Also in the news

[Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly, it's the captains testimony that puts doubt in it for me on this one. If there's broad agreement among eyewitnesses, then fair enough, but right now there doesn't seem to be.

 

I've no doubt the intel community work bloody hard and I've no doubt the Iranians would want to do something to stick their middle finger up at the US and UK and perhaps a more conciliatory tone might have been called for rather than basically calling the aforementioned intel communities liars...but it does seem a bit off due to that one factor and war is a serious business some people are happy to enter into lightly because it's good for their reputation, good for business and they know they're not the ones that are going to be shot at.

So the second hand comments (I haven't seen direct quotes just the CEO of company) from the crew of one tanker of six that have been attacked in recent weeks. We also know that witness testimony can be unreliable and this would be a situation where that might hold (not saying what they say is wrong). Quotes that don't explain the footage that is public and I suspect probably don't explain the private intel but there has been an explanation for events in their account. Finally the UAE, one of the more friendly towards Iran, are pretty certain that Iran was responsible for the 4 tankers attacked a couple of weeks ago. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

So the second hand comments (I haven't seen direct quotes just the CEO of company) from the crew of one tanker of six that have been attacked in recent weeks. We also know that witness testimony can be unreliable and this would be a situation where that might hold (not saying what they say is wrong). Quotes that don't explain the footage that is public and I suspect probably don't explain the private intel but there has been an explanation for events in their account. Finally the UAE, one of the more friendly towards Iran, are pretty certain that Iran was responsible for the 4 tankers attacked a couple of weeks ago. 

 

 

Whether it's one or many is irrelevant here - that such discrepancy in testimony exists at all instils doubt, but I guess the question is that is it reasonable doubt or not?

 

Look at it this way - in the UK court system as well as many others around the world there is a high burden of proof to satisfy before condemning someone to punishment, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely at least the same should be applied to a nation state (as repressive and regressive as its social policies clearly are) before passing judgement and a sentence that would be decidedly brutal?

 

(John Bolton is the zealous political district attorney looking to get political favours with a verdict in his favour in this metaphor, btw.)

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I know its fashionable (and I do appreciate skepticism) to just doubt intel 'cos Iraq' and it would not be beyond belief that the actual intel has been twisted but Corbyn's response is pathetic. For the Foreign Secretary to say its 'almost certain' I'd imagine the five eyes have some pretty good info. 

 

Now Emily Thornberry's response that it seems likely Iran but the US has been provocative might be a better line. 

 

I agree with your preference for Thornberry's response over Corbyn's. Corbyn has standard Hard Left instincts. He instinctively sees the US as "baddies" alongside Israel, Irish Unionists, global capitalism etc.

All part of the narcissistic thinking: "I'm a good guy standing up for the goodies/oppressed/underdogs against the baddies".

 

However, massive caution is needed given what's at stake. Iran might well have done it, but it needs to be properly investigated. Just because the intelligence was distorted and/or wrong about WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean that the same applies here - but it's certainly an argument for caution - and scepticism, until conclusive evidence is verified by independent parties (UN?).

 

A lot of people were "almost certain" about WMDs in Iraq. Plenty such quotes in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction

That said, I do appreciate that the UK Govt has been relatively independent of Trump's policy on Iran, and more in line with European allies so far - and Hunt has been a bit more nuanced than the US comments, to be fair.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm not too clued up on Lansbury so can't really comment on him.

 

I don't think it matters who Labour had available at the moment, a combination of Attlee and Blair would still lose a vote to the magic Grandpa in a leadership contest. If his ambivalence over Brexit doesn't turn a massive pro-remain membership against him nothing will.

 

They've allowed a cult to take over and I have no idea how they are going to get of them.

 

I agree with your comments about the shallowness of the support for Corbyn a couple of years back, and its cult-like nature.

 

But I think enthusiasm has waned big-time, not least because of his ambivalence over Brexit (frankly, his strong preference for Soft Brexit & an election & his antipathy to Remain/Referendum).

The beating that Labour took in the European elections & commensurate rise in support for the Lib Dems & Greens is evidence of that - plus recent Westminster polls.

 

Even many committed left-wing Labour activists are unhappy about him - and most of the superficial youth cult has evaporated, I reckon.

 

My concern is more that Boris reinvigorates the Tories by grabbing back lots of Brexit Party votes - by successfully doing the mirror image of Corbyn, spouting Brexit bullshit, populism & impossible promises that win over natural, but superficial right-wing voters in the way that Corbyn did on the Left. If that coincides with the centre-left vote remaining split between Labour, Lib Dems & others (unlike in 2017), then a Boris majority govt & No Deal Brexit looks very possible to me. 

[Kopfkino]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Whether it's one or many is irrelevant here - that such discrepancy in testimony exists at all instils doubt, but I guess the question is that is it reasonable doubt or not?

 

Look at it this way - in the UK court system as well as many others around the world there is a high burden of proof to satisfy before condemning someone to punishment, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely at least the same should be applied to a nation state (as repressive and regressive as its social policies clearly are) before passing judgement and a sentence that would be decidedly brutal?

 

(John Bolton is the zealous political district attorney looking to get political favours with a verdict in his favour in this metaphor, btw.)

 

Your reasonable doubt is that the CEO of the tanker company says that his crew thought something flew at them.

 

Yes it might well be that the intel is actually weak and it wouldn't be the first time intel has been twisted (leaks from the CIA in May didn't fully support Bolton). I'm fully aware of that possibility. But right now I'm seeing that the UK, who hasn't been interested in the US-Iran spat, is almost certain it was Iran and so I suspect that, if the evidence was presented in a court of law, it would be pretty much beyond reasonable doubt. I could be wrong of course. 

[LiberalFox]

I'm sure it is Iran, doesn't make any sense for it not to be and I suspect the aim is to use Russian style tactics of pretty blatant aggression coupled with denial. 

[Kopfkino]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree with your preference for Thornberry's response over Corbyn's. Corbyn has standard Hard Left instincts. He instinctively sees the US as "baddies" alongside Israel, Irish Unionists, global capitalism etc.

All part of the narcissistic thinking: "I'm a good guy standing up for the goodies/oppressed/underdogs against the baddies".

 

However, massive caution is needed given what's at stake. Iran might well have done it, but it needs to be properly investigated. Just because the intelligence was distorted and/or wrong about WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean that the same applies here - but it's certainly an argument for caution - and scepticism, until conclusive evidence is verified by independent parties (UN?).

 

A lot of people were "almost certain" about WMDs in Iraq. Plenty such quotes in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction

That said, I do appreciate that the UK Govt has been relatively independent of Trump's policy on Iran, and more in line with European allies so far - and Hunt has been a bit more nuanced than the US comments, to be fair.

 

And of course it could be same situation here. The US was desperate for war in Iraq and found a reason and stretched the intelligence. In fact as much as it was an intelligence failure it was bureaucrats and politicians taking advantage and mis-selling intelligence. This could be very similar. 

 

It's just the people who are so adamant its a stitch-up and urging the utmost skepticism are the people that have been wrong on pretty much everything apart from Iraq. So whilst the whole Iraq situation should make one cautious. Call me naive but I'm more willing to trust those saying its Iran than cranks that probably think it was Mossad with no reasonable counter-explanation. Not saying any of that is you of course, we're probably not far apart, I'm just happy to nail my colours to the mast without the UN. 

 

Anyway, has Jeremy asked us to send the ships to Iran so they can look at them and tell us who did it?

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And of course it could be same situation here. The US was desperate for war in Iraq and found a reason and stretched the intelligence. In fact as much as it was an intelligence failure it was bureaucrats and politicians taking advantage and mis-selling intelligence. This could be very similar. 

 

It's just the people who are so adamant its a stitch-up and urging the utmost skepticism are the people that have been wrong on pretty much everything apart from Iraq. So whilst the whole Iraq situation should make one cautious. Call me naive but I'm more willing to trust those saying its Iran than cranks that probably think it was Mossad with no reasonable counter-explanation. Not saying any of that is you of course, we're probably not far apart, I'm just happy to nail my colours to the mast without the UN. 

 

Anyway, has Jeremy asked us to send the ships to Iran so they can look at them and tell us who did it?

 

I share your contempt for cranks with knee-jerk explanations. The most likely explanation does seem to point to Iranian retaliation for the US unjustifiably reneging on the sanctions/nukes deal - not that attacking shipping is an acceptable response. If it's just a case of betting who's most likely to have done it, I'd join you in betting on Iran. But if it has serious real-life consequences, potentially major military conflict & global destabilisation, I'd hope that we'd want infallible evidence, whoever provides it.

[Buce]

 

It makes no sense that it would be Iran.

 

They have nothing to gain by provoking an attack by the US, and everything to lose. They also know that John Bolton is champing at the bit for war. Israel and the Saudis are the ones with most to gain, not Iran. And Hunt is not saying there is evidence, just that there is no plausible explanation other than it was Iran, conveniently discounting the possibility of it being a false flag operation, something both Israel and the US have previous for. The whole thing stinks.

[LiberalFox]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It makes no sense that it would be Iran.

 

They have nothing to gain by provoking an attack by the US, and everything to lose. They also know that John Bolton is champing at the bit for war. Israel and the Saudis are the ones with most to gain, not Iran. And Hunt is not saying there is evidence, just that there is no plausible explanation other than it was Iran, conveniently discounting the possibility of it being a false flag operation, something both Israel and the US have previous for. The whole thing stinks.

When have the US and Israel been involved in false flag operations? (Genuine question).

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

When have the US and Israel been involved in false flag operations? (Genuine question).

 

The entire US involvement in Vietnam was based on a false flag operation:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

And Israel:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

[Kopfkino]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It makes no sense that it would be Iran.

 

They have nothing to gain by provoking an attack by the US, and everything to lose. They also know that John Bolton is champing at the bit for war. Israel and the Saudis are the ones with most to gain, not Iran. And Hunt is not saying there is evidence, just that there is no plausible explanation other than it was Iran, conveniently discounting the possibility of it being a false flag operation, something both Israel and the US have previous for. The whole thing stinks.

 

Well the thing is Iran, unlike folk that panic about war whenever a foreign policy issue rears its head, knows it will take a lot more for there to be a war. Iran has a long history of countering threats with threats, this is just another. Iran gets to show that it can hurt the global economy by causing oil prices to rise. 

 

You keep poking at America below the threshold for serious retaliation, you create doubt about America's ability to protect its allies in the area, you deny it, you leave people to scream false flag, there'll be little push from the UN SC. Its typical Iran. 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Well the thing is Iran, unlike folk that panic about war whenever a foreign policy issue rears its head, knows it will take a lot more for there to be a war. Iran has a long history of countering threats with threats, this is just another. Iran gets to show that it can hurt the global economy by causing oil prices to rise. 

 

You keep poking at America below the threshold for serious retaliation, you create doubt about America's ability to protect its allies in the area, you deny it, you leave people to scream false flag, there'll be little push from the UN SC. Its typical Iran. 

 

I don't think anyone can say where that threshold is currently.  Bolton has been trying to foment war with Iran for years, and he, and both Saudi and Israel have Trump's ear. And Trump is capricious and volatile and under pressure at home. Iran will be aware of all those things. It has played an almost perfect game in Syria and Iraq by securing a corridor to the Mediterranean and it makes no sense that they would risk those strategic gains by provoking an attack by the US in such a cack-handed manner. That, I suggest, is not typical Iran.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

Led Labour to a massive defeat in 1983, but had been dealt an impossible hand after all the problems of the 1970s, party split, SDP etc.

Gets unfair ridicule sometimes due to the white hair & donkey jacket etc.

 

I don't think Corbyn will be getting tributes like this, once he's gone.....

 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think anyone can say where that threshold is currently.  Bolton has been trying to foment war with Iran for years, and he, and both Saudi and Israel have Trump's ear. And Trump is capricious and volatile and under pressure at home. Iran will be aware of all those things. It has played an almost perfect game in Syria and Iraq by securing a corridor to the Mediterranean and it makes no sense that they would risk those strategic gains by provoking an attack by the US in such a cack-handed manner. That, I suggest, is not typical Iran.

The Royal United Services Institute are reporting Iran as having announced that if they cannot export their oil then no other country would export theirs which is in response to the sanctions.  They therefore do have a clear motive and a rationale for taking this action.  I can understand the scepticism, but everything is pointing to a state actor and given the footage my personal view is that this was IRGC.

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your reasonable doubt is that the CEO of the tanker company says that his crew thought something flew at them.

 

Yes it might well be that the intel is actually weak and it wouldn't be the first time intel has been twisted (leaks from the CIA in May didn't fully support Bolton). I'm fully aware of that possibility. But right now I'm seeing that the UK, who hasn't been interested in the US-Iran spat, is almost certain it was Iran and so I suspect that, if the evidence was presented in a court of law, it would be pretty much beyond reasonable doubt. I could be wrong of course. 

That's fair enough - guess if we were both on a jury, it would end up being a hung jury.

 

 

5 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

The Royal United Services Institute are reporting Iran as having announced that if they cannot export their oil then no other country would export theirs which is in response to the sanctions.  They therefore do have a clear motive and a rationale for taking this action.  I can understand the scepticism, but everything is pointing to a state actor and given the footage my personal view is that this was IRGC.

That's a motive, but Buce's point still stands from the POV that they have precious little to gain from doing this other than a little face in exchange for a rather larger risk that the US actually will do something and you lose pretty much everything.

 

If Iran somehow think the Americans are bluffing to a large level about what they might do then they evidently don't know Bolton et al very well.

[Kopfkino]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

That's a motive, but Buce's point still stands from the POV that they have precious little to gain from doing this other than a little face in exchange for a rather larger risk that the US actually will do something and you lose pretty much everything.

 

If Iran somehow think the Americans are bluffing to a large level about what they might do then they evidently don't know Bolton et al very well.

 

They have something to gain because they may well think the risks are actually small and manageable. They get to show they have control of waters in that area, they show what they can do to oil prices and both combine to show what they can do to the world economy if they economic war on them continues. Iran is playing on US allies' nervousness about a war and what Iran can do on oil to try to get them to push the US back on sanctions. That's been what Iran has tried to achieve ever since Trump pulled out of the deal rather than dealing direct. 

 

Moreover, its not entirely clear why Saudi or Israel would have anything to do with this. Israel's already shitting it about Hezbollah's missiles in Lebanon so isn't actually keen on escalation. Saudi knows it would be caught in the cross-fire, the Houthi missile attack on it shows as much. 

 

Of course there could be an 80s style escalation but Trump has shown himself to be cautious militarily. It really is down to how far Iran push it rather than anything, or anyone, else imo. 

 

 

 

 

Also earlier I said the UAE was one of the friendlier in the region. For some reason my Iranian friends correcting me on this numerous hasn't stopped me thinking it. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

They have something to gain because they may well think the risks are actually small and manageable. They get to show they have control of waters in that area, they show what they can do to oil prices and both combine to show what they can do to the world economy if they economic war on them continues. Iran is playing on US allies' nervousness about a war and what Iran can do on oil to try to get them to push the US back on sanctions. That's been what Iran has tried to achieve ever since Trump pulled out of the deal rather than dealing direct. 

 

Moreover, its not entirely clear why Saudi or Israel would have anything to do with this. Israel's already shitting it about Hezbollah's missiles in Lebanon so isn't actually keen on escalation. Saudi knows it would be caught in the cross-fire, the Houthi missile attack on it shows as much. 

 

Of course there could be an 80s style escalation but Trump has shown himself to be cautious militarily. It really is down to how far Iran push it rather than anything, or anyone, else imo. 

 

 

 

 

Also earlier I said the UAE was one of the friendlier in the region. For some reason my Iranian friends correcting me on this numerous hasn't stopped me thinking it. 

Hmmm...I think if that is the case then the Iranians are taking the current administrations willingness to act unilaterally and decisively a little lightly then and as such they're playing with fire and so they've miscalculated, but evidently we disagree on that point and unfortunately the only way we'll know if it's true or not is if the bad stuff does start happening.

 

NB. Saudi want to be the sole biggest player in the area and may think being caught in the crossfire on this one is worth the risk - they've spent a long time buying all those fancy toys from arms dealers around the world, after all.

[Guest MattP]

On 14/06/2019 at 19:17, Buce said:

Channel 4 to ‘empty chair’ Bozo. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/14/boris-johnson-pledges-to-drop-backstop-in-orderly-brexit-plan

If you are still wondering why he won't - add this as well....

 

Dan Hannan has now also said he won't appear on C4 news anymore.

 

 

Edited 16 June 2019 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

What is Boris' strategy in committing to Brexit by 31st October, Deal or No Deal?

- Does he really believe it's possible to negotiate a new deal by then? Impossible, surely, with holidays, no negotiations scheduled, new Commission due in early Nov & need to get it all through parliament?

- Is that just cover for really wanting No Deal, believing he can get that through parliament & No Deal in Oct will turn out alright? Both dubious conclusions, surely?

- Is it all just meaningless bullshit to help him become PM? If so, does he know what he'll do about Brexit if he wins? Renegotiate? Extend? No Deal? Election? Make it up off the back of a fag packet?

- Does he hope to trigger a general election before October, blaming the EU/Westminster for the impasse & hope to win by committing to an October exit so as to win back voters who've defected to the Brexit Party? Seems possible...

....Alternative suggestions? @MattP? @Kopfkino? @Jon the Hat?

 

Interesting Marr programme today:

- Hunt accepted that the WA will not be changed but is hoping to insert something in the Political Declaration to offset the backstop. He hoped that it would be legally binding, though the Declaration currently isn't. Although he kept No Deal on the table and downplayed the idea of extending, he's clearly willing to request an extension beyond October "if there's the prospect of an acceptable deal". He declined to answer the question as to how long an extension he might ask for. Given there is little chance of anything being renegotiated before October 31st, he's effectively the candidate for an unspecified extension so as to renegotiate with the new Commission, isn't he? A perfectly sensible strategy (even if it's doubtful he'll get something to offset the backstop) but not a vote winner among Tory members.....I'm sure the Boris campaign hopes that Hunt makes the final two.

- Rory Stewart was impressive again. It would be good for the contest & for proper scrutiny of Boris if he stays in contention beyond Tuesday. Any chance, I wonder? Will he pick up enough votes off the likes of Hancock & Harper or defectors from other camps? Doubtful, I imagine...

- Andy Burnham was also impressive. Imagine a better world where the party leaders were Stewart and Burnham, not May/Boris & Corbyn.... He was my initial choice for Labour leader after Miliband resigned, but came across as second-rate during the campaign. Frustratingly, he's come across much better ever since, particularly after becoming Mayor of Manchester.

[The Guvnor]

Boris is an old Etonian, Balliol college priveliged elite Hooray Heny, so I can understand why Rory Stewarts pushing the knife in.........oh hang on a minute.

[Guest MattP]

Rory Stewart coming across as a right arrogant tosser - he's the dream Tory PM for Nigel Farage. 

 

No surprise the C4 audience are cheering every word he says, Boris spot on to sidestep this.

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

What is Boris' strategy in committing to Brexit by 31st October, Deal or No Deal?

- Does he really believe it's possible to negotiate a new deal by then? Impossible, surely, with holidays, no negotiations scheduled, new Commission due in early Nov & need to get it all through parliament?

- Is that just cover for really wanting No Deal, believing he can get that through parliament & No Deal in Oct will turn out alright? Both dubious conclusions, surely?

- Is it all just meaningless bullshit to help him become PM? If so, does he know what he'll do about Brexit if he wins? Renegotiate? Extend? No Deal? Election? Make it up off the back of a fag packet?

- Does he hope to trigger a general election before October, blaming the EU/Westminster for the impasse & hope to win by committing to an October exit so as to win back voters who've defected to the Brexit Party? Seems possible...

....Alternative suggestions? @MattP? @Kopfkino? @Jon the Hat?

I'd imagine it's bullshit, hope the backstop can be changed and if not then go back to the public, if so claim victory. 

 

I think he can win a majority and he's probably going to have to do it.

[Vacamion]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Rory Stewart coming across as a right arrogant tosser - he's the dream Tory PM for Nigel Farage. 

 

No surprise the C4 audience are cheering every word he says, Boris spot on to sidestep this.

 

He's sidestepping this because he can't answer questions about his magic unicorn Brexit, whether he has or hasn't actually done bugle and his well established record of dishonesty, let alone how many kids he has. 

[Vacamion]

 

Gove is coming across as extremely self-confident. 

 

I wonder if there are any substances which have that effect?