peterms

Also see the US "Silk Road Strategy Act", first passed in 1999 - this extract is from the 2006 revision. It sets out clearly that the US sees the energy resources of the region as vital to US interests, and that involvement in countries in the region, and the maintenance of military bases, is required to pursue US energy interests.

The involvement of the US in Afghanistan has for decades been linked with gas interests. The immediate precipitating cause of the invasion was that they had fallen out with their former friend and protege bin Laden, but Afghanistan's importance as a geographically key part of the exploitation of the oil and gas reserves of the wider region has been a central reason for US interest. This piece, written just after the US attack in 2001, discusses these background issues. The reference to supporting the Taliban as a way to contain Iran is also interesting, in view of the more recent way that Isis has been at times tolerated or supported as another threat to and drain on Iran.

A complex post. Most of what you say is true. The sentiments in the bit I quote, I reject. The money laundering rules are not about money laundering, which the US and others are ok with, but about punishing Iran for not falling into line with the US. The dead man apparently did more than the whole US armed forces to counter Isis. This seems like a very stupid move.

He wasn't. He was sacked for communicating details of the pension scheme investment choices, as I understand it. I don't know why that should be confidential, or disclosure a disciplinary matter. I think no decision has been reached yet on whether the dismissal was lawful.

I'm not sure it makes anyone look bad. If you don't have some claims that are found to be unreasonable, you never really define what the boundary is between reasonable and not reasonable. It's only putting forward an argument, to test it. If the person making the claim seems to have an exaggerated sense of entitlement, I can see people resenting that, but just making a case for something shouldn't be resented.

Yes. The examples that arise in the next few months will perhaps try to establish where things go beyond what is fair and reasonable, and try to draw a line of some kind.

But the impact of deciding that veganism (or rather ethical veganism, which is a different and far less widespread belief) falls under equalities legislation is in part tgat employers should make reasonable adjustments; in other words, that someone holdimg that belief should be treated differently, in some respects and where it relates to that belief. As an example, I would think that someone could request that the employer provide them with a different seat if the existing office furniture contains leather, perhaps. That's not imposing beliefs on others in any strong sense, but it is about requiring them where practicable to make adjustments to arrangements, behaviour, design and so on where it seems reasonable and proportionate to do so.

On that point:

It will be interesting to see what kind of adjustments are considered reasonable. In the case of an employer with a works canteen, for example, it would be reasonable to offer vegan dishes. Would that extend to having a wholly separate food prep area to elimiinate any possibility of vegan dishes being prepared where meat had been prepared? Cost and practicality would come into play. For employers with no canteen but an area where staff can heat up and eat their own food, is it reasonable to create a separate vegan area?

Thing is, Trump may be a sad, comic and incompetent figure, but at least his gut instinct is against ever more military involvement, even if he doesn't manage to rein in all the advisers going the other way. I wonder for example what the response to last year's faked CW incident in Douma would have been if the US president had similar instincts to the hawks - probably a lot worse.

You do him a disservice. Why, only months ago he demonstrated his geopolitical awareness by noting that a lot of goods pass through the port of Dover. We have much to learn from him.

It's a very strange move by the US, and it seems to be a direct result of realising their strategic mistake in killing Iraqis and calling them "an Iranian-backed militia". That move led not only to the storming of the embassy (which the US and compliant media are trying to claim was inspired and guided by Iran), but also reconsideration by the Iraqi parliament of the very presence of US forces in Iraq. Elijah Magnier wrote about this here, just hours before Soleimani was murdered. Presumably the more deranged policy advisers in the US are hoping to provoke Iran into a reaction which can be met with a major escalation by the US, in the hope of somehow retrieving the situation by moving to all-out conflict.

I'm just wondering how you, er...no, forget it.

Are you talking about raw celery, which I see no reason ever to eat except in a post-apocalypse scenario? Finely diced and simmered in good oil with onion and carrot, or with onion and green pepper for those of a Creole persuasion, it's a great base for many dishes.

Got a ham half price, which seemed about right compared to the full price. Good for lots of things. Seems like an end-of-christmas thing. First, boiled in water. Place in big pan in cold water, bring to the boil, as soon as it's boiling discard all the water and replace with fresh cold water (to get rid of the excess salt from the curing). Bring to the boil again, add an onion, carrot, celery, couple of bay leaves, simmer gently for an hour or two, skimming and removing any scum. Remove the ham and leave to cool, keep the stock for soup, maybe lentil, or pea and ham. It makes great soup. I then baked it later, with a glaze made with brown sugar, date syrup, red wine vinegar, and some freshly ground spices: star anise, cumin, coriander, cardamom, cloves, chili. No salt. Put some glaze on, basted every few minutes with a little more - the aim was to have a hint at the edges of the ham, not be drenched in it. Baked for about an hour in a medium oven, about 170. Made a Cumberland sauce: ginger (chopped fresh, or powdered), mustard powder, lemon and orange juice and their rinds in julienne strips, redcurrant jelly, port, all simmered until delicious. Served with homemade chips, and cabbage sauteed in olive oil and a little lemon juice. Lots left over, could be sandwiches, croquettes, served with egg and chips, whatever.

It's algorithms. They commented last year, after some people complained about being "shadow banned", here. They do also intervene with real people making judgements, in response to requests to ban something. This seems very prolific, oddly, in its use against gender-critical feminists and in support of trans rights activists. I'm sure the propaganda operatives of the intelligence services are not shy in requesting some things are removed, given the effort they put into trying to control what we hear about, so I suppose that both algorithms and personal judgement come into play to some extent. Having someone categorised as a "bad faith actor" would be an obvious point of leverage for propagandists. (You may also be aware that Facebook censor on political grounds, and have used the very right-wing Atlantic Council to form judgements on what should be censored).

Leaving aside the silly digs, which I shall try not to respond to: What I can see is that a very large proportion of tweets about the specific issue of the involvement of senior OPCW staff in suppressing evidence are currently invisible, and it seems a small proportion of other tweets are also invisible. I suppose any technical issue would not differentiate between tweets according to type of content, ie political or apolitical. I'm sure that I see more political ones than tweets about cats or hockey or cake, because of who I follow. I do understand that this means that my twitter experience is not a representative cross-section of the whole of twitter. And I do see that a very large proportion of tweets about the OPCW suppression of evidence have gone missing, like a third to a half of some threads. If this proportion is replicated across twitter, then that will be a truly massive amount. Is that what has happened, do you think?

I don't see it happening on all sorts of random threads I've clicked on. Just a coincidence, I expect.

I imagine they will all be restored very soon, in that case.

And yet more censorship of information about this.

Another account being censored. Someone really doesn't want this stuff getting attention.

...and now Twitter is censoring some tweets about all this.

Returning to this issue of the supposed Douma chemical weapons attack, some of the fog is lifting, with the emergence of whistleblowers and leaked documents. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has written a few things on this, including here. This astonishing story, that a supposedly independent and impartial weapons inspectorate has apparently falsified evidence at the behest of the US in order to justify escalating military action against Syria, has received remarkably little coverage. Peter Hitchens has written several things, some of which have been covered by the Mail on Sunday. Newsweek suppressed a report by one of its staff and threatened him with legal action if he tried to run the story. The BBC's correspondent in the Hague, supposedly covering OPCW, doesn't seem to have written about it, though she has managed to post several pictures of dogs. There is a summary of coverage here, including a link to the leaked internal documents from the OPCW which Wikileaks published, including one which instructed the removal of a report from the internal information system which undermined the OPCW report, including removing traces that the document ever existed. Hitchens and others have been trying to get some coverage of this by mainstream outlets like the Guardian and BBC. There was a brief interview with Jonathan Steele on the BBC World Service, but for the most part, there has been a mainstream media blackout of this issue. Clearly the reason is not that it isn't newsworthy. Presumably they have been asked to let the story drop, in the hope that as few people hear about it as possible.

But Jolyon Maugham in his wife's kimono, with his baseball bat, would be more spectacular.