Wednesday, August 30, 2017

The left turns on Antifa. Group denounced by Berkeley mayor and Nancy Pelosi


It seems as though the tide is turning against Antifa. Today, in just a few minutes of searching, I found several criticisms against Antifa coming from leftwing sources. The first is from the left wing Washington Post opinion page (from a supposedly conservative author). The piece absolutely condemned Antifa calling them the equivalent of neo-nazis. Though that opinion was common on the right it is amazing to me that it was now allowed to be posted on a left wing site like the Washington Post. 

The second piece of evidence was a statement from Nancy Pelosi that condemned the actions of Antifa. Pelosi directly condemned Antifa and said that there should be arrests. 

"The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted."

This is coming from one of the most powerful and influential Democrats in the country, who actually speaks for the Democratic party. To see her denounce Antifa is amazing to me. 

Third, the mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, condemned Antifa. Here's what he said:

“I think we should classify them as a gang,” said Arreguin. “They come dressed in uniforms. They have weapons, almost like a militia and I think we need to think about that in terms of our law enforcement approach.”

This is the mayor of Berkeley California. Ground zero for the Antifa movement and the sight of several skirmishes between Antifa and everyone else. Arreguin has been accused in the past of covertly or even overtly supporting Antifa and to see him to an 180 on them shows how much the tide is turning. 

So what has changed? I think there are a few possibilities. I think the first and most obvious one is that the claim that Antifa was only fighting Nazis and other far right groups was utterly destroyed by what happened in Berkeley. The protest Antifa shut down wasn't a far right rally, it was an anti-Marxism rally organized by a transgender woman who denounced racism. After it was canceled Antifa attacked and beat a bunch of innocent protesters. 

That exposed the lie that Antifa was just fighting Nazis, one of the bigger "pants on fire" lies the media has made in a long time. It might even have been partially true in Charlottesville and a few other places, but in the vast majority of cases, Antifa was attacking normal right wing people. Seeing Antifa beat up peaceful Trump supporters so soon after praising them for fighting with people in Charlottesville makes the left look really bad. 

I also think that people are learning what the political goals of Antifa really are. Most left wing protest movements want something from the government. Occupy Wallstreet wanted an end to bailouts and college loans forgiven. Black Lives Matter wants cops to stop enforcing laws. Feminism wants more power for women in the government. And so on and so forth.

What does Antifa want? The same thing any other explicitly Communist/Anarchist group wants. To overthrow the government, using violence if necessary, and then set up a communist utopia. They don't want to work within the system like other leftist protest movements. They want to destroy the system and replace it with something else. For people like Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Arreguin, who are the system, Antifa represents an existential threat. They know that Antifa likes to say that "Liberals die first" and understand that if Antifa takes over, their fate will be the same as the average Trump supporter and the same as so many people in countries with Communist governments throughout history. In a ditch somewhere with their hands tied behind their back and a bullet in the back of the head... And given their position on gun rights, they won't even have weapons to fight back with. 

Finally, I think that the left is wising up onto how unpopular Antifa is. Nobody on the right, other than the normal anti-Trump suspects, has anything nice to say about Antifa, and for good reason. We have been watching them attack our people for two years now and we know that they aren't really about fighting Nazis. They are about violent revolution and nothing else. Knowing this, a petition to the White House was made and signed over 300,000 times requesting Antifa be designated a terrorist group. 

I think that the left realizes that groups like Antifa anger and motivate the right. Seeing our people get attacked makes us want to vote people that support or fail to condemn the attackers out of office. I also think that they have figured out that moderates and even some liberals won't stand for political violence. By not condemning Antifa, the left endangered their chances of winning in 2018 and beyond. 

I also have to think that the Democrats realized that they were pushing things to far. If they continued on the path they were on, they had a real chance of civil war, a war that they would likely lose. If they stood with Antifa they would be liable for when they inevitably kill someone completely innocent. When, not if, that happens, it's possible that could be the spark that could start a larger conflict. Nobody sane wants that, so they decided now is the time to back away.

So will this condemnation of Antifa continue? I think so. There are just so many reasons why Antifa is bad for mainstream liberals. They served a purpose but now they are nothing more than a liability. I am hoping that this means that Democratic mayors and governors will crack down on Antifa whenever they show up and will actually protect conservative people... Public condemnation isn't enough. Action needs to be taken as well. 

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Why haven't I been covering Hurricane Harvey and the Houston disaster?

As you are almost certainly aware Texas has been hit by Hurricane Harvey which has dropped biblical amounts of rain on Houston and other parts of the state. But I haven't been blogging about it. Why?

1. I just don't know too much about weather. It's not an area of expertise for me at all. I did take a weather and climate course in college but I remember almost nothing from it. It was my last semester and I needed one more science credit so I didn't take the class very seriously, even though I got an A in it. Despite that, I just don't think I have much insight that people couldn't get elsewhere.

2. I was pretty busy when the storm hit and I was lucky to actually get any posts out at all. And I felt that those posts were issues that were going to not be covered because of the storm.

3. So far the storm seems to be handled pretty well. There was criticism of the Mayor of Houston not ordering an evacuation, but other than that, the government response has been fairly good. This isn't a Katrina situation even though the damage is comparable, the deaths won't be. We can all be thankful for that.

4. Most of the side issues in the storm haven't been interesting to me. I require media sources to blog most of the time and the media has been dropping the ball this storm. Though some people might care about Joel Osteen being a loser or the fact that Melania Trump wore high heals before changing into sneakers, but I do not. Covering how horrible the media coverage might have been interesting but I am starting to think that well is dry. Everyone knows that CNN is the devil, no need to make the same point yet again.

5. I did cover the storm outside of this blog. I posted quite a few tweets about the storm over the past few days. As always, you can read and follow my twitter account. 

Unless something changes I probably won't be covering Hurricane Harvey anymore than this post. I doubt that I have anything more to say on the issue and don't have any special insight that hasn't been covered by other people. Still, I think it's important to point out why I seemed to be ignoring the biggest story in the country right now.

Hundreds of ISIS fighters are making their last stand in a small town called al-Ayadiya

Iraqi forces send mortar rounds at al-Ayadiya. Reuters.

Hundreds of ISIS fighters are making their last stand in a small town called al-Ayadiya. Reuters. The militants had fled from their stronghold in Tal-Afar, which fell this week. Iraqi forces are waiting until al-Ayadiya falls before they declare victory but they fighting has been viscous. Iraqi commanders are saying the fighting for al-Ayadiya has been more brutal than the battle for Mosul and that breaching the gates of the city is like breaching the "gates of hell". Though Iraqi forces greatly outnumber the militants in al-Ayadiya, Federal police are being deployed to reinforce them. Iraqi troops are also waiting for attrition from artillery and airstrikes to reduce the number of ISIS fighters left in the town. 

My Comment:
I was kind of wondering why Tal-Afar fell so quickly. I had expected that battle to last for weeks, maybe even months, but the city was liberated in about a week. Tal-Afar had tough, battle hardened and utterly brutal fighters so I was extremely surprised when the city fell so quickly. The battle barely lasted a week.

Now we know why. The ISIS fighters that were in Tal-Afar fled to al-Ayadiya. I am not sure why. You would think that the bigger city of Tal-Afar would be better suited for a last stand than the comparatively smaller town of al-Ayadiya, but I guess not. 

Still, it's not like fleeing to al-Ayadiya really helped ISIS. They are all doomed anyways. There isn't going to be any chance of relief or rescue. They are still cut off and they have more than 50,000 troops arrayed against them. They are all going to die or get captured and the only question now is how long it will take. 

