U.S. Politics

[blandy]

8 hours ago, peterms said:

The interim report was covered in the media, often misleadingly, so that where the report said that "chlorinated compounds" were found, headlines referred to chlorine being used, to give the impression that claims of a chemical attack had been substantiated.  Since our media had unquestioningly swallowed the line that a chemical attack had been initiated by the Syrian forces, perhaps they were not keen to explain that the interim report did not demonstrate this, nor press OPCW to be clearer about what it meant by "chlorinated compounds", and the difference between this and chlorine gas.  The aim seems to have been to preserve the official government narrative, not establish the facts.

and

OPCW say here (pdf), in a document from last year,

so if they now say he has never worked for them, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a lie.  Or perhaps they mean that he's not a directly employed staff member and leads their inspection teams while seconded from somewhere else - but if they just say he's never worked for them but don't admit he's an inspection team leader, we can only reasonably conclude that they are seeking to mislead.

But what they should say is whether they accept the report is genuine, or if they consider it to be a fake.  And then if it's genuine, explain why they have concealed it.  It will be very hard to retain their credibility if they don't.

They say he has never worked for them as part of the Syria Douma FFM - my mistake. But I take your point.

I don't take the same view as you write about the Chlorine. The OPCW report as I read it said 

Quote

Based on the levels of chlorinated organic derivatives, detected in several environmental samples gathered at the sites of alleged use of toxic chemicals (Locations 2 and 4), which are not naturally present in the environment, the FFM concludes that the objects from which the samples were taken at both locations had been in contact with one or more substances containing reactive chlorine.

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM—witnesses’ testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses—provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

I completely accept your last comment about the denial - it looks like a non-denial denial - "he wasn't at any time part of the FFM isn't the same as "it's not a genuine document" - that seems to imply it is probably genuine. The reason why it was not used could range from "it doesn't support our preconceived verdict and we need to get something that does" (very bad)  through "internally there's been strong doubt on the nature of the work, let's get a second opinion" (if that were so, you'd expect the actual report to discuss or mention the conflicting possibilities, so still bad) to "We don't want to say so publicly, but he got it badly wrong and has lost his way" (very unlikely) to "it's a fake" (now, also unlikely).

So Yes, there is fog. No one comes out of it well. Like I said earlier - it all makes it impossible to find the actual truth for the likes of us.

[Keyblade]

The absolute state of US politics when one of the furthest left candidates tweets some shit like this:

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

The absolute state of US politics when one of the furthest left candidates tweets some shit like this:

 

Just as a general point, if you want to persuade people, sometimes you have to give them a reason on their terms, on their favoured ground. So if you want to persuade a militaristic, republican, or someone with relatives in the military, or etc. then saying how your "thing" might be beneficial to their interests is much more likely to succeed in persuading them that to say (in this example) "climate change is real and will affect poor people in far off lands really badly" - when the audience doesn't give a stuff about that consequence.

[Keyblade]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just as a general point, if you want to persuade people, sometimes you have to give them a reason on their terms, on their favoured ground. So if you want to persuade a militaristic, republican, or someone with relatives in the military, or etc. then saying how your "thing" might be beneficial to their interests is much more likely to succeed in persuading them that to say (in this example) "climate change is real and will affect poor people in far off lands really badly" - when the audience doesn't give a stuff about that consequence.

I agree, but any other issue other than war would have sufficed. It's especially egregious considering the US is all but gearing up to go to war with Iran (which she has criticized to be fair to her).

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don't take the same view as you write about the Chlorine. The OPCW report as I read it said  

I gather it's accepted that people died from chlorine.  What is disputed is that it was an attack by the Syrian forces.  A possibility that has been aired, horrific as it sounds, is that people were captured and killed, before being moved to the scene of a supposed chemical attack, in order to stage an incident.

The things which are suggested in support of this include the fact that the jihadists have access to chlorine (and sarin, though that wasn't used here); that some of the victims seem to have mucus running upwards across their face, against gravity, as though they were suspended upside down while being exposed to it; prior incidents of hostages being used as human shields and captives being eg suspended in cages and burned alive, suggesting that nothing is off bounds; the obvious strong motive in faking a chemical attack days after Trump had said he would withdraw; the accepted fact that the bodies were moved before being photographed; evidence that the hospital scenes were staged, including from a BBC producer whose twitter account went private after he mentioned this; comparison with other incidents of chlorine poisoning, which have shown that most people are able to escape the gas and suffer non-lethal harm, unlike in this incident; and I'm sure there's stuff I've forgotten.  And of course the leaked report, stating that the hypothesis of chlorine cylinders dropped from the air is simply not credible, in the face of the evidence.

