Tuesday, October 01, 2019

Very engaging personality

"Murder of MBS Bodyguard Likely Tied to Khashoggi Coverup".  Maybe, but you would think they would have killed him earlier if he had damning information on MbS. On the other hand, this may have been the first chance they had to kill him, as his dismissal removed his Royal 'protection', both physical protection and the understood good will of the King.  Maybe he was fired solely for the purpose of allowing him to be assassinated.  As always, the secret machinations of Saudi traditional hierarchical politics make everything difficult to read.

The fix is in for the crooked IC Clintonistas:  "IG Horowitz - A Democrat Donor - Feared Pulling Punches To Protect Establishment Operatives" (Durden).

"White Helmets and Hala Systems - the grotesque militarisation of “humanitarianism” in Syria" (Beeley).  Hala Systems and its investors.  Another example of using the ruse of protecting civilians to provide technical information to the terrorists.

"Map Shows "Four Times As Many Jihadist Militants" Around The World Than Before 9/11" (Durden).  Not by chance, but a combination of locals infuriated by the civilian deaths caused in all the innumerable Wars For The Jews, and a very careful nurturing/funding with the intention of using Islamist terrorism as Assholian proxy armies.

"Three Saudi Brigades Annihilated in Devastating Houthi Offensive in Saudi Arabia" (Pieraccini).

"Just How Swampy Are US-Saudi Arms Deals?" (Cockburn). After the free advertising caused by the failure of the last system of inappropriate junk sold by the Americans to the Saudis, the Americans immediately show up with more inappropriate junk for the Saudis to spend more billions on!  You have to laugh (my emphasis in red on how the drone pilots were close; note how the Iran thesis provides the background to convince the Saudis that the inappropriate shield will work, leaving one to wonder whether the Saudis are stupid enough to believe their own bullshit!):
"So-called “offset” agreements have long been a feature of major weapons export deals in which the exporter undertakes to award sub-contracts for the weapon system in the purchasing country, or else offer some other quid quo pro in the form of business or technology transfer. Their massive expansion in recent times, as highlighted in the BCG paper, brings an additional benefit for all parties involved. But it comes at a risk of sending U.S. defense jobs overseas, and opens up security vulnerabilities, since sensitive technology is now being shared with foreign arms manufacturers abroad.
But the promise of a lucrative offset contract to a company in which an influential figure on the buy side has an interest could be a powerful inducement to swing the decision in a favorable direction, an elegant solution to pesky prohibitions against bribery, including the hated 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that was inspired in part by revelations of arms-deals bribes by Lockheed and others
As the well-informed Paris-based security news service Intelligence Online delicately puts it: “One of the reasons for [the success of such arrangements] is that they are not totally covered by the transparency criteria governing commission payments [AKA bribes]which were brought into force by OECD convention in 1997.” (Not, of course, to suggest that BCG itself has base motivations in facilitating offset deals today.) 
Of course, if the Riyadh based BCG office (“always buzzing with a motivating and inspiring vibe,” according to the corporate website) had the true interests of Saudi Arabia at heart, they would have thrown the THAAD sales force out on their ears. THAAD is a system distinguished not only by its enormous cost ($1 billion plus per six-launcher battery),  but also by its total uselessness for the Saudis.  Presumably, the Saudis have been sold on the THAAD as a defense against Iranian ballistic missiles like the old Soviet Scud and its various Iranian upgrades.
As its name suggests, the THAAD aims to intercept  incoming short range or medium range ballistic missiles arcing down into the top of the atmosphere 25 to 90 miles up and no further away than 125 miles. The THAAD’s radar must therefore “acquire”–spot– the actual missile warhead, distinguishing it from nearby broken up pieces of its spent booster rocket or from  decoys deliberately launched with it. The radar must then track and predict the future trajectory of the warhead itself, not confusing it with any of the accompanying bits and pieces. Relying on the radar’s predictions, the THAAD missile interceptor,  once launched, must quickly accelerate to MACH 8 speed and guide with absolute precision to hit the target warhead  directly, like a bullet. Near misses won’t do.
After a series of early, disastrous failures, the Pentagon is now touting a fifteen out of fifteen string of successful THAAD launchings. Needless to say, not one of these tests has been against a ballistic missile target accompanied by booster debris or decoys, much less against half a dozen of such missiles fired at once.
This alone should be reason enough for the Saudis to toss the deal, but even if the system could perform as advertised, it would have been entirely irrelevant as a defense against the September 14 Houthi attacks on Abqaiq and Kurais.  The drones and cruise missiles employed clearly came in at low altitude, while THAAD is designed to operate against high altitude targets. The Patriot and Hawk batteries already in place are of course no better suited to confront low altitude threats, which are inevitably masked by ground clutter.
Even if the attackers had been obliging enough to send in ballistic missiles with a high-altitude trajectory, the THAAD would have offered little succor, since its infra-red seeker, as noted, cannot distinguish between actual warheads and decoys. Nor would the Russian S-400 system cheekily offered by Putin in the aftermath of the attack have fared better, and for many of the same reasons.
Such realities have found little place in the outpouring of commentary on the attacks, with little or no attention paid to easily available evidence. For example, published pictures of the damage at Abqaiq clearly show a number of liquified natural gas storage tanks pierced in the same place on their western sides.  As former Pentagon analyst Pierre Sprey pointed out to me, this clearly shows that the attacks came from the west, not the north, as claimed in numerous media reports.
The consistent accuracy demonstrated by these impact holes indicates that the terminal guidance was not GPS, but rather human drone controllers, manually steering the slow flying drones, via the drones’ video cameras, into the target.  For control purposes they would have to have been in line of sight to the drones (the only alternative would be an easily detectable satellite link) so they could have been no further than 36 miles away at most, assuming the drones were flying at a likely 300 feet altitude."
"How Israel Controls Its Narrative" (Giraldi).  "Britain Appoints Goyfinder General to Persecute Anyone Who Feels the Wrong Emotions Towards Jews" (Frei).

"Lebanon’s Prime Minister Gave $16 Million to South African Model" (Hubbard). "SA Lingerie Model Is Suing Tito Mboweni For R1 Billion [Videos]" (Stone).

"Our Man on the Inside: Senior Twitter Executive Exposed as British Army Information Warrior" (Klarenberg).  "EXCLUSIVE: Twitter executive for Middle East is British Army 'psyops' soldier" (Cobain).  An escalation of the Integrity Initiative nonsense - which has been largely harmless, and just a waste of taxpayer money, as they are so incompetent in their 'messaging' - to organized deplatforming.  Stopping this kind of thing will eventually require political will which just isn't there.

I find it a funny part of The Clarification that this 'gotcha' on the drug addict waste-of-space Hunter Biden involves finding no issue to ponder in whether this sinecure is corruption or not:  "Chris Wallace Asks Stephen Miller How Bidens Broke The Law In Ukraine. He Has NO Answer." (Belle).  It's res ipsa loquitur on Hunter.  Of course his appointment is corruption, and of course Biden's interference in removing the Ukrainian prosecutor is corruption.  It makes no difference what the removed prosecutor was doing or not doing - the point made to any future prosecutor is that Biden's son is off limits.
blog comments powered by Disqus