition the Iranian part in all this remains unmentioned. Apparently the report also gives us: “The Houthis for their part have shelled cities, deployed child soldiers and used “siege-like warfare”” yet no mention of the famine actions that have been reported on a few occasions instigated and pushed through by Houthi forces. I am clearly not stating that Saudi Arabia and the UAE did the same tactics, the acts that the report accuses them of. I am not aware of this part and I am not saying that this is not so, yet there is now allegedly (because the Al Jazeera article is the source) more than one piece of evidence missing, as such the UN can no longer be trusted at present. The intentional absence of Iranian actions, the absence of Hezbollah mentions, as well as the fact that UN volunteers earlier this year reported that Houthi force claimed and blocked food supplies is a large issue and as it is unmentioned now gives rise to the UN becoming a questionable presence.

The quote “Its appendix lists the names of more than 160 “main actors” among Saudi, Emirati and Yemeni top brass as well as the Houthi movement, although it did not specify whether any of these names also figured in its list of potential suspects” is equally debatable. By trying to steer clear through: “it did not specify whether any of these names” implying that Houthi forces are less guilty. Still the actions of Iran supplying arms, drones and missiles are seemingly not mentioned. And if there is truth to the quote: “the information in these reports is absolutely crucial to build cases in the future“, the absence of Iran and Hezbollah become even more interesting. The question with me is whether the person behind that report is UN employed, or should that person become unemployed immediately.

When I take a helicopter rise (or a magic carpet ride) I can agree that there are no real innocent sides, all sides will transgress, make mistakes and so on. Did Saudi forces refuse to feed people, or were the food supplies already seized by Houthi forces? It is not a case of bias; it is active strategies on a theatre of war that was active. The fact that Houthi forces were mostly unmentioned is a much larger issue; the absence of Iran makes the entire Al Jazeera article optionally worthless. I will wait for the actual report to come out and nit-pick that report to death. Yet the article in France 24 gives us: “US, Britain, France, Iran and others that they “may be held responsible for providing aid or assistance for the commission of international law violations if the conditions for complicity are fulfilled.”” gives an optional first stage where the bulk the question is larger, Al Jazeera voiced it as: “while also highlighting the role Western countries have played as key backers of the Arab states and Iran has played in support of the Houthis“, yet it is the only mention of Iran and no mention of the acts of Hezbollah at all, which is still an issue on several levels.

There is one additional failing in the article, and optionally in the report as well. the quote: “it found that a Joint Incidents Assessment Team set up by Saudi Arabia to review alleged coalition violations had failed to hold anyone accountable for any strike killing civilians, raising “concerns as to the impartiality of its investigations”“, the quote shows a larger failing in the train of thought here. It is the task of a Joint Incidents Assessment Team to see of proper procedures were adhered to, that is not an impartial task, that is a clear task whether military protocols were ignored. The Human Right Watch (at https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/08/24/hiding-behind-coalition/failure-credibly-investigate-and-provide-redress-unlawful) gives us a few parts, but the quote: “JIAT originally consisted of 14 individuals from the main coalition members. It has a mandate to investigate the facts, collect evidence, and produce reports and recommendations on “claims and accidents” during coalition operations in Yemen” is seemingly accurate. The task is to initially investigate whether proper military procedures were adhered to. This is important as this sets-up the investigation through the chain of command. At that point SIGINT can determine whether communications were passed on correctly, it is there where I believe that one additional independent member would be required to investigate ALL the raw data. It is a time consuming job, but that is the path to find out what happened. And anyone thinking that this is simple, think again any event could take months to investigate if ALL the data is available. Yes, I agree it might seem partial, but it optionally is not. If anyone accuses this JIAT to be partial, than there might be a case for that, but it is still edged on the need for the Saudi Government to investigate whether they did something wrong. A defence attorney is not impartial, he or she opposes the prosecution to find all the evidence and applies the law to show innocence (or better stated an absence of guilt); it is a military approach, a Judge Advocate General (JAG) job to investigate. They apply the law and at present I have not seen any evidence clearing or properly accusing Saudi Arabia and the UAE from being actually guilty. Yet the other HRW parties are eager to ignore Iran’s part in all that. In addition, as the HRW gave rise 6 months ago with ‘Yemen: Houthi Landmines Kill Civilians, Block Aid‘ (at https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/22/yemen-houthi-landmines-kill-civilians-block-aid) where we see: “Mines have also prevented aid groups from bringing food and health care to increasingly hungry and ill Yemeni civilians“, gives a larger truth. The article in Al Jazeera (and France 24) give no rise to that given, Houthi involvement was minimalized and that is a much larger crime (as I personally see it) giving rise to my premise that this person behind the report should not be UN employed, that person should be unemployed.

That took less than 20 minutes to figure out, I wonder why Al Jazeera made no clear mention of that failure, where is their head at and where is their media allegiance at?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Bitches on parade

Yes, the time is now nearing. Bloomberg gives us (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-25/bankers-head-to-saudi-arabia-to-compete-for-world-s-biggest-ipo), and as it starts with “Global banks will this week start making their case on why they should be hired for what’s set to be the world’s biggest initial public offering“, we see an interesting shift. It is the initial public offering (IPO) towards Aramco and all the bankers are dressing up like they are the bitches on the Easter parade. The question is how will these American bankers be seen? Those who were eager to exploit their options; events emphasized via media friends these so called events of Jamal Khashoggi. Should they be allowed to make a bid? As Bloomberg informs us on “The oil producer was originally working with Evercore Inc. and Moelis, as well as HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley“.

Now let’s walk a little time line, Morgan Stanley chairman and chief executive James Gorman gave the people on January 24th 2019 (several sources) ““The murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul was utterly unacceptable,” Gorman said as he responded to questions on a panel“, yet actual and factual evidence was never presented, was it? Merely speculation on events and evidence that remains debatable. OK, I feel certain that Khashoggi is unlikely to be alive, but there is nothing pointing at ACTUAL evidence and the essay by Agnes Calamari never changed my position. Perhaps merely wrongly chosen words by James Gorman, which now implies he should not be part of this $100 billion+ windfall (I’ll take his place). Then we get to J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, he pulled out of the conference on October 2018, so he should be disregarded as well (I’ll fill in for him too). Now, HSBC Holdings Plc held their ground, in light of innuendo, the active use of implied events that remained unproved, HSBC Holdings Plc kept a straight wave; this was business, not emotion, so I say welcome HSBC (if I had a say in the matter).

And the story on Evercore Inc. and Moelis is simple, they blew their chanced way before July 2019, as such it seems that they are out of the picture too. I am of course willing (for a modest fee) to take any of those three seats, business is business. I have no idea what I would be doing, yet uniting with HSBC whilst we share 50% and I get a really nice retirement bonus to unload my part to them is not out of the question. This is a market worth well over 100 billion, I’ll be really willing to take a 7.5% part and hand the rest over to HSBC, I reckon that I am the first person in their history to hand them close to $40 billion for them being supportive to my needs, the average hooker gets $50 at best, so there! Oh, and I do realise that there are Chinese banks eager to take place, so it might end up being a three way split.

And a man like me has dreams, with that amount a nice house in belle air and a super yacht becomes an actual reality (yes, I am typing this whilst I am not awake at present). The stage for me is simple and clear.

For the other players the case is less nice. I believe that those being sanctimonious and hypocrite need to be held to account. There is a consequence to play certain games and resetting the ledger so that they can courtesan themselves into a market worth will over 100 billion is not that acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to you either.

The entrepreneur gave us yesterday ‘Why Saudi Arabia Is Being Increasingly Seen As The Place To Be To Start A Business In The Middle East‘ (at https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/338516), they are right, but they need to see the thorns that the roses bring. the article starts so nice with: “Alper Celen’s decision to trade his cushy job at the prestigious global management consulting firm’s Scandinavian offices for a move to Saudi Arabia to grow a start-up there didn’t make much sense to his colleagues“, yet these players need to realise that this is an Islamic nation, under Islamic law and etiquette. It is a lot more rigid than France is and I have seen a 6 figure Euro deal fall away because the salesperson accidentally used ‘pour toi‘ (informal) instead of ‘pour vous‘ (formal), the buyer walked away and went straight to the competitor. When it’s merely €100K most ‘big players’ will shrug, yet now the game comes in suitcases set to the billion dollar plus that game becomes a whole new dimension. The problem is that those you talk to are indifferent to the billions, it is their bread and butter for you it optionally is not. Those players in dime sized poker games are all willing to bluff like the cardinal for the large games, but a bluff is still a bluff, when you are found out, or seen as unworthy, you will lose a lot, you will lose it all and you might not have the means to get back from where you came.

