Three minutes to midnight. John Key incoherent.

91 comments on “Three minutes to midnight. John Key incoherent. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tracey 1

   2 October 2015 at 7:28 am

   A good piece from RNZ this week contrasting Obama and Putin’s views on Syria

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201772461

   And another persepctive from RT, focusing on this week’s press conference of retired US Navy admiral, John Kirby, spokesperson for US Department of Foreign Affairs., where he said of Assad

   ““He is the reason ISIL, and other terrorist groups, have been allowed to fester and grow and sustain themselves inside Syria,” Kirby said. “Assad regime has allowed groups like ISIL to fester and grow inside the country.”

   https://www.rt.com/usa/315474-kirby-state-department-assad-isis/
   • dukeofurl 1.1

     2 October 2015 at 8:11 am

     What rubbish. Assad has always opposed ( and his father before him) any sort of Sunni militancy.

     The ISIS grew out of the remnants of Saddams military in Iraq, and the unrest there and spread across the border
     • Stuff the Politicians 1.1.1

       2 October 2015 at 3:45 pm

       The earlier versions of ISIS were funded by the CIA and trained by the British SAS.

       So Putin is correct when he asked , Do you know what you have done, while speaking at the UN last week.

       There have been and still are a bunch of bloody idiots running some counties.
       They are a dangerous lot.
   • BLiP 1.2

     2 October 2015 at 9:03 am

     ‘

     Heh! He ain’t no saint and I’m glad I don’t live in his Russia, but respect to Putin for his occasional “fuck-you” to the US. What makes him particularly effective is that he speaks often speaks uncomfortable and hard to deny truths. The typical response from the West is petulant abuse which only further confirms the veracity.

     And, yeah: looks like Kirby has popped up on cue with his lines into the MSM to bolster the double-think real-speak fact that its all Assad’s fault. The spin merchants know you gotta have someone to blame; makes it nice an easy for the public to swallow. Even better if the “baddy” can be framed as another Saddam. No need to clutter the public’s mind with a reminder or, God forbid, an analysis of events over the last, say, 15 years. Such a narrative would only complicate the roll out of comms-plans and require the use of difficult to spell names best forgotten. Just so long as the heartland can be reassured that matters are in hand, they will keep smiling and waving their flags. Its not like they are really being lied to, the history is available if they want to find it.

     When you think about it, giving the public a “baddy” is a kind thing to do. While it was important to instill deep fear into their hearts to ensure support for this war, by handing them a “baddy” they can all focus their hate on will help deliver a greater sense of community. Properly handled, someone could make a fortune next Halloween with an Assad costume. No point in dragging up all that fuss again about the illegal invasion and on-going occupation of Iraq right next door to Syria. Didn’t make *that* much difference to running a country, surely. Who cares if the bulk of the Iraq army was summarily dismissed and left to roam about the place without jobs or homes or much hope. At least they got to keep their side arms. And as for Saudi Arabia recruiting, funding and arming droves of fervent Wahhabists, that’s neither here not there. They are allies.

     Remember also, the US has just got over having to face up to being a state which employs the use of torture enhanced interrogation. No point in dragging that up again. Just because Assad cooperated with the arbitrary kidnapping, torture and murder of innocents renditions programme, that was way back at the start of the century. Water under the bridge. Doesn’t mean the US owes him anything. Assad was help for a while, so what, big deal. He’s only the head of sovereign state that England created. Who’s he when it comes to the interests of corporate USA?. Fuck him Hang him out. Plenty like him to go around.
     • Tracey 1.2.1

       2 October 2015 at 9:10 am

       It’s like the West don’t want people to realise Assad is fighting ISIS! I tried to find the interview on RNZ of the guy who was saying Assad isn’t this big bad chap, but can’t. It was earlier this week. He pointed out that for all his life Assad has been accuse dof being too weak and soft.

       Nobody, imo, is all “right” in this, and that is probably why it is all going so so wrong.

       Putin makes a good comment, namely that the West won’t acknowledge that it has contributed in some way to this state of affairs (noting that Putin has recently conquered Crimea and is working on Ukraine). If you look at the link I posted it has a poll of syrians. Guess how many believe ISIS emergence is down to the USA?
       • Grindlebottom 1.2.1.1

         4 October 2015 at 1:01 am

         Bashar al-Assad has been accused of being Too soft?. I don’t think so. He might have been a bit of a quiet lad when younger, and there was hopeful expectation when he succeeded his dictatorial father that he might introduce liberal reforms, but he’s proved himself as ruthless as his old man.

         From what I can see, this apocalyptic mess in Syria is the product of the Arab Spring. I’ve been trying to catch up on who’s fighting who, how many different religious sects & sub-sects & ethnic groups are involved, whose side they’re on, how many different opposition groups there are (I’ve lost count, new ones keep popping up), who they’re actually fighting, how often they’ve splintered & re-splintered into factions, what coalitions they’re part of, how many of them are fighting with previous allies, or have changed sides. It’s an unholy mess (or maybe a holy one might be a better description, there are so many islamist groups as well as druze, christians etc). Even the intelligence agencies must be struggling to keep up with it all.

         ISIL now controls half the land area and various opposition forces are in control of maybe half or more of the rest, Assad’s running out of troops, even his own Alawites in some places are refusing to join his army and some have reportedly joined opposition groups. His regime is on the verge of collapse. That’s the reason Putin’s sending in troops, planes and equipment.

         Even if the Russians and Iranians and hezbollah manage to help Assad retain control over a shrunken rump state he’s finished as national leader of Syria. The religious & ethnic explosion of hatred, killing and territory grabbing this civil war’s released could take decades to resolve.

         The Syrian people, and especially those under ISIL’s heel, are the victims of every power player here, the US, UK, France and their allies, as well as Assad, the Russians, Iranians and Lebanese. They’re all guilty of trying to play ISIL to their own advantage and seriously underestimating who they were dealing with, from what I can see.
         • Tracey 1.2.1.1.1

           4 October 2015 at 1:32 pm

           ” tried to find the interview on RNZ of the guy who was saying Assad isn’t this big bad chap, but can’t. It was earlier this week. He pointed out that for all his life Assad has been accused of being too weak and soft.” I believe the link to that piece was posted below
2. Psycho Milt 2

   2 October 2015 at 7:46 am

   Muzza gave Russia a good old fashioned public bollocking and then told the rest of the Security Council it was dysfunctional and directly responsible for the death of children.

   It must be about the first time in his life he’s said something that was reasonably accurate – most likely MFAT wrote it for him.
   • Tracey 2.1

     2 October 2015 at 7:54 am

     I thought that too, and that in Muzza’s mind he was talking about Russia.
   • dukeofurl 2.2

     2 October 2015 at 8:17 am

     So is Muzza going to give Turkey a public bollocking about its long occupation of part of neighbouring independent country Cyprus ?

     Or, is it when your are a nato member its all too inconvenient ? Not to mention the Gallipoli thing.

     Here we go again , occupying a neighbour is a terrible thing , except when our own ‘friends’ do it.

     Civil war in Ukraine ?. Again its a terrible thing that Russia provides support for rebel groups, but not a problem when ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia intervenes far more openly in neighbour Yemen.
     • tinfoilhat 2.2.1

       2 October 2015 at 8:55 am

       “Civil war in Ukraine ?. Again its a terrible thing that Russia provides support for rebel groups, but not a problem when ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia intervenes far more openly in neighbour Yemen.”

       The stench of hypocrisy from both the USA and Russia is no different than it has been for many many decades.
     • Psycho Milt 2.2.2

       2 October 2015 at 10:11 am

       So is Muzza going to give Turkey a public bollocking about its long occupation of part of neighbouring independent country Cyprus ?

       Is he going to spend NZ’s time on the UN Security Council dredging up old disputes rather than dealing with the ones that are happening right now? I’m picking “No.”

       Russian forces are supporting Assad by attacking rebels backed by the US. This is as stupid and dangerous a move as it would be for US forces to attack Ukrainian rebels supported by the Russian Federation. Obama refused to go down that path, but Putin is cheerfully setting off down it while giving the rest of us the fingers. MFAT was right to get McCully to give them a bollocking, and hopefully other countries followed suit.
       • dukeofurl 2.2.2.1

         2 October 2015 at 12:32 pm

         SO US, UK, France, Jordan , Turkey and others should stay while Russia gets out because they will confuse things ?

         All those countries have been active with airstrikes in Syria. None have done so with support of the legal government ( Assad) , while Russia does so.

         Mysterious you think dredging up old disputes should be ignored, its an ongoing occupation, but its inconvenient to you because it would offend ‘our friends’
         Israel/ Palestine occuptaion settled because its ‘even older’ ?
         • Psycho Milt 2.2.2.1.1

           2 October 2015 at 12:50 pm

           SO US, UK, France, Jordan , Turkey and others should stay while Russia gets out because they will confuse things ?

           Russia should get out because it’s attacking forces backed by a superpower and thereby risking a serious escalation of the conflict. Also: unlike Russia, the other powers carrying out airstrikes are coordinating their activities to avoid friendly fire incidents, and unlike Russia, are actually troubling themselves to confine their attacks to Da’esh rather than anyone the Syrian army wants taken out (disclaimer: description of “other powers” may not apply to Turkey, which never loses an opportunity to take out armed Kurds).

           Mysterious you think dredging up old disputes should be ignored…

           It’s mysterious that I don’t object to the NZ government focusing on the disputes that are actually in front of the security council now, rather than taking the opportunity to raise your pet issue from 40 years ago? I don’t see any mystery there.
         • Bill 2.2.2.1.2

           2 October 2015 at 7:28 pm

           Never mind Assad’s missing requests for help. The UK government has done it against the wishes of its own parliament.
       • Poission 2.2.2.2

         2 October 2015 at 12:43 pm

         Russian forces are supporting Assad by attacking rebels backed by the US.

         Russia justify’s the action for some very good reasons.

         Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

         In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.

         http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1510/S00002/putin-70th-session-of-the-un-general-assembly.htm
         • Psycho Milt 2.2.2.2.1

           2 October 2015 at 12:53 pm

           Islamic State are not “rebels backed by the US.”
           • KJT 2.2.2.2.1.1

             2 October 2015 at 7:21 pm

             The US armed them to fight Assad. So theoretically not US supported, just like the Taliban.
           • Tracey 2.2.2.2.1.2

             2 October 2015 at 7:47 pm

             No, but they are fighting Assad… IF it is lack of democracy that concerns the USA, when do we see them backing rebels in Saudi Arabia?
3. dukeofurl 3

   2 October 2015 at 8:34 am

   Good point Blip that you bring up the use of Drone strikes

   The US signed the INF treaty back in Reagan day.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

   An interesting part of that bans cruise missiles with a range ( total distance traveled) between 500km and 5500km.

   The real interesting part is the definition of cruise missile from the text of the treaty.
   “”The term “cruise missile” means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term “ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)” means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.”
   http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm

   That definition of cruise missile is exactly what a ‘drone ‘ is, and of course they are weapon delivery vehicles. The range of 500km around 300 miles but for drones that fly there and back, it means 150 miles away .

   So its clear as night and day , US armed drone strikes in places like Pakistan, Yemen and probably Syria are violations of the INF treaty.

   Which them explains another strange situation, the US has never admitted openly that they conduct drone strikes in pakistan and yemen. Its an open secret but officially doesnt happen

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/drones-and-denial_b_2396612.html
   • BLiP 3.1

     2 October 2015 at 9:53 am

     ‘

     Yep, slaughters by drone are a violation of all sorts of international laws. They are, in effect, extrajudicial executions carried out on the basis of suspicion and “best guess” and zero accountability. Drone strikes are also carried out in the full knowledge that innocent civilians will also be slaughtered. I’m not up with all the treaties and laws and agreements which cover this but, given the complete inability for anyone to do anything about it, they seem worthless. Might as well use them to keep score and see which country breaks the most laws each month. A legal-type explained how the US slaughter of that Kiwi citizen which John Key approved of broke some local laws. Can’t recall the details now but do remember thinking at the time “I should write this down”. D’oh!

     As far as I tell, the US slaughter by drone programme is underway in Pakistan, Somali, Yemen and Afhanistan. It is the UK slaughter by drone programme which is currently operating in Syria. Of course, these details have been released to the public by the murderers themselves so it highly likely they are inaccurate.

     (EDIT: Can’t seem to get that US link to embed. Here is is:
     https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/)
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2

     2 October 2015 at 10:10 am

     1. For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of intermediate-range missiles are:

     (a) for the United States of America, missiles of the types designated by the United States of America as the Pershing II and the BGM-109G, which are known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designations; and

     (b) for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the RSD-10, the R-12 and the R-14, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-20, the SS-4 and the SS-5, respectively.

     2. For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of shorter-range missiles are:

     (a) for the United States of America, missiles of the type designated by the United States of America as the Pershing IA, which is known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designation; and

     (b) for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the OTR-22 and the OTR-23, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-12 and the SS-23, respectively.

     Might throw a spanner in the works, although the rest of the text is couched in very broad terms.

     Also, only parties to the treaty have inspection rights.

     All that aside, extrajudicial killings are inherently illegal, or else why have they spent so much money on lawyers to define “enemy combatants”?
     • dukeofurl 3.2.1

       2 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

       Clearly the drones are a new type, not even thought of at the time. Pershings were a type of rocket and not a winged missile.

       But the definition clearly covers future developments, why else sign it if you could come up with a new missile in 2 years
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1

         2 October 2015 at 3:58 pm

         The point being, quibbling about clever interpretations of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty is redundant considering that the whole extra-judicial murder program is illegal in international law as it stands right now.
   • Psycho Milt 3.3

     2 October 2015 at 10:48 am

     That definition of cruise missile is exactly what a ‘drone ‘ is, and of course they are weapon delivery vehicles.

     There’s a word in the title of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that reveals why the US’ current drone fleet, as well as its non-nuclear-armed cruise missiles, are not covered by that treaty.
     • dukeofurl 3.3.1

       2 October 2015 at 11:31 am

       No it doesnt.

       THIS is the title to the Treaty ( from state.gov website)
       “Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Elimination Of Their Intermediate-Range And Shorter-Range Missiles .”

       Short title may be INF- but thats has no effect. No mention of nuclear ‘in the title’ and of course in the wording where the most detail is shown and any legal reasoning would be used.
       And the US Senate ratified that treaty not like others like ‘Law of the sea’ where they didnt. The major reason why nuclear warhead isnt mentioned is thats unverifiable to distinguish between the two.

       At the time , they certainly didnt think of drones, so we have a prima facie situation of US breaking treaty – with Russia.
       • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.1

         2 October 2015 at 12:57 pm

         Well, you could try bringing a case against the US and Russia for both continuing to produce and use non-nuclear-armed missiles after signing the INT, but I don’t think your case would get past the judge noticing that it’s a nuclear arms limitation treaty.
         • dukeofurl 3.3.1.1.1

           2 October 2015 at 4:01 pm

           You havent read anything we are talking about. It covers rockets and missiles that have only intermediate range(500-5500km) And they must be ground launched. So excludes naval and air launched.

           Both signatories have eliminated their weapons in that category.

           The US is in breach of its own treaty. End of story.
           Its not up to me to bring a case ????.

           Im publishing the details for others information. Doesnt change the facts which you cant accept. Instead of raising fatuous points why cant you just say it too.
           Im adding the concern by others about the illegal US drone strikes.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1.1.1.1

             2 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

             Whether what you’re adding is of any conceivable use or relevance is debatable: there are far stronger cases to be made against drone murders.
             • dukeofurl …

               2 October 2015 at 5:59 pm

               Us Treatys can be enforceable in US courts

               http://www.yjil.org/print/volume-37-issue-1/international-law-at-home-enforcing-treaties-in-us-courts

               More important is an international result that US hasnt abided by its treaty obligations. Not that things like the illegal war in Iraq stopped them either.

               Just handy for people like you who often claim the moral high ground for US.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 2 October 2015 at 6:08 pm

                 It can be enforced by the Russians, if they so choose. In my estimation this is extremely unlikely.

                 In the meantime, while we wait for the Russians to pursue a red herring, why not address the mass murder issue by pointing out that it’s mass murder?

                 Or would you prefer to impotently lash out at me instead?
     • McFlock 3.3.2

       2 October 2015 at 6:25 pm

       That word is also in the treaty text:

       The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

       Conscious that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind,

       Guided by the objective of strengthening strategic stability,

       Convinced that the measures set forth in this Treaty will help to reduce the risk of outbreak of war and strengthen international peace and security, and

       Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

       Have agreed as follows:
4. just saying 4

   2 October 2015 at 8:43 am

   Well at least it was laugh-out-loud incoherence from our great and glorious leader this time. (For me, anyways)

   I like your stuff Blip. Very much how I feel, but much better expressed than I could manage.
   • BLiP 4.1

     2 October 2015 at 9:25 am

     ‘

     Kind words. Thank you.
5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5

   2 October 2015 at 8:48 am

   Are we marching against the Russian aggression? Like we did in 2003 against US aggression? Or is it different, somehow?

   [lprent: You might have, although I’d need photographic proof before I’d believe it. I certainly didn’t.

   I just expressed my complete lack of faith in the US intelligence communities ‘evidence’ about Iraqi complicity in the September 2011 attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon, and their evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was a completely justified lack of faith. Consequently I expressed my opposition in getting involved in a completely unjustified war in Iraq being waged by a fucking idiot in the US for what appeared to be personal reasons.

   I object to your accusation that I marched against the US. In fact I could get quite upset about it. Finger hovers over the rhetorical idiot button…..

   In other words – don’t be a gormless fool. If I see that kind of phrasing too often placing people indiscriminately in groups for spurious smearing, then I’ll boot you off the site. And don’t follow the hypocritical example of our lying prime minister John Key. Take responsibility for your words. You should now issue an apology to those you have besmirched. ]
   • Tracey 5.1

     2 October 2015 at 8:54 am

     I’m still waiting for the US and ourselves to stand up for the Ukraine, afterall a foreign nation stole Crimea and is now inside Ukraine killing people in, something very like combat.
     • tinfoilhat 5.1.1

       2 October 2015 at 8:57 am

       As you know Tracey you’ll be waiting a long time, realpolitik on display as usual.
       • Tracey 5.1.1.1

         2 October 2015 at 9:11 am

         Makes me wonder if there is a correlation between the end of times when Leaders stood at the front of the battles they want to wage, and the 20th century being the bloodiest in history
         • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2015 at 9:41 am

           So, Trace, to be clear: you want the US to invade the Crimea?
           • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1

             2 October 2015 at 10:22 am

             to be clear, iwant the hypocrisy addressed, of both usa and russia
         • Phil 5.1.1.1.2

           2 October 2015 at 10:17 am

           Even accounting for the brutality of WW1 and WW2, the average probability of any person on earth dying, either as a direct or indirect result of weaponised conflict, has steadily declined for at least the last 500-1000 years.

           So, no. There is no correlation.
           • Tracey 5.1.1.1.2.1

             2 October 2015 at 10:23 am

             can you cite your source. unless it is an urban myth i read somewhere a few years ago that the 20th century was the bloodiest/deadliest in the history of thecplanet.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               2 October 2015 at 10:38 am

               Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels Of Our Nature makes a pretty good case using per-capita death tolls.
               • Tracey …

                 2 October 2015 at 2:27 pm

                 Thanks OAB
   • Puddleglum 5.2

     2 October 2015 at 10:20 am

     What on earth would be the point of that?

     You protest against the actions you think you have some influence over (no matter how slim). Going on to the streets to harangue the ‘official enemy’ is an empty, self-indulgent act or, worse, like the ‘protests’ engineered by dictators to demonstrate against the dictator’s official enemies.

     It’s a pretty basic moral principle that you always attend to the beam in your own eye before complaining about the splinter in someone else’s eye.

     Here’s how that goes in practice: if one of New Zealand’s supposed allies or ‘very, very, very good friends’ does something immoral then, hopefully (if official allegiance has any substance)’ protesting in New Zealand might have some impact on that ally. Therefore it makes sense to protest here.

     If, by contrast, New Zealand (and it’s quite strong allies) are already giving a ‘bollocking’ to something that an official bad guy has done (e.g., Russia) then there is little to be gained by marching in the street. Our government and those of its allies need no encouragement to do what they can to punish such a bad guy.
   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.3

     2 October 2015 at 5:06 pm

     Whatevs.

     [lprent: You weren’t listening. Whatevs, this is a important point. Lets see if we can get that through. Clearly a warning didn’t work. Banned 2 days. ]
6. Stuart Munro 6

   2 October 2015 at 9:59 am

   Crimea is more Russia friendly than most of Ukraine – heavily settled by generations of naval families and thus its secession to Russia made a kind of sense. But the Russian insurgents and of course the shooting of MH17 are pretty unpardonable. I’m not sure that Putin gets to bomb his way back to any kind of political credibility – however dodgy his targets may be.

   Muzza is of course worse than useless like all Gnats.
7. Lucy 7

   2 October 2015 at 10:05 am

   We have always been at war with Eurasia!!!
   I don’t like Putin but he at least has the sense to know that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. The Russian top brass came out of Afghanistan with a defeat but with an understanding that middle eastern politics is not easy and that democracy and capitalism is not for every nation. If you demand the figure at the top goes you need to make damn sure that the people of the country want whoever you put in! From non US media there are many stories about the rebels changing side when they saw who the US were importing to fight alongside them! ISIL was a US funded and armed organisation until the US realised the end game – just like Al Qaeda. After 100 years the US and the UK still have no understanding of world politics and are both still playing “sideses”
   • Tracey 7.1

     2 October 2015 at 10:33 am

     thanks Lucy.

     do we know who is selling weapons to ISIS and Taleban etc?
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     2 October 2015 at 11:36 am

     After 100 years the US and the UK still have no understanding of world politics and are both still playing “sideses”

     Both the UK and the US suffer from the belief that they can make things the way they want them to be by simply declaring that they are that way. They then act as if that is the truth and ignore the reality.
     • Tracey 7.2.1

       2 October 2015 at 2:27 pm

       Putin suffers from this also. I don’t know about China cos they say almost nothing about stuff.
8. One Two 8

   2 October 2015 at 10:12 am

   Drone strikes ….. No such thing

   http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-bans-drone-strike-app-from-app-store-2015-9
9. One Anonymous Bloke 9

   2 October 2015 at 10:19 am

   ISIL…depends on perpetual war to survive.

   Projecting much, Barack?
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     2 October 2015 at 11:38 am

     Yep, the US has an incredibly violent past and it’s mostly them attacking others for their own benefit.
   • Gangnam Style 9.2

     2 October 2015 at 2:18 pm

     Yeah that stuck out like a sore thumb to me too!
   • Tracey 9.3

     2 October 2015 at 2:29 pm

     WWI and WWII were long conflicts precisely because the USA fond it could make more money out of perpetuating the war through sale sof military stuff, than it could by joining in. The US Empire existed only because it lef tits friends to die and go bankrupt
10. Vaughan Little 10

    2 October 2015 at 10:26 am

    this has to be the weakest post I’ve read on the standard.

    you might take a care not to identify muslims with wahhabis. wahhabis are an islamic version of liberals: overturning historical hierarchies and their attendant power structures and replacing them with a radical egalitarianism. though of course liberals are a darn sight less violent or egalitarian.

    ok so I’m using your demoniac rage (cf Kierkegaard)-inspired rant to rag on liberals. may as well squeeze some fun out of it.

    plus, how did you manage to spin such a dark cloud out of Obama’s commitment to take more refugees? that’s a pretty special alchemy you’ve got going. reminds me of cv bitching about labour.
    • BLiP 10.1

      2 October 2015 at 1:24 pm

      . . . you might take a care not to identify muslims with wahhabis. wahhabis are an islamic version of liberals: overturning historical hierarchies and their attendant power structures and replacing them with a radical egalitarianism. though of course liberals are a darn sight less violent or egalitarian . . .

      ORLY – Wahhabism is not an ideology and theology developed by Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab out of Sunni Islam in the 18th and 19th centuries in the tribal areas of the Eastern Arabian Peninsular and hailed today by members of the Saudi ruling class for its staunch opposition to Shiaism and for its Salafi piety? Seems more likely you’re spouting shite. And clutching at straws.

      ok so I’m using your demoniac rage (cf Kierkegaard)-inspired rant to rag on liberals. may as well squeeze some fun out of it.

      So far, I’m the one having fun.

      plus, how did you manage to spin such a dark cloud out of Obama’s commitment to take more refugees? that’s a pretty special alchemy you’ve got going. reminds me of cv bitching about labour.

      Fuck him. If he’s gonna wait this long into the crisis – a crisis the US caused – just so he gets extra coverage when announcing what everyone else has already announced, he’s a poser exploiting the refugee crisis for his own benefit. His statement – not a formal commitment, just his word – complete with the sly qualifier “increasing number”, is the most pathetic response I have seen from any nation responding positively to the refugee crisis. Even National Ltd™ was, finally, forced into making a better job of it for New Zealand than Obama did for the US. We made a real commitment and mentioned numbers.
      • vaughan little 10.1.1

        3 October 2015 at 6:05 am

        so you can’t be bothered reading my comment properly but can be bothered replying. i guess that’s why your foreign affairs analysis above is so stodgy – you need to read widely with some sensitivity to be able to produce anything worth reading on it. clearly i know what wahhabism is, if you thought about the similarities between liberalism and wahhabism for a while you’d get that. just because wahhabis use terrorism doesn’t mean you can call muslims terrorists, as you quite possibly suggest.

        responding to your post is a bit like clutching at straws because that’s pretty much all there is to prop up the invective. i mean, right from 911 American leaders were working to publicly distinguish islam from terrorism.

        thanks for stating clearly this time your belief the US caused the crisis in Syria and that the planned US intake of refugees is something that Obama is doing for exploitative reasons. put next to key’s tongue tied (nonetheless accurate) comments, you make him look insightful. obama wasn’t announcing new policy, he was alluding to established policy. and have you paused to consider that one reason why states have been slow to respond is because they’re struggling to cope with the magnitude of the problem?

        i say yay to any country that takes in refugees from this collapsing state. the quicker the better.
        • BLiP 10.1.1.1

          3 October 2015 at 11:24 pm

          . . . this has to be the weakest post I’ve read on the standard . . . your foreign affairs analysis above is so stodgy . . . responding to your post is a bit like clutching at straws . . . a pretty special alchemy you’ve got going . . . put next to key’s tongue tied (nonetheless accurate) comments, you make him look insightful . . .

          And yet here you are. Do go on, please.

          Its great to see you have learned something, even if you like to pretend that you knew all along. Kinda sweet, really. Now that we agree Wahhabism is a part of Islam, what do you think will be the response among Muslims to Obama’s announcement that the US will be interpreting what is and isn’t an acceptable expression of Islam? Do you think this will help or is it possible that it might hinder relationships with and amongst the Mullahs and their respective followers? It seems a rather old-fashion, colonial approach to me.
11. Bill 11

    2 October 2015 at 10:35 am

    Brilliantly put Blip.

    So hmm, this comment almost works, ie – doesn’t quite work…maybe works better than the original, but whatever, I couldn’t resist – given the glaring temptation…

    But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by social democrats of those who distort democracy to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection (…) of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

    k time for the coffee.
    • BLiP 11.1

      2 October 2015 at 1:35 pm

      ‘

      Heh! Poor ole social democrats. Do you know what you get when you cross a social democrat with a pig? Can’t happen, there are some things a pig won’t do.

      I’m the last one who should talk about typos but I see your snipped carries one that is actually on the original. When I was reading it, it seemed odd that a statement from the President of the United States to the United Nations should have more than I usually do. Felt good.
      • Bill 11.1.1

        2 October 2015 at 1:42 pm

        I’m not going to say anything about dead pigs and…yeah – not going there.
12. Tracey 12

    2 October 2015 at 10:35 am

    Everyone!!! SHUSH. That great statesman of the world, John Key, has the floor at the UN.
    • Tel 12.1

      2 October 2015 at 11:14 am

      I wonder if he’ll declare if he has any conflict of interest… heaven forbid the sordid little man has shares in the US arms industry? Yeah nah, Pandas for everyone and how about a new flig for the UN. haha
    • Rosemary McDonald 12.2

      2 October 2015 at 11:38 am

      And here it is….http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72629197/john-keys-speech-to-the-united-nations

      “But part of the problem is also behavioural.

      The Permanent Members have become used to exercising power and are protective of their privileged position.

      They presume to control the Council’s agenda and to determine its processes.

      Despite this, we are doing what we can to ensure that the elected members have the information and the opportunity to contribute effectively to Council decision-making.

      And, in turn, that it makes effective decisions.

      We want to contribute to a Council that is genuinely focused on finding practical solutions to political problems and not on preserving the status quo.”
      • BLiP 12.2.1

        2 October 2015 at 2:07 pm

        ‘

        I love how a man who week after week chased a young, female cafe worker around her place of employment pulling her pony tail feels sufficiently qualified to berate the United Nations Security Council about behavioural problems and the inappropriate exercise of power from a privileged position.
        • Paul 12.2.1.1

          2 October 2015 at 2:10 pm

          I love how a man who week after week checks with his pollsters before making moral decisions feel he can moralise to the world.
          A man who at first declined to take any extra refugees lectures the world on tracking refugees.
        • b waghorn 12.2.1.2

          2 October 2015 at 6:16 pm

          You can ad a man who has children dieing of preventable problems in the country he governs using the death of a child to make his point and also going on about the use of veto powers when he uses them himself to this little hypocrisy list
      • Tracey 12.2.2

        2 October 2015 at 2:30 pm

        Contrast this

        “The Permanent Members have become used to exercising power and are protective of their privileged position.

        They presume to control the Council’s agenda and to determine its processes.”

        With how He and Australia behave at the Pacific Forum.
    • Reddelusion 12.3

      2 October 2015 at 12:14 pm

      Petty and juvenile, comment says more about writer than target of said comment
      • Tracey 12.3.1

        2 October 2015 at 12:18 pm

        oh no, you made me cry. it;s an opinion, and one i can back up. i point as first example the quote from Key above.
        • Reddelusion 12.3.1.1

          2 October 2015 at 2:33 pm

          You sensitive creature, you, still petty and juvenile
          • Paul 12.3.1.1.1

            2 October 2015 at 2:38 pm

            Unlike your regular burps on this site.
          • Tracey 12.3.1.1.2

            2 October 2015 at 7:15 pm

            You’re projecting again redelusion… see how your name is petty and juvenile?
13. AmaKiwi 13

    2 October 2015 at 11:00 am

    Follow the money.

    Do any of these leaders believe wars are about anything other than getting more money (i.e. resources or strategic advantages that will get them more power and therefore more money)?

    I don’t.
    • Tel 13.1

      2 October 2015 at 11:16 am

      Syria is or perhaps was a lucrative source of income for Russia. 24 Billion dollars over the last decade according to the World Bank, which is likely to be a conservative figure.
    • Draco T Bastard 13.2

      2 October 2015 at 11:50 am

      Nope. Our present system requires ever more resources as we use up the ones that we have in our own lands thus we need to invade other lands to get their resources to support our greed.
14. Pasupial 14

    2 October 2015 at 11:02 am

    Campbell made a good point yesterday:

    Russia may not be offering a very palatable plan on Syria, but at least it is a plan. Putin pointed out at the UN that the only forces currently fighting Islamic State on the ground are the Assad regime, and the Kurdish militia…

    Due to this self-imposed immobility by the Americans, all of the diplomatic momentum over Syria is now with Putin. In reality, Russia’s military effort in Syria won’t probably do very much to defeat Islamic State – but in a matter of weeks, he has moved Russia right back to the centre of the US/European stage, after the isolation caused by Russia’s actions in the Ukraine.

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/10/01/gordon-campbell-on-putins-diplomatic-coup-over-syria/

    There is blame enough to go around to all sides in Ukraine; Russia, EU, NATO, Yanukovych, Poroshenko and others. However, the Syrian situation makes even that clusterfuck look like a minor scuffle. The thing that stands out to me is Erdogan’s Turkish contribution of bombing the PKK – the kurdish militia that has been s one of the bulwarks against IS:

    Turkey’s Nato allies have expressed unease about the operations aimed at the PKK, since the Kurds have been a crucial ally in the fight against Isis both in Syria and in Iraq.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/29/turkey-launches-biggest-attack-kurdish-militants
15. johnm 15

    2 October 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Prince of lies,applied violence and domination, duplicity, manipulation and utter revolting bullshit the U$ “Great Satan” lusting for World hegemony at any risk and price has spoken. Shonkey, the Satanic flunky flits about pouring forth meaningless rubbish. Muzza is another total hollow flunky of the same evil power that spends more on arms and the military than the rest of the World put together, why? Certainly resource domination is a major reason and if they spark WW 3? that’s an acceptable risk.
    • johnm 15.1

      2 October 2015 at 1:05 pm

      The Artist Taxi Driver explains the mass insanity of spending a 100 billion pounds on Trident. He also covers Iraq and Syria.

      Nick Robinson BBC “I believe in a Nuclear Holocaust”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZHD9QVgtpg

      Trident is the U$K’s entry pass into Great Satan’s club of world domination.
16. D'Esterre 16

    2 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

    @Tracy: I think this is the RNZ interview you couldn’t find. It’s in this segment, I’m pretty sure.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201772572/the-panel-with-sue-wells-and-sue-guthrie-part-1

    A spot of revisionism anent Crimea, folks. It seceded; this was actually reported at the time, though the narrative has since morphed into “Putin-grabbed-Crimea”. Which doesn’t make it true, no matter what Uncle Sam and his poodles say.

    Crimea was traditionally part of Russia, until it was gifted to Ukraine by Krushchev in 1954. Because he could. Since independence in 1991, Crimea has made two previous attempts to decamp; after the coup last year was the third attempt. That time, they made sure it happened.
    • BLiP 16.1

      2 October 2015 at 3:36 pm

      ‘

      I think you’ll find that, while there was plenty of support in the Crimea, Russia managed to run foul of international law in the process it employed. Doesn’t appear to be just a technical breach. IANAL.
    • Tracey 16.2

      2 October 2015 at 7:50 pm

      So Putin took back the gift, by killing people… just a technicality

      On this basis you support the Palestinians, if armed well enough, taking back Israel?
      • D'Esterre 16.2.1

        2 October 2015 at 11:45 pm

        @ Tracey: “So Putin took back the gift, by killing people… just a technicality”

        This is wrong. Again: Crimea seceded. It unilaterally declared its intention to secede, held a referendum, the turnout for and results of which were unequivocal, and then formally petitioned Russia for annexation. The entire process took place almost without a shot being fired. In this part of the world, we find it difficult to understand how Crimeans feel about having been handed over in that fashion. They got no say in it, of course. But as soon as they got the chance, they set about getting their country back to Russia. Memories are long…

        Pretty much most of what’s been reported in Western media about the Ukraine situation is US/NATO propaganda. Here we are, commenting on a post which takes an articulate and well-deserved swipe at the US and its infantile foreign policy (sorry, might be putting words into mouths there!) and idiotic patriotism. Yet at the same time, commenters here are just unreflectively accepting the US and NATO demonisation of Russia in general and Putin in particular. I’d have thought that the Syria situation would have caused people to re-evaluate what the media has told them about the glorious Ukraine and its dastardly neighbour.

        The end of the Cold War, and the resulting loss of the USSR as an adversary, left the US without a military purpose. As a consequence, it has, through NATO, since done everything possible to force a confrontation with Russia. Fomenting the violent overthrow of the democratically-elected government of the Ukraine was just the most recent attempt. Keep that in mind as you follow events in the Middle East.

        I’m not attempting to defend Putin or Russia; what I think about them is irrelevant. But it’s really important that people see US pronouncements on Russia for the Cold War propaganda that most of it is.

        “On this basis you support the Palestinians, if armed well enough, taking back Israel?”

        So: are you telling me what I think?

        @ BLiP: “I think you’ll find that, while there was plenty of support in the Crimea, Russia managed to run foul of international law in the process it employed.”

        International Court of Justice: unilateral secession is consistent with international law. Crimea unilaterally seceded. It ran the referendum and so on: Russia wasn’t involved. This was reported at the time, as it happens.

        There certainly were Russian troops in Crimea at the time, along with sundry military hardware. But they were there legally, under the terms of the Black Sea Fleet Treaty, which allowed Russia to station up to 25,000 troops and equipment on the peninsula.

        @ Stuart Munro: “…of course the shooting of MH17 are pretty unpardonable..”

        Here’s something on that topic worth a read. Don’t just dismiss it as Russian propaganda: it has links to back up the story. He’s written on the topic previously.

        http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14240
17. The Pink Postman 17

    2 October 2015 at 3:06 pm

    I find it hard to believe that the USA, blames Russia for bombing civilians .
    USA has always been the worst offender for so called friendly fire, in fact the word was invented for the American Armed Forces,
    • dukeofurl 17.1

      2 October 2015 at 4:05 pm

      The Saudis are bombing civilians in its neighbor Yemen.

      They are supported by US drones and other support aircraft.

      U.S. boosts support role in Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen
      http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-yemen-20150817-story.html
      • Tracey 17.1.1

        2 October 2015 at 7:51 pm

        Yes, the great unreported killing of yemense
18. gnomic 18

    3 October 2015 at 2:30 am

    Is there something in the water? This is the most confused and confusing thread of all time. Well OK, maybe just a candidate for the title. And the Obama speech extracts must be up there in the race for the most obfuscatory bullshit ever. However I can see why Obomba doesn’t want to get involved; who would? What a mess. I for one hope the human race survives but this war in the Middle East is not helping with that mission. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Midnight approaches.

    By the way I have no idea at all what this sentence means. ‘The US has no choice but to be there because of this week’s “Fifth Institutional Filter” is Assad.’ Can anyone explain?

    Confusion reigns OK? Chris Trotter is confused for example. He thinks that IS must be destroyed. I wonder, is there a Serco for that? Should we ‘destroy’ the women and children as well? Surely a bit simplistic? Maybe a robot exterminator? Let’s hope it doesn’t get out of hand. Perhaps even death cult members have human rights, at least in theory.
    • BLiP 18.1

      3 October 2015 at 3:41 pm

      ‘

      It was an oblique reference to the Herman/Chomsky propaganda model as explained in the book “Manufacturing Consent”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Links to post

1. Bashar al-Assad and other Bastards. « The Standard: posted on 4 October 2015 at 6:13 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS