« HC wants "open borders" | Main | He saved himself, for now ... »

08 October 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Our Sainted Amb. Stevens a gun-runner? Funny that never came up during all those tedious hours of committee hearings.


What is this obsession about chemical weapons. They did not achieve much in WWI and even in the case of Saddam's use of it, they only cause mass casualties against Kurdish civilians and created panicked in the Iranian ranks. The latter made such a big deal out of chemical weapon use in order to garner support from International Community against the "Saddam's barbarity ". The sympathy towards the Iranian victims was not forthcoming while the massive PR campaign had a negative effect on the morale of the Iranian draftees.


In reply to PeteM 09 October 2016 at 05:31 PM

Oh come now, bombast for local political consumption by Syrian supporters of the Syrian government is not even remotely the same as policy. Have you actually ever read an Arab politician's speech in Arabic? They go for florid rhetoric with lashings of bombast on top. Everybody not least the audience at whom this is directed knows what's going on and gives it the (lack of) credence it deserves.

"that is the tail trying to wag the dog"

If you think the Russian government which is served by a highly professional diplomatic corps isn't fully aware of how much weight to put on Arab domestic political rhetoric you are even more deluded than the officials of your State Department.

"Assad's continued use of chemicals as weapons"

I note that you very carefully refrain from introducing even one shred of evidence from a credible source for this contention. And apparently unlike you I do remember what happened to the last set of accusations.

"I'm not a supporter of the fact that the Hegemon is creating this new reality"

From the way in which you've consistently shilled the hegemonic party line ya sure could've fooled me.


In reply to aleksandar 09 October 2016 at 04:36 PM

"It is said "

By whom?


In reply to mike allen 09 October 2016 at 03:53 PM

"It is just as valid as your opinion."

Ummm no, an opinion backed with verifiable facts or personal experience has far more worth than one that is merely backed by assertions. It's that whole "reality based" thing dontchernow.



"My father shed a lot of blood when he was horrifically wounded at the Rapido River in Italy"

You missed my point. Your father and the countless others who suffered, the hundreds of thousands who died, and the wounded, all happened outside the US.

We haven’t had war on this continent since the Civil War. None of us have relatives who remember those days and can tell us. We, in the general populace, don’t have a visceral knowledge of war. Our soldiers do. But the general population does not. Not in the sense I mean. So we accept assholes like Ash Carter and Samantha Power banging war drums as if they were sane, as if they were patriotic, as if their complete disregard for diplomacy is in the national interest. It is not.

We have no fear of war the way the Russians do. Further, this fear compels them to never allow another country to do to them what was done to them in WWII. Stalin conscripted every able-bodied male to push the Nazis back but he couldn’t afford socks and only cheap boots. So he gave them cases of vodka and newspapers to make up for the socks and numb them in 20-to-40 below weather as the General Zhukov fought the superior German army in the dead of winter.

"The kept the faith with the Japanese Emperor never breaking from their neutrality pact with Japan (after their brief border conflicts in Mongolia in 39)"

"brief border conflicts in Mongolia in 39?” Go back and read your history.


In reply to mike allen 09 October 2016 at 05:23 PM

Take our host's advice given below and read Sword of Honour first.

Mr Habakkuk will doubtless give a more detailed answer but briefly the Conservative Party is like another well-known British institution a "broad church". It has a Thatcherite wing, very nationalistic, and quite bordering on very right-wing. In my experience of them they tend to be more than somewhat limited in their experience of life outside their own narrow little circle and they also tend be quite jingoistic. Unfortunately they set the tone for the Brexit debate - please note that it's the tone of the debate that I'm deploring here rather than the debate itself or even its result, both of which are major topics in and of themselves.

Another wing of that party was perhaps represented best David Cameron and his George Osborne they're a lot more cosmopolitan in their outlook and (by UK conservative standards) quite liberal socially - Cameron pushed through gay marriage for example, they also tend to come from very well-off backgrounds and to have risen to high political office without having had to put in years and years of constituency work. They're often derided as a "chumocracy".

All of that is very much a thumbnail sketch - which I hope David Habakkuk will expand upon.


From Zero Hedge (just a couple of quotes)


"Having advised President Obama to enter the Libyan Civil War, Hillary Clinton assured the press at the start of the Syrian Civil War that the United States would not similarly involve itself in that conflict. However, some documents exposed recently by Wikileaks show that Hillary’s advice to the president to enter the US into Libya’s Civil War came with a clear and intentional connection to topple the Assad regime....

According to this massively revealing document pillaged from Hillary Clinton’s email archives, Obama needed to bring down Assad’s regime in order to calm Israel into accepting the eventual nuclear agreement he was working out with Iran. So, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War is even less about Assad than it is about Iran and Israel — at least in the State Department’s strategizing."


I think your opinion of how much actual help Lend Lease was to the Soviets in 41 - 42 might be considered exaggerated. At least by the Russians.



in my opinion the question of F22, B2, etc. vs S400, etc. is missing the point. What happens when Putin responds "asymmetrically" by cruise missile attacks on the airbases from which the aircraft were launched?

to put that another way, we have this idea that we fly out, fly back and head for the bar..... if it were me I would try and arrange the cruise missiles to arrive as the returning sortie was landing.


Time will tell...


Our two newly activated "Borg Hasbara Operatives" are really, really, really busy.
That must mean something, either SST has been selected as a prime target for counter propaganda or the real situtation is truly heating up, or both(?).


Not Mark Toner:

Russian FM spokeswoman unleashes on western Journalist (video with english sub titles):


"...such simplification means that western media stupidity is more dangerous than the threat itself"



Here is some information on the S-300VM fire rate (Note this is 2014 info):


"The engagement envelope of the baseline Gladiator is between 80 ft AGL to 80 kft, and ranges of 3.2 to 40 nautical miles, the Giant between 3,200 ft AGL to 100 kft, and ranges of 7 to 54 nautical miles. The system can launch the missiles at 1.5 second intervals, and a battalion with four batteries can engage 24 targets concurrently, with 2 missiles per target, and has a complement of between 96 and 192 missiles available for launch on TELAR/TELs. A TELAR can arm a missile for launch in 15 seconds, with a 40 second time to prepare a TELAR for an engagement, and 5 minute deploy and stow times - a genuine “hide, shoot and scoot” capability.

The cited single shot kill probabilities for the Gladiator are 50% to 65% against TBMs and 70% to 90% against aircraft, for the Giant 40% to 60% against IRBMs and 50% to 70% against the AGM-69 SRAM - ballistic missiles with re-entry velocities of up to 3 km/s can be engaged. Russian sources credit the missiles with endgame capability against 7-8G manoeuvring targets. The later 9M82M and 9M83M are credited with a 30G endgame capability.
The Soviets were terrified of the EF-111A fleet operated by Tactical Air Command and equipped the S-300V system with a facility for passive targeting of support jammers. The 9S15, 9S19 and 9S32 have receiver channels for sidelobe jamming cancellation and these are used to produce very accurate bearings to the airborne jammer, this bearing information is then used to develop angular tracks. The angular tracks are then processed by the 9S457 command post to estimate range, and the 9S32 then develops an estimated track for the target jammer. A Giant missile is then launched and steered by command link until it acquires the target."


James Le Mesurier has a White Helmets training obstacle course in Turkey. It is possible that the professional photographs, with the smoke-pots, are shot there. He is also apparently an Olive Group merc, it's merged with Blackwater now. I wonder if he knows what the White Helmets are doing, or if he thought he was being altruistic going into it. WH have stolen the name of the Syrian Civil Defense Force, there's a perfectly good real ambulance/firestation organization there, 113 on the phones, started in '53 and accredited by ICDO.




Here is an article by Chris Martinsen regarding the built up to war with Russia. He figures that high level psychopaths are now controlling the game and that winning is the only thing, even if it means self destruction, they don't see it. Scary.


"Do We Really Want A War With Russia?

Because we're in danger of getting exactly that.

This report builds on those I've released over the past two years and begins with a chilling editorial put out by the NY Times on September 29th, 2016, which further demonized Putin specifically, Russia generally, and openly advocates for military confrontation.

Hey, we’ve been down this path before. The deeply conflicted NY Times has never met a war in the Middle East it didn’t support, and has never had any trouble repeating war plan talking points (that always neatly align with those put out by neocon think tanks) or even printing obviously fake “intelligence” from unnamed sources such as that used to justify the illegal US attack and invasion of Iraq..."


@PeteM: Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Assad is continuing to use Chemical weapons? At least beside Obama/DoS/NYT/WaPo heresay?

I won't bother waiting for a response, I didn't think so.

The flag wavers seem to be out in force on this post.


@VV: Global Warming is a Rothschilds scam! James Perloff really explains it here:


Apparently the Rothschilds not only have gotten control of weather forcasting through control of weather central. This is also releated to their activities in weather derivatives (billions in them) where they can make massive profits through weather manipulation and divergence between forcast and actual weather. When Perloff starts talking about Lady Rothschilds support of Hillary ($100,000 a plate fundraisers, recent yahoo clips) and the fact that the Rothschilds stayed in the Clinton white house for their honeymoon then it all starts becoming clear why Clinton and and the DOD keeping spewing on about AGW being mankinds biggest threat even though we stand on the threshhold of nuclear armagedon. Also, just think Al Gore!

He also discusses how Bain Capital (Romney) is a partner of weather central with the Rothschilds and discusses how it relates to the 2012 stolen election.

Clearly, the Rothschilds are not content with running just the worlds Central Banks and Energy industries. They want to control the weather, which makes them much more than merely King of the Jews. It makes them Gods! And Hillary would be a demi-God.

David Habakkuk

Mike Allen,

‘But you need to read real history, not Hollywood’s version and not Stalin’s.’

Perhaps I can recommend to you some ‘real history’. A very detailed synthesis of recent scholarship on the interwar period comes in the relevant volumes of the ‘Oxford History of Modern Europe’ by Zara Steiner. (Actually, she grew up in the United States, although she has spent her career at Cambridge, UK – where she briefly taught me, many years ago.)

I have only had time to read the relevant sections of her second volume, published in 2013 under the title ‘The Triumph of the Dark’ – when I last looked, they were available on the net.

But, to my relief, I found that nothing that has appeared subsequently has significantly called into question the account of the Nazi-Soviet Pact given in the 1999 study ‘Grand Delusion’ by the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky. (He is rare in having a very detailed knowledge both of the Russian and British archives.)

In essence, the picture now seems clear: while one cannot say for certain what would have happened had a different British policy been pursued, the repeated spurning of Litvinov’s attempts to secure ‘collective security’ against Nazi Germany left Stalin in a position where he had little realistic option but to make terms with Hitler.

(One might perhaps say that Litvinov was the Lavrov of his day.)

Part of the problem was that Chamberlain listened to the Poles. From Gorodetsky’s introduction: ‘The unilateral British guarantees to Poland of 31 March 1939 represent the crucial move towards the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and the opening salvoes of the Second World War.’

I dealt with some of the implications of all this for understanding subsequent history in exchanges back in August on a post on his ‘Irrussianality’ blog by Professor Paul Robinson dealing with the ‘Icebreaker’ study by Vladimir Suvorov, aka ‘Vladimir Rezun.’

These link back to earlier exchanges here on SST.

(See https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/friday-book-31-icebreaker/ )

David Habakkuk


It was the air attacks on the British ships in San Carlos Water on 21-25 May 1982.

It is a long time since I looked at it, but I found someone making the suggestion I was making on a discussion thread back in 2007:

‘IIRC they worked out what was wrong with the bombs. They were dropping unretarded bombs, below the safe release altitude because they were flying low to avoid air defences, & the fuse safeties wouldn't let 'em explode. They had to fit improvised retarding devices, & then they started working. But a bit late in the war.’

(See http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/sa-submarine-outwits-nato-6722-2/ .)

The Argentinian pilots were clearly very brave men. It may be ‘snobbery’ was a bit of a cheap gibe. But I have come across this kind of communication problem in other contexts – so it interested me.

And had they sunk more ships, the whole course of subsequent British history might have been very different.

mike allen

David Habakkuk -

The Poles had good reason to distrust Stalin. And they paid for it at Katyn Forest.

Harrier II

Gary Johnson: I'd be a continuation of Obama on ISIS

"Not for a second do I want to say that Obama has not been well-thought" on this issue, Johnson said. "But if he has been, if you're saying that he has been, I'm making the pitch that I'm going to be a continuation of that."


Conversly at the debate last night:

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, we’re going to move on. The heart-breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy named Omran sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an air strike in Aleppo focused the world’s attention on the horrors of the war in Syria, with 136 million views on Facebook alone.

But there are much worse images coming out of Aleppo every day now, where in the past few weeks alone, 400 people have been killed, at least 100 of them children. Just days ago, the State Department called for a war crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its ally, Russia, for their bombardment of Aleppo.

So this next question comes through social media through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks, if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn’t it a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped? Secretary Clinton, we will begin with your two minutes.

CLINTON: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.

Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. …

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me. I’ve stood up to Russia. I’ve taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president.

… But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.


… Now, she talks tough, she talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else, we’re arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse...

Look at what she did in Libya with Gadhafi. Gadhafi’s out. It’s a mess. And, by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. …

But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There’s only one problem. You don’t even know who the rebels are. So what’s the purpose?

… I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.

RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president…

… what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.

TRUMP: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.

RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?

TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. … I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved.



Just a potential facilitator of the groups doing the various deeds the R2P crowd felt were/are needed. There was some other official reason to be in Benghazi rather than Tripoli?



Weather central? You mean a tv/internet forecasting service? They don't make the weather.


Mike Allen: "Soviets even though they were our allies, were receiving our war materials, refused to help us...The[y] kept the faith with the Japanese Emperor never breaking from their neutrality pact with Japan "

In a war of attrition along a thousand mile front refusing to allocate limited and diminishing resources to another front 4000 miles to the east is a refusal of help???

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad