[AMERICANTHINKER] The beginning of our present course certainly looked innocent enough. It began with a naïve, hopeful, desperate assumption that all of us are absolutely equal. Or, to reach only a little further back, it began with a tragedy. It began when the advancing Allied armies exposed the Nazi death camps at the end World War II, and everyone across the West rightfully recoiled in horror. People concluded that we had better not let a thing like that happen again -- which was a laudable sentiment. Liberals (and yes, I do mean liberals -- not today’s degenerate progressives) decided that, to avert the possibility of future genocide, we had to throw out any evidence that any person might have a genetic edge over any other. This was no minor adjustment. Before the war, almost everyone understood that different peoples, races, and cultures were just that -- different. They understood that genders were binary -- and different. People were allowed to see what they actually saw. The people of the rest of the world, from South America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East -- still understand perfectly well that all people are neither the same nor compatible with one another. It is only we in the West who have had this counterintuitive and utterly false idea pounded into our heads.
No one should think our ancestors all so narrow-minded that they didn’t realize individuals from other groups might break the mold from time to time. England had a prime minister of Jewish descent in the 19th century. Even in the antebellum South there were a few black slaveholders among the millions of black slaves. There were successful women long before the women’s liberation movement came along. The belief, at its strongest in America, that the individual should be judged on his or her own merits is the rational remedy for blind group hatred. Making everybody equal every which way by mere wishful thinking isn’t.
As soon as people started to believe that everybody isn’t merely equal before the law, but that all groups of people must be equal every which way, we made enemies with an ocean of inconvenient facts. Instead of the slow, methodical practice of ferreting reality from nature (we used to call this science) people began to tie their beliefs to what they thought would be nice. It would, of course, be nice if homosexual men didn’t engage in pedophilia at an alarming rate compared to heterosexual men -- but they do. It would also be quite nice if blacks had, on average, about the same IQ scores as whites or Asians -- but they don’t. It would certainly warm our hearts if Islam really were the religion of peace -- but fifteen hundred years of history and the uncounted dead of virtually every culture that has ever come in contact with Islam say otherwise.
One of W's worst moves was trying to push the "Religion of Peace" BS, despite the clear wording of the Holy Crayon and Hadiths
[American Thinker] As the title suggests, The Case for Trump, balances a clinical approach to our currently incendiary politics alongside a brief for Donald Trump’s presidency. Of course, the success or failure of this attempt is a subjective matter though it seems to me that any reader of this book of whatever political stripe would concede that, for its length, it is thorough if not encyclopedic in its presentation of facts and its historical depth.
All of which is not surprising in that Victor Davis Hanson, occupies a unique position among the commentariat: he is a classical scholar, professor, historian, novelist, political, cultural commentator and farmer in California’s central valley while maintaining a residence in Palo Alto where he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on the Stanford campus. He is also a visiting professor at Hillsdale College in Michigan while spending appreciable time overseas.
One can see that his distinctly varied experiences are part of why he remains an engaging thinker and which makes all of the 372 pages of this book fly by. In a word, the book is a deliciously informative and an eminently readable take on the Trump ship of state as it tries to navigate around the depth charges laid by the treacherous deep state armada and a giddy and obtuse paparazzi.
Dr. Hanson’s opening chapter is his longest, wherein he demonstrates that by 2016 the traditional vision of "the two Americas" had ossified into mere "stale sloganeering." As he puts it, "Trump did not create these divides. He merely found existing sectarianism politically useful, and, like President Obama, he far more adroitly leveraged it than had prior Republican nominees. "
[Jpost] The New York Times
...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... recently published an elaborate profile of Mohammed Bin Zayed, the crown prince known as MBZ and the de facto ruler of Abu Dhabi. MBZ contrasts starkly with the notorious and controversial MBS ‐ Mohammed Bin Salman ‐ the crown prince of Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... Continued on Page 49
Most of the people in Israel don't much care for the Flintstones but the ones in Abu Dhabi Do.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/16/2019 12:32 Comments ||
To your room, Deacon
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2019 12:58 Comments ||
Contrived juxtaposition of coincidentally synchronous events, agreements, conditions.
It's written by David D. Kirkpatrick. heart still bleeds for Mohammed Morsi, whom he thinks America deposed and installed a dysfunctional democracy. He weeps in his book about Muslim Brotherhood offices and strongholds vandalized and left derelict and how US and Israeli forces actually work with Hamas and how Netanyahu claps his small, round fingers in glee whenever Israelis are attacked because it justifies Israel's nefarious agenda. As you may guess from where this bright spark writes this stuff, he lives in London. And quite better off than his counterparts with the same career graph.
How is it a bad thing if Israel as a leading weapon and surveillance systems supplier has enabled Bin Zayed, one sane Arab to keep and hold power despite contention from hardliners ?
The 'profile' goes on to allude to Mossad as some kind of intrusive entity that seeks to further its own goals by ... what ? Bringing stability to other regions ? And how is MBZ doing a wrong thing by reigning in islamist extremists and reducing Gulf support to them ?
The report includes :
MBZ wishes to see a Middle East where Islamist or any other form of mass-appeal politics is not only contained but also rolled
“This is based on a zero-tolerance approach that seems to equate political participation as the first step on a continuum that leads potentially to loss of control and eventual destabilization of the status quo.”
Most importantly it cites one former US DeepState Department official, who rues US support for the UAE as it aggressively pursues its foreign policy objectives.
My thoughts are in no particular order, but here they are.
One thing I noticed is that the video seems to have been taken in the dark. Combined with the idea that the tanker was probably evacuated means they could probably easily get away with running a boat up next to it and detaching the unexploded mine.
Conversely, the limpet mines could be attached to a lightly crewed ships almost as easily, especially if there was some kind of simultaneously distraction ploy.
I don't know if the water currents would make placing the limpet mines difficult while the ship was under way.
The photos of the holes in the tankers seems to show them to have been in a line at about 6' above the waterline in all cases. Not exactly where an underwater torpedo would have hit. I do not believe the tankers had been unloaded by the time the pictures were taken.
It seems that any kind of missile or drone would have a hard time duplicating this kind of accuracy regarding hole distance from the waterline.
If the crew of the Japanese tanker noticed drones flying about, they could have been a distraction or they could have just been doing damage assessment of the limpet mines effectiveness. Results might have been used to decide whether further action would be required or if a limpet mine that failed to explode would require removal.
It seems to me that underwater mines could prove to be problematic to remove if they failed to explode, hence the more easily removed above-waterline limpet mines. They would also be less of an "act of war" than suddenly sinking a ship with the crew aboard.
The shape of the holes does not suggest a high speed projectile, which to me means a round hole. It seems to my inexperienced eye the kind of damage a limpet mine or above-waterline bomb might produce.
The symmetry of the damage to both the Norwegian tanker and the Japanese tanker suggest hand placement of the limpet mines.
Of course, if Iran could do this, so could the US. But this feels more like how the Iranians would handle this than what the US would do to try to fake it.
Posted by: gorb ||
06/16/2019 01:45 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
The lack of pictures of or reporting of cargo loss (oil slick) is interesting.
Quo vadis is a Latin phrase meaning "Where are you marching?" idiot. You meant Cuo bono, but your Gulf of Tonkin obviously got in the way. Posting from a foreign country sometimes shows your cultural ineptitude
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2019 8:08 Comments ||
Like this, right Herbie?
A cart with a couple of bodies.
The vigilant watchman: "Quo vadis?"
"Oh, just down the via
To frame up some Shia."
"Cui bono?" "I guess that's the Soddies."
It’s a marker, poor dear. He has made the same mistake before.
Here is a refutation of his central point: Herb, you seem to be a bit deficient in awareness of the history of this particular part of the world. Fortunately, Strategy Page was thinking of you when they posted the following pieces, which I assign as homework before you next comment (don’t worry, they are quick reads with no Latin required), with lessons applicable far beyond this particular battlefield. Bottom line, President Trump is already winning on all fronts in this thing, with no need to start a shooting war. The only one who might benefit in any way is Iran, should they succeed in closing the Gulf and/or uniting their deeply unhappy subjects.
Presuming that all those false-flag stories are true--the US did them--then it follows that the US can do a false flag and then attack, the honesty of the thing notwithstanding.
So a false-flag is as good as IRGC doing it as a casus bellum. So there's no diff, right?
Either which way, there's identical pressure on Iran.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
06/16/2019 9:15 Comments ||
The first one is about Hezbollah financing. The second is an opinion piece. I like Jim Dunnigan's wargames from when he was at SPI but I quit reading his site a number of years ago because he rambles, gets fixed ideas about things, and generally has verbal diarrhea. From it:
"Some government hardliners still back starting a war if all else fails but most Iranian leaders fear that anything that bold will more likely backfire on Iran."
"Iran threatens to shut down all oil exports from the Persian Gulf if all Iranian oil exports are blocked. That is considered unlikely because it would be a declaration of war by Iran, and even the elderly clerics who have ruled Iran since the 1980s have made it clear they understand their military is more mirage than real. It is also obvious to all Iranians that war would destroy Iranian oil production and export facilities and much else. It would take years to repair that damage and there is no good outcome for Iran if there is war in the Persian Gulf."
On the other hand, destroying Iran would be a great outcome for the warmongering neocons, Bolton, and Israel. Cui bono?
This opinion piece is at the 4th level, "Contradiction".
Why is everyone thinking it's a false flag? Why is this the first thought on everyone's mind, no matter which side you're on? Come on, it's dominating discussion everywhere. I'm not the only one pointing it out. Just when the neocons are itching for another war, bam, precisely the excuse they need falls right into their laps. It's too perfect.
Remember the Maine!
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2019 10:46 Comments ||
Thanks Gorb. Don't forget that the US drone responding to the tanker SOS was fired on by the Iranians. Their mines malfunctioned, several did not explode. This tanker was supposed to be a huge inferno.
The Iranian attack on our drone was to allow them to move in, in darkness to remove the duds which would implicate Iran if gotten to by anyone else. They did not expect to be filmed removing their faiĺed explosives.
It may be a while before they pull this stunt again as they will need to resolve the malfunctions. If those mines had worked, the crew would have been in a huge, terrifying inferno by Iranian design.
None of them can write — but they collect information usefully. Interestingly, Rantburg is one of Strategy Page’s raw information feeds.
As for “everyone” thinking the attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf is a false flag operation, you ought to have noticed that the very few who do are aping Iranian propaganda, and it’s gaining no traction whatsoever. But at least you are doing better than the Mullahs, who seem to think that Pearl Harbour was the false flag attack that will crystallize American opinion. See An Nahar: Iran Hints U.S. Could be behind 'Suspicious' Tanker Attacks.
They may be right about Pearl Harbour having that effect on American thinking, but if so it won’t be the one they’re aiming for.
"everyone" = Herb and his imaginary Anti-Neocons
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2019 13:00 Comments ||
The US is building a coalition. This was a major failure by Iran. The lifting of crippling sabctions is now a no way. Should Iran get stupid again, while the coalition is devestating Iraniab targets, Israel should work over Hesbollah, abd the Saudis should obliterate the Houthis. Iran and all of their allies go down. All nuke facilities will be destroyed the Iranian nuke program regional threat will be set back 40 years.
Herb, cool pyramid. Kinda puts things in perspective.
I don't think anyone at RB, yourself and myself included, has managed to get above the contradiction rung.
Perhaps some have edged toward counterargument, but only with arguments that have applied to distant cases, but not this specific case. It's only sowing doubt leading to inaction, and I think most people here understand that.
Until we get more evidence supporting one side or the other, this will not be settled. I think we can just throw things into the mix and hope something comes along to crystallize things.
In the meantime, I'm going to have to rely on my judgment based on Iran's past behavior vs. its recent behavior, their behavior during and after negotiating agreements, their lies, their rhetoric, the trajectory of their behavior, and their leadership's ideological fervor.
I also understand that the US has taken advantage of false flag operations plenty of times, or at least taking full advantage of situations that might not be false flags but were overreacted to. I know someone who was there for the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Yes it was peashooters vs. cannons, but the intent was there.
Whatever the specifics, it's time to mow the grass over there. And to keep mowing it until they grow a brain.
So even if it's fake, we need to start a war with Iran? How about no? Americans are not in favor AT ALL of starting yet another war.
It does not make any sense that Iran would attack a Japanese oil carrier the same day that the Japanese PM was in Tehran to try and negotiate a peaceful resolution to their stand-off with Saudi/the US. The only motive someone would have to carry out this attack would be to scuttle talks.
If Iran could recover the bomb and prove the US/Israel/Saudi Arabia was involved in a frameup, then we just attacked Norway and Japan.
Think about how insane all of this is. A Norwegian and A Japanese oil tanker were supposedly “attacked.” Yet neither the governments of Norway nor of Japan are calling for war or attacks.
An attack on Japanese oil tankers by Iran at this exact moment especially makes no sense at all. It would make perfect sense for the Saudis/Mossad to try and disrupt these talks on the other hand.
Found the shipping log of one of the ships, the Kokuka Courageous: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/371880000
It departed from a port in Saudi-Arabia on the 10th of June. Now if it is true there were bombs planted on the hull of the ships, what place would make it most convenient to do so?
Also from the video footage the US has released it seems the "limpet mine" was several meters above the waterline. That is a totally ridiculous and idiotic place to put a limpet, they're meant to be attached below the waterline, where they.. you know.. can't be seen easily and investigated. Absolutely something fishy about this whole thing.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2019 14:48 Comments ||
Just utterly delightful, Angairong Flavigum3253.
like Germany and most of Europe?
Prove it. I see nothing from you in the hopper, so you might as well post the link in a comment in this thread.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2019 15:15 Comments ||
That's the Guilt By Association fallacy, Frank G. Form: Person P accepts idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong.
Thanks for moving up the pyramid of debate, even if it is only one step from name-calling to attacking the characteristics of the writer instead of engaging with the substance of the argument. I appreciate that. Now keep moving, you've taken your first step into a larger world.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2019 15:22 Comments ||
Herb, you're nearing the bottom of your own pyramid.
And I counter your link with one that is actually in the region.
The Splash article suggests something other than Limpets or torpedoes since damage is above the waterline of the Front Altair. The crew said "flying objects" hit them. the article also indicates no hostages were taken by Iran.
From Herb’s Newsweek article, the opening sentence:
Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Friday cast doubt on evidence that the U.S. government claims is proof that Iran was behind an attack this week on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
Deutsche Welle, the German government’s version of Voice of America, does not take the same position as FM Maas. And our own European Conservative has pointed out that FM Maas’s enthusiasm for Iran does not match the turning away that has happened on the ground in Germany.
But really, if we are so evil, why do you hang out here in all your various moods, and why do you happily agree with us on so much else that two of your submissions were published today because I thought them important enough to move up from tomorrow?
As for deleting the article from the hopper, I’m afraid after seeing it I would have done the same. The fact that some people think the things we would have predicted they thought is not news, especially when the source is Newsweek, which was discarded by the International Business Times last year. Once upon a time they were a respectable news magazine, like Time and a number of others, but that was several owners ago.
As I indicated in the article, I don't believe it was ever their intent to sink it.
Richard Fernandez (aka wretchard) has similar thoughts: The attack on tankers in the Gulf of Oman according to the Jerusalem Post was a scripted outcome that fell apart. It was designed to make Iran's armed forces the heroic rescuers happening upon an anonymous tragedy, but IRGC flubbed its lines.
There's some reason to think the Iranians were trying to goad the Trump admin into an escalation in the Middle East in the belief that would unleash an outbreak of anti-Americanism in the region and damage him politically. But the fish weren't biting that day. LINK
In a similar vein, someone asked why the Iranians would attack a Japanese freighter when Abe was there. This assumes Abe was there to make nice and not deliver a message like "Oil is important to our nation. We would be *very* upset if you f**ked it up".
It's better if the articles get done the next day, they get more time to get read and discussed.
If you don't want Newsweek, there are tons of other sources. Pick one, the story about the Germans not falling for it is everywhere.
I've been reading Rantburg in one form or another since Little Green Footballs used to link to it. It's only recently that I noticed the horrifying switch to continuing eternal war and starting new ones. I was particularly disturbed by the celebration of the slaughter of innocents. What can I say, I still think of Americans as the good guys, not the murderous villains from 1984.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2019 19:18 Comments ||
Say it with me: "False Flaggot..."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/16/2019 19:20 Comments ||
It's better if the articles get done the next day, they get more time to get read and discussed.
Normally, yes. But I wanted that thought about on a Sunday, when our lot generally have more time for deep ponderings. I have on occasion, saved an article from Monday to the following Sunday for exactly that reason.
It's only recently that I noticed the horrifying switch to continuing eternal war and starting new ones.
This thing with Iran I believe is the direct result of not taking them seriously since 1979. 0bumhole then gave them permission to develop the nuclear bomb. They've been a pain in the region for quite a while now, and it's not going to get better for us or our allies unless somebody puts an end to it. I don't believe it will stop itself. They do intend to "wipe Israel off the map and are willing to sacrifice a quarter of their population doing it," whatever that means. If they knocked off the rhetoric and lived relatively peacefully with our allies instead of needlessly stabbing them in the back, I'd be fine with them.
I was particularly disturbed by the celebration of the slaughter of innocents.
I'm not sure which innocents you are referring to. I personally don't want any innocent folks to die.
It isn't obvious that anybody wants a big shooting war right now. The US wants a show of force; I gather to deter some un-reported escalation. Last time I checked shows of force are risky, but aren't the same as wanting a war. If we wanted to generate a causus belli I figure we'd have used a US ship, or staged an attack on one of our warships. And we'd be moving faster.
Suppose we actually were as bloodthirsty as Herb seems to think. Hitting a Japanese ship while Abe is in town would be a very risky way of scuttling the talks--all sorts of bad things would happen if Abe found out we did it. It's a crowded area; could you be sure nobody spotted you?
Benefit low, risk high. Do we have people stupid enough to do it anyway? I think so--some of you would know for sure--but I'm pretty sure that Iran has at least as many.
Qui bono is a good question, but I don't know enough about internal Iranian politics to be able to guess at the answer.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.