Thursday, 20 June 2019

Why Would Iran Attack Tankers In The Gulf – They Have Nothing To Gain?

Cui bono? Iran has ‘no reason’ to torpedo oil tankers in Gulf of Oman & ‘go to war’
Oil tanker in The Strait of Hormuz, betwen Iran and the United Arab Emirates (Picture source) Reuters / Hamad I Mohammed 
Whenever we at Boggart Blog / The Daily Stirrer read or hear of an international incident that raises tensions between east and west and for which the official news story makes no sense at all, all three of us being the kind of old gits whe had to lean Latin at school, ask ourselves “Cui Bono? (who benefits.)” It was not having to learn Latin that made us so cynical but learning about Marcus Tullius Cicero who always began his analysis of political events in Rome by asking that very question.

So I asked myself “who benefits?” on hearing that two oil tankers had been attacked and damaged, and by the time Washington, with is usual incredible alacrity (think of 9/11, flight MH17 and the alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria for starters,) had accused Iran of being responsible for the attacks I was aware of certain  significant factors not mentioned in mainstream media reports.Despite the lurid accusations from Washington, led by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who accused Iran of attacking the two ships and linking the latest incident to two other recent tanker attacks, drones hitting Saudi oil pumps, and a missile hitting a Saudi airport earlier this week. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was quick to pin the blame for the incident on Iran, claiming that the Islamic Republic was “lashing out” in frustration over Washington’s draconian sanctions regime.

There is absolutely no evidence that the government of Iran is involved. Lack of evidence does not necessarily prove innocence of course, but unsubstantiated accusations do not prove guilt so we should keep our minds open to other possibilities   But if not Iran then who did this and why? And what does that say will happen next?

Logically, it was either Iran, or the US, or a third party: Iran is suffocating under US sanctions, it is a known instigator of such actions via proxies, and has been threatening the EU that it will walk away from the nuclear deal if they won’t help it break the US economic stanglehold. An attack like this would be incredibly stupid (as stupid as Syria’s President Assad launching illegal chemical weapons attacks on rebel held areas when his forces were on the brink of crushing the IsIS rebellion,) … unless they are desperate enough to give The White House an excuse to attack, hoping the Trump administration will back down with the 2020 elections looming and the president’s core voters being averse to further humiliations in the middle east. 

If that is the case there will be more provocations even as Iran calls this all “beyond suspicious”, “economic terrorism”, and “sabotage diplomacy”.

The US is divided between neo-cons champing at the bit to take on Tehran, war-averse Trump and the isolationist voters who put him in power, and a Pentagon now looking at China and Russia as the real threat. CENTCOM has said a war with Iran is not in the US strategic interest – and after the humiliation of Syria it clearly isn’t. Donald Trump is no fool, no matter what bitter Hillary Clinton supporters say about him. Sure he’s a loudmouth, an egomaniac, and a crass, bombastic bully, but he is not stupid enough to order an attack on Iran, a far more militarily powerful nation than Syria, and equally good buddies with China and Russia.

Third parties ‘state – actors’ to use the words of Secretary Pompeo, are in short supply. Mainstream media will no doubt follow murky social media to point a finger at the Saudis and Israelis but would either want to precipitate a major regional war that would drag them in or would they prefer to sit back and watch sanctions destroy Iran’s economy?
‘Why would Iran do it?’
Tehran has nothing to gain from attacking the oil tankers, defense analyst and retired Lt. General Amjad Shoaib said.

“Why would Iran do it? They have no reason to go to war and they have no reason to escalate the situation,” he stressed.

Tehran has adamantly denied any involvement. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif described the incident as highly suspicious given that it occurred on the day Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrived in Tehran, according to mainstram reports to act as a mediator in a bid to ease tensions between Iran and the USA. He added that Washington’s evidence-free accusations are designed to “sabotage” Iran’s diplomatic efforts.

