In the news

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?” He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

On the night of September 11th 2001, I recall watching Newsnight, and who should appear but the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, a figure who I vaguely recalled from the Reagan era. He started spitting his poison, and identified all the targets mentioned in this memo - all of them.

It was a chilling moment*.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/01/leveson-inquiry-yates-hayman-clarke-live-live#block-40

Former Asst Commissioner John Yates now works as an adviser for the Bahraini police. Surely he should be advertising tyres?

He's convinced they're a major contribution to peace and security in the region.

"The Battle of Homs was particularly deadly for the belligerents on both sides, as well as for civilians. During the first three days, the Syrian Arab Army was warded off by the rebels that blocked all entry points to their neighborhood. They destroyed all approaching armored vehicles using Milan missiles. Ultimately, the Syrian Arab Army had to resort to multiple rocket launchers to bombard the Milan firing posts, at the risk of causing heavy civilian casualties.

Each Milan shooting station, located on every street going into Bab Amr costs 100,000 euros, and each missile about 12,000 euros. The missiles were fired at a rate two to three rounds per minute. This equipment is manufactured by North Aviation (France) and MBB (Germany). It is supposed to have been given to the Free "Syrian" Army by the United Kingdom and Germany."
-- http://www.voltairenet.org/Free-Syrian-Army-stronghold

Presumably also supplied by France whose military were operating very close nearby.

"On the Syrian side of the border (of Homs), officers and experts from the French military intelligence services, some posing as journalists, were training Free "Syrian" Army fighters. They had all entered Syria surreptitiously.

At an illegal crossing point, Ambassador Denis Pietton and his companions retrieved the French intelligence officers leaving the Islamic Emirate of Baba Amr where they had been teaching their techniques in urban combat."
-- http://www.voltairenet.org/France-pulls-out-its-agents

Woah. Voltairenet? I'm reading the site, and one thing sticks out. They appear to be so-called "9/11 Truth" proponents (eg this article which claims that the planes that struck the towers were not 767s).

What a site, never seen voltairenet before.
Seems the president of America can have anyone in the world assassinated within 48 hours. http://www.voltairenet.org/Assassinations-anonymous

Seems a bit slow compared with, say, Sadam Hussein's 45 minutes.

The number one contributor of articles to the voltairenet site is Mazen Bilal, who is described variously as "an independent Syrian journalist", "political scientist", "Director of the Al-Ghad Institute", "editor of Suria al-Ghad", "a political analyst", but definitely based in Damascus. I don't mean to condemn the guy on the basis of google hits, but if he is based in Damascus, and above ground, so to speak, my guess would be that he is approved by the Syrian Ba'ath Party, and as such, can hardly be described as "independent".

On the other hand, is it likely that Western governments are arming Syrian rebels / terrorists / anti-government guerillas / insurgents (delete label according to taste)?

The attempts by the US and others to obtain UN approval for armed action in Syria indicates a desire to use force against the Assad government, so yes, on balance, it seems likely.

That^ explains the take in the dossier on Syria then
http://www.voltairenet.org/+-Syrie-+?lang=en

Robot fish accepted by real fish -- assumes leadership role in steering the school

On the other hand, is it likely that Western governments are arming Syrian rebels / terrorists / anti-government guerillas / insurgents (delete label according to taste)?

The attempts by the US and others to obtain UN approval for armed action in Syria indicates a desire to use force against the Assad government, so yes, on balance, it seems likely.

"In Homs on Tuesday, a general claiming to be from the rebel group appeared on camera and told a journalist from Reuters news agency that “French and American assistance has reached us and is with us.” When asked to elaborate on the nature of the assistance he added, “We now have weapons and anti-aircraft missiles and, God willing, with all of that we will defeat Bashar [President Assad].”
-- http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/02/29/syria-terrorists-admit-france-supplying-weapons-88182/

"Syrian media have reported the arrests of French officers during security operations. RT’s Maria Finoshina says France has responded to the claims by returning its Ambassador to Damascus. This follows claims by the Free Syrian Army that it had received anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from French and American sources."
-- https://rt.com/news/syrian-rebels-retreat-homs-607/

"The government of Syria says According to them, a brigade of 120 French soldiers part of a transmission unit came to support the rebels were caught by forces loyal to the Syrian regime in the region of Zabadani, after they took control of a key neighborhood in the city of homes Homs."
-- http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/01/report-120-french-troops-supporting-syria-rebels-captured-89202/

'On Monday, Qatar's prime minister declared his state's intent to start helping the Syrian opposition "by all means", including giving them weapons. Two days later, anti-Assad officials received an offer of a $100m (£63m) donation, from their brothers in arms in Libya. Coincidence? Unlikely, if the Libyan revolution is any indicator.
...
Qatar's remarks this week, as well as Saudi Arabia's claim last Friday that arming the Syrian rebels would be an "excellent idea", clearly shows a new reality. The Rubicon has been crossed. Hopes of resolving Syria's raging insurgency through patience, or dialogue, have evaporated."
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/syria-conflict-rebels-qatar-weapons

When did the West promote a peaceful resolution?
"On February 4, Western politicians and journalists responded with outrage to the Russian and Chinese vetoing of a UN security council resolution calling for Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down as part of a ‘political transition’.
...
The corporate media took the same view. A leading article in the Independent commented:
‘Hillary Clinton described the vetoing of the UN resolution as a “travesty”. She is right. But this cannot be the international community's last word.’

Curiously, while Hague talked of the West’s determination ‘to find an end to the violence’, and the media railed against the Russians and Chinese for failing to seek the same, almost no-one noticed that the resolution had itself subordinated the possibility of a ceasefire to the demand for regime change.

The draft resolution did call ‘for an immediate end to all violence’. But it specifically demanded ‘that the Syrian government… withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks’.

This one-sided demand that only Syrian government forces should withdraw from the streets closely resembled the Machiavellian device built into UN Resolution 1973 on Libya, passed on March 17, 2011.

This also called for ‘the immediate establishment of a cease-fire’ supported by ‘a ban on all flights’ in Libyan airspace. But crucially, the determination was added ‘to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi…’

This clearly had nothing to do with the mere banning of flights. Indeed, the authorisation to protect civilians by ‘all necessary means’ transformed Nato planes from neutral monitors of Libyan airspace into a ground-attack air force for ‘rebel’ fighters.

Far from bringing an end to the violence, UN Resolution 1973 unleashed overwhelming Western force in pursuit of regime change, in a war that was fought to the bitter end. To ensure the right outcome, Western and other powers supplied special forces and weapons, simply ignoring the resolution's call for 'strict implementation of the arms embargo' and 'excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory'. In short, the resolution resulted in a massive escalation in violence. Seumas Milne noted in the Guardian last week:
‘When it began, the death toll was 1,000 to 2,000. By the time Muammar Gaddafi was captured and lynched seven months later, it was estimated at more than 10 times that figure. The legacy of foreign intervention in Libya has also been mass ethnic cleansing, torture and detention without trial, continuing armed conflict, and a western-orchestrated administration so unaccountable it resisted revealing its members' names.’"
-- http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=665:travesty-un-resolutions-of-mass-destruction-part-1&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=9

Dude, I don't know what your story is, but dumping loads of text from other sites (one of which describes the Syrian rebels as 'terrorists', which doesn't speak well of the site's objectivity) isn't really what we're looking for in this thread. Well, at least I'm not.

I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. When independent journalists of vast stature in the profession are dying to bring out one story, and the other side is being presented in the way it is (caveated, to say, my only reference for this is watching Russia Today a lot), it strikes me that the situation is largely what it looks like.

Dude, I don't know what your story is, but dumping loads of text from other sites (one of which describes the Syrian rebels as 'terrorists', which doesn't speak well of the site's objectivity) isn't really what we're looking for in this thread. Well, at least I'm not.

The first four quotes are to the arming of the Free Syrian Army by the West and its proxies. Do you recall the car bombings in Aleppo? The rebels claimed and then denied responsiblity.

Remember my contention that the liberal left press were supine? In the last part of the fourth quote from the Guardian, the writer claimed that hopes of a peaceful resolution had evaporated. Was there such a thing in the first place? Hence the fifth quote, questioning the failed UN resolution which while ostensibly calling for a ceasefire was actually for regime change. The ceasefire was one sided as a further part of the fifth quote points out. The fifth quote shows parallels between UN 1973 Libya and the failed resolution on Syria.

How many atrocities and war crimes do we need before the media start to be sceptical of Western states propaganda on the next threat?

For all the claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, there's been no evidence found by the IAEA in a recent report. Seymour Hersh said "They found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization. In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact."

Yet the Guardian made contrary claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/iran-bolting-the-stable-door
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/nov/07/iran-nuclear-weapons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/iran-reasearch-nuclear-warhead-watchdog

So much for the liberal press. Are you familiar with Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model?

Well, as we all know, the first casualty of wuth is thrar.

I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. When independent journalists of vast stature in the profession are dying to bring out one story, and the other side is being presented in the way it is (caveated, to say, my only reference for this is watching Russia Today a lot), it strikes me that the situation is largely what it looks like.

How's Occam's Razor working for you in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Embedded reporters with armed rebels believe what the rebels tell them. Did these famed independent journalists question the Syrian casualty figures? If so, why not? It can't be due to their superior resources over Ms. Narwani. So, why not?

How's Occam's Razor working for you in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
Well, thanks. Do you understand the principle at all?

The first four quotes are to the arming of the Free Syrian Army by the West and its proxies. Do you recall the car bombings in Aleppo?

Remember my contention that the liberal left press were supine? In the last part of the fourth quote from the Guardian, the writer claimed that hopes of a peaceful resolution had evaporated. Hence the fifth quote, questioning the failed UN resolution which while ostensibly calling for a ceasefire was actually for regime change. The ceasefire was one sided as a further part of the fifth quote points out. The fifth quote shows parallels between UN 1973 Libya and the failed resolution on Syria.

How many atrocities and war crimes do we need before the media start to be sceptical of Western states propaganda on the next threat?

For all the claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, there's been no evidence found by the IAEA in a recent report. Seymour Hersh said "They found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization. In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact."

Yet the Guardian makes contrary claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/iran-bolting-the-stable-door
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/nov/07/iran-nuclear-weapons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/iran-reasearch-nuclear-warhead-watchdog

So much for the liberal press. Are you familiar with Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model?

I'm familiar with the concept that lies & duplicity are commonplace in the Middle East - on all sides.

If that's your point, ok, I think we all get it, and those that haven't, aren't going to get it whatever you post.

I'm still a little concerned that you seem to be giving some very questionable 'journalism' a pass.

Also, the liberal left press are supine, sure, but supine compared to...?

I'm familiar with the concept that lies & duplicity are commonplace in the Middle East - on all sides.

If that's your point, ok, I think we all get it, and those that haven't, aren't going to get it whatever you post.

My point is to counteract the Western propaganda that civilians are being wilfully targeted when it is now down to combat between armed rebels and the Syrian government. In reports about Homs, had you heard of the armed rebels firing mortars?

I'm still a little concerned that you seem to be giving some very questionable 'journalism' a pass.

Yet you don't question the journalism of The Guardian and the BBC who, with their breadth of resources, couldn't even perform the elementary journalism w.r.t. the casualty figures of Oxford University's Ms. Narwani.

Also, the liberal left press are supine, sure, but supine compared to...?

Expectations*. There are a few who stand out like Seumas Milne of The Guardian, but only a few, swamped by most of the Guardian coverage.

• No doubt The Guardian's Michael White will tell me that I'm being naive, nitpicking and glum.
  

My point is to counteract the Western propaganda that civilians are being wilfully targeted when it is now down to combat between armed rebels and the Syrian government. In reports about Homs, had you heard of the armed rebels firing mortars?

Yet you don't question the journalism of The Guardian and the BBC who, with their breadth of resources, couldn't even perform the elementary journalism w.r.t. the casualty figures of Oxford University's Ms. Narwani.

No, I explicitly said that there duplicity & lies on all sides - as well bias & poor reporting. I'm not giving the Grauniad or the BBC or anyone a pass. I remain sceptical of everything that's reported about the Mid East, by almost everyone. I welcome being pointed at genuinely credible reports, but a report that contains the word 'terrorist' in it doesn't make me feel comfortable.

My point is to counteract the Western propaganda that civilians are being wilfully targeted when it is now down to combat between armed rebels and the Syrian government. In reports about Homs, had you heard of the armed rebels firing mortars?

Well, I hadn't heard that exactly, because I'm not all that trustful of any of the reports coming out of Syria, however, it seems fairly obvious that large parts of the Syrian regular army have rebelled, and would have taken their weapons with them, which I would expect to include mortars. Whether they really have been supplied with other, more sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank, well, it seems likely.

Robot fish accepted by real fish -- assumes leadership role in steering the school
Reeling this topic back in...
I visited Bath University, or rather the University of Bath (two different places, one at the top of the hill, one at the bottom) a couple of years back doing a story on biomimcry - they had this bad-ass fish robot which was a bit like your link but also had an undulating fin underneath running the length of the body. Their argument for the mechanics of the technique for propulsion was one of efficiency - it was something insane like 95-98 percent efficient compared to 70 percent efficiency from a traditional rotating prop. It was also ridiculously quiet and they were receiving funding from a nearby company who worked on submarine designs for the navy.

They were also keen to try it out in somewhere like Lake Vostok as, unlike a traditional prop, there were no moving parts (read oily pollutants) which ever made contact with the water, simply a silicone-like skin.

#csb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17231308
WTF?
Is this news? Does anyone care?