I see on twitter that a search of the UK media for OPCW and Douma for the last week returns zero results.  I don't know whether there is a D notice out, or whether this is self-policing, but it reflects very poorly on our media that they have blanked all mention of this apparently leaked report.

[peterms]

 

[sne]

I hear they've bought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

An Italian guy outside Tesco said so.

[il_serpente]

7 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I agree, but any other issue other than war would have sufficed. It's especially egregious considering the US is all but gearing up to go to war with Iran (which she has criticized to be fair to her).

I think blandy's point is that any other issue than war wouldn't suffice with some of the voters she'd have to convince, unfortunately.  Your second sentence kind of explains why indirectly, because easily half the US public will have bought the Trump administration's claims that Iran is threatening and we need to be prepared to teach them a lesson.

[TheAuthority]

20 hours ago, Michelsen said:

Gilead is near!

Blessed be the fruit!*

 

*Especially sweeter if it's a from a rapist or your brother.

[Keyblade]

2 hours ago, il_serpente said:

I think blandy's point is that any other issue than war wouldn't suffice with some of the voters she'd have to convince, unfortunately.  Your second sentence kind of explains why indirectly, because easily half the US public will have bought the Trump administration's claims that Iran is threatening and we need to be prepared to teach them a lesson.

Which is a reflection of US politics like I said, that she'd even have to do that to garner support. I would say I don't blame her but then I remember there are candidates like Bernie and Tulsi who wouldn't compromise on the principal of regime change war being bad for votes. 

[sne]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Blessed be the fruit!*

 

*Especially sweeter if it's a from a rapist or your brother.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Governor Ivey:

Quote

Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Governor Ivey:

 

The Governor of a State run by Y'allquaeda

[villakram]

With De Balsio now running, any chance you Brits could send Maybot our way for a laugh after the Tories finally get rid?

Edited May 16, 2019 by villakram
crazy hair guy would also work... imagine the BJ jokes!

[peterms]

OPCW confirm the leaked report is genuine, but fail to explain why they suppressed it and allowed false information to be widely disseminated.

From Peter Hitchens.

Quote

A dissenting group of scientists and others recently published online what they say is a report prepared by an employee of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

You can access the report here. http://syriapropagandamedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1.pdf

It strongly suggests that supposed gas cylinders found in bombed buildings in Douma, Syria, were *not* dropped by helicopters on those buildings. May I stress that I offer no alternative explanation as to how they got there. I have no information on this. The condition of these cylinders was simply not consistent with the idea that they had been dropped from helicopters and had then pierced the roof of the building where they were found.

 But its findings do not seem to have been taken into account in the OPCW’s final report on the event, discussed here in my March 9th article.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/03/some-thoughts-on-the-latest-opcw-report-on-alleged-use-of-poison-gas-at-douma-syria-april-2018.html

 If this is so., it seems to me to be very shocking.

For, as I said in my March 9th article ‘On the subject of the cylinders it says physical evidence was ‘consistent’ with the view that the cylinders had passed through the concrete roof of the building in which they were found. 

The text states: ‘2.12 Two yellow industrial cylinders dedicated for pressurised gas with dimensions of approximately 1.4 x 0.4 meters were observed by the FFM team at two separate locations (Locations 2 and 4). 7 2.13 The team analysed the available material and consulted independent experts in mechanical engineering, ballistics and metallurgy who utilised specialised computer modelling techniques to provide qualified and competent assessments of the trajectory and damage to the cylinders found at Locations 2 and 4. 2.14 The analyses indicated that the structural damage to the rebar-reinforced concrete terrace at Location 2 was caused by an impacting object with a geometrically symmetric shape and sufficient kinetic energy to cause the observed damage. The analyses indicate that the damage observed on the cylinder found on the roof-top terrace, the aperture, the balcony, the surrounding rooms, the rooms underneath and the structure above, is consistent with the creation of the aperture observed in the terrace by the cylinder found in that location. 2.15 At Location 4, the results of the studies indicated that the shape of the aperture produced in the modulation matched the shape and damage observed by the team. The studies further indicated that, after passing through the ceiling and impacting the floor at lower speed, the cylinder continued an altered trajectory, until reaching the position in which it was found. 2.16 Based on the analysis results of the samples taken by the FFM from the cylinders, their proximity at both locations, as well as the analysis results of the samples mentioned under paragraph 2.6, it is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine. ’

This section is important because the alleged dropping of these cylinders by a Syrian military helicopter is at the centre of the narrative espoused by those who argue that Syria did use poison gas at Douma last April.

The leaked document differs sharply from this. SO I set out first of all to discover if the OPCW disputed the claim that the leaked document came from within its organisation.  As you will see from the response below (As it is mostly flannel, I have highlighted the key words), it does not dispute this. I also asked them to confirm that its named author was in fact an OPCW employee. As you will see from the response below, it declined to confirm the latter. I think, if it had wished to do so, it could have disowned the name person.

I have received the following reply from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons:

‘The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which was set up in 2014.

The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the scope of its mandate to determine its findings.

Per standard practice, the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed.  All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018. On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.

Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat.

Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question.(my emphasis, PH)

At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.’

I thank the OPCW for confirming that the document is genuine.

 

[peterms]

A conservative US view on the madness that is US policy towards Iran.

Quote

Iran Says ‘Hell No!’ to Trump’s Aggression

They're doing exactly what we would do in their situation and we should change course before it gets worse.

President Donald Trump says he wishes Iran would call him. All he wants, he insists, is “a deal, a fair deal.” Apparently, he’s realized he was wrong to believe that the regime he’s attempting to overthrow would grovel before him. So now the White House has announced that it’s given the Swiss government his phone number to pass along to Tehran.

Of course, Switzerland probably feels whiplash. In 2003, Tehran offered to negotiate with George W. Bush through a Swiss emissary. The neocon-heavy, war-happy Bush administration dismissed the proposal out of hand.

The Trump administration is also unsuccessfully pushing Europe to stop resisting U.S. sanctions. Washington’s tone has alternated between imperious and whiny, neither of which has attracted much support. The usual warrior wannabe pundits, meanwhile, have made a similar suggestion: the Europeans should be as faithless as America and offer to join in receiving Iran’s surrender.

Tehran unsurprisingly disdains contact with Washington. Barely a year ago, the president cavalierly took the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral nuclear agreement and product of a highly complex international negotiation and difficult give-and-take within as well as between nations. At 159 pages, the JCPOA was the most detailed nuclear inspections regime ever created. (A month later, President Trump cheerfully accepted the substantively meaningless two-page Singapore summit statement as a definitive commitment by North Korea to disarm.)

Trump might enjoy posturing as negotiator-in-chief, but he has made it almost impossible for the Iranian government to engage him, let alone accept his demands. In truth, the administration’s confrontational approach has been a failure for America and a disaster for the Iranian people. The president’s policy has guaranteed continued tensions. His coterie of warmongering appointees are determined for regime change. The administration’s hypocrisy is also staggering: they accuse Iran of meddling in the Mideast—while Washington invaded Iraq, attacked Libya, and sought to oust the Syrian government—and of committing human rights violations—while the U.S. allied with autocratic Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The Trump administration has discouraged peaceful engagement in multiple ways.

    * Tossing out the JCPOA and insisting on massive and unilateral concessions. This demand would be dismissed by any other country, including America. What government, absent total military defeat, would accept a public call for de facto diplomatic surrender and national humiliation? Real estate developer Donald Trump certainly would not react well if someone demanded the same of him.
    * Misjudging the reason Tehran entered into negotiations with the Obama administration. Iran desired sanctions relief, but even more important was U.S. acceptance of the former’s right to continue enriching uranium, which the Trump administration rejects.
    * Unilaterally tearing up the JCPOA, thereby making Washington an unreliable negotiating partner. Even if a new agreement were to be reached, what would prevent the president from declaring it to be insufficient later on, reimposing sanctions, and making new threats of war absent additional Iranian concessions? What would stop a future administration from following his precedent? Iran has little incentive to reach any deal with the administration.
    * Destroying a compromise promoted by more moderate factions in Tehran, dramatically discrediting those most interested in negotiating with Washington. The relative balance of power has now shifted toward those in Iran who preach distrust and confrontation. What intelligent Iranian politician today would endorse Donald Trump as a serious negotiating partner? Even President Hassan Rouhani is now playing the hawk, announcing that Iran will gradually leave the JCPOA if the Europeans fail to deliver continued economic benefits, as promised.
   *  Imposing sanctions, which hit hardest the westward-looking middle and commercial classes. While they may be dissatisfied with the Islamic government, their focus increasingly is on economic survival. And the main cause of their distress is Washington, not Tehran.
    * Insisting that Iran abandon its primary means of defense by eliminating its missile program. The country’s conventional military forces have shrunk dramatically in capability even as the U.S. has bolstered the arsenals of Tehran’s enemies, most notably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with modern arms. Because those nations remain essentially amalgams of city states in the desert, the one thing Iran can do is hit them with missiles.
    * Expecting Iran to abandon an independent foreign policy. At Baghdad’s request, Tehran helped its Shia neighbor defeat the virulent Sunni Islamic State insurgency (which had been loosed by America’s invasion). Similarly, answering Damascus’s call, Iranian forces assisted in defeating multiple insurgents, many aided by Washington. With good reason, the Islamic Republic views the U.S. as its enemy—plotting the 1953 coup, supporting the repressive Shah, backing Iraq’s invasion of Iran, constantly threatening war. Yet the Trump administration expects Tehran to accept being treated as a veritable puppet state within Washington’s sphere of interest.
   *  Expecting Shia Iran to also accept the de facto suzerainty of Sunni Saudi Arabia. The aggressive Saudi crown prince has pushed the U.S. to actively join the Sunni-Shia struggle. Thus has America become an ally in Saudi Arabia’s brutal war of aggression against Yemen. Riyadh also wants the U.S. to wage war against Iran. Accepting the administration’s demands would deliver the Mideast to Saudi Arabia’s not so gentle mercies without a shot being fired.
    * Attempting to foment revolution and regime change by starving Iran’s population. Doing so is not only inhumane but counterproductive. Sanctions have stoked internal dissatisfaction while allowing the regime to blame America. Moreover, violent crises and implosions rarely yield liberal, pro-Western regimes. Notably, the administration has had no better results elsewhere—Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea. If Washington does succeed in wrecking Iran’s existing government, the winners in any resulting power struggle probably won’t be our friends.

