@snoopydawg

But I wonder why this news is allowed to come out? Israel has a habit of covering up its crimes so you gotta wonder why they are admitting to this. Gawd I hate being so cynical.

.

on 10/7. Lots of the information has already been discussed here, but Max adds new information about the lies Israel has been telling. One thing he says is that the reports of Hamas baking babies which Israel has shown pictures of was actually 'baked' by Israeli bombs. Both say that the melted cars and people inside them at the rave looked very similar to the bodies of Iraqis killed on the highway of death as they were returning from Kuwait. And just like the Israeli helicopter pilots followed orders to shoot every bomb they had so did American pilots bomb the trucks for hours.
Just following orders. What went through the American pilot’s minds when they did that?

INCYM this video it shows how Israel’s military bombed the people fleeing from the rave. It’s what Max talks about.

BREAKINGIsrael admits apache helicopters fired on their own civilians running from the Supernova music festival.

“The pilots realised that there was tremendous difficulty in distinguishing within the occupied outposts and settlements who was a terrorist and who was a… pic.twitter.com/wv6wR710qO

— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) November 9, 2023

I will settle for American war criminals to face justice and be punished for their crimes. But it’s probably not going to happen in my lifetime…but I can dream for it just like I dream for peace.

ETA

Max mentions the blood lust of some Israelis and this clearly shows that.

"We will bomb all the hospitals and kill them all.....the world knows that"

Does the world understand what Zionism is yet?pic.twitter.com/B8Ps6b8Hho

— (@sospunjab) November 1, 2023

Another video posted last week showed how cops were hassling a group of Jewish protesters who were advocating for peace and one lady told them that Hitler should have finished the job and that they deserve to roast in hell. But sure it’s only the people protesting for peace that are anti semetic.

@soryang

of the understanding of 'murika falling behind on the world stage
ideas of global domination thru military means is secondary to
the realities of economic interests. Sanctions do not work, as we
have seen in RUS. But the Neo-cons will not give up their policies.
They seem to want it all, regardless of the consequences. This will
prove to be disfavor-able to their waning influence.
Wider objectives such as BRICS, Silk Road corridors and multi-
polarity have the advantage of inclusion, which western interests
do not seem to recognize.

I think he, like most western geopolitical analysts, projects his own perspective on to China. I'd rather listen to Carl Zha on China. He has a much more profound understanding of their history and what their current policies are all about. China's main policy interest is business not war. War is the harbinger of uncertainty and chaos. It's anathema to business (the US thinks its good for business). Because business is China's current doctrinal priority, it is difficult for the US to compete with them economically. Thus the focus in the US is always on "hard power." US commercial activities now have to be governed by a "national security" perspective. Structurally, institutionally, and politically the US is handicapped by its almost exclusive military obsession and outlook.

China's prestige and success comes from soft power. There are historical and Marxist themes in Chinese analysis of world trends and their policy formulation process. As a fundamentally western formulation Marxism has been modified to fit China's unique circumstances and needs. The failure of the Soviet Union more than demonstrated the shortcomings of foreign formulations. Nor is there one size fits all. It isn't left behind, the former orthodoxy is harmonized with current needs and developmental goals. What is observed to be useful, such as the benefits of "free enterprise," are adopted in a dirigiste context where the party and state power is not subordinated to private capital interests. Party doctrine is periodically subject to revision in light of development goals. So there is a developmental theme, coexisting, with a dialectical materialistic analysis based somewhat on later Marxist conceptions of imperialism as the ultimate manifestation of class struggle on the world stage. This is related to China's own bitter historical experience of western imperialism during the "century of humiliation."

Lastly, there is an an adherence to a tradition of governance in the Neo-Confucian sense, with a willingness to accept "revisionism" to practically attain goals. There should periodically be reflection and assessments of current doctrine of governance with appropriate revisions to doctrine and policies. There is no objective to push their political system or ideology on other states. In the global south, there is a natural receptivity to Chinese business and diplomatic overtures, because those countries recognize the common historical experience of being dominated and exploited by western imperialism, and the later neo-imperialism of the so called post colonial era, the US has employed since WWII.

The Chinese regard themselves as traditionally and rightfully the center of gravity of a civilized and intelligent society. China's "foreign" policy represents a world view that Mearsheimer minimizes because it doesn't fit in with his "realist" geopolitical outlook. In this sense, any patterns that can be interpreted using Mearsheimer's model are coincidental in nature, because they appear to be connected with his "hegemony" obsession, which is not a major factor in Chinese thought but a US obsession. When your cultural world view is that you are a civilizational standard in your own right, you don't obsess about "hegemony." The policy is to limit encroaching uncivilized factors threatening disorder to internal harmony and the external order on which it depends. From this perspective disruptive actions taken by the US in pursuit of a so called rules based order, appear rather to generate disorder and chaos. Historical experience and the philosophical viewpoint in a practical matter call for not allowing 19th Century 'gunboat' diplomacy to ever return. The military perspective is subservient to the philosophical state of the party as it exists today. That perspective is always subject to critical evaluation in light of practical outcomes productive of both the party goals and evolving historical development. It isn't obsessed with balance of power; relations with other powers are based on historical experience, current ongoing observation and evaluation, and how they play against uniquely Chinese values. Challenges to Chinese order are subject to periodic formal deliberative group review as Jeffrey Sachs has noted, rather than the off the cuff, shooting from the hip, ad hoc and likely inappropriate responses we are likely to see from the west. So the dictatorship observation is just inappropriate. It's a group leadership and policy formulation function.

Let's assume everything I said above is just Chinese "propaganda" I picked up from Reading the China Dream web site. Nevertheless, it appears to be what some scholars say the Chinese political perspective actually is. It is consistent with my own observations of East Asian history and culture. Therefore, shouldn't this unique Chinese perspective be taken into account when considering China "as a threat" that needs to be countered? To a great extent the threat is provoked and exaggerated by the west. The economic challenge to the US on the other hand is self inflicted because of the excessive militarization of US society, economy and politics.

Kissinger (and Nixon) could read the Chinese political perspective at one time and understood this or at least this emerging outlook during its formulative period. Some of the Neanderthals directing US foreign policy ostensibly have Kissinger Associates credentials on their resume. I never hear them saying the kind of things Kissinger says in his book On China, which to my surprise showed more insight than I expected. Previously, I thought the turn to China, the Chinese opening etc., were just some Machiavellian maneuver to help us withdraw from the conflict in Southeast Asia and at the same time to counter the Soviet Union. (In other words a political realist "balance of power" move). The typical responses are yes but we thought mistakenly they would "democratize." Another is, yes but, now they are a economic competitor, they are surpassing us. Can't have that can we? Their navy is getting bigger than ours. They're making more nukes, etc. Maybe the US expansion of military bases to surround and cut off China from its seaborne commerce to threaten it militarily has provoked the response. Powerful US military forces are always probing the littoral adjacent to China ostensibly defending freedom of navigation, whilst the objective is the exact opposite: to threaten with a "strangle China" strategy based on the "first island chain" that must include Taiwan.

imo

Thanks for the Potluck SOE. I'm sure I'll be exploring it more, later.

@MrWebster

law of the sea, but there is a long standing principal at law to the effect that a voluntary admission of facts makes them presumptively true. When EU members openly and publicly conspire to pretend they have grounds to intercept vessels, then Russia can presume that any such interceptions are phony and hence illegal. Especially since the EU sanctions, while not truly unilateral, are not UN authorized or imposed are are hence illegal.

be well and have a good one

Denmark is threatening to cut off Russian oil tankers. The Nordic countries really want to play above their league.

As for bin Laden letter which talks about collective guilt. All of NATO and EU should agree with him as they have collectively made the Russian people guilty for all the actions of Putin. Actually collective guilt is really the bedrock of racism as it tars an entire group of people.

This is incredibly dangerous. Attempting to put a blockade on Russian ships would likely be interpreted as an act of war.
"Denmark could block Russian oil tankers from reaching markets"https://t.co/9wdjBq0SNK

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) November 16, 2023

@MrWebster This is an extremely bad idea. A provision in UNCLOS related to right of transit passage in an international strait says:

Article 42
Laws and regulations of States bordering straits
relating to transit passage
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may
adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in
respect of all or any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic,
as provided in article 41;
(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving
effect to applicable international regulations regarding the
discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the
strait;
(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing,
including the stowage of fishing gear;

(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person
in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
laws and regulations of States bordering straits.
2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact
among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of
denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this
section.
3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and
regulations.
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply
with such laws and regulations.
5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled
to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and
regulations or other provisions of this Part shall bear international
responsibility for any loss or damage which results to States bordering straits.

So the application of these Danish restrictions are aimed to hamper transit passage in a discriminatory manner against a particular state. That's my inclination on this. To me it seems as if a NATO state is trying to block passage on the basis of a condition which NATO itself created. Not only is it contrary to the black letter intent of the transit passage provision, there should be some sort of estoppal argument, that prevents an alliance member from discriminating against one country's commerce based upon circumstances (no insurance availability) that it played a role in creating.

This scheme is exactly the sort of short sighted trick, that has become common in the west. Where's all their freedom of navigation, freedom of international commerce in the rules based order? If I was Russia, I would say fine, I will indemnify these ships from any environmental damage caused by equipment failure in the Danish strait. This is my amateur hunch. I haven't looked at any case law or precedents.

Denmark is threatening to cut off Russian oil tankers. The Nordic countries really want to play above their league.

As for bin Laden letter which talks about collective guilt. All of NATO and EU should agree with him as they have collectively made the Russian people guilty for all the actions of Putin. Actually collective guilt is really the bedrock of racism as it tars an entire group of people.

This is incredibly dangerous. Attempting to put a blockade on Russian ships would likely be interpreted as an act of war.
"Denmark could block Russian oil tankers from reaching markets"https://t.co/9wdjBq0SNK

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) November 16, 2023