Following almost a night and a day of continuous closed door negotiations delegates at the High Level segment of the COP21 Summit have all but admitted that they lack the basis for a global climate change agreement.
However for them to admit this formally would mean that US President Barack Obama would be unable to build the extension to his Presidential Library explaining how he saved the World from climate change. Instead he'd have to include a small exhibit on how he wasted everyone's time for three months and delayed the agreement by a year.
Likewise France would by unable to revel in global glory they've been dreaming of over the past five years. There would be particular questions over French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius' decision to accept the conclusions of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) despite it being obvious that their work preparing the negotiating text was incomplete.
So this evening a revised 27 page draft was released. This remains adamant that the ADP has completed its work and its mandate is at an end. It also remains adamant that an agreement has been reached on schedule. It also sets the date of April 22nd 2016 (22/4/16) for a formal signing ceremony to take place at the United Nations HQ in New York City, US.
However it also establishes the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA). This is tasked with completing all the work that the ADP failed to complete in preparation for COP21. For example drawing up a standard format for the INDC's.
Although a sign of progress this rather shoddy political compromise is still far from acceptable.
While the APA has to complete the work of the ADP it won't have the same remit and resources. For example it will be unable to amend the agreement that created it. That is a significant problem because parts of the text of that agreement are currently a barrier to effective action.
For example it contains specific language which commits nations that have submitted Absolute Emission Reductions (AER's) to continuing to submit AER's.
It's really an issue I would have liked to have discussed in the run-up to and during COP21 but nations that did sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and have already taken serious action to reduce emissions are now reaching the limits of how far they can reduce their future emissions.
Therefore over the 80-100 year lifespan of the agreement it might be better all around for them to move to intensity reductions accompanied by increase additional action to developing nations who are transitioning from intensity reductions to AER's.
So while I fully understand the importance of preventing backsliding the language used in the draft agreement is not sufficient and therefore needs more work.
Also the draft agreement mandates a five year commitment cycle. This is completely incompatible with a vital capacity building peer review process that occurs at the 5 year point in a 10 year commitment cycle. A 2.5 year ex post process is simply unworkable.
Critically the draft agreement still lacks a sunset clause meaning that if signed it will be in effect and ineffective forever.
Therefore the only way forward is for COP21 to admit that it has failed in its task and renew the mandate of the ADP so its work can be completed at COP22.
Given the way South Africa have conducted themselves recently I'm certainly open to it being re-named the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Platform (APP). But only if it has the same mandate and authority.
22:35 on 10/12/15 (UK date).
Thursday, 10 December 2015
COP21: So Repetitive.
The COP21 Summit is continuing in Paris, France. Rather like a ghost ship that has been cursed to aimlessly wander the high seas for all eternity.
Things have become so utterly devoid of hope it's becoming increasingly difficult to motivate myself to follow proceedings in detail.
The only person seeming to cling on to any level of enthusiasm is US President Barack Obama. Or more accurately one of his Twitter monkeys (@BarackObama).
Last night they sent out a message about how American leadership had caused 180 nations to commit to action on climate change.
This was a reference to the INDC submissions.
The deadline for those submissions was 6 months prior to the summit where the agreement they were set to serve was scheduled to be agreed. It was also more then 5 years prior to that agreement coming into force.
Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself but I've never viewed those INDC's to be genuine commitments to action. Instead they are a way for parties to communicate how they envision the agreement to function in order to help the agreement take shape.
Take for example the technical annex I drew up defining the format for INDC's. Although I like to think that I added some value that is clearly not my own, original work. Instead I have simply cut and pasted the common elements from the INDC submissions.
The idea being that after the agreement had been signed but before implementation the current submissions would then be replaced by the actual commitments.
If you've read my views on the peer review process you would know that due to numerous legal challenges over the application of the Environmental Protection Act(s) (EPA) the US INDC in particular is non-deliverable.
Therefore what should have happened between the June meeting and the end of COP21 is a sort of dual path negotiation where discussion of the INDC's helped to resolve issues within the text.
For example comparison between the INDC's of nations with large, free-market economies and nations with small, centrally planned economies has already helped to reveal why some of the things to smaller nations are demanding in the text would actually prevent the larger nations from taking action.
Unfortunately in October Obama introduced his death text and we were robbed of that opportunity for progress.
Last night the French Foreign Minister and President of COP21 Laurent Fabius complained that the negotiation had become too repetitive. I agree.
The fundamental problem is that the text being negotiated is simply awful. Until parties acknowledge that and allow work on a viable text to resume all I can offer by way of analysis is to constantly re-state just how awful the text is.
I suppose I could spend my time thinking up more elaborate ways to say that.
For example on Saturday (5/12/15) I likened Obama and the US to still being in Climate Kindergarten while the rest of the World is collecting their diplomas.
I suppose I could recommend that for story-time that Kindergarten teacher reads the class the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale "The Emperor's New Clothes."
13:50 on 10/12/15 (UK date).
Things have become so utterly devoid of hope it's becoming increasingly difficult to motivate myself to follow proceedings in detail.
The only person seeming to cling on to any level of enthusiasm is US President Barack Obama. Or more accurately one of his Twitter monkeys (@BarackObama).
Last night they sent out a message about how American leadership had caused 180 nations to commit to action on climate change.
This was a reference to the INDC submissions.
The deadline for those submissions was 6 months prior to the summit where the agreement they were set to serve was scheduled to be agreed. It was also more then 5 years prior to that agreement coming into force.
Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself but I've never viewed those INDC's to be genuine commitments to action. Instead they are a way for parties to communicate how they envision the agreement to function in order to help the agreement take shape.
Take for example the technical annex I drew up defining the format for INDC's. Although I like to think that I added some value that is clearly not my own, original work. Instead I have simply cut and pasted the common elements from the INDC submissions.
The idea being that after the agreement had been signed but before implementation the current submissions would then be replaced by the actual commitments.
If you've read my views on the peer review process you would know that due to numerous legal challenges over the application of the Environmental Protection Act(s) (EPA) the US INDC in particular is non-deliverable.
Therefore what should have happened between the June meeting and the end of COP21 is a sort of dual path negotiation where discussion of the INDC's helped to resolve issues within the text.
For example comparison between the INDC's of nations with large, free-market economies and nations with small, centrally planned economies has already helped to reveal why some of the things to smaller nations are demanding in the text would actually prevent the larger nations from taking action.
Unfortunately in October Obama introduced his death text and we were robbed of that opportunity for progress.
Last night the French Foreign Minister and President of COP21 Laurent Fabius complained that the negotiation had become too repetitive. I agree.
The fundamental problem is that the text being negotiated is simply awful. Until parties acknowledge that and allow work on a viable text to resume all I can offer by way of analysis is to constantly re-state just how awful the text is.
I suppose I could spend my time thinking up more elaborate ways to say that.
For example on Saturday (5/12/15) I likened Obama and the US to still being in Climate Kindergarten while the rest of the World is collecting their diplomas.
I suppose I could recommend that for story-time that Kindergarten teacher reads the class the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale "The Emperor's New Clothes."
13:50 on 10/12/15 (UK date).
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
COP21: A Fate Worse Then Death.
As I feel I've explained numerous times over this past 10 days in the 1997 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) produced the Kyoto Protocol to tackle climate change. This actually expired in 2012 but was then extended until 2020 under what is known as the Doha Amendment.
Since 2011 the UNFCCC have been working to develop a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. The hope was that this work would be completed at this year's COP21 Summit and the new agreement would enter into force in 2020.
Things seemed to be on schedule up until October 2015. Here the US decided to tear up the previous four years work and replace it with a draft agreement that frankly read like a bad joke.
Unfortunately work on this US joke draft continued throughout the first week of COP21. On Saturday (5/12/15) the governing body accepted it as the basis for an agreement and carried it forward for discussion during the High Level/Ministerial portion of the meeting.
At the halfway point of the High Level portion a revised version of the draft agreement has been released. If anything it is significantly worse now then it was on Saturday.
Throughout the four year negotiation period I've gradually built up a list of things that would simply be unacceptable within an agreement. For example a binary differentiation between nations and 5 year commitment periods.
What COP21 appears to have done is take this list of "Do Nots" and re-printed it as the text of the agreement.
With this new agreement being just 14 pages long - the pre-October draft was around 85 - I probably could go through and destroy it line-by-line in the 5 hours between it been published and meetings resuming.
However you only actually need to get to page 3 to see that the draft is critically and irredeemably flawed.
Page 3 contains Article 3 which deals with mitigation. This effectively refers to stopping climate change by reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The Kyoto Protocol dealt with this issue by mandating the reductions that listed nations needed to make and a legal mechanism to punish nations that failed to make the mandated reductions.
In developing this new agreement we have been trying to move away from this approach of mandated reductions. That's because it fosters a spirit of confrontation between nations with them all demanding each other make bigger reductions.
Instead what we've been trying to do is create a new spirit whereby nations identify where it is easiest to reduce their emissions. Nations then co-operate to ensure that those reductions occur bringing down the global total of emissions rather then fractionally reducing national emissions.
Obviously if you are allowing nations to choose what reductions to make it becomes much more important that there is a legal mechanism to make sure those reductions occur.
The draft currently on the table adopts the idea of nationally determined reductions by fails to adopt a mechanism to enforce them.
As a result it doesn't create an agreement to tackle climate change.
Instead it creates a forum for politicians to come along every 5 years and make promises that aren't going to be kept.
The other big cultural shift driving this new approach is the idea of using what are termed Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) plans to fully integrate action on climate change into nations economic development plans. Developing nations would then giving assistance to build capacity within their development plans.
That way rather then it being a constant battle between action on climate change and economic development action on climate change becomes the mechanism for economic development.
Article 3ter of the current draft is entitled "Mechanism to Support Sustainable Development." You won't get a clearer indication of the fact that the - particularly developing - nations have failed to understand that action on climate change and sustainable development are the same issue. Not two separate ones.
Although the draft does make reference to INDC's it completely lacks any definition of what form they will take. This means that while the acronym is being used all the opportunity for capacity building represented by that acronym is missing.
The most critical problem remains that the draft still does not include a sunset clause at which point it expires. This means that if this draft is adopted these 14 essentially blank pages will become the only thing the World will ever do to combat climate change.
So as I've been saying throughout summit it's time for COP21 to stop blundering along with this non-action.
Instead it should use the remaining time to agree a way forward so work can resume on a viable agreement to be adopted at 2016's COP22 at the latest.
16:45 on 9/12/15 (UK date).
Since 2011 the UNFCCC have been working to develop a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. The hope was that this work would be completed at this year's COP21 Summit and the new agreement would enter into force in 2020.
Things seemed to be on schedule up until October 2015. Here the US decided to tear up the previous four years work and replace it with a draft agreement that frankly read like a bad joke.
Unfortunately work on this US joke draft continued throughout the first week of COP21. On Saturday (5/12/15) the governing body accepted it as the basis for an agreement and carried it forward for discussion during the High Level/Ministerial portion of the meeting.
At the halfway point of the High Level portion a revised version of the draft agreement has been released. If anything it is significantly worse now then it was on Saturday.
Throughout the four year negotiation period I've gradually built up a list of things that would simply be unacceptable within an agreement. For example a binary differentiation between nations and 5 year commitment periods.
What COP21 appears to have done is take this list of "Do Nots" and re-printed it as the text of the agreement.
With this new agreement being just 14 pages long - the pre-October draft was around 85 - I probably could go through and destroy it line-by-line in the 5 hours between it been published and meetings resuming.
However you only actually need to get to page 3 to see that the draft is critically and irredeemably flawed.
Page 3 contains Article 3 which deals with mitigation. This effectively refers to stopping climate change by reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The Kyoto Protocol dealt with this issue by mandating the reductions that listed nations needed to make and a legal mechanism to punish nations that failed to make the mandated reductions.
In developing this new agreement we have been trying to move away from this approach of mandated reductions. That's because it fosters a spirit of confrontation between nations with them all demanding each other make bigger reductions.
Instead what we've been trying to do is create a new spirit whereby nations identify where it is easiest to reduce their emissions. Nations then co-operate to ensure that those reductions occur bringing down the global total of emissions rather then fractionally reducing national emissions.
Obviously if you are allowing nations to choose what reductions to make it becomes much more important that there is a legal mechanism to make sure those reductions occur.
The draft currently on the table adopts the idea of nationally determined reductions by fails to adopt a mechanism to enforce them.
As a result it doesn't create an agreement to tackle climate change.
Instead it creates a forum for politicians to come along every 5 years and make promises that aren't going to be kept.
The other big cultural shift driving this new approach is the idea of using what are termed Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) plans to fully integrate action on climate change into nations economic development plans. Developing nations would then giving assistance to build capacity within their development plans.
That way rather then it being a constant battle between action on climate change and economic development action on climate change becomes the mechanism for economic development.
Article 3ter of the current draft is entitled "Mechanism to Support Sustainable Development." You won't get a clearer indication of the fact that the - particularly developing - nations have failed to understand that action on climate change and sustainable development are the same issue. Not two separate ones.
Although the draft does make reference to INDC's it completely lacks any definition of what form they will take. This means that while the acronym is being used all the opportunity for capacity building represented by that acronym is missing.
The most critical problem remains that the draft still does not include a sunset clause at which point it expires. This means that if this draft is adopted these 14 essentially blank pages will become the only thing the World will ever do to combat climate change.
So as I've been saying throughout summit it's time for COP21 to stop blundering along with this non-action.
Instead it should use the remaining time to agree a way forward so work can resume on a viable agreement to be adopted at 2016's COP22 at the latest.
16:45 on 9/12/15 (UK date).
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 17, Week 2, Day 5.
Certainly since August 9th (9/8/15) when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordered the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) to cede the Syrian town of Maera to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Turkey has wanted to invade Syria.
Despite strong suspicions that the purpose of this invasion would be to eliminate the anti-ISIL Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) and re-establish ISIL supply lines to Turkey this plan has been quietly progressing.
It now has a - somewhat terrible - codename "Cerabulus" and a prospective "D-Day" - December 16th (16/12/15).
So on Friday (4/12/15) Turkey decided to test the diplomatic waters by sending a 1,200 strong invasion force to Iraq where Russian forces do not operate. Since Friday this Turkish force has set up base in Bashika which is around 12km (7 miles) north of Mosul - ISIL's de facto capital in Iraq.
The Iraqi government responded to this by declaring Turkey's invasion of its territory a gross violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in contravention of Chapter 1 on the United Nations (UN) Charter.
On Sunday (6/12/15) the Iraqi government gave Turkey 48 hours to withdraw its invasion force or it will take the matter up with the UN Security Council (UNSC). Based on the warning coming into effect at 00:01 (local) on Monday (7/12/15) that deadline has now passed.
Russia has already indicated that it will be sponsoring Iraq's submission to the UNSC with a closed door session being scheduled for Thursday (10/12/15).
However as I write rumours are circulating that the UNSC has already convened on this issue with a view to issuing a resolution against Turkey by Thursday. Good luck though getting confirmed information out of a closed door UNSC session.
The fact that Russia would be prepared to sponsor Iraq's submission is hardly a surprise.
In fact on Sunday (6/12/15) Russian strategic bombers - initially I heard "Kalibr" (NATO: "Sizzler") Cruise-type missiles - struck Raqqa - ISIL's de facto capital in Syria. En route to their target these Russian bombers flew low and hard over Bashika. Sending the message that they definitely could if they wanted to.
Later that night US aircraft assigned to the anti-ISIL coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - struck the Syrian Army base at Saeqa which is just outside the ISIL controlled town of Deir-ez-Zour. 3 Syrian soldiers were killed in this attack and 13 others injured.
As CJTFOIR only has authority to operate within Syria in order to defeat ISIL and the Al Qaeda affiliated JAF this represents a gross violation of international law. It could even be viewed as the US conducting an illegal act of war against Syria.
Obviously the attack could have been the US sending the message that if Russia were to bomb Turkish troops at Bashika the US would respond by dropping the pretence of fighting ISIL & JAF and instead formally declare war on Syria.
Alternatively the US could have been sending the message that if Russia were to 'accidentally' bomb Bashika the US wouldn't be too upset about it. Especially if it meant that the US wouldn't have to use its UNSC veto in the formal defence of ISIL.
The US of course has fully denied any involvement in the air-strikes against Saeqa.
So while US President Barack Obama was using his prime-time Sunday (6/12/15) to all but officially pledge allegiance to ISIL the US been working to sound out its allies on the Turkish issue.
For example on Sunday (6/12/15 a US/Jordanian duel national aboard a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Belgrade, Serbia had to be restrained after trying to force his way onto the flightdeck.
This was a reference to the March 24th (24/3/15) crash of 4U9525 which was operated by as subsidiary of Lufthansa "Germanwings." That was largely seen as a European reference to the way that Obama's rather radical foreign policy seems intended to smash us all into the side of a mountain.
Serbia is a rather contentious nation because in 1999 then US President Bill Clinton tried to distract from impeachment proceedings against by starting a wholly illegal war to steal Serbia's southern Kosovo province and hand it to Albania.
Along with neighbouring Macedonia Serbia currently forms part of what has become known as; "The Balkan Route" for Syrian refugees headed to the European Union (EU).
Macedonia remains concerned that it will suffer the same fate as Kosovo.
In turn on Monday (7/12/15) an Airbus A321 operated by the German airline "Condor" en route from Berlin, Germany to Hurghada, Egypt was forced to make an emergency landing in Budapest, Hungary after a hoax bomb warning was issued.
A hoax bomb threat against civilian airliners has becoming known is security circles as "The Erdogan Signature." It was of course a Russian Airbus A321 that was brought down by a bomb over Egypt on October 31st (31/10/15). With or without Turkish support ISIL have claimed responsibility for that attack the issue of which is clearly not going away.
As a result this seems to be the EU sounding out its members over the US request for information. After all along with Poland Hungary has a reputation for coming down on the wrong side of important EU issues recently.
Speaking of which also on Monday (7/12/15) a school in Hofors, Sweden had to be placed on lock-down following a reports of an attacker with a knife. After much genuine panic those reports later turned out to be false.
This could have been interpreted as a reference to the Islamist terror attack in Leytonstone, London, UK on Saturday (5/12/15) and I suppose in a very abstract way it was.
Although it seems unlikely the Leytonstone attacker - whom it has been strongly suggested suffered from mental health 'issues' - is a formal member of any of the Palestinian liberation organisations in his choice of tactics he certainly been influenced by the wave of stabbing attacks that have been plaguing Israel recently.
While they've never been that far away this current wave of knife attacks really began in September 2015 and seem to be continuing at the rate of 2 or 3 a day. They seem to be fuelled by the continuing presence of ISIL in Syria which at certain points is literally a spitting distance away from Israel.
By recognising ISIL as the 'Islamic State' in a desperate effort for feel rebellious western media outlets such as the BBC News and Sky News have been telling the Palestinian youth that in order to achieve a state they don't need to bother with all this capacity building and negotiation. Instead they simply need to do violence and recognition will be handed to them on a platter.
I personally have been taking the position that if we can't bring ourselves to condemn the violent actions of the Palestinian youth then we should ignore it. The hope being that when they finally realise that violence is no route to statehood they'll stop.
Unfortunately this plan doesn't seem to be working and the youths continued commitment to violence seems to be undermining the older heads of the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) who have long been committed to statehood through negotiation with Israel.
As a result Israel has been very quietly but very seriously preparing contingency plans for the ISIL overthrow of the Palestinian Authority and the end of the two-state solution. A key element of this plan is the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) moving to place the West Bank town of Hebron under occupation.
Those who currently decry the Israeli occupation of Palestine clearly don't remember the old days.
On Friday (4/12/15) the Margot Wallstrom - the Swedish Foreign Minister - ignored all good advice and decided to cheer on the Palestinian youth by accusing Israel of extra-judicial killing when they shoot dead these knife-attackers.
In an effort to defend his errant minister on Sunday (6/12/15) Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven claimed that these Palestinian knife attacks weren't terrorism.
Judging by the panic that the mere rumour of a knife attack caused in Sweden on Monday (7/12/15) I think it's fair to assume that the credibility of both Ms Wallstrom and Mr Lofven has been significantly undermined.
Today and Air France passenger jet from San Francisco, US to Paris, France had to be diverted to Montreal, Canada following another hoax bomb threat.
This seems to be a rather elegant recreation of the July 29th (29/7/15) incident in which a British Airways passenger jet from Las Vegas, US to London, UK also had to be diverted to Montreal, Canada following a hoax bomb threat.
That of course was a formal UK protest over Turkey's decision to start bombing anti-ISIL forces in northern Iraq.
This evening Turkey appears to have responded by again bombing anti-ISIL forces in northern Iraq.
22:55 on 8/12/15 (UK date).
Despite strong suspicions that the purpose of this invasion would be to eliminate the anti-ISIL Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) and re-establish ISIL supply lines to Turkey this plan has been quietly progressing.
It now has a - somewhat terrible - codename "Cerabulus" and a prospective "D-Day" - December 16th (16/12/15).
So on Friday (4/12/15) Turkey decided to test the diplomatic waters by sending a 1,200 strong invasion force to Iraq where Russian forces do not operate. Since Friday this Turkish force has set up base in Bashika which is around 12km (7 miles) north of Mosul - ISIL's de facto capital in Iraq.
The Iraqi government responded to this by declaring Turkey's invasion of its territory a gross violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in contravention of Chapter 1 on the United Nations (UN) Charter.
On Sunday (6/12/15) the Iraqi government gave Turkey 48 hours to withdraw its invasion force or it will take the matter up with the UN Security Council (UNSC). Based on the warning coming into effect at 00:01 (local) on Monday (7/12/15) that deadline has now passed.
Russia has already indicated that it will be sponsoring Iraq's submission to the UNSC with a closed door session being scheduled for Thursday (10/12/15).
However as I write rumours are circulating that the UNSC has already convened on this issue with a view to issuing a resolution against Turkey by Thursday. Good luck though getting confirmed information out of a closed door UNSC session.
The fact that Russia would be prepared to sponsor Iraq's submission is hardly a surprise.
In fact on Sunday (6/12/15) Russian strategic bombers - initially I heard "Kalibr" (NATO: "Sizzler") Cruise-type missiles - struck Raqqa - ISIL's de facto capital in Syria. En route to their target these Russian bombers flew low and hard over Bashika. Sending the message that they definitely could if they wanted to.
Later that night US aircraft assigned to the anti-ISIL coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - struck the Syrian Army base at Saeqa which is just outside the ISIL controlled town of Deir-ez-Zour. 3 Syrian soldiers were killed in this attack and 13 others injured.
As CJTFOIR only has authority to operate within Syria in order to defeat ISIL and the Al Qaeda affiliated JAF this represents a gross violation of international law. It could even be viewed as the US conducting an illegal act of war against Syria.
Obviously the attack could have been the US sending the message that if Russia were to bomb Turkish troops at Bashika the US would respond by dropping the pretence of fighting ISIL & JAF and instead formally declare war on Syria.
Alternatively the US could have been sending the message that if Russia were to 'accidentally' bomb Bashika the US wouldn't be too upset about it. Especially if it meant that the US wouldn't have to use its UNSC veto in the formal defence of ISIL.
The US of course has fully denied any involvement in the air-strikes against Saeqa.
So while US President Barack Obama was using his prime-time Sunday (6/12/15) to all but officially pledge allegiance to ISIL the US been working to sound out its allies on the Turkish issue.
For example on Sunday (6/12/15 a US/Jordanian duel national aboard a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Belgrade, Serbia had to be restrained after trying to force his way onto the flightdeck.
This was a reference to the March 24th (24/3/15) crash of 4U9525 which was operated by as subsidiary of Lufthansa "Germanwings." That was largely seen as a European reference to the way that Obama's rather radical foreign policy seems intended to smash us all into the side of a mountain.
Serbia is a rather contentious nation because in 1999 then US President Bill Clinton tried to distract from impeachment proceedings against by starting a wholly illegal war to steal Serbia's southern Kosovo province and hand it to Albania.
Along with neighbouring Macedonia Serbia currently forms part of what has become known as; "The Balkan Route" for Syrian refugees headed to the European Union (EU).
Macedonia remains concerned that it will suffer the same fate as Kosovo.
In turn on Monday (7/12/15) an Airbus A321 operated by the German airline "Condor" en route from Berlin, Germany to Hurghada, Egypt was forced to make an emergency landing in Budapest, Hungary after a hoax bomb warning was issued.
A hoax bomb threat against civilian airliners has becoming known is security circles as "The Erdogan Signature." It was of course a Russian Airbus A321 that was brought down by a bomb over Egypt on October 31st (31/10/15). With or without Turkish support ISIL have claimed responsibility for that attack the issue of which is clearly not going away.
As a result this seems to be the EU sounding out its members over the US request for information. After all along with Poland Hungary has a reputation for coming down on the wrong side of important EU issues recently.
Speaking of which also on Monday (7/12/15) a school in Hofors, Sweden had to be placed on lock-down following a reports of an attacker with a knife. After much genuine panic those reports later turned out to be false.
This could have been interpreted as a reference to the Islamist terror attack in Leytonstone, London, UK on Saturday (5/12/15) and I suppose in a very abstract way it was.
Although it seems unlikely the Leytonstone attacker - whom it has been strongly suggested suffered from mental health 'issues' - is a formal member of any of the Palestinian liberation organisations in his choice of tactics he certainly been influenced by the wave of stabbing attacks that have been plaguing Israel recently.
While they've never been that far away this current wave of knife attacks really began in September 2015 and seem to be continuing at the rate of 2 or 3 a day. They seem to be fuelled by the continuing presence of ISIL in Syria which at certain points is literally a spitting distance away from Israel.
By recognising ISIL as the 'Islamic State' in a desperate effort for feel rebellious western media outlets such as the BBC News and Sky News have been telling the Palestinian youth that in order to achieve a state they don't need to bother with all this capacity building and negotiation. Instead they simply need to do violence and recognition will be handed to them on a platter.
I personally have been taking the position that if we can't bring ourselves to condemn the violent actions of the Palestinian youth then we should ignore it. The hope being that when they finally realise that violence is no route to statehood they'll stop.
Unfortunately this plan doesn't seem to be working and the youths continued commitment to violence seems to be undermining the older heads of the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) who have long been committed to statehood through negotiation with Israel.
As a result Israel has been very quietly but very seriously preparing contingency plans for the ISIL overthrow of the Palestinian Authority and the end of the two-state solution. A key element of this plan is the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) moving to place the West Bank town of Hebron under occupation.
Those who currently decry the Israeli occupation of Palestine clearly don't remember the old days.
On Friday (4/12/15) the Margot Wallstrom - the Swedish Foreign Minister - ignored all good advice and decided to cheer on the Palestinian youth by accusing Israel of extra-judicial killing when they shoot dead these knife-attackers.
In an effort to defend his errant minister on Sunday (6/12/15) Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven claimed that these Palestinian knife attacks weren't terrorism.
Judging by the panic that the mere rumour of a knife attack caused in Sweden on Monday (7/12/15) I think it's fair to assume that the credibility of both Ms Wallstrom and Mr Lofven has been significantly undermined.
Today and Air France passenger jet from San Francisco, US to Paris, France had to be diverted to Montreal, Canada following another hoax bomb threat.
This seems to be a rather elegant recreation of the July 29th (29/7/15) incident in which a British Airways passenger jet from Las Vegas, US to London, UK also had to be diverted to Montreal, Canada following a hoax bomb threat.
That of course was a formal UK protest over Turkey's decision to start bombing anti-ISIL forces in northern Iraq.
This evening Turkey appears to have responded by again bombing anti-ISIL forces in northern Iraq.
22:55 on 8/12/15 (UK date).
Monday, 7 December 2015
COP21 Terrorism Update #6.
In my previous update which I delivered three hours ago I explained how events in Leytonstone, London, UK weren't planned to have an impact on COP21.
However yesterday there was a terror attack that was planned to impact on the summit. Jaafar Mohammed Saad the Governor of Yemen's Aden province was killed along with several of his aides were killed in a car bombing in Aden. The attack has been claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
As I've said numerous times before the big problem in creating a global climate change agreement is that Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia simply will not allow smaller, developing nations to sign up. If those nations defy Saudi Arabia's will they will be attacked by Islamist terrorists.
Saudi Arabia's main focus has long been nations in east and central Africa such as Kenya.
In order to threaten these nations Saudi Arabia has been building up Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. From Yemen Saudi Arabia exports Islamist terrorists across the Gulf of Aden to Somalia. From Somalia they attack other African nations.
One aspect of how Saudi Arabia has taken control of AQAP is through the US' drone program. Essentially Saudi intelligence provides the CIA with the names and locations of AQAP leaders telling the US they are an immediate threat. The CIA then goes and kills those individuals only for the Saudis to exploit the newly created vacuum by filling it with one of their agents.
Although the drones are new this is a tactic the CIA itself used during the Cold War particularly in South America through what is know as "The School of the Americas." This was encapsulated in a rather famous quote by a CIA backed fascist guerrilla leader;
"We practice the selective annihilation of Mayors and government officials. For example we create a vacuum. We then fill that vacuum. As popular war advances peace is closer."
The killing of Saad was an almost perfect demonstration of that tactic. As such it was a show of force by Saudi Arabia to warn African nations that they'd better obey at COP21 because Saudi Arabia is poised just across the Gulf of Aden.
That show of force was magnified by Saudi Arabia showing how it has effectively made the US its slave.
Yesterday evening at prime-time in the US but very early this morning in the European time-zone where COP21 is taking place US President Obama finally made a formal address over Wednesday's (2/12/15) San Benardino terror attack.
The primary objective of this was to try and save Obama's reputation because in the eyes of many American voters he is starting to appear increasingly detached from reality.
While the San Benardino attack was taking place Obama was recording a pre-scheduled interview with the US network CBS. Without bothering the check that facts Obama immediately informed the interviewer that the events in San Benardino were another example of gun violence that supported his gun control agenda.
By the time that Obama gave brief public comments on Friday (4/12/15) he was at least open to the possibility that it had been a terror attack. However Obama was still very keen to portray it as an incidence of work place gun violence making frequent reference to an argument that one of the attackers - Syed Farook - is alleged to have had with co-workers just prior to the shooting.
It was on Friday afternoon that is was confirmed that the attackers had pledged allegiance to ISIL. It also emerged that this alleged fight with co-workers had simply not taken place.
What did the real damage to Obama though was the weekly address to the nation he makes on Saturday. This is usually recorded on Thursday evening/Friday morning. However on this occasion Obama didn't see the need to re-shoot in light of the new information of Friday afternoon.
So the message Obama released on Saturday bore absolutely no relation to the events that everybody knew had transpired.
It was on Saturday night that Obama decided he needed to make yesterday's address in order to regain just a hint of credibility.
As a result I was expecting the address to simply gloss over Obama's mistakes by not making any reference to either gun control or workplace violence in the hope we would forget he ever made those comments. Obama would then offer condolences to the victims and their families before commending the police and reassuring Americans that the security services were working day and night to prevent another attack.
The fact that Obama wouldn't mention any action to combat terrorism would be enough to intimidate nations at COP21 signing up to the US authored agreement to prevent action on climate change.
Obama though shockingly went far further then that. He essentially stopped just short of publicly, formally pledging his alligence to ISIL.
The main problem was that throughout Obama seemed to be either smirking or trying to suppress a broad grin. As if the worst terror attack on US soil since September 11th was something to be savoured and enjoyed.
Obama opened by acknowledging that it was indeed a terror attack and offering condolences to the victims. He was though keen to play up that victims were from all different races and some were immigrants while others were born in the US. This was an attempt to further his racist narrative that has got him into so much trouble over the past year.
Obama then offered a re-cap of the efforts that the US has taken in using its drone program to hunt down terrorist leaders overseas. This was a reference to the AQAP problem that had come up earlier in the day. Obama then assured us that he was committed to this failed strategy.
This was intended to intimidate COP21 nations by confirming that Saudi Arabia and by extension AQAP continue to enjoy Obama's full support.
Next Obama mentioned the specific efforts the US is taking in Iraq and Syria. Essentially his message was that he is going to continue with this failed strategy. Again this was intended to intimidate COP21 nations by confirming that ISIL continue to enjoy Obama's full support.
On Syria specifically Obama renewed his commitment to training and equipping Syrian insurgent forces. It is through this program that Turkey has been training and equipping ISIL and associated forces to overthrow the Syrian government.
Obama also made specific reference to denying "safe-haven." Turkey has long pushed to invade Syria on the pre-text of establishing "safe-havens." In response the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) has liberated a vast section of Syria along the Turkish border to cut ISIL's supply lines into Turkey.
"Safe-Haven" actually has a very specific meaning under international law which places a large degrees of responsibility of the people who establish and maintain it. Therefore what the SDF/QSD have established is referred to as a "buffer-zone."
Here Obama was attempting to cause confusion but not making it clear whether he was denying Turkey's request to invade Syria as planned or giving it the go-ahead to invade and wipe out the SDF/QSD.
Obama then changed the subject back to his favourite topics of immigration and gun control.
In response the the Paris Massacres Republicans have been calling for the US to stop accepting refugees from Syria. In an attempt to portray them as racist Obama has instead demanded changes to the visa waiver system. He reiterated this call along with calls for gun control.
Continuing his attacks on the Republicans Obama then called for Congress to approve his use of military force. This has long been a sticky issue because Obama's anti-ISIL strategy is terrible. Therefore if Congress were to vote on it they would have to vote to reject it. The hope has been that by delaying the vote Obama would take the hint.
Next Obama raised the spectre of sending US troops into a long and bloody ground war in Syria. This is a strawman argument that Obama has long used in an effort to protect ISIL.
The reason why the fight against ISIL is failing is because Obama does not want to defeat ISIL. So there are many things that can be done such as getting Turkey to end its support for ISIL, supporting the SDF/QSD and providing all anti-ISIL forces with effective close air-support that will defeat ISIL long before we have to start thinking about ground troops.
However Obama doesn't want to do any of that so he uses the fear factor of ground troops to divert from questions about his lack of strategy.
Obama ended with another chorus of his racism narrative by urging us all not to treat all Muslims as members of ISIL. This is very sound advice but Obama is saying in an effort to portray anyone who opposes ISIL as a racist.
This is a well worn Turkish trick that Obama himself seems to have fallen for.
In a desperate effort to move the news cycle along and get American voters to forget about San Benardino the Obama administration has today announced a federal probe into the Chicago Police department amid the usual allegations of racism. A lot of people think the investigation should actually be into Chicago's Mayor who used to be Obama's Chief of Staff.
This is actually quite clever because by reminding COP21 delegates that the Obama administration is incapable of producing a climate change agreement they are reassuring those under terror threat that they can sign the US authored agreement because it will block future action on climate change.
17:40 on 7/12/15 (UK date).
However yesterday there was a terror attack that was planned to impact on the summit. Jaafar Mohammed Saad the Governor of Yemen's Aden province was killed along with several of his aides were killed in a car bombing in Aden. The attack has been claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
As I've said numerous times before the big problem in creating a global climate change agreement is that Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia simply will not allow smaller, developing nations to sign up. If those nations defy Saudi Arabia's will they will be attacked by Islamist terrorists.
Saudi Arabia's main focus has long been nations in east and central Africa such as Kenya.
In order to threaten these nations Saudi Arabia has been building up Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. From Yemen Saudi Arabia exports Islamist terrorists across the Gulf of Aden to Somalia. From Somalia they attack other African nations.
One aspect of how Saudi Arabia has taken control of AQAP is through the US' drone program. Essentially Saudi intelligence provides the CIA with the names and locations of AQAP leaders telling the US they are an immediate threat. The CIA then goes and kills those individuals only for the Saudis to exploit the newly created vacuum by filling it with one of their agents.
Although the drones are new this is a tactic the CIA itself used during the Cold War particularly in South America through what is know as "The School of the Americas." This was encapsulated in a rather famous quote by a CIA backed fascist guerrilla leader;
"We practice the selective annihilation of Mayors and government officials. For example we create a vacuum. We then fill that vacuum. As popular war advances peace is closer."
The killing of Saad was an almost perfect demonstration of that tactic. As such it was a show of force by Saudi Arabia to warn African nations that they'd better obey at COP21 because Saudi Arabia is poised just across the Gulf of Aden.
That show of force was magnified by Saudi Arabia showing how it has effectively made the US its slave.
Yesterday evening at prime-time in the US but very early this morning in the European time-zone where COP21 is taking place US President Obama finally made a formal address over Wednesday's (2/12/15) San Benardino terror attack.
The primary objective of this was to try and save Obama's reputation because in the eyes of many American voters he is starting to appear increasingly detached from reality.
While the San Benardino attack was taking place Obama was recording a pre-scheduled interview with the US network CBS. Without bothering the check that facts Obama immediately informed the interviewer that the events in San Benardino were another example of gun violence that supported his gun control agenda.
By the time that Obama gave brief public comments on Friday (4/12/15) he was at least open to the possibility that it had been a terror attack. However Obama was still very keen to portray it as an incidence of work place gun violence making frequent reference to an argument that one of the attackers - Syed Farook - is alleged to have had with co-workers just prior to the shooting.
It was on Friday afternoon that is was confirmed that the attackers had pledged allegiance to ISIL. It also emerged that this alleged fight with co-workers had simply not taken place.
What did the real damage to Obama though was the weekly address to the nation he makes on Saturday. This is usually recorded on Thursday evening/Friday morning. However on this occasion Obama didn't see the need to re-shoot in light of the new information of Friday afternoon.
So the message Obama released on Saturday bore absolutely no relation to the events that everybody knew had transpired.
It was on Saturday night that Obama decided he needed to make yesterday's address in order to regain just a hint of credibility.
As a result I was expecting the address to simply gloss over Obama's mistakes by not making any reference to either gun control or workplace violence in the hope we would forget he ever made those comments. Obama would then offer condolences to the victims and their families before commending the police and reassuring Americans that the security services were working day and night to prevent another attack.
The fact that Obama wouldn't mention any action to combat terrorism would be enough to intimidate nations at COP21 signing up to the US authored agreement to prevent action on climate change.
Obama though shockingly went far further then that. He essentially stopped just short of publicly, formally pledging his alligence to ISIL.
The main problem was that throughout Obama seemed to be either smirking or trying to suppress a broad grin. As if the worst terror attack on US soil since September 11th was something to be savoured and enjoyed.
Obama opened by acknowledging that it was indeed a terror attack and offering condolences to the victims. He was though keen to play up that victims were from all different races and some were immigrants while others were born in the US. This was an attempt to further his racist narrative that has got him into so much trouble over the past year.
Obama then offered a re-cap of the efforts that the US has taken in using its drone program to hunt down terrorist leaders overseas. This was a reference to the AQAP problem that had come up earlier in the day. Obama then assured us that he was committed to this failed strategy.
This was intended to intimidate COP21 nations by confirming that Saudi Arabia and by extension AQAP continue to enjoy Obama's full support.
Next Obama mentioned the specific efforts the US is taking in Iraq and Syria. Essentially his message was that he is going to continue with this failed strategy. Again this was intended to intimidate COP21 nations by confirming that ISIL continue to enjoy Obama's full support.
On Syria specifically Obama renewed his commitment to training and equipping Syrian insurgent forces. It is through this program that Turkey has been training and equipping ISIL and associated forces to overthrow the Syrian government.
Obama also made specific reference to denying "safe-haven." Turkey has long pushed to invade Syria on the pre-text of establishing "safe-havens." In response the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) has liberated a vast section of Syria along the Turkish border to cut ISIL's supply lines into Turkey.
"Safe-Haven" actually has a very specific meaning under international law which places a large degrees of responsibility of the people who establish and maintain it. Therefore what the SDF/QSD have established is referred to as a "buffer-zone."
Here Obama was attempting to cause confusion but not making it clear whether he was denying Turkey's request to invade Syria as planned or giving it the go-ahead to invade and wipe out the SDF/QSD.
Obama then changed the subject back to his favourite topics of immigration and gun control.
In response the the Paris Massacres Republicans have been calling for the US to stop accepting refugees from Syria. In an attempt to portray them as racist Obama has instead demanded changes to the visa waiver system. He reiterated this call along with calls for gun control.
Continuing his attacks on the Republicans Obama then called for Congress to approve his use of military force. This has long been a sticky issue because Obama's anti-ISIL strategy is terrible. Therefore if Congress were to vote on it they would have to vote to reject it. The hope has been that by delaying the vote Obama would take the hint.
Next Obama raised the spectre of sending US troops into a long and bloody ground war in Syria. This is a strawman argument that Obama has long used in an effort to protect ISIL.
The reason why the fight against ISIL is failing is because Obama does not want to defeat ISIL. So there are many things that can be done such as getting Turkey to end its support for ISIL, supporting the SDF/QSD and providing all anti-ISIL forces with effective close air-support that will defeat ISIL long before we have to start thinking about ground troops.
However Obama doesn't want to do any of that so he uses the fear factor of ground troops to divert from questions about his lack of strategy.
Obama ended with another chorus of his racism narrative by urging us all not to treat all Muslims as members of ISIL. This is very sound advice but Obama is saying in an effort to portray anyone who opposes ISIL as a racist.
This is a well worn Turkish trick that Obama himself seems to have fallen for.
In a desperate effort to move the news cycle along and get American voters to forget about San Benardino the Obama administration has today announced a federal probe into the Chicago Police department amid the usual allegations of racism. A lot of people think the investigation should actually be into Chicago's Mayor who used to be Obama's Chief of Staff.
This is actually quite clever because by reminding COP21 delegates that the Obama administration is incapable of producing a climate change agreement they are reassuring those under terror threat that they can sign the US authored agreement because it will block future action on climate change.
17:40 on 7/12/15 (UK date).
COP21 Terrorism Update #5.
On Saturday (5/12/15) three people were non-fatally stabbed at the Leytonstone underground rail/metro station in east London, UK. Normally this is the sort of thing that barely scrapes its way onto the local news.
However on this occasion the attacker and his victims were not know to each other and the attack was heard to shout; "This is for Syria" whilst randomly stabbing at passers-by. As a result the police almost immediately began investigating it as a potential act of terrorism.
This is pretty standard practice. It is perfectly normal for the police to investigate an incident as the worst type of crime that it can be. If the evidence then indicates that it was in fact a lesser type of crime or even no crime at all they will then scale their investigation back accordingly.
What was so alarming about Wednesday's (2/12/15) attack in San Benardino, US is that the US authorities did the opposite.
US President Obama seemed to immediately determine that the incident was gun violence that would further his gun control agenda rather then terrorism which would embarrass his pro-terrorist agenda. As a result the investigation was conducted almost to exclude any evidence of terrorism.
The reason why I've waited until now to comment on the events in Leytonstone is that they seem to me to be the actions of a self-radicalised lone-wolf rather then part of a larger conspiracy and certainly not something that has been prepared for the COP21.
Also on Wednesday (2/12/14) the UK Parliament was debating and voting on a motion to join air-strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria as well as Iraq.
Although I saw a massive disconnect between the debate and the war that's going on in Iraq and Syria this was an event that seemed to grip the entire nation. For example the whole debate was carried live not only on the BBC Parliament channel but also both of the domestic news channels.
As it result it seemed that absolutely everyone had to have an opinion - no matter how uninformed.
While distinctly thin on facts the debate was really poisoned by two main groups; The supporters of the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP) and supporters of the "Stop the War Coalition (STWC)" protest group. There is obviously a degree of over-lap between the three groups.
In 2003 Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair led the UK into the war in Iraq. This caused a split within the Labour Party and has proved a great recruiting tool for both the hard-left wing of the party and the SNP. As a result rather then engaging in the debate over air-strikes in Syria these factions used it as a re-run of the 2003 Iraq war protests in an effort to boost their membership.
The STWC was formed during the 2003 Iraq war protest. However since then it has rather lost its way - particularly through its links to the Palestinian nationalist cause. STWC now border on being a Sunni-extremist organisation that supported both the 2011 Libya war and up until now has supported the Syria war. Therefore they are extremely angry that the UK seems to be moving away from supporting Sunni extremism.
Although no party came out of the debate looking good the actions of the three above mentioned groups did create a pretty nasty atmosphere. For example MP's who did support action against ISIL were subjected to death threats and things like gory pictures of dead babies being emailed to them.
While this didn't fit in with what is normally considered acceptable Parliamentary behaviour it was pretty accepted that for the most part this was simply idiots talking trash on the Internet rather then genuine threats. It did though cause the security services a degree of concern.
One of the most stupid things to come out of the debate was that claim that taking action against ISIL is Syria would increase the threat to the UK of ISIL attack. The UK is already coming under almost constant attack from ISIL. However up until now those attacks have been small and in the form of self-radicalised lone-wolves. The threat though is evolving and becoming more serious.
Therefore military action against ISIL is not going to increase a threat that is pretty much already at its maximum level. Instead effective military action is actually the only way to reduce that threat.
The concern was that the sound and fury of the all consuming Parliamentary debate would push one of these lone-wolves over the edge and into action. For example since the debate a number of - particularly Labour - MP's who voted from military action have been placed under police protection.
If such a lone-wolf attack was going to take place it was always likely to take place in an area like the Leytonstone/Mile End area of London.
This area has long been the place where the immigrants go. In the first half of the 20th century it was actually full of European and Russian Jews. They largely moved out to be replaced by the Irish. In turn the Irish were largely replaced by Afro-Caribbeans who were then replaced by Muslims and Hindus from Pakistan and India.
More recently due to the link with Islam the area has attracted a lot of East-Africans from countries like Somalia and Ethiopia amongst a fair few Yemenis.
Obviously not all the people who arrived have gone onto leave and there's always been a large indigenous white, British population.
I think what really sums up the area is that while this attacker - whose been confirmed as a Somali - was waving his knife about trying to terrorise people over Syria other Muslims in the crowd started getting in his face and lecturing about how his wasn't a proper Muslim.
This coined the phrase; "You Ain't No Muslim Bruv" which trended on the Internet for most of yesterday.
At around 13:40 on 7/12/15 (UK date) I'll be back to add much more to this later. However I must confess that 8 days in I'm starting to feel the effects now.
However on this occasion the attacker and his victims were not know to each other and the attack was heard to shout; "This is for Syria" whilst randomly stabbing at passers-by. As a result the police almost immediately began investigating it as a potential act of terrorism.
This is pretty standard practice. It is perfectly normal for the police to investigate an incident as the worst type of crime that it can be. If the evidence then indicates that it was in fact a lesser type of crime or even no crime at all they will then scale their investigation back accordingly.
What was so alarming about Wednesday's (2/12/15) attack in San Benardino, US is that the US authorities did the opposite.
US President Obama seemed to immediately determine that the incident was gun violence that would further his gun control agenda rather then terrorism which would embarrass his pro-terrorist agenda. As a result the investigation was conducted almost to exclude any evidence of terrorism.
The reason why I've waited until now to comment on the events in Leytonstone is that they seem to me to be the actions of a self-radicalised lone-wolf rather then part of a larger conspiracy and certainly not something that has been prepared for the COP21.
Also on Wednesday (2/12/14) the UK Parliament was debating and voting on a motion to join air-strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria as well as Iraq.
Although I saw a massive disconnect between the debate and the war that's going on in Iraq and Syria this was an event that seemed to grip the entire nation. For example the whole debate was carried live not only on the BBC Parliament channel but also both of the domestic news channels.
As it result it seemed that absolutely everyone had to have an opinion - no matter how uninformed.
While distinctly thin on facts the debate was really poisoned by two main groups; The supporters of the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP) and supporters of the "Stop the War Coalition (STWC)" protest group. There is obviously a degree of over-lap between the three groups.
In 2003 Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair led the UK into the war in Iraq. This caused a split within the Labour Party and has proved a great recruiting tool for both the hard-left wing of the party and the SNP. As a result rather then engaging in the debate over air-strikes in Syria these factions used it as a re-run of the 2003 Iraq war protests in an effort to boost their membership.
The STWC was formed during the 2003 Iraq war protest. However since then it has rather lost its way - particularly through its links to the Palestinian nationalist cause. STWC now border on being a Sunni-extremist organisation that supported both the 2011 Libya war and up until now has supported the Syria war. Therefore they are extremely angry that the UK seems to be moving away from supporting Sunni extremism.
Although no party came out of the debate looking good the actions of the three above mentioned groups did create a pretty nasty atmosphere. For example MP's who did support action against ISIL were subjected to death threats and things like gory pictures of dead babies being emailed to them.
While this didn't fit in with what is normally considered acceptable Parliamentary behaviour it was pretty accepted that for the most part this was simply idiots talking trash on the Internet rather then genuine threats. It did though cause the security services a degree of concern.
One of the most stupid things to come out of the debate was that claim that taking action against ISIL is Syria would increase the threat to the UK of ISIL attack. The UK is already coming under almost constant attack from ISIL. However up until now those attacks have been small and in the form of self-radicalised lone-wolves. The threat though is evolving and becoming more serious.
Therefore military action against ISIL is not going to increase a threat that is pretty much already at its maximum level. Instead effective military action is actually the only way to reduce that threat.
The concern was that the sound and fury of the all consuming Parliamentary debate would push one of these lone-wolves over the edge and into action. For example since the debate a number of - particularly Labour - MP's who voted from military action have been placed under police protection.
If such a lone-wolf attack was going to take place it was always likely to take place in an area like the Leytonstone/Mile End area of London.
This area has long been the place where the immigrants go. In the first half of the 20th century it was actually full of European and Russian Jews. They largely moved out to be replaced by the Irish. In turn the Irish were largely replaced by Afro-Caribbeans who were then replaced by Muslims and Hindus from Pakistan and India.
More recently due to the link with Islam the area has attracted a lot of East-Africans from countries like Somalia and Ethiopia amongst a fair few Yemenis.
Obviously not all the people who arrived have gone onto leave and there's always been a large indigenous white, British population.
I think what really sums up the area is that while this attacker - whose been confirmed as a Somali - was waving his knife about trying to terrorise people over Syria other Muslims in the crowd started getting in his face and lecturing about how his wasn't a proper Muslim.
This coined the phrase; "You Ain't No Muslim Bruv" which trended on the Internet for most of yesterday.
At around 13:40 on 7/12/15 (UK date) I'll be back to add much more to this later. However I must confess that 8 days in I'm starting to feel the effects now.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
The Man Who Was Not There.
In the last few moments US President Barack Obama has completed his primetime address to the nation on the threat of terrorism.
Coming 23 days after the Paris Massacres and 4 days (local) after the San Benardino attacks it was unlikely that I was ever going to give him a passing grade. But I have to say;
That really stunk!
Although as a politician I knew Obama was never going to formally admit it I at least expected him to acknowledge that his attempts to exploit the San Benardio attacks to further his gun control agenda had failed. I then expected that Obama would offer some weasel words assuring Americans that despite his repeated failures they could all sleep safely in their beds.
Instead though he acknowledged that the San Bernardino attacks had been an act of terrorism. He then quickly moved on to talk about how the US had been targeting terrorists with its drone program since 2001. This was a reference to the way that drone program has helped make groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) far stronger and far nastier.
Obama then though threw his full support behind that failed program and made clear that it will continue.
Next Obama spoke of the US' military operations in Syria and Iraq. He made clear that he intends to stay the course and that the overthrow of Shia-Muslim governments in the region is a higher priority to him then defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Speaking of the anti-ISIL forces Obama re-confirmed his commitment to defeating and denying them safe-haven. I suppose this was intended to generate speculation as to whether Obama would act to prevent a Turkish invasion of Syria.
However it sounded a lot to me as though Obama was re-committing himself to the Turkish plan of eliminating the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) who have established a buffer-zone or 'safe-haven' cutting ISIL's supply lines with Turkey.
Obama then attempted to blame the entire thing on those nasty Republicans who have been blocking his gun control agenda. He then demanded to know why Congress will not give him authorisation to carry out the above mentioned mad-cap plan.
I personally think that the real question is why Obama is still carrying out that plan despite no sane person giving him permission to do so?
Finally Obama seemed to suggest that America deserved to be attacked due to its racism. He urged us all to join hands sing "Kumbaya," vote Democrat and not join in with that anti-Muslim sentiment.
Unless of course they're Shias in which case they clearly f*cking deserved it.
Anyway I've been drinking for a good 10 hours now so there may be a better version of this hiding somewhere deep inside of me. Tomorrow I may go look for it.
01:45 on 7/12/15 (UK date).
Coming 23 days after the Paris Massacres and 4 days (local) after the San Benardino attacks it was unlikely that I was ever going to give him a passing grade. But I have to say;
That really stunk!
Although as a politician I knew Obama was never going to formally admit it I at least expected him to acknowledge that his attempts to exploit the San Benardio attacks to further his gun control agenda had failed. I then expected that Obama would offer some weasel words assuring Americans that despite his repeated failures they could all sleep safely in their beds.
Instead though he acknowledged that the San Bernardino attacks had been an act of terrorism. He then quickly moved on to talk about how the US had been targeting terrorists with its drone program since 2001. This was a reference to the way that drone program has helped make groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) far stronger and far nastier.
Obama then though threw his full support behind that failed program and made clear that it will continue.
Next Obama spoke of the US' military operations in Syria and Iraq. He made clear that he intends to stay the course and that the overthrow of Shia-Muslim governments in the region is a higher priority to him then defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Speaking of the anti-ISIL forces Obama re-confirmed his commitment to defeating and denying them safe-haven. I suppose this was intended to generate speculation as to whether Obama would act to prevent a Turkish invasion of Syria.
However it sounded a lot to me as though Obama was re-committing himself to the Turkish plan of eliminating the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) who have established a buffer-zone or 'safe-haven' cutting ISIL's supply lines with Turkey.
Obama then attempted to blame the entire thing on those nasty Republicans who have been blocking his gun control agenda. He then demanded to know why Congress will not give him authorisation to carry out the above mentioned mad-cap plan.
I personally think that the real question is why Obama is still carrying out that plan despite no sane person giving him permission to do so?
Finally Obama seemed to suggest that America deserved to be attacked due to its racism. He urged us all to join hands sing "Kumbaya," vote Democrat and not join in with that anti-Muslim sentiment.
Unless of course they're Shias in which case they clearly f*cking deserved it.
Anyway I've been drinking for a good 10 hours now so there may be a better version of this hiding somewhere deep inside of me. Tomorrow I may go look for it.
01:45 on 7/12/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