According to reports from India, Iran and Japan however though the possibility of Japanese mediation has been discussed there is no plan for Abe to mediate between Iran and the U.S.” ISNA reported.

A member of the Iran’s foreign policy committee also made similar remarks, saying Abe’s trip is not aimed at playing a mediatory role between Iran and the United States.

“The aim of the visit is to expand bilateral relations,” Alaeddin Boroujerdi told Mehr news agency on Monday. “In the years that followed the [Islamic] Revolution, Iran and Japan have enjoyed good relations.”

Boroujerdi said. “The talk of mediation is mere speculation and is not true.”

According to Boroujerdi, Israel is afraid of Japan’s cooperation with Iran and therefore is making efforts to undermine this development.

Though the official line is that the tankers were damaged by mines, Japanese firm, Kokuka Sangyo Co, said on Friday that its tanker had been attacked by two “flying objects” but that there was no damage to the ship’s cargo of methanol. Added to that is the fact of Iran’s rescue operation which lifted 44 sailors from the two tankers, ‘Front Altair’ and ‘Kokuka Courageous, which could feasibly have been an attempt to divert suspicion after the attack on  the two vessels. Similarly pictures produced by Washington purporting to show Iranian military personnel removing an unexploded mine from one of the tankers begs the question why would Iran do such a thing if it was behind the attack.

Kourosh Shamlou, an attorney and Middle East specialist commented that it would be completely illogical for Iran to quite literally torpedo such a historic summit, especially since doing so would play into the hands of Washington’s anti-Iran hawks.
“I’m an attorney. You have to know for whom a crime is beneficial. We can see the geopolitical situation of Iran and the US in the Persian Gulf. We can say that the Iranians are not going to torpedo a ship that will lead to the Americans attacking them. It’s going to give the Americans an excuse to attack Iran. So it cannot be the Iranians.”
In fact, the incident has already had negative economic consequences for Iran, Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at the University of Tehran and visiting professor at Carleton University, noted on RT.

“Iran’s currency lost five percent of its value today just because of talk of escalating tensions as well as perhaps the possibility of war. I think right now Iran wants to de-escalate the situation with the United States,” said Mousavi.

Conspiracy theory’

It’s not surprising that media outlets are dutifully relaying Pompeo’s accusations against Iran without questioning his logic – or asking for evidence, commented political analyst Shabbir Razvi. He has a point, that is exactly what they did in the case of all Assad’s alleged atrocities, the shooting down of Flight MH17 over Ukraine, the Boston marathon bombers and most other recent outrages.

Razvi stressed that without evidence, it would be irresponsible of Washington – or anyone else – to put forward theories about who was responsible for the attack. However, there’s at least one country that has a documented history of fabricating scenarios to justify military action, Shamlou noted.
“All of a sudden, an accident happens, and [the United States] starts saying ‘it’s the Vietnamese, it’s the Iraqis, it’s the Iranians.’ And then they have a legitimate cause for their people to attack.”

A Non State Actor?
Now I am as sceptical about blaming the USA for every mishap as I am about blaming Russia, China, Israel, Iran or Bogmondorovia (I just made up that name,) for everything that happens. People in Washington have said the attack was too sophisticated and too well organised to be the work of terrorists, only governments would have the human and material resources to organise and execute such an operation. But are they?

On Monday last week, crude oil prices tanked to below $50 per barrel, and driven down by the threat of global recession, some frankly silly commitments by desperate politicians to phase out fossil fuels by 2050, the effects of the esacalating trade war between the USA and China, a less developed threat of a trade war between the USA and EU, threatened to go as low as $40 per barrel. This caused quite a lot of consternation in oil producing states and also among oil extraction companies and processing companies.

And oil companies are the largest customer of paramilitary private security contractors. Oil companies have the finances to mount very sophisticated operations while paramilitary security contractors, recruiting from the elite forces of US, British, French, Australian and who knows what other armies have the personnel capable of carrying out sophisticated covert operations. So on Monday the price of crude oil bombs, Tuesday sees panic in the oil markets and among oil producing nations and oil companies, on Wednesday two tankers get hit in one of the busiest waterways on the planet, a vital route for oil from the Gulf States to the west. And almost immediately oil prices jump, wiping out recent losses.

Join up the dots as they saying goes. Cone on, it isn’t hard – there are only two dots to join. And if you get stuck ask yourself “Cui Bono?” Who benefits from the threat of war in the world’s largest oil producing nations, whose profit margins will be boosted by an oil famine, whose future prospects would be boosted by reminding the world, amid all the talk of sustainable, clean energy, just how dependent on oil our civiliation is?


Sanctions backfire, Iran Pulls America’s Pisser. I Told You So.
Iran Sanctions Kick the USA in the bollocks as Iran responds with Petro Gold system and pulls America’s pissser. It’s almost impossible to do satire these days, the world is so insane it is impossible to use irony and exaggeration to ridicule it. It was back in 2011 in The Daily Stirrer I started warning …

Pro-war trolls resort to smears as their ‘rebels' lose miserably in Syria Bureaucrats, Politicians and media talking heads who have consistently supported military intervention in Syria, and championed Obama's stated aim, that the priority was not to defeat ISIS terrorists but to remove the Assad rgime have gone apeshit following the collapse of the rebels final strongholds. The war loving 'liberals' are throwing everything they have at the level headed people who counselled against intervention ... Is World War Three Really Kicking Off This Time? The airstrikes by a US led coalition that killed many Syrian soldiers fighting for the legitimate government of Bashar al Assad against the terrorist forces of ISIS has raised the level of hostile rhetoric between the USA / NATO coalition and the Russia / China / Iran alliance. The likelihood of war seemed to have receded through the summer, after it seemed possible early this year, that one stray shell or bullet could spread the war beyond the middle east. Only 5 Percent Of Russian Air Strikes Hitting Islamic, British Defence Secretary Lies After an amazing outburst from the delusional Brack Obama left the United Nations General Assembly in stunned silence because Obama has accused Russia and China of all the recent breaches of international law of which the USA is demonstably guilty, the propaganda departments of western governments seem to have totally lost their grip on reality.

 Have US tactics only helped to make ISIS more powerful?/b> We have questioned the US led efforts to defeat ISIS in the middle east many times, pointing out that every time the western alliance steps up opposition to the establishment of a news Islamic Caliphate, Islamic State seem to get stronger. 'Conspiracy Theorists', our critics yell. So let's look at opinion from around the world that concurs with ours.

EU and US talk of war with Russia

The European People’s Party (EPP) the largest political group in the European Parliament, nominated Luxemourgeois nonentity and alcoholic (allegely) Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission. The party has the support of some of Europe’s most powerful leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Made up largely of centre Social Democrat parties and centre right Christian Democrats they command an automatic majority in any vote taken by the European Parliament and are unerringly federalist, globalist and anything but democratic. And they are unerringly supportive of America's efforts to start a war with Russia. “The time of talk and persuasion with Russia is over," MEP and Vice-President of the European People’s Party (EPP) Jacek Saryusz-Wolski told a meeting of the European Parliament on Tuesday, 21 April, “Now it’s time for a tough policy, a realistic policy, and concentration on defence and security, because the eastern flank of the EU feels vitally, existentially threatened.”
 Read More: EU and US talk of war with Russia

The Difference In Voting For Hillbillary or Trump Is Only One Promises War With Russia Essential reading for our american readers who must soon decide who they want as their next president. Important too for non Americans who cannot influence the outcome of the election but are entitled to know why their arses might be blown from here to eternity sometime in the next few years. Has Everybody Forgotten Obama's War The American military machine has just chalked up the grim statistic of its 2,000th fatality since America troops first surged into Afganistan to defeat "insurgents" whose families had lived in that country for many generations. The invasion was justifed in the aftermath of September 11 by the myth that Afghanistan was a ... Just How Close Are We To World War Three Have you read or heard in your news supplier of choice of the recent massive troop movements in Israel, the massive build up of British, French and American warships around the approaches to the Persian gulf or just how badly the situations in Egypt and Libya have deteriorated since ... Ignore The warmongering Left's Calls For Intervention In Syria Morons to the right of me, idiots to the left. What are us libertarians to do as we find ourselves in our customary position, clinging to a raft of common sense as we try to navigate a course through a sea of insanity. My stance on the trouble spots of the middle east has always been the same, firmly non interventionist and I am not shifting as the propaganda ... Obama Talks The Talk But Dare Not Visit Afghanistan In Daylight Todays mainstream news papers and broadcast bulletins are full of the Superhero Barack Obama's daredevil visit to Afghanistan. The man who liberated Libya single handed and took out Osama Bin Laden (or a Pakistani pensioner with a beard) in a daring solo raid behind enemy lines stormed into the Afghan capital, Kabul, made a speech that left hundreds of Taliban fighters dead and saw others fleeing for the mountains with their arses on fire then left again all in the space of ... Syrian Rebels Say West Is Already Aiding Thier Uprising. The mainstream media are all agog today over something The Daily Stirrer and other libertarian blogs have been telling you for weeks. There are already western military personnel on the ground in Syria, aiding the uprising against the government of President Assad.Western powers have been providing military support and equipment to the Syrian rebel fighter, one of ... Syrian Rebels Say West Is Already Aiding Thier Uprising. As the troubles stirred up in Syria by the meddling of the American idiot President Barack Hussein Obama and fuelled by the west's determination to intervene and effect regime change in another middle eastern nation escalate into civil war, the rebels show they are as unfit a government in waiting as those fanatical mobsters the western powers have catapulted into power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. We conclude that Obama wants World War 3. ... Israel Will Not Warn USA Before Launching A Strike Against Iran Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions has ytold Associated Press. The prediction, delivered in a series of private, top-level discussions raises tension in the middle east ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill. Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide to launch a strike is necessary, they would not ... The Business of War: Defense Sales Keep Economies Of Manufacturing Nations Afloat Tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced due to 'humanitarian' interventions by the developed nations (led by the USA, France and the UKm the FUKUS axis) in the domestic politics of third world nation. Usually the interventions support rebel groups who if they came to power would be far more oppressive and brutal regime than the one they replaced.

Saturday, 16 March 2019

The Ilogical Nature Of Hate Crimes

In some dialogue on a posting from Riley Brown (July 4th's Outrageous behavior does bother most gay people) the conversation has taken several turns beyond LGBT issues. It brought to mind some thoughts I recorded just a little over a year ago following the Orlando nightclub massacre. The article touches upon several of the topics entered in the aforementioned dialogue. Though some of the events referenced are not present day I believe many of these thoughts to be germane to the further discussion.
For any who may find interest in the main topic there are further thoughts shared upon this in the article Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Hate Crimes at


Certain terms and expressions work their way into our modern lexicon.  It is an inescapable fact. Though these may frequently be oxymoronic or grammatically incorrect they do still become a part of our discourse and are generally accepted to have certain meanings.  Here is a fairly innocuous example: irregardless.  One hears this in common use and though strictly speaking it is incorrect, within the context of it’s use the intended meaning is generally understood. I’ll demonstrate here.

“Irregardless of the hate crimes statute the victims were no less murdered.” See what I mean? It is not correct, but nonetheless having been said the word’s meaning within that context is understood. I am not making an apology for frequent misuse of the language, simply illustrating a point.  Dialects, strictly speaking, are no more correct, but are indisputably part of any language. Colloquialisms, though improper, are recognized in our dictionaries.  In a good dictionary they are in fact identified as such. It’s not an approval, just an acknowledgement.

Within the sentence citing this example there is another term which has entered the language and it is likewise incorrect but accepted. What are “hate crimes”? Aside from the use of the expression they are defined under statute. Without getting into the legalese I’ll give you a layman’s definition of the term. A hate crime is when an individual or group of individuals commit an act which is already prohibited by statute, but is deemed to be more illegal by virtue of it’s hateful motivation.  This might come in the form of vandalism, assault, assault with battery, even homicide, just to name a few.  

A law which prohibits certain acts will have attached some sanction, fine, improisonment, the death penalty,) which is intended to simultaneously to punish the act and to serve as a deterrent against the commission of such acts. So one must conclude that the purpose of any hate crime statute is to serve as both an added punishment for and deterrent against the perpetration of acts which are already deemed an offence against the law of the land.  

The hate crime appendix simply magnifies the degree to which these acts are a breach of the social contract. As it is now a part of law in many jurisdictions we may assume that there was, at least at one time, an intended purpose to their enactment. Examined practically this purpose does not seem evident.

Hate crimes legislation are another example of feel good legislation. It is symbol over substance. The impetus for this now seems manifest in the reaction we see in our media to the Orlando massacre.  With Paris and San Bernadino and Brussels there was an abundance of horror and dismay expressed over the airwaves. With Orlando we now see an orgy of outrage (whether sincere or manufactured) and moral indignation injected. 

"It was a hate crime," scream liberals or progressives, as if the victims would be any less dead if the perpetrator had said, "No, I wasn't motivated by racial or religious hatred, homophobia, or political extremism, I just felt like killing some people. It wasn't personal, just everyday insanity." 

There is an added layer to offence deemed 'hate crime' because of such acts having targeted a demographic group which has been bestowed some preferential status. There is, however, still the reluctance to call this what it is. Even with the heightened sensitivity attached to such monstrous act due to the nature of the targets the politically correct crowd still insists on pulling up short of decrying this as another attack upon our freedom and culture by extremist groups which, having been allowed to flourish in our tolerant society, now display total intolerance of those who hold different views. 

This is not to diminish the seriousness of murderous acts in which the victime is targeted because of race, religion, sexuality or culture in any way.  Making some special show of added abhorrence on account of the fact that these victims were Muslims, white, European Christians, or members of the LGBT community does more to diminish than anything I might have to say about it. Where the victims are law abiding citizens who were engaged in their commonly accepted rights to freedom of speech, expression, association and worship. They were murdered in cold blood. 

Established statutes clearly identify these acts as crimes and law courts have the power to levy sanction upon the perpetrator should they survive to face a trial, another provision of human rights conventions identified as due process of law. Conferring an added level of offense to the perpetrator does nothing to elevate the victims. It only elevates the act and the perpetrator.
If there is any need to identify this as something other than or in addition to the crime of homicide it would be this. This was yet another act of war upon us and our way of life, in all of it’s many forms, committed by an individual in the name of Islam.  If the same thing had been perpetrated upon these people by, oh I don’t know, let’s say a member of some Christian church who espouses the sinfulness of the gay lifestyle the reporters and pundits would be falling over each other to be the first to grab the microphone and condemn Christians for their intolerance. Anyone who would argue to the contrary is lying not only to their audience, but to themselves as well. Yet on the point of a condemnation of Islam? The silence is deafening.

For those members of the LGBT community who have been content to be pandered to by the politically correct crowd I would caution you to take careful note of this phenomenon. Not only because of but especially because of this tragedy. It tells you rather starkly where you stand with these people.  A religion and culture that not only condemns in word, but also acts in deeds to punish what they perceive as a sin, is being given a pass by those same people who claim to have your back. Not only do they go to great pains to defend this great “religion of peace” they even go so far as twisting themselves into a pretzel to deny the nature of it even when it is on full, murderous display. I for one am tired of being lectured to about how we must be tolerant of the existence of this scourge in our midst.

As a community within our broader population the LGBT’s have, if in some instances rather begrudgingly, attained a measure of acceptance.  Worth noting is that each of you as US citizens were already accorded the same constitutional protections as anyone else. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection under the law. You may wish to argue to the contrary, but as a point of law these are facts.  I would not attempt to deny that there have been instances where this may not have been the actual practice,  but again speaking in a strictly legal sense this is so. Just as there is no need to attach a special provision to a homicide for it’s motive there is likewise no need to enact a special, separate provision of protection under the law for your orientation. There just isn’t. You are protected, or should be, same as anyone else. There is only the need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. To make this argument does not automatically cast one into the category of homophobia.  What the politically correct crowd continually succeed in selling is the notion that only a wholehearted embrace of your lifestyle constitutes you’re being treated fairly and sorry to rain on that parade, but I’m here to tell you that just isn’t so. Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision that everyone must like you and approve of the way you live.  It only upholds your right to do so without the government infringing upon those rights. Your rights to engage in your life as you may see fit absent the interference of your fellow citizen is protected by the statutes of the state in which you live. No more, no less.

There are citizens of this country who engage in their right to the freedom of association and freedom of speech. They often may not agree with you or your choices, but their rights are no less sacred than yours. They don’t have to like you or approve of how you live. They are also free to say so. The only prohibition is that they may not, assuming that your activities are not in any way illegal, interfere with your free exercise of the inherent right to live as you please. The common interest that we all share is a right to be secure in our persons and homes.  There may be people who personally do not approve of what you do, but if they’ve done nothing to interfere than they are guilty of nothing other than offending your sensibilities so get over it. Living in a free representative republic as we do it is a proposition rather like ( and I do apologize for the facile reference) a line from the GI Joe Movie: We all go home or no one goes home.

You may not care for or agree with the opinions of these people and nor do you have to. What you should bear in mind, however, is that as fellow citizens of this country you all have a stake in the preservation of these liberties. Despite what you may have been told the only threat to those same liberties is coming from nowhere else but Islam.  In facing that threat we need to put aside the fact that 90% of it’s members may very well be people who simply wish to go about their lives undisturbed the same as us. That regrettably does not change the fact that this still leaves something of an order of 160-170 million members who mean us ill.  They clearly, in fact rather proudly, display their desire and willingness to attack and destroy the lives and rights of homosexuals, women, Christians, Jews and even other muslims who do not adhere to their law.

I penned an opinion piece following the Paris attack last November. I will reiterate a portion of it now as it seems that nothing has changed. I will continue to say it until this madness comes to an end, which it appears may be for the rest of my days on this earth. We are not at war with terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. The ideology employing the tactic is Islam. It makes no difference that it may only be a minority of its members doing so. Islam is where it lives. Islam and western civilization  are as two cars travelling in opposing directions upon a single lane. It could be a father or mother behind the wheel of our vehicle, it makes no difference.  The driver of that vehicle is faced with this dilemma: riding in said vehicle as passengers are the driver’s family. The driver of the opposing vehicle likewise has their family riding as passengers. Those passengers are not the ones driving the vehicle. They may very well be innocent, but as they seem to be powerless to thwart their driver’s determination to plow headlong into your vehicle, thus endangering you and your family, you have to make a choice. Are their innocent lives so sacred that you are prepared to sacrifice your own family to spare them a fate delivered not by you, but by their driver?  It is not a choice that one wishes to make, but it is no less the choice that is placed before us. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.  


London’s Met Police Won’t Investigate Minor Crime, Only ‘Hate Crime’
It’s official then, British heterosexuals are second class citizens, only members of minorities matter. A tad extreme you might well think, but how else are we to interpret the news that London’s Metropolitan Police force will in future investigate crimes if officers are required to watch CCTV for more than 20 minutes or there is …  
Police Forces Taking Days to Respond to 999 Calls … 
While Hate Crime Declared a Priority