Square Root.. In tims world that is a definitive answer.. nonsense. Please do not attempt to get any sense from him wait until he works out who and whar he is.
It would make your blood run cold and clot and turn your insides into fucking black puddings.
More likely he will do what all other defectors seem to have done in previous instances and tell his interrogators exactly what he thinks they want to hear. The example of Iraq and the defectors insisting on the existence of an ongoing WMD programme there is not exactly one of Western intelligence agencies' greatest moments.
Right, it seems a little bit amazing that they're apparently planning to try exactly the same storyline a second time, but I guess if it worked once...
What if he is telling the truth? I understand why you want to dismiss him out-of-hand as it does not complement your world view, but there is a chance he is telling the truth. The alleged documents in particular should be interesting.
Note that it is also apparently evidence of a chemical attack in Aleppo during March, not the one earlier this month.
I too realise that you are desperate for him to be telling the truth as it would compliment your particular world view.
All I am saying is that the record of such defections and the intelligence they provide is poor to say the least. Our intelligence agencies do have a record of hearing what they want to hear and ignoring anything to the contrary. Unless of course you believe Iraq was full of chemical weapons at the time of the last invasion and we just missed them all?
Nope, not desperate all. I've laid my case out in a darned more detail than you have, and I stick by it. I was just pointing out the stupidity of your circlejerk.
As for your assertion: what is the track record? Have you had visibility of the intelligence coming from all defectors? Or are you concentrating on one or two stories from Iraq?
Let the guy tell his story, present his evidence and then we can make up our minds. He may be lying; he may be telling the truth (or at least as he perceives it). The first question in my mind is how authoritative is his evidence? How and why does he know what he claims? We can move on from there.
Instead, you've made up your mind already.
As have you regarding intervention.
Sunil, read my posts from yesterday. They were hardly written by someone who has made up his mind on a whim. I wrote the original notes early-on last week as I was trying to make up my own mind about a way forward.
I don't want there to be intervention (and certainly not what some people seem to think it means); I just think it is the best of a bad bunch of alternatives.
Facebook is the most visited website by Parliamentary internet users, according to new data. Fantasy football, solitaire, and the website i-am-bored.com also received tens of thousands of visits in 2012. Betting websites generate huge traffic from Parliament - as does a site called my.outoftownaffair.com which had more than 45,000 visits last year. The website bills itself as "adult dating with no complications".
Fairylandgame.com also proved consistently popular with staff in Parliament. The data was obtained from this FOI request, which also revealed that PoliticsHome is the second most visited news website, with 247,335 average views per month. Only the BBC got more hits.
Looks to me as though the US are trying, by strengthening the rhetoric and by well-sourced 'leaks', to put pressure on Assad in the hope either of forcing more defections, or encouraging a palace coup, or possibly pushing him towards some kind of climbdown on chemical weapons.
If, as is likely, this is combined with a diplomatic effort and an obvious military build-up, it might have a chance of working, who knows? Obviously it would have been more likely to work if Miliband hadn't torpedoed the remarkable Western unity, but we are where we are, and (assuming my reading is right), it's worth a try.
Also, this missile test in collaboration with Israel can't be coincidence. Coincidences like that just don't happen when you're discussing imminent military action.
The intention is not to ban e-cigs: it's just to make sure that they are manufactured to a safe standard and don't include all sorts of cr*p in them.
The harm reduction strategy is just a question of educating health professionals. Cessation is better, but harm reduction is a good step on the road
What the studies complaining about the "crap," in e-cigarettes fail to mention is, the nicotine replacement therapy you can buy contain the same crap in much higher levels.
There is literally no reason to make electronic cigarettes have to reach higher standards than NRT or cigarettes.
NRT products are OTC products and therefore reviewed and approved.
e-cigs can be sold off the back of a lorry.
Tobacco is always a controversial point...
NRT, which has more chemicals in it, can be sold to 12-year olds.