Yes, you can win big, but the whole game is larger and there is every indication that the Saudi families have kept score on those rallying behind a journalist no one cared about, with a larger lack of evidence of any kind. Soon we see their move and their idea of the Easter Parade flaunting their dresses on Takhassusi St hoping that they are still regarded to be in the game and perhaps they are. I merely wonder if they should be allowed to be in there (HSBC excluded from this consideration).

Now that Vision 2030 is off to the races they all want in (as would I), yet in all this, after all they did and all that they connected to, should they be allowed to? We have to pick certain fights and that is fine, we have certain values which make us jump in certain directions and that is fine too, but to make a 180 degree turn when it is about the money, should we accept such a party in that event when there are hundreds who want to take a slice of that cake? I do not think so.

The events regarding the Saudi conference were larger, there was a distinct impact and as such those play that game should not be allowed to play when the large trophies become available. I lost my option to an apartment in Rotterdam because I did not have the right ‘friends’, OK, fine, but you cannot rely on me giving you a pass when you come knocking. It is then a tits for dad situation at that point and now that there are really serious gains, those people should always be disregarded.

I suddenly remember a quote from Age of Ultron; there we hear: “Keep your friends rich, your enemies rich and wait to see which is which“, well Saudi Arabia found that out, after they discovered that, they have no real need to keep the charade up, so as I personally see it, goodbye Evercore Inc. and Moelis, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley, it was nice knowing you. The nice part is that when they are evicted from the offer, they will have to reconsider the game they played, the media they embraced and the values that they gave to fattening the cow whilst ownership remained in the air. I actually love it when people get to learn a lesson by losing billions, it feels like that for one moment, one tiny moment the playing field was level for all of us.

The Aramco train is now officially on the road and we will hear a lot more in the coming month, I for the most will be most interested to see how much the Chinese banks end up with. And yes, I have woken up and I know that any chance for any of those billions were delusional at this point. Yet there is always tomorrow.

Hot News

In light of all this, Al Jazeera reported less than two hour ago ‘Houthis ‘fire 10 ballistic missiles’ at Saudi airport‘, at this moment, I see Arab News, Saudi Gazette and two more all having a version of that, yet nothing on the BBC, not the Guardian, not the Washington Post, not the LA Times and not Reuters. I got the news before all them and I have nowhere near their tools. So, are you still convinced that some people should be allowed at certain tables to fill their pockets whilst they shun the people whose money they want? And as we realise the quote “The rebels fired 10 Badr-1 ballistic missiles at Jizan airport, killing and wounding dozens, the group’s military spokesperson said in a statement on Sunday“, a quote made by Colonel Turki al-Malki, we need to see that US corporations are playing a convoluted game. Consider the impact that some have, do you think that when the newsgroups get wind that something really matters to the heads of these banks that they go to bed and sleep, not with 100 billion for grabs. The world media is all about fairness and then jinxes the game by taking balance away. From my point of view it is increasingly important that those players are denied a seat at the table (any table for that matter). Saudi Arabia needs to take a hard look at who they consider their friends. In light of all the unreported news of events by Houthi forces I feel more and more inclined to think that the US is turning into a player that no one should ever consider an ally, their only allegiance is to currency, I hope that the people who need actual allies realise that part before it is too late.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Government? Censorship?

We see it, we ignore it and others remain in denial. We are censored almost every day and we remain unaware. You see, the issue is not advocated as censorship. It is presented as filtered news, and it is not the same. As we looked Yesterday into the events surrounding Evgeny Lebedev, we see people like Jeremy Wright hiding behind “may have an effect on the Evening Standard and the Independent’s news agendas“, yet to what degree and in what direction, that part was not given, was it? In addition we were introduced to Nicky Morgan and the fact that this is now on her plate. Yet the issue of censorship is still here.

Bloomberg gave us: ‘Saudi Oil Plant Attacked by Drones‘ (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-17/saudi-oil-plant-attacked-by-drones-but-production-unaffected) 11 hours ago. We also get: “Yemen’s Houthi rebel leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi claimed responsibility for the attack in a televised speech which was aired via the rebel-held Saba news agency. The Houthi leader said the group launched the assault on the oil and gas facilities with 10 drones. This was done to deliver an “important message” to the members of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, he said” yet no one is giving any explanation how Yemeni Houthi fighters got access to high end drones. 10 drones represent a significant investment, the Houthi forces have neither the funds nor infrastructure to acquire or built them, yet they are delivered, where from?

An attack that might be seen as a terrorist attack and the exposure is close to nil. We get the news from Arab News, from Al Jazeera. Yet the event that happened 11 hours ago, is still not covered by the BBC. They limited the Middle Eat page to the US Warrant to an Iranian oil tanker, then the news on ‘Rashida Tlaib rejects Israel’s offer of ‘humanitarian’ visit‘, which is a day old, the rest is 2 days old, or even older. That is the BBC now! We do see some news from Reuters and Haaretz, yet nothing from the other UK papers. Is that not weird? Is it so weird that Saudi Arabia wants to see more on the attacks on them? The UK is facing massive censorship and has been under censor’s scrutiny, yet the UK remains silent.

We see a little more when we face Al Jazeera who gives us “A Houthi military spokesman said earlier on Saturday that the group targeted the Shaybah oil field with 10 drones in what he said was the “biggest attack in the depths” of the kingdom, the world’s top oil exporter” in the article (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2019/08/drone-attack-yemen-rebels-sparks-fire-saudi-oil-field-190817132916661.html). The other non-given issue is that the Shaybah facility is really close to the UAE borders. A lot of issues remain, but the media to a much larger extent has decided to silence the news, they have decided to be Anti-Saudi Arabia. The fact that Houthi terrorist forces are sending drones into Saudi Arabia, drones that they cannot build and drones that require hardware that they do not have, cannot create and optionally cannot operate is a much larger issue, but the UK media remains silent on it. How weird is that? So here we see a direct first part where it makes perfect sense to be in a stage where they have an invested interest in newspapers that might now give voice to what is going on. If the UK really wanted an independent press, the people in the UK would have been given the complete story on Houthi forces and the exposure of Iranian funding would be out in the open, that is not the case and we should all wonder why that is happening. Oh, and I understand that there is more news in the world, I understand that there is only so much on what an journalist can achieve, yet a middle eastern section on the BBC with two articles from the last TWO days and the rest is older is a little too weird for words. The fact that this was an attack on Aramco with the linked fact that we see loads on Aramco, but the entire mess of the attack (and lack of results from the attack) is not shown in the Financial Times, or the Guardian, who was willing to report only a little under 6 days ago ‘Saudi Aramco ready for record $2tn IPO after first-half results‘ gives rise to censorship and one sided reporting. So when exactly did we find that acceptable from any independent news force? The numbers and the events do not add up.

Even the Deutsche Welle gives us (at https://www.dw.com/en/yemen-houthi-rebels-target-saudi-oil-field/a-50066244) “This is the second such attack on the Saudi energy industry in recent days and comes amid high Middle East tensions” Really? the second attack? When was the first and why do I see almost nothing on that, and basically nothing from the Western European Newsgroups? There is even more, the quote “The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones targeting the field in their “biggest-ever” operation” gives rise to all kinds of intelligence issues, the fact that certain players are leaving this in the shadow of their desk is a larger issue. It gives rise to the accusation that the CIA is still on goal to keep stability in the Middle East to a minimum. The fact that we see the (optionally boasted) claim ‘their “biggest-ever” operation‘, whilst Yemen has no infrastructure to do this, I personally doubt that they have the knowledge to fly these drones to their target, all issues involving Iranian support, optionally via Hezbollah, all ignored and all non-reported.

That is not merely censorship that is the stage of filtering events on the world stage and keeping them out of sight all together. Is this the EU play to keep news away so that they can have some empty nuclear deal afloat? All hiding behind some INSTEX tool (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), whilst none of it brings any revenue or actual trade, there is no positive side and when we investigate the Iranian events towards the Houthi forces in support of attacking Saudi Arabia, we see a diminished setting, yet the EU is still hiding behind the nuclear deal that was never a deal in the first place. And now we can optionally add the news filtering that Saudi Arabia is facing. All is not well and a lot of it is about to get worse, all for the simple reason that some people are asking questions now and a lot more will be doing so soon enough, at that point any election falls into the water in a stage where the UK government has only the spin tour of the next election to rely on and in addition the media will feel the pain too. When the people realise that there is no longer an independent press. It went out of the window when politicians decided to ignore the Leveson report to the largest degree. They made their own bed, enjoy the nightmare it brings.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

The biggest issue

The Guardian has given us several articles, by themselves there is nothing strange there (well there is), yet it is when we look at them together that an image starts to form. It is united that the larger problem becomes visible and the fact that a larger group is not catching up to this is a worry.

The first one is ‘Greta Thunberg hits back at Andrew Bolt for ‘deeply disturbing’ column‘, which happened less than 12 hours ago (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/02/greta-thunberg-hits-back-at-andrew-bolt-for-deeply-disturbing-column), then we get ‘Revealed: Johnson ally’s firm secretly ran Facebook propaganda network‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/01/revealed-johnson-allys-firm-secretly-ran-facebook-propaganda-network), as well as ‘Brexit, cycle lanes and Saudi Arabia: CTF’s Facebook campaigns‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/01/brexit-cycle-lanes-and-saudi-arabia-ctfs-facebook-campaigns). Now let’s start up that on the whole nothing wrong was done by the Guardian. They reported and we can agree that reporting is what the Guardian does. Yet the larger issue is not what they do, it is what we are not getting that becomes the issue.

It starts with the Houthi attack on Dammam with missiles, a missile attack on a civilian target, Al Jazeera informs its audience, but the Guardian is not there. Bloomberg, the Guardian, basically the Western Media are all shunning it, yet they go to lengths to waste paper on the issues that “Women in Saudi Arabia will no longer need the permission of a male guardian to travel“, however the BBC did report on ‘Houthi missile attack on military parade kills 32‘, where we are told that “The parade in the southern port city of Aden was targeted by missiles and an armed drone, a Houthi-run TV channel says“, yet it seems that it was limited to the BBC, the near complete Western Media ignored that one too.

Now, I can accept that plenty of people are no fan of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, yet to shun attacks that cost lives is new, they all group together to give accusations without evidence (that journalist no one cares about), yet actual events are shunned. It is a new level of discrimination, it is political discrimination, where unwelcome groups are given exposure when it can be tilted to the negative side of the seesaw and the more negative it gets, the larger the exposure.

Now, let’s get back to the first article, because that is seemingly not linked. With the Quote “The widely read Herald Sun columnist and Sky News commentator used his significant platform to take aim at the 16-year-old campaigner, dismissing her followers as members of a cult and disparaging her decision to sail across the Atlantic in a high-speed racing yacht to attend UN climate summits in the US and Chile“, as well as: “The highly personal character assassination published in Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids repeatedly referred to Greta’s mental health, saying she was “deeply disturbed”, “freakishly influential” and “strange”“, yet in all this, we see no exposure on how that information was acquired.

As I personally see it The editor of the Herald Sun, Damon Johnston, as well as his fucked up sidekick Andrew Bolt did something in addition, is it the small part “the evidence does not suggest that humanity faces doom“, all that to hide the smallest snippet to oppose the environment. It actually gets more interesting, that is when we consider the case that Justice Bromberg presided over. When we consider “Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and his employer Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp clearly violated the Racial Discrimination Act“, we could argue that he could face court again in this case. When the case was judged and we get: ‘The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the newspaper articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides‘, we see the chance that history might repeat itself. The article (at https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/andrew-bolt-continues-on-about-adam-goodes,12947) gives a lot more, what is key here that the Guardian exposes it and that is good, I have no issues with it. Yet it also shows the lengths that Murdoch media goes through to set the stage in one place, whilst other parts are seemingly intentionally ignored. Perhaps some of you remember the mental health escalation at Martin Place in 2014. Rupert Murdoch acted personally and the responses like ‘Rupert Murdoch’s Response To The Martin Place Siege Is As Tasteless As You’d Expect‘, as we were given: “AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats“, it seems to me that bloodshed are his bread and butter, it also is seemingly implied that as long as it is not Saudi Blood, Rupert Murdoch has no issues. Some gave us: “the hostage situation as the work of an IS “Death Cult CBD Attack”, something we labelled at the time – and will continue to do so – as one of “the most vile, deliberately inflammatory, fundamentally wrong and wholly speculative front covers in the sordid history of Australian print media“, all whilst from the beginning, within a few hours it should have been clear that not only were the journalists not doing their job, the issues that in the beginning, hostages were seen holding an Islamic black flag against the window of the café, featuring the shahadah creed. It was wrongly identified by the media and the part where Monis later demanded that an ISIL flag be brought to him should have been clear that this was not a terrorist, at the most a wannabe, and more viable a person with mental health issues, but as I personally see it, Murdoch and Channel 7 were all about milking the event as much as possible.

At what point is journalism about milking?

The fact that this was buried as fast as possible is another part where we see a mingling of political discrimination, racial discrimination and religious discrimination and no one is telling Murdoch in clear language that it needs to stop.