I don't know how long this battle will last. It seems like al-Ayadiya is a buzzsaw that the Iraqis don't want to throw their troops into. They are wise to use artillery and airstrikes to weaken ISIS forces and they can afford to wait to attack. Laying siege to the town will weaken ISIS while reducing Iraqi casualties. Pretty soon ISIS will run out of food, water and ammunition. Once that happens al-Ayadiya will no longer be a buzzsaw and they can easily take the city. 

The question is how long Iraq wants to wait. They aren't really threatened by further ISIS offensives but the more time they spend trying to take al-Ayadiya is time they aren't liberating ISIS pockets in central Iraq or the border region. Given how horrible the past decade or so has been for Iraq, I am sure they want to end this war as soon as possible. 

As for ISIS, you can really tell that they are collapsing. Losing Tal-Afar isn't the only major defeat they have suffered lately. They were also kicked out of the Lebanon/Syria border region as well. That incident was controversial to say the least because both countries allowed a convoy of ISIS fighters, 300 strong, to leave and rejoin the main Syrian ISIS armies. 

I think that is a huge mistake and the battles in Iraq show why. Current Iraqi strategy, backed by President Trump and the Pentagon,says that ISIS should not be allowed to ever retreat. Instead they are either to surrender or be utterly destroyed. Those 300 fighters will rejoin the ISIS military and will continue to kill. Everything would have been better if Syria and Lebanon had simply killed these fighters. 

Still, the point was that this was the first time that ISIS actually made a deal with someone. They essentially surrendered under good terms, but surrendered nonetheless. In the past, ISIS would not have done this in Syria, but now they have little choice. I think that these really are the last days for ISIS in Syria and Iraq.. 

Monday, August 28, 2017

A quick metaphor about antifa and the far right.

I've made the point a few times but it seems hard for both the mainstream right and left to denounce the more radical elements of their side of the political spectrum. I've tried to explain this in the past but I just thought of a metaphor for it based on the Syria conflict.

Let's say you are a Christian in Syria and ISIS is attacking your city. The Syrian government doesn't have troops to spare but they do send a bunch of guys from Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah is not explicitly against Christianity and probably won't murder you if they take over. But they will probably attack your Sunni Muslim friends and there is a chance they will decide that Christians don't deserve to live after all.

Still, the choice is obvious, ISIS will either kill you dead, force you to convert, or, at best, force you into slavery. Hezbollah may be a horrible terrorist group but they are fighting people that think you are a monster and deserve to die.

The situation is similar in America today, at least in term of perception. The actual threat isn't anywhere near as bad as being a Christian in Syria, but I think the fears of the far right and far left are essentially the same.

For those of us on the right, seeing Antifa attack peaceful protesters and seeing Black Lives Matter burn down entire cities scares the hell out of us. When a group of far right assholes throws down with these people it's hard not to root for them, even if their beliefs are repugnant to us. We have a great fear of far left political systems and we have a long tradition of fearing communism/anarchism and want to avoid having them win at almost any cost.

For those of us on the left, seeing a bunch of KKK/Neo Nazi/White Supremacists get into fights and run someone down with a car is horrifying. When Antifa punches Richard Spencer in the face, it's hard to condemn them, even if we realize that if Antifa were to take over it would be bad for everyone. We still have a great fear of Fascism and racism and do not want these people to take over.

The problem is that by not condemning people on your side that are using violence you are just confirming the other sides worst fears. People on the right think that the left is already full of communists and anarchists. People on the left think that the right is full of Nazis. I think both sides have a few bad actors but the fact of the matter is that both Antifa and the far right are small unlikable groups and that the threat from both is greatly exaggerated by the media.

Trump reverses Obama era restriction on giving military equipment to police agencies.

An armored vehicle during the Michael Brown riots. New York Times. 

President Donald Trump has reversed an Obama-era restriction on giving military equipment to police agencies. New York Times. The ruling will allow police departments to receive "lifesaving gear" such as armored vehicles, grenade launchers and bayonets. Obama stopped programs that gave this equipment after the Ferguson riots where armed and armored police faced off against rioters. Trump will sign an executive order fulling restoring the program, called 1033. The Obama order also effected riot equipment like helmets and shields. Trump's action has opposed by some members of the left and right. 

My Comment:
I've gone back and forth on the idea of the militarization of the police. Back when the Bundy Ranch standoff happened it was fairly disturbing to see the government deploy military equipment against a bunch of peaceful protesters. Sure, those protesters were as well armed as the cops, but the idea that the federal government would deploy armored vehicles to resolve a dispute over cattle grazing was insane to me. 

There was also the reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing. Though that incident was serious, during the manhunt, the entire city was shut down and the police were driving armored vehicles through the streets. It was crazy and made Boston look more like a war zone than an American city. 

I think, for a very brief time, there was bipartisan support for police reform and police demilitarization. There were different reasons for it on the left on right but it seemed like something both sides could agree on, albeit for different reasons. There was goodwill on both sides. But not anymore.

What happened? So much. I put the primary blame on groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Ironically enough, the protests against the "police state" has completely justified it's existence. Americans saw their cities burning, such as Ferguson and Baltimore, and several terrorist attacks specifically targeting the police, including the attacks in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Not to mention several high profile and extremely dangerous terrorist attacks, such as San Bernadino and the Pulse Nightclub shooting. 

This violence has completely sapped the right's appetite for police reform. Groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa scare the hell out of the right and they are generally pro-police in the first place. They want to protect the lives of officers and are willing to use military equipment to do so. Many of us know cops and want them to be safe while under threat from terrorists of all stripes. They also want cops that can fight back when terrorists strike and rioters burn cities. 

Some libertarian leaners like Rand Paul will oppose this. Their argument is that providing this equipment is dangerous because if you give military equipment to cops than the cops will start acting like soldiers. I think this argument has some merit, but when groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa aren't acting like protesters but terrorists instead, maybe soldiers are the right solution... 

I think there is an additional problem with police militarization as well, that the right might not consider that supports critics like Rand Paul. Republican opposition to police militarization has disappeared after Obama's term expired. Why? Because under Donald Trump there is basically no chance that he will deploy militarily armed police against the right. 

But what happens when Trump isn't president anymore? I have always said that Bush 43's main crime wasn't creating the NSA spying programs, but letting such an effective weapon fall into the hands of someone like Barack Obama. I trust Donald Trump with militarized police, but I do not trust a Democrat with that power at all. Sure, Obama was opposed to police militarization, but who is to say that the next Democrat will be? 

Either way though, this is an issue that I don't have a good answer for. I see the argument for giving police these kinds of weapons and armor. Civil unrest and terrorism is a huge problem and police need to be protected. On the other hand, there is an obvious chance of abuse, especially against those of us on the right politically. It's a tough question and one I need to think more about... 

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Iraq campaign to liberate Tal-Afar from ISIS is proceeding very quickly.

Iraqi forces run in Tal-Afar. 

Iraqi forces have liberated the city center in Tal-Afar from ISIS. AFP. The advance has come surprisingly quick for one of ISIS's last holdouts in Iraq. The city itself has been mostly liberated with only a few districts still under ISIS control. The assault started last week the battle is projected to be over early next month. Tal-Afar is a strategically important city between Mosul and the Syrian border and was long home to some of ISIS's most dedicated and vicious fighters. Once Tal-Afar is liberated, Iraqi forces are expected to start the next offensive in Hawija, an ISIS controlled city in central Iraq. 

My Comment:
I guess the Iraqi assessment from before the battle was correct. They said that ISIS was demoralized and that the battle would be quick. So far they have been completely right. I tended to agree with the American assessment that said that the battle would be a long and brutal one, but I guess I was wrong. Unless the last few districts end up putting up way more resistance, this battle is all but won. 

Part of it has to be how improved the Iraqi military is. This isn't the broken army that fled from a small ISIS force in Mosul. That army has been destroyed and completely rebuilt. Now the Iraqi military has been well trained and battle tested. They are well armed, well motivated and are getting plenty of support from foreign governments. Their special forces are excellent and have been a critical factor in helping to win the various battles against ISIS. It is amazing how quickly the Iraqi government has been able to turn in around. They have gone from a joke to one of the Middle East's better armies. 

Of course ISIS really is demoralized and defeated. They have lost so many of their leaders that they hardly even have leadership anymore. They can no longer reinforce their troops from foreign fighters, and can not replace the troops they lose. I think they know that their caliphate is not going to survive and they know there is no escape for them and very little chance of things changing. 

ISIS is also no longer given the option to retreat in Iraq. Trump's generals, along with the Iraqis, have implemented a surround and destroy strategy that prevents ISIS from retreating and regrouping. This has been devastating for ISIS and though it has also come with an increase in civilian casualties it is ending the war much quicker. 

ISIS has very few options left in Iraq. Other than Tal-Afar and a few outposts near the Syrian border, their only city they have left is Hawija. Hawija isn't a big city and like the battles of Mosul and Tal-Afar, the city is already isolated and surrounded. ISIS controls some of the countryside near the city, but they have no path to the main ISIS forces in Syria. They are completely cut off. 

It seems like there is a path for the Iraqis to end the war. With only a few cities left, Iraq only needs to push out ISIS in Tal-Afar, Hawija and a few border towns and cities near Syria. If the pace continues like it has during the battle of Tal-Afar, than there is a real chance by 2018 the war will essentially be over in Iraq. 

But that doesn't mean that Iraq will have peace. As long as their neighbor, Syria, is still unstable, there is always a chance that the war there will spill back over into Iraq. The advance against ISIS in Syria isn't going as quickly as it has gone in Iraq and there is always a chance that squabbling between all the non-ISIS factions in Syria could give the terror group a chance to regroup. 

We also have to realize that even if ISIS is removed from every city in currently controls, it won't just go away. Already there is evidence that ISIS is returning to their roots as a terrorist organization as opposed to a caliphate/state. The remnants of ISIS will continue to strike against Iraq and given the chance they will rise from the ashes again. Iraq will, above all else, have to remain vigilant and prevent this from occurring... 


Friday, August 25, 2017

Two more knife attacks fail in Belgium and UK.

A London police officer patrols near Buckingham Palace. Reuters. 

Two more knife attacks have failed in Europe. 

The first attack was centered on Buckingham Palace in London. Reuters. The attacker used a large knife to slightly injure two police officers before being captured. The attacker was a man in his mid 20's and police didn't speculate on a motive. The suspect was also injured in the attack and was taken to the hospital.  

The second attack occurred in Brussels, Belgium. Reuters. The attacker was a 30 year old man of Somali origin. He tried to stab two soldiers, slightly injuring them, before being shot and killed. Belgium believes this to be a terrorist attack, which was backed up by the fact that the suspect yelled "Allah Akbar". Belgium officials also believe that this was an isolated attack. 

My Comment:
This seems to happen after every major terrorist attack. Some stupid radical sees a successful terrorist attack, like the one in Barcelona, and thinks they can do something similar. Sometimes they succeed in their lone wolf attacks and sometimes they fail. This time they failed and failed hard. 

Whenever one of these attacks happens where the suspect is taken down almost immediately, I have to point out how terrible of a plan it is to attack cops and soldiers. Cops and soldiers are usually alert, work in teams and, with the obvious exception of the UK, almost always armed. They are about as hard of target as you can get. You don't go after them unless you have some firepower of their own, unless you want to die accomplishing anything. 

Generally speaking any plot targeting cops and soldiers with just a knife are doomed to fail. But there seems to be no shortage of fools to take up the tactic. It makes very little sense because attacking civilians will usually end with a higher body count or at least more people injured. Just recently in Finland, an attacker armed with just a knife was able to kill two people and stab 8 more before getting shot by the cops, and that's just the most current example. It makes way more sense to attack a bunch of civilians who, in Europe, have no way to defend themselves. I am glad though that so many of these terrorists are too stupid to use tactics that could actually work. 

It seems unclear what the motivation was for the Buckingham palace attack. It's possible that it wasn't an Islamic terrorist attack. After all, there was a mass stabbing in Russia that wasn't an Islamic terror attack recently, and there are other cases as well. There is always a chance that this was just some lone nut not affiliated with anything other than his own delusional ideas. 

I think that is very unlikely though. I think the choice of target was chosen for maximum impact. Stabbing cops makes me think it's probably an ISIS inspired attacker since they have called for Muslims to do so for quite some time now. Having it occur outside of Buckingham Palace also screams ISIS inspired terror attack. Without a description of the attacker or any release of a motive, we don't know for sure, but my money would be on an ISIS inspired lone wolf attacker.

We can be much more sure about the Brussels attack. The attacker was of Somali origin and screamed Allah Akbar. There is basically no chance of that being anything other than an Islamic terror attack. I do agree that this is likely a lone wolf attack though. A more organized effort would have involved better weapons and a better target. 

It seems that Europe's response to these attacks is getting better. These cops and soldiers were on the ball and were able to quickly subdue the attackers. The Belgium soldiers shot their attacker dead while the British police were able to somehow subdue their attacker. Had they failed it is possible that each attack could have been much worse. Thankfully they did not. 

Thursday, August 24, 2017

16 diplomats injured in Cuba after enduring a "sonic" attack.


16 American and Canadian diplomats have been injured in what US officials are calling a "sonic" attack in Havana, Cuba. CBS News. The victims have suffered traumatic brain injures and nervous system damage, along with a host of more minor symptoms, including hearing loss, nausea, headaches and balance issues . Some of the effected individuals had to return to the United States for treatment. America has blamed Cuba for the attacks while the Cubans denied responsibility. The attacks occurred at the diplomats homes. 

My Comment:
What a strange story out of Cuba. I have never heard of a sonic attack before. I do know that we have used sonic weapons for crowd and riot control but as a direct weapon I haven't really seen that before. Here's a video of such a device in action:


There are some very obvious differences between the LRAD pictured above and whatever the attackers used. The most obvious is that whatever they attacker used, it was above or below the threshold of human hearing. If the attacker used this device, everyone would have known about it right away. 

My guess is that the weapon was a ultra high or ultra low frequency weapon. Such weapons would be impossible to hear, even though the power would be extremely high. I think that a low frequency weapon is a bit more likely, but I am not an expert on sonic weapons. I just know that the symptoms of exposure to low frequency sound is similar to what these people suffered. 

I don't buy Cuba's protestations of innocence. Even if they weren't responsible for the attacks themselves, there is no way they don't know who did it. Remember Cuba is a communist country with a poor history of human rights. They spy on everyone and I can't imagine that the homes of these diplomats weren't monitored 24/7/365. There would be people sitting on these houses and those agents would notice someone deploying a sonic weapon. This was allowed to happen by those spies. 

I also think that there is almost no chance of a non-government actor doing this. For one thing, I don't think any non-government terrorist groups are active in Cuba. As a communist regime, Cuba has been very effective in beating down any and all resistance groups. There just aren't any other suspects in Cuba to have pulled this attack off. 

I also think that you would need state level resources to even create a sonic weapon. The technology is new and hasn't really been used much. A terrorist group wouldn't have the resources to create one even if the plans were widely available. 

There is also the question of motive. I can't see any terror group in Cuba having any kind of motive to attack US and Canadian diplomats. The anti-Castro people would not want to attack our diplomats and I can't think of any other vigilante or political groups that would want to do so. 

Cuba, of course, does have a motive. After the thaw in relations under President Obama, things are returning to status quo. We still haven't closed the embassy under Donald Trump, but it was clear that our Cuba policy was going to be very different that it was under Obama. The relationship is tense, to say the least. 

I have no proof of this, but my guess is that the diplomats attacked were the ones that Cuba suspected were spies. Often spies work out of embassies so they have diplomatic protections in case their cover gets blown. A sonic attack would allow the Cubans to expel people they suspect of being spies even if they lack proof. The risk is that they would get caught. 

For completion's sake I have to entertain the theory that this was an accident or natural phenomenon. That seems extremely unlikely. There aren't any real sources of ultra high or low frequency sounds out there that wouldn't be extremely obvious like a factory or something. Plus, if there was something unintentional causing this it would have effected a lot more people than just US and Canadian diplomats. Any civilians in the area would have been effected as well. This was almost certainly an attack. 

So what happens next? Probably some serious consequences. Already a couple of diplomats have been expelled from the United States in retaliation for this attack. If such attacks continue I expect that we might just close the embassies again and go back to not having diplomatic relations with them...

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

In Syria, hotline between Russia and United States appears to be working.


By Rob Shenk from Great Falls, VA, USA (F-22 Raptor) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The hotline between Russia and United States used to avert potential conflicts in Syria is working. Reuters. Despite high tensions between Russia and the United States the hotline has reduced tensions. That wasn't always the case. Four months ago America bombed a Syrian base in response to a chemical attack and in June America shot down two drones and a Syrian fighter jet. Since then the hotline has been very active, averaging 10 calls a day. Russia and the United States have worked hard to ensure that the deconfliction line keeps Russian and American airplanes away from each other. Both sides are working hard at expanding that line further to the east as the battle moves away from places like Raqqa and to ISIS's last outpost, the besieged city of Dier ez Zor. 

My Comment:
This is undoubtedly good news and news that isn't being reported. A few months ago it looked like there was a chance that we could go to war with Russia in Syria. It was never a good chance, mind you, but tensions were very high. We shot down a Syrian plane and a couple of drones as well. It wasn't looking good. 

Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and we now have a system in place that keeps Russian and American jets away from each other. This is a critical system that needed to be put into place and I am glad that we are working with the Russians on this. Cooperating with Russia in Syria was a major reason I voted for Trump and I am glad that it came to pass, even if that cooperation is limited.

Though America and Russia have different goals, our interests align in Syria. We both want ISIS to be defeated. Though Russia probably wants ISIS defeated to protect their Syrian government client, we can work with them in fighting ISIS. We need to make sure that ISIS is going to be defeated so they don't launch terror attacks. In that we have common cause with Russia. Letting ISIS run rampant doesn't help anyone. 

This hotline has some obvious benefits. First it prevents the possibility of a mid-air collision. With airspace as crowded and complex as Syria, avoiding a collision is actually a major problem. By letting each other know where our forces are, we avoid that problem. Though a accident probably wouldn't cause a conflict, it would cost lives and it is important that we protect our airmen and it's important to Russia to protect their pilots as well. 

Second, we are avoiding the possibility of a accidental airstrike. I don't want to call it "friendly fire" because we aren't really on the same side, but the concept is the same. With Russian jets operating in the same area as American ground forces and vise versa, without cooperating with each other we have a real chance of hitting each others forces on the ground by mistake. This is what triggered the shoot down of the Syrian fighter jet last June, and it is something we need to avoid. 

Third, having lines of communications open allows for the possibility of better relations between us and Russia. Working together with Russia in Syria will give us some common ground that we can use to possibly get over our differences. The gulf is still huge but cooperation with Russia on Syria proves that we can occasionally put aside our differences. 

I wonder what will happen though when ISIS is just left to a few enclaves in Eastern Syria. Right now the battle is in Raqqa where the Americans are backing rebels and the Kurds. The Russians are mostly supporting the Syrians in attacking Dier ez Zor. Right now the armies are very separated but once Raqqa is liberated we are going to have to make some hard choices. My guess is that we will hold back and let the Russians and Syrians destroy what remains of the ISIS caliphate. 

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Real headline: ESPN pulls Asian American announcer because his name is Robert Lee

In a headline that seems like it should be out of The Onion, ESPN has pulled an Asian American announcer because his name is Robert Lee. I don't even know what to say anymore. We have reached a level of stupidity that shouldn't even possible. Robert Lee shares the name of Confederate General and Mexican-American war hero Robert E Lee. That is enough for him to lose a gig.

Robert E Lee is a controversial person of course and there is a discussion to be had about his role in America. I personally think his statues should stay. As a student of history I have found Lee to be an honorable man, but people are free to disagree. He did fight for the Confederacy, which was undoubtedly a bad thing, but there is more to him than that.

But no matter what you think of Robert E. Lee, you have to admit that Robert Lee has nothing to do with him whatsoever. Asian American Robert Lee is not a confederate general, he's a sports announcer. He's not a white supremacist and he isn't even white! He's just a random guy that happens to have someone else's name.

My great fear is that this will continue. What if some jerk does something the left doesn't like and he happens to share my name? Will I be forced to change my name just because a bunch of people are mad at someone else?

Anyways, I don't have much else to say about this, I'm just shocked that this was a thing that happened. People are losing their minds. Regardless of everything that is happening in this country we should at least realize that just because someone has the same name as someone else doesn't mean they should be attacked for it...

Monday, August 21, 2017

Ohio Judge ambushed by gunman, returns fire with concealed carry.

Ohio Judge Joseph Bruzzese. Washington Post/AP

A judge was ambushed by a gunman in Ohio and, along with a probation officer, shot and killed him. Washington Post. The Judge, Joseph Bruzzese, fired five rounds at the attacker and may have hit him after the attacker charged him and opened fire. The attack took place in Stuebenville, the location of the infamous rape case. Shockingly, the attacker, Nathaniel Richmond, is the father of one of the suspects convicted in that case. There doesn't appear to be any link between the suspects son and this case and though the suspect had criminal cases before Judge Bruzzese, it is unclear what the motive was. Bruzzese was injured in the attack but is expected to survive. 

My Comment:
Another example of concealed carry saving a life. Though it is unclear if Bruzzese was the one to take the suspect down as there was a probation officer returning fire as well, it's clear that having armed people around saved this judge. He may have saved his own life, or the probation officer may have, but either way he lived because a good guy with a gun was there. 

It's unclear to me if the probation officer was carrying in the course of his duty or was doing so as a private citizen. According to Ohio state law, probation officers can carry if they pass a safety course (Section C). From what I can gather it's optional but this incident makes a good case that it should be required. 

I am not surprised that a judge would be carrying a gun. They have a job that basically requires them to make enemies. Judges make life changing decisions every day and it's not surprising that a lot of people would be upset with them, just for doing their jobs. Actual attacks on judges are rare due to the respect most of society has for them, but there are a few crazies out there that would attempt an attack like this. 

The suspect in this case has a pretty poor pedigree. His son, Ma'lik, was involved and convicted in the Stuebenville rape case. That case was pretty horrible and was one of the few media cases that actually lived up to the hype in terms of how bad it was. He was convicted because he digitally penetrated a passed out drunk girl.

Still, it doesn't seem like his son's conviction for rape had anything to do with this case. So what was the motive? Unclear. It does appear that he had a few cases under Bruzzese and that might be enough. I don't want to speculate too much but it could have been anything from a ruling he disagreed with to just the fact that he was the judge that was involved in his cases. It's hard to tell without a confession and with the suspect dead we might never know. 

An attack on judges is extremely rare. This is due in part to their popularity. Most people seem to respect judges and very few people have a visceral hatred of them that the police, legislators and the media get. An attack on a judge isn't likely to find any defenders.

The local officials involved in this case compared it to the Alexandria shooting targeting members of congress. I am not sure that comparison is apt. Though both incidents targeted elected officials, the motive in the cases are different. The Alexandria shooting was a politically motivated terrorist attack that was designed as a decapitation attack on Republican leadership. Though we don't know the motivation for the Stuebenville attacker, it seems very unlikely to have been done for political reasons. 

No matter what though it seems clear that concealed carry helped in this case. Had the judge and the probation officer been unarmed there is no question that the judge would have died. And since we don't know what the attackers further intentions were, more people could have died. There is also the possibility that the suspect in this case could have fled if he hadn't been shot. Instead he was the only one to die and we even managed to avoid the expense of a trial. That's a good outcome and the only downside is that the judge was injured in the attack. 

Sunday, August 20, 2017

A few quick thoughts on Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump. 

As you probably know President Donald Trump is expected to give a major speech on Afghanistan tomorrow night. Afghanistan is, quite frankly, a mess. Afghanistan's government has been taking unsustainable casualties against both the Taliban and ISIS. They have lost wide swaths of territory to both organizations and have suffered several major terrorist attacks. In short, they are essentially losing the war. 

Given how bad things are in Afghanistan you would have thought we would have heard more about the issue in the election season and the first few months of Trump's presidency. But we have not. I hardly remember Afghanistan coming up in the election at all, except for Bernie Sanders completely flubbing an answer on the war. The media briefly paid attention when Trump dropped the MOAB on ISIS, but after that they went right back to ignoring it. The issue just hasn't come up, even when there were major terror attacks there.

Trump is expected to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan. Some people might be a bit disappointed that we are rejoining a war that Barack Obama said we were done with, but I would say that we never really left. And, again, we can't really feel betrayed by Trump's strategy here if nobody ever seemed to ask him what his policy actually was. 

I don't think there are any other options, at least none that would have been acceptable. There were other solutions floated but none of them were good. The first was a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Though that would avoid further US troops deaths and avoid the sunk cost fallacy, it would be a disaster. Losing Afghanistan to the Taliban, or worse, ISIS, would completely invalidate the sacrifice of all the troops that died there. 

Furthermore abandoning Afghanistan would essentially cause the government to fall back to the Taliban. They are a horrible terrorist group by themselves, but the real fear is that they would allow other terror groups to operate freely and with support. ISIS is probably out, given that they fight the Taliban as well, but there is a real chance that Afghanistan could resume it's role as a terrorist haven and training center. Al-Qaeda isn't dead and given a safe haven they could come back. 

And there is a real chance of ISIS taking over as well. Right now they control quite a bit of territory in Afghanistan and have a decent chance of taking more of the country if the government falls. And it's very possible that an influx of foreign fighters fleeing from Iraq and Syria could use the country as a backup base to regroup and rearm. That would not only undermine our goals in Afghanistan, it would allow our worst enemy to rise from the ashes. 

The other option besides deploying troops was to send in a mercenary army. How serious this proposal was I am not sure, but it seemed like the option was on the table. Using a bunch of military contractors to fight the Taliban and ISIS seems like it would cause huge problems. People tend to hate mercenaries, even when they do a professional and expert job, and there is no guarantee that they would do so. It would be a PR nightmare even if they managed to win. 

I also don't know if there is a contractor out there that can handle a problem as complex and serious as Afghanistan. This isn't the middle ages, we don't have huge mercenary armies just standing around waiting to fight. And even if we did, I don't think that it would be any cheaper that to actually use our own troops. 

That means that we really don't have any good options in Afghanistan. We can't just let them fall and using mercenaries is likely to cause more problems then to solve. That leaves sending in troops. Though the numbers don't seem to be all that many, it might just be enough to keep the Afghani government from falling. It's about the only choice that Trump has so it shouldn't be surprising that he is doing so... 

New video shows Chinese and Indian troops brawling in border area.


Not much to say about this one that I haven't said in previous posts about the China/India border conflict. I just wanted to post this video because it shows how serious this fighting is getting. The previous video I showed from the last conflict was just a pushing and shoving match where it didn't look like anyone could have gotten hurt.

This time the violence seems to have escalated. Though the video isn't clear and is from fairly far away you can clearly see people get knocked over. It also looks like people are throwing rocks at each other as well. Both actions could potentially kill someone. And if that happens, we could have a war...

It's fairly disturbing to see two nuclear armed countries have skirmishes like this. Though I continue to think that war is unlikely, having two groups of soldiers brawl out like this has an extreme chance of causing an unintended death. In short, there's a reason why you don't have your soldiers act like antifa thugs. Let's hope that calmer heads prevail in China and India.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Terror attack in Finland kills two and wounds eight.

A memorial for the victims in Turku. Reuters. 

A terrorist attack in Finland ended with the suspect shot, two dead and eight wounded in Turku. Reuters. The attacker was armed with a knife and stabbed multiple people before police arrived and shot him in the leg. His identity hasn't been released and neither has his motive. Police believe that he was not part of a larger terror cell and acted alone. Finland is a generally peaceful country, but worries about terrorism have increased, due in part to the ramming attack in neighboring Stockholm, Sweden last April. The attack comes a day after the massive terror attacks and raids in Spain. 

My Comment:
Yet another terrorist attack. The Reuters article was very cautious to not say this was Islamic terrorism, but that's just them being careful. There is video where it sounds like someone is yelling "Allah Akbar" and the Finish police have admitted that the attacker had a "foreign background". Though that isn't conclusive proof of this being a terror attack caused by a Muslim extremist, it makes any other option less likely. And honestly, if it wasn't an Islamic attack, what else would it be? Just some random psycho? Seems unlikely.  

The attacker was fairly disgusting in his choice of targets. Other sources say that he stabbed a woman who had a baby with her. I guess there is something to be said for him not stabbing the baby as well, but still, how horrible is that? These attackers have no shame. 

Finland is about the last place in the world where I would expect a terror attack. It's just a country that doesn't make the news very often. I was vaguely aware that they were taking refugees in as well, but my impression was that it wasn't a large number. I also thought that a lot of those refugees left Finland because it is fairly cold and miserable there in winter. 

Still, Finland now joins the ranks of European countries that have had a terrorist attack. this is a minor one but it counts nonetheless. It seems as though any of the countries that participated in the refugee program had to have these kinds of terror problems...

This seems very likely to be a case of a lone wolf attacker. The plot was fairly simple and doesn't look like it had anything in the way of a complex terror plot. There was only one attacker and he wasn't armed with anything other than a knife. That doesn't seem to be a major plot to me. Just a lone guy inspired by terrorists. I guess there is a small chance he was in contact with other terrorists, but my gut says this was a lone wolf attack. 

Given that this was likely a one wolf attack, I don't know if we can call this an ISIS attack or not. My guess is that the attacker was inspired by ISIS propaganda and the various actions that ISIS has taken. I doubt that he had any contact with any larger terrorist group, but if he pulled off this attack in the name of ISIS, I am comfortable in calling it an ISIS attack. 

I would not be surprised if the triggering event for this attack was the massive terrorist attack in Spain. Though that attack only killed 14 people, it was the largest ISIS attack in recent memory. When a major terrorist attack goes down, it's not surprising when the lone wolves come out of the woodwork and launch their own attacks. That doesn't mean that if the attacks in Spain never happened this one wouldn't have, but I do think that this follow up attack was chosen for maximum impact. 

It is fairly disappointing to see an uptick in terrorism in Europe after a long lull. After the London Bridge attack, there wasn't much in the way of successful terror attacks in Europe for most of June and all of July. That good luck was apparently too good to last as the past few days in August have been a disaster. And given that these attacks tend to come in streaks, I would not be surprised if we had more terror attacks before the month is over... 


Thursday, August 17, 2017

Multiple terrorist incidents in Spain.

Graphic showing the path of the Barcelona attacker. BBC. 

Multiple terror incidents have struck Spain in separate incidents in Barcelona and Cambrils. BBC. The main attack involved a truck ramming into a tourist area in Las Ramblas, Spain. 13 people died in the attack and dozens were wounded. The attacker in that incident is still on the run. 4 more people were killed by police in Cambrils who had also attempted a van ramming attack. In another incident a house exploded killing one person in Barcelona. In the town of Alcanar, police raided another home that was involved in producing explosives. ISIS has taken credit for the series of terrorist attacks. 

My Comment:
Yet another incident in the worrying trend in vehicle ramming attacks. This one was a fairly effective one. It seems like the type of vehicle chosen as a weapon for these attacks has a major impact on how many people die. In the Nice attack there were dozens of deaths due to the attacker using an actual truck. In this case the attacker used a heavy van and killed 13 people. In other attacks using cars either nobody was killed or less than ten died. 

The reasons for the higher body counts should be obvious. A larger vehicle has more mass and once it has built up speed it is a lot harder to stop then a car. They are also a lot more able to resist damage and continue moving after hitting people and barriers. I would also expect that they are harder to bring down with gunfire. The only limiting factor is the relative difficulty of acquiring a heavy truck or van compared to a car. 

As bad as this situation was, it seems like greater tragedy was averted. The second incident in Cambrils doesn't have a whole lot known about it, but what is clear that a second attack was averted before it got too bad. It's clear that the Spanish security forces did a good job in averting the 2nd attack. 

The second attack seems, from what little we have seen, to have been a much more complicated and potentially serious incident. The attackers were rumored to have suicide belts. It's possible that those belts were fake, but if they weren't, then dozens of people could have died when they went off. The fact that 5th attacker was captured alive makes me think that they probably were fake though. 

The other incidents look like Spain is cracking down on this particular ISIS cell. It sounds like they found a couple of bomb factories and shut them down. And we know for a fact that this is one of the most significant ISIS cells since the Paris attacks. They were savvy enough to pull off a major ramming attack, a 2nd major terror attack the same day and had what looks like multiple bomb factories. That's not a lone wolf attacker. That's a major terrorist cell with scary capabilities. It's a minor miracle that this attack wasn't worse than it was. 

It's not a good sign that some of these people are still on the run. The attacker at Barcelona is still on the loose and should be considered extremely dangerous. And it is possible that the terrorists have more members still at larger. We have to consider, like the Charlie Hebdo and Paris attacks, this situation isn't over. 

I do have to say that I am worried about the proliferation of vehicle attacks. Before Nice, ramming attacks were pretty much unheard of. Now they seem to be happening all the time. Worst of all, it's not just Islamic extremists that are pulling these attacks off. Now there are copy cat attackers that have nothing to do with ISIS or other terror groups. People have realized that if they want to kill a lot of people all they need to do is find a group of pedestrians and run them over. 

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Iraqi forces are bombing ISIS stronghold of Tal-Afar in preparation for a ground assault.

A view of Tal-Afar. Reuters. 

Iraqi forces are bombing the ISIS stronghold of Tal-Afar in preparation for a ground assault to liberate the city. Reuters. After losing the city of Mosul, ISIS has few outposts left in Iraq, with Tal-Afar being one of the most notable and is the next in line to be liberated. The Iraqis are delaying the assault to give the air campaign more time to destroy ISIS targets in the city. Only 1500 to 2000 fighters remain in the city. It is unclear how difficult the battle will be, with the United States saying that Tal-Afar is home to some of ISIS's most dedicated fighters while the Iraqis say the battle will be quick because ISIS is demoralized. 

My Comment:
Tal-Afar is the last major city controlled by ISIS in Iraq. Defeating them there will not be the end of the war. ISIS still has control much of the Syria/Iraq border region and they also control a large area in the Hiwijah area. But ISIS's most important holding remains Tal-Afar. 

Not mentioned in the Reuters report is the fact that Tal-Afar, much like Mosul before it, the city is surrounded and cut off from ISIS reinforcement. The Kurds control all the pathways out of the region to the north while the Iraqis still have control of the area to the south, west and east. There is no escape for the fighters still trapped in the city and no hope of reinforcement or rescue. 

This is another example of Donald Trump and his staffs successful strategy to not let ISIS retreat and regroup. In the past, under the previous president, deals were often made that allowed ISIS to flee cities that were about to be liberated in order to reduce civilian casualties. Though we did have fewer civilian casualties using that strategy it allowed ISIS to bounce back after defeats and then even take new territory and greatly prolonged the war and probably resulted in quite a few more civilian casualties. 

That isn't going to happen now. Much like the fighters in Mosul, the remaining ISIS fighters won't be given the option of retreat. They now have two choices. Surrender or die. 

In the past, most of those fighters chose to die. Some of the local ISIS supporters do indeed surrender, but foreign fighters do not. They understand there is nothing for them to go home to and their only hope is that somehow they manage to defeat the forces besieging them. 

It will be worse in Tal-Afar. The city has a well deserved reputation of being a rough place. The fighters produced in the city are among ISIS's best and most dedicated fighters. They are all doomed of course but they will make the Iraqi forces pay for every inch. 

That's why I think the US assessment of the upcoming battle is correct. It will be a tough fight. The Iraqis are right that ISIS is demoralized, but not so much that they won't fight. The fighters there are motivated true believers that have no love for the Iraqi government. Air strikes and battlefield setbacks won't change that. 

The main difference is that now the Iraqi army is in much better shape. It's a far cry from the broken force that collapsed in Mosul in 2014. Now they are tough, well trained, well equipped and dedicated army. They haven't lost a battle in recent memory and were able to take Mosul after 9 bloody and destructive months. They have been tested by fire and survived. Though Tal-Afar will be a tough fight, it won't be anywhere near as bad as Mosul and the outcome really isn't in doubt. The Iraqis will win. 

The war against ISIS has fallen off the radar from the American news media. They are more focused on trying to take down the president than giving attention to one of his most obvious and dramatic victories. A more charitable interpretation is that our victories against ISIS make for worse headlines then when they were taking cities and executing civilians. But I'm going to do my part to make sure that this very important story gets told... 


Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Alt-Right vs Alt-Left

As you probably know, Donald Trump, angry at the press for trying to derail a press conference, denounced both the so called Alt-Right with the so called Alt-Left. I think it's important to discuss both groups and what they believe and what they stand for.

Let's start with the Alt-Right. The first time I heard the term was a few years back when reading about Neoreaction. The Neo-reactionaries were/are a groups of right wing bloggers that basically argued that progressiveness had ruined the world and that we should probably return to either monarchy or dictatorship to turn the tide. Neoreaction was always a fringe group and never really made much of an impact other than the creation of the term Alt-Right.

In the lead up to the 2016 election, the term changed. All of a sudden it wasn't just a loose group of mostly ignored bloggers. Instead it basically came to mean anyone on the right that wasn't a neoconservative.

It included groups and people like right libertarians like Ron Paul, conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Human biodiversity folks, populist candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, media outlets like Breitbart, 4chan, paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and conservative rabble-rousers and e-celebs like Milo Yianopoullos and Lauren Southern. Gamergate was probably in the mix as well. None of these groups really got along and most of them had very divergent beliefs. I imagine a debate between Steve Bannon, Curtis Yarvin and Ron Paul would not go well, even if they do have some things in common.

Unfortunately, another group latched onto the name to the point that it is too toxic to associate with. That group consists of the dying remnants of the white power movement, like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, and newer groups including whatever the hell Richard Spencer is calling his followers. Once these groups started calling themselves the Alt-Right, everyone else ended up distancing themselves from the term. The media, ever happy to tar the right with accusations of racism, immediately helped these groups claim the term. Now, the Alt-Right exclusively refers to the racist elements in America, even though those groups aren't really conservative and nobody on the right likes them.

Today, Donald Trump suggested that there is a equivalent on the left. The so called Alt-Left presumably consists of groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, left anarchism, communists and other various far left actors. These groups have been responsible for an incredible amount of violence and have been responsible for a handful of terrorist attacks, including the attack on police officers in Dallas and, arguably, the attack on the congressional baseball game in Alexandria.

The term is rather new, though I have seen a few right wing news outlets use it before. I don't know if it is well defined either, but that is the same problem with the Alt-Right. I think the main obvious difference is that none of the violent leftist groups really call themselves "Alt-Left" while Spencer and a few other in the racist right do call themselves "Alt-Right".

Other than that I think there is some obvious crossover in their belief systems and even their members. Many on the Alt-right stereotype Jews and evil and diabolical masterminds out to destroy white people along with their useful idiot allies among non-white people, who they consider sub-human.

The Alt-Left appears to mirror those beliefs. In place of the Jews, upper class white males are the diabolical masterminds and the lower and middle class white males are the useful sub-human allies. Instead of attacking white people, in the Alt-Left world, it's people of color, women, the LGBT community and whoever else that could ever conceivably be oppressed that are going to be systemically destroyed by the evil outgroup. In short, the ideologies are essentially the same. Both groups demonize entire groups of people because of their skin color/ethnic backgrounds and at the same time lionize groups of people they feel are "oppressed". The main difference is the colors they wear and which color of people they hate.

Of course, it's important to note, that I find both groups beliefs to be disgusting. I consider both white nationalism and intersectional leftism to be horribly racist and evil ideologies. The idea that wide groups of people should be painted with a huge brush as being completely evil and irredeemable is deeply disgusting. And I think both groups need to be opposed by everyone who isn't them.

But I don't think that were the comparison ends. I think in addition to their beliefs there is a lot of overlap in what kind of people who are joining these groups. It seems to mostly be young males in their 20's who have enough money that they can easily travel and don't need to worry about work. They have a strong desire to look "badass" and enjoy fighting. Obviously the leftists are more diverse and have some women as well, but I think the main thing you can say that the Alt-Left and Alt-Right have in common is that they both like to fight.

And I think that is probably the most dangerous part about both groups. While I think the ideologies of both groups is disgusting, it's their willingness to commit violence that disturbs me the most. I think that both groups are fringe with little popular support, (though, like leftist groups in the 70's, the Alt-Left has institutional support). But they have a strong interest in fighting, and not just each other. This leads to clashes like Charlottesville where, predictably, someone got killed and a lot of people got hurt.

So what can be done about the Alt-Left and Alt-Right? I think the obvious thing is to stop letting them fight each other and throw all of them in jail when they cause violence. Obviously, we have to respect their right to free speech, so if they remain peaceful, we have to tolerate them, but when they cross the line into violence we need to come down on them with the hammer of the gods.

Another problem is that both the more mainstream right and left have little reason to cooperate with each other to stamp down on these groups. Both the Alt-Right and the Alt-Left match the stereotype in peoples minds about what the other side believes are the true beliefs of their opponents. And the nation is so polarized that any unity, even on a critical issue like this, is all but impossible. I think as long as that is true, events like Charlottesville will continue as nobody wants to get rid of the bogymen from the other side...

Monday, August 14, 2017

North Korea backs down, delays descion on Guam attack.

Kim Jong Un. Reuters

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has received a report on a potential strike on Guam and said he will watch the United States "a while longer". Reuters. North Korea had said that it was planing to launch four missiles towards Guam aiming at the waters around the island. Kim said that the United States should make the "right choice" to avoid conflict. Tensions have been very high between the US and North Korea due to statements by President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. However, the United States and South Korea have downplayed the chances of war and have continued diplomatic efforts. 

My Comment:
I see this as North Korea backing down once again. I think they understood that they were risking war with the United States by sending missiles to Guam. Though targeting the seas around Guam would probably not be enough to trigger a war, there is a possibility that the missiles could miss and hit Guam which probably would cause a military response. 

Given the pressure they are under it is somewhat shocking that they would back down. North Korea invested quite a bit into making sure that they weren't the ones who blinked first but they just did. That will cause Kim Jong Un and the North Korean government to lose "face" and is a huge embarrassment to them. 

So why did they back down? I don't think they wanted to risk war. They know that they would be annihilated by any war with America. Despite popular perceptions, North Korea's military strength is fairly unimpressive. Any war would be a desperate race for a breakthrough before their military was worn down and destroyed by the superior firepower and technology of South Korea and their American allies. Even with weapons of mass destruction, I doubt that North Korea would ever be able to win a war against America. 

I also think that Donald Trump's "madman" strategy is working. Unlike previous presidents, North Korea wasn't sure if Trump was going to back down. His "fire and fury" comments were widely condemned in the press but I think they may have had an effect in North Korea. They might really think he's crazy enough to go to war with them and don't want to push his buttons. 

What also helps is that Rex Tillerson and the State Department has been utilizing back-channel links to North Korea to negotiate. He has informed them that we aren't interested in anything other than getting rid of North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. This is the carrot compared to Donald Trump's big stick. 

I said recently that we have weathered worse storms than the current crisis with North Korea. In a past post I wrote up many of the incidents that didn't result in war. I never really thought that the media panic over this crisis was responsible because both North Korea and the US/South Korea have backed down over more serious incidents than this. I am guessing that this is going to end the same way as those other incidents. Status quo ante with perhaps some diplomatic movement on North Korea's weapons program. 

Avoiding war with North Korea would be a huge foreign policy victory for Donald Trump and America. If we can convince them to give up their weapons programs, we not only protect ourselves and would also avoid the death of tens of thousands of people. Doing so will be difficult but it seems like it might be possible. Trump's new plan of fiery rhetoric combined with back-channel diplomacy is at least something new and may finally break the cycle of outrage and appeasement... 

Ukraine accused of helping North Korea with their missile program.

Hwasong-14 missile, tested last July. New York Times/Reuters. 

An Ukrainian factory is being accused of helping North Korea with their ballistic missile program. New York Times. A new report says that North Korea's stunning progress with their missile program is not due to their own efforts. Experts who have examined the missile launch photos claim that it is obvious that the missile engine design is based on Russian weapons. Only a few sites are capable of creating those engines and the most likely site is Yuzhmash factory in Ukraine. Since the color revolution, the site has fallen on hard times as Russia has canceled contracts with them. The factory and the Ukrainian government denied responsibility. 

The IISS report can be found here.

My Comment:
If this report is true then it is a damning for Ukraine. Though it is unclear if their government knew anything about this or not, it's still a huge problem for them. A company that is based there has helped North Korea with its missile program which is now advanced enough to strike the United States. 

The report also answers a critical question. North Korea's missile program wasn't going anywhere fast. The New York Times report said this was due in part to US sabotage, but I think it had as much to do with them being incompetent. 

Trying to build a missile program from the ground up is difficult to say the least. It's much harder to do so when you don't have access to older designs. North Korea didn't and they had to beg, borrow and steal their weapons designs. Still, that wasn't enough until apparently the Ukrainians helped them out. 

I don't think the circumstances in Ukraine justify what happened here. Yes Ukraine had a revolution. Yes they have a civil war that still lingers after 3 years of fighting. Yes, they lost Crimea. Yes, Russia has been punishing them severely for their treatment of Russian speaking minorities. None of that justifies selling technology to North Korea that can be used to strike the United States. 

I am not sure that The Ukrainian government had no knowledge of this. Ukraine is notoriously corrupt, and Petro Porshanko has proven to be just as corrupt as his predecessor. If the Yuzhmash factory had anything to do with North Korea it's inconceivable to me that people in Ukraine's government didn't know about, if for no other reason that they would want some of the dirty money.

I think there need to be consequences for Yuzhmash and the Ukrainian government. We should put major pressure on Ukraine to arrest and prosecute the people that were responsible for this. If they don't we should sanction them and pull our support from them. We have been providing them training and weapons for some time now and that should end immediately. 

Another major question is if Yuzhmash is supplying other countries with ballistic missile technology. North Korea isn't the only country interested in ballistic missiles. Iran is another huge suspect as they have an active ballistic missile program. And there are other countries that could be buying technology as well. We can not let this technology proliferate. 

As for North Korea, the genie is out of the bottle at this point. They have the technology right now to hit America with missiles. And it also seems as they they have miniaturized nuclear warheads. That's completely unacceptable and if the new sanctions don't work we might have to take military action. If that happens than we need to make sure that Ukraine takes some of the blame... 

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Predicting the defense that James Alex Fields will use if the Charlottesville case goes to trial.

As you are certainly aware James Fields has been arrested after his car rammed into leftist protesters and been charged with 2nd degree murder after one of the protesters died. The current media narrative is that James Fields is a white nationalist and that this was a terrorist attack. The first thing is undoubtedly true. But the 2nd? I'm starting to have doubts.

Before I go any further I don't want to make it sound like I am defending Fields beliefs or actions prior to this incident. I find white nationalism repulsive and I do not support him or the leaders of the Charlottesville rally. But even if his beliefs are repulsive, he still is entitled to a fair trial and has the same rights as anyone else. And I think people should know what his defense will probably be at trial, if the case gets to that point. There is a good chance that this isn't what happened, and I am not arguing that it was, but I do think that this is probably the defense Fields will use. Keep in mind though that I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. There is a possibility that I am getting the law wrong here.

In my original post on the subject, I said that the fact that Fields was charged with 2nd degree murder was very significant. Why? Because the ways Virginia law works. Virginia has three levels of murder with 2nd degree being the least serious. 2nd degree murder is a catch-all offense that covers all murders that aren't enhanced to the level of 1st degree or capital murder with special circumstances and doesn't count as manslaughter.

Though there are other circumstances that could elevate it to 1st or capital, the factor that is obviously missing in this case is premeditation. A planned murder or terrorist attack would obviously be charged as 1st degree murder. Since he was charged with 2nd degree murder we can categorically say that this isn't a premeditated attack.

That, of course, doesn't mean that this wasn't a deliberate attack, just not a planned one. But I am starting to think there may have arguably been mitigating circumstances that will be used in defense of Fields. How is that even possible? Well close analysis of the various videos taken during the incident may show that James Fields was under attack by the protesters before the ramming occurred. Let's look at the video:


A close examination of the video shows that the car approached at a high rate of speed but then slowed down. I made a screen cap of the car and you can clearly see that the Charger's brake lights were on:



Later in the video it appears that someone hit the Charger with what appears to be a flagpole. This occurs right before Fields rams into the crowd. You can also see that the brake lights are off at this point.


In a second video from a different angle shows that after the crash ended, the protesters were swarming the car and starting to attack it. (GRAPHIC CONTENT)



It appears that a counter narrative is emerging. Let's set up a scenario: Fields is trying to leave the rally after a days worth of fighting between antifa and the various right wing groups that made up the rally. He comes a close a crowded road filled with antifa and without any support from either his white nationalist freinds or the police. One of those antifa attackers hit his car with flagpole. 

Fields, no doubt remembering how violent the antifa were being during the rally and perhaps thinking of Reginald Denny fears for his life. He panics and hits the gas, hitting a few of the protesters, killing Heather Heyer. His vehicle comes under further attack, so he slams it into reverse, hitting more protesters who were currently attacking his car. 

You know what this sounds like? Reasonable doubt. Virginia, like all US States has laws on self defense. If this scenario is correct then I think that Fields lawyers will argue in court that he had a reasonable fear for his life. They will argue that he thought he was under attack by the rioters and had a good chance of getting killed. 

What the Jury will decide, assuming he doesn't plead out, is if that belief was justified or not. They also have to decide if the threat against Fields was imminent or not and if he was at risk for serious injury or death. Finally, they have to decide if the level of response was excessive or not. 

What do I think of this possible scenario? It's going to be a real question on if the action was justified even if he was under attack. I think he probably was at risk for great bodily harm or death had those Antifa people had gotten to him. It looked like they were attacking him even before he charged into the crowd. 

The real question is though is if he is justified in running over people that weren't attacking him to get away from the people that were. And for this I am just not sure. Honestly his case would have been stronger if he had only ran over the guy hitting his car, but he didn't do that. This seems more like running over a whole group of people when only one was attacking.  

We also have to consider that Virginia has a "stand your ground" law. It states that you do not have a duty to retreat. That seems to be a huge consideration because there was obviously an escape route that Fields could have used. Instead of charging deeper into the crowd, he could have stopped and hit reverse. He might have still hurt people, but it would have made claims of self defense more palatable to the public and the woman that died, Heather Heyer would likely still be alive. As it stands right now, the fact that he charged forward instead of back shouldn't be an issue, even if it seems like a glaring issue. If he does invoke "stand your ground" expect a media frenzy similar to the George Zimmerman trial, which, ironically enough, never used the defense. 


The question for the lawyers and jurors is going to be whether or not it is justified to endanger dozens of lives to protect yourself from one person that you think might be killing you. That's a legal question that I don't know the answer for and nobody can really predict what a jury is going to do. 

But I don't know what other kind of defense Fields would have. There isn't any question that he was the one responsible for the attack. Insanity isn't a likely defense either, and he isn't likely to get a jury sympathetic enough for nullification. If he has any defense at all, it will have to be self defense. 

There are some other things that could obviously torpedo this defense before anything else happens. If Fields confesses that he wasn't acting in self defense then he is done. If he did something like threaten the antifa rioters it goes from self defense to mutual combat. If he said things online or in person about how antifa and other protesters deserve violence then he is probably screwed. Another question is why he decided to go down to that street. I don't know the layout of Charlottesville at all, so it's very possible that he had no reason to be there if he was trying to leave, though it is also possible he was just lost. 

Still, there is the possibility that this line of defense will work for Fields. All he needs is one juror that thinks that his life was at risk and he's got a hung jury. It's also possible that he could be convicted of a lesser charge, like manslaughter. I will leave the question of whether or not that it should work up to others. 

I will say that the media is, once again, being irresponsible for not mentioning the possibility of this defense. I understand that doing so is politically incorrect and even dangerous, but if the defense is raised and is successful than the reaction will be fury and violence, which could be mitigated if people are informed of the possibility as soon as possible. I think that preventing violence should be a primary goal and we need to explain to people that there is a real possibility of acquittal...

I also want to say that even if Fields uses this argument, it's clear that his judgement was horrible. Even if he was in fear for his life, the correct action wasn't to charge further into the crowd. He will make the argument that it was legally justified under Virginia law, and as the law is written he might have a point. That doesn't mean that he should have done what he did when all he needed to do to escape was put the car in reverse. And if he actually did attack these people intentionally and will raise this defense anyways than he's an utter bastard for refusing to take responsibility for his actions...