On April 20th (20/4/16) US President Barack Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia for a leaders summit of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) that took place the following day (21/4/16).
Saudi Arabia is of course responsible for the controversial High Negotiations Committee (HNC). Headed by extremist Islamist groups such as the Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI) and the Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham al-Islamiyya (Ahrar al-Sham) the HNC represents the opposition to the Syrian government at the UN sponsored Geneva talks. This is despite it excluding many of Syria's religious and ethnic minorities. Particularly the Kurds who make up around 10% of the Syrian population.
As a result I have been trying to keep my head down for the duration of Obama's latest round of travels. Fortunately everyone in Syria and Iraq seems to have been trying to do the same thing. Obviously this does not mean that all fighting suddenly stopped.
The latest round of renewed fighting centred around Aleppo province - particularly around the the provincial capital Aleppo City and the border with Latakia province - has continued along with fighting in the suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus - particularly Douma - has continued. However there have not been any significant gains or losses by any particular group and no-one has been launching fresh operations since my last post.
At the instruction of Mohammed Alloush - the head of the JAI and senior HNC negotiator - the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition launched an offensive entitled "Retaliation For Grievances" on Monday April 18th (18/4/16). Alongside the Army of Islam, Ahrar al-Sham and the Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB) the other major force within the Army of Conquest coalition is Al Nusra Front (ANF) who are Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria.
In response to the Retaliation For Grievances offensive which they called for the HNC withdrew from the Geneva talks late on Monday (18/4/16) night. This was intended to exert pressure during the GCC Summit on US President Obama to take tougher action to speed up the overthrow of the Syrian government.
In order to further ratchet up that pressure the following days saw a massive increase in the HNC's Atrocity Propaganda efforts. A recognised form of psychological warfare the purpose of Atrocity Propaganda is to gain an advantage over your enemy by damaging their reputation by accusing them of committing atrocities. As such the last almost two weeks has seen a significant increase in accusations of civilians being killed in Syrian government air and artillery strikes.
There are several significant problems with taking these claims at face value.
The first of these is that often the alleged atrocity simply hasn't happened. A prime example of this occurred on October 20th 2015 (20/10/15) when Russia was accused of destroying the Syrian-American Medical Centre (SAMC) in the town of Sarmin which sits around 5km (3 miles) east of Idlib City. Despite news of this 'atrocity' being flashed across the globe it quickly emerged that either the hospital had been completely rebuilt within 24hrs or this attack had simply never taken place. The fact that the video released 'proving' the attack showed the hospital intact and operating should have been a clue that the claim was entirely false.
The second problem is that often the details of an attack against a military target will be lied about to artificially inflate the 'civilian' death toll. It is quite common for it to be claimed that civilians have been 'massacred' in an airstrike only for it to emerge that the airstrike had actually occured at a different location and the corpses of dead fighters had been reposition and redressed to make it appear as though they were civilians.
The other main problem is that many of the terror groups within Syria - particularly the Army of Islam (JAI) - make extensive use of civilians as human shields to protect their military bases. When you frequently hear of airstrikes killing civilians at markets in Douma where the JAI are based what has often happened is that JAI military buildings located next to the market have been destroyed. This even extends to the fighters using their own wives, children and extended families as human shields. This problem was actually highlighted by US Air Force Major General Peter Gersten at a press conference on Tuesday (26/4/16).
During the 2014 Gaza war the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) introduced at tactic known as "The Roof Knock." This involved either dropping an inert bomb or detonating a small explosive in the air over a building that was to be targeted. The intention being to warn civilians within the building of the impending airstrike in order to give them time to evacuate thus saving their lives.
While politicians and the media were queueing up to condemn Israel for the "Disproportionate Use of Force" during the 2014 Gaza war other militaries - including the US - were queueing up to learn the techniques the Israelis had developed to minimise the civilian casualties. At an unspecified date prior to April 5th (5/4/16) the US conducted a real world test of the Roof Knock against building occupied by the the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Iraqi city of Mosul.
In a very carefully planned and monitored operation the purpose of the US Roof Knock was to save the life of one specific civilian woman and one specific civilian child that were known to be in the building. The US deemed the operation to be a failure because the ISIL fighters simply trampled that woman and child to death as they rushed to escape the air-strike.
As a result that US operation recorded two civilian deaths although they had been killed before the actual air-strike took place.
The main source for Atrocity Propaganda in Syria is an organisation calling itself "Syrian Civil Defence" or simply "The White Helmets." Based in Turkey this group is funded out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and headed by a British Mercenary James Le Mesurier.
Obviously admitting that Syrian Civil Defence are a group of foreign funded mercenaries dedicated to the illegal overthrow of the Syrian government would rather damage their credibility somewhat. As such the public face of the organisation is a man called Raed Saleh who was born in Syria but currently lives in Turkey.
On Tuesday (26/4/16) Saleh was scheduled to pick up an award from InterAction - a US based coalition of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) in Washington D.C, US. However on arrival at US Customs Saleh was informed that his visa had been revoked and he was denied entry into America.
No reason was given for this however it tends to occur when an individual has been linked to a terrorist group and deemed a threat to national security.
The cause of this latest round of renewed fighting in Syria was Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan's week long visit to the US between March 28th (28/3/16) and April 3rd (3/4/16). This visit saw the resumption of the US Train & Equip program to provide training and equipment to Army of Conquest in Syria. The first confirmed delivery of US trained and equipped fighters to the Army of Conquest took place the night before the Turkish visit began.
As with all the rest of their supplies this fresh batch of US backed fighters travelled into Turkey along a roughly 100km (60 mile) stretch of Syria's border with Turkey. Stretching from Azaz in the west through to the Euphrates River in the east the supply corridor has become known as "Erdogan's Pocket" after Erdogan ordered the Army of Conquest to cede the town of Marea at its heart to ISIL in August 2015. This was done to provide an excuse for Turkey to mount an invasion of Syria in support of both the Army of Conquest and ISIL.
Turkey seems to have taken the resumption of Train & Equip as a full US endorsement of both its support of the JAF and ISIL and of Erdogan's Pocket.
Within days the Army of Conquest launched their fresh offensive against Latakia province and within Aleppo province. Here their main objective seems to be the capture of the Sheikh Masqood district of Aleppo City from the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). To this end the civilians in the Sheikh Masqood district have been subject to constant artillery attacks carried out by the Army of Conquest including two chemical weapons attacks carried out by the Army of Islam specifically.
The Syrian Turkmen Brigade (STB) coalition within the Army of Conquest coalition though initially focused their attentions eastwards to capture the border town of Cobaney which sits around 40km (24 miles) east of the Euphrates from ISIL.
The ultimate objective of this eastwards push was to capture the town of Jarablus that sits on the western banks of the Euphrates in order to prevent the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) crossing the Euphrates to seal Erdogan's Pocket. The SDF/QSD are a YPG dominated coalition who have repeatedly proved themselves to be the most effective anti-ISIL force in Syria.
Initially this STB offensive made significant progress with Cobaney being captured within 8 days on April 9th (9/4/16). However then Turkey seemed to get the impression that neither STB control of Erdogan's Pocket nor an STB offensive into QSD controlled territory east of the Euphrates would be tolerated. As such the STB started rapidly handing all the territory they've gained back to ISIL. The extremely low-level fighting between the STB and ISIL in this area has been described by the US military as; "A shoving match."
Although it is lacking in intensity the STB's push east along with the wider Army of Conquest offensives south towards Aleppo City and west towards Latakia province has caused a fresh wave of Internally Displaced People (IDP) to flock to Syria's border with Turkey. The tone of Turkey's coverage to this has been to suggest that unless Turkey gets what it want it will open the border to these IDP's and then send them on to Europe as Irregular Migrants. Turkey does not and has never recognised those fleeing war in Syria as refugees.
The STB's retreat from Cobaney has coincided with fresh exchanges of cross-border artillery fire between ISIL and the regular Turkish Army. This has generally been centred around the Turkish town of Kilis around 15km (10 miles) north of Azaz on the western border of Erdogan's Pocket. In response Turkey has increased its military presence along the border across all of Erdogan's Pocket.
As such it seems that Turkey has gone back to it's Plan A. Using ISIL's presence within Erdogan's Pocket as an excuse for a formal military invasion of Syria in order to secure its supply lines with both the Army of Conquest and ISIL.
It is rumoured that roughly 12 days ago the US gave Turkey an ultimatum. Either the STB completely removes any and all ISIL presence from within Erdogan's Pocket or the US will back the QSD to cross the Euphrates to seal the area. It is also rumoured that the US has purchased land just outside the city of Kobane - 30km (20 miles) east of the Euphrates - to be used as a base for Apache-style attack helicopters in support of this operation.
The announcement on Sunday (24/4/16) that the US is to send a further 250 Special Forces operators to QSD controlled territory in Syria along with the announcement on Tuesday (26/4/16) that the US is to deploy High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to Turkey's border with Syria would certainly add credence to those rumours.
It almost goes without saying that the White Helmets have suddenly discovered another 'atrocity' and are demanding that action is taken to protect those within Erdogan's Pocket.
17:05 on 29/4/16 (UK date).
Friday, 29 April 2016
Wednesday, 27 April 2016
The Truth. At Last.
Yesterday (26/4/16) in the UK the second Coroners Inquest into the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster came to an end.
It concluded that 96 football fans had been unlawfully killed in a crush during the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest football clubs. That match was played on the neutral ground of Sheffield Wednesday football club's Hillsborough stadium just outside Sheffield on April 15th 1989.
As with every other British person of my age and older I still have vivid memories of that day. Much to his annoyance my father had to pick my sister from a dance class or birthday party at around the time of kick-off. Getting to ride in the front seat of the car was still super exciting so I went with him. As we were waiting for my sister to emerge we were listening to the game on the car radio.
Just six minutes after kick-off the game was suddenly stopped. Amid the confusion and horror of the radio commentators you could almost feel his terrible realisation seep across the whole nation that something had gone horribly wrong. The only thing I can think to compare it to is the September 11th 2001 (11/9/01) terror attacks on the US because although British people were used to terror attacks this was just so unexpected.
Then the dance class ended and I went back to the vital business of being 7 years old.
As a result I can't talk about the Hillsborough disaster with the same authority as some current event that I was fully engaged with. Instead I have to piece together my understand from what was recorded at the time and what old people have told me since. This is rather like looking at an exhibit in some sort of macabre museum.
The first problem of the day was that Britain's national railway company - British Rail - refused to provide the three so-called "Football Special" trains usually used to transport fans from Liverpool to matches in Sheffield. Instead they only provided the one.
This forced many Liverpool fans to travel by road instead - including on special buses chartered by the club. The main M62 Motorway running between Liverpool and Sheffield was partially closed due to roadworks which increased traffic congestion and therefore the journey time. As a result many Liverpool fans - including those whose journeys had been co-ordinated with the police were late arriving at the stadium.
Obviously if you know that there are people travelling from one location to another along a pre-determined route at a specified time it is very easy to obstruct that route in order to delay them. However traffic congestion is certainly nothing new on Britain's roads and most of the time it is nothing more than just traffic congestion.
Knowing that a large number of Liverpool fans would be arriving late to the match the police match commander - Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield - who has powers similar to a god over everything that happens at a football match should have simply ordered that the kick-off be delayed by at least 15 minutes to accommodate them.
This is obviously slightly annoying for the people attending the match and those watching it on TV but it is was far from an uncommon event. The recent Tottenham v Manchester United league match on April 10th (10/4/16) had its kick-off delayed due to traffic congestion.
With kick-off not being delayed the late arriving Liverpool fans all rushed to enter the stadium via the turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end of the ground. With fans entering the Leppings Lane road outside the ground much faster than they were able to pass through the turnstiles this caused a dangerous crush to build up all along the road.
What the police should have done is put in place crowd control measures to break up the crowd and avoid the crush. Even something as simple as putting a series of three crowd control barriers in a triangle formation can significantly break up a crowd so you get several small, safe chokepoints rather than one large, dangerous one.
From my training as a football crowd control steward I know that this failure is simply unacceptable. However my job as a football steward and therefore my training only existed as a direct result of the Taylor Report on the Hillsborough disaster. As such it is possible that the police at the time may not have known about this type of measure.
They should have known though that they needed to do something. The 1988 FA Cup semi-final had also been played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium. On that occasion 13 people had been injured in a crush at the Leppings Lane entrance. The stadium had a record of crushes at the Leppings Lane entrance dating 8 years to 1981.
In response to the crush outside the ground Duckenfield ordered Exit Gate C to be opened allowing the fans to quickly enter the ground in large numbers without having to pass through the turnstiles. In itself this was not a bad decision because the crush outside was starting to present a serious threat to life and the opening of Gate C relieved the pressure saving lives.
However Gate C sat right opposite the entrance tunnel to terrace Pens 3&4. From his position in the control box in front of banks of CCTV monitors Duckenfield should have been able to see that Pens 3&4 were already dangerously overcrowded. Therefore before opening Gate C he should have close the tunnel leading into those pens either with barriers or a line of officers. This would have forced the fans arriving through the gate into the other 5 Pens avoiding the crush.
Even after the match had been stopped and dead bodies were being carried from Pens 3&4 onto the pitch Duckenfield failed to declare a major incident. As a direct result only three ambulances were dispatched to treat the injured during the crucial first hour. Dozens more stood parked up outside the stadium.
The police's response to this multitude of failures was simply to lie about it on a grandscale in an effort to cover up their actions.
One of the first things that happened was that all police officers on duty that day were gathered together and their notebooks were confiscated from them by senior officers on the orders of Duckenfield.
A British policeman's notebook is very different from the sort of thing you would use to scribble down a shopping list or tear out a page to give someone a telephone number. It is a legal document similar to a witness statement given to a Court. Each individual officer is responsible for every word written in, crossed out or otherwised changed in their notebook and have to be able to swear under oath that it is a truthful record of events.
As such this confiscation of police notebooks by senior officers represents a criminal offence of the seriousness of perjury or otherwise attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Having confiscated all the notebooks the senior officers told all the juniour officers want they were going to write in their witness statements. The officers were then held - rather like in an exam hall - to write their statements together. The few officers who dared to write the truth simply had their statements changed later by more senior officers.
Again that represents a serious criminal offence similar to perjury or otherwise attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The lie the police set out to tell was that they had heroically battled to do their job of protecting the public. However they had been overwhelmed by drunken, thieving, lying, scum of the earth hooligans who had been trying to force their way into a football match without paying.
To this end one of the first things the police did in the morgues was not to try and identify the dead so their next of kin could be informed. Instead they took blood samples - even from children - and tested them for alcohol in the hope they could prove they had been dangerously drunk. Once the victims had been identified rather than informing the next of kin the police checked to see if any of them had criminal records that could be used to discredit them publicly.
Almost immediately the police took their lies to the press. In the days following the disaster both Duckenfield and the Conservative MP for Sheffield Irvine Patnick briefed local reporters assuring them that the police's version of events was the truth and all other accounts were lies.
Four days after the disaster the national "The Sun" newspaper picked up on the local reports and ran an extremely controversial frontpage on April 19th (19/4/89). This is widely available on Google and other image searches.
At the top of the page The Sun ran the headline; "The Truth" against a black background alongside the slogan "Gates of Hell." This was a reference to the opening of Gate C. Beneath that on a contrasting white background they ran a photograph of Patnick alongside his version of events. The main points of that lie were that fans had beaten up and urinated on police officers who were trying to help the injured and had stolen from the dead.
As I think you need to have worked as a newspaper sub-editor to pick up on the subtly of that page layout The Sun quickly became a lightening rod for all the anger over the disaster and against the police cover-up. To this day I don't think you can buy a copy of The Sun in Liverpool even if you wanted to.
Of course it didn't help that The Sun had supported Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980's and itself had defeated the printing Trade Unions in the 1986 Wapping Strike.
Obviously it is not possible to properly judge the Hillsborough disaster without looking the wider political and social context in which it occured. That truly is like looking back into another world.
For example if you wanted to make a telephone call in 1989 you had to go inside a building an use a giant plastic telephone that was physically attached to the wall. If you wanted to get some news you had to wait for one the three scheduled news broadcasts on one of only four TV channels or wait for the following day's newspaper.
The big political difference though was the Cold War. It is hard to overstate just how serious and all consuming this was.
Recently a Cold War spy drama called "Deutschland 83" was broadcast on British TV. That centred around a NATO military exercise called "Able Archer." The Soviets became convinced that the exercise was cover for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them and prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike of their own.
That actually happened. Although I doubt the fate of the world really rested on the actions of a dashing young spy NATO and the Soviet bloc did come within hours of all out nuclear war over the Able Archer exercise.
Politics in Britain during the 1980's were of course dominated by radical Conservative Party Prime Minister Maragret Thatcher.
Thatcher's big economic idea was the policy of Moneterism. This centred on keeping a section of the population unemployed and poor in order to control inflation.
Within months Britian moved from almost full employment to more than three million unemployed. The city of Liverpool was particularly hard hit because the local economy was based on the docks importing and exporting goods to the US in the west. With the UK moving to do more trade with Europe in the east Liverpool's docks were simply on the wrong side of the country unable to attract business.
Obviously the section of the population - often the young - that had been written off to be forever unemployed were not happy about this and the 1980's saw wave after wave of urban rioting. One the first and most brutal of these riots took place in the Toxteth district of Liverpool between July 3rd and 27th 1981. Although they never used them in an effort to quell the violence the police were issued with and authorised to use teargas. This is the only time that has ever happened on the UK mainland.
Thatchers other defining policy was to defeat the National Union of Miners (NUM) Trade Union. During the 1970's the Soviet Union had supported the NUM to bring the UK to it's knees as a possible pre-cursor to invasion. By cutting off the supply of coal through strike action the NUM were able to disrupt Britain's energy supplies and by extension all economic activity. The NATO countries of course tried doing the same thing to the Soviet Bloc particularly through the Solidarty Trade Union in Poland.
In the early years of her rule Thatcher built up huge stockpiles of foreign coal to sustain the nation through one big final battle with the NUM. This battle broke out in 1984 and lasted through 1985. All the news footage used to illustrate the miners strike comes from pitched battles that were fought in June 1984 between the police and the strikers Orgreave coking plant. This is located just outside Sheffield.
While all this was going on the Northern Irish Troubles that began in 1969 were continuing. By this point the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) had developed the tactic of using bombings to kill significant numbers of the British Armed Forces. As with everything else Thatcher reacted to this by using increasingly aggressive tactics.
On November 8th 1987 (8/11/87) PIRA carried out a particularly nasty bombing against a Rememberence Day service in the North Irish town of Enniskillen. The purpose of the bombing was to collapse a building on to a crowd of gathered mourners. It killed 12. Possibly in response to this Thatcher authorised the British Army to assassinate suspected members of PIRA under what was known as the shoot-to-kill policy.
This became public knowledge when members of Britain's SAS special forces killed three PIRA members in broad daylight in Gibraltar on March 6th 1988 (6/3/88). On August 20th 1988 (20/8/88) PIRA carried out the Ballygawley bombing against British soldiers in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. With 8 soldiers killed this was the second most deadly attack PIRA ever carried out. Months later the infamous Broadcast Ban was introduced.
Thatcher's last big idea was the Poll Tax or Community Charge with was introduced on April 5th 1990 (5/4/90). Rather than being a tax on what you earned or what public services you used the Poll Tax was something you had to pay simply for the privelage of living in the UK.
It was met with widespread opposition which saw even little old ladies with no previous interest in politics being prepared to go to prison rather than pay. Although it didn't play a major role in having the policy scrapped the opposition to the Poll Tax was symbolised by a massive riot that happened right in the centre of London's governance district on March 31st 1990 (31/3/90).
As we've seen from places like Egypt when hardcore football fans put their differences aside to join in with popular protests they can bring down governments and dictators. The police lies told in response to the Hillsborough disaster had the effect of marginalising football fans who quickly became protrayed as the enemies of decent hardworking British people.
The narrative of thugs from Liverpool attacking the good, honest police brought back memories of both the 1981 and 1985 Toxteth riots. This served as a metaphor for all the growing numbers of unemployed people who were opposed to Thatcher and uniting against the Poll Tax.
The narrative of South Yorkshire police battling to protect the public from radicals and extremists brought back memories of the so-called Battle of Orgreave in 1984. This served as a metaphor for all the Trade Unionists who were opposed to Thatcher and uniting against the Poll Tax.
Like the city itself supporter of Liverpool football have strong links with Northern Ireland's Catholics. They are almost the official partners of the Scottish club Glasgow Celtic. The so-called Old Firm rivalry between Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic is basically the Northern Irish Troubles in microcosam. The Troubles began with the suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament which is based at Hillsborough Castle.
As such the conspiracy theory has always been that the Thatcher government planned and carried out the Hillsborough disaster.
This was done in order to spread divisions within British society to prevent a British Revolution that would not have only brought down Thatcher but also the entire system of government and possibly the Monarchy.
15:50 on 27/4/16 (UK date).
It concluded that 96 football fans had been unlawfully killed in a crush during the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest football clubs. That match was played on the neutral ground of Sheffield Wednesday football club's Hillsborough stadium just outside Sheffield on April 15th 1989.
As with every other British person of my age and older I still have vivid memories of that day. Much to his annoyance my father had to pick my sister from a dance class or birthday party at around the time of kick-off. Getting to ride in the front seat of the car was still super exciting so I went with him. As we were waiting for my sister to emerge we were listening to the game on the car radio.
Just six minutes after kick-off the game was suddenly stopped. Amid the confusion and horror of the radio commentators you could almost feel his terrible realisation seep across the whole nation that something had gone horribly wrong. The only thing I can think to compare it to is the September 11th 2001 (11/9/01) terror attacks on the US because although British people were used to terror attacks this was just so unexpected.
Then the dance class ended and I went back to the vital business of being 7 years old.
As a result I can't talk about the Hillsborough disaster with the same authority as some current event that I was fully engaged with. Instead I have to piece together my understand from what was recorded at the time and what old people have told me since. This is rather like looking at an exhibit in some sort of macabre museum.
The first problem of the day was that Britain's national railway company - British Rail - refused to provide the three so-called "Football Special" trains usually used to transport fans from Liverpool to matches in Sheffield. Instead they only provided the one.
This forced many Liverpool fans to travel by road instead - including on special buses chartered by the club. The main M62 Motorway running between Liverpool and Sheffield was partially closed due to roadworks which increased traffic congestion and therefore the journey time. As a result many Liverpool fans - including those whose journeys had been co-ordinated with the police were late arriving at the stadium.
Obviously if you know that there are people travelling from one location to another along a pre-determined route at a specified time it is very easy to obstruct that route in order to delay them. However traffic congestion is certainly nothing new on Britain's roads and most of the time it is nothing more than just traffic congestion.
Knowing that a large number of Liverpool fans would be arriving late to the match the police match commander - Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield - who has powers similar to a god over everything that happens at a football match should have simply ordered that the kick-off be delayed by at least 15 minutes to accommodate them.
This is obviously slightly annoying for the people attending the match and those watching it on TV but it is was far from an uncommon event. The recent Tottenham v Manchester United league match on April 10th (10/4/16) had its kick-off delayed due to traffic congestion.
With kick-off not being delayed the late arriving Liverpool fans all rushed to enter the stadium via the turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end of the ground. With fans entering the Leppings Lane road outside the ground much faster than they were able to pass through the turnstiles this caused a dangerous crush to build up all along the road.
What the police should have done is put in place crowd control measures to break up the crowd and avoid the crush. Even something as simple as putting a series of three crowd control barriers in a triangle formation can significantly break up a crowd so you get several small, safe chokepoints rather than one large, dangerous one.
From my training as a football crowd control steward I know that this failure is simply unacceptable. However my job as a football steward and therefore my training only existed as a direct result of the Taylor Report on the Hillsborough disaster. As such it is possible that the police at the time may not have known about this type of measure.
They should have known though that they needed to do something. The 1988 FA Cup semi-final had also been played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium. On that occasion 13 people had been injured in a crush at the Leppings Lane entrance. The stadium had a record of crushes at the Leppings Lane entrance dating 8 years to 1981.
In response to the crush outside the ground Duckenfield ordered Exit Gate C to be opened allowing the fans to quickly enter the ground in large numbers without having to pass through the turnstiles. In itself this was not a bad decision because the crush outside was starting to present a serious threat to life and the opening of Gate C relieved the pressure saving lives.
However Gate C sat right opposite the entrance tunnel to terrace Pens 3&4. From his position in the control box in front of banks of CCTV monitors Duckenfield should have been able to see that Pens 3&4 were already dangerously overcrowded. Therefore before opening Gate C he should have close the tunnel leading into those pens either with barriers or a line of officers. This would have forced the fans arriving through the gate into the other 5 Pens avoiding the crush.
Even after the match had been stopped and dead bodies were being carried from Pens 3&4 onto the pitch Duckenfield failed to declare a major incident. As a direct result only three ambulances were dispatched to treat the injured during the crucial first hour. Dozens more stood parked up outside the stadium.
The police's response to this multitude of failures was simply to lie about it on a grandscale in an effort to cover up their actions.
One of the first things that happened was that all police officers on duty that day were gathered together and their notebooks were confiscated from them by senior officers on the orders of Duckenfield.
A British policeman's notebook is very different from the sort of thing you would use to scribble down a shopping list or tear out a page to give someone a telephone number. It is a legal document similar to a witness statement given to a Court. Each individual officer is responsible for every word written in, crossed out or otherwised changed in their notebook and have to be able to swear under oath that it is a truthful record of events.
As such this confiscation of police notebooks by senior officers represents a criminal offence of the seriousness of perjury or otherwise attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Having confiscated all the notebooks the senior officers told all the juniour officers want they were going to write in their witness statements. The officers were then held - rather like in an exam hall - to write their statements together. The few officers who dared to write the truth simply had their statements changed later by more senior officers.
Again that represents a serious criminal offence similar to perjury or otherwise attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The lie the police set out to tell was that they had heroically battled to do their job of protecting the public. However they had been overwhelmed by drunken, thieving, lying, scum of the earth hooligans who had been trying to force their way into a football match without paying.
To this end one of the first things the police did in the morgues was not to try and identify the dead so their next of kin could be informed. Instead they took blood samples - even from children - and tested them for alcohol in the hope they could prove they had been dangerously drunk. Once the victims had been identified rather than informing the next of kin the police checked to see if any of them had criminal records that could be used to discredit them publicly.
Almost immediately the police took their lies to the press. In the days following the disaster both Duckenfield and the Conservative MP for Sheffield Irvine Patnick briefed local reporters assuring them that the police's version of events was the truth and all other accounts were lies.
Four days after the disaster the national "The Sun" newspaper picked up on the local reports and ran an extremely controversial frontpage on April 19th (19/4/89). This is widely available on Google and other image searches.
At the top of the page The Sun ran the headline; "The Truth" against a black background alongside the slogan "Gates of Hell." This was a reference to the opening of Gate C. Beneath that on a contrasting white background they ran a photograph of Patnick alongside his version of events. The main points of that lie were that fans had beaten up and urinated on police officers who were trying to help the injured and had stolen from the dead.
As I think you need to have worked as a newspaper sub-editor to pick up on the subtly of that page layout The Sun quickly became a lightening rod for all the anger over the disaster and against the police cover-up. To this day I don't think you can buy a copy of The Sun in Liverpool even if you wanted to.
Of course it didn't help that The Sun had supported Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980's and itself had defeated the printing Trade Unions in the 1986 Wapping Strike.
Obviously it is not possible to properly judge the Hillsborough disaster without looking the wider political and social context in which it occured. That truly is like looking back into another world.
For example if you wanted to make a telephone call in 1989 you had to go inside a building an use a giant plastic telephone that was physically attached to the wall. If you wanted to get some news you had to wait for one the three scheduled news broadcasts on one of only four TV channels or wait for the following day's newspaper.
The big political difference though was the Cold War. It is hard to overstate just how serious and all consuming this was.
Recently a Cold War spy drama called "Deutschland 83" was broadcast on British TV. That centred around a NATO military exercise called "Able Archer." The Soviets became convinced that the exercise was cover for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them and prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike of their own.
That actually happened. Although I doubt the fate of the world really rested on the actions of a dashing young spy NATO and the Soviet bloc did come within hours of all out nuclear war over the Able Archer exercise.
Politics in Britain during the 1980's were of course dominated by radical Conservative Party Prime Minister Maragret Thatcher.
Thatcher's big economic idea was the policy of Moneterism. This centred on keeping a section of the population unemployed and poor in order to control inflation.
Within months Britian moved from almost full employment to more than three million unemployed. The city of Liverpool was particularly hard hit because the local economy was based on the docks importing and exporting goods to the US in the west. With the UK moving to do more trade with Europe in the east Liverpool's docks were simply on the wrong side of the country unable to attract business.
Obviously the section of the population - often the young - that had been written off to be forever unemployed were not happy about this and the 1980's saw wave after wave of urban rioting. One the first and most brutal of these riots took place in the Toxteth district of Liverpool between July 3rd and 27th 1981. Although they never used them in an effort to quell the violence the police were issued with and authorised to use teargas. This is the only time that has ever happened on the UK mainland.
Thatchers other defining policy was to defeat the National Union of Miners (NUM) Trade Union. During the 1970's the Soviet Union had supported the NUM to bring the UK to it's knees as a possible pre-cursor to invasion. By cutting off the supply of coal through strike action the NUM were able to disrupt Britain's energy supplies and by extension all economic activity. The NATO countries of course tried doing the same thing to the Soviet Bloc particularly through the Solidarty Trade Union in Poland.
In the early years of her rule Thatcher built up huge stockpiles of foreign coal to sustain the nation through one big final battle with the NUM. This battle broke out in 1984 and lasted through 1985. All the news footage used to illustrate the miners strike comes from pitched battles that were fought in June 1984 between the police and the strikers Orgreave coking plant. This is located just outside Sheffield.
While all this was going on the Northern Irish Troubles that began in 1969 were continuing. By this point the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) had developed the tactic of using bombings to kill significant numbers of the British Armed Forces. As with everything else Thatcher reacted to this by using increasingly aggressive tactics.
On November 8th 1987 (8/11/87) PIRA carried out a particularly nasty bombing against a Rememberence Day service in the North Irish town of Enniskillen. The purpose of the bombing was to collapse a building on to a crowd of gathered mourners. It killed 12. Possibly in response to this Thatcher authorised the British Army to assassinate suspected members of PIRA under what was known as the shoot-to-kill policy.
This became public knowledge when members of Britain's SAS special forces killed three PIRA members in broad daylight in Gibraltar on March 6th 1988 (6/3/88). On August 20th 1988 (20/8/88) PIRA carried out the Ballygawley bombing against British soldiers in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. With 8 soldiers killed this was the second most deadly attack PIRA ever carried out. Months later the infamous Broadcast Ban was introduced.
Thatcher's last big idea was the Poll Tax or Community Charge with was introduced on April 5th 1990 (5/4/90). Rather than being a tax on what you earned or what public services you used the Poll Tax was something you had to pay simply for the privelage of living in the UK.
It was met with widespread opposition which saw even little old ladies with no previous interest in politics being prepared to go to prison rather than pay. Although it didn't play a major role in having the policy scrapped the opposition to the Poll Tax was symbolised by a massive riot that happened right in the centre of London's governance district on March 31st 1990 (31/3/90).
As we've seen from places like Egypt when hardcore football fans put their differences aside to join in with popular protests they can bring down governments and dictators. The police lies told in response to the Hillsborough disaster had the effect of marginalising football fans who quickly became protrayed as the enemies of decent hardworking British people.
The narrative of thugs from Liverpool attacking the good, honest police brought back memories of both the 1981 and 1985 Toxteth riots. This served as a metaphor for all the growing numbers of unemployed people who were opposed to Thatcher and uniting against the Poll Tax.
The narrative of South Yorkshire police battling to protect the public from radicals and extremists brought back memories of the so-called Battle of Orgreave in 1984. This served as a metaphor for all the Trade Unionists who were opposed to Thatcher and uniting against the Poll Tax.
Like the city itself supporter of Liverpool football have strong links with Northern Ireland's Catholics. They are almost the official partners of the Scottish club Glasgow Celtic. The so-called Old Firm rivalry between Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic is basically the Northern Irish Troubles in microcosam. The Troubles began with the suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament which is based at Hillsborough Castle.
As such the conspiracy theory has always been that the Thatcher government planned and carried out the Hillsborough disaster.
This was done in order to spread divisions within British society to prevent a British Revolution that would not have only brought down Thatcher but also the entire system of government and possibly the Monarchy.
15:50 on 27/4/16 (UK date).
Monday, 25 April 2016
Port Talbot and the Paris Agreement.
On March 30th (30/3/16) the Indian manufacturing giant Tata announced that they were putting the Port Talbot steelworks in South Wales, UK up for sale. With no apparent buyer this places 4,000 jobs at risk in an already impoverished area. As such it has been one of the main stories within UK politics over the past month.
I've avoided commenting on it up until now because it is a complex issue and I am rather busy. Plus I don't have much to bring in the way of good news.
During the debate much has been made of Britain's proud history of steel making which stretches back almost 200 years. However during the steel industry's heyday the UK also had a vibrant mining industry producing not only the raw materials such as Iron ore needed to make steel but also the coal to power the furnaces.
With that now all gone the UK is in a position where it has to import all the raw materials and then try to sell the finished steel back to the nations the raw materials came from at a lower price than it costs them to make the steel themselves. To me that doesn't sound like a particularly sustainable business model. It also discredits the claim that the UK governments needs to protect the steel industry as a strategic asset. After all in a war or in the face of an economic collapse it would still be easier for the UK to just import the finished steel rather than all the raw materials.
With the Paris Agreement on climate change being opened for signing and ratification last Friday (22/4/16) there is one element of the Port Talbot debate that I do need to comment on. The increased costs of energy that have been brought about by so-called "Green Taxes" as part of the Kyoto Protocol - the forerunner of the Paris Agreement.
I should start by pointing out that this element has been somewhat overstated. Energy costs including the costs of raw materials only account for around 6% of the Port Talbot plants total expenditure. That works out at around £60,000 of the £1million the plant is losing every week. As such I don't think it is the decisive factor.
Also the UK participates in the Kyoto Protocol as part of the European Union (EU). Therefore if the German steel industry or the Italian steel industry aren't also in crisis then the problem isn't with the Kyoto Protocol. Instead it is with the way the UK government has chosen to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
That said these green taxes - Carbon Pricing as its known in the jargon - have never been a particularly effective tool in reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The problem is that they bear absolutely no relation to the cost of reducing GHG emissions or the costs of adapting to the effects of climate change. Instead they're completely arbitrary and therefore open to abuse by the governments that set them.
Carbon pricing was introduced in the UK by the New Labour government of Tony Blair. That government's entire election was based on the promise of increased public spending but no increases in taxes - particularly income tax. In order to deliver on the promise Blair's government introduced a vast array of what are termed "Stealth Taxes" such as green taxes on energy production. These tax revenues obviously boosted the amount of money the government had to spend whilst at the same time they were protecting the environment rather than breaking their tax pledge.
One of the main problems currently facing the global steel industry is China's subsidy of their own steel industry. Essentially the Chinese government is paying to produce steel at a loss so it can continue to create new jobs. Although China - the World's largest emitter of GHG's - is currently growing its emissions rather than taking steps to reduce them such as setting green taxes it should be easy to see how they would use carbon pricing to give a further boost to their steel industry. They simply make sure the carbon price they set is much lower than their competitors.
The solution to this would be to replace carbon pricing with a market based mechanism - sometimes known as Cap and Trade. This would mean that if you are in an industry such as steel making that produces a lot of GHG emissions you would have to pay a nation like Brazil to preserve their Rainforests in order to scrub those emissions out of the atmosphere.
This would obviously drive up the cost of production for energy intensive industries such as steel making. However it would do so globally with the cost being determined by supply and demand meaning that it would be impossible for one nation to gain a competitive advantage over another.
The main barrier to introducing a global market based mechanism has been the Kyoto Protocol itself.
It requires only 36 nations - 28 of them EU member states - to take action to reduce the GHG emissions. So although a prototype carbon market has developed within the EU this doesn't produce enough demand to sustain itself. Also the market doesn't include nations like Brazil that would provide the supply of what are termed Carbon sinks.
The hope then was that not only would the Paris Agreement replace the Kyoto Protocol but it would go further obligating more nations to participate in a market based mechanism strengthening that market in order to make it self-sustaining.
The problem arose in the form of US President Barack Obama.
The US of course did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and Obama has made it a key part of his legacy that he wants to be the first US President to sign up to a global climate change agreement. Obviously that would be a hard task for him. Not only would he have to win over the climate change deniers in Congress who will block anything that will harm the profits of the fossil fuel companies that pay for their campaigns Obama would also have to make sure the new agreement removed the problems that gave the US legitimate grounds not to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Unfortunately Obama doesn't like hard work so he went in a different direction.
In October 2015 - two months before negotiations closed - the US ripped up everything that everybody had been working on for the past five years. In its place they introduced a draft that kept the main problem with the Kyoto Protocol - known as; "Binary Differentiation" - but removed any legal obligation on any party to actually uphold the agreement. In short Obama introduced a version of the Kyoto Protocol that was so watered down he thinks he can bypass Congress and ratify it into law by executive order. He even managed to get that bit wrong.
Not only does the Paris Agreement fail to expand the obligation to reduce GHG emissions beyond the 36 nations of the Kyoto Protocol it actually removes the obligation on those 36 because there are no longer any consequences if they don't comply. This obviously permanently removes the demand needed for a market based mechanism killing the idea stone dead.
Due to this failure many governments have rushed to tout Carbon Pricing as a solution with some 90 nations including some sort of Green Tax plan. This newfound drive towards stealth taxes that do nothing to reduce GHG emissions has been led both by Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. When Obama first took up office everyone in the UK quickly realised that they'd seen it all before in the form of Tony Blair. Trudeau has been touted as "Canada's Obama" and is very much in that style over substance mould of politics.
The other advantage of a market based mechanism is that it would provide a ready stream of income to poor nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This would allow them to adapt to the effects of climate change and develop their economies in an environmentally sustainable manner. With that option being killed off by the Paris Agreement it has been suggested that the void could be filled by what are termed Private Finance Initiatives (PFI's). These are another one of Tony Blair's scams.
Essentially rather than having to pay for public infrastructure such as hospitals upfront private companies pay for them under PFI's with no initial cost to the taxpayer. The government then rents the infrastructure from the private company on a long term basis. As the recent closure of 17 schools in Edinburgh, Scotland demonstrates these PFI's very nearly destroyed the UK economy. The private companies do substandard work for a huge profit before the taxpayer has to pay again to actually provide the service.
As such forcing impoverished nations without strong political and anti-corruption systems to rely on PFI's to help them adapt to climate change is rather like sending lambs to the slaughter. The Bloomberg group however seem to really like the idea.
With last Friday's signing ceremony for the Paris Agreement owing nothing to efforts to combat climate change and everything to Obama's ego it is telling that Obama didn't attend. Instead he was on an official visit to the UK primarily to visit the Queen.
The day before Obama's visit the Queen celebrated her 90th birthday. Obviously being invited to a private audience with her so soon after such an important event would be considered both a huge honour and a mark of respect. On his visit Obama was also offered the chance to write an article for the Daily Telegraph newspaper and give an in depth interview for the BBC on the subject of the UK's upcoming referendum on remaining part of the EU. It is fitting with Obama's ego that he would think that he alone could alter the outcome of the vote.
Having appeared to have tricked Obama into boycotting the signing ceremony for the Paris Agreement the UK then seemed to turn the entire visit into a spirited protest against the Paris Agreement.
At around 17:15 on 25/4/16 (UK date) I will be back to expand on that after dinner.
Edited at around 18:35 on 25/4/16 (UK date) to add;
In the week proceeding Obama's visit the UK suddenly became rather noisy. For example it was announced that British police still believed they could find Madeline McCann alive.
For me at least global climate change negotiations have been heavily intertwined with the fate of my grandmother. I actually ended up spending three of the last five Conference of Parties (COP) Summits arguing the case in the Court of Protection (COP). On the final occasion the case was heard by the same Judge who ruled that Madeline McCann is still alive. Needless to say there are significant question marks over her integrity and competence.
At roughly the same time British popstar Lily Allen gave a series of media interviews after a man was convicted of harassing/stalking her. Although I've only actually met her a couple of times many of those occasions were on "Mayday" anti-capitalist protests which were covered by extensive police surveillance. As such Lily Allen and I are cross-referenced in each other MI5 files.
The big disruption for the 2013 COP19 Summit was Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour. This caused me to become utterly obsessed with Rihanna's every move constantly searching for secret messages she'd hidden in her songs, video and social media posts. I suspect the longterm objective was that this would lead to me getting into some sort of legal/medical trouble.
On the day of the ceremony the British theme park Alton Towers plead guilty to negligence charges over a crash on their "Smiler" ride on June 2nd 2015 (2/6/16). That was an attempt by the UK to disrupt the June SB42 meeting at which final climate change negotiations were taking place. If the UK hadn't been so disruptive maybe the Paris Agreement wouldn't have been so terrible.
Later in the day a sort of crime mystery emerged with the discovery of two bodies at an address on May Street in Hull, UK.
With the exception of the Alton Towers apology there didn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to all this noise. Instead the purpose was to disrupt the Paris Agreement signing ceremony by putting pressure on everybody to search for a meaning that didn't exist.
The best bit about this effort was that the US was forced to join in adding to the confusion.
On Thursday (21/4/16) in the US state of Delaware a 16 year old girl was beaten to death in a high school bathroom by a group of girls some of whom filmed the attack on their cell phones. This was a reference to my so-called lesbian wife. It almost goes without saying that the rest of Britain's lesbian community did not take news of the marriage in good grace.
The fact the killing occurred in the bathroom is a reference gender neutral bathrooms debate that is currently going on in the US. Obviously being able to use phrases like "lesbian wife" I have things that I could contribute to this debate. Not that I can be bothered.
On Friday (22/4/16) 8 people were found dead in a mass shooting in the US state of Ohio. Obviously when that news flashes up without any other detail people immediately start wondering what the cause could be with terrorism being very high up on the list.
Also Obama has made gun control a major part of his legacy. So there was some interest to see whether he would cancel his press conference with UK Prime Minister in order to exploit the tragedy to further his agenda as he has done with so many other mass shootings. The shooting occurred in an area known as "Union Hill." I suspect that name comes from the area supporting the Union forces against the Confederate forces during the US civil war. Through his constant race baiting Obama seems intent on starting the next US civil war.
After two days of mystery is was revealed yesterday (24/4/16) that the shootings had taken place at an illegal Marijuana farm hinting that the killings were linked to organised crime. Although I'm not sure how much detail I want to go into I am somewhat familiar with the fringes of that World. While it didn't involve me directly this became a bit of an issue during COP19 due to a much less dramatic shooting.
Since Friday the US has been trying to style out the situation by continuing the noise to give the impression that there was some urgent discussion going on rather than Obama being tricked into protesting his own legacy. For example on Saturday (23/4/16) night there was another evacuation on the Red Line of Washington D.C's Metro system. This was intended to look like a discussion about the terror threat facing Europe and an apology for the lack on communication.
Despite the noisy and spectacular protest the UK then went and contradicted itself by signing the Paris Agreement. As with any other signatory to the agreement this doesn't place any real obligation on the UK to do anything about climate change.
However it does make it more difficult should we decide we want to do something about climate change at some point in the future.
19:30 on 25/4/16 (UK date).
I've avoided commenting on it up until now because it is a complex issue and I am rather busy. Plus I don't have much to bring in the way of good news.
During the debate much has been made of Britain's proud history of steel making which stretches back almost 200 years. However during the steel industry's heyday the UK also had a vibrant mining industry producing not only the raw materials such as Iron ore needed to make steel but also the coal to power the furnaces.
With that now all gone the UK is in a position where it has to import all the raw materials and then try to sell the finished steel back to the nations the raw materials came from at a lower price than it costs them to make the steel themselves. To me that doesn't sound like a particularly sustainable business model. It also discredits the claim that the UK governments needs to protect the steel industry as a strategic asset. After all in a war or in the face of an economic collapse it would still be easier for the UK to just import the finished steel rather than all the raw materials.
With the Paris Agreement on climate change being opened for signing and ratification last Friday (22/4/16) there is one element of the Port Talbot debate that I do need to comment on. The increased costs of energy that have been brought about by so-called "Green Taxes" as part of the Kyoto Protocol - the forerunner of the Paris Agreement.
I should start by pointing out that this element has been somewhat overstated. Energy costs including the costs of raw materials only account for around 6% of the Port Talbot plants total expenditure. That works out at around £60,000 of the £1million the plant is losing every week. As such I don't think it is the decisive factor.
Also the UK participates in the Kyoto Protocol as part of the European Union (EU). Therefore if the German steel industry or the Italian steel industry aren't also in crisis then the problem isn't with the Kyoto Protocol. Instead it is with the way the UK government has chosen to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
That said these green taxes - Carbon Pricing as its known in the jargon - have never been a particularly effective tool in reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The problem is that they bear absolutely no relation to the cost of reducing GHG emissions or the costs of adapting to the effects of climate change. Instead they're completely arbitrary and therefore open to abuse by the governments that set them.
Carbon pricing was introduced in the UK by the New Labour government of Tony Blair. That government's entire election was based on the promise of increased public spending but no increases in taxes - particularly income tax. In order to deliver on the promise Blair's government introduced a vast array of what are termed "Stealth Taxes" such as green taxes on energy production. These tax revenues obviously boosted the amount of money the government had to spend whilst at the same time they were protecting the environment rather than breaking their tax pledge.
One of the main problems currently facing the global steel industry is China's subsidy of their own steel industry. Essentially the Chinese government is paying to produce steel at a loss so it can continue to create new jobs. Although China - the World's largest emitter of GHG's - is currently growing its emissions rather than taking steps to reduce them such as setting green taxes it should be easy to see how they would use carbon pricing to give a further boost to their steel industry. They simply make sure the carbon price they set is much lower than their competitors.
The solution to this would be to replace carbon pricing with a market based mechanism - sometimes known as Cap and Trade. This would mean that if you are in an industry such as steel making that produces a lot of GHG emissions you would have to pay a nation like Brazil to preserve their Rainforests in order to scrub those emissions out of the atmosphere.
This would obviously drive up the cost of production for energy intensive industries such as steel making. However it would do so globally with the cost being determined by supply and demand meaning that it would be impossible for one nation to gain a competitive advantage over another.
The main barrier to introducing a global market based mechanism has been the Kyoto Protocol itself.
It requires only 36 nations - 28 of them EU member states - to take action to reduce the GHG emissions. So although a prototype carbon market has developed within the EU this doesn't produce enough demand to sustain itself. Also the market doesn't include nations like Brazil that would provide the supply of what are termed Carbon sinks.
The hope then was that not only would the Paris Agreement replace the Kyoto Protocol but it would go further obligating more nations to participate in a market based mechanism strengthening that market in order to make it self-sustaining.
The problem arose in the form of US President Barack Obama.
The US of course did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and Obama has made it a key part of his legacy that he wants to be the first US President to sign up to a global climate change agreement. Obviously that would be a hard task for him. Not only would he have to win over the climate change deniers in Congress who will block anything that will harm the profits of the fossil fuel companies that pay for their campaigns Obama would also have to make sure the new agreement removed the problems that gave the US legitimate grounds not to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Unfortunately Obama doesn't like hard work so he went in a different direction.
In October 2015 - two months before negotiations closed - the US ripped up everything that everybody had been working on for the past five years. In its place they introduced a draft that kept the main problem with the Kyoto Protocol - known as; "Binary Differentiation" - but removed any legal obligation on any party to actually uphold the agreement. In short Obama introduced a version of the Kyoto Protocol that was so watered down he thinks he can bypass Congress and ratify it into law by executive order. He even managed to get that bit wrong.
Not only does the Paris Agreement fail to expand the obligation to reduce GHG emissions beyond the 36 nations of the Kyoto Protocol it actually removes the obligation on those 36 because there are no longer any consequences if they don't comply. This obviously permanently removes the demand needed for a market based mechanism killing the idea stone dead.
Due to this failure many governments have rushed to tout Carbon Pricing as a solution with some 90 nations including some sort of Green Tax plan. This newfound drive towards stealth taxes that do nothing to reduce GHG emissions has been led both by Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. When Obama first took up office everyone in the UK quickly realised that they'd seen it all before in the form of Tony Blair. Trudeau has been touted as "Canada's Obama" and is very much in that style over substance mould of politics.
The other advantage of a market based mechanism is that it would provide a ready stream of income to poor nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This would allow them to adapt to the effects of climate change and develop their economies in an environmentally sustainable manner. With that option being killed off by the Paris Agreement it has been suggested that the void could be filled by what are termed Private Finance Initiatives (PFI's). These are another one of Tony Blair's scams.
Essentially rather than having to pay for public infrastructure such as hospitals upfront private companies pay for them under PFI's with no initial cost to the taxpayer. The government then rents the infrastructure from the private company on a long term basis. As the recent closure of 17 schools in Edinburgh, Scotland demonstrates these PFI's very nearly destroyed the UK economy. The private companies do substandard work for a huge profit before the taxpayer has to pay again to actually provide the service.
As such forcing impoverished nations without strong political and anti-corruption systems to rely on PFI's to help them adapt to climate change is rather like sending lambs to the slaughter. The Bloomberg group however seem to really like the idea.
With last Friday's signing ceremony for the Paris Agreement owing nothing to efforts to combat climate change and everything to Obama's ego it is telling that Obama didn't attend. Instead he was on an official visit to the UK primarily to visit the Queen.
The day before Obama's visit the Queen celebrated her 90th birthday. Obviously being invited to a private audience with her so soon after such an important event would be considered both a huge honour and a mark of respect. On his visit Obama was also offered the chance to write an article for the Daily Telegraph newspaper and give an in depth interview for the BBC on the subject of the UK's upcoming referendum on remaining part of the EU. It is fitting with Obama's ego that he would think that he alone could alter the outcome of the vote.
Having appeared to have tricked Obama into boycotting the signing ceremony for the Paris Agreement the UK then seemed to turn the entire visit into a spirited protest against the Paris Agreement.
At around 17:15 on 25/4/16 (UK date) I will be back to expand on that after dinner.
Edited at around 18:35 on 25/4/16 (UK date) to add;
In the week proceeding Obama's visit the UK suddenly became rather noisy. For example it was announced that British police still believed they could find Madeline McCann alive.
For me at least global climate change negotiations have been heavily intertwined with the fate of my grandmother. I actually ended up spending three of the last five Conference of Parties (COP) Summits arguing the case in the Court of Protection (COP). On the final occasion the case was heard by the same Judge who ruled that Madeline McCann is still alive. Needless to say there are significant question marks over her integrity and competence.
At roughly the same time British popstar Lily Allen gave a series of media interviews after a man was convicted of harassing/stalking her. Although I've only actually met her a couple of times many of those occasions were on "Mayday" anti-capitalist protests which were covered by extensive police surveillance. As such Lily Allen and I are cross-referenced in each other MI5 files.
The big disruption for the 2013 COP19 Summit was Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour. This caused me to become utterly obsessed with Rihanna's every move constantly searching for secret messages she'd hidden in her songs, video and social media posts. I suspect the longterm objective was that this would lead to me getting into some sort of legal/medical trouble.
On the day of the ceremony the British theme park Alton Towers plead guilty to negligence charges over a crash on their "Smiler" ride on June 2nd 2015 (2/6/16). That was an attempt by the UK to disrupt the June SB42 meeting at which final climate change negotiations were taking place. If the UK hadn't been so disruptive maybe the Paris Agreement wouldn't have been so terrible.
Later in the day a sort of crime mystery emerged with the discovery of two bodies at an address on May Street in Hull, UK.
With the exception of the Alton Towers apology there didn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to all this noise. Instead the purpose was to disrupt the Paris Agreement signing ceremony by putting pressure on everybody to search for a meaning that didn't exist.
The best bit about this effort was that the US was forced to join in adding to the confusion.
On Thursday (21/4/16) in the US state of Delaware a 16 year old girl was beaten to death in a high school bathroom by a group of girls some of whom filmed the attack on their cell phones. This was a reference to my so-called lesbian wife. It almost goes without saying that the rest of Britain's lesbian community did not take news of the marriage in good grace.
The fact the killing occurred in the bathroom is a reference gender neutral bathrooms debate that is currently going on in the US. Obviously being able to use phrases like "lesbian wife" I have things that I could contribute to this debate. Not that I can be bothered.
On Friday (22/4/16) 8 people were found dead in a mass shooting in the US state of Ohio. Obviously when that news flashes up without any other detail people immediately start wondering what the cause could be with terrorism being very high up on the list.
Also Obama has made gun control a major part of his legacy. So there was some interest to see whether he would cancel his press conference with UK Prime Minister in order to exploit the tragedy to further his agenda as he has done with so many other mass shootings. The shooting occurred in an area known as "Union Hill." I suspect that name comes from the area supporting the Union forces against the Confederate forces during the US civil war. Through his constant race baiting Obama seems intent on starting the next US civil war.
After two days of mystery is was revealed yesterday (24/4/16) that the shootings had taken place at an illegal Marijuana farm hinting that the killings were linked to organised crime. Although I'm not sure how much detail I want to go into I am somewhat familiar with the fringes of that World. While it didn't involve me directly this became a bit of an issue during COP19 due to a much less dramatic shooting.
Since Friday the US has been trying to style out the situation by continuing the noise to give the impression that there was some urgent discussion going on rather than Obama being tricked into protesting his own legacy. For example on Saturday (23/4/16) night there was another evacuation on the Red Line of Washington D.C's Metro system. This was intended to look like a discussion about the terror threat facing Europe and an apology for the lack on communication.
Despite the noisy and spectacular protest the UK then went and contradicted itself by signing the Paris Agreement. As with any other signatory to the agreement this doesn't place any real obligation on the UK to do anything about climate change.
However it does make it more difficult should we decide we want to do something about climate change at some point in the future.
19:30 on 25/4/16 (UK date).
Tuesday, 19 April 2016
Operation Featherweight: Month 21, Week 4, Day 4.
On Saturday April 9th (9/4/16) the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) entered the centre of the city of Hit. By April 11th (11/4/16) they had secured the centre of the city from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Last Thursday (14/4/16) the ISF fully liberated the city.
Obviously there is still work to be done clearing the city of the hundreds of landmines and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) that ISIL have left behind along with clearing the last few pockets of resistance between Hit and Haditha. However the liberation of Hit marks a significant victory for the ISF because it allows them to open the Highway 12 road that runs between Haditha some 65km (40 miles) to the north-west and Ramadi which sits around 50km (30 miles) to the south-east.
Crucially this will allow free movement between Ramadi and the Al-Baghdadi Air Base some 30km (20 miles) north-west of Hit when the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - has been training members of the ISF.
With Hit liberated it raises the question of where the ISF should focus their efforts on liberating next. The obvious choice is the city of Fallujah. This represents ISIL's last significant area of occupation in Anbar province sitting between Ramadi 50km (30 miles) to the west and the Iraqi capital Baghdad 50km (30 miles) top the east.
Then of course there is the outstanding matter of the so-called Hawija triangle. This is a triangle of ISIL occupied territory centred around the town of Hawija between the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and the town of Baiji some 265km (160 miles) north of Baghdad.
Liberating Fallujah will be the harder task. When the US launched a operation to capture Fallujah back in the spring of 2004 it took a force of roughly 2,200 made up of well equipped and elite units such as the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions alongside 1st Marine Expeditionary Group and two Special Forces groups almost 4 weeks to defeat an enemy nowhere near as entrenched and motivated as ISIL. The second battle in the winter of 2004 involved roughly 13,000 US & coalition troops and lasted almost 12 weeks.
However as a major population centre and therefore source of tax revenue Fallujah is the bigger prize. Plus the liberation of Fallujah will effectively mean the complete liberation of Anbar province allowing the ISF to focus the bulk of their efforts elsewhere.
Unfortunately the US still seems utterly focused on forcing the ISF to rush ahead with an operation to liberate the city of Mosul - some 400km (240 miles) north of Baghdad - despite there still being so much unfinished business. As ISIL's de facto capital in Iraq Mosul will be even harder to liberate than Fallujah.
The operation will also have to involve close cooperation between the ISF, the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Shia militias that are collectively known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). More than two years in these groups seem to be being driven further apart by the pressure of the ISIL occupation of Iraq.
Yesterday (18/4/16) the US Secretary of Defence Ash Carter visited Iraq and used the opportunity to announce that a further 217 US ground troops will be sent to Iraq. Despite US President Obama's pledge of no boots on the ground this will bring the total number of US troops deployed to Iraq to over 4,000.
It is understood that some of these additional troops will be Special Forces operators who will be training ISF and Peshmerga troops. However the majority will be support staff for an unspecified number of AH-64 Apache helicopter gunships that the US will also be deploying.
Although it has not been officially stated the purpose of this latest deployment seems intended to put pressure on the ISF to begin an operation to liberate Mosul. This is despite the operation to liberate a number of villages centred around al-Nasr (Nasser) that sit between the town of Makhmur and Mosul being suspended indefinitely. Likewise a PMF operation to clear ISIL from the village of Bashir close to the town of Taza some 10km (6 miles) south of Kirkuk has also been aborted amid heavy casualties.
Fortunately there is absolutely no reason why those Apaches can't be used in operations to liberate other areas of Iraq such as Fallujah or the Hawija triangle. For the operation to liberate Fallujah they could be conveniently stationed at either Baghdad Airport of Al-Baghdadi Air Base.
As I've covered extensively on March 31st (31/3/16) the Army of Conquest coalition used the Geneva peace talks as cover to launch a largescale offensive across large areas of the north-west of Syria.
The Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) is of course a coalition of Sunni extremist groups headed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front (ANF) alongside groups such as the Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar as-Sham al-Islamiyya (Ahrar al-Sham) and the Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI). They are joined by the Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB) which itself is a coalition within a coalition made up of groups such as the Falcons of the Levant/Suqur al-Sham and the Levant Legion/Faylaq al-Sham.
Centred in a roughly 100km (60 mile) stretch of the Syria/Turkey border between Azaz in the west and the Euphrates River in the east known as "Erdogan's Pocket" which functions as their main supply route this latest Army of Conquest offensive has been focused on forcing Syrian government forces - the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) - out of Aleppo province. On the borders between Aleppo, Latakia and Idlib provinces this immediately brought the Army of Conquest into conflict with the SAA particularly around villages in the Latakia mountains on the border with Turkey.
Within Aleppo province itself the Army of Conquest's offensive seems focused on first surrounding and then capturing the provincial capital - Aleppo City.
To this end the Army of Conquest have advanced to occupy villages on the high ground surrounding the city. From there they have been launching repeated artillery barrages against the Kurdish controlled Sheikh Maqsood district which is under the protection of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - the main anti-ISIL force within Syria. These have included at least two chemical weapons attacks. The Army of Conquest have also been moving to capture and cut the main M5 Highway that links Aleppo City with the rest of Syria.
On April 12th (12/4/16) the Army of Conquest's advance on the M5 Highway brought them into contact with the SAA who were able to stop the advance driving the Army of Conquest back from the town of Al-Eis. Since then the SAA have launched a counter-offensive focused on securing the areas around the 214 Highway and the Tel Rifat road which both run north from Aleppo City to Azaz. The intention seems to be to end the Army of Conquest's offensive by cutting their supply lines between Erdogan's Pocket and Aleppo City.
On April 13th (13/4/16) Syrians went to the polls in their Parliamentary election. Although the results are yet to be formally announced it is expected that the incumbent Ba'ath Party of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will win by a large margin. After all anyone who is voting is likely to have already decided that they support the Syrian government.
In order to distract from Syria's Parliamentary election and the deep support for the Syrian government that it shows the United Nations (UN) of all people decided to resume the Geneva peace talks on April 13th (13/4/16). Due to the election the Syrian government delegation did not attend those resumed talks and won't do so until the election is complete.
On Sunday (17/4/16) one of the lead negotiators for the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) which is opposed to the Syria government Mohammed Alloush - who also happens to be the head of the Army of Islam - declared the talks to be dead. He went on to call for the Army of Conquest coalition to ignite on all fronts urging them to strike at the throats of supporters of the Syrian government invoking a Qu'ranic verse that calls for the death of unbelievers.
On Monday (18/4/16) the Army of Conquest obliged Alloush and announced that it is launching a fresh offensive against the Syrian government they have named "Retaliation For Grievances." For the most part it has been impossible to distinguish this new offensive from the Army of Conquest offensive that has been ongoing since March 31st (31/3/16). However it seems to have triggered new fighting in Hama province centred around the town of Hakura close to the border with Latakia province.
Later on Monday (18/4/16) the rest of the HNC used the offensive they had launched as reason to withdraw from the Geneva talks. However their delegation will remain in Switzerland in order to participate in what they term "technical talks."
On Thursday (21/4/16) both US President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry will attend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is of course Saudi Arabia that formed the HNC for the Geneva talks on Syria.
As such it should be obvious that this Army of Conquest offensive and HNC walkout have been carefully staged in order to put pressure on the US to re-affirm at the GCC Summit that the purpose of the Geneva talks is not to bring peace to Syria. Instead it is simply another mechanism alongside war to overthrow the Syrian government and install the Army of Conquest in power in the country.
If Obama wants to bring peace to Syria it is clear what he needs to do.
17:25 on 19/4/16 (UK date).
Obviously there is still work to be done clearing the city of the hundreds of landmines and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) that ISIL have left behind along with clearing the last few pockets of resistance between Hit and Haditha. However the liberation of Hit marks a significant victory for the ISF because it allows them to open the Highway 12 road that runs between Haditha some 65km (40 miles) to the north-west and Ramadi which sits around 50km (30 miles) to the south-east.
Crucially this will allow free movement between Ramadi and the Al-Baghdadi Air Base some 30km (20 miles) north-west of Hit when the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - has been training members of the ISF.
With Hit liberated it raises the question of where the ISF should focus their efforts on liberating next. The obvious choice is the city of Fallujah. This represents ISIL's last significant area of occupation in Anbar province sitting between Ramadi 50km (30 miles) to the west and the Iraqi capital Baghdad 50km (30 miles) top the east.
Then of course there is the outstanding matter of the so-called Hawija triangle. This is a triangle of ISIL occupied territory centred around the town of Hawija between the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and the town of Baiji some 265km (160 miles) north of Baghdad.
Liberating Fallujah will be the harder task. When the US launched a operation to capture Fallujah back in the spring of 2004 it took a force of roughly 2,200 made up of well equipped and elite units such as the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions alongside 1st Marine Expeditionary Group and two Special Forces groups almost 4 weeks to defeat an enemy nowhere near as entrenched and motivated as ISIL. The second battle in the winter of 2004 involved roughly 13,000 US & coalition troops and lasted almost 12 weeks.
However as a major population centre and therefore source of tax revenue Fallujah is the bigger prize. Plus the liberation of Fallujah will effectively mean the complete liberation of Anbar province allowing the ISF to focus the bulk of their efforts elsewhere.
Unfortunately the US still seems utterly focused on forcing the ISF to rush ahead with an operation to liberate the city of Mosul - some 400km (240 miles) north of Baghdad - despite there still being so much unfinished business. As ISIL's de facto capital in Iraq Mosul will be even harder to liberate than Fallujah.
The operation will also have to involve close cooperation between the ISF, the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Shia militias that are collectively known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). More than two years in these groups seem to be being driven further apart by the pressure of the ISIL occupation of Iraq.
Yesterday (18/4/16) the US Secretary of Defence Ash Carter visited Iraq and used the opportunity to announce that a further 217 US ground troops will be sent to Iraq. Despite US President Obama's pledge of no boots on the ground this will bring the total number of US troops deployed to Iraq to over 4,000.
It is understood that some of these additional troops will be Special Forces operators who will be training ISF and Peshmerga troops. However the majority will be support staff for an unspecified number of AH-64 Apache helicopter gunships that the US will also be deploying.
Although it has not been officially stated the purpose of this latest deployment seems intended to put pressure on the ISF to begin an operation to liberate Mosul. This is despite the operation to liberate a number of villages centred around al-Nasr (Nasser) that sit between the town of Makhmur and Mosul being suspended indefinitely. Likewise a PMF operation to clear ISIL from the village of Bashir close to the town of Taza some 10km (6 miles) south of Kirkuk has also been aborted amid heavy casualties.
Fortunately there is absolutely no reason why those Apaches can't be used in operations to liberate other areas of Iraq such as Fallujah or the Hawija triangle. For the operation to liberate Fallujah they could be conveniently stationed at either Baghdad Airport of Al-Baghdadi Air Base.
As I've covered extensively on March 31st (31/3/16) the Army of Conquest coalition used the Geneva peace talks as cover to launch a largescale offensive across large areas of the north-west of Syria.
The Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) is of course a coalition of Sunni extremist groups headed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front (ANF) alongside groups such as the Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar as-Sham al-Islamiyya (Ahrar al-Sham) and the Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI). They are joined by the Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB) which itself is a coalition within a coalition made up of groups such as the Falcons of the Levant/Suqur al-Sham and the Levant Legion/Faylaq al-Sham.
Centred in a roughly 100km (60 mile) stretch of the Syria/Turkey border between Azaz in the west and the Euphrates River in the east known as "Erdogan's Pocket" which functions as their main supply route this latest Army of Conquest offensive has been focused on forcing Syrian government forces - the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) - out of Aleppo province. On the borders between Aleppo, Latakia and Idlib provinces this immediately brought the Army of Conquest into conflict with the SAA particularly around villages in the Latakia mountains on the border with Turkey.
Within Aleppo province itself the Army of Conquest's offensive seems focused on first surrounding and then capturing the provincial capital - Aleppo City.
To this end the Army of Conquest have advanced to occupy villages on the high ground surrounding the city. From there they have been launching repeated artillery barrages against the Kurdish controlled Sheikh Maqsood district which is under the protection of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - the main anti-ISIL force within Syria. These have included at least two chemical weapons attacks. The Army of Conquest have also been moving to capture and cut the main M5 Highway that links Aleppo City with the rest of Syria.
On April 12th (12/4/16) the Army of Conquest's advance on the M5 Highway brought them into contact with the SAA who were able to stop the advance driving the Army of Conquest back from the town of Al-Eis. Since then the SAA have launched a counter-offensive focused on securing the areas around the 214 Highway and the Tel Rifat road which both run north from Aleppo City to Azaz. The intention seems to be to end the Army of Conquest's offensive by cutting their supply lines between Erdogan's Pocket and Aleppo City.
On April 13th (13/4/16) Syrians went to the polls in their Parliamentary election. Although the results are yet to be formally announced it is expected that the incumbent Ba'ath Party of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will win by a large margin. After all anyone who is voting is likely to have already decided that they support the Syrian government.
In order to distract from Syria's Parliamentary election and the deep support for the Syrian government that it shows the United Nations (UN) of all people decided to resume the Geneva peace talks on April 13th (13/4/16). Due to the election the Syrian government delegation did not attend those resumed talks and won't do so until the election is complete.
On Sunday (17/4/16) one of the lead negotiators for the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) which is opposed to the Syria government Mohammed Alloush - who also happens to be the head of the Army of Islam - declared the talks to be dead. He went on to call for the Army of Conquest coalition to ignite on all fronts urging them to strike at the throats of supporters of the Syrian government invoking a Qu'ranic verse that calls for the death of unbelievers.
On Monday (18/4/16) the Army of Conquest obliged Alloush and announced that it is launching a fresh offensive against the Syrian government they have named "Retaliation For Grievances." For the most part it has been impossible to distinguish this new offensive from the Army of Conquest offensive that has been ongoing since March 31st (31/3/16). However it seems to have triggered new fighting in Hama province centred around the town of Hakura close to the border with Latakia province.
Later on Monday (18/4/16) the rest of the HNC used the offensive they had launched as reason to withdraw from the Geneva talks. However their delegation will remain in Switzerland in order to participate in what they term "technical talks."
On Thursday (21/4/16) both US President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry will attend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is of course Saudi Arabia that formed the HNC for the Geneva talks on Syria.
As such it should be obvious that this Army of Conquest offensive and HNC walkout have been carefully staged in order to put pressure on the US to re-affirm at the GCC Summit that the purpose of the Geneva talks is not to bring peace to Syria. Instead it is simply another mechanism alongside war to overthrow the Syrian government and install the Army of Conquest in power in the country.
If Obama wants to bring peace to Syria it is clear what he needs to do.
17:25 on 19/4/16 (UK date).
Sunday, 17 April 2016
The Earth Seems Furious.
On Friday (22/4/16) nations will gather at the United Nations (UN) building in New York City, US to sign the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Otherwise known as the 12/12 Atrocity this is the agreement that was drawn up on December 12 2015 (12/12/15) at the close of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris, France.
So far 130 nations have confirmed that they will be attending Friday's signing ceremony. With the European Union (EU) being amongst them these signatories will be enough to bring the agreement into force. This will represent one of the greatest environmental crimes ever committed.
If the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) permits then I would like to go through the agreement line-by-line detailing everything that is wrong with it. However the text of the agreement has not changed since COP21. Therefore the fatal flaws I identified at the time have not been resolved.
The main problem with the 12/12 Atrocity is that it requires only the 36 states that ratified the Kyoto Protocol (KP) to take action to reduce their Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. However even this small group will be placed under less of an obligation to take action because unlike the KP this new agreement is not legally binding and contains no enforcement mechanism to punish those who fail to meet their obligations.
Two crucial countries that are not covered by this new agreement as China and India. Based on 2013 figures these are the largest and the fourth largest emitters of GHG's on the planet. With China and India not only being under no obligation to cut their GHG emissions but actually being given permission to increase them the 12/12 Atrocity will do absolutely nothing to stop or in any way mitigate global warming.
It will though create an unlevel playing field distorting the global market place in China and India's favour allowing them to massively expand their economies at the expense of the 36 nations who ratified the KP - essentially the EU.
On Wednesday (13/4/16) a 6.9 magnitude struck northern Myanmar (Burma) right on the border with China. This 'quake was felt across both China and India putting those two nations firmly in the spotlight. Myanmar is one of the extremely oppressive South-East Asian nations that the US opening up as a free trade partner in order to undercut China's growing economic power. Quite how the US reconciles that with the signing of the Paris agreement is beyond me.
On Thursday (14/4/16) a 6.2 magnitude earthquake struck Japan. This was quickly followed by a 6.5 magnitude 'quake. However these were just foreshocks for the 7.1 magnitude earthquake that struck Japan on Friday (15/4/16).
With the Kyoto Protocol being named after Kyoto, Japan where is was drawn up it almost goes without saying that Japan was one the first of the 36 nations to ratify it. Given the increasing tensions between Japan and its neighbour China - particularly over the South China Seas - it does seem odd that Japan would hand China a massive economic advantage by ratifying the 12/12 Atrocity.
The other main fatal flaw with the Paris agreement is that it places an unsustainable burden on the least developed nations. Under the agreement they are required to submit new Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) plans every five years. These plans will have to include full inventories of all GHG emission sources and absorption sinks.
For a nation such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) this means completely cataloguing a Rainforest roughly the same size as the nation of Spain or twice the size of the US state of Oregon. This is simply an impossible task for them.
At the same time as placing an undue burden on them the 12/12 Atrocity also massively reduces the funding available for the developing nations to meet even their existing burdens by completely removing the possibility of a global emissions trading scheme. After all if no-one is under any obligation to reduce their GHG emissions there's no market for the carbon credits that the DRC has to sell.
Although they are in no way caused by climate change earthquakes provide a stark contrast in the way that developed and developing nations are able to adapt and respond to environmental hazards.
An environmental hazard that is caused by climate change is the emerging famine in Africa's Sahel Belt. The first warnings about this were issued in the autumn of 2015 and UN Security Council (UNSC) briefings were held in January 2016. However it is only now that we're starting to see the effects of this crisis start to emerge in the form of malnourished people. It will be several months before we will start seeing the large numbers of deaths that we know are coming because it takes at least 6 weeks to starve to death.
By contrast in an earthquake the majority of the death and destruction is caused in an instant meaning we can see it immediately.
The reason why I've taken until now to comment on Japan's earthquakes is because I know they are a rich and technologically advanced nation well used to dealing with earthquakes. So while the 32 people who've died have my empathy I'm not sure of anything I can contribute to help the situation.
By contrast on April 25th 2015 (25/4/15) a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the economically and technologically less developed nation of Nepal. Although only being 60 times more powerful than Friday's (15/4/16) earthquake in Japan this instantly killed around 8,000 people.
Today a 7.8 magnitude earthquake has struck Ecuador which includes the famous - amongst environmentalists - Galapagos Islands. So far this is confirmed to have killed 77 people and I while I mean them no offence I already know that the Ecuadorian governments is going to be no where near as effective as the Japanese governments.
While all this has been going on there have been a series of small, but significant, earthquakes affecting the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as Vanuatu in the south Pacific. These are the nations that will be most affected by the rising sea levels brought about by Climate Change.
11:05 on 17/4/16 (UK date).
Otherwise known as the 12/12 Atrocity this is the agreement that was drawn up on December 12 2015 (12/12/15) at the close of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris, France.
So far 130 nations have confirmed that they will be attending Friday's signing ceremony. With the European Union (EU) being amongst them these signatories will be enough to bring the agreement into force. This will represent one of the greatest environmental crimes ever committed.
If the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) permits then I would like to go through the agreement line-by-line detailing everything that is wrong with it. However the text of the agreement has not changed since COP21. Therefore the fatal flaws I identified at the time have not been resolved.
The main problem with the 12/12 Atrocity is that it requires only the 36 states that ratified the Kyoto Protocol (KP) to take action to reduce their Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. However even this small group will be placed under less of an obligation to take action because unlike the KP this new agreement is not legally binding and contains no enforcement mechanism to punish those who fail to meet their obligations.
Two crucial countries that are not covered by this new agreement as China and India. Based on 2013 figures these are the largest and the fourth largest emitters of GHG's on the planet. With China and India not only being under no obligation to cut their GHG emissions but actually being given permission to increase them the 12/12 Atrocity will do absolutely nothing to stop or in any way mitigate global warming.
It will though create an unlevel playing field distorting the global market place in China and India's favour allowing them to massively expand their economies at the expense of the 36 nations who ratified the KP - essentially the EU.
On Wednesday (13/4/16) a 6.9 magnitude struck northern Myanmar (Burma) right on the border with China. This 'quake was felt across both China and India putting those two nations firmly in the spotlight. Myanmar is one of the extremely oppressive South-East Asian nations that the US opening up as a free trade partner in order to undercut China's growing economic power. Quite how the US reconciles that with the signing of the Paris agreement is beyond me.
On Thursday (14/4/16) a 6.2 magnitude earthquake struck Japan. This was quickly followed by a 6.5 magnitude 'quake. However these were just foreshocks for the 7.1 magnitude earthquake that struck Japan on Friday (15/4/16).
With the Kyoto Protocol being named after Kyoto, Japan where is was drawn up it almost goes without saying that Japan was one the first of the 36 nations to ratify it. Given the increasing tensions between Japan and its neighbour China - particularly over the South China Seas - it does seem odd that Japan would hand China a massive economic advantage by ratifying the 12/12 Atrocity.
The other main fatal flaw with the Paris agreement is that it places an unsustainable burden on the least developed nations. Under the agreement they are required to submit new Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) plans every five years. These plans will have to include full inventories of all GHG emission sources and absorption sinks.
For a nation such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) this means completely cataloguing a Rainforest roughly the same size as the nation of Spain or twice the size of the US state of Oregon. This is simply an impossible task for them.
At the same time as placing an undue burden on them the 12/12 Atrocity also massively reduces the funding available for the developing nations to meet even their existing burdens by completely removing the possibility of a global emissions trading scheme. After all if no-one is under any obligation to reduce their GHG emissions there's no market for the carbon credits that the DRC has to sell.
Although they are in no way caused by climate change earthquakes provide a stark contrast in the way that developed and developing nations are able to adapt and respond to environmental hazards.
An environmental hazard that is caused by climate change is the emerging famine in Africa's Sahel Belt. The first warnings about this were issued in the autumn of 2015 and UN Security Council (UNSC) briefings were held in January 2016. However it is only now that we're starting to see the effects of this crisis start to emerge in the form of malnourished people. It will be several months before we will start seeing the large numbers of deaths that we know are coming because it takes at least 6 weeks to starve to death.
By contrast in an earthquake the majority of the death and destruction is caused in an instant meaning we can see it immediately.
The reason why I've taken until now to comment on Japan's earthquakes is because I know they are a rich and technologically advanced nation well used to dealing with earthquakes. So while the 32 people who've died have my empathy I'm not sure of anything I can contribute to help the situation.
By contrast on April 25th 2015 (25/4/15) a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the economically and technologically less developed nation of Nepal. Although only being 60 times more powerful than Friday's (15/4/16) earthquake in Japan this instantly killed around 8,000 people.
Today a 7.8 magnitude earthquake has struck Ecuador which includes the famous - amongst environmentalists - Galapagos Islands. So far this is confirmed to have killed 77 people and I while I mean them no offence I already know that the Ecuadorian governments is going to be no where near as effective as the Japanese governments.
While all this has been going on there have been a series of small, but significant, earthquakes affecting the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as Vanuatu in the south Pacific. These are the nations that will be most affected by the rising sea levels brought about by Climate Change.
11:05 on 17/4/16 (UK date).
Saturday, 16 April 2016
Operation Featherweight: Month 21, Week 4, Day 1.
Since the end of March fighting has resumed in northwestern Syria with the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition launching a fresh offensive. Particularly centred around Aleppo province and its capital Aleppo City.
The Army of Conquest coalition is headed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front (ANF). As such no group acting as part of the coalition is covered by ceasefire agreement. Syrian government forces - the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) - have belatedly begun a counter-offensive to stop the Army of Conquest in their tracks. You would expect them to be supported by the Russian Air Force in this effort.
The US though has been placing intense pressure on the Russians not to fight back and allow Al Qaeda seize control of Aleppo. On Tuesday (12/4/16) an unnamed CIA official gave an off the record briefing to reports declaring that if the Russians were to back the SAA in the battle for Aleppo then US President Barack Obama would supply Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) - essentially "Stinger" missiles - to Al Qaeda to allow them to shoot down Russian aircraft.
This is not the first time this threat has been issued. There has been talk of supplying MANPADS to insurgent groups to shoot down Syrian aircraft pretty much continuously over the five years of the conflict. These calls intensified in October 2015 when Russia entered the conflict. In February 2016 a similar CIA briefing led the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to publish a story about the plan. This seems to have been done to intimidate Russia into accepting the ceasefire agreement and scaling back its air operations at the end of that month.
On Tuesday (12/4/16) shortly after the CIA had briefed reporters two unarmed Russian Su-24 jets flew within 30 metres (100ft) at an altitude of 300 metres (1000ft) of the US warship the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea. Although the aircraft were visibly unarmed this type of manoeuvre is consistent with a simulated attack on the ship.
You may remember that the Su-24 is the type of aircraft that was shot down by Turkey over Syria on November 24th 2015 (24/11/15). As such this seems intended to send the message to the US that doing something as reckless, provocative and dangerous as providing MANPADS to Al Qaeda in order to shoot down Russia aircraft would not be without consequence.
I think the Russians actually displayed great responsibility by keeping the discussion amongst highly trained military professionals rather than firing a warning shot at a civilian airliner with a MANPADS. After all that is the type of consequence we are talking about.
On Wednesday (13/4/16) US President Obama and his National Security Council (NSC) paid a visit to the CIA's headquarters. As such Tuesday's (14/4/16) CIA briefing seems intended to produce headlines that would publicly embarrass Obama over his failure to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups such as the Army of Conquest during that visit to the CIA.
Looking at the public remarks that Obama gave following his visit to the CIA it is easy to see why his strategy or complete lack thereof is giving the CIA plenty to protest about.
Obama once again attempted to justify his failure to act against ISIL and their associates on the grounds that they don't present "An existential threat to the US."
On this point Obama is quite correct because ISIL and their associates most certainly do exist and they certainly represent a real threat to the US. As such there are no existential questions to be asked about whether the US is trying to define its identity through the creation of an imaginary other.
However I suspect what Obama meant is that ISIL and their associates don't pose a threat to the complete existence of the the US. Again this is true but it completely misses the point.
During the Cold War the US did face a threat to its very existence in the form of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. During this period many calculations were made and strategies drawn up.
However it is generally understood that the US was prepared to seem up to 40 million of its population of 200 million killed in order to defeat the Soviet Union in a nuclear first-strike. In terms of the Soviets launching a first-strike the US estimated a death-toll in the region of 90-100 million until such an attack became unsurvivable for the nation as a whole.
I may be going soft in my old age but when it comes to protecting the US from terrorism I think the bar should be set a little lower than 50% of the population being wiped out before the President is prepared to take action.
Following the March 22nd (22/3/16) Brussels attacks US President Obama declined to attend a NATO summit on the attack on one of its members. He also declined to visit Belgium. Instead Obama pushed ahead with the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) which is the last Nuclear Security Summit ever to be held.
The reason why NSS2016 is to be the last Nuclear Security Summit held is because the entire thing is simply a vanity project of the Obama Presidency which comes to an end in January 2017. It began at the start of Obama's Presidency back when he thought he would rid the World of nuclear weapons, bring peace to the Middle-East, end global warming and cure racism.
However over the years the Nuclear Security Summit process has developed into a mechanism for Obama's "Pivot Towards the Pacific" policy.
The objective of this policy is to contain the growing power of China by building the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK/North) into a nuclear bogeyman to the region. In order to get US protection to this existential threat South-East Asian nations must open themselves up to freetrade agreements with the US.
At the same time this places China in a difficult position because if the block US sanctions on the DPRK they risk looking like a threat to their neighbours. However is they support those sanctions they risk the economic collapse of the DPRK triggering a flood of refugees across the land border the two nations share that would make the current European refugee crisis look tame in comparison.
So in order to assess the success or failure of the US' policy on the DPRK's nuclear program you don't need to look at what type of warheads they're building or what type of rockets they're launching.
Instead you need to look at the fate of Chinese manufacturing firms who are being forced to outsource to nations like Vietnam and Cambodia in order to keep wages low. China's entire economic/political model is based on creating ever more, better paid jobs in order to stave off social unrest.
In order to justify pressing ahead with NSS2016 rather than meeting with NATO in response to the Brussels attacks the Obama administration was keen to play up the work it could do to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of groups like ISIL who would want to build a so-called "Dirty Bomb."
Building a dirty bomb has long been an aspiration of various Islamist terror groups and something that ISIL seem very keen to do. Amongst the intelligence collected in the aftermath of the Brussels attack was evidence that the terror network had been researching various nuclear sites across Europe. However it must be said that the attraction of dirty bombs to terrorists comes not from their ability to cause largescale death and destruction but because of the fear they create.
A dirty bomb is simply a conventional bomb that disperses radioactive material across a wide area. As such how dangerous a particular dirty bomb is depends very much on the type of nuclear material it disperses. If it is something like granite that is used in most buildings then the terrorists would be better off just setting off a larger conventional bomb.
However even if a dirty bomb were to contain a powerful beta/gamma emitter such as Caesium-137 which is produced through the fission of Uranium-235 in a nuclear reactor it is unlikely it would immediately cause more deaths than the initial explosion.
About 9 months to a year after the attack though you would start to see birth defects emerging. Then 4-5 years later you would start to see a spike in childhood cancers. 20-30 years you would also see an spike in adult cancers. During this time the explosion site would have to be sealed off to humans much like the areas around the Chernobyl nuclear plant or the Fukashima nuclear plant.
Terrorists and Islamist terrorists such as ISIL in particular are very motivated by what is known as; "The Propaganda of the Deed." This means they want the fear and frankly terror off their attacks to echo far beyond the people who were actually caught up in them. By rendering parts or all of a major city uninhabitable for many years along with this generational fear of health problems such as cancer a dirty bomb represents a huge propaganda victory for terrorists.
However if ISIL and their associates just wanted to kill large numbers of people they would simply continue their work on chemical weapons which they are already using in both Syria and Iraq.
Probably the most potent chemical weapon is a nerve agent known simply as "VX."
This was developed by a civilian chemical company in, I think, the 1920's who were working on a pesticide. However they discovered that the compound they'd developed was so lethal they immediately stopped work on it. Britain resumed work on VX in the 1940/50's specifically to use it as a chemical weapon. The technology was traded with the US it return for the atom bomb because as a weapon it is equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Assuming professional grade gas properly dispersed into the atmosphere as little as 10grams (0.3oz) of VX released in a major city could rapidly kill in the region of 70-80,000 people. This is equivalent to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. A very sticky substance VX is also notoriously hard to clean up meaning that it would be a lenghty and expensive process to decomaninate the affected area.
As with the twin bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki twin VX attacks on two major US cities would not on their own before enough to wipe America out of existence. However I think Obama or any President would have a very hard time justifying the 160,000 civilians deaths let alone the long term economic impacts.
What is particularly worrying about VX is that the base substance it is synthesised from is an industrial grade Organophosphate pesticide. Although their use was largely discontinued in the 1990's there is still rather a lot of it still in circulation and if you've got the skill you can certainly synthesise your own Organophosphate from widely available base chemicals.
Even below the threat of VX there are still much less potent nerve agents such as Sarin that are even easier to manufacture. Even a Sulphur Mustard Gas attack on a crowded area such as a sports stadium would still be pretty nasty.
So I don't think that Obama has, in any way, grasped the threat posed by groups like ISIL let alone the need to eliminate them before these doomsday scenarios start becoming a reality.
15:35 on 16/4/16 (UK date).
The Army of Conquest coalition is headed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front (ANF). As such no group acting as part of the coalition is covered by ceasefire agreement. Syrian government forces - the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) - have belatedly begun a counter-offensive to stop the Army of Conquest in their tracks. You would expect them to be supported by the Russian Air Force in this effort.
The US though has been placing intense pressure on the Russians not to fight back and allow Al Qaeda seize control of Aleppo. On Tuesday (12/4/16) an unnamed CIA official gave an off the record briefing to reports declaring that if the Russians were to back the SAA in the battle for Aleppo then US President Barack Obama would supply Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) - essentially "Stinger" missiles - to Al Qaeda to allow them to shoot down Russian aircraft.
This is not the first time this threat has been issued. There has been talk of supplying MANPADS to insurgent groups to shoot down Syrian aircraft pretty much continuously over the five years of the conflict. These calls intensified in October 2015 when Russia entered the conflict. In February 2016 a similar CIA briefing led the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to publish a story about the plan. This seems to have been done to intimidate Russia into accepting the ceasefire agreement and scaling back its air operations at the end of that month.
On Tuesday (12/4/16) shortly after the CIA had briefed reporters two unarmed Russian Su-24 jets flew within 30 metres (100ft) at an altitude of 300 metres (1000ft) of the US warship the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea. Although the aircraft were visibly unarmed this type of manoeuvre is consistent with a simulated attack on the ship.
You may remember that the Su-24 is the type of aircraft that was shot down by Turkey over Syria on November 24th 2015 (24/11/15). As such this seems intended to send the message to the US that doing something as reckless, provocative and dangerous as providing MANPADS to Al Qaeda in order to shoot down Russia aircraft would not be without consequence.
I think the Russians actually displayed great responsibility by keeping the discussion amongst highly trained military professionals rather than firing a warning shot at a civilian airliner with a MANPADS. After all that is the type of consequence we are talking about.
On Wednesday (13/4/16) US President Obama and his National Security Council (NSC) paid a visit to the CIA's headquarters. As such Tuesday's (14/4/16) CIA briefing seems intended to produce headlines that would publicly embarrass Obama over his failure to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups such as the Army of Conquest during that visit to the CIA.
Looking at the public remarks that Obama gave following his visit to the CIA it is easy to see why his strategy or complete lack thereof is giving the CIA plenty to protest about.
Obama once again attempted to justify his failure to act against ISIL and their associates on the grounds that they don't present "An existential threat to the US."
On this point Obama is quite correct because ISIL and their associates most certainly do exist and they certainly represent a real threat to the US. As such there are no existential questions to be asked about whether the US is trying to define its identity through the creation of an imaginary other.
However I suspect what Obama meant is that ISIL and their associates don't pose a threat to the complete existence of the the US. Again this is true but it completely misses the point.
During the Cold War the US did face a threat to its very existence in the form of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. During this period many calculations were made and strategies drawn up.
However it is generally understood that the US was prepared to seem up to 40 million of its population of 200 million killed in order to defeat the Soviet Union in a nuclear first-strike. In terms of the Soviets launching a first-strike the US estimated a death-toll in the region of 90-100 million until such an attack became unsurvivable for the nation as a whole.
I may be going soft in my old age but when it comes to protecting the US from terrorism I think the bar should be set a little lower than 50% of the population being wiped out before the President is prepared to take action.
Following the March 22nd (22/3/16) Brussels attacks US President Obama declined to attend a NATO summit on the attack on one of its members. He also declined to visit Belgium. Instead Obama pushed ahead with the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) which is the last Nuclear Security Summit ever to be held.
The reason why NSS2016 is to be the last Nuclear Security Summit held is because the entire thing is simply a vanity project of the Obama Presidency which comes to an end in January 2017. It began at the start of Obama's Presidency back when he thought he would rid the World of nuclear weapons, bring peace to the Middle-East, end global warming and cure racism.
However over the years the Nuclear Security Summit process has developed into a mechanism for Obama's "Pivot Towards the Pacific" policy.
The objective of this policy is to contain the growing power of China by building the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK/North) into a nuclear bogeyman to the region. In order to get US protection to this existential threat South-East Asian nations must open themselves up to freetrade agreements with the US.
At the same time this places China in a difficult position because if the block US sanctions on the DPRK they risk looking like a threat to their neighbours. However is they support those sanctions they risk the economic collapse of the DPRK triggering a flood of refugees across the land border the two nations share that would make the current European refugee crisis look tame in comparison.
So in order to assess the success or failure of the US' policy on the DPRK's nuclear program you don't need to look at what type of warheads they're building or what type of rockets they're launching.
Instead you need to look at the fate of Chinese manufacturing firms who are being forced to outsource to nations like Vietnam and Cambodia in order to keep wages low. China's entire economic/political model is based on creating ever more, better paid jobs in order to stave off social unrest.
In order to justify pressing ahead with NSS2016 rather than meeting with NATO in response to the Brussels attacks the Obama administration was keen to play up the work it could do to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of groups like ISIL who would want to build a so-called "Dirty Bomb."
Building a dirty bomb has long been an aspiration of various Islamist terror groups and something that ISIL seem very keen to do. Amongst the intelligence collected in the aftermath of the Brussels attack was evidence that the terror network had been researching various nuclear sites across Europe. However it must be said that the attraction of dirty bombs to terrorists comes not from their ability to cause largescale death and destruction but because of the fear they create.
A dirty bomb is simply a conventional bomb that disperses radioactive material across a wide area. As such how dangerous a particular dirty bomb is depends very much on the type of nuclear material it disperses. If it is something like granite that is used in most buildings then the terrorists would be better off just setting off a larger conventional bomb.
However even if a dirty bomb were to contain a powerful beta/gamma emitter such as Caesium-137 which is produced through the fission of Uranium-235 in a nuclear reactor it is unlikely it would immediately cause more deaths than the initial explosion.
About 9 months to a year after the attack though you would start to see birth defects emerging. Then 4-5 years later you would start to see a spike in childhood cancers. 20-30 years you would also see an spike in adult cancers. During this time the explosion site would have to be sealed off to humans much like the areas around the Chernobyl nuclear plant or the Fukashima nuclear plant.
Terrorists and Islamist terrorists such as ISIL in particular are very motivated by what is known as; "The Propaganda of the Deed." This means they want the fear and frankly terror off their attacks to echo far beyond the people who were actually caught up in them. By rendering parts or all of a major city uninhabitable for many years along with this generational fear of health problems such as cancer a dirty bomb represents a huge propaganda victory for terrorists.
However if ISIL and their associates just wanted to kill large numbers of people they would simply continue their work on chemical weapons which they are already using in both Syria and Iraq.
Probably the most potent chemical weapon is a nerve agent known simply as "VX."
This was developed by a civilian chemical company in, I think, the 1920's who were working on a pesticide. However they discovered that the compound they'd developed was so lethal they immediately stopped work on it. Britain resumed work on VX in the 1940/50's specifically to use it as a chemical weapon. The technology was traded with the US it return for the atom bomb because as a weapon it is equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Assuming professional grade gas properly dispersed into the atmosphere as little as 10grams (0.3oz) of VX released in a major city could rapidly kill in the region of 70-80,000 people. This is equivalent to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. A very sticky substance VX is also notoriously hard to clean up meaning that it would be a lenghty and expensive process to decomaninate the affected area.
As with the twin bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki twin VX attacks on two major US cities would not on their own before enough to wipe America out of existence. However I think Obama or any President would have a very hard time justifying the 160,000 civilians deaths let alone the long term economic impacts.
What is particularly worrying about VX is that the base substance it is synthesised from is an industrial grade Organophosphate pesticide. Although their use was largely discontinued in the 1990's there is still rather a lot of it still in circulation and if you've got the skill you can certainly synthesise your own Organophosphate from widely available base chemicals.
Even below the threat of VX there are still much less potent nerve agents such as Sarin that are even easier to manufacture. Even a Sulphur Mustard Gas attack on a crowded area such as a sports stadium would still be pretty nasty.
So I don't think that Obama has, in any way, grasped the threat posed by groups like ISIL let alone the need to eliminate them before these doomsday scenarios start becoming a reality.
15:35 on 16/4/16 (UK date).
Friday, 15 April 2016
Operation Featherweight: Month 21, Week 3, Day 7.
Having concentrated on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL) main areas of operation in Syria and Iraq I need to take some time to focus on their third front: Europe.
On August 21st 2015 (21/8/15) a Moroccan member of ISIL - Ayoud El Khazzani - boarded a Thayls high speed train travelling through Belgium en route from the Netherlands to France. He carried with him an AK-47 assault rifle and a 9mm handgun along with 270 rounds of ammunition for both. He also carried with him a container of petrol.
Shortly after boarding the train El Khazzani emerged from the toilets brandishing his weapons and started attack passengers. In the first carriage he entered his assault rifle jammed and he was confronted by two American passenger both of whom had military training and combat experience. With the help of other passengers they overpowered El Khazzani bringing his attack to an end.
Without that extraordinary good fortune El Khazzani would have been able to unleash one of the worst acts of violence seen in either the Netherlands, Belgium or France since the end of the Second World War. Even before you factor in the use of firearms an accelerant fire aboard a crowded train travelling at speeds approaching 300km/h (185mph) represents a significant threat to life.
Very early on in the investigation it became apparent that El Khazzani had been operating as part of a wider ISIL network. This network was headed by Abdelhamid Abaaoud and was based in the Molenbeek district of the Belgian capital Brussels. It had previously been linked to a March 24th 2014 (24/3/14) attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels in which four people were killed.
Despite this the Belgian authorities seemingly did very little to eradicate the ISIL network and the threat that it posed.
On November 13th 2015 (13/11/15) seven ISIL members attacked multiple targets in the French capital Paris including the Stade de France stadium and the Bataclan theatre with assault rifles, grenades and suicide bombs. During the course of these attacks they murdered 130 people.
Again the Paris massacres were quickly linked to the ISIL network headed by Abaaoud that was operating out of the Molenbeek district of Brussels. On November 18th (18/11/15) French police tracked Abaaoud to an apartment in the Saint-Denis district of Paris where he was killed in a raid. His right-hand man Saleh Abdeslam though was able to flee France back to Brussels.
Again the Belgian authorities seemingly did very little to eradicate the ISIL network and the threat that it posed despite being forced to deploy troops to the streets and introduce a nationwide lockdown due to that threat.
With nothing happening for several months on March 15th 2016 (15/3/16) the French police seemed to force the Belgian authorities hand by leading a joint raid on an apartment the Forest district of Brussels which is adjacent to the Molenbeek district where the ISIL were known to be based.
During the raid French and Belgian police came under heavy, suppressing fire which allowed Abdeslam and another man to escape. After the gunman - Mohamed Belkaid - had been killed and the apartment searched the police discovered automatic weapons and detonators along with documents and flags linking the property to ISIL.
On March 18th (18/3/16) again as part of a French led operation Saleh Abdeslam was finally captured in Brussels. To the surprise of absolutely no-one he was found to be hiding in the Molenbeek district where local residents attacked police with rocks and petrol bombs in an effort to protect Abeslam.
Four days after the arrest of Abdeslam on Tuesday March 22nd (22/3/16) four ISIL members launched triple suicide bomb attacks against Brussels' Zaventerm Airport and the city's underground rail (Metro) system. 32 civilians were murdered in these attacks and a further 316 were wounded.
Again the Belgian authorities response to the worst ever terror attack on their country was lackadaisical at best.
Take for example their hunt for the fourth, surviving attacker who quickly became dubbed "The Man in the Hat."Initially the Belgian authorities identified this man as Faycal Cheffou and arrested him on March 24th (24/3/16).
"Faycal" is the Turkish spelling of the common Arabic name "Faisal."
All of the attackers in Paris, Brussels and aboard the Thayls train had travelled through Turkey to join ISIL in Syria. They also all travelled back through Turkey to Europe before carrying out their attacks.
One of the Zaventerm bombers in particular - Ibrahim El Bakraoui - seems to have been transported back to Europe by Turkey. Despite being a Belgian citizen he was deported back to the Netherlands at the end of June 2015. It took the Turkish authorities a further two weeks to notify the Belgians of this. That course of action by Turkey seemed intended to make it as difficult as possible for the Belgian authorities to intercept Ibrahim El Bakraoui on his return.
Four days prior to the Brussels attacks Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech marking the end of the Gallipoli campaign in World War One. Although they won the battle this really marked the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who went on to form modern Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire is credited with the Gallipoli victory remains a source of anger for Erdogan's Justice & Development Party (AKP).
During his speech Erdogan spoke on the topic of terrorism and said simply; "Brussels will be next." Two days prior to the Brussels attacks on Sunday March 20th (20/3/16) Turkey dramatically called off the Istanbul football derby between Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe claiming that a terrorist attack was imminent. The day before the Brussels attacks on Monday March 21st (21/3/16) Turkey declared that it was aware of three ISIL suicide bombers who were about to launch an attack.
Cheffou is a self-styled citizen journalist. The rumour I've heard is that he was actually arrested outside police HQ whilst doing a report for his website about the manhunt for the Man in the Hat.
From the very start the war in Syria has been a propaganda war.
One of the most high profile combatants in the early phases was a self-styled citizen journalist by the name of Danny Dayem. This British national just happened to be in the Syrian city of Homs when the fighting started equipped with semi-professional quality broadcasting equipment. His role was to provide gruesome footage of the aftermath of fighting that were then picked up to mainstream media outlets who broadcasted them to a wider audience.
Dayem's 'reports' obviously didn't cover the context that had led up to the violence - such as the attacks against the Syrian police/military - and certainly didn't question whether any of the scenes had be faked. The professional media outlets such as CNN, BBC, ITN or Al Jazeera who really should know better re-broadcast Dayem's videos verbatim also without asking these basic questions about the credibility of Dayem's footage.
Dayem was far from alone in this effort. Almost immediately as the violence started western governments such as the US and the UK announced that they were sending no-lethal aid to the insurgents. By this they meant video cameras, audio recording equipment and satellite upload systems to aid the insurgents with the production of what is termed "Atrocity Propaganda." Under Hillary Clinton the US State Department even forced the Internet giant Google to provide special services to the insurgents.
Eventually these propaganda efforts developed into the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets) group who still provide most of the footage of Syrian government 'atrocities' to the western media.
The purpose of this atrocity propaganda was to radicalise the general public both domestically and in Syria against the Syrian government.
As such it is undeniable that this propaganda war has also played a significant role in tricking European citizens - particularly Sunni Muslims - into joining ISIL and carrying out terror attacks against Europe.
Therefore the arrest of Faycal Cheffou seemed to provide a discreet way for those in the business to discuss these issues.
However four days later the Belgian authorities sensationally dismissed all charges against Cheffou and released him. This seemed to send the message that Belgium did not consider the discussed issues to be relevant and was dismissing them.
Obviously there is a strong possibility that the Belgians had simply arrested the wrong man. Even so they could certainly managed their mistake better.
For example they could have held him for the maximum time allowed by law - around 1 week I think - and then released him on bail pending further investigations. Then they could have quietly dropped the matter either when the discussion had ended or they'd arrested the right person.
Last Friday (8/4/16) the Belgian authorities did arrest the actual Man in the Hat who they identified as Mohamed Abrini. Again to the surprise of absolutely no-one he was found hiding out in the Schaarbeek district of Brussels which is adjacent to the Molenbeek district. However the Belgians seem to have been reluctant to do even this.
Earlier in the day French authorities sensationally announced that they were releasing on bail another terror suspect. For the life of me I cannot remember this suspects name but he had driven Abrini to the airport to allow him to travel to join ISIL in the first place. Personally I think this reckless French decision was taken to protest US President Obama's far more reckless decision to effectively let Al Qaeda out on bail by resuming the Train & Equip program.
However the Belgian authorities seemed to respond by going; "If everyone knows where Abrini is hiding out we've got no choice other than to arrest him."
Having finally arrested him the speed at which the Belgian authorities made public the details of Abrini's interrogation was also surprising. Everybody who has undergone any level of counter-interrogation training - ISIL fighters certainly have - knows that eventually staying silent is not an option. Particularly when torture is involved. Therefore you've got to have a coherent cover story that you can 'reveal' to your interrogators in order to throw them off the scent.
Abrini's initially statements seem to be exactly of that nature. By claiming that the decision to attack Brussels had been taken at the last minute he seems to be trying to protect Turkey from further accusations of collusion. The claim that the Euro 2016 football tournament was the original target - a claim that was supported by the planted laptop - seemed intended to disrupt the tournament by increasing public fear. In short terrorism without the effort of actually having to launch an attack.
There are two possible explanations for the Belgian authorities lack of effort in response to the Brussels attacks.
Firstly Belgium has long been an aggressive supporter of both ISIL and the war against Syria.
As a percentage of the population Belgium has contributed more recruits to ISIL than any other nation - including Syria and Iraq. This is the result of the Belgian intelligence services recruiting young Muslim men and then sending them to Syria. The main complaint of the "Mothers of Molenbeek" group is that when they would report their sons as potential ISIL recruits the Belgian authorities would step in to assist in sending them to Syria rather than trying to stop them.
Having radicalised and recruited these young men for what they see as "Their War" the Belgian intelligence services obviously don't view them as an enemy or a threat to national security. Instead they view them as returning heroes and are therefore opposed to imprisoning them let alone blocking their return to Belgium.
Obviously the people who will recruit fighters for ISIL don't see things like the Brussels attacks as a tragedy. Instead they see them as an opportunity to increase their budgets and introduce increasingly repressive security measures that make them more powerful. That obviously gives them no incentive to stop the attacks.
Secondly Belgium has long been a fractured country. One part is made up of French speakers while the other is made up of Flemish speakers. The Flemish regions desire for independence has caused long term political stability within Belgium. Between June 2010 and December 2011 the country was unable to form a government for 589 days - almost two full years. This is a World Record.
Whilst Belgium was without a government it was up to the civil service to keep the country running on a day-to-day basis. In order to avoid exceeding their authority and becoming a dictatorship Belgium's civil servants weren't able to introduce new policies on things like security. Instead they were limited to keeping the existing policies going no matter how outdated they'd become.
Although Belgium does now have a government things remain fragile. This means that politicians are afraid of making bold decisions that would offend their coalition partners once again collapsing the government. Just this past week Belgium has opened a special prison wing for Islamist terrorists. This had been delayed for years and due to coalition wrangling has only been opened on condition that it holds no more than 4 prisoners at any one time.
Whatever the cause of the problem Belgium does need to rapidly sort itself out. Almost a month on from the Brussels attacks and five months on from the Paris Massacres NATO is still no closer to invoking its Article 5 mutual defence clause.
It is becoming increasingly clear that if ISIL are to be defeated and this terrorist threat lifted then US President Obama is going to need adult supervision.
15:50 on 15/4/16 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)