The other two

Ok, it becomes essential to get to the deeper side of the pool here. First of all, there is a larger setting that has not settled. The accusation is twofold. The first is actually the one that does not work for the campaign players. It is also reported by CNN through ‘Facebook announces first takedown of influence campaign with ties to Saudi government‘, even as we accept “covert campaigns on Facebook and Instagram in a bid to prop up support for the kingdom and attack its enemies“, CNN et al are not reporting on the media blackout that is pushed out towards Saudi Arabia either. So anything that makes Saudi Arabia look like an attacked victim is suppressed, whilst actions by Saudi Arabia are spun to its most negative path and spattered over all media and all social media. Yet as the article gives us: “Facebook has hired staff with backgrounds in areas including intelligence, law enforcement and journalism to be part of a team finding and closing down coordinated campaigns on the platform, including some spreading disinformation and linked to nation-states“, it is equally absent in the case of “bogus mainly far-right disinformation networks were not identified by Facebook — but had been reported to it by campaign group Avaaz — which says the fake pages had more Facebook followers and interactions than all the main EU far right and anti-EU parties combined“, so we get one group with a following of 13 million in the past three months, with a following larger than all the European main party pages of the far right combined. Yet in all that, Saudi Arabia was specifically mentioned (they also illuminated the false pages of Iran). It is shown in a larger degree with: “Avaaz reported more than 500 suspicious pages and groups to Facebook related to the three-month investigation of Facebook disinformation networks in Europe. Though Facebook only took down a subset of the far right muck-spreaders — around 15% of the suspicious pages reported to it“. The fact that Facebook only took down subsets that represents 15% of the reported pages shows that there is a larger degree of political discrimination in play and even as some are overly clear, that larger extent shows that Social Media is optionally promoting to some degree the survival of Racial Discrimination, Political Discrimination, Religious Discrimination and Age Discrimination.

It is the revelation of: “vote manipulators are able to pass off manipulative propaganda and hate speech as bona fide news and views as a consequence of Facebook publishing the fake stuff alongside genuine opinions and professional journalism. It does not have algorithms that can perfectly distinguish one from the other, and has suggested it never will“, it is at this point where the realisation grows, when we add the two elements and we add the fact that the media is filtering what we are ‘allowed’ to know, it is there where the larger failing becomes clear, it is the axial and the seesaw of illumination of the view that opposes clear news, the media is now part of the problem. And it is there where we see the wisdom of TechCrunch with: “loud Facebook publicity effort around “election security” looks like a cynical attempt to distract the rest of us from how broken its rules are. Or, in other words, a platform that accelerates propaganda is also seeking to manipulate and skew our views“, it is merely part of the issue, it is not merely Facebook, it is the Media to a larger degree, their alliance is towards the Shareholders, the Stake holders and the advertisers, in that the larger issue is seen, those who advertise are optionally the controllers of what we see is possible, and that is where the truth is pushed out of view. It is seen in one final swoop when we consider the key word “Neom City“, a project like that, a project initially designed to be well over 30 times the size of New York, a project that has well over half a trillion dollars, set to construction, engineering and IT, should be on the front page of EVERY Newspapers, yet when you seek, you get Bloomberg last January (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/saudi-arabia-to-begin-building-homes-in-futuristic-city-neom) and Business Insider in October 2018 (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-neom-megacity-2018-10?r=US&IR=T). The view that is part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 plan is silenced to death and that started before the journalist no one cares about vanished. In addition a new bridge that will connect Saudi Arabia to Africa is kept silent. In this day and age how does that make sense? I am looking at billions in 5G revenue in Neom City alone, as well as the underlying infrastructure required, opening a much larger need for the entire Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all ready to be set to a much larger stage (when the first phase region is a fact), yet the media is more about the rumours of the PS5 which is well over a year away with 6,940,000 mentions, and that makes partly sense, it is about awareness and creating hype, so when we see in the Guardian “the latest revelations reveal that the company has pursued that approach more broadly, in the service of previously unreported corporate interests and foreign governments. And they expose a major flaw in Facebook’s political transparency tools, which make it possible for Crosby’s company – which boasts on its website that it deploys “the latest tools in digital engagement” – to use the social network to run professional-looking “news” pages reaching tens of millions of people on highly contentious topics“, so if it is about ‘provoking argument‘, we should see nothing wrong as Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft rely on that part 24:7. If it is about ‘involving heated argument‘, we still see no issue as this is Sony versus Nintendo versus Microsoft, as this has been the media bread and butter for close to 7 years and more. When we look at the ‘likely to cause an argument‘, almost nothing changes. It is the part I did not mention “without apparently disclosing that they are being overseen by CTF Partners on behalf of paying clients“, where we need to question the use of ‘apparently‘, is it or is it not mentioned? The Guardian did or did not do their job becomes the issue and yes, we can see ‘on behalf of paying clients‘, and how does that differ from Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Nespresso and a whole league of others? They are all in it for the money, the awareness and the creation of viral messages, over-hyped and often way too short on facts. That part is not given to us either and it is there where we see the interactions of layers of discrimination and ‘misinformation’ that is usually brought as ‘missed information’, I would personally see it as an exercise in ‘miscommunication’ and it has been happening for a much longer time. So when we get from the Guardian: “employees always operate within the law”, and if they take to the bank the task of giving positive visibility to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is there an actual issue here?

The biggest issue is that we see the information that “It does not have algorithms that can perfectly distinguish fake news from the other, and has suggested it never will“, whilst the underlying issue is that what is not fake news is not that trustworthy either, it is limited to the filtering of shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and Facebook has no clue what to do, they to relay on those three groups. The news for the longest time never gave us that part. As I see it people like Greta Thunberg will never get a fair deal here, not as long as people like Andrew Bolt keep on being regarded as Journalists. That part is seen when we see: “the evidence does not suggest that humanity faces doom” all whilst that statement is not scrutinised to the largest degree. The opposition to that claim can be seen in the simplest sentence by World Vision, their quote: “Globally, 844 million people lack access to clean drinking water” gives the goods, close to 10% of the population of this planet lacks access to clean drinking water. When we consider that a person can only survive a few days without water. How much danger is the population exposed to, does that qualify as doom facing? How many must die before the ‘humanity faces doom‘ is satisfied? It seems trivial, but it is not, that same media that ignores attacks on Saudi Arabia, that does not report on Houthi transgressions, acts of terror and other events also ignores Yemeni plight for water, food and medication to a much larger degree. So the question becomes a simple one, give us the list of parameters that must be placed on staging or dismounting the accusation that ‘humanity faces doom‘, when we realise that there is a larger collection of evidence, we merely have to set that stage to those elements. I am not stating that Greta Thunberg is right or wrong, yet we can look and accept that Andrew Bolt and his so called opinion piece on Greta Thunberg should be seen as triviality towards journalism and that does matter, because if that is allowed to continue, Facebook will never solve anything, as such the only way to solve it is to push media deliverers like Andrew Bolt into the ‘Fake News’ category so that we might find a solution. The fact that SBS called it an opinion piece and the Guardian did not is the larger failing, any opinion piece, especially those in newspapers, digital or not should be clearly labelled as such like [opinion piece] before the text begins, identifying those pieces will also change the way that they are perceived and we might get a better quality of journalism. When writers get $100 for an opinion piece and $200 for an actual journalistic piece (researched and all), the matter might resolve itself soon enough.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

The excuse not mentioned

Have you ever considered the times you used the expression ‘not to mention‘? It is an interesting phrase and it is overwhelmingly used to give rise to excuses or reasons of a listing. Yet the act of not mentioning issues has a much larger reach. This gets us to the usage of Embargo, now in the true spirit of embargo is needed to not give rise to dangers. I have seen my shares of embargoes all over the world, I have never been personally privy to one, but I understand and accept the reason. The most accepted form is a ‘requirement by a government agency that the information or news provided is not be published until a certain date or certain conditions have been met‘, it makes sense that the news of drug deals are not broken until the undercover agent is out of harm’s way, the famous raid on Entebbe (Operation Entebbe), had to make certain that in those days spotters would not voice what they saw whilst the plane was in flight; fortunately for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) they have an above average security in place, so not much chance of that, yet with the 1977 Dutch train hijacking that issue was very much an issue, especially as on that very same day there was a touristic event (I believe it was by the AVRO), that took us to almost exactly where the train was, whilst that morning Dutch Marines were ordered to settle the matter. Good luck with an embargo at that point. If there was a smartphone in those days, the event might have gone very differently. In that same trend, the events that are on route involving the Credit Agricole would prefer some kind of embargo, but governments cannot play that card, so some players (like some banks) will have to rely on other means, and as we are only drip-fed issues on the Russia Money-Laundering Scandal, we will have to await the media friends of outlets, to see what is allowed to be released.

Yes, you heard it correctly, what some people allow to be revealed to you all. They would hide behind optionally claimed issues like: “We ran out of time“, “there were other pressing matters“, or my favourite “We did not think it was interesting“, it is in that light that media enforced embargoes take another turn.

Is it not interesting that the Boston globe gives us: ‘US can’t keep turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s murderous prince‘, yet based on what evidence? That UN essay is not the evidence we should regard as actual evidence. We see in addition Al Jazeera give us: ‘UN again blacklists Saudi-led forces for Yemen child killings‘, yet in that light in opposition the news is not giving us: ‘Yemen’s Houthi rebels attack food factory in Hodeidah‘, which was reported 12 hours ago.

So in a place where famine is a direct threat to hundreds of thousands, the Houthi terrorists are aiming for civilian population and destroying places that produce milk and fruit products (juices, cheese, yogurt), essential food for the people of Yemen and the Houthi forces are shelling that place as well as residential areas of Hodeidah city last Saturday. Yet the western news to the largest extent did not give us any of that, did they?

The fact that we see news avoided to the largest degree is becoming an issue, the people are not being informed on what is going on, and when we do get informed, there is a veil that depicts the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE) as: ‘the big nasty’, whilst the actions of Houthi terrorists as well as the facilitation by Iran is not mentioned at all, and this has been going on for months now. When we consider one source (Times of Israel, at https://www.timesofisrael.com/yemeni-houthi-rebels-long-range-arsenal-grows-lethal/) we see: “In June alone, the Iran-aligned Shiite Houthis launched at least 20 missile and drone attacks on the oil-rich kingdom, Iran’s regional foe, some resulting in casualties and damage“, in addition we see: “A Yemeni army retired brigadier, Jamil al-Mamari, believes the “Houthis are not capable of manufacturing missiles in Yemen… They are only capable of assembling and modification.”“, the growing evidence from several sources on the incapability of Yemen to produce Iranian hardware is ignored by the Western Media all over the place, including the bigger accusation: “Experts rule out the possibility that Houthis may have modified these arms on their own“, a simple deduction that could have been made by a 4th year engineering undergrad student, and yes, the media ignores this, we are sold a bag of goods through business driven embargo’s, just like the issues seen in Syria, the people are left for dead and illuminating merely part of the equation is making the western media guilty of a few facts, even subverting the old premise: ‘the people have a right to know‘ into: ‘We are guided by some to tell you what you optionally need to know‘.

I wonder what will happen when I decide to give out the messages, mails, events and connections that are in existence between people like Raphaël Appert and Daniel Epron, with all the media links they have, and they have a lot. So when we look at some of the Russia Money-Laundering Scandal that have been known to some extent and all the papers that decided not to give visibility to that part, what excuse will we be told? There was a revolutionary Apple message that bumped the revelation? Or perhaps the economic plan of President Macron took all the space available? I do not know, I am merely speculating, but the lack of visibility on some of these news events all over the place, are now a much larger concern. When we look at the papers that actually took space and time to look into the Iranian Qasef-1 missiles and their targets, how many papers took time to look into that? The list (the lack of papers there) will surprise you. Oh and the excuse that it was merely a copy of the Iranian Ababil-2 drone will not work, I checked for both. In that same air, when searching for the Russian Money Laundering Scandal, we see the mentions of the Deutsche Bank, but several others like for example Credit Agricole, they did not make it to the news, not in the Guardian and not in several other papers. Revelations that are filtered are not revelations; it is merely corporate forms of censoring and it is my speculation that we get more and more of that as the year progresses.

As I have state in the past, I believe that news is filtered for publication as long as it is filtered through the Shareholder filter, the stake holder filter and the advertiser filter. What is left is ranked according to emotional ability to flame and push people. When we look at Turkish Journalists (in light of the large amount of them in prison) in the google News section we get: ‘About 163,000 results‘ (for all those journalists mind you), yet when we see: ‘About 725,000 results‘, which is in the same section, it is about Jamal Khashoggi, so we see that not all journalists are equal, not by a long shot (even as dozens of Journalists have been murdered in Turkey). These are all elements that give a view to the filtering of information that we get, and when you consider the excuse that ‘there was no space’ consider that there is no space limit to online news. And for the most it is not about resources, it is about that they consider we should know.

When we search news for ‘Hodeidah‘ in the last 24 hours we get 4 hits, two on the Shelling of the Dairy factory (Xinhua and Al Ain) one Blog and one by Yemen Online on ‘The opening up of Hodeidah port to ensure a better flow of humanitarian aid‘, that’s it, nothing more according the Google Search, so any excuse that the West is giving us some level of balanced news is a joke, and at present a bad one at that.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics