Tag Archives: Washington Post

Inheritance for the weak

Things happened and things needed to be done, this has been a long standing issue and America took that stance. Yes, we agree that we do not want a war, but Iran made it almost unattainable and something had to be done. So when I see (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/06/nato-chief-holds-back-from-endorsing-us-killing-of-suleimani) the words “Jens Stoltenberg condemns Iran but stresses drone attack decision was not made by Nato” we see a truth, yet the words given are that of a weakling. It gets support from “His intervention came as the EU commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, also warned Iran that “it is imperative that it return to the nuclear deal”, remarks that could presage a European decision to abandon the deal if Iran does not recommit itself to its terms“, another weakling on the European front. They are all about ego and not about realism, for months Iran has ignored the deal, it has traversed transgression point after transgression point and the EU is about ‘Let’s talk a little more’, it is like we are watching the police agree with drug dealers who have brought in 8 containers filled with drugs that they should come in so that an arrangement can be made for container number 9. They are drug dealers, deal with it!

America did the one thing that had to be done and now we see media article after media article on why we should not do it, that same media that has decided not to report on Iranian actions in Yemen, we now see more on ‘Iranian backed Houthis’ and that is as much as we can get from the media. So as we get ‘US allies distance themselves from Trump decision to assassinate Suleimani‘, we see more. I get it, Israel is too close to Iran and they cannot get dragged into it, they are dealing with Hezbollah and that is good. We also see ‘Saudi minister urges restraint in Washington‘, which is slightly less good, but the reasoning is clear, they are close to Iran and in close striking distance, they need to take a cautious stance here, yet Iran had to be dealt with and the killing of Qassam Soleimani is the point of no return, it has been done and now we need to make sure that Tehran realises that the gig is up, we will act and we will come for them, so having weaklings like Stoltenberg and van der Leyen in the EU, who have no issue making strong language when it suits them and their ego’s is a bit of a waste.

So as I read “Mike Pompeo, has already expressed disappointment in the lukewarm reaction of Washington’s European allies” I can only agree with Mike Pompeo. I see the issue that Saudi deputy defence minister, Khalid bin Salman faces and he needs to do what is best for Saudi Arabia, yet most experts are in agreement that the attack on Aramco could only have come through the acts of Iran and via the acts of Iran. The Guardian article also mentioned “There is mounting concern that the more cautious stance by the US-led coalition would make it much less effective and allow Isis to regenerate“, this is the larger issue and Iran has been playing a seesaw card for the longest of times, they have played that card well and that is the pivoting point, now with Soleimani away they will make mistakes, and that is what we needed for the longest of times, there is also the concern that the media is now in another bind. The Washington Post gave us 4 days ago “Soleimani took control of the Quds Force, the external wing of the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in the late 1990s and went on to expand its regional presence. He was widely known for his high-profile links to paramilitary groups from Syria to Yemen that are now in the spotlight“, yet the larger newspapers have been shunning reports on Iran action in Yemen for well over a year, so I think that there is a larger play to consider. The spotlights are now illuminating the Iranian acts in Yemen and that is good, there is a larger setting where the media was so on the ‘Nuclear Pact’ deal that they ignored a larger setting, even as Iran ignored certain limits several times over. 

Yet the act of killing also opens up a larger can of worms on the allied side, Luke Hartig (former senior director for counter-terrorism on the national security council) wrote about it he gives us “Trump’s counter-terrorism legacy in Iraq and Syria may be a series of dead bodies but nothing that addresses the core of the problem and no partners willing to help us root it out“, ever since the US has its spats in Iraq we have seen a shifting of CIA staff all over the place, too many were looking for one old man in a cave and they found him (in the end) in Abbottabad, Pakistan but not until a serious amount of time had passed, in the mean time a lot of CIA operatives are useless (known to too many players) and the options for counter intelligence was further impeded by the acts of Julian Assange and ‎Bradley Edward Manning the latter one thought that 3 years of active service was enough to put well over 700,000 classified pieces on Wikileaks. These actions had a lasting effect and will have an effect for close to a decade. Quality Intelligence from the Middle East is only coming from allies (or so it seems). The US has limited action available to them and even whilst we sneer at espionage, we need to realise that it is the importance of it that sets the stage, Sun Tsu was very clear about it in chapter 13 (the Art of War) ‘the importance of developing good information sources‘ is essential and that part is currently missing for the US in the Middle East.

Luke Hartig (at https://www.justsecurity.org/67927/trumps-fatal-mistake-killing-suleimani-vs-countering-isis/) voices it as ‘Trump’s Fatal Mistake: Killing Suleimani vs. Countering ISIS‘, he is not wrong, yet the issue is depending on point of view. I feel that QS was too effective in the Middle East, his meetings tend to voice that part and the fact that two high value targets were taken out with QS was icing on the cake. For the most we ignore the effectiveness of Qassam, yet the truth is that his effectiveness made the Iranian proxy war in Yemen work, I believe that removing him is an essential win for the US, not immediately, but as the Iranian army faces the challenges that they need to find someone as good as QS, they will see that they are merely failing at whatever they try. The Washington Post gives us 5 hours ago “I have more than 4 million followers on various social media networks, and I have received thousands of messages, voice mails and videos from Iranians in cities such as Shiraz, Isfahan, Tehran and even Ahvaz, who are happy about Soleimani’s death. Some complain of the pressure to attend services for him” the Iranian presentation goes on, yet without QS in the mix, it will go a lot less smooth and issues will be overlooked giving s a much larger view on what is happening, optionally the others will get a lot more out of Iran for their trouble and that too aids the effort against Iran. Soleimani was that effective in life. Hartig gives more and it is there that we see his point of view, with “Effective counterterrorism policy is about much more than conducting drone strikes and deploying commandos; it’s about setting the diplomatic and geopolitical conditions for counterterrorism to succeed” he is correct, with the killing of Qassam Soleimani diplomatic and geopolitical options are out of the window, yet in the long run I believe it was the better position to play, the Iranian chess player lost its queen and as such, its chess play will be limited until an equal can be found, or the opposition loses its queen as well. I also agree with Hartig view “President Trump and the true believers in his inner circle have no sense of the strategy it will take to defeat ISIS (or Iran-linked terrorist groups, for that matter). Counterterrorism requires careful, methodical work, undertaken with our closest allies, that builds up local partners, patiently targets key vulnerabilities in the terrorist network over time, and ultimately addresses the long-term drivers of violent extremism“, there is no real tactic to deal with ISIS, it was less clear in the Obama administration, yet they too should have added weights to dealing with ISIS, but the costs were spiralling out of control, and as we consider his words on Africa through “The gains made against al-Shabaab are a result of diplomatic efforts and military assistance designed to stiffen the spine of African Union partners shouldering most of the fight in Somalia. Terrorists in the Sahel have been contained because of rigorous collaboration and modest assistance to the French combined with patient work to bolster regional partners“, we see the larger play, yet in all this QS had the phone number of all those leaders at hand, any of them with a beef against America got a nice weapons deal, now we see another play, without QS these deals will stop and optional larger wins could be made, yet it is not a given. What is a given is the fact that Iran has been out of control for a much longer time and it is high time that some of the egotistical and self wealth concerned players that that under consideration. so when we see ‘Blowback: Iran abandons nuclear limits after US killing‘, we see the wrong message, Iran had already abandoned those limits for a long time, they are merely outspoken about it now and if those in EU charge cannot see them, they should not be in these positions of power. The game and the message changed, but also the lies we see from Iran, it was never ‘Iran drives another stake into the heart of the nuclear deal‘ (source: CNN), it was that there was never going to be a nuclear deal, they ended it when they started the proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, they needed a large bat to threaten with and they are continuing building that bat, they are however no longer willing to hide their actions to some degree and that works for us (as well).

So even as the Washington Post is all about ‘Iran announces it is suspending its commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal‘ (18 hours ago), let there be no mistake, they had done this in the beginning of 2019 they were merely pussyfooting in diplomatic steps, and now that the failure is out, others will blame this on the US, yet the direct information that I gave months ago was a direct sign that Iran had no intentions to ge back to the table unless they could get 200% out of a deal for them, and that was just not realistic. Qassam Soleimani was very adept in this and now we’ll see a different game, first out of anger, then denial, soon we will get them in a stage of bargaining and some fainted national depression, then the push buttons towards reconstruction and acceptance, yet they will move the table with those two buttons again and again, yet now it will be less expertly managed, which again works for everyone else. 

Iran played the game for too long and for the longest time, no one was willing to hold them to account for their actions. We never wanted to control Iran, we merely needed them to play the game like all the other nations, East and West, North and South, they merely thought they were better than everyone else and now that there is a realistic sense towards war they will have to push through and face several nations in combat, or they will actually sit at a table and negotiate some kind of solution. It is what most wanted all along, it merely never went that way, too much ego and that was always the problem on both sides of the isle.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Joke of 2019: United Nations

You might remember the article I wrote a few months ago when Eggnog Calamari (aka Ages Calamard) an essay writer at the UN wrote a piece where she used boatloads of circumstantial evidence (at best) and accused the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia of ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I looked at that part in ‘Demanding Dismissal‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/), in that article I go over a number of issues and I also published the UN report in that article. Now, I am not stating that certain people are innocent, I cannot prove guilt or innocence either way, yet I get to question guilt in the UN report to a larger extent. So, if that organisation (or Joke) would have truly be consistent, they would have made similar steps in the the Saudi attacks that happened in September 2019, yet there we see “The UN has reportedly so far been unable to confirm Iran was involved in drone and cruise missile attacks on two key Saudi oil facilities in September“, you might remember the origins of the United Nations, It replaced the League of Nations as they were unable to limit the actions of the at that time active national bully Nazi Germany, so as we now see that the UN has been unable to modern day bully Iran, it has become the joke that the league of nations once were.

So when the BBC gave us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50742224) a few items, I decided to search a little further. When we look at the actions that instigated the damage in September 2019 there are a few issues that need to be looked at. 

The optional attackers

Basically that is a list of any attacker that could have been involved, let’s look at the list:

Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. This list are all the players that optionally could have instigated any attack. So let’s look at that list: Oman, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan fall away as they have warm relationship with Saudi Arabia, in addition to this, there have not been any attacks or negative actions against either Saudi Arabia or Aramco, these elements take those players of the list. Iraq gets separate recognition, it seems that 15 agreements have become reality between the two countries and Saudi Arabia, whilst the Arab News gives us “Saudi Arabia donated $500M to support exports of Iraq and $267M to support development projects“. In addition to this, Iraq imports drones from China, none of the debris gives any indication that Chinese drones were in play. Even as Iraq has close relations to Iran, there is no indication that Iraq has any hostile intentions towards Saudi Arabia or any proxy agreement with Iran to attack Saudi Arabia. In addition to this, there is no indication that Kuwait has a trained drone group, or even the used cruise missiles are not in the arsenal of Kuwait, as far as I can tell Kuwait only has land based PAC-2 & PAC-3 Patriot missiles. For Qatar the issue is different, they are not on the friendliest terms and an attack (an airlift) from Qatar would be too visible from too many sides, in addition the Saudi Navy would be able to detect any missile launch from Qatar.

Israel has absolutely no plans to engage with Saudi Arabia ever, also, the materials used are not part of the Israeli defense forces. So at this point, Iran and Yemen remain.

Yemen

Yemen has every (self delusional) reason to attack Saudi Arabia and they made claim of this attack, yet let me give you a list why I doubt this.

Infrastructure, Yemen has no infrastructure left to create the drones, in addition, the entire arsenal gives rise to question Yemen as the guilty party, that is also seen in the UN through “the report also noted that the Houthis “have not shown to be in possession, nor been assessed to be in possession” of the drones used in the attacks“, there is another matter, when we consider the strike on Aramco locations and the hit percentage, we see that this in opposition against earlier strikes on Saudi Arabia over 6 months give a success rate that opposes this. In layman terms it translates to:  someone is playing on a slot machine (drone operator), and so far it got hits that do not register (which was fair enough) the attack on Aramco translate in that as getting on the same machine using 25 quarters 14 times the three sevens (jackpot) came up. Now we can consider that a machine gives a jackpot, yet to get it 14 times out of 25 quarters might be impossible, yet it is so unlikely that the likelihood is to be rejected. In an attack 25 drones and missiles were used, 14 hits that punctured storage tanks, three that disabled oil processing elements, it gives 17 debilitating hits and as such it cannot have been made by Yemeni forces. 

To be this good whilst there is no infrastructure to build drones is as far as I and several experts have been able to ascertain is impossible. 

In addition, do you remember how the Khashoggi report has that part from the CIA? The Calamard report gives us: “US officials expressed high confidence in the CIA assessment“, I looked at that in ‘Uber driving facts‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/13/uber-driving-facts/), the fact that we see (regarding the attack), “US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Iran was behind the attacks” (source Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post), yet it seems that the CIA part is not mentioned (does not come up) in the BBC article, is that not weird as well? 

In the second part, we see that Yemeni forces do not have ANYONE to fly drones to this degree, their training (mostly via Hezbollah) has been lacking for such a long flight, and all the previous attacks give rise to the fact that these drones were in the air at least 3 times longer, having to fly under the radar. After that we need to consider that to hit that many drones on that many targets could not have been done by one pilot, which makes the Yemeni claim of options and abilities almost ludicrous. Should this have been able then it could only have been with Iranian hardware usd by Iranian troops visiting, not even Hezbollah has this level of experience (as per their own history), although the likelihood that it was done by Hezbollah forces is higher than Yemeni forces, the alleged involvement of them in other Saudi raids makes the Aramco success it almost unbelievable.

From several expert sources we see that Yemen does not have the hardware, the UN even supports this view themselves, which now means that only Iran remains as the guilty party.

It is interesting that the UN dismisses any evidence to find the crown prince guilty of alleged assasination regardless of lack of evidence, yet it refuses to hold Iran to account when the list of evidence is increasingly long and showing several levels of Iranian involvement. That is just in case you were wondering why in 2019 the United Nations became a joke and a bad one at that.

The attack, whether from Yemen or from Iran would have required Iranian forces and Iranian hardware, that is the long play, the Yemenis could not have had this level of success even if they received all the hardware from Iran, their troops lack training on several fronts, the basic needs for the cruise missiles are not met by any Yemeni forces and as such the success rate of the missiles alone would have been impossible, the same can be stated for the drone operations. It is clear that it was Iran, their was too much success in this attack, if only 1-5 tanks were hit and 1-3 infrastructure buildings were hit it would be a much harder proof that Iran was guilty, they were so bound on making every hit count, that is the actual stage that sets Iran up as the guilty party, Yemen could never have succeeded to this degree, there is personally no doubt in my mind to that part in this. I also feel that several military experts share my view making the UN report, as well as the UN a joke and a bad one at that. The organisation that was created to stop the German Nazi bully now lets the Iranian bully get away with it all and as such it is my personal view that Secretary General António Guterres needs to get out whilst he can, even as the UN hides behind ‘a report that summarised the experts’ initial findings‘ (initial being the operative word, they are to be seen as the laughing stock, you see, from my point of view those people in charge have been allowing Iran to get away with too much as words like “Had we had been behind this, it would have been disastrous for Saudi Arabia“, I do not think that this is true, this was as good as it would get from Iranian forces. I agree with Saudi defence ministry spokesman Col Turki al-Malki who told reporters in Riyadh three days later (according to the BBC piece): “This attack did not originate from Yemen. Despite Iran’s best efforts to make it appear so, their collaboration with their proxy in the region to create this false narrative is clear.

The biggest issues is not the story of the UN, it is the fact that I was able to punch holes in it is, the fact that this level of consideration is given to Iran by the UN is just overwhelmingly amazing, I wonder what global event the fail to interfere in, optionally because there is a larger political need, was that why they were set up? They might hide behind “The UN was established after World War II with the aim of preventing future wars, succeeding the ineffective League of Nations“, yet what are you when you do that by ignoring the acts of a bully? It makes you a tool and a tool never prevented anything, especially wars in the long term, tools merely make sure that the systems for war are tweaked to needed perfection.

That is merely my personal view, but there have been enough wars to prove me right and regarding this situation, Sun Tzu teaches us that all war is set to deception, and in this case I personally am calling the UN a deceived party, have a great day!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

IP in the balance

This weekend, roughly 25 hours ago, the Washington Post released a story regarding the F-35, now there are a few stories about that crazy bird in circulation, yet this one was particularly fetching. The article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/16/power-struggle-over-f-fighter-jet-comes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/) called ‘A power struggle over the F-35 fighter jet comes to a head as lawmaker threatens to hold up contract‘ starts with “the complicated IT system supporting the fleet’s maintenance infrastructure still falls far short of expectations” is an eye opener, but it is not the IT systems (no matter how defunct they are) that is the issue, it is the ownership of certain IP systems in the plane, the patents themselves that are now the issue. It is not “some lawmakers criticized the terms of Lockheed’s arrangement with the government, saying overly generous intellectual property agreements threaten to lock Lockheed into a wasteful long-term profit machine with limited accountability” even though it is certainly an issue that is the setting, no it is “Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) threatened to hold up a multibillion-dollar contract if fundamental questions aren’t resolved” that is the issue, yes having multi billion dollars in sales held up is one part way to go, for some of these buyers with a few billion in their pocket, looking at alternatives will be the coarse course they could be sailing, this gives additional problems for Lockheed Martin and the US government is setting the stage as it has the inner lane in this skating race, the problem for Lockheed Martin is that the opposition they face are Russians (who are coming with the Su-35 and the Su-57), apparently NATO sees the Sukhoi Su-57 as a bit of a felon, so anything can happen. China is coming with the J-31, according to some it is a copy of the F-35 (source: Business Insider) yet it comes without IP and Patent battles, so the copy will be out without a politician stopping production on elemental questions not being answered. In addition, its unit cost is $70 million, whilst the F-35 is between $77 million and $108 million, the cost price of the more expensive version implicitly states ‘including engine‘, so there is that to consider as well.

There is however a more serious note to the F-35 and the Washington Post gets there when we see: “Carolyn Nelson, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman, said the government is working on a new technical data package that was not a part of the initial F-35 contract, as well as a separate “performance-based” contract for logistics support“, you see the issue we see here is not merely IP and patents, it is the situation where government is yielding the floor to local business. If we accept the mess that the US has made in regards to 5G and Huawei, whilst we accept the words of Alex Younger (MI-6) “Alex is giving us the national need and the premise that another government should not have ownership of infrastructure this important“, something I mentioned in ‘Tic Toc Ruination‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/12/06/tic-toc-ruination/) almost a year ago. That setting is crucial, as such when you have a national product called ‘Defence‘ why on earth would you let that reside with a global player like Lockheed Martin? I get the idea that the avionics are a bit of a call, yet the IT systems are a larger debate, basically America has large needs with Lockheed Martin, so what happens when the well dries when the US debt becomes a noose around the nations neck? Do you think Lockheed Martin is sitting still? I do not expect that Russia or China ever having a piece of Lockheed Martin, but the UAE, Saudi Arabia? If we take premise to the situation ‘the premise that another government should not have ownership of infrastructure this important‘ the point of view I am taking is a lot less theoretical, is it?

And when we consider: “Air Force estimates that most of a given aircraft’s long-term cost actually comes from keeping it flight worthy. Manufacturers are keenly aware of this, with companies such as Boeing launching whole business units focused on maintenance and repair” we should be wondering why the Air force is striking out, not out like in ‘too bad, let’s try again‘ but in the way that the batsman asks ‘where on earth is the playing field‘, I get it, some jobs are too specific, but is that not the Air force focal point? That in light of the procurement: “the Pentagon has been buying jets in greater quantities in order to get the average price down. They recently finalized a $34 billion agreement that defense officials described as “the largest procurement in the Department’s history.” The deal brought the F-35’s price per plane below $80 million ahead of schedule“, so when you consider that buying 2400 planes (at the very least) got the price down, what math was done on fixing and maintaining these birds? 2400 planes imply 100-250 squadrons, it implies no less than 200-500 repair and maintenance teams, it implies that these people need to be schooled and as they come up short, the move of Boeing starts making sense in a real way, so how much additional costs are involved there? Let’s not forget that the US is currently at minus $23,000 billion (-$23 trillion), we might see the victorious ‘Yohza’ on them reducing the price of a bird, but how much debt, interests and cost of maintenance was seemingly overlooked?

In all this, the Government Accountability Office was seemingly not heard clearly enough, we get this when we consider “the program is having trouble keeping the F-35’s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time” and that is before we consider the maintenance staff, their training and the setting of spending money before the elements are all adjusted for. So as the article ends with ““if we are missing parts and can’t get our jets airborne, our ability to deliver combat effects on this aircraft is significantly diminished,” said Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, the Pentagon’s F-35 program executive“, I merely wonder what other options were overlooked, that’s fair is it not?

You see when we are considering the upgrades and the adjustment to technical flaws in the hardware, the IT systems become a very real part of it all, oh and any person telling you that the IT is OK and there are not issues, will be my reason to introduce you to a liar. For that you merely have to look at DELL and their setting of laptops, I have had two laptops, both delivered on the same day, and both needing separate upgrades before I got them delivered to their respected users, not different systems, no identical systems! So when we see “we are missing parts and can’t get our jets airborne” in light of software glitches, it becomes a very real thing, the F-35 might be the final straw of short sighted management, whilst asking for the moon. Even as in the past operators like Boeing and Saab decided not to play along in light of bias towards the F-35, we see an evolving matter where they will grasp the events that surround the F-35 as a way to show nations that they have what it takes, in addition, there are outstanding offers from France (Dassault Aviation), it was the initial offer to a much larger degree to train technicians in the fields of service, training and operations that might swing previous missed hits, and no matter how we slice it, Lockheed Martin might be looking at the US as a sole customer soon enough, what a change IP and IT systems can make, even in two-seater planes.

I believe that the over grasp in the 2004-2014 era is now coming back to bite the eager who signed certain agreements. In light of the fact that the F-35 fleet is mission capable only 30% of the time should worry Lt. Gen. Eric Fick a little.

And even as the F-35 might be the odd duck out, the words of Loren Thompson stating “The struggle over IP between the government and defense contractors is likely to go on indefinitely. If you own the information, you can largely shape the future of the system” might be valid in the commercial world, but Lockheed Martin is in the defence world, the rules are a little different there, feel free not to believe me, but in light of The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and their push to “prevent a future situation like the one now facing the F-35 program — and by extension, American service members and taxpayers“, here we see that the letter to congress by POGO executive director Danielle Brian might become a swing and a Jack, so whilst POGO seeks the optional “It would also allow the government to seek alternative suppliers should the original contractor fail to live up to expectations“, we see more than a victory, the entire Huawei issue might push for this solution, which would make several nations queasy on the F-35 solution they heralded.

The F-35 is showing me the one solution that mattered to the wrong people, it was greed overjoyed and that is about to gain the sunlight and limelight others wanted to keep out of consideration.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics

Uber driving facts

It seems that people do not like Dara Khosrowshahi that much, it all started with Jamal Khashoggi and now ever the Guardian staff member Edward Helmore adds to this with: “Khashoggi, a Saudi national resident in the US, and a severe critic of the Saudi regime who wrote for the Washington Post, was murdered in Istanbul last year after visiting the Saudi Arabian consulate there. His body was dismembered and disposed of“, it is the part ‘His body was dismembered and disposed of‘, that part cannot be proven and in light of that we also have ‘was murdered in Istanbul last year after visiting the Saudi Arabian consulate there‘, at best we can use these sentenced with the added word of ‘alleged‘. That is the foundation, anything else is a joke, we have laws and we seemingly (at least the media) uses the law to hopefully get better interviews by incorporating slander (as I personally see it), by using the name of Aggy Calamari, UN essay writer the writer thinks he can just marginally add the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia into this mix by stating: “His death has been described by Agnès Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, as a “deliberate, premeditated execution” that warrants further investigation into the responsibility of the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman“, you see, there is no evidence of killings. I am not digressing; I believe that a bad fate has befallen Jamal Khashoggi, although one can argue that he is 97% more known after than before is long term absentee. When we in what is (laughingly) called the free west, can we claim that part when we just apply laws on a mediocre level? By the way, the article is (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/11/uber-jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-mistake-dara-khosrowshahi)

And the part where Aggy makes a jump from Istanbul to a Saudi Crown prince with “warrants further investigation into the responsibility of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman“, even as the article did not reminiscent on it, the truth is that the report is using: “The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, the Washington Post has reported. The Post said US officials expressed high confidence in the CIA assessment, which contradicts Saudi government assertions that he was not involved.” something a collection of papers have been using since that report was given freedom to fly anywhere. You see, I have an issue with “US officials expressed high confidence in the CIA assessment“, now we can bid high and low with the CIA, but they are the people who instigated the silver briefcase tour with Colin Powell, at least they had graphics in that assessment, can anyone tell me where those Iraqi WMD’s were? And why was it by some laughingly referred to as Operation Whatever? So before we give any level of certainty to the CIA, we better be sure that the right people are looking at that data.

All issues that Aggy Calamari should have been aware of, yet her report was laden with CIA elements.

And now we get to the attack on Dara Khosrowshahi “In an interview with Axios on HBO, broadcast on Sunday, Khosrowshahi was asked about the Uber board member Yasir al-Rumayyan, a director of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is the company’s fifth-biggest investor“, which is followed by another assumption “He was seized, killed and dismembered by a Saudi hit squad“, we cannot prove any of that, and why is that? There is no body, all matters are subject to supposition, the Guardian refused to follow supposition when it came to Grenfell, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), you know that building where ‘Grenfell Tower blogger threatened with legal action by council after writing about safety concerns‘, coming from a warning letter from solicitor, Vimal Sama, dated 25 July 2013 and addressed to Francis O’Connor, accusing him of “defamatory behaviour” and “harassment.”, I reckon that the entire matter is off hand as the building looks a nice charcoal black, you know that building in North Kensington, yet when it comes to one journalist, and one the bulk of the planet does not give a hoot about, we see supposition on top of supposition.

One could even argue that HBO, after the finale of Game of Thrones, HBO needed a new channel for emotions, and Axios seemingly provided. My point of position I clear, I do not know who did what, because Jamal Khashoggi was never found, we can assume that he was killed, at present he is merely missing (murdered requires additional evidence) but we cannot prove any of it. In case of Axios, there is a simpler situation, the setting was loaded before the interview and Dara Khosrowshahi has handed a curveball that he tried to ‘laugh off’ or diminish. It was his interview on HIS Company, on this there was mention of one of his board members, a Saudi individual named Yasir al-Rumayyan, director for the Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. The entire article that was on the interview of Dara Khosrowshahi was washed into another article (trying to) slap the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia around, I think that the articles writer Edward Helmore made a few mistakes, getting into Journalism might be one of them. So whilst we reminisced on ‘American intelligence agencies concluded that it was ordered by Prince Mohammed‘ my request becomes simple ‘Can we please see that evidence?‘, because not unlike the entire WMD issue that was apparently happening in Iraq, I will be able to punch holes into this issue as well.

Oh, and I was not talking about that flimsy piece we saw in Aggy’s essay, I want to see all the raw data available, perhaps I will be turned around, more likely than not, we see the need for turning heads away from other matters, we have seen it before, but I am willing to investigate the evidence (curiosity killed this cat, miaow).

The fact that makes this entire matter so interesting is that this one cat Jamal Khashoggi gets all the capture and the 231 journalists have been arrested after July 15, 2016 in Turkey get ZERO words from pretty much ANY newspaper around the world. Whilst Mehmet Akif Öztürk was jailed for 8 years and nine months in February this year, his colleague Turgut Usul (presenter) has been jailed since January 2018 pending trial. Oh and perhaps someone can find out what crimes Nazlı Ilıcak did, he was sentenced to life in prison with solitary confinement. I wonder how many journalists are out there what crime a publisher/journalist has to undertake to find himself in a lifetime of solitary confinement. Perhaps Axios could look into that, they seemingly need an emotional side in there broadcasts now that HBO has ended its game of thrones.

I wonder how long it takes form the people to wake up shouting some stupid slogan involving Jamal Khashoggi whilst there are issues out there that are a lot worse and in light of the diminished value of journalists, the entire mass is getting crazy shouting: ‘A pigeon is pooping on the street‘ whilst one corner from that place someone is shooting pigeons left, right and centre. I wonder if the who is shouting the claim so that no one is watching the one shooting all the pigeon’s one street further.

I wonder if Jamal Khashoggi realises that his value allegedly dead is seemingly 1000 times higher than when he was still writing some column in the Washington Post.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

It started with a meme

Yes, I ignored the impeachment news for the longest of time, until the act is there, there is no impeachment. Just for the numbers people, this would be the 5th presidential path to impeachment, John Tyler (10) got his overturned 127-83, Richard Nixon (37) resigned before proceedings began and we got Andrew Johnson (17) and Bill Clinton (42) who both did impeached, by the way, I will forever have issues with a girl who keeps a sperm covered dress out of the laundry unless it was intentional the fact that she intentionally kept it for 9 months, and that is all I have to say on that subject. Now we get to the 45th President Donald Trump. When we look beyond the ‘grabbed her by the pussy‘ issues, we see a stage of bad decisions again and again, oh and I am a Republican at heart, so I am not giving you democratic rhetoric.

The first one is his inability to use social media correctly, even if we ignore the grammar issues on covfefe (aka coffee), we see the foundation of a person who apparently states his own frame of mind in all the wrong ways. In addition to this we see his choices on what to tweet, GQ magazine gave us in addition ‘The CIA Reportedly Pulled Its Top Spy From Russia Because Trump Can’t Keep His Mouth Shut‘ (at https://www.gq.com/story/cia-pulled-russia-spy-because-trump), this is actually the very first moment when impeachment became a reality, when an elected official cannot keep proper national security in line, the entire presidency becomes an issue and doubly so when the transgressor of national security is the President himself. Even if he did not do it, the stage of ‘is it more likely than not‘ has been met and for national security that is enough.

Musical chairs with clowns and politicians

The meme did not strike a chord because of John Oliver, even if he is a well-deserved comedian with a critical side towards politics. It was Jon Steward with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund bill (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/29/trump-sign-9-11-victim-compensation-fund-bill-first-responders/1835550001/), where he addressed a nearly empty congress. The idea that congress would not be there to give support to a bill where firefighters knowingly met certain doom is just beyond acceptable, from my point of view; those who were not there should be named and shamed for years to come. It must be mentioned that President Trump signed it into law and that might be the best thing he has done in his presidency.

The impeachment process continues as I get only an hour ago: “House investigators heard from Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia adviser“, the Washington Post also gave us: “Trump renewed his call to unmask the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry“, the fact is not that he wants to know the whistle blower, it will be about the materials that the whistle blowers (plural) are bringing. The additional fact that we get: “Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who is scheduled to appear Thursday under subpoena” that the mess is a lot larger, the mess that hits the media is not a mess that we could avoid, the issue is that this mess should not have existed in the first place. The call from the democrat from Massachusetts is not to be taken lightly: “Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) shared a link to an article about Cheney’s comments. He argued that within the past week, Trump has “endangered our troops,” “allowed ISIS to regroup,” “abandoned our allies” and “empowered” the leaders of Russia and Syria. McGovern used another name for the Islamic State“, basically his own fat tweeting fingers got him into this mess. The foundation of what a fashion magazine brings (GQ) is the cornerstone for a much larger issue, the fact that the president of the United States of America is the national security issue is something America has (as far as I can tell) never faced before.

It all comes to blows with “Republicans have seized on a ruling that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) cannot participate in Monday’s deposition of Hill as they continue to argue the process should be open to the public“, for those in the dark, watch the movie called the Post, this is a direct stage where Republicans wanted things out of the media, there the issue was: “With help from editor Ben Bradlee, Graham races to catch up with The New York Times to expose a massive cover-up of government secrets that spans three decades and four U.S. presidents“, the Pentagon papers showed levels of folly never before imagined, and there was a need to go public, however, the Pentagon papers was about a stage 4 years after the war, in the end proving that the Johnson Administration “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” source NY Times. this time it is different, these are events now playing out, even as the Russian news got out AFTER the agent was safe, the fact that the president is part of a national security danger is just too unacceptable and before this goes to the public, the sources must be heard and vetted behind closed doors, I fully agree and I see the wisdom in that, even if the current president and the current administration does not.

I believe this administration made massive errors in the US China trade wars, and even more errors in the entire Huawei ban, the most visible one is that no evidence was ever presented that Huawei is a national security risk, because of the unproven accusations they are wrong, this is different in the UK where the head of MI6 (Alex Younger) gave the clear premise that no government should be dependent on essential infrastructure from foreign suppliers, which does make sense, but then they order their hardware from Finland and Sweden, so there is still some level of issue in place. the entire matter comes to blows in different ways as the larger group of EU nations (Germany being the latest) has kept the doors open for Huawei, now we get to the stage that America feared, Huawei will enable these nations to make faster headway in Europe, expected losses for the US will go between $5 Billion and $8 Billion in the next three years alone. My own expected IP would be available for implementation by Q2 2021 (if Huawei accepts), implying that there will be a boost to the 400 million small business owners outside of the United States, leaving an optional $4 billion out of reach of the US in that time frame alone, the moment my projection is proven values should double, in addition to that the entire telecom service model will change to a larger degree, giving the small business owners a lot more options to choose from, that part is also part of the impeachment.

When the economic models under this administration fail, the democrats will add that entire cart (whether valid or not) to the blame game. Whether we consider this or not, the current president will to some degree be blamed for not being a Guardian of the Economy. The Huawei and China trade pacts are merely one part in this. This administration has pushed the American deficit to the highest in history, even if we accept that the bulk of that failure are the American corporations who became complacent and flaccid, it is more likely than not that the democratic party will voice this in another way. In addition, the guilty of life for Americans have only gotten worse. At present it seems that the current president failed in at least 6 of his 7 roles, as far as I can tell the other impeachment had less on those presidents, we can argue that an adulterer is supposed to lie about those actions, so let’s not go there.

The roles

Chief Diplomat. Failed, the China trade war, I believe that the acts against Iran were justified.

Chief Legislator. Undecided

Party Leader. Failed, his racist tweets are a clear example and they are not the only one.

Chief Executive. Failed, openly hostile to challenges, his manner towards the National Security Advisors as well as his issue with academic opposition makes him a failed chief executive, He used 4 National Security Advisors in ONE term, which is a record as well.

Chief of State. Failed, the G-20 summit, as well as his dealings with the media gives him a fail mark.

Commander in Chief. Failed, the actions in Syria call his military insight and decision making into doubt to the largest degree.

Chief of Guardian of the Economy. Failed, Chinese trade war could have been prevented, outside factors (like iterative corporations merely added to the failure) and of course there were a few fiscal blunders as well.

The entire national security issue, as well as the connections that are being investigated should have sparked impeachment well over a year ago, perhaps the entire CIA matter ended up being the straw that broke the impeachment camel’s back. #Justsaying 

Yet this entire matter is far from over, the Guardian reported: “Donald Trump’s secretary of defense said on Sunday the Pentagon would cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, while cautioning that Trump may try to restrict his disclosure of information“, whilst CNN gives us “Democrats also face extra scrutiny over their strategy as they race to prove that Trump abused his power by seeking election dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden from the President of Ukraine“, the question becomes why focus on strategy? Are the actions valid or not? Can a case be made or not? That is the mother lode of impeachment. Yet the fact that even Republicans are now more and more in support of the Ukraine investigations are making the map of red a hazardous place, it means that not only is there every chance of the next elected president being a Democrat, they have a real chance of winning both congress and the senate in 2020, this would push republicans out of play for 4 years, 4 years on the sidelines with their only option to play interference to some degree.

This was a race with growing chances; the entire impeachment matter merely hastened the shift from red to blue. At present there are numbers giving rise to the chance that the republicans will lose 7 senate seats, with an additional 4 unknowns that could optionally make the next election the biggest loss for Republicans in the Senate since 1936. In that year Democrat Joseph Robinson ended with 74 seats, I am willing to wager my last $1 that there is an option that the Democrats are at present optionally in a position to get 75 seats; it would be a new record. Republican Nebraska has one small advantage as Ben Sasse was openly critical of President Trump, in 1936 they were independent, this time around there is a chance for Chris Janicek to become Senator for the Democrats if he gets the right support, and of course if he plays his cards right.

Impeachment did no start with a meme, but my look at the shift of comedians and politicians did, when national wisdom and honour comes from a man like Jon Steward (never my favourite comedian) we stop and pause to reassess our values and we look at what we hold to be endearing and holy to us, holy values are not religious values, our family tends to be holy, our achievements are enshrined, but the steps we take to enable the next generation (usually our kids) are our step towards holy grace, we all want to leave something behind that lasts and when the clowns are running the asylum (congress) and Donald McDonalds has a large white Kentucky Fried Chicken mansion on Pennsylvania avenue (a little upstream from the FBI building, we see the folly of choices and we tend to demand change, in the case of America it took almost 4 years to figure out the folly beyond the minimum required degree.

When we seriously consider replacing Donald Trump with Jon Steward as President of the United States, at that point we realise that our values need to be restored, and we will elect whoever will give value to the values that truly matter, social media be damned.

I believe that there is a larger need; not merely the separating from church and state, the separation from corporations and state is now becoming a larger imperative, especially with a national debt that at present exceeds $22.8 trillion dollars with absolutely no plan in sight to repay any of it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Update to include monsters

I was thinking of some of the old games I used to play, especially one I never mastered. The game was released in 1985; I played the Atari ST edition. The game was called ‘Balance of Power‘ and it was basically the east versus the west and through the interface you could interfere (take control of) the balance of power between east and west. In the end I got overly comfortable to the expression “You have ignited a nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure“, yes diplomacy was never my forte. There was an update 5-10 years later when the 1990 edition was launched, I never played that edition.

I believe that the world is ready for a true update of that game. When we add the atrocities by Turkey only a few days ago, when we add the Khashoggi debacle and the impact of social media and spin doctors at the heads of media outlets we see that the world has changed to a much larger degree and the impact of what actually could happen is perhaps worthy of a new game. We need to see and play with the impact of ISIS minded forces as political parties play with the impact on a global stage. The fact that the USA is no longer a real superpower and the fact that the treasury of Saudi Arabia, the consumer base of India as the technology footing of China are much larger influences than foreseen; we get to debate a much larger spectrum of what the balance of power looks like. I believe that when the people see the impact of these elements, we see that the world reshapes almost like some Sim City version with larger repercussions. When we consider the global powers of Google and Facebook we see that the game of world politics gets filtered by economic markers. The evolution of what was once regarded as the ‘Balance of Power‘ is optionally now the stage for a larger form of balance (or is that a forum of balance) staged in a collection of seesaws where one resets the balance of two others. the old balance of power staged on the bear and eagle are outdone, less valid, the entire proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran clearly shows that and the impact of the media as they filter the news is also a larger impact and we have never been able to truly look at the impact there is, hence the idea of a new Balance of power, optionally called: ‘the Power to balance powers‘, the optional new truth that Turkey is the fourth power to instigate multiple genocides (America as it degraded the population of Native American tribes to zero, as well as the Catholic powers who removed well over a dozen civilisations, and Russian combined actions in 1931 and 1932) is something we need to consider in a much larger scope.

It is this stage where we look at the news and we are confronted with ‘The Kurds’ commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin‘, I have no way of seeing how this plays out, but there will be larger repercussions on many stages. It is time that the youth takes a serious look at the large issues that their parents are dumping on their doorstep, we need to figure things out and it is time that this is done out in the open, no longer hidden behind a screen of media filters and silencing diplomatic teams as they are trying to remain ‘non-accountable’ towards actions chosen.

The problem is not merely that we ignore the actions; the larger stage is that all kinds of ‘compromises’ are being made for the long term and the next generation needs to learn what those repercussions are and I believe that the right video game could do this. The previous generation was apparently taught that evil should never be allowed to win, yet 25 years after WW2 we all became complacent and we thought that evil was gone, evil never is and we all have optionally become part of evil as we condone the actions of many, hide behind the shallow needs that social media offers and we remain unaware as the news is decided by the wealthy (read: corporations) as they became the shareholders, stake holders and advertisers; they get to tell the media and the news what is important, what is filtered out. That is the stage where the balance of power can educate a lot of people just how dangerous our status is at present, not dangerous as if a war comes, we are beyond that, I mean dangerous as we have set the stage for multiple generations of anger, hatred and feelings of revenge, and a growing lack of tolerance towards one another. It is almost like a 4 seat seesaw and each of these seats is the balancing point for another seesaw, it becomes a game of trying to stay balanced, it also means that there is a lack of movement available, which implies that some parties will be about claiming actions when none (or that specific one) was not available.

when we see the media, we are pushed to the question ‘What is the omitted Information that Remains Missing?‘, this is a spin on two levels, the first is ‘Which question should have been asked?’, which brings us to ‘Has a quote or testimonial been taken out of context?‘ this is harder to answer, but it is an influence, which gets influenced by: ‘Is someone approaching the issue from a different set of values?‘, as well as the stated answers ‘Are the claims supported by well-done research as well as based on reliable sources?‘ and that is the foundation for merely looking at the media how it filters information, the entire stage becomes a much harder game to program, yet should it not be done because of that?

And that is all before we get to the political and diplomatic stage on “If the answer is not helpful, can we change the question to make it so?” these two elements interacting in media causes all kinds of communication (read: presentation) issues whilst both sides remain intentionally ignorant to the equation. The next generation needs to be educated on what a mess this generation is creating. That part is seen (only in part) with: ‘12 Hours. 4 Syrian Hospitals Bombed. One Culprit: Russia‘ (source; NY times), with the quote “The Russian Air Force has repeatedly bombed hospitals in Syria in order to crush the last pockets of resistance to President Bashar al-Assad, according to an investigation by The New York Times“, which was set to events on May 5th 2019, many newspapers gave that information when it happened, the repeat from the NY Times gives us the quote “Russia’s position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has shielded it from scrutiny and made United Nations agencies reluctant to accuse the Russian Air Force of responsibility“, this is important as the United Nations Security council is now presented as an umbrella that offers a shield from actions it was supposed to stop, a stage we knew existed, but not to the degree we see now.

So when we see the NY Times quote: “Nabad al Hayat Surgical Hospital in southern Idlib Province served around 200,000 people before being destroyed in a Russian airstrike on May 5” which comes with assisted high resolution graphics of 40 mega pixels or better whilst we look at the exploding hospital, we wonder how lucky that photographer was, or perhaps someone knew in advance what would happen, we are left with too many questions and no real explanation that fits the morality and values within us.

It is becoming more and more important that we see the world as it is now being pushed by the monsters among us, we like to set the stage to merely Iran, Turkey, ISIS and Hezbollah, yet the real monsters are the ones claiming to fight the atrocities and in the end merely facilitate to it, it goes beyond the wear events, the technological feats we see in regards to 5G is also a global impact, and we can go on and on on all the events that are part of the stage, and it would soon become too complex. Perhaps that too would be the strength on any new version of ‘Balance of Power‘ the fact that too many issues are intertwined for several reasons. Yet when we add greed to the mix, the game becomes awfully transparent, add to that the actions by some making claims that they cannot prove; the created stage of carefully phrased denials, all out in the open and when we ask specifics we are left with half-baked answers that are not answers at all. This is a part that plays a role in all this, we seem to forget that governments have a duty to properly inform us, yet in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues. It is almost an applied variation from Mark M. Lowenthal ‘Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy‘, the application of stages towards the drive of any policy (governmental or not) is also baked into the media and is subject to what we are allowed to see. Consider that impact, as well as the impact of data on the whole, it might become a massively complex new game, yet when we are able to show the impact of these elements to the people, we would optionally get a much more informed person, one who ends up asking the right questions, the questions that politicians, CEO’s and CFO’s fear. When that part comes out in the open, we get a first stage to truly fix things.

Yet with my sense of humour, we should make a lot more space to include the stages that Darrell Huff introduced us to when we were given ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘, and this gets us to today, we know that the balance of power is not merely what we have, what we get and how we get there. There is an internal stage where political power is also set to the stage of people in jobs (as enabled consumers) that was proven ages ago. Yet how that stage is managed is an entirely different matter. the pushed stage where enablers, facilitators and consumers become the ‘have group’ the rest will be the ‘have not’ group.

As we got told today (source: the conversation), we see this stage in Australia, “Centrelink generally requires evidence of looking for 20 jobs per month in order to keep receiving Newstart“, that sounds fine in theory, yet in the applied practice we see that the job search government links to a job search collector, whilst the seeding player of this group is another matter. So when we look at IT jobs in Sydney we see: ‘594 jobs with 715 positions‘, with the largest bulk (over 90%) being Adzuna, yet the reviews from some are stating that this source is riddled with ‘scam’ mentions, as well as overly positive claimed stages. There is a larger issue afoot and there is not enough scrutiny, even as the people can go to really valid places like Indeed, LinkedIn and Jora; the choice we see in the governmental site calls for question of scrutiny.

Why on earth did I mention that?

We see that the balance of power is set to what is done and what can be achieved, yet when we are confronted with a stage that is not available or realistic, how will we interact? When we are set in a stage of age discrimination on a stage where our issues are not heard, or set in a long winded stage of registration where the IT parts fails too often, the government gets to optionally report that no complaints were received. In Australia the mess with Centrelink data matching, the failing Biometrics Identification Services, the UK failures on IT in the NHS and the list goes on where the costs keeps on adding billion after billion, that directly impacts a government, its budget and its waning options, very much issues on a larger scale and the claim we see with “aggressive ICT outsourcing has led to agencies being left at the mercy of external vendors“, whilst there is no proof that growing the internal options would not have resolved the issue. It is a stage where corporations have a hold over the government, pushing cheaper solutions (another reference to age discrimination get pushed to the backbench and no solutions come forward. this is a direct application of the earlier mentioned ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, which in the application of the Balance of Power means that corporations have a much larger option to disable or limit government actions. That is what the impact of corporatocracy is. In the original games there was no real corporatocracy, nowadays there is. The US is perhaps the strongest example and the impact we see in the FDA and DEA (see yesterday’s article) as well as the ATF limited through the powers of the NRA and by corporations addressing attachments to governmental needs we see a larger impact of where governments show limitations on the world stage.

Yes, the entire game has become a lot more complex which in the end leads us to the question, is any application of the ‘Balance of Power‘ still actual and realistic? That is partially seen in 2013 when the NY Times gave us: “Eight major companies, led by Google and Microsoft, are calling for tighter controls on surveillance of their customers’ data by governments“, yet the opposite was never put in place, the existence of Cambridge Analytics, the application of selling consumer data as well as the abuse of data collection through apps has never been stopped. We get all kinds of options to market through mined data giving a larger rise to corporatocracy, whilst the media remains silent on the dangers of corporatocracy. So when we see ‘This is what happens when corporations run the government‘ (Washington Post, March 2019) and ‘Australia’s march towards corporatocracy‘ (the conversation Feb 2017) we see merely two mentions on Google search page one, whilst he situation set the stage that there should have been dozen of clear mentions and investigations, yet the media seemingly have almost zero mentions, how is that? I think that there is a clear stage where corporations do not want to see any mention if possible and as I mentioned earlier ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, and here we see how ‘through corporations to the media‘ is directly inhibiting exposure. The Balance of Power would be an awesome game if we can incorporate it into a new game, especially when we see how the media and corporations make sure that a lot of the information will not be shown, active censorship in nations that proclaim freedom of speech and freedom of expression, when you own the printing house you get to tell the people what they care about, we apparently forgot about that small part again and again.

It is the beginning of a rigged game where the next generation gets to pay for the screw ups of the current generation, feel free to ignore or deny that, yet when we consider the US with a debt of $21 trillion, the EU has around € 10.1 trillion and on a global scale we see that the Global debt had reached an all-time high of $184 trillion in January 2019, we see that the Balance of Power is a term that has become debatable, a stage where banks are basically in charge, limiting or directing the options that any government is allowed to consider. The original game never anticipated that reality, but there you have it. John Perkins tried to inform the audience with ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004)’, yet even after Berrett-Koehler published it, gaining an instant bestseller, whilst the major U.S. media refused to discuss Confessions or the fact that, because of it, terms such as “EHM” and “corporatocracy” were now appearing on college syllabi. A stage where the media claiming to advocate freedom of speech, whilst we see that its absence is allegedly corporation controlled, a direct (still alleged) piece of evidence showing that whatever balance of Power we envision, when it is set to nations and governments we get less than 50% of the players in view, making a larger injustice to the people.

In this, I wonder who exactly the real monsters are; are they identified by the acts of nations like Turkey, Iran and North Korea, are they the acts by organisations like ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas, or are the corporations and the media they control a lot less innocent in all this. Will the next generation be ready for what we, the current generation have facilitated for?

I honestly do not know.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Not a small house for boys

Yes, we all have moments when we want to avoid events, the call to ignore the European Song Festival in Tel Aviv, The Summer Olympics, 1980, the British Empire boycott (1764-1766), some become successful, and some do not. the problem is that it is not always possible to prove its validity up front, in one case, only after that disgruntled clambake (1764) did the boycott succeed and the United States of America were born. Yet when we see the Dutch times (at https://nltimes.nl/2019/10/08/mp-wants-netherlands-boycott-g20-summit-saudi-arabia) are we confronted with: “SP parliamentarian Sadet Karabulut wants the Netherlands to boycott the G20 summit in Saudi Arabia next year“, with the most outstanding reason “The Saudi regime is too controversial, Karabulut said, referring to the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi“, all whilst evidence of Saudi governmental evidence was never shown, merely implied (by that well known UN essay writer).

And it does not end there, Socialist party member Sadet Karabulut was (fortunate for me) rather stupid to boot, when we see: “Crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman is most likely responsible for cutting journalist Jamal Khashoggi into pieces“, it is an assumption, there is no evidence at all that he was responsible, there is no beyond reasonable doubt, moreover, there is no evidence of the ‘cutting into pieces bit‘ in any way as the body was never found. We just do not know what happened, and to let some socialist party hack decide what a nation does and what a nation attends, especially as this (if ever proven) was the act of an individual, yet not of any government (it cannot ever be proven), the stage is merely that of a Dutch Socialist of Kurdish origins that sets the stage of a boycott without proper staging in evidence. In addition, the Netherlands had only been invited as a courtesy, the EU is a member, the Dutch are not, in previous years, HRH Queen Maxima was invited as a representative for her work for the United Nations. more important, the Netherlands are merely one of 27 participants and even as the complete EU decides to boycott it, it would in the end be a really stupid dick move (as the expression goes), however I am quite willing to attend (in their place) and set the stage to get construction jobs away from Dutch players, as well as jobs currently with Smit Tak as well as Nedlloyd (via Maersk) and hand them over to Salini Impregilo and the Evergreen group. I do not think that the Dutch government will mind, and if they do, they can ask Sadet Karabulut to explain herself (phone: +31 88 243 5555). It is time that wannabe limelight seekers like Sadet Karabulut learn that there is a cost of doing business, especially when they make claims that cannot be proven in any way. In addition when you consider that she was elected in 2013, where was her call to boycott the G20 in 2015 (G20 Antalya summit), we can accept that her Kurdish origins would oppose any international stage towards thousands of murdered Kurds, as well as dozens of executed journalists would call for that boycott of the Turkish G20, yet Google search does not reveal anything there, does it?

Boycotting an event is one of the harshest actions there are, even if they are not always successful, they do tend to give a larger rise to awareness and to some degree that is fine, yet when this is done in a stage where evidence is not there, when the case is too largely based on speculation and tainted presentations the entire matter falls apart and at that point a boycott could work in a very different direction. consider that companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Smit Tak (aka Smit Salvage), P&O Nedlloyd (part of Maersk shipping), Unilever and a few others all have sizeable interests in Saudi Arabia, I personally think that politicians better have their facts, ducks and lack of cluelessness clearly on a row. The Dutch brainless rambles of politicians like JanMaat need to be a thing of the past. When the bad thing happens and two of more of these larger players get asked to leave, whilst their competitor walks in, that loss is massive and runs into the billions over time. There is at this point not one economy that can take a hit of that size and to that degree.

We might all shout that it is not about business and you are not wrong, yet when you falsely accuse a party and that evidence cannot be presented, you the presenter become the problem. Even as we can state that Sadet Karabulut was merely seeking the limelight does not mean she cannot get it, I believe that there is great limelight to begotten when Maersk (P&O Nedlloyd) loses the Saudi jobs and they are given to Evergreen shipping, do you think for one minute that Maersk, P&O Nedlloyd, and Smit Salvage directors will be appreciative of the brainless actions of Sadet Karabulut? It’s a sellers’ market in this unstable economy and the Persian Gulf is a treasure trove for several players, and when unfounded actions are called for whilst the outstanding hypocrisy can be proven several times over it all becomes a much larger problem. We can argue on the fine lines in the accusation, yet the fact is that most likely nothing will ever be proven, the lack of evidence is just too big a deal, and whilst you consider the life of one journalist, consider how many died in Turkey, how many are in prison in Turkey and why they ended on one pile or the other. In all that Saudi Arabia should not be a blip on anyone’s radar in that regard.

I can understand that the choice: “Last year the Netherlands cancelled a trade mission to Saudi Arabia due to Khashoggi’s disappearance“, yet there is a difference between a trade mission and a G20 summit, the stakes are a lot higher and when we decide not to attend a place where optional informal deals could be made and informal changes could be proposed, not being there also implies that no success will follow. You have to be in it to win it, the simplest of premises. When you have to hide behind ‘most likely responsible‘, and ‘It is believed‘ you have nothing to work with. You can decide to boycott, but when it is on unproven actions, you better be ready to accept what happens afterwards, after being in office for almost 13 years Sadet Karabulut should have known better. However, I am most willing to see who wants to take over the Dutch interests all over the Persian Gulf (as an unofficial non-elected global participant seeking coinage for services).

And whilst we see another wave of ‘Justice for Jamal’ new messages on the New York Times, the Business Insider, The Guardian and a whole range of papers, consider the murders of Naji al Jurf, Firas Hammadi, and Ibrahim Abdulkader. They were all clearly murdered (cadaver available) on the 27th of December 2015 in Turkey. The NY Times claimed 6 days ago that Jamal is still owed Justice, what about these three murdered journalists? Why are they not in the NY Times, the Washington Post and a whole range of newspapers every day? Can anyone explain that and in that same regard, why is Sadet Karabulut not speaking out for boycotts regarding these three journalists. Merely three of a much larger list, several dead and many in jail, where are their advocates?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics