Random News Stories

[Junkenstein]

So:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31107889

The Prince of Wales no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf states, a new biography by Catherine Mayer says.

The book, Charles: Heart Of A King, which is not authorised by Clarence House, claims Prince Charles "doesn't like being used to market weaponry" and avoids doing so where possible.

Its publication this Thursday comes ahead of the prince's tour to the Middle East later in February.

Clarence House said the visit aimed to strengthen relationships in the region.

Prince Charles has been a frequent visitor to the Middle East, and last month joined world leaders in the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh to pay his respects following the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

"If he has changed his mind, why doesn't the dissident prince speak up? One answer - according to insiders, is that he has done so, in - thus far - private communications. If he is uncomfortable with his itineraries, he will say so."

She continues: "Another answer is that any noisy protests would diminish his usefulness in the Gulf. Some of the objectives of his recent trip to Saudi Arabia relied on that vanishing commodity: secrecy."

TL;DR, Spineless fuck hasn't got the balls to state openly that the allegedly doesn't want to sell arms to the Mid-east. In other news, everyone still pretending that shoving more weaponry into the mid-east is a cracking idea for the future of the region. Either way it's just another reason to get rid of the royals. The UK will do anything to keep that veneer of legitimacy about the arms trade but the reality still stands that anyone involved in it is just an evil shitheap and should be regarded accordingly.

Also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31118020

A man wielding a knife has attacked three soldiers patrolling outside a Jewish community centre in Nice, in the south of France.

The attacker had been travelling on the tram without a ticket, but left the tram when ticket collectors approached him and he then targeted the soldiers.

He slashed one soldier in the cheek then injured a second who tried to intervene in the arm, the mayor said.

He tried to escape but was caught by a shop owner, tram workers and police patrolling nearby.

My reading comprehension may be fucked, but it sounds like the guy attacked two soldiers while the other was stood around holding his dick. Then civilians dealt with it. Military competence at it's finest.

[Demolition Squid]

I'm not sure it is fair to call Charles 'spineless' on this.

He's spoken up on a number of issues - the environment especially, but he also called out Russia in Ukraine before the government was willing to do so.

The thing is, the royal family exist largely as an adjunct to the government. They don't get to say whatever they want whenever they want, because if they did, they'd undermine the government and that'd be terribly embarrassing. So from his position, they request he make these moves to boost arms sales, and in return he isn't shuffled somewhere quietly out of the way where he can't keep talking about the issues he feels are important.

Besides, if he really didn't want this story to get out - it wouldn't have. Although it wasn't approved, the author and publisher also weren't threatened with libel and sued into oblivion.

I've actually got a fair amount of sympathy for the older members of the royal family. The younger ones seem to be universally fuckwits, but Charles (although he puts his foot in his mouth a lot) is also one of the only major establishment figures pointing out that we ought to listen to scientists when they say the world is fucked forever if we don't do something to change it. He's also done a huge amount for rural communities (mocking the government for slashing flood protection the year before there was massive flooding is a good example of that).

But these things come with a balancing act. Unsurprisingly, he probably feels more passionately and inclined to speak out about issues which hit close to home. Doesn't everyone?

[Junkenstein]

Besides, if he really didn't want this story to get out - it wouldn't have.

I disagree. "No publicity is bad publicity" and all that. The royals are increasingly difficult to justify as tourist draws (Apparently there is nothing else of interest here, at all. Somewhat true I suppose). so there is something of a need to generate discussion around and about them that is somewhat divisive. Everyone gets to do the usual Pro/Anti shouting while paying no attention to the actual bill for this bullshit.

I have little to no respect for anyone of this level of affluence as their "charitable" contributions tend to range from outright blantant self serving things to crazy hoseshit to actual worthy causes. The level of funding generally given by such people to such things is still a pittance of their overall wealth, in general.

And here's the killer - Fuck whatever they actually do for people and charity if it means they are used for arms sales. Seriously. You don't get to peddle munitions and walk away with a clean slate because you gave billy and fiver for environmental research or happen to hold a certain political stance. You push arms.

There was a charming UK campaign a few years back with "Support your local drug dealer" blood, needles, evil junkies, I'm sure you've got the idea.

It would be nice to see "Support your local arms dealer" with some pictures of those who do. Because it's clearly one of the main functions of both the Government and Royals.

Also, Saudi Arabia, but we don't need to stir that crock of shit now do we?

[Demolition Squid]

I'm sorry, but this reads like so much 'He was born better off than I am therefore he should be castigated on general principles'.

Do you really think that the amount of influence he's had in securing arms deals is anything but negligible?

Are you seriously saying that all the good he does should be discounted because it comes with the pricetag of having to help finalize morally dubious government deals too?

And here's the real killer - you don't need to push arms much anyway. Arms push themselves, and the Prince's level of involvement in the arms industry is likely to be more 'icing on the cake' to other rich and privileged people, rather than say, his involvement in the Prince's Trust, where he genuinely helps hundreds of thousands of young people which simply would not exist without his support.

Seriously. He does a lot of good - and he doesn't have to. He could just as easily (in fact, likely more easily) shrug his shoulders, do the bare minimum and live a life of luxury and indolence. He doesn't, and your inability to recognize that because of your prejudice is unfortunate.

I could get into the various reasons why the monarchy are actually justifiable on more than purely economical and historical grounds, but something tells me you're not actually interested in hearing that argument.

[Junkenstein]

Please do, while I may not agree with you I certaintly still respect your opinions/stance.

I'll make no secret of it, I find the overall concept of "royalty" and such things in general to be distasteful at best. The entire concept is built and supported by people beliving others are "better" or "worse" in some way rather than just bags of meat that should have no more privilige, advantage or benefit ahead of anyone else. I can't call anywhere that enforces and protects a privileged few ahead of everyone. It's simply unfair.

The Princes trust and other such things, I strongly doubt that they really provide the level of benefits that get touted. Like many charity orgs, when you drill into them, there's more than a little shite.


On Arms - If they push themselves so well, why are we constantly shipping salesmen to various questionable nations to tout the benefits of such devices? Arms is an industry like any other. The only problems are it directly causes violence and death. Also being sold by those in positions of privilege and power. Also those in power directly benefit from Arms profits. I have a passionate fucking hatred for these things as most attacks on them become played as "unpatriotic" or "Not supporting the troops" or "jobs employment money" which is all a sack of crap because the reality still stands that these things cause little good, much bad and make things worse. Fuck anyone involved in such dealings, I can't reasonably talk to them on a human to human level. Mainly because said human is responsible for the suffering of others on a totally unknown scale. Who knows exactly what gear and deals get brokered and for whom? I can't give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of a private sulk and couple of quid thrown at kids.

One thing I will note though, the money is as good as dirty too:

The Council now consists of Peter Cruddas, Patrick Passley, Heather Hancock, Michael Marks CBE and Lloyd Dorfman CBE. Like Charles Dunstone, Peter Cruddas is an Enterprise Fellow of the Prince's Trust which means that they are large donors, with Peter Cruddas having recently given £1.5 million.

Name might ring a bell. See other post about Director level dealings being full of this kind of shit.


As for him shrugging and living a life of indolence, well, be fair, he practically does. Again inherent privilege protects against the normal issues most have about day to day life. There's more here about inheritance and such and that whole system which is it's own bag of detestable fucked up in many ways with unforseen impacts everywhere (Housing etc).

[Demolition Squid]

Alrighty, that was a little bit unfair of me - I'll start with the justification for the royal family in general, and then explain why I have a soft spot for Charles in particular.

Firstly, I personally find the economic argument on both sides distasteful; I don't think money should have anything to do with it.

I don't buy the tourism explanation either. Tourism is fine, but people would come to see the palaces even if the royals weren't in them. The massive worldwide interest in the royal wedding is evidence that the royal family boosts the UK's worldwide profile, though. As a nation, we punch far above our weight on the international stage. Geopolitically, the UK's position has been weakening in absolute terms since the first world war - and yet we still cast a very long shadow in international affairs. Not nearly as much as we used to; nowhere near as much as the popular press would have us believe, but in terms of influence and soft power, the UK is given far more credence than it ought to have considering our economic and military strength compared to the likes of the real heavy hitters in China, the United States, Germany and so on.

I'd say that the royal family is a considerable part of that - we send these figureheads out about the world and they remind people of who we were. They are also able to act as mouthpieces to say what the government wants to say but can't in a sanctioned way. The downside to this, of course, is that they also draw attention to uncomfortable issues that are important to them. Or they're just pricks, like the younger Princes. They are portable spotlights if you like, and can be used to draw media attention in a way that other politicians have trouble managing. Think of them a bit like establishment-sanctioned celebrities in that sense.

So that's the utility of them in public discourse.

The more important use - in my opinion - is constitutionally. Whilst an American system which enshrines certain rights in an inalienable sense might be a better way of going about it, we do not have this system. The process of drawing up a constitution would be an inherently political event, and I don't know about you, but I don't trust the highly divided parliament we have to do it in a sensible way.

The reigning monarch has to sign all laws in order to make them binding. In practice, this is a rubber stamp process - but we have never been placed in a position where the theoretical monarchical veto needed to be exercised. As we don't have the kind of ironclad legal structure that other western nations have, this is the only current guarantee we have that a law couldn't be passed to - say - extend the terms of parliament to 500 years a piece, or grant the Prime Minister dictatorial powers. I think that having some kind of detached authority to ensure that politicians do not entirely have free reign to do what they will is vitally important, and although there are alternative ways of doing things which are probably much better, we have to live in the real world. As the monarch is a stable authority figure who has no vested interest beyond ensuring - in broad terms - the stability of the system as it is currently constituted, I think that's about as good as it is likely to get.

So my interest in the monarchy is largely as an instrument of influence in overseas affairs where 'real' politicians couldn't say what needs to be said so easily and as an oversight to stop the government going too far in case the fringe nutcases get into power one day. It is hard to be an ultra-nationalist party and justify coercing the monarchy because of everything else they symbolize. As to whether the monarch really would risk their life in the event it was necessary? Well, you never know until it happens, but just having them there means that there's less possibility of it being tested.

Now, as to Prince Charles in particular...

Whatever else you might think of him, he does not live a life of lazy luxury. He is extremely and passionately devoted to his causes. Now, some of them I find absolutely ridiculous (he's a big supporter of homeopathic medicine, for instance) others, I think are the vital challenges we face today (food security, environmental issues, social mobility amongst the young).

But critically, he doesn't do it by decree. He does it through persuasion, debate and lobbying - both publicly and in private. He's used his position of influence to build an extensive network of contacts which he uses on behalf of over 400 charities across the UK. Now, you can spin this as a corrupt web of privilege which operates for some nefarious purpose...

... but he cares about people. You can argue that these charities don't do as much as they say they do if you like? But we're talking about a 66 year old man who has been found collapsed at his desk after writing letters long into the night. This is a man who has spent decades engaging with people, using his privileged position to educate himself about the issues he cares about and trying to give back to society. He did not set up the institutions which got him into privilege; he could not dismantle them even if he wanted to, but having been given that position, he has chosen to use it to engage with the society that has elevated him and perform good work for it, rather than simply better himself and make himself comfortable.

I think that is admirable. And I think the fact that he's sometimes had to make statements he finds distasteful on behalf of the government of the day does very little to diminish the good work he's done.

[Cain]

On the one hand, I have no love for the Royal Family and Charles in particular.

On the other hand, by virtue of being a Windsor he is essentially on permanent retainer for the state, and the business of the state is the arms trade.

On the other hand, he is compensated quite well for this deal.

On the other hand, he may have been forced to take part in a government policy he is not keen on.

But on the other hand, Charles frequently uses his own position to lobby government and civil service members, forcing interpretations of policy and intelligence gathering which would likely cause a constitutional crisis.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm Vishnu, and that while Charles likely has a point here, in the broader scheme of things he has little right to actually complain.

[MMIX]

On the one hand, I have no love for the Royal Family and Charles in particular.

On the other hand, by virtue of being a Windsor he is essentially on permanent retainer for the state, and the business of the state is the arms trade.

On the other hand, he is compensated quite well for this deal.

On the other hand, he may have been forced to take part in a government policy he is not keen on.

But on the other hand, Charles frequently uses his own position to lobby government and civil service members, forcing interpretations of policy and intelligence gathering which would likely cause a constitutional crisis.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm Vishnu, and that while Charles likely has a point here, in the broader scheme of things he has little right to actually complain.

Finally, incontrovertible proof that Cain has 5 hands . . .

[LMNO]

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

 

[Eater of Clowns]

I'd fap to worship that.

[Karapac]

So, this is not a news story, but I didn't know where else to plonk it in. A good (in my limited view) piece explaining, well, what ISIS really wants. And what it wants is the Apocalypse.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

(...)[M]uch of what [ISIS] does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State's officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to "moderns." In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State's chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and "smash his head with a rock," poison him, run him over with a car, or "destroy his crops." To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an "uncircumcised geezer.")

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

I found this part especially interesting:

The Islamic State has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo. It named its propaganda magazine after the town, and celebrated madly when (at great cost) it conquered Dabiq's strategically unimportant plains. It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome's Waterloo or its Antietam.

"Dabiq is basically all farmland," one Islamic State supporter recently tweeted. "You could imagine large battles taking place there." The Islamic State's propagandists drool with anticipation of this event, and constantly imply that it will come soon. The state's magazine quotes Zarqawi as saying, "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify ... until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq." A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times—perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.

Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State's videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. "Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive," said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who'd been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.

The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who "Rome" is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely.

[Cain]

Eh, it's a good article in some ways - "good enough for print journalism" good, I suppose - but there's a lot of presumptions, bad thinking and poor analogies bundled up in that piece, along with a focus on religion which significantly undermines the political component of ISIS's program.  Of course, their religious and political program are inextricably linked, but putting particular emphasis on one is, of course...suggestive.  Suggestive of "haha, those crazy Muslim bastards".

Also, completely missing from the discussion: economics.  Islamic State pays.  As did Al-Qaeda, once upon a time, although I daresay IS has far deeper pockets and more extensive resources.  To what extent is expansionism driven by the economics of conquest?  Something The Atlantic quite conspicously fails to ask.

[Karapac]

Oh, yeah. To take it without a huge grain of salt would be a mistake. The subtext here is also "those Muslim bastards are not just after Money like normal people. they take their religion shit seriously, and you should be scared."

Do you perhaps have any pieces that explain those other aspects of ISIS well?

[Cain]

Not to hand, I'm afraid.  I mostly saved them onto my laptop, which is currently being repaired about 200 miles away.

However, I was the "ISIS expert" for a think tank, for a while.  I was writing on them when Fallujah fell, when pretty much no western journalists were paying attention to Iraq, because "everyone knew" Syria was where all the exciting stuff was happening (and of course, civil wars are really respectful of international borders).

One major, massive thing that he didn't talk about was how ISIS rebuilt itself after 2008, mostly due to the hamfisted and partisan politics of the Iraqi Prime Minister.  A lot of journalists simplify Iraq as being split between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs (with the occasional mention of minorities like the Yazidi and Turkomen Iraqis)...mostly because journalists aren't that bright and dont deal with the messy complexities of reality well.  As a very, very rough guide, that is broadly correct, but while there are religious connotations to the Sunni and Shiite groups, it also has to do with tribes, patronage groups, family clans, business cartels etc.

And what was happening in Iraq was that, broadly speaking, the Shiite faction were shitting all over the Sunni faction.  And by that, I mean "Shiite death squads targeting families of peaceful Sunni protestors" and "people being disappeared".  It was pretty nasty, but most journalists had their eyes on Syria, so minimal attention was paid to the whole thing...I suspect the whole "US client state" also played a strong role in that studied ignorance.

An uprising by elements of the Sunni "Awakening" Council, the paramilitary force that flipped sides in the Iraqi Civil War to work with the Americans against the jihadists, was hijacked by ISIS and their tribal allies.  In previous months, ISIS had clearly been laying the groundwork to take control in the event of any mass uprising...they'd been breaking their members out of jail, in addition to targeting Iraqi Army officials and journalists in northern Iraqi cities.

Where did ISIS suddenly get so sophisticated?  Sure, to an extent, arms and training and experience in Syria gave them advantages, but they were carrying out sophisticated, multi-stage attacks which recquired specialist training.  The sort of training special forces soldiers have.  Like, say, the former Saddam loyalists among the Republican Guard.  These guys are among the top ranks of ISIS, their elite military commanders.  They're not religious...Saddam used religion, rhetorically, but his regime was secular and he distrusted it among the ranks, and especially among the Republican Guard, who were chosen for personal and ideological loyalty to Saddam.  Broadly speaking these men came from "Sunni" backgrounds, but they're hardly religious in any conventional sense.

And yet there they are, commanding ISIS's forces in the field.  But to talk about that would also involve talking about the dubious politics of our Iraqi "ally"...the corruption, the authoritarianism, the torture and death squads.  They've actually unleashed the worst from Iraqs prisons now, to fight ISIS.  The Mahdi Army are tearing through Sunni villages, killing people essentially at random as suspected ISIS sympathisers.  The Iraqi Army cant be trusted to stand and fight on its own, because it's so badly run...the corrupt and graft is incredible, and you can bet senior Pentagon officials, current and former, alongside American contractors and arms dealers, profited from that situation.  Meaning they indirectly helped in the rise of ISIS, by weakening the Iraqi Army's capacity to fight.