Worldwide Nightmare Theatre, Empire of Chaos Enhanced and Expanded

[Dr Sardonicus]

Now there are reports that Khashoggi's dismembered body was dissolved in acid. If true, it would render moot how he was buried.

This brings to mind a story I heard during the Iranian Revolution. It was after the Hostage Crisis, but not terribly long after. It had to do with the failed rescue attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) that ended in a debacle, with eight US servicemen burned alive in their aircraft.

The story is about what happened to the burned bodies. The Revolutionary Guards took them to the US Embassy, and strung them up -- festooned like sausages in front of a butcher's shop. And then something surprising happened.

It seems the Revolutionary Guards had set up call centers, with numbers people could call to denounce their neighbors for engaging in counter-revolutionary activity (or if there was a score to settle, heh-heh). And when the Revolutionary Guards' little street art exhibit went up, they started getting calls at these numbers -- lots and lots of calls -- from ordinary Iranians, saying how absolutely disgusting this was to them. No doubt most of them hated the US with a passion, but no matter -- treating a corpse in such a manner was haram -- forbidden. And the bodies were quickly taken down, and soon thereafter returned to the US.

This story may be apocryphal. But if Muslim attitudes toward desecrating corpses are as the story described, it leads to questions in the present case. Would the prospect of Khashoggi not only being murdered, but having his corpse desecrated, be utterly revolting to the average Saudi citizen? Perhaps all the more so because he was a fellow-citizen, not accused of any crime, who had been in the hands of his government, and of officials whose duty was to protect him.

And so, I am led to wonder. Will this episode lead to trouble for the regime at home?

[kladner]

-by Gareth Porter; Information Clearing House
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50626.htm
What a shock! NYT is "shading" the truth, again. Truth is shaded to obscurity in the piece critiqued in this article.

In this latest distortion of 'smoking gun' satellite images, the media continues its attempts to blow up Trump's nuke negotiations.

Major news outlets have resumed efforts to pressure President Donald Trump to pull back from trying to negotiate a deal with Pyongyang. In their latest salvo last week, The New York Times and CNN completely misrepresented the findings of a recent study of satellite photos of a North Korean missile base as evidence of bad faith and “deception” in talks with the United States.

A New York Times article bore the sensational headline, “In North Korea, Missile Bases Suggest a Great Deception.” In a breathless tone, the writers, David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, declared that the satellite images “suggest that North Korea has been engaging in a great deception,” because it had offered to dismantle a major launching site while “continuing to make improvements at more than a dozen others that would bolster launches of conventional and nuclear warheads.”

If such improvements had been made during the U.S.-North Korean exchanges, they have might well merit official and public attention—if they have given North Korea new capabilities for threatening the United States or its allies, as Sanger and Broad suggested. But a review of the study of the satellite images of the base reveals that it does not describe any such improvements as claimed by the Times. On the contrary, the study says the satellite images “show minor infrastructure changes to the base that are consistent with what is often seen at remote KPA {Korean People’s Army] bases of all types.”

Furthermore, according to the study issued by Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), those same minor infrastructure changes had been observed at a number of similar missile bases, along with training and operational readiness improvements that the authors presume have existed ever since the reorganization of the Strategic Rocket Command into the Strategic Force in 2013.

In short, there were no “improvements that would bolster launches of conventional and nuclear warheads” that could be cited as evidence of an effort by North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un to deceive Trump. Sanger and Broad either a) did not actually read the study of the satellite images on which they were supposedly basing their accusation or b) were deliberately deceiving their readers.

The referenced extensive analysis of satellite photos, with annotations regarding the structures is here:
https://beyondparallel.csis.org/unde...perating-base/
Wrap up:

A June 2006 statement by a South Korea official reaffirms that “there are five launching bases, including Togol (Sakkanmol) Scud Brigade in Singye, North Hwanghae Province.”15 Most recently, on November 13, 2018 (KST), a spokesperson for South Korea’s Blue House stated, “I would like to tell you that the missile base at Sakkanmol is for short-range missiles like the ‘Scud’ or ‘Nodong (Rodong)’.” 16

Several observations from available satellite imagery support these reports, including:

The size, number, and layout of the base’s buildings is similar to that of other known missile operating bases of approximately brigade size.
The presence of seven entrances to UGFs that appear to be large enough to support a missile brigade’s equipment.
The presence of a specialized drive-through ballistic missile support facility.
What appears to be one or two MAZ-543 TELs under camouflaged tarps have occasionally been identified in satellite imagery in front of several of the UGF entrances.

I recommend the "Research Note" at the end of the article for the background of the lead author, who started the study of NK missiles in 1985.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I read the piece. To me, it was more a formulaic screed than news or analysis. I didn't really learn much from it. I summarize it as follows:

.....blahblahblah.....

I was surprised, though, at the figure of "only" 5,000 for the number of civilians killed in Yemen. Is that a typo?

I suppose everything looks like shit when viewed through brown glasses. Perhaps you already knew all the details, and found it boring. That doesn't mean others are precluded from discuss them.

I find it interesting in the way it ties together the multitude of "stories" which circulate constantly. Following that, Fisk goes into the regional and international implications. In the process, he mentions a number of ME leaders with less than approving tone. Do you think his references were unfair? He discusses the role of the US in fomenting instability in the region. Is it not the case that this criminal behavior continues at this moment?

In general, if many things are truly bad, why should they not be mentioned? You seem to like slapping categorical labels on various peoples' words as a means of dismissal.

This has been true of just about anything going on outside the USA for quite some time. Newspapers have been closing their foreign bureaus for decades. Your "point" is news so old, it's historical.

I didn't bother responding to this gratuitous sneer at the time because it is so typical. However, the control of information in the US is being clamped down on at an accelerating pace. Calling attention to current examples of government deception of citizens is not rendered "historical" by the deceptions which precede it. The continuation and increase of such deceptions should be spotlighted when some of them peek out.

The 5,000 dead figure has been, and is repeatedly revised upward. It is easily an order of magnitude or two higher, and climbing. I have no idea how to interpret its inclusion. Not a typo, I think, but perhaps some earlier text which slipped by editing and updating. The publish dated is October 25. A lot has been discovered since then.

Perhaps you could back it off, just a bit, and not indulge in so many colorful put-downs. Unwarranted attacks on materials and posters does not enhance the conversation.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

<snip>Do you think his references were unfair? <snip>

To me, it's not a matter of "fair." The piece isn't reportage, it's an opinion piece. "Fairness" is not a requirement. References will be chosen specifically to support the author's opinion. That may not be "fair," but as long as they're factual, I have no complaint about them as references. I just don't like blatantly obvious editorializing being called news or analysis.

The 5,000 dead figure has been, and is repeatedly revised upward. It is easily an order of magnitude or two higher, and climbing. I have no idea how to interpret its inclusion. Not a typo, I think, but perhaps some earlier text which slipped by editing and updating. The publish dated is October 25. A lot has been discovered since then.

It seems that the people -- especially children -- who have died of starvation caused by this conflict number considerably more than 5,000.

Perhaps you could back it off, just a bit, and not indulge in so many colorful put-downs. Unwarranted attacks on materials and posters does not enhance the conversation.

I've taken my share of heat in this forum. A certain quotation of Harry Truman comes to mind...

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I've taken my share of heat in this forum. A certain quotation of Harry Truman comes to mind...

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the sauna.

Or something like that.

[Nick]

A certain quotation of Harry Truman comes to mind...

Yes, but someone implicitly telling the OP to get out of the thread he started is not friendly.
Let us all encourage each other to guage our behaviour according to the highest standards, not the lowest.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Nick

Yes, but someone implicitly telling the OP to get out of the thread he started is not friendly.
Let us all encourage each other to guage our behaviour according to the highest standards, not the lowest.

In the post of mine he's complaining about, I didn't criticize, let alone attack the poster as I was implicitly accused of doing. I did criticize an article he cited. That's my right. The person posting the article has no right of prior restraint of my criticism, based on their opinion that criticism is "unwarranted." And whether criticism is warranted is a matter of opinion. Saying that any contrary opinion is "unwarranted" seems unpleasantly like saying that no disagreement is allowed.

I've put up with much harsher responses to my posts. The moderators didn't intervene. True, I didn't complain. But that's not what defines bad behavior.

As to "implicitly telling the OP to get out of the thread he started is not friendly," you have failed to consider the friendly alternative: namely, suggesting that the complainant do something about standing the heat.

In more words, not to be hypersensitive, thin-skinned, and prone to equate disagreement or criticism with "attack." I see enough of that sort of thing from, among others, a certain prominent politician to whom I refer in this Forum by an unflattering sobriquet.

[kladner]

The piece isn't reportage, it's an opinion piece.

We part ways right there. You are giving your opinion of the article.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

In the post of mine he's complaining about, I didn't criticize, let alone attack the poster as I was implicitly accused of doing. I did criticize an article he cited. That's my right. The person posting the article has no right of prior restraint of my criticism, based on their opinion that criticism is "unwarranted." And whether criticism is warranted is a matter of opinion. Saying that any contrary opinion is "unwarranted" seems unpleasantly like saying that no disagreement is allowed.

I've put up with much harsher responses to my posts. The moderators didn't intervene. True, I didn't complain. But that's not what defines bad behavior.

As to "implicitly telling the OP to get out of the thread he started is not friendly," you have failed to consider the friendly alternative: namely, suggesting that the complainant do something about standing the heat.

In more words, not to be hypersensitive, thin-skinned, and prone to equate disagreement or criticism with "attack." I see enough of that sort of thing from, among others, a certain prominent politician to whom I refer in this Forum by an unflattering sobriquet.

This was a general dismissal through extreme over-simplification:

The Saudi regime is terrible. Western governments are terrible. The US is terrible. The UK is terrible. One can replace "terrible" with, or add to it words like "vile," "hypocritical," "repulsive," etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

It is in keeping with your categorical dismissal of Fisk's writing as a "screed".

EDIT: I don't think of myself as a 'personage' in this thread. I appreciate the expression of support from nick. I hope and believe that I was making somewhat cogent arguments. I rather snapped at the offering of NATO and DOD, etc postings as evidence. I had specifically downgraded those in the context I was discussing. That prompted my first really pejorative response, "boosterism, braggadocio, and bluster."

You are certainly entitled and welcome to your opinions. However, repeatedly declaring "This is noting but a sack of shit," without any backup explanation, is nothing but a screed in itself.
I invite you to quibble over my verbiage. Please justify your assertions in detail.
Thanks.

[ewmayer]

o As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans | Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelmingly favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.

This correlates with the 2018 Dem congressional slate containing disproportionate numbers of candidates with 'MILO' (military, intelligence, law enforcement) backgrounds. Trump Derangement Syndrome has led to some really remarkable topsy-turviness w.r.to policy stances by supporters of the big 2 parties.

o New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics | Mark Ames, Grayzone Project

A bombshell domestic spy scandal has been unfolding in Britain, after hacked internal communications exposed a covert UK state military-intelligence psychological warfare operation targeting its own citizens and political figures in allied NATO countries under the cover of fighting “Russian disinformation.”

The leaked documents revealed a secret network of spies, prominent journalists and think-tanks colluding under the umbrella of a group called “Integrity Initiative” to shape domestic opinion—and to smear political opponents of the right-wing Tory government, including the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

Until now, this Integrity Initiative domestic spy scandal has been ignored in the American media, perhaps because it has mostly involved British names. But it is clear that the influence operation has already been activated in the US. Hacked documents reveal that the Integrity Initiative is cultivating powerful allies inside the State Department, top DC think tanks, the FBI and the DHS, where it has gained access to Katharine Gorka and her husband, the fascist-linked cable news pundit Sebastian Gorka.

The Integrity Initiative has spelled out plans to expand its network across the US, meddling in American politics and recruiting “a new generation of Russia watchers” behind the false guise of a non-partisan charity. Moreover, the group has hired one of the most notorious American “perception management” specialists, John Rendon, to train its clusters of pundits and cultivate relationships with the media.

Back in the UK, Member of Parliament Chris Williamson has clamored for an investigation into the Integrity Initiative’s abuse of public money.

In a recent editorial, Williamson drew a direct parallel between the group’s collaboration with journalists and surreptitious payments the CIA made to reporters during the Cold War.

“These tactics resemble those deployed by the CIA in Operation Mockingbird that was launched at the height of the cold war in the early 1950s. Its aims included using the mainstream news media as a propaganda tool,” Williamson wrote.

“They manipulated the news agenda by recruiting leading journalists to write stories with the express purpose of influencing public opinion in a particular way,” the Labour parliamentarian continued. “Now it seems the British Establishment have dusted off the CIA’s old playbook and is intent on giving it another outing on this side of the Atlantic.”

The piece describes John Rendon:

...best known as “The Man Who Sold The War”— several wars, in fact, but most notoriously the Iraq invasion. Rendon was the self-described “information warrior” who planted fake news in the major US-UK media about non-existent WMD threats. With deep ties to the CIA and other military-intelligence agencies, his PR firm was paid $100 million to organize and sell Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. In 2002, the New York Times exposed a Pentagon program using Rendon to plant “disinformation” — including “false stories” and “the blackest of black PR” — in media outlets around the world, in order to shape public opinion and sell the Iraq invasion.

The irony re. the 2002 NYT exposé of course being that less than a year later the paper was leading the pro-war MSM charge, with reporters like Judith Miller busily promulgating the very same kinds of "black PR" disinformation re. Saddam's WMDs and alleged support for terrorism. So perhaps the brief 2002 bout of truthiness was a "momentary, regrettable" lapse at from Pravda-on-the-Hudson's usual m.o.

[kladner]

https://www.gregpalast.com/roger-sto...iend-person-2/

The unnamed “Person 2” in the Roger Stone indictment is my friend: comic and journalist Randy Credico. I’ve been in constant contact with Credico for two years as Stone tried to bully him into perjury.

Trump stooge Stone is a bucket of pus. And he lied to the House Intelligence Committee, as the indictment states. But, frankly, this is small potatoes, not evidence of collusion with Russia. In fact it’s evidence of Stone’s slapstick, self-promoting failed attempts to collude.

What concerns me is that this indictment reveals Mueller’s real targets are what he terms “Organization 1,” Wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

This is a really different spin on Mueller than what I've read previously. Mind you, I am anxious about all sorts of possible fallout from the Special Prosecutor's aims and powers. Palast comes down to fears like, "When they came for the pus buckets, I didn't say anything....."
Spoiler Alert::

I admit to a little thrill watching the CNN footage of FBI agents made-for-TV dawn raid on Stone’s home. But I worry that, in the not too distant future, the door they knock on will be mine.