Saturday, August 2, 2014
The Truth No Amount of Propaganda Can Hide
The following pictures of the devastation in Gaza wrought by the Israeli onslaught are all from Al Jazeera:
Is the Washington Post Even Trying Anymore?
My brother sent me a link to a photo-essay in The Washington Post said to depict an Israeli airstrike in Gaza.
It's a nice story as these things go. The homeowner receives a friendly call from Israelis telling him to get out of the building immediately as it's about to be attacked. The fellow gets all his family and relatives out to safety. No one killed, no one injured, building destroyed. No harm, no foul - sort of.
Except, if you look carefully at the photos, something isn't right. This looks doctored, staged. Photo 1, shown here, is said to show a bomb just before it hits a house in Gaza City.
Photo 2 is captioned, "Residents of central Gaza watch as an Israeli bomb drops on a house."
Photo 3 is said to show a strike by a missile fired by an Israeli F-16.
Photo 4 is said to show smoke rising from the demolished building.
What do you see in those pictures? Photo 1 shows what appears to be a laser-guided bomb, a 500-pounder, just a second before impact. Look at the street scene. Find the lightpost on the left side with a tire on it and use that for your frame of reference. Notice the off-white van and the yellow car in the street.
Photo 2, the van and car have disappeared. In their place are two rows of tires apparently blocking the street. There appears to be a crew on the sidewalk to the right with another tire, apparently unconcerned.
Photo 3, a wider street scene shot from a safer distance showing the fireball of the missile. Again the tires are in place.
Photo 4, the tires are gone but that van and yellow car are back.
How did the tire crew know that this particular house was going to be targeted? The owner said he had a matter of minutes from the warning call until the arrival of the first bomb. How do you get the tire crew and the tires deployed on site with no advance warning?
Why did they have to use the same prop van and prop yellow car, posed side by side, in the before and after photos? That just beggars belief. I think what we're seeing here is second-rate propaganda intended to further the narrative that Israel isn't targeting Palestinian civilians. Close, but no cigar.
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
It's a nice story as these things go. The homeowner receives a friendly call from Israelis telling him to get out of the building immediately as it's about to be attacked. The fellow gets all his family and relatives out to safety. No one killed, no one injured, building destroyed. No harm, no foul - sort of.
Except, if you look carefully at the photos, something isn't right. This looks doctored, staged. Photo 1, shown here, is said to show a bomb just before it hits a house in Gaza City.
Photo 2 is captioned, "Residents of central Gaza watch as an Israeli bomb drops on a house."
Photo 3 is said to show a strike by a missile fired by an Israeli F-16.
Photo 4 is said to show smoke rising from the demolished building.
What do you see in those pictures? Photo 1 shows what appears to be a laser-guided bomb, a 500-pounder, just a second before impact. Look at the street scene. Find the lightpost on the left side with a tire on it and use that for your frame of reference. Notice the off-white van and the yellow car in the street.
Photo 2, the van and car have disappeared. In their place are two rows of tires apparently blocking the street. There appears to be a crew on the sidewalk to the right with another tire, apparently unconcerned.
Photo 3, a wider street scene shot from a safer distance showing the fireball of the missile. Again the tires are in place.
Photo 4, the tires are gone but that van and yellow car are back.
How did the tire crew know that this particular house was going to be targeted? The owner said he had a matter of minutes from the warning call until the arrival of the first bomb. How do you get the tire crew and the tires deployed on site with no advance warning?
Why did they have to use the same prop van and prop yellow car, posed side by side, in the before and after photos? That just beggars belief. I think what we're seeing here is second-rate propaganda intended to further the narrative that Israel isn't targeting Palestinian civilians. Close, but no cigar.
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
Urban Camouflage for Canada's Soldiers?
The past dozen or so years have left most of us familiar with the pixelated camouflage pattern, pioneered in Canada, and worn by many nations’ soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Americans are now going back to a more traditional camouflage for their combat uniforms. Canada, however, is not. We already have three variants of the pixelated pattern – a rich green pattern for temperate forests, the desert tan we see so often and a white/grey winter-Arctic camo.
It turns out there’s a fourth pixelated pattern under development, an urban camouflage that our warriors can use presumably in our cities. The pattern is supposed to emulate conditions in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
It’s called CUEPAT, Canadian Urban Environment Pattern, and it’s designed so that your little warfighter can be concealed in our cities.
The requirement is to have an urban pattern which works in the unique requirements of Canada’s three major metropolitan areas, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The current CBR (Chemical Biological, Radioactive) individual protective equipment (IPE) used by the Canadian military is provided in a woodland or desert camouflage. A camouflage suited to the Canadian urban environment is required when the military operates in urban terrain.
The military issued this specification: “Determine design parameters for an advanced Canadian urban environment camouflage patter (focus on Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal urban settings). Consider ...unique colour blends that would improve the users concealment in a range of urban environments.”
Do we really want our own military to be focusing on concealing our soldiers in our cities? To what end, exactly? What’s the threat that they perceive warrants an urban camouflage capability? Northern Gateway, perhaps? Like the American military, do they foresee mass uprisings and civil disobedience that will have to be countered with military intervention? I don’t think I’m okay with this, are you?
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
It turns out there’s a fourth pixelated pattern under development, an urban camouflage that our warriors can use presumably in our cities. The pattern is supposed to emulate conditions in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
It’s called CUEPAT, Canadian Urban Environment Pattern, and it’s designed so that your little warfighter can be concealed in our cities.
The requirement is to have an urban pattern which works in the unique requirements of Canada’s three major metropolitan areas, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The current CBR (Chemical Biological, Radioactive) individual protective equipment (IPE) used by the Canadian military is provided in a woodland or desert camouflage. A camouflage suited to the Canadian urban environment is required when the military operates in urban terrain.
The military issued this specification: “Determine design parameters for an advanced Canadian urban environment camouflage patter (focus on Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal urban settings). Consider ...unique colour blends that would improve the users concealment in a range of urban environments.”
Do we really want our own military to be focusing on concealing our soldiers in our cities? To what end, exactly? What’s the threat that they perceive warrants an urban camouflage capability? Northern Gateway, perhaps? Like the American military, do they foresee mass uprisings and civil disobedience that will have to be countered with military intervention? I don’t think I’m okay with this, are you?
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
Friday, August 1, 2014
U.S. Military Takes Steps to Ensure There'll Never Be Another Disaster Like the F-35
As far as the US military is concerned, the F-35 has broken the bank. With the American people on the hook for what is estimated to be up to 1.5-trillion greenbacks for a warplane, a gimmicky bomb truck, that keeps failing to live up to expectations, the military is determined to see that something like the F-35 fiasco never happens again.
A new US Air Force report, "...paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it's now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years — in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.
'"We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force," the document states.' The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint.'"
The F-35 isn't mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program's greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.
"Large, complex programs with industrial-era development cycles measured in decades may become obsolete before they reach full-rate production," the authors added.
"Operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived." That's Air Force code for the F-35's supposed stealth invincibility. The very adversaries for which the F-35 is said to be needed have already knocked the snot out of the stealth threat. They know its weaknesses and they've developed sensors, weapons and tactics to defeat it. What's more, they're already fielding their own stealth fighters, warplanes the F-35 was never designed to combat. Even Israeli defence planners gave America's stealth advantage a mere 5-year shelf life.
Return of the Dogfighter
The July 7 edition of Aviation Week focuses on a new emphasis on air-to-air combat capability instead of the air-to-ground focus that western nations have had for the last couple of decades. The shift is the result of Russia's intervention in Ukraine and its overall superiority in air combat capability.
Bomb trucks, like the glorified F-35, are great when you're taking out ground targets or blowing up wedding parties disguised as insurgents but they're seriously compromised against a state of the art fighter.
The F-35 is even more compromised because, unlike leading multi-role fighter-bombers on the market, it lacks super cruise. That means it can only go fast in fuel-guzzling afterburner. This is a huge disadvantage when you're trying to intercept a distant target and an even huger disadvantage when you're trying to evade pursuers. This is what caused the RAND Corporation to conclude that the F-35 won't out turn, out climb or out run its potential adversaries.
But the F-35 has stealth cloaking, right? Sort of but it's only frontal aspect stealth. Enemies approaching from the front will have a harder time finding you. That does not apply, however, to fighters scanning you from the sides, above or below, or from behind. They can see you just fine. So, in the turning, climbing, diving world of air-to-air combat, the F-35's strength is gone and its weaknesses shine through.
Will the CF-35, as the USAF warns, be obsolete before it ever appears in a Canadian hangar? Yes, quite possibly. Will it remain a mediocre warplane with degraded performance? Likely. Will that be enough to make Harper steer clear of it and find something more suitable to Canada's actual needs? Hell no. Buying the F-35 is a political decision. It's American politics that has kept it on life support for so long. Canada's military wants a nice pat on the head from their American big brothers and that means flying American hardware. That means the F-35. Harper too wants to remain a member in good standing of America's aerial foreign legion. The Brits are in. Australia's in. America's in (over its head). We're in. It's what we do.
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
Harper's Policy On Gaza: The Canadian Toll
While the cost of the Israeli invasion of Gaza is almost incalculable in turns of human suffering and loss of life, there is another casualty in all of this, one that is far less obvious and, in the eternal scheme of things, I suppose, of lesser consequence: Canada's psyche and reputation, both of which have been perhaps irremediably scarred.
The Mound of Sound has written a great deal lately on the ongoing carnage, and he has been hard-hitting in his condemnation of the leaders of all three major Canadian federal parties. All have either overtly or implicitly consented to the slaughter of the innocents, and for the worst of all possible reasons: political expediency.
And by that complicity, they have compromised all Canadians as they invite us to share their warped perspective that Israel is committed to peace, and that the casualties in Gaza are solely the fault of Hamas's rocket fire. Of Israel's grossly disproportionate response to those rockets, nothing is said. "Harden your hearts" seems to be the message, one that will be received with gratitude by some and confusion by others.
As well, of course, our long-reputed neutrality and honest-broker reputation is in tatters internationally.
Earlier this week The Star's Thomas Walkom offered this evaluation of the Harper regime's position on the bloody conflict:
Canada’s bully-boy approach to Gaza may be politically expedient for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
But in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East it is not helpful. If anything, it makes matters worse.
To this Canadian government, events in the Palestinian territory are black and white. On one side are those that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird calls Hamas “terrorists.” They are uniformly bad.
On the other is the state of Israel trying to protect its civilians from Hamas rocket attacks. It is uniformly good.
There is no room for nuance and little for history. The Canadian government approach does not take into account the bitter war that led so many Palestinians to flee the newly created state of Israel in 1948.
Nor does it contemplate Israel’s equally bitter occupation of the West Bank since 1967, an occupation carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council.
Walkom, I believe, accurately and concisely gets to the heart of Harper's motivation:
This prime minister has two types of foreign policy. Both are short-term. Both focus on immediate, domestic political goals.
His first approach is to favour countries useful to Canadian resource companies. Resources explain Harper’s otherwise inexplicable free-trade deal with Colombia, a country of little importance to Canada except for the fact that Canadian mining companies operate there.
Not to mention, of course, Columbia's abysmal human-rights record, a pesky detail of no apparent consequence when it comes to Harper's promotion of mining interests.
It also explains Ottawa’s decision to focus foreign aid on Mongolia. Vancouver-based Turquoise Hill Resources (formerly Ivanhoe Mines) is majority owner of a gigantic copper and gold mine in that Central Asian nation.
Harper’s second foreign affairs strategy is to take hardline positions that will win favour with specific voting blocs in Canada. This explains his vigorous support of Israel. It also explains his equally vigorous opposition to Iran.
And so the Canadian people have become pawns and victims in Harper's unholy quest to bolster his sagging popularity and movtivate his base to turn out at the next election.
Domestically, you will be hard pressed to find another such transparent example of true evil than that.
Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair - Soft on Terrorism
Let's begin with the definition of "terrorism." Merriam-Webster offers up a fairly standard definition: "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal."
That sounds exactly like what is going on in Gaza right now. That is exactly what is going on in Gaza right now. It's terrorism. Deliberately planned and precisely executed terrorism. And our prime minister and his government and our opposition Liberal and New Democrat leaders and all their parties are just fine with it. Trudeau even praises the terrorist government for its "commitment to peace." Thanks, Justin, now sit down.
Israel tries to mask its terrorist campaign as "self defence." Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair parrot that line. The Gang of Four - Netanyahu, Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair - maintain that Israel is going after Hamas, not targeting Gaza Palestinians.
They don't want to connect the dots between Israel's attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and its working over of Palestinian civilians in Gaza in 2008/2009 and the sequel now underway. Yet they're all the same, all straight from the same IDF playbook. There's even a name for it, the Dahiya Doctrine. It was named after the Beirut suburb that Israel demolished in 2006.
This technique deliberately targets civilians. They are the intended victims - the old and the young, women and children, those least able to get out of the way. The attack on the civilian population begins by taking out their essential services - water plants (check), sewage plants (check), electricity plants (check). Then you go at the civilians directly by bombarding their homes (check), hospitals (check), schools (check), and markets (check). You really work them over and you just keep at it all the while pretending that you're really targeting someone else.
The steady reduction of Gaza is blatant, deliberate terrorism. Or maybe not. Maybe it’s something even worse. Maybe what Netanyahu has in mind this time is enhanced terrorism, 'terrorism plus', - ethnic cleansing. Maybe he wants to render Gaza uninhabitable. Already some 90% of what passes for freshwater (it's actually a mild brine) is unfit for human consumption. The destruction of the sewage system almost guarantees there'll be a cholera epidemic before long. Taking down the power grid is the icing on the cake. It's positively medieval.
If you're a Liberal or a New Democrat, this is on you too. It's your party that is supporting this, absolving Israel of its campaign of terrorism, condoning the reduction of Gaza that will lead, must eventually lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population from the Gaza strip.
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
That sounds exactly like what is going on in Gaza right now. That is exactly what is going on in Gaza right now. It's terrorism. Deliberately planned and precisely executed terrorism. And our prime minister and his government and our opposition Liberal and New Democrat leaders and all their parties are just fine with it. Trudeau even praises the terrorist government for its "commitment to peace." Thanks, Justin, now sit down.
Israel tries to mask its terrorist campaign as "self defence." Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair parrot that line. The Gang of Four - Netanyahu, Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair - maintain that Israel is going after Hamas, not targeting Gaza Palestinians.
They don't want to connect the dots between Israel's attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and its working over of Palestinian civilians in Gaza in 2008/2009 and the sequel now underway. Yet they're all the same, all straight from the same IDF playbook. There's even a name for it, the Dahiya Doctrine. It was named after the Beirut suburb that Israel demolished in 2006.
This technique deliberately targets civilians. They are the intended victims - the old and the young, women and children, those least able to get out of the way. The attack on the civilian population begins by taking out their essential services - water plants (check), sewage plants (check), electricity plants (check). Then you go at the civilians directly by bombarding their homes (check), hospitals (check), schools (check), and markets (check). You really work them over and you just keep at it all the while pretending that you're really targeting someone else.
The steady reduction of Gaza is blatant, deliberate terrorism. Or maybe not. Maybe it’s something even worse. Maybe what Netanyahu has in mind this time is enhanced terrorism, 'terrorism plus', - ethnic cleansing. Maybe he wants to render Gaza uninhabitable. Already some 90% of what passes for freshwater (it's actually a mild brine) is unfit for human consumption. The destruction of the sewage system almost guarantees there'll be a cholera epidemic before long. Taking down the power grid is the icing on the cake. It's positively medieval.
If you're a Liberal or a New Democrat, this is on you too. It's your party that is supporting this, absolving Israel of its campaign of terrorism, condoning the reduction of Gaza that will lead, must eventually lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population from the Gaza strip.
MoS, the Disaffected Lib
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Dahiyeh - It's How Israel Wages "Peace"
“We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.” - Major-General Gadi Eisenkot, IDF.
That was Israeli strategy in the 2006 invasion of southern Lebanon. It's Israeli strategy today in Gaza. Disproportionate power.. immense damage and destruction... by plan. It's a strategy not targeted at an armed opponent. This is a strategy targeted directly at civilians - the young, the elderly, women and children - the cannon fodder that are least able to get out of the way when you come calling.
C'mon, Justin. Remind me again about Israel's "commitment to peace."
There's even a name for it. It's called the Dahiyeh Doctrine, named for the Beirut suburb that Israeli warplanes carpet bombed.
It's all about inflicting civilian casualties, destroying their homes and depriving them of essential services - electricity, water, sewage plants - hospitals, schools - all of which Israel has destroyed in the past month in Gaza as part of its "commitment to peace."
Israel waged this sort of peace in Gaza before and it became the subject of the 2009 Goldstone Report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. I expect our parliamentary greaseballs - Steve, Justin and Tommy Boy - never got a copy. That the very same doctrine is happening again - today - according to the very same game plan - is no coincidence. It's also a war crime unless, that is, your name is Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair.
MoS, The Disaffected Lib
That was Israeli strategy in the 2006 invasion of southern Lebanon. It's Israeli strategy today in Gaza. Disproportionate power.. immense damage and destruction... by plan. It's a strategy not targeted at an armed opponent. This is a strategy targeted directly at civilians - the young, the elderly, women and children - the cannon fodder that are least able to get out of the way when you come calling.
C'mon, Justin. Remind me again about Israel's "commitment to peace."
There's even a name for it. It's called the Dahiyeh Doctrine, named for the Beirut suburb that Israeli warplanes carpet bombed.
It's all about inflicting civilian casualties, destroying their homes and depriving them of essential services - electricity, water, sewage plants - hospitals, schools - all of which Israel has destroyed in the past month in Gaza as part of its "commitment to peace."
Israel waged this sort of peace in Gaza before and it became the subject of the 2009 Goldstone Report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. I expect our parliamentary greaseballs - Steve, Justin and Tommy Boy - never got a copy. That the very same doctrine is happening again - today - according to the very same game plan - is no coincidence. It's also a war crime unless, that is, your name is Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair.
MoS, The Disaffected Lib
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)