Of course, Iran would be better off freed from radical Islamic rule. But for all its sanctimonious rhetoric, the Trump administration doesn’t seem to care about Iranians’ human rights. Moreover, its general approach to Iran is almost entirely wrong, driven by both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Policy should instead reflect America’s interest in minimizing regional tensions, reducing our number of adversaries, and shifting security responsibilities onto friends and allies.

That requires engagement. So far, President Trump has used but one tactic: sanctions. The Obama administration was correct in thinking that the JCPOA could help transform Iran. The process was never going to be easy or simple, especially since Islamist factions understood the West’s appeal to many Iranians, including younger urbanites. Before President Trump inadvertently helped Islamic hardliners by junking the nuclear accord, Tehran’s internal political struggle was sharpening. Creating additional foreign economic opportunities would have increased pressure on the regime to expand outside cooperation. And that pressure would have steadily grown. While there was never a guarantee that a democratic Iran would have emerged, the chances would have been much better than they are today.

The U.S. also needs to acknowledge and respect Iran’s security interests. Yes, the regime is malign. However, governments do not voluntarily dismantle themselves and they do not willingly weaken their defenses. Every American military threat increases the case in Tehran for building more missiles and restarting the nuclear weapons program. Insisting that Iran accept American and Saudi domination makes it imperative that the Islamic Republic maintain and deploy unconventional forces and foreign proxies. Washington would do much better to encourage its well-armed partners to seek détente rather than permanent sectarian conflict.

Imagine a foreign power imposing harsh economic sanctions on and threatening war against the U.S., attempting to starve Americans into revolt, insisting that Washington accept Mexican domination of the continent, and demanding that America yield its principal defensive weapons. No doubt a few Americans would advocate surrender. But the vast majority would shout not only “no!” but “hell no!” In this respect, foreigners are a lot more like us than we might like to think.

The U.S. and Iran should talk. But contrary to the president’s hope, giving Tehran an economic ultimatum will not bring it to the negotiating table. Trump has destroyed the possibility of normal diplomacy between his administration and the Iranian government. Unless he dramatically changes direction, the Middle East will become a much more dangerous place.

 

[sne]

In the civilized world these people would not hold power.

Quote

A “Republicans on Rape” graphic widely circulated online since 2014 collects various comments about that crime supposedly made by GOP politicians in recent years:

The remarks collected in that graphic were indeed all uttered by the persons to whom they have been attributed; below we offer the context in which those statements were made and any clarifying remarks subsequently offered by their speakers.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/

[Keyblade]

That feeling when Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most brutal theocracies has far more lenient abortion laws than Georgia and Alabama (allowed up until 4 months into the pregnancy).

[snowychap]

President Trump Signs Proclamation to Pursue Negotiations on Automobiles

Quote

Today, President Donald J. Trump took historic action to protect the American automobile industry, its workforce, and American innovation.  Following an extensive review of the Department of Commerce’s Section 232 automobile report, President Trump today issued a proclamation directing the United States Trade Representative to negotiate agreements to address the national security threat, which is causing harm to the American automobile industry.  The Department of Commerce report, delivered to the President on February 17, 2019, concluded that imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts threaten to impair the national security of the United States.  United States defense and military superiority depend on the competitiveness of our automobile industry and the research and development that industry generates.  The negotiation process will be led by United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and, if agreements are not reached within 180 days, the President will determine whether and what further action needs to be taken.

 

[Xann]

Remember them getting excited about Furbies?

He spouts so much shit it's easy to dismiss everything he says, but this time the point is maybe valid?

Cars have microphones, are connected and are driving themselves more and more.

Even if the car is made in the US, the voice recognition ICs may not be?

Industrial espionage is another issue.