Tag Archives: Iran

Using the limelight

It all started a few days ago and for the most I kept you all informed. The latest news was in my possession for well over an hour. I waited because I wanted to see how the others were reacting. And I was not disappointed, they did exactly what I expected, basically, they did nothing.

It all started with ‘Saudi Arabia says it took down ‘terrorist cell’ trained by Iran’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/29/saudi-arabia-says-it-took-down-terrorist-cell-trained-by-iran), so should we say it is real or not? It is a fair question to have, yet the quote “Saudi Arabia says it has taken down a “terrorist cell” that had received training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, arresting 10 people and seizing weapons and explosives”, leaves me with the setting that this is factual. We are also given “Among the items seized were improvised explosive devices (IEDs), dozens of stun guns, kilos of gunpowder and a variety of rifles and pistols, according to the statement. It did not say where last week’s raid or arrests were carried out”, yet the western media has nothing. Not the BBC, not Reuters, not European news offices, and not FoxNews. It seems to me that Iran is given an option to get away with any action that is not set in America or Europe. And this is where we get the larger issue, the news is filtering what they think we need to know, as such we see a totally destabilised view of what is going on. 

This news matters because it gives strength to something else I stated, which was speculative at the time. I speculated that someone was painting the Aramco targets so that the drones would be more effective. These 10 men could have done just that. The arrest off the 10 men does not make my setting any less speculative. It does however open a larger stage, the news was avoiding a lot of what happened, eager to use ‘speculative’ and ‘alleged’, which is not unacceptable, yet it sets the stage that the western media is optionally complicit is setting a stage that is not part of what happened (like the Khashoggi disappearance). We see even the UN side with Turkey (where the most incarcerated journalists in history are), blatant statements even as there is no evidence is supporting any of it. 

So in this we have a much larger guilt, we are part of the problem, the media is filtering what is happening and no excuse makes up for that. It goes beyond the media, there is some indication that Google and the social media are part of this. Google calls them omitted results, social media merely hides the events on the timeline altering most results and chronological results, the last part is speculative, but the seems to be happening.

Why does this matter?

The UK, US and EU have been throwing the ‘terrorist’ word at us for the longest time, and we merely had to swallow it, now that there are additional indications that Iran is part of the problem we are left in the dark. The Saudi government gives us ““The competent authorities will conduct investigations with all those arrested to find out more information about their activities and the persons connected to them in the kingdom and abroad,” the statement read”, yet I wonder if the is enough, I wonder how much shielding Iran is receiving, Yemen and the Houthi actions made it clear that this was happening, now we are set in a stage where shielding is a lot larger making the media less reliable, I wonder who they are working for, because as I personally see it, it is not the advertisers. This all does not make the 10 men guilty, but it sets a stage of questions that most do not want to entertain, what is Iran actually up to?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

View of a different nature

We all have a view, we all have a way of looking at things. I am no exception, that is the sight we have. Yet some people (and I personally count myself among them) have a much stronger ability to adjust the views we have. Some (like myself) have the ability to adjust when needed. In this age of being told a story, it is important to be able to look at the data.

My adjustment started in early 2018 when I was made aware of Neom City. The new city that was to be build by Saudi Arabia. Its foundation was so overwhelming that it was enticing to applaud it. Never in the history of mankind was something like this ever conceived. A city around 20 times the size of New York was to be build. That setting was inspiring and it drove me to create some of the IP I ended up having. The setting of a new all tech city was overwhelming, yet that was only the beginning, it was then that we got to see an increasingly amount of anti-Saudi events and articles. So when the Guardian gave us ‘Revealed: Saudi Arabia may have enough uranium ore to produce nuclear fuel’, I decided to dig. The first thing I noticed was the presence of Stephanie Kirchgaessner. I saw her name on ‘Jeff Bezos hack: Amazon boss’s phone ‘hacked by Saudi crown prince’ in January this year. There we are introduced to “that had apparently been sent from the personal account of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, sources have told the Guardian”, I had an issue with the hatchet approach, no matter what Kirchgaessner calls herself. I basically debunked the hacking issue, as well as security forensics firm FTI Consulting in less than an hour, the Guardian was that thorough before publishing what they would call at best ‘highly probable’, yes that is what we need from those so called investigators and the fact that I was able to pump holes in the setting within an hour, in addition to actual electronic forensic experts giving even more evidence that led to believe that the accusations were debatable at best, completely ejectable at worst, that is not a good setting to be in and now that same name comes back to the Guardian article. Now we see “The disclosure will intensify concerns about Riyadh’s interest in an atomic weapons programme”, yet the monarchy of Saudi Arabia have always stated the they would not go near an nuclear arsenal until Iran does and it seems that the pussies of this world (politicians and journalists all over the world) have not been able to do anything ab out Iran, so they have another go at Saudi Arabia. In all this the entire setting that the quote: “Confidential Chinese report seen by the Guardian intensifies concerns about possible weapons programme” is driving this all. Let’s be clear, the two places where journalists have no access, the Guardian gets a report? And the evidence is debatable, it is all linked to “These are “inferred deposits”, estimated from initial surveys”, so it is based on estimations, a debatable source. Now we can accept that it is possible the there is Uranium in Saudi Arabia, and it was never a secret, there has been plans that go back to 2016 that Saudi Arabia has had plans to extract uranium for the domestic production of nuclear fuel. The UN nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was also assisting Saudi’s nuclear ambition (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/saudi-arabia-s-atomic-ambition-is-being-fueled-by-a-un-watchdog)

Yet the Guardian gives us “The greatest international concern is over the kingdom’s lack of transparency. Under a 2005 agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Saudi Arabia avoided inspections through a small quantities protocol (SQP), which waives IAEA monitoring up to the point where fissile fuel is introduced into a reactor. The nuclear watchdog has been trying to convince the Saudi monarchy to now accept a full monitoring programme, but the Saudis have so far fended off that request”, And in this Reuters gave us 3 weeks ago “IAEA providing support for Saudi Arabia as it plans to adopt nuclear energy”, it seems that the Guardian is giving us an adjusted negative view, with a lacking support on several fronts and I wonder why that is happening. In all this the Guardian also evades the entire enrichment issues the are required for nuclear warheads in opposition to enrichment for fuel, why is that part missing? All this, whilst the escalating party (Iran) is given leeway after leeway. You see, in this the one party is fuelling the other and Saudi Arabia has been up front about the from the beginning.

The Guardian gives us that with “The kingdom’s nuclear ambitions have become a source of heightened concern in the US Congress and among allies, particularly since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman declared in 2018 that if regional rival Iran develops a nuclear bomb, “we will follow suit as soon as possible”” Yet part from the Iran drive, the Saudi drive was for fuel only and that part is missing, there is a lot missing and when we consider the quote “who have been scrambling to help Riyadh map its uranium reserves at breakneck speed as part of their nuclear energy cooperation agreement” whilst this started in 2017, I merely wonder if the writers at the Guardian have any clue of the concept ‘at breakneck speed’, as I see it, in 3 years mapping is not breakneck speed, especially when we add the ““inferred deposits”, estimated from initial surveys” it smells like something it is not and yes, we should keep our eyes open (both Saudi Arabia and Iran), yet IAEA part is merely a small paragraph, and part of that is inferred, not the way I would go, but the is me. I think that the Guardian went wrong here, I would have made the entire IAEA a lot more important, and as the headline gives us ‘may have enough uranium ore to produce nuclear fuel’, my question becomes, why is there a ‘may’ in the headline? I would consider the setting that if there is a ‘may’ after the entire setting had been going on for 3 years, we have a larger issue and the stage of ‘confidential documents seen by the Guardian’ becomes a lot more debatable when there is a massive absence of ‘enrichment’ in the entire article. Did anyone notice that? So where is the fuel getting enriched? So whilst the article goes on with “for either an energy or weapons programme” we need to consider that enrichment is essential for weapons, so where does Bruce Riedel (the expert from the Brookings Institution) get his information? Why is the article skipping enrichment, the most essential element towards weapons? We are happy to see “The Guardian could not independently verify the authenticity of the report”, yet that merely makes the article more debatable, not less so.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Blaming the wrong party

Yup, we’ve all done that. The blame game is notorious in two aspects. The first is the party blamed, the second is the reason for blaming. So it is not just on how blame is designed, it is the intended and actual party of blaming the comes to mind. We tend to get both wrong when it is an emotional setting. There is one elements that we tend to forget, detachment is the drive that tends to set the matters of the mind straight. So I went through all the stages of the blame game when I saw ‘World’s richest urged to do more to keep millions from starving’ in Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/world-richest-millions-starving-wfp-200918090724645.html). In this:

  1. Why is that up to the world’s richest?
  2. When millions are starving, why are individuals called upon, why are governments flaccid?
  3. Who created this situation in the first place?

These three elements are important. Because the article gives us “He cited the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where violence has increased and instability has already forced 15.5 million people near starvation. He also said a lack of funding has forced cutbacks in assistance to feed people in war-ravaged Yemen”, with the additional quote ““Worldwide, there are over 2,000 billionaires with a net worth of $8 trillion,” the former South Carolina governor said, noting reports that some of the wealthiest Americans have made “billions upon billions” during the pandemic

So here is where the blame game comes into effect. As I personally see it, David Beasley has his heart in the right place, but not his brain. In the first, governments have been playing credit card jockey for well over a decade, this is the result. In the second, places like Yemen are in a stage of committed non-action by both NATO and commonwealth forces. They simply didn’t care and for close to 5 years nothing happened and this is the result. In the third, it was essential for tax laws to be overhauled for well over a decade in the US, Japan and EU nations, none of that happened. I offered an optional solution in 1998, yet is was thrown out, remarks like ‘too complex’ and ‘hindrance of free trading’, well these things come at a price. In the setting of “some of the wealthiest Americans have made “billions upon billions” during the pandemic” we see a cheap shot at Jeff Bezos and a few others. Now, I have no real interest in Jeff, but he (his company) made that revenue fair and square. If the blame game parties had acted over the last 10 years, the situation might not be as dire as it is now. We seem to forget that part.

In case of Jeff, there might be plenty to blame him for, but this is not one of these things, this is not the station to make a reference to Jeff Bezos and his Amazon, but to the governments and their greed driven short sightedness.

This is the price of capitalism, this is the consequence of free trading. Everything has a price and now that you are seeing the consequences, you do not get to be the blamer, you all went along with the setting for far too long and most governments set the station of revenue and the lack of options for well over the next decade is the consequence of choices made between 1998 and 2020. And in all this, it might blow over, you see, the media gives us again and again “a potential “hunger pandemic”” the media has been giving us ‘potential’ in Yemen, so when will it actually happen? 

Fair question is it not?

We need to set the record straight, we need to demand that our governments ACT, that they adjust tax laws the way they should have been from the start, but every time dome politicians will oppose, as such set these opposes in the limelight, let them explain it. Let’s not blame the people who merely used the system handed to them.  The system that we all voted into the place it is and we need to ac sept that we are all to blame by letting the elected people continue the way they did.

That is all before we get to Mark Lowcock some UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, who gives us “who have a particular responsibility, which they have discharged in recent years – have so far given nothing”, on one side he is not completely wrong, yet n the other side, the acts and hindrances by Houthi forces as well as the support given to the Houthi forces by Iran are left out of the equation, are they not? So while we are given “Continuing to hold back money from the humanitarian response now will be a death sentence for many families”, all whilst he remains silent on the acts of the Houthi forces intervening is just a big no-no. The blame game is taking a serous turn towards the people who might be partially blamed, whilst the parties who need to be fully blamed are left out of the equation. So is this how we are given the truth? Partial truths baked in larger non-truths and all whilst we see the pictures of those in need, but not the pictures of those who were actually responsible for the mess we are given nowadays. It is so nice to blame a person like Jeff Bezos, all whilst his company was able to provide to a little over 800 million in lockdown for months. Yup, it got him a few thousand million extra, but is that his fault? He merely supplied towards an outstanding demand, that is how capitalism works and he got to keep a lot of it because the laws of taxation allowed him to do that. 

There is of course the station where some very rich people are not as innocent, but are they guilty? Guilty of what? They became rich as they had the clever accountants who used the laws of taxation to the maximum, is that the fault of the wealthy, the accountant, or is this mess the fault of governments not overhauling the laws of taxation? An overhaul that had creamy be needed in 2 decades. And the lack of humanitarian acts, is that because that there is no-one to hand out humanitarian aid, or is that because the governments who did that are so deep in debt that they no longer have the ability to do that, which gets us to the laws of taxation again.

Well over a dozen governments have painted themselves into corners and we end up blaming the paint for not being dry, how does that make any kind of sense? We can blame all we like, but in the end we merely did this ourselves by elating the people who set the stage by doing almost nothing, that is the stage we need to look at and in this we need to realise that this is not a nanny state verdict, this is the stage of non-accountability and that is the part we forgot about. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

One sided coin

When is a one-sided coin like a watchdog? That is the underlying question, and the answer is seen in this article ‘When they are shallow’. We all have needs, we all have centred targets, but what happens when that setting makes you miss the larger picture? Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against watchdogs, I have nothing against the media, or politicians, but when they give a one sided brief just to please themselves, how shallow will they be? It is not the first time, but in this case it starts with ‘US watchdog report cites civilian casualties in Saudi arms deal’, now this might be correct, might being the operative word and not towards optionally pointing fingers and not towards the setting. We see “The Saudi-UAE air raids hit farms, schools, water supplies, and energy sources, triggering what the United Nations has described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” now, I am not making a statement that they did not do that, but in all that, was it truly some civilian hit target or were there Houthi and/or Hezbollah fighters there? So whilst some focus on ‘precision-guided-munition components’, no one is looking what they were clearly firing on, because that too is an unknown. So whilst some focus on one side of “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians, have been killed by the Saudi-UAE air strikes – often with American-made weapons, targeting information and aerial refuelling support”, in a stage where should consider on ‘how many were civilians (and how many were not)’ in the sentence “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians”, yes we can hide behind ‘many of them’, but precision is essential, even if the weapons are not. In addition Representative Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee gives us ““This obvious pre-spin of the findings reeks of an attempt to distract and mislead,” Engel said, adding that he feared the classified annex to the report would be “used to bury important or possibly incriminating information””, and I am not debating that, yet in all this, the stage where Eliot Engel is optionally helping our the Iranians, that is still up for debate, is it not? So when we check NPR and we see the question “Congress had concerns about $8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and those concerns included how the arms might be used in the war in Yemen” and the only thing that Eliot Engel gives us is “Yeah”? By the way the interview (at https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901431799/engel-discusses-ig-report-on-u-s-selling-8-billion-worth-of-arms-in-middle-east) gives us nothing on ‘Iran’, ‘Houthi’ and ‘Hezbollah’, three tags that are essential in the Yemeni war, as well as the current Saudi Arabian state of affairs, so why are they missing? So whilst Engel gives us “Meaning that all the excuses that they give us, all the reasons they give us for doing what they have to do are phony and are made up. It’s just that they don’t – they want to have freedom to operate, not have the public know anything, certainly not have Congress know anything. And this is the way they’ve operated from day one. And it’s not really, you know – on the Foreign Affairs Committee, this is our jurisdiction. We’re supposed to be investigating these things, and they look at us as somehow intruding on their private purview”, a view that is his and might be valid, but the Yemeni war is larger and the three elements (Houthi, Hezbollah and Iran) are left out of it giving us an unbalanced and one sided story. Now, there is a side that accept, the US can decide on how it does business and who it does business with, and consider the hilarity we see when that $8,000,000,000 dollars goes to the Chinese or Russian treasury coffers? The US has been alienating its middle eastern partners to such an extent (all whilst ignoring to a larger degree the activities by Iran), we need to see the way that ball rolls down the hill and away from the congressional weapons sales teams. So whilst some might applaud the activity of watchdogs, the absence of the whole picture is actually rather disturbing. Not merely to the stage, but the fallout is other large. This does not reflect on Eliot Engel, but his congressional party is seemingly ignoring a much larger stage and this stage includes both Hezbollah and Iran, so why is Eliot Engel and his band of naughty congressionals ignoring that? Consider that the people for a week have been aware of ‘Saudi Arabia’s project clears 177,637 Houthi mines in Yemen’, now, we accept that some would have originated in Yemen, but not all and when we see these elements in the equation (and that is merely the beginning of that mess), we need to wonder why the US watchdog is so one sided. An investigation into the forces active in Yemen, as well as the weapons used and one side is left off the table completely. So how does your humanitarian side react to that? Oh and for desert I offer ’84.000 children in Yemen are dead, who is holding the Houthi and their methods to account?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Government driven destabilisation

That is a term you are not familiar with, is it? Yet it is more now than most other things, even as some are all about ‘donations for Beirut’ all whilst the larger groups ignore corruption there as well as the stage that Hezbollah is not in the clear for storage of explosives in the Beirut harbour.

Last month Houthi forces fired on Saudi Arabia, now there is an issue. First of all, the target was military (King Khalid Air Base) making it in my eyes a valid target, yet the western press for the most ignored it completely. The Jerusalem Post gives us “Saudi Arabia said it intercepted ballistic missiles fired from Yemen overnight between Sunday and Monday. Four missiles and seven drones were launched by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen”, the fact that the Iranian part in all this remains largely unreported in the EU and the Commonwealth is still a massive issue, I have little faith that the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) starts being of use in any way (other then prolonging the war in Yemen), yet the larger issue is not the attacks, the issue as I see is that as I personally see it, governments feel happy to set a stage of destabilisation in the Middle East, so that they can feel safe, at least from their Ego driven point of view. The paper also gives us “The military of Yemen’s Houthi group said it attacked and hit a large oil facility in an industrial zone in the southern Saudi city of Jizan” and in all this the amount of goods that is required coming from Iran is still not being investigated, and the dangers that they bring can be wielded in a few directions. My personal issue in this is why we are not getting a full constant update from the Middle East, why are the papers ignoring the actions from the Iranian side and Houthi atrocities in 

Yemen? We might give rise to the article (at https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2402186/yemeni-speaker-complains-un-over-houthi-violations), yet the western media steered clear of ‘Yemeni Speaker Complains to UN over Houthi Violations’, so when we consider this, who was aware of “Yemen’s National Alliance of Political Parties (NAPP), a group of parties loyal to the internationally recognized government, had also called on the UN and its envoy to condemn the ongoing Houthi attacks against Yemeni pro-government leaders”, how many Commonwealth and EU newspapers took notice? And when we take notice of “The parties added that the militias insist on continuing the series of their crimes against the Yemeni people, rejecting all international efforts to reach peace in the country. “Such behavior is reflected in their decision issued last March to sentence 35 Yemeni pro-government deputies to death,” after charging them with cooperating with the Saudi-led Arab coalition, the statement added”, how many newspapers took the trouble to see what the humanitarian impact is of Houthi decisions here? 

We can argue all week on what is right and what is wrong, yet consider that we cannot argue on matters that most newspapers do not publish, so when we see ‘Huawei-supplied stc wins 5G contract for Saudi mega-city’ (at https://www.capacitymedia.com/articles/3826056/huawei-supplied-stc-wins-5g-contract-for-saudi-mega-city) in here we see “NEOM’s infrastructure will utilise AI, robotics, and human-machine fusion to deliver greater predictive intelligence and enable faster decision making across all NEOM sectors. The procurement and deployment of a future-proof wireless network is a critical first for NEOM in realising our goal of driving innovation in the future digital economy”. Considering that I wrote about that part in ‘There is more beneath the sand’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/15/there-is-more-beneath-the-sand/) almost 9 months ago, and on some matters even before than, two weeks earlier I raised ‘Change is coming’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/09/01/change-is-coming/), all matters on Neom City and 5G that the western press left unattended, so what else did we not get to see?

Issues in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all remain unreported. And I admit, there is a reach from unreported to Government driven destabilisation, I will admit to that part, in all this there is a larger stake, when we consider that papers are run by people adhering to the needs of Shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers, we get the first part in this, and yes it is subjective and there is space for debate and disagreement, I do not deny this. But when did you (if ever) wonder on matters not published in Western media? OK, in this, I admit that this is still a far stretch towards destabilisation, and that is a fair call, and I would be wrong if it was 1-2 items, but when we add the numbers Houthi attacks on civilian Saudi targets in 2018 and 2019, Iranian intervention in Yemen 2015-2020, with ‘US Navy intercepts ‘Iranian weapons’ bound for Houthis’ (at https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-navy-intercepts-iranian-weapons-bound-for-houthis-1.978874), we get a larger stage, how many newspapers reported on this in the EU or the Commonwealth? I also have https://news.usni.org/2020/02/13/video-uss-normandy-seizes-cache-of-iranian-made-weapons-in-arabian-sea and a few more newspapers (like the Adelaide Now), yet over three pages of links, no BBC, No Guardian, no Washington Post, No Dutch, Swedish, or German Newspapers. There were Middle Eastern newspapers and the Jerusalem Post. Did you consider that part of the equation? When we see the redaction of Iran smuggling drones and weapons to Houthi forces in Yemen, what other matters are you not aware of?

#JustAsking

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

This is boom, that is not

Yet, Beirut, the place where buildings get free air-conditioning through the application of 7.62mm ammunition, the place where something went boom and it enraged a whole lot of people, yet on August 5th I wrote in ‘Boom goes the dynamite’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/08/05/boom-goes-the-dynamite/), we see “It is speculation, but consider the blast, according to some the blast was noticed well over 100Km away. I do have a point of reference, the Fireworks blast in the Netherlands (Enschede) had a similar effect, but nowhere near the size, the video’s I saw told a different story, one car on the highway with a distance of around 2000 meters away got its windows blown out and the rear view mirrors got blown off the car, and that is one of a few video’s that show me that this was no ordinary blast” and it was merely the toppling of issues. We get to see a better picture when we consider “Ammonium nitrate does not burn on its own” (Source: American Scientific), it is merely the foundation. When we consider “For combustion to occur, oxygen must be present. Ammonium nitrate prills provide a much more concentrated supply of oxygen than the air around us. This is why it is effective in mining explosives, where it’s mixed with oil and other fuels. At high enough temperatures, however, ammonium nitrate can violently decompose on its own. This process creates gases including nitrogen oxides and water vapour. It is this rapid release of gases that causes an explosion” we need to look any the explosion again (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdSHRbSZkwc), it is one of many explosions, and as you see there was a fire in the vicinity, but the explosion is violent and complete. The stage is in two fold, in the first, Ammonium nitrate doesn’t burn well and to explode oil is used. The images we see could not be done if it was merely the ammonium nitrate. It is my view and I am not the expert (I did study chemistry), yet experts tell me ‘Ammonium nitrate does not burn on its own’, all the footage I have seen give implication that this was not merely ammonium nitrate, yet Scientific American also give us “It’s stable under normal conditions, but you can do things to it that will cause it to misbehave. The main trigger is an external heat source. Depending on how you want to count it, there have been probably somewhere between 20 and 30 major catastrophic explosions with ammonium nitrate since it came on the scene as a commercial product in the 1920s. And fire is a frequent trigger. It’s the heat of the fire that warms up the ammonium nitrate that can become a problem”, it seems that everyone is willing to give Hezbollah a pass on this event. I am not willing to do so, even if they merely blew up their own city, there is a stage where we need to consider what else was there and was it meant for pro-Houthi or anti-Israel actions? In an age where we see a whole range of analytics and geometric based analyses, in this the Guardian gives us ‘The explosion that devastated the city was no accident and anger is boiling over’, and then we see “It was so huge it was heard in Cyprus. It was so huge it shattered glass and ripped doors off their hinges kilometres away. It incinerated trees, tore the red roofs off centuries-old buildings and brought the blue sea inland. It left 5,000 injured and 154 dead – so far. There are many still missing under the rubble”, which leaves us with the setting that it all went up in one big explosion, consider the fact that it required (read: used) 2,750,000 Kg of ammonium nitrate, I get that there might be an explosion, but IT ALL exploded at once is the larger issue, the facts do not support it. And the fear of some is merely strengthening my view. With “We don’t really know how this ammonium nitrate, confiscated from a ship and stored in unsafe conditions in the middle of our city for six years, ignited. Because those who are responsible are actively rejecting an international investigation”, and in this I see their fear, international experts will bare out what I expect, there were explosives there and that contributed to the much larger explosion, not a fire, and that gets us to Hezbollah, it will feel the brunt of rage from the Lebanese people. Something it cannot afford at present. My initial speculation that Iran handed out of date materials beneath cost price is still on the table, as dynamite sweats nitroglycerine and in the heat in Lebanon it would fuse the ammonium nitrate as well. Yet some media is giving us ‘it requires a combination of things and that seems to have happened’, or something to that regard. They all avoid Iran and Hezbollah in all this, true there would be some speculation linked to it, but things that go boom to this degree requires much more investigation, I do not disagree with this, but blasé painting over the stage with paint of the colour ‘that seems to have happened’ is not the way to go. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Business lost, options lost

There is no denying it, at times people take decisions, and when that happens others get to live with the consequences. This is how it has always been, it is a simple truth. Yet, when was the last time you had to live with the ethical believes of others, all whilst they refuse to demand the same on the other side of the coin? 

Consider the headline ‘Belgium suspends arms exports to Saudi national guard’, I get it, it is a choice, so when we see “the southern Belgian region of Wallonia halted weapons sales to Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry and air force over concerns about the conduct of its war in Yemen”, I cannot say one way or the other, yet so far NO ONE has held Iran to any level of standards, and the same was not demanded from the Houthi forces. That part is a first in understanding just how stupid the action was. Now, we need to understand that human rights groups have their own ideology and that is fine. So as there is now an increased danger that $2-$4 billion in small arms over the next 5 years will now end in the coffers of either Russia or China, one had to wonder how the US (at minus 25 trillion) or Europe (at minus 14 trillion) will live with losing billions in revenue and handing it over to China and/or Russia. Let’s be clear I have nothing against human rights, yet this is a situation where the house is on fire and someone is telling you (not a fireman mind you) that only rainwater can be used to stop the fire, all whilst it is not raining, so how will that end? I have seen a whole range of actions, but the EU refuses to act against Iranian interference or Houthi inhumane actions, for the most the European media has taken all the efforts to keep it out of their publications as well. Even as Israel’s Hayom gives us ‘Iran sees disaster as opportunity to advance regional interests’, we might not react, but who will asks the questions that matters when we see “more than 84,000 children who have died of starvation in the bloody civil war in Yemen can teach us a basic lesson”, so when we compare that to the UN news which was given last month, and similar news for close to a year ‘Waiting to declare famine ‘will be too late for Yemenis on brink of starvation’, so please explain to me how ‘on brink of starvation’ is staged in a situation where well over 84,000 children that died of starvation? How much more idiocy will we watch, empty actions from human rights groups so that we can sleep at night in a stage where it is already too late?

So not only are these people in denial, they are handing billion dollar industries over to China and/or Russia, so how does that sit with you? And let’s be clear, Belgium is not in the greatest economic situations. Yet, they have that right, and they are not doing anything illegal, it is merely silly on a few levels. So when the initial options are lost and the opportunities are lost to a group of nations that can ACTUALLY SPEND money, how intelligent are these people? The moral high ground is only interesting on a level playing field and it was never a level playing field. In this some may state that they would never work in the arms industry, but what happens when you are offered an instructor job on weapons? If you are unemployed, are you allowed the station of refusal? Consider that for a moment, working or unemployed? Is it such a bad call to teach a person how to properly handing a firearm? Is it illegal to be a data miner? An investment banker? What is the borderline where we decide on the events of others? 

Where is the wisdom?

We seem to believe that we have the wisdom to make things better in Yemen and Syria, but the people who should have acted refused to do so and now human rights are making it impossible for issues to be resolved, so basically our believe in human rights killed 84,000 children of hunger. Have you considered that part in the equation? Until human right groups can deal with both sides of the equation, they are basically worthless, not achieving much of anything, so if they get baskets of Yum Cha or Black-bread and Vodka this Christmas, they know which government is thanking them for the billions of extra revenue in 2020 and 2021. You see, in this instance the house is on fire and there is no rain coming, so will you forfeit the house or will you safe what you can? In the end having principles are nice, but unless the others are on the same page, you are merely handing others money you could make to make things better and remember, as an economic partner the EU had some options of talks in Saudi Arabia, when that falls away they are merely speakers with intent to be useless it ends. So tell me, when was the last time ANY government made time for any person with the mere intent to be useless? 

No matter who the need has, I was willing (and eager) to sell either the MP5, the Vityaz-SN (PP-19-01), or the Norinco NR08. Whatever the client wants, and if MP5 is pulling itself off the market, we should remember that there are 2 alternatives. I wonder how much thought the human right groups took that into consideration and when the money stops, their options stop as well. Sun Tsu learns us what battles to fight and which ones we should ignore, it is a basic setting in commerce as well. If certain people will not learn that lesson a lot faster there will not be a population in Yemen left.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Boom goes the dynamite

Yup, I got this from a trainee presenter in an American show, it stuck and now as we see the numbers come from Beirut and the devastating boom that the population in Beirut is facing, the term stuck again. I have waded through 4 hours of video, I read the articles and the sage does not  make sense. Yet, be aware that a lot of it is speculative, so do not take this as gospel, or as given facts, even as I try to go from some of the revealed facts, they too are up for reconsideration of optional inaccurate facts.

The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/aug/04/beirut-explosion-huge-blast-port-lebanon-capital), gives us a lot of small facts, but some sources like CNN (and others) give us “2,750 metric tons of ammonium nitrate, a highly explosive material used in fertilizers and bombs, had been stored for six years at a port warehouse without safety measures, “endangering the safety of citizens,” according to a statement”, first of all the number comes down to 2,750,000 kilograms, which is not a lot, it is a massive amount to have. In a nation (with explosive needs or not), where there is a shortage of all things, that amount of fertiliser amounts to 125 40 foot containers, filled to the brink with fertiliser, and it was there for 6 years (according to some). When you realise the events can be seen in other light, the numbers do not add up, yet the explosion was real. 

Speculation
So why if there was more than fertiliser there? Consider Iran has been supplying Hezbollah with volatile goods for a long time, what happens when TNT (or dynamite) stats sweating? Now consider that we weren’t dealing with 125 containers, but with a mere 4 containers, but with TNT and it was kept in what some would consider the safest place, also consider that it had been there for a few months and sweating explosives tend to sweat nitro glycerine. Consider that Iran made a deal with surplus stuff and it backfired on its customer.

It is speculation, but consider the blast, according to some the blast was noticed well over 100Km away. I do have a point of reference, the Fireworks blast in the Netherlands (Enschede) had a similar effect, but nowhere near the size, the video’s I saw told a different story, one car on the highway with a distance of around 2000 meters away got its windows blown out and the rear view mirrors got blown off the car, and that is one of a few video’s that show me that this was no ordinary blast. Even as it is understandable that the real cause cannot be known yet, we see within 13 hours “2,750 tons of chemicals detonated”, the explanation is very much too soon. But I get the inkling of dire need to set a story out there, in light of the explosive nature of goods that Hezbollah relies on in Beirut. So when we consider “Over time, regardless of the sorbent used, sticks of dynamite will “weep” or “sweat” nitroglycerin, which can then pool in the bottom of the box or storage area. For that reason, explosive manuals recommend the repeated turning over of boxes of dynamite in storage”, and when we consider that and the supplier to Hezbollah, no matter where it would be stored, is my speculation so thin? Or is it a lot closer to the truth than you would imagine? And when we consider the shortage seem in Lebanon, consider 125 containers of goods untouched for 6 years, or 4 containers with Dynamite untouched (or partially touched) for 6 months, what is more likely? 

It is linked to a second speculation, what if Iran had to get rid of explosives that have a limited time left? Who would be appreciative of receiving explosives at below cost price? I feel certain that this is a direction that Iran did not anticipated, but it is what it is and remember, I am speculating here, yet in this case is it more likely than not is the question and yes, we need to await the real news, but as I see it, the media is accepting the 2,750,000 kilograms of Ammonium nitrate that was in folly stored for 6 years, and remember one small detail “Ammonium nitrate does not burn on its own”, and there was already a fire, I will also give you “Ammonium nitrate decomposition can be set off if an explosion occurs where it’s stored, if there is an intense fire nearby. The latter is what happened in the 2015 Tianjin explosion, which killed 173 people after flammable chemicals and ammonium nitrate were stored together at a chemicals factory in eastern China” The events seem to add up, but the amounts do not (as I personally see it), no matter how we see this, certain people have lost a lot, they will lose a lot more and Iran gets to be a supplier yet once again.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Science

What light is the limelight

We all wonder at times why certain matters are brought to attention, we now automatically assume that issues are revealed to seat the limelight, not merely TV and other media, the press is seen in that same way. It is not that we are bombarded with fake news, there is now the assumed feeling by many that the media is giving us fake news (they tend to call it direct and speculated views from experts). 

This view is supported (to a degree) by Al Jazeera who gave us “Long before “fake news” had a name, the BBC was a master of fake news, in fact fake news of the most dangerous, the most vicious consequences, casting nations, not just individuals, into direct calamities”, they did so in November 2018, they also give us “The role of BBC in the overthrow of Mosaddeq was not out of character or unusual. In a piece titled Why the taboo tale of the BBC’s wartime propaganda battle must be told published by The Guardian, David Boyle writes about characters like Noel Francis Newsome (1906-1976), who “as director of European broadcasts … led what is still the biggest broadcasting operation ever mounted, in 25 different languages for a total of just over 25 hours a day, across three wavelengths.””, in this the BBC does not stand alone, there are scores of producers that have had the ear of their governments. 

The problem now is that the media is flaunting the #Fakenews items and procrastinate on what they regard on what is fake news, yet they themselves have been heralding tweaked news and scores of misinformation through either omission or ‘non disclosed sources’ and the people have caught on, they have caught on for a while, so whilst they disregard newspapers, they embrace another level of debatable news that others publish on social media. 

And everyone is seeking the limelight, yet the most obvious question becomes slowly apparent to some, what sort of light is the limelight? And what sort of light was it supposed to be?

That is the question, in people like Freddy Mercury and David Bowie got to be exposed to the purest form that was discovered in 1837, at that point we had: “limelight was used for the first time to illuminate a stage, at London’s Covent Garden. During the second half of the 19th century, theaters regularly utilized this powerful form of light, which could be focused into a beam to spotlight specific actors or an area of the stage”, the stage was set to illuminate and give visibility to, in this case titans of music. In other forms we see the pink limelight, which in this case is not a version of ‘La vie en rose’, it is a version to make softer the harsh reality of a situation that we face, we see it whenever the limelight needs to be on Iran, we see it when bad news must be tempered for the good of that government or for the good of the political needs of THAT moment. In this stage we also need to see the omissions of news and I am not buying the usual ‘we ran out of space’ BS all whilst digital space costs nothing and any additional space implies more advertisement space too. Some might have noticed on the massive lack of reporting whilst Houthi forces (via Iran) were firing missiles on the Saudi government. To merely quote one of the (many) sources “When important news is omitted, we get a skewed or biased perspective”, as I see it, the Saudi example shows a few issues, as the larger lack of reporting was shown, right around the time several governments were setting the stage of no weapons to Saudi Arabia. And in all that mess, the lack of reporting on the actions of Iran take a larger view and we need to do that. We see a global stage that is changing, whilst a group of politic Ians are setting the stage based on their egotistical needs, and that group is getting too large, all whilst the political field of the US is dwindling down and European politics is getting a dangerous overhaul. In this stage of changes, some have figured out that a new way of setting the tone of news is not changing the story, it is adjusting the limelight. As I see it it will open differently across forms of media, but the readers will have a lot more issues to distinguish between news and fake news, you see, there will be news, adjusted news and fake news. The problem is that all have a professional looking character, yet the impact differs. It gets us back to the 90’s when the 256 greyscale solutions came, but the setting is an important distinguishing one. We cannot distinguish these 256 grey scales. Our eyes are not that good, and our brains are even less distinguishing, as the overlap between real, adjusted and fake messages increases, our ability to distinguish becomes a larger issue. In this a personal view is that there is a correlation between phishing and adjusted news. It becomes harder, if not close to impossible to see the difference. I almost fell for two phishing attacks, even as I knew what to look for, the message was indistinguishable from the real deal and news is going the same way, the media relying on ‘adjusted news’ is not helping any. The one clear part (from factcheck.org) is “Not all of the misinformation being passed along online is complete fiction”, the question is when does it become too hard to see the difference between a story that is not ‘all fiction’ and a story that is not ‘all true’. When can we no longer tell the difference? And as some come with the treated excuse ‘Is there not an AI solution?’, the stage becomes rather large, because AI does not exist, not yet at least. You see, the salespeople are selling AI, because it is marketed at all, just like the 80’s when printers had to be sold, they came up with Near Letter Quality. Wit AI we now have True AI: “True artificial intelligence is autonomous — it does not require human maintenance and works for you silently in the background” and there we see the problem, the identification is still done with human intervention, and the part in this that I did not report on is that AI, or perhaps more clearly stated True AI requires to be learning. That is not yet possible as it requires quantum computing with shallow circuits. IBM is close to getting it, but not completely there yet, only when that is ready, complete and true AI becomes achievable. So whilst that stage is still evading us, the issues of adjusted and fake news keep on going. Yet I am concerned with the question “What is the light they use as limelight?”, in this we consider it as we need to contemplate that news should not change when WE change the light, so real news will remain  the same whether it is rose or lime light, adjusted news will change slightly, but perhaps just enough for us to see the difference. It is speculative, but I believe that it is a future option.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Champion from Stockholm

I feel a little out of my league, I will be honest, the moment my view, the view I belief to be right is under fire by a Nobel laureate, I feel that I am on the losing side. Yet, the article cannot be avoided. To do this, there is a time track, no matter how we are given “Saudi Arabia is legally responsible for war crimes in Yemen”, we need to take a look at the time line. “The help from Saudi Arabia was requested by at that time the rightful ruler of Yemen. So as we are given “The human rights activist made her comment after it was reported that the French judiciary has opened an investigation against Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed who is accused of complicity in the torture of prisoners in Yemen detention centres controlled by the UAE armed forces. The French can look into such cases on the basis of universal jurisdiction.” (at https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200722-saudi-arabia-is-legally-responsible-for-war-crimes-in-yemen-insists-nobel-laureate/), we are not seeing the actions that both Hezbollah and Houthi forces are a part of, so how are these entered in the whole of things? 

As I see it no version of “In a related context” is seemingly correct, the matter does not add up, and optionally for me it never will, I am aware of that, yet there is no version and no related context where we can look at all this and set apart the atrocities of the Houthi forces, the acts by Hezbollah and all in a stage where Iran is the puppet master behind the screen. So whilst Houthi forces are calling for an investigation into both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, when will the acts of the Houthi forces be held to account, not after, that much is a given. 

In all this, my sage is that Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman has a rather large station to fill, in the first there is the ‘legally responsible’ part, a stage we ignore because it is uncomfortable, but the stage includes that official help was requested by a legitimate elected office and that office is what the Houthi forces detest. Their actions make the entire ‘legally responsible’ moot to say the least, and that is before we add the station where they fired on Saudi civilian targets, war is hell, but as I see it they ca take a kissing booth ticket and present it to the nearest Afreet (he is currently resting in a bed of sand and stone around 140 KM North of Ubar Oman), perhaps there they will find the ear they were hoping for, of course Aarif was never one to pass up the taste of the ignorant soul, so good luck with that. 

No matter how you view this case and we do agree that she (Tawakkol Karman) is entitled to a view, and as she is Yemeni, we can all (including myself) agree that she has a more entitled view than I have. Yet where was she in the last 5 years? When we seek her Google search entries, we do not see that many, and a few are not relating to her view on the war, so why is she ‘so active’ now? Is that not a fair question too?

We see all the mentions on her being part of the Muslim Brotherhood, her setting as a Yemeni-Turkish activist. It might be true, it might not, I have not investigated that evidence, this is about her view of making Saudi Arabia responsible. I am not stating that Saudi Arabia is innocent, but any guilt needs to include the actions of Houthi forces, Hezbollah forces in Yemen and Iran and that is not happening. So as we give visibility to this Stockholm Champion, we need to also see that she is painting an incomplete picture. As a Dutch comedian once said, you cannot refer to the book ‘Ali Baba and the 40 thieves’, it is apparantly now named ‘Ali Baba and the 40 fighters for the Palestinian cause’, time changes everything, even the foundation of what we see and the timeline is important in all this, time is thee only valid measurement. It shows us where the situation was and the mess started with the elected officials calling for help, it is interesting how many people are dismissing that part of the equation. And seemingly it includes people wth a Nobel Price, it is as interesting as the way that price got its money in the first place.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics