Syrian base targeted in blast may have housed advanced missiles?

I strongly advise that, after you read again this tactless headline which really shows a total lack of compassion on the side of ToI editor, you watch this clip from "The Pink Panther Strikes Again":



Please pay attention to a short and succinct answer given by Mr Clouseau to the outburst at (almost precisely) the minute 3:00* "But that's a priceless Steinway!"

Indeed.

(*) The recommended focus on the minute 3:00 in no way should limit you to this specific point in the clip. You should watch it in full, maybe even several times for its educational and entertainment values.

John McCain vs Vladimir Putin: an abject failure of good intentions

Senator McCain - a good man all around - had only the best intentions in mind, when answering the famous and quite unique Putin's article in NYT. The insufferable self-satisfaction of a (de facto) winner of the political battle over the Syria's artificial issue of chemical weapons has gotten up many noses. The hypocrisy of that text should be studied in schools, universities and diplomatic training courses all over the world as a classic example of (almost) Machiavellian artistry and astuteness.

The sad fact is that many well-meaning people accepted the article as a gospel, using it as an additional tool in whatever anti-war ventures they planned. And the reason is fairly simple: no matter who exactly wrote and/or put the final touches on the article (and there are different versions of its provenance), he/she/they was a pro. While the article could be fisked, as this example by Max Fisher proves, a naive and sentimental reader swallows the whole poisonous pill easily. The article is a great example of smooth triumphing over truth.

And the cavalry, in the form of John McCain, came to the rescue, with the response (that was supposed to be in kind) appearing in the Russian Pravda (English version for convenience of this post). Placing myself in the (tentative) position of a Russian reader, I have greedily read it... with a growing sense of amazement and a total lack of understanding of  its purpose. Then I read it again. What can I say: there are worse political articles around, but not many. There are more pitiful texts on the Internet, but probably not that many written (or signed, whatever) by a VIP of McCain's caliber.

Now, I stressed that, in order to read the unfortunate opus, I have tried to put myself in a position of a Russian reader. This paid off. If I were reading it as an average Westerner, with middling to zero knowledge of goings-on in Russia, I might have been easier to persuade. As far as an average Russian reader is concerned, though - I doubt that such reader will need more than half of that piece, before a total and unconditioned rejection of the whole. So poorly researched is the article's factual base, so many glaring bloopers are jumping out at the reader, that any possibility of looking at the forest behind the trees becomes nil. Let's start with details:

A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered.

Untrue. While Kremlin is doing its considerable best to stifle the opposition, it doesn't really apply too much pressure to media that doesn't endanger its rule directly. There are quite a few media outfits that do publish much more serious (and, needless to say, much better written) criticism of Putin and his cohorts.

They [the Russian authorities] throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin's rule.

Nope. The punk rock band (Pussy Riot) wasn't anti-Putin. They were provocative and vulgar indeed and pissed off the Russian Orthodox church, but that was all. Then comes an unfortunate paragraph about Sergei Magnitsky (misspelled as Magnistky):

He exposed one of the largest state thefts of private assets in Russian history.

Possibly (allowing a very lenient interpretation) the spirit of the sentence was in the right direction, but as for factual side: untrue. The famous Magnitsky Bill, which Senator Mccain probably voted for (not really bothering to read, I bet) tells the truth: Sergei Magnitsky exposed a monumental tax fraud by Russian tax officials and police. It may sound like nitpicking to a Western mind, but not to a Russian reader...

And check this out:

For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in Butyrka prison without trial, where he was beaten, became ill and died.

Nope. Butyrka prison does exists and is a famous and beloved locale for writers dubbing in Russia-themed thrillers, but Sergei Magnitsky was held in an isolation facility known under the name of the street where it is located: Matrosskaya Tishina. Not very important, true, and the English Wiki version is wrong on that too, but doesn't Senator McCain have a staff to do some basic research?  The above mentioned Magnitsky Bill has the name of the prison right, by the way...

Well, that is enough for details - but keep in mind that this will be sufficient to make a Russian reader stop reading the article, which still tried to pass a message to its reader. So let's go to the message. If you remember, the Putin's article was about the ill-devised intention of Obama's administration to "punish" the Syrian ruler for his use of chemical weapons. I wouldn't go into the rights or wrongs of that plan, enough words were written about it. But, besides being insufferably smug and hypocritical, Putin's article in no way attacks the POTUS personally, just the opposite:

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.

So what Senator McCain does? The thrust of his piece is attacking Putin, while the reason for the article's appearance (Syria) is mentioned only once, in a weak and hardly persuasive (to a Russian reader, to remind you) manner. And take that:

He [Putin] is not enhancing Russia's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

Oh well, that after seeing what Obama has done to US reputation, credibility and standing during the Syrian fiasco (which is not over yet, to remind you). No, Senator McCain, sir, you have totally failed to get even close to a Russian reader in that piece, sorry to say. And you need a much better research team to do the preparation (and, probably, more) for your articles. That one was a sad flop.

Amnon Lord: Obama as a grand failure - or missing the great red herring.

An Israeli veteran journalist, Amnon Lord, published an article in the Hebrew edition of Maariv, titled American pundits: Obama as a grand failure. As a critical article on the behavior of the current US administration, the piece is scorching - and still it proves that Putin's maneuver succeeded beyond expectations to create and to put on our collective table a huge red herring that effectively sidetracked everyone.

Follows its translation (Google with my assistance) and a few remarks after that.

[Lede of the article]When Assad wins immunity, Obama is also expected to give legitimacy to Iran through meetings with Rouhani and through backing Putin's initiative to build another reactor.

Only a few pundits in the American media, who were loyal to President Barack Obama, continue to rationalize his political conduct on Syria last month and claim that it works correctly. His other supporters issue prophecies styled like that of Time magazine's Joe Klein, Obama is currently showing "breathtaking incompetence*". "In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world."

But among opponents of Obama there are those who have already gone far beyond the "unsuited for the job" and other explanations relating to the seriousness of the Obama administration. Norman Podhoretz, 82, who infrequently writes lately, was the first who dared to write what some people feel for a long time : the treatment of Syria is a failure, but this failure is a huge success of Obama's strategy to weaken - Yes, weaken ! - and harm the United States and its foreign policy .

Podhoretz wrote this about a week ago in the Wall Street Journal. He tied the deliberate sabotage, as he claimed, by Obama's of American foreign policy to what the American media was trying to whitewash and to hide for the past five years: his links with the radical anti-American left, his closeness to the preacher Jeremiah Wright, etc.

The treatment by Kerry/Obama pair of the chemical attack in Damascus contains in a nutshell the lack of basic morality that comes from what is considered "progressive", "humanistic" and "peaceful" ideals of global left in the form they get in U.S. In his desire to withdraw America for better world equilibrum and as an expression of moral relativism, Obama became a collaborator with the leaders responsible - each according to his contribution - for crimes against humanity. One is Bashar al-Assad, the second is his sponsor, defender and supporter, Vladimir Putin.

Ultimately, what President Obama is doing is nothing less than legitimizing a mass murderer responsible for gassing nearly 1500 people including hundreds of children. According to what develops in negotiations between John Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, Assad will get immunity from possible attack on Syria and immunity from the court in The Hague. These gains - that will enable him to continue the slaughter - are achieved through the chemical attack! For this he really has to say "Spasibo" to Putin, as one of Israel's senior publicists has already mentioned.

Intellectuals among those who respond to the diplomatic horror that unveils before our eyes are muttering: this is how the life looks in the post - American period. The world order built after World War II is crumbling. But it is impossible to dismiss Obama's responsibility for the melee that carries off parts of the world in the absence of American leadership. We should expect now that Obama give further sponsorship and legitimacy to the Iranian leadership through direct meetings with the new President Hassan Rouhani.

Doing this, he will give a covert support to Putin's new initiative to build another reactor in Iran and to arm Iran with S-300 missiles. I mentioned last week that Russia preserves its provocation and disinformation instruments sharpened in its extensive toolbox. This past week we have seen a demo [of these tools]: Putin's provocative article in New York Times (and Ha'aretz) , which caused many Americans to want to "throw up" as a senior senator said.

At the same time Snowden, who acts now as an  agent on behalf of the Russians, released information harmful to Israel and intelligence that brews trouble between United States and Brazil. Russia's proxies are very well planted in the Western media. But it is still a "soft" campaign. Whoever keeps Iran under their wing will sooner or later push it to break through the nuclear threshold. Let's not allow the stink of old wars to hide the new wars Russians will try to ignite, using their old techniques . It would be another "successful failure", and expected one at that, by President Obama.

(*) The full text of the sentence is: "It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed." Yep.

Now that you have read the article, you may (as I did) feel disturbed by some of its statements, disagree with the others - but you will probably agree with me that it's a strong one. Still, I have promised to show you the red herring.

This article, being an aggregate of several other articles that aim searing criticism (and more than that - accusations, if you mind the Podhoretz's piece), proves  beyond any doubt that Putin, with very little assistance from his buddy Baby Assad, succeeded in an endeavor he himself, probably, hardly believed in. Where the whole world was focusing on the relentless campaign of mass murder managed by Assad's regime for more than two years, ending the lives of more than 100,000 of his own people, no one talks about them now - not the Western pundits, at least. The hundred thousand** victims are swept off the table. It is as if they don't count anymore, being completely overshadowed by the Damascus gassing.

Look again at what Amnon Lord says "Ultimately, what President Obama is doing is nothing less than legitimizing a mass murderer responsible for gassing nearly 1500 people including hundreds of children." I don't blame Amnon Lord, he, like all other pundits, is seeing only the red herring created by Vladimir Vladimirovich. Mission accomplished.

Fairly soon we shall see the schedule of chemical weapons' transfer to "international control" published (but not necessarily adhered to), Baby Assad will get his "get out of jail" card, merrily turning back to his murderous daily tasks. Obama gets rescued from the "red line" crisis he created for himself, showing off now as a careful leader who is not prone to impetuous acts that could put Americans in the harm's way.

And finally, Putin will show off his new "peacemaker" crown, having succeeded in a peaceful mission where all others failed. And look hopefully in the general direction of Oslo.

And the mass graves will keep being dug and filled, again and again.

And this is the way this planet keeps revolving...

(**) The number itself is, probably, wrong by now. It is just that the "murder counter" stopped ticking, at least in the mass media, after the Damascus gassing. How many more Syrians died since the gassing? I don't know.

On the Syria non-strike arguments

Just read what Terry Glavin had to say on Facebook today about tons of arguments that support the other point of view (the one what says that the strike on Syria will be useless):

What makes this different than 99 per cent of the anti-interventionist drivel making the rounds is that it isn't drivel, but is rather an argument that is serious and intelligent: "The issue hinges on whether one believes a pointless and ill-considered strike by this president against the Syrian regime does more or less damage than a congressional 'no' vote that would make America even more of a non-entity in international affairs." What an epic cock-up this whole thing has been...

Terry offers this Commentary article as an example.

Confusing? You bet. I fully agree that there are a myriad perfect reasons why not to strike Syria. I consider that there is one compelling reason to eradicate Assad and his clique, but...

Anyway, here is another good reason to leave Syria alone.

By the 1980s, the report stated, the Syrian regime had begun storing chemical stockpiles in 50 different towns throughout the country. In case the army is in need of the arsenal, aerial bombs, artillery shells and ballistic missiles and rockets have already been prepared in advance.
The sarin and VX gases, according to the report, is manufactured in five different locations throughout Syria: The main facility in Al-Safir, and the others in Homs, Latakia, Hama and Palmyra. The poisonous gas is transferred to storage facilities at Al Furqus, Dumayr, Khan Abu Shamat as well as in the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus.
Different reports show that the Damascus center, which is under Assad's direct control, also houses biological weapons.

Now, did I say that the story told in this article provides a good reason to leave Syria alone or that it provides an even better reason to get busy with burning all these stockpiles down and darn the consequences?

Confusing, innit?

Hat tip: Shira.

Erdogan: Intervention in Syria should overthrow Assad

He is at it again:

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that any international military intervention against Syria should be aimed at overthrowing the President Bashar Assad from power. “A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying by the NTV news channel.

Why does looking at the man's picture and reading his rants invariably remind me this:



Dunno. You tell me.

Is it possible for the spoiled children of the Western world’s bourgeoisie to get any more repulsive than this?

Terry Glavin asks a pretty rhetoric question, I know, but it is his answer that you all should read.

And also this, from Anne Applebaum:

Two decades ago as well as today, the source of the problem is the same: The president of the United States wishes to represent things — justice, fairness, international norms — that he cannot, or will not, or doesn’t know how to defend in practice. In the future, it would be far more just, and far less cruel, for the president, and the rest of us, simply to say nothing at all.

Yep.

Update:

This and more inanity from LA.

Ban Ki-moon and the Article 51 of the United Nations charter

Hear, hear!

Does the man realize how pathetic and useless this dictator's club has become?

They know what you are going to do this summer, Mr President...

Remember how that "No blood for oil" was one of the fingers stuck in GWB's eye during the Iraq invasion? Apparently the specter of "No blood for oil" is threatening to return, it is just a matter of KGB FSB doing its usual whispering in the right ears, and soon we shall see the old placards dusted off and back in the streets. From a Russian Free Press (a joke if there ever was one) site:

However, many experts are inclined to think that a military scenario is inevitable. And not only for political but also for economic reasons. Lebanese TV channel "Al Mayyaddin" showed an interview with the head of the Center for Strategic Studies in Damascus, Dr. Imad Fawzi Shuaibi, who presented the results of studies of the Norwegian company Ansic in 2010. It turns out that Syria had scouted 37 billion tons of oil at a depth of only 250 meters. Daily oil production in the country could surpass the Kuwaiti production and reach 6 million barrels (compare to Saudi Arabia daily production of 12 million barrels). In addition to oil more gas was found in Syria. By the volume of proven reserves the country is now the fourth largest in the world. The video recording of the interview was removed from the server YouTube the other day...

So the Google is involved too. Now it is certain...

Alyssa Milano in a sex tape: raw, uncensored, hard core action!

Yep, this time this blog steps back from its policy: go ahead and enjoy!

Simply Che - special Syrian edition

By a strange coincidence, after a long break in the series I have posted recently another post in the series. And in a few days the subject came up again (#19), in a rather unusual circumstances.

What happened is that I have stumbled upon a blog Syrian Perspective kept by Baby Assad loyalists. In the post that I've opened they gleefully report upon an operation that killed quite a lot of rebels, naming some of them. What struck me as especially poignant was the picture of the jubilant victors:

So, as you can see, the tee shirt killer finds himself in some unexpected places. Probably his spirit thrives on it...

A few words about that Syrian Perspective blog. Quite politically astute, the folks there quote (for instance) Pat Buchanan - from Lew Rockwell's site. With poorly veiled hints about Z... you know who promoting you know what.

It is also interesting to read the comments there. Some Russian supporters of Baby Assad are quite fearsome, throwing around a lot of techno-thriller stuff, prophesying the end of 6th Fleet etc. Quite enjoyable, until you get tired of that kind of verbal masturbation.

And more pro-Assad propaganda, of course.

To strike, not to strike, or how to strike

The Price of International inaction is the quagmire we find ourselves immersed in now.

Will this voice be heard by enough people to matter? I hope so.

Should he stay or should he go? (He, of course, is Bashar Assad)

I found this article in The Times of Israel most interesting. As a Western anti-fascist, my reflex response was to see Assad gone, until I thought of the alternatives facing Syria. And the consequences of one or a coalition of the jihadist groups coming out on top. Then I'd wonder again...

Not that it's up to me, of course.

However, trying to discern what's best for Israel, now there's a real conundrum. Especially if you're not an Israeli. This quandary became especially acute when we had some members of the Israeli branch of the family staying for a few days. The consensus among them (there were enough around for the notion of a consensus to be a realistic one) was that he should stay. If he went, the blood-bath among the Alawites would not be pretty, and there didn't seem to be a group or a coalition of groups that would create a stable entity to Israel's north-east.

If Assad were to survive in power, they were arguing, he would be weakened and would know better than to attack Israel, given that he would have a much reduced army, much less effective than before (and it didn't exactly cover itself with glory in 1967 and 1973), facing a powerful, well-trained, full-strength foe.

Well, they're Israelis, they should know, I assumed. Then this article argues otherwise. Here we have two experts, Brig. Gen. (ret) Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute of National Security Studies, and Professor Efraim Inbar, the head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies. In their slightly different ways, they are saying that the least bad outcome from Israel's point of view was that Assad not stay in power. I'm not sure that I fully follow or agree with their arguments, especially when Brom is quoted as follows: he said that "Assad’s bottom line was “survivability” — a goal that clashed with a major strike against Israel. “Syria is right on our border,” he said. “We can be very effective there… actually, more so than the Americans.” If so, why want him gone? Anyway, their arguments are right there in the article.

By Brian Goldfarb.