I don't smoke. I just don't think products should be legislated in a way that makes sure more people die.
NRT has been through the approval process to ensure that it is safe and effective.
"Anna Soubry, the public health minister, told how “gorgeous” cigarette packets made her take up smoking as a teenager because they were a “symbol of glamour”."
"Anna Soubry, the public health minister, told how “gorgeous” cigarette packets made her take up smoking as a teenager because they were a “symbol of glamour”."
When was she a teenager for Heaven's sake? And frankly I don't believe her either - busybodying.
"Anna Soubry, the public health minister, told how “gorgeous” cigarette packets made her take up smoking as a teenager because they were a “symbol of glamour”."
NANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYYYYYYYYYY state.
I think Nick P is as safe as Sprinter Sacre was at Cheltenham personally.
Looks to me as though the US are trying, by strengthening the rhetoric, to put pressure on Assad in the hope either of forcing more defections, or encouraging a palace coup, or possibly pushing him towards some kind of climbdown on chemical weapons.
Reads more like ‘assisted regime change’ to me.
Quote: “During a meeting of congressional leaders at the White House, he [Obama]said: "What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad's capabilities.
"At the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition."”
Quote: “During a meeting of congressional leaders at the White House, he [Obama]said: "What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad's capabilities.
"At the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition."”
Hmmm.
Yeah, but you have to ask who that message is addressed at. It's unlikely just to be congressional leaders.
TSE's Lib Dem chart shows what a sunny colour the Lib Dem predominant party colour is.
Somewhere out there is a psychologist who can tell us how the party image is influenced by the colour. Blue for a boy?; Red for danger?
Blue for a boy is a pretty recent thing (and younger than its association with the Conservative party). It was traditionally (i.e. since medieval western europe) associated with girls and virginity (and the Virgin Mary in particular who is usually depicted in blue). Pre queen victoria it was the most common bridal dress colour.
The colour of the Lib Dems is a way of finding out the nerdiest of Lib Dem political nerds. (Iirc it is pantone 128)
EDIT:
Alas I have made a terrible error, a quick google finds it is the totally different pantone 116.
One of the few upsides to the Syrian conflict is that it's allowed most of Defra to get a nice, new badger-fur hat without too much trouble from the loony fringe, who are preoccupied with opposing the "war".
Does Obama - does anyone - have any idea of who Assad's opposition are? There are any number of groups, only a very few of which are better than Assad and there is absolutely no guarantee that they would be the ones taking charge after Assad. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought, as even a cursory glance at Middle Eastern history since about 1979 would have told you.
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
TSE's Lib Dem chart shows what a sunny colour the Lib Dem predominant party colour is.
Somewhere out there is a psychologist who can tell us how the party image is influenced by the colour. Blue for a boy?; Red for danger?
Blue for a boy is a pretty recent thing (and younger than its association with the Conservative party). It was traditionally (i.e. since medieval western europe) associated with girls and virginity (and the Virgin Mary in particular who is usually depicted in blue). Pre queen victoria it was the most common bridal dress colour.
The colour of the Lib Dems is a way of finding out the nerdiest of Lib Dem political nerds. (Iirc it is pantone 128)
EDIT:
Alas I have made a terrible error, a quick google finds it is the totally different pantone 116.
"Sunil" can be loosely translated as "blue" or "blue gemstone".
TSE's Lib Dem chart shows what a sunny colour the Lib Dem predominant party colour is.
Somewhere out there is a psychologist who can tell us how the party image is influenced by the colour. Blue for a boy?; Red for danger?
Blue for a boy is a pretty recent thing (and younger than its association with the Conservative party). It was traditionally (i.e. since medieval western europe) associated with girls and virginity (and the Virgin Mary in particular who is usually depicted in blue). Pre queen victoria it was the most common bridal dress colour.
The colour of the Lib Dems is a way of finding out the nerdiest of Lib Dem political nerds. (Iirc it is pantone 128)
EDIT:
Alas I have made a terrible error, a quick google finds it is the totally different pantone 116.
"Sunil" can be loosely translated as "blue" or "blue gemstone".
@BBCNormanS: Eric Pickles dept face £90,000 legal bill 4 breach of contarct over changes to deducting union subs from salaries in @pcs_union court case
That was a great money saver from Pickles
Tim How much did Prezza waste during his time in Govt. round billions will do.
Anything to say on the issues or was that pointless interjection the sum total of your input? Neil pointed out the stupidity of this months ago, do you agree with him? Do you even understand what it was about?
You implied the money spent on the court case had been wasted, That's a matter of personal opinion. I just chose to remind you of the billions Labour wasted in office and was just one one example.
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
Because he's used chemical weapons on a large scale.
Simple as that.
Hmmm. By that logic we should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1939 since they also invaded Poland. Sometimes reality is a better argument than pure principle.
"He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.
"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said. He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.
"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said."
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
Because he's used chemical weapons on a large scale.
Simple as that.
Hmmm. By that logic we should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1939 since they also invaded Poland. Sometimes reality is a better argument than pure principle.
I was answering the question.
There is of course a separate and grave matter to consider after answering the question, which is whether any action would be effective, and what the risks of escalation are. But the question itself - why intervene here, when we don't in other conflicts? - is easy to answer.
@BBCNormanS: Eric Pickles dept face £90,000 legal bill 4 breach of contarct over changes to deducting union subs from salaries in @pcs_union court case
That was a great money saver from Pickles
Tim How much did Prezza waste during his time in Govt. round billions will do.
Anything to say on the issues or was that pointless interjection the sum total of your input? Neil pointed out the stupidity of this months ago, do you agree with him? Do you even understand what it was about?
You implied the money spent on the court case had been wasted, That's a matter of personal opinion. I just chose to remind you of the billions Labour wasted in office and was just one one example.
Personally I just enjoy the risibility of supporters of the most profligate government of our lifetime pretending they give a toss about value for money. if they got in tomorrow Weimar economics would be first thing on the agenda.
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
Because he's used chemical weapons on a large scale.
Simple as that.
No - why "as simple as that". Why is it acceptable for a child to be blown to bits by a bomb with nails in it but not acceptable to be suffocated by sarin? Why is it acceptable for people to be publicly beheaded in the most cruel way imaginable and we do nothing but are happy to intervene so that the perpetrators of such acts come to power?
It's not so much "simple" as "simplistic". This is the Forrest Gump approach to the Middle East and it's idiotic.
I can quite understand J Jessop's view that doing nothing has unpalatable consequences; I have some sympathy. But doing something on the "something must be done" approach with little evidence of us thinking anything through or learning anything from recent and not-so-recent Middle Eastern history will also have unpalatable consequences.
To reply to plato - AS was a teenager in the 70s. Do others recall brilliantly-coloured fags sold in toyshops? I'm not doubting it, just curious if it was common.
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
Because he's used chemical weapons on a large scale.
Simple as that.
Hmmm. By that logic we should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1939 since they also invaded Poland. Sometimes reality is a better argument than pure principle.
I was answering the question.
There is of course a separate and grave matter to consider after answering the question, which is whether any action would be effective, and what the risks of escalation are. But the question itself - why intervene here, when we don't in other conflicts? - is easy to answer.
I'm sure we can all come up with lots of reasons to intervene Richard but as you say the question as to whether we should is more complex than just having a reason.
The Alawites derive their beliefs from the Prophets of Islam, from the Quran, and from the books of the Imams from the Ahlulbayt such as the Nahj al-Balagha by Ali ibn Abu Talib. Alawites are self-described Shi'ite Muslims, and have been recognised as such by Shi'ite authorities such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the influential Lebanese Shi'ite cleric Musa al-Sadr of Lebanon.[38][40][41][42][43][44]
The prominent Sunni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni also issued a fatwah recognizing them as part of the Muslim community in the interest of Arab nationalism.[45][46] Some Sunni scholars such as Ibn Kathir, on the other hand, have categorized Alawites as pagans in their religious works[47] and documents.[18][48]
Some tenets of the faith may be secret and known only to a select few Alawites.[18][49] They have been described as a mystical sect.[50] Besides the Islamic festivals, they have been reported to celebrate certain Christian festivals, including Jesus birth and Palm Sunday.[29][39] Their most significant feast is the Eid al-Ghadeer.
The claim that Alawites believe Ali is a deity has been contested by scholars.[51] By some accounts, Alawites believe in reincarnation.[52]
Does Obama - does anyone - have any idea of who Assad's opposition are? There are any number of groups, only a very few of which are better than Assad and there is absolutely no guarantee that they would be the ones taking charge after Assad. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought, as even a cursory glance at Middle Eastern history since about 1979 would have told you.
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
There's no right answer. I don't want to particularly aid one side or the other (although people tend to be forgetting Assad's barbarity when they complain about AQ - Roger sadly exemplifies this myopic tendency).
When it comes to the wider war, the important things are to ensure as few civilians die as possible, and for the displaced peoples to be able to return home to continue their lives. The current stalemate in a war that has already lasted two years prevents that.
So the stalemate needs to end. Negotiation and democracy has not worked. Assad's regime had a hideous history wrt previous atrocities and civil rights, so it is hard to do deals with them.
Whilst some of the rebel groups are more moderate, the presence of AQ in, or around, the FSA makes a deal with them difficult as well.
The stuff I posted yesterday was about a reaction to the use of chemical weapons. In it, I said that if we did not intervene, then we get right out and stop arming all sides, with only humanitarian aid going to the refugee camps. That at least may bring the war to a quick (and sadly bloody) conclusion, but would require the agreement of Russia and others.
No - why "as simple as that". Why is it acceptable for a child to be blown to bits by a bomb with nails in it but not acceptable to be suffocated by sarin? Why is it acceptable for people to be publicly beheaded in the most cruel way imaginable and we do nothing but are happy to intervene so that the perpetrators of such acts come to power?
It's not acceptable. That is a completely daft argument.
It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians. There are just a handful of exceptions (mainly Saddam Hussein), but broadly speaking this is one compartment of Pandora's box which virtually every country in the world has agreed to keep firmly shut.
That's good, right? Just because we haven't been successful in agreeing to rule all sorts of other nasty things, is hardly an argument to throw away one of the few really nasty things we have managed to rule out. And chemical weapons are particularly well worth keeping completely banned because they are very dangerous, extremely cheap, and above all are particularly well suited to the mass murder of men, women and children in wars of ethnic cleansing by mad dictators.
The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? The alternative - the use of chemcical weapons to kill thousands of children first by Assad, then by other Middle East tyrants, and other tyrants around the world - is surely not something we can contemplate with equanimity.
I know you work in the oil industry, and I am a mere finance person (albeit one who has spoken at the AECO conference in Texas a couple of times), but the US will not be an oil exporter in 2016.
Current US oil consumption is around 18.5 million barrels per day. Current US oil production (2012) is around 6.5 million barrels. On my forecasts, the US gets to 10 million barrels a day by the end of the decade (and maybe a little more), with the big increases coming from the Bakken (which is not a shale, but is being opened up thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing), the Permian and the Eagle Ford.
It's worth remembering that these wells have *huge* decline rates, so that increasing production means big increases in overall drilling intensity. (To put in context, because of the rise of shale gas, natural gas has a blended average decline rate across the US of 23-24%. If the US didn't drill another well, production would fall by almost a quarter in the first year. Tight oil - which is a better moniker than shale oil - has much higher decline rates than conventionals.)
While the US will become a natural gas exporter in the next few years, as Lake Charles and Sabine Pass and Cove Point and various other LNG terminals are built, it is highly unlikely to become an oil exporter. (Unless, of course, we start to see GTL plants like Pearl being built in the US. Which, for environmental reasons I suspect we won't.)
"A few months ago I saw Will Straw and another PPC Jessica Assato – who used to be a director of the Blairite think-tank Progress – tweeting their support for the hard-Left People’s Assembly. Both of them had previously been New Labour ultras, and yet here they were prostrating themselves at the feet of Owen Jones. “Do you really want to be MPs that much?” I thought to myself.
To which the answer is, yes, they do. And on reflection, what’s so wrong with that? They want to become Labour MPs, not drug dealers. They’re personally ambitious, of course. But then I’m ambitious. We’re all ambitious. And if that’s what they have to do to get along, then like the rest of us, they’re going to do it.
If the red princes and princesses has been standing for Parliament a decade ago, then the red carpet really would have been rolled out for them. Euan Blair would have had the seat of his choice. So would Dave Prescott. Will Straw would have been fighting to defend a 15,000 Labour majority, not win a Tory marginal....
In the meantime, according to the Guardian, Miliband has revised his stance yet again and has set out new conditions for Britain being involved in military action. Quote:
"A senior Labour source said: "There would need to be very significant change [for Labour to support military action]. There are two examples: if al-Qaida got possession of very large stockpiles of weapons or if there is a direct threat to national security."
It is difficult to know where to start with this. It fails in its own terms for want of clarity; are those the only two examples, or two of several? Presumably the latter, or else Labour has effectively ruled out intervening militarily for humanitarian reasons in any circumstance.
Doesn't Al Qaeda already have a very large stockpile of weapons? Does he mean chemical weapons? If so, why should we take military action if Al-Qaeda gets possession of a very large stockpile of weapons if they haven't yet used them, when we refused to take action against the Assad regime when it both possesed the weapons and (on the face of the evidence) used them against civillians? On what basis would we take military action in Syria (a sovereign nation) against the rebels? Would we seek the consent of the Assad regime before raining bombs on his enemies within his borders? There would be no basis in International law to act without Assad's consent in those circumstances. So would we fight side by side with Assad? Is that what Labour's position has come to? Is it only Al Qaeda Labour are worried about, or other Islamist (or indeed merely rebel-who-happen-to-be-muslim) groups? How is Al Qaeda defined for these purposes? What proof would Labour require before taking military action? Would it take military action in those circumstances without the approval of the UNSC? How does Labour propose to intervene miltarily in those circumstances? Tomahawks at dawn or a more targeted military effort involving special forces?
It is an utterly pathetic position.
The only thing more pathetic is that the Labour leadership is still changing its position on this, five days after it did so for the first time, and having in between times oscillated wildly within the spectrum of opinion. Miliband wants to be Prime Minister, a position that requires judgement and decisiveness. Heaven knows Cameron has struggled at times, but Miliband makes him look like Thatcher. This isn't prep for end of year finals, in which Miliband and his friends can casually debate philosophical veiwpoints over a few weeks before committing to paper in the hope of scoring 70%. If he becomes prime minister, the very next day he might be asked to support urgent military intervention, to decide what to do in the face of a terrorist threat or to lead the nation in a crisis. Does anyone think he is capable of doing that?
I wonder if the BBC have had a meeting on how to approach the accelerated growth of the UK economy over this year? I do hope that we don't now see a new narrative which talks of the wrong type of growth or jobs.
Mr. Flashman (deceased) and Mr. Charles, thanks (even though your answers are mutually exclusive).
I don't think they are - Nicotine patches are seen as paragons of health but e-cigarettes are tools of the devil - logic isn't really involved.
As shown by Charles rubbing his hands together- this market is new and a lot of devices will come out which will have the health police scratching their heads.
Comments
I don't want there to be intervention (and certainly not what some people seem to think it means); I just think it is the best of a bad bunch of alternatives.
Others are perfectly free differ.
"The US has a plan to help Syria's rebels bring down the Assad regime after launching military strikes, President Obama has said."
http://news.sky.com/story/1136626/syria-obama-makes-new-military-action-vow
Facebook is the most visited website by Parliamentary internet users, according to new data. Fantasy football, solitaire, and the website i-am-bored.com also received tens of thousands of visits in 2012. Betting websites generate huge traffic from Parliament - as does a site called my.outoftownaffair.com which had more than 45,000 visits last year. The website bills itself as "adult dating with no complications".
Fairylandgame.com also proved consistently popular with staff in Parliament. The data was obtained from this FOI request, which also revealed that PoliticsHome is the second most visited news website, with 247,335 average views per month. Only the BBC got more hits.
Somewhere out there is a psychologist who can tell us how the party image is influenced by the colour. Blue for a boy?; Red for danger?
If, as is likely, this is combined with a diplomatic effort and an obvious military build-up, it might have a chance of working, who knows? Obviously it would have been more likely to work if Miliband hadn't torpedoed the remarkable Western unity, but we are where we are, and (assuming my reading is right), it's worth a try.
Also, this missile test in collaboration with Israel can't be coincidence. Coincidences like that just don't happen when you're discussing imminent military action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10283722/Anna-Soubry-I-took-up-smoking-as-a-teen-because-of-gorgeous-packets.html
"Anna Soubry, the public health minister, told how “gorgeous” cigarette packets made her take up smoking as a teenager because they were a “symbol of glamour”."
I think Nick P is as safe as Sprinter Sacre was at Cheltenham personally.
Quote: “During a meeting of congressional leaders at the White House, he [Obama]said: "What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad's capabilities.
"At the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition."”
Hmmm.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTP1j7XCcAAMu7j.jpg:large
The colour of the Lib Dems is a way of finding out the nerdiest of Lib Dem political nerds. (Iirc it is pantone 128)
EDIT:
Alas I have made a terrible error, a quick google finds it is the totally different pantone 116.
On Twitter, Senator John McCain applauded Boehner's stance.
It appears the president may be getting congressional leaders on his side. Now as long as the rank and file agrees to march...":
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/03/syria-crisis-2-million-refugees-live
Just because Assad is a murdering bastard doesn't mean that his opponents aren't also murdering bastards. Why, then, would we want to help them?
What could possibly go wrong?
Simple as that.
"He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.
"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.
He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.
"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said."
There is of course a separate and grave matter to consider after answering the question, which is whether any action would be effective, and what the risks of escalation are. But the question itself - why intervene here, when we don't in other conflicts? - is easy to answer.
It's not so much "simple" as "simplistic". This is the Forrest Gump approach to the Middle East and it's idiotic.
I can quite understand J Jessop's view that doing nothing has unpalatable consequences; I have some sympathy. But doing something on the "something must be done" approach with little evidence of us thinking anything through or learning anything from recent and not-so-recent Middle Eastern history will also have unpalatable consequences.
Massive scope for being Daily Mash-ed....
'We'd like to thank all you filthy unbelievers.....I mean American citizens.....for your help.
Allah has intervened and influenced your unclean minds....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites
The Alawites derive their beliefs from the Prophets of Islam, from the Quran, and from the books of the Imams from the Ahlulbayt such as the Nahj al-Balagha by Ali ibn Abu Talib. Alawites are self-described Shi'ite Muslims, and have been recognised as such by Shi'ite authorities such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the influential Lebanese Shi'ite cleric Musa al-Sadr of Lebanon.[38][40][41][42][43][44]
The prominent Sunni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni also issued a fatwah recognizing them as part of the Muslim community in the interest of Arab nationalism.[45][46] Some Sunni scholars such as Ibn Kathir, on the other hand, have categorized Alawites as pagans in their religious works[47] and documents.[18][48]
Some tenets of the faith may be secret and known only to a select few Alawites.[18][49] They have been described as a mystical sect.[50] Besides the Islamic festivals, they have been reported to celebrate certain Christian festivals, including Jesus birth and Palm Sunday.[29][39] Their most significant feast is the Eid al-Ghadeer.
The claim that Alawites believe Ali is a deity has been contested by scholars.[51] By some accounts, Alawites believe in reincarnation.[52]
When it comes to the wider war, the important things are to ensure as few civilians die as possible, and for the displaced peoples to be able to return home to continue their lives. The current stalemate in a war that has already lasted two years prevents that.
So the stalemate needs to end. Negotiation and democracy has not worked. Assad's regime had a hideous history wrt previous atrocities and civil rights, so it is hard to do deals with them.
Whilst some of the rebel groups are more moderate, the presence of AQ in, or around, the FSA makes a deal with them difficult as well.
The stuff I posted yesterday was about a reaction to the use of chemical weapons. In it, I said that if we did not intervene, then we get right out and stop arming all sides, with only humanitarian aid going to the refugee camps. That at least may bring the war to a quick (and sadly bloody) conclusion, but would require the agreement of Russia and others.
I'm open to suggestions.
It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians. There are just a handful of exceptions (mainly Saddam Hussein), but broadly speaking this is one compartment of Pandora's box which virtually every country in the world has agreed to keep firmly shut.
That's good, right? Just because we haven't been successful in agreeing to rule all sorts of other nasty things, is hardly an argument to throw away one of the few really nasty things we have managed to rule out. And chemical weapons are particularly well worth keeping completely banned because they are very dangerous, extremely cheap, and above all are particularly well suited to the mass murder of men, women and children in wars of ethnic cleansing by mad dictators.
The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? The alternative - the use of chemcical weapons to kill thousands of children first by Assad, then by other Middle East tyrants, and other tyrants around the world - is surely not something we can contemplate with equanimity.
I know you work in the oil industry, and I am a mere finance person (albeit one who has spoken at the AECO conference in Texas a couple of times), but the US will not be an oil exporter in 2016.
Current US oil consumption is around 18.5 million barrels per day. Current US oil production (2012) is around 6.5 million barrels. On my forecasts, the US gets to 10 million barrels a day by the end of the decade (and maybe a little more), with the big increases coming from the Bakken (which is not a shale, but is being opened up thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing), the Permian and the Eagle Ford.
It's worth remembering that these wells have *huge* decline rates, so that increasing production means big increases in overall drilling intensity. (To put in context, because of the rise of shale gas, natural gas has a blended average decline rate across the US of 23-24%. If the US didn't drill another well, production would fall by almost a quarter in the first year. Tight oil - which is a better moniker than shale oil - has much higher decline rates than conventionals.)
While the US will become a natural gas exporter in the next few years, as Lake Charles and Sabine Pass and Cove Point and various other LNG terminals are built, it is highly unlikely to become an oil exporter. (Unless, of course, we start to see GTL plants like Pearl being built in the US. Which, for environmental reasons I suspect we won't.)
"A few months ago I saw Will Straw and another PPC Jessica Assato – who used to be a director of the Blairite think-tank Progress – tweeting their support for the hard-Left People’s Assembly. Both of them had previously been New Labour ultras, and yet here they were prostrating themselves at the feet of Owen Jones. “Do you really want to be MPs that much?” I thought to myself.
To which the answer is, yes, they do. And on reflection, what’s so wrong with that? They want to become Labour MPs, not drug dealers. They’re personally ambitious, of course. But then I’m ambitious. We’re all ambitious. And if that’s what they have to do to get along, then like the rest of us, they’re going to do it.
If the red princes and princesses has been standing for Parliament a decade ago, then the red carpet really would have been rolled out for them. Euan Blair would have had the seat of his choice. So would Dave Prescott. Will Straw would have been fighting to defend a 15,000 Labour majority, not win a Tory marginal....
Thanks for the link. I do like a website whose views are similar to mine.