In an unprecedented escalation which could reshape alliances in the Middle East, American officials have confirmed that Israel was behind an airstrike on an Iraqi ammunition depot operated by a pro-Iran militia last month, according to TheAssociated Press:
Two American officials said Israel carried out an attack on an Iranian weapons depot in July that killed two Iranian military commanders. The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
The admission comes after two more mystery explosions rocked paramilitary bases in and around Baghdad within the last two weeks, resulting in multiple paramilitary members killed, at least one civilian death, and dozens of injured, and which prompted Iraq’s Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi to close the country’s airspace to all “unauthorized flights”.
Aftermath of the recent ‘mystery explosion’ at a military base southwest of Baghdad, Iraq. Image source: AP
Baghdad has threatened “strong response” if it is confirmed Israeli drones or jets are behind the attacks, and further the military is ready to shoot down any unauthorized aircraft over Iraqi soil.
Amid the spate of ‘mystery explosions’ recently rocking the Iraqi capital, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday of this week actually seemed to positively boast that the Israeli Air Force was behind airstrikes on pro-Iran militia bases in Iraq, saying that Israel will “continue to act militarily” to curtail Iranian expansion in the region, according to The Times of Israel.
“Iran has no immunity, anywhere,” he told reporters while on a state visit to Kiev early this week. He was responding to a specific question about the mystery attacks on Iraq. “We will act — and currently are acting — against them, wherever it is necessary,” he declared.
“We act in many arenas against a country that desires to annihilate us. Of course I gave the security forces a free hand and the instruction to do what is needed to thwart these plans of Iran,” Netanyahu said.
Both Israeli and Arabic media took it as a tacit admission that Israel is now conducing air raids over Iraqi soil — which if confirmed would mark a huge escalation following repeat airstrikes on Syria of the past couple years.
Footage showing the August 12th arms depot blast, also widely blamed on Israel:
The specific attack US officials have now admitted was carried out by Israel occurred on July 19. The AP described it as follows:
The July 19 attack struck a militia base in Amirli, in Iraq’s northern Salaheddin province, causing a huge explosion and fire. A senior official with the Shiite militias at the time told The Associated Press that the base hit housed advisers from Iran and Lebanon — a reference to the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group. He said the attack targeted the headquarters of the advisers and a weapons depot.
Iranian media reported a funeral for a “shrine defender” named Abolfazl Sarabian on the next day, which typically denotes someone fighting in Iraq and Syria.
The last base to be hit, on August 20, was Balad airbase, which actually hosts US forces and contractors, according to Reuters. The installation also hosts US-supplied Iraqi F-16 fighter jets.
Thus far Israel has neither explicitly confirmed nor denied having any role in either attacks – Netanyahu’s strong hinting during his comments notwithstanding; however, with Iraqi military commanders and government officials already denouncing Israel over the repeat strikes and violation of its sovereignty, this is sure to hasten growing demands from Iraqi parliament for a hasty US troop exit from the country.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PdBO07 Tyler Durden
Donald Trump as a non-politician who immediately made the jump to politics winning the highest office in the land is abnormal and this abnormality in his background certainly makes him a more unpredictable and refreshing leader, even if some of his musings are a big odd or out of left field. This time it’s Trump’s desire to up and buy Greenland out right, that is making American and global headlines. But why is he trying to do this, would a virtually unpopulated 51 state do anything for America and is this all even possible to do?
Of course since Trump thinks grabbing some Greenland is a good idea the Mainstream Media must immediately denounce it even if they are not quite sure how to do so.
It seems that the primary form of poo-pooing the idea is to loudly imply that since it is an unusual idea, it must therefore somehow be impossible. Essentially their logic is that since large territories are not bought and sold on a regular basis then it should be somehow absurd for Trump to think he could do this. Apparently many of these American “journalists” forget that The Donald is President of a country that bought Alaska and a huge part of its territory from the French. America looks the way it does today on a map partially due to large land purchases from foreign powers. Everyone who passes 2nd grade social studies in the US should know this.
There is another argument that since Greenland is already populated by people that makes it impossible to buy from Denmark. This talking point makes no sense as the Louisiana Purchase’s territory (although sparsely populated) was nowhere near being devoid of people (same with Alaska) both native and of European origin. So, is there US historical precedent for buying large pieces of land from foreign governments – yes. Therefore, theoretically it should be possible to do again. This is nothing new, just something not done on a massive scale for many generations.
So it is possible to buy Greenland, but the question is why even bother? It is cold, isolated, relatively far from the rest of America and has seemingly little to offer economically.
Well first off if you look at a globe, parts of Greenland are as close to Moscow as a few NATO member states like Portugal and Spain. In face Greenland kind of sits nicely between the Land of Opportunity and the Snow Bad Guys.
We shouldn’t forget that Trump has been critical of NATO from the beginning of his campaign and continues to be so. He also chose to get the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The President seems open to a bit of defense restructuring and Greenland could be a good “launching pad” for a different US military strategy in a post-NATO and renegotiated INF Treaty world.
Europe is starting to get uppity and taking complete and total control of Greenland is a lot easier than taking territory on the continent. Even if Denmark protests, (which they are) it is very hard to say “no” to the United States in the long term and very bad for your health. If the US is willing to openly threaten NATO member Turkey with sanctions for daring (as a sovereign nation) to buy tech from the Russians, then one could imagine that the Danes could be easily made to suffer for not giving up their very large future US Air Force Base for some nice beads and a few empty promises.
Greenland also offers the fact that it is sitting on lots of lovely natural resources that would allow America to dig for what it wants instead of possibly buying it from Moscow. The purchase of the island is a win-win for America’s future from both a Hard Power and Economic Soft Power perspective. Trump is a businessman first and he can obviously see the logic in grabbing the “means of production” rather than just buying from a foreign power that sometimes challenges the US.
Many would argue that the 50,000 inhabitants of Greenland would either protest or just not accept being bought. This is true, there would be mass protests and the populace wouldn’t approve of this, but so what? What can they do about it? They can march around with signs all the want, it will change nothing. The Lakota Indians have been begging and protesting for independence (as have Hawaiians) for some time, and how’s that going for them?
The Mainstream Media won’t cover the inevitable protests thus the “poor Greenlanders” narrative will never come into the global consciousness and their pleas will be heard only by God. The Russians will probably send two reporters to shoot a very official documentary movie about them, that the world will ignore, because some White celebrity is wearing dreadlocks and that is harmful to somebody somehow.
Furthermore, Greenland is a poor location, the US could simply bribe the entire populace with $10,000 each for a total sum of $500,000,000, which in terms of Washington’s budget is peanuts. Hearts and minds have to be won but often they can just be bought. Materialism is one of the greatest means of repression we have ever known, it simply works so a little bribery and the promise of nice roads should work to coerce the population, it certainly did in Eastern Europe in the 90’s,
If Trump can make or force the deal, taking Greenland would be a massive win for the future of America.
It would give America access to resources freeing it from having to buy them from Russia.
It would block any further (alleged) developments on the territory by the Chinese.
It would give America an expendable piece of territory just as close to Moscow as some NATO member states, which could be critical when/if NATO dissolves.
The island has a tiny population. Assimilating millions takes time, but providing for and assimilating 50,000 humans is no problem whatsoever for the USA.
Bribing the locas into submission would be cheap, and Greenland is far away enough to stay off the Mainstream Media radar. What happens in Greenland stays in Greenland, so no uprising could occur no matter what the US buys or does there.
What can Denmark do to resist other than stalling till a more mainstream US President comes to power?
“Make America Great Again” is Trump’s slogan on his red hat and when nations are at their “greatest” they are more often than not – expanding. Those 50 perfectly organized stars on the flag were getting boring anyways.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30zHbb2 Tyler Durden
The Iranian tanker which had been detained for the past five weeks in Gilbraltar has suddenly switched its ship data to show it is headed to a Turkish port, instead of arriving at waters off southern Greece, as previously planned.
Reuters has cited real-time ship tracking website MarineTraffic to show the change in the Adrian Darya’s (formerly called Grace 1) destination. This after the US State Department threatened that should Greece provide any aid or facilities to the vessel carrying 2.1 million barrels of Iranian oil, it would be tantamount to “material support to terrorism”.
The Unites States says the tanker is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and thus deems any state’s interaction with it support of a formally designated terrorist group. There’s still an active US seizure warrant for the vessel.
The Adrian Darya (formerly called Grace 1) supertanker’s destination is now southern Turkey. File image.
While the vessel never planned to actually enter a Greek port, listed as the port of Kalamata — especially given the overladen supertanker sits too low in the water — it’s been widely reported that a ship-to-ship transfer of the oil was to occur off its southern coast.
A US Statement Department statement issued Monday had warned Greece’s help could be considered “providing material support to a US-designated foreign terrorist organization”— this according to a State Department official who spoke to Reuters.
Iranian oil tanker, Adrian Darya 1, sets sail from Gibraltar but has reportedly changed its course from Greece to Turkey pic.twitter.com/JJMcbVolFK
Tracking data now shows it plans to dock at the southern Turkish port of Mersin on Aug. 31 — an interesting choice given Washington-Ankara relations are at a low point over Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-air defense systems.
Iran for its part has warned the US and UK not to interfere in the Iranian-flagged vessel’s movement, even recently voicing the possibility of sending a military escort to ensure the ship’s safe passage.
Should Turkey allow entry of the Iranian vessel to its port, this will be yet more fuel to the fire of heated tensions, which has also late seen Washington cancel Turkey’s F-35 program in a huge blow to the NATO ally’s defense industry.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2zuBXSd Tyler Durden
Once upon a time, the G-7 summits were showcases for boilerplate platitudes about international cooperation that garnered a baseline level of media cooperation.
That was before the Trump era.
Last year, President Trump sowed discord by feuding with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, before repeatedly refusing to sign off on the group’s traditional communique. This year, as wildfires raging in the Amazon have inspired an international virtue signaling protest movement demanding that the leaders of some of the world’s largest economies do something to contain fires that take place in the Amazon every year, and with the European economy teetering on the edge of recession – oh, and let’s not forget Trump’s escalating feud with President Xi – the annual summit once again promises to be a weekend-long drama.
The Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs on G-7 allies sowed discord at last year’s summit. And already, finance ministers from the non-US countries have issued a criticism of US trade policy in advance of this year’s summit, provoked by Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on European goods ranging from wine and cheese to cars.
In a precursor of what’s likely to come, French police are already moving aggressively to break up a camp of protesters who had gathered in Biarritz to demand the G-7 act to help contain the wildfires in the Amazon.
🔴 Les forces de l’ordre chargent de toutes parts les manifestants présents au campement #ContreG7. Pluie de gaz lacrymogènes et de tirs de LBD ce vendredi soir. Plusieurs blessés et interpellations recensés dans la soirée.
📹 via @LabasOfficiel !#G7#G7Biarritz#G7Francepic.twitter.com/4XiWOlq37m
— Gilets Jaunes Paris #Acte41 (@GiletsJaunesGo) August 23, 2019
Washington’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal will likely factor into the summit, as will Boris Johnson’s ongoing efforts to persuade his European colleagues into revising the UK’s withdrawal agreement or face a no deal Brexit nightmare. And in an echo of the 1980s and the days of the Plaza Accord, the US dollar is once again strong enough – in fact the trade weighted dollar has never been stronger – to destabilize emerging economies that borrow in dollars (let’s not forget BoE Governor Mark Carney’s revelatory suggestion from Friday’s Jackson Hole conference that the world adopt a non-fiat, Libra-like reserve currency).
Already this week, French President Emmanuel Macron has insisted that France won’t allow any revisions to the climate accord, while insisting in a tweet that the developed world act to put out the fires in the Amazon, despite Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s insistence that foreign powers not interfere with his country’s domestic affairs.
Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire. It is an international crisis. Members of the G7 Summit, let’s discuss this emergency first order in two days! #ActForTheAmazonpic.twitter.com/dogOJj9big
As FT reports, France and other EU nations have threatened not to ratify a major trade deal unless Brazil does more to fight fires in the Amazon, with Macron accusing Bolsonaro of lying about his environmental policies.
In a preview from WSJ, the group of wealthy nations is now divided on “nearly every issue they are set to discuss” during this weekend’s summit.
“We’re facing a historic challenge to the world order,” Macron, who is hosting the summit in the French seaside resort city of Biarritz, told a group of reporters.
Luckily, we already know how this week’s diplomatic fiasco will end: Macron said he would ditch the final communique, since with all the acrimony that has built up within the group arriving at an actual deal would be impossible. And one analyst who spoke with Politico said the gathering would likely become a ‘nightmare’ for Trump and everyone else involved.
“G-7 summits have turned into a bit of a nightmare for all concerned and chances are this one could be especially terrible,” said Richard Gowan, an expert on multilateralism at the International Crisis Group.
During this year’s summit, Trump will participate in the five main sessions, focusing on a range of topics from gender inequality to climate change, in addition to several bilateral sessions. One of those will be a sit-down with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, marking the first face-to-face meeting of the two men since Johnson became PM. Trump will also meet with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe.
Offering the possibility of some relief for markets, Trump might succeed in finalizing, or at least making some progress, on bilateral trade deals with Japan and the UK.
But a string of frustrated tweets threatening more tariffs against Europe is, at this point, equally as likely.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HmhL96 Tyler Durden
France’s president warned Boris Johnson that Britain risks becoming a vassal state of Washington after Brexit. It was a low blow, and hardly news to anyone in London, the capital of the 51st state.
Of course, what Emmanuel Macron didn’t admit during his meeting with the PM in Paris is that the situation is little better for him. Neither Britain nor France really has the luxury of avoiding vassalisation of some description; all they can do is pick a master. Or meister.
It really does take some cheek for Macron to warn about the threats of becoming a vassal state to a leader who is in the process of begging for permission to reclaim control of his own country.
He had the Gallic gall to claim that relying on a future US trade deal to soften the impact of Brexit, means Britain will merely end up being a client state of the US saying:
“Can the cost for Britain of a hard Brexit – because Britain will be the main victim – be offset by the United States of America? No… Even if it were a strategic choice it would be at the cost of a historic vassalisation of Britain… I don’t think this is what Boris Johnson wants. I don’t think it is what the British people want.”
Well, we know what the British people want, getting it is something very different altogether.
This idea of foreign domination seems to play on the mind of Macron. Just last year he was at pains to point out that France is an “ally” of the US and not a “vassal state.” Methinks Monsieur Macron doth protest too much.
As he’s so adamant about France’s independence from the whims of Washington, it would be interesting to hear his views on the role Berlin plays in the running of France.
Being a member of the EU is in itself an exercise in handing over sovereign power to the other members of the union – more specifically, handing it to Germany. Macron’s France is proud and delusional enough to believe it’s big enough to act as a counter-balance to the Germans, but it’s not.
When the ‘merde’ or the ‘sheisse’ hits the fan, Germany makes sure it’s derriere is covered. Just ask the Greeks what happened when they needed their European brothers and sisters to show some solidarity during the financial crisis. They were forced to accept harsh austerity which turned out to be quite advantageous to Berlin.
Britain’s Brexiteers see membership in the EU as ceding sovereignty to bureaucrats in Brussels, and foreign courts, and ultimately to Berlin via Paris.
It’s a harsh reality that in its decline, there really isn’t very much London can do to avoid being a client state of someone, and at least there is some pragmatism in the UK’s targeting of a trade deal with Washington.
Brits have long had to live with the tag of being America’s 51st state, so why not take advantage of being Washington’s… erm… junior partner, which is the kind way of describing the so-called special relationship?
The British get dragged along on America’s ill advised wars and questionable foreign policy adventures all the time anyway; why not see if Washington is willing to throw a free-trade bone at its favourite lap dog in return?
Macron’s warning to Boris Johnson came from the leader of a proud and independent nation, but I bet he asked Angela Merkel if it was alright first.
I could also mention NATO (the mechanism by which the entire EU outsources its defence to the US) but that’s another story.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30xPm7E Tyler Durden
Late this week, the US State Department accused China of escalating its coercive actions against Vietnam in the South China Sea.
A spokesman said the US is “deeply concerned” China is continuing its interference with Vietnam’s longstanding oil and gas activities in the Vietnamese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claim.
“This calls into serious question China’s commitment, including in the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes,” the statement said.
Military officers of the Vietnamese Navy’s Second Regional Command signalling territorial claims. Source: Viet Nam News
This week the National Interest described in detail the worsening situation in a piece aptly titled South China Sea Showdown: China vs. Vietnam (Round 2).
The Haiyang Dizhi 8, a survey vessel belonging to a Chinese government-run corporation, began surveying a large swath of seabed on 3 July northeast of Vanguard Bank, which falls within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone. The ship has been escorted by other vessels, including from the China Coast Guard and maritime militia. At the same time, China Coast Guard ships have been harassing Vietnamese drilling operations to the south.
Western analysts see Beijing’s expansion in regional waters as part of a broader campaign of natural resource exploitation, with the ultimate goal of forcing rival countries into ‘joint exploration’ partnerships, even in undisputed waters.
According to the report, the current crisis is the most serious tensions have been between China and US ally Vietnam in years:
Chinese incursions into Vietnam’s EEZ are by no means a new phenomenon. The most serious recent incident occurred in 2014, when China deployed an oil rig into Vietnam’s EEZ, sparking a diplomatic crisis between the two neighbors. The current situation near Vanguard Bank, however, represents a more serious challenge on several levels.
Early this week the US State Department issued a comprehensive press report alleging “China’s interference with oil and gas activities in the South China Sea (SCS), including Vietnam’s long-standing exploration and production activities.”
China has repeatedly sent survey vessels into waters outside its recognized EEZ.
It condemned Beijing’s “repeated provocative actions aimed at the offshore oil and gas development of other claimant states,” which the statement further described as threatening “regional energy security and undermine the free and open Indo-Pacific energy market.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZtJcIo Tyler Durden
The Group of Seven (G7) self-declared advanced nations meet this weekend in France for their 45th annual summit. US President Donald Trump caused a stir ahead of the gathering in Biarritz when he remarked that Russia should be included in the format, thereby making it a G8 summit.
“Russia should be at the negotiating table,”said Trump, in a rare moment of lucidity.
His view of including Moscow appears to be shared by France’s President Emmanuel Macron who hosted Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in southern France earlier this week, only days before the G7 summit.
Of course, Russia should be at the table to discuss resolving global economic problems. Not just Russia, but China, India and a few others as well.
Since the G7 club was created in 1975 during the Gerald Ford administration the world has undergone transformative changes from the days when the US, (West) Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Japan were deemed then to be the most powerful national economies.
Today, China is second to the US in terms of its economic size. The top 10 national economies have various ranking iterations, depending on which yardstick is used to compare.
In nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measurement, the top 10 nations, according to the International Monetary Fund, are: US, China, Japan, Germany, India, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil, Canada. In this ranking, Russia is 12th listed after South Korea.
But if national economies are rated by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), which takes currency exchange factors into consideration, then the top 10 national economies are: China, US, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Britain, France.
In other words the present G7 line-up is an arbitrary listing. Indeed, its exclusivity is something of an anachronism in today’s world. It’s a throwback to a bygone era when Western nations were more dominant (save for Japan’s inclusion in the original club). The contours of the world have become more multilateral and multipolar. The exclusion of China from the G7 is perhaps the most glaring anomaly.
In a tacit admission of the changed global reality that’s why there is the larger format of the G20 (formed in 1999) which in addition to the G7 includes China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others.
The so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is another sign of changed times, as are numerous other economic fora such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Eurasian Economic Union (EEA), and the Latin American bloc Mercosur.
Given that the G7 is supposed to be a forum for coordinating macroeconomic policies to enhance global economic growth, one would think that the logical requirement would therefore be for inclusion of more nations in order to more effectively address the ostensible purpose.
As it stands, the limited G7 club is a rather clapped-out vehicle. It’s a bit like a broken down auto with flat tires, a blown gasket and crankshaft missing. Does anyone seriously think that Italy in its present political meltdown is in a position to boost the world economy?
It’s also incongruous that the biggest member of the club, the United States, has no interest in coordinating policy with anyone else. President Trump’s trade war with China, the Europeans and the rest of the world is more akin to the 1930s practice of go-it-alone mercantilism and predatory capitalism. We know how disastrous that turned out with global depression and world war.
Trump’s reckless gung-ho “America First” policy (and to hell with everyone else) is casting a dark cloud on the world economy from China’s output slumping and Germany’s exports plummeting. Ironically, “business genius” Trump seems to be dimly realizing that the inevitable repercussions are rebounding like a boomerang with harmful impact on the US economy. Yet he says he’s not letting up on his America First drive to the abyss.
So, sure, if there were a genuine commitment to improve global economic outlook and uplift the wellbeing of ordinary people around the world then the leading nations should be working together in a collegiate planned fashion, and with as much outreach to others as possible.
Thus, without doubt, the leaders of China, Russia, India and others should be in attendance at the summit in France this weekend. Then it would supposedly turn into a forum not unlike the G20. Which makes the point: why is the G7 even continuing to exist?
There is an analogy with the US-led NATO military alliance. That organization was formed in a very different geopolitical world compared with the present. Why does NATO continue to exist? It’s putative security function is redundant.
So too it could be argued is the United Nations Security Council redundant with its five permanent members of US, Russia, China, France and Britain. Surely that forum should be overhauled too reflect a contemporary multipolar world. In short, the world, like history changes, and so too should mechanisms of governance.
Arguably, however, the G7 is not an economic forum, despite its public image. It’s an arbitrary political clique aimed at reinforcing a presumed Western dominance. A sign of this caprice was when the Russian Federation was admitted to the G7 in 1997 which was then renamed the G8. The admission of former President Boris Yeltsin was permitted because he was feckless towards Western strategic demands. Russia remained a G8 member for 17 years until the Ukraine conflict erupted and President Vladimir Putin was accused of “invading” that country and “annexing” Crimea. Those Western allegations are easily countered with evidence of NATO subversion of the elected government in Kiev in order to prize the former Soviet republic away from Moscow’s orbit.
Russia’s exclusion from the G8, which then reverted back to the G7, has been a political punishment to bolster a propaganda narrative for undermining and isolating Russia internationally. This is again why the G7 is no longer a viable forum for its stated purpose of advancing the global economy. It’s a useless talking shop in an utterly changed world.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZofPYc Tyler Durden
Employees at Hong Kong-based companies, most notably the airline Cathay Pacific, are being fired or otherwise dismissed for supporting the anti-extradition bill (now pro-democracy) protests. On Friday the head of Cathay’s Flight Attendants’ Association said she was fired, without explanation, after managers saw what was apparently a pro-democracy Facebook post (the company later clarified that her firing had nothing to do with her role as a union leader).
According to Reuters, workers in other sectors, particularly in the financial industry, have said they are afraid to even talk about the protests among colleagues or in group chats for fear that they might be snitched out to management.
“Now the best way is to keep silent, because people could back-stab you for no obvious benefits,” said one individual who said he was reported to management. Reuters found one case where an individual received a call from Chinese authorities after posting pro-protest comments on Facebook.
One Hong Kong-based executive compared the current atmosphere to “the Cultural Revolution.”
“It feels like we’re back to the era of Cultural Revolution,” said the executive of a large corporate, referring to the decade-long campaign unleashed by Mao Zedong on China in 1966, which encouraged people to inform on friends, colleagues and family members who did not follow the Communist Party line.
One pro-Beijing lawmaker in HK said in Hong Kong, politics and business are inseparable.
“The Cathay incident shows that when doing business in Hong Kong, politics and business are inseparable…it’s quite an alarming message,” said a senior pro-Beijing politician.
Speaking about the resignation of former Cathay Pacific CEO Rupert Hogg, one activist investor questioned whether every CEO of every HK-traded company should resign, according to Bloomberg.
“This is the most appalling kowtow to Peking,” David Webb, a Hong Kong activist investor, wrote on his blog just hours after Chinese state broadcaster, CCTV, broke the news of Hogg’s departure on Aug. 16. “Every substantial employer in Hong Kong, in both the public and private sectors, has employees who have participated in marches that have frequently gone beyond their approved spatial or time limits. Should all the CEOs resign?”
By kowtowing to the CPC, some worry the airline risks becoming a symbol of subservience to Beijing.
Chinese officials called for some Cathay workers who had publicly supported pro-democracy protesters to be banned from flying into and over China and asked for the names of all Cathay workers whose jobs take them through Chinese airspace. China also demanded that Cathay draw up a new plan to improve flight safety and security measures. And, in case that pressure wasn’t intense enough, some big state-owned businesses including China Citic Bank International Ltd. and China Huarong International Holdings Ltd. advised employees not to book Cathay flights.
Ironically, unions in the semi-autonomous city are pleading with the Communist Party to stop pressuring management to employees who support, or have even dared to discuss, the protests. Hong Kong’s Confederation of Trade Unions held a press conference on Friday.
The confederation said 14 people have been fired so far over the protests, something it called a “blatant act of suppression.” Meanwhile, Cathay said the firing of Rebecca Sy, the union leader who was fired earlier this week allegedly for posting pro-democracy messages, had nothing to do with her role in the union.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2P8Cy6p Tyler Durden
Due to the recent mass shootings, there is a major push for so-called “red flag” gun laws at both the state and federal levels. These laws are the latest tool for gun control advocates to confiscate guns from people based upon only tips and suspicion. No crime has to be committed to trigger an investigation or confiscation.
Red flag laws violate multiple rights protected by our constitution. The Hill has an excellent article on how red flag laws violate more than the 2nd Amendment, including:
Hopefully you’ll never commit a mass shooting, murder, or violent assault. But while you might not have a criminal connection to such individuals, you do share at least one thing in common: you both have unalienable rights. The right to face your accuser. The right to due process. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Every one of these rights are explicitly violated under red flag laws. (source)
What could possibly go wrong?
Just ask Brandon Wagshol and his dad, from the anti-gunner haven state, Connecticut.
Brandon’s No Innocent Angel
Before I write anything else, let me be clear. Wagshol is not some squeaky-clean, innocent angel. He wrote some vile racist and transphobic tweets. He also seemed to taunt the FBI in his tweets, which certainly isn’t the smartest thing in the world to do. That being said, holding bigoted views is not the same things as acting on those views. Voicing his bigoted opinions, while disgusting, is not a criminal act. The First Amendment protects his right to voice his hate in the same way that it protects flag burning. No one has to like it, but it’s not a criminal act.
Wagshol may also have been caught in a few lies made on Facebook. According to Norwalk police Lt. Terry Blake:
A Facebook page for the younger Wagshol said he was a former U.S. Marine and worked at the Department of Homeland Security as a janitor. Blake said both of these statements on Facebook are untrue. (source)
Wagshol also admitted to purchasing four 30-round magazines at a Bass Pro Shop in New Hampshire to circumvent Connecticut law limiting magazines to ten rounds. Wagshol is now facing four felony counts for possessing those magazines. Whether or not you support Connecticut’s ban on 30-round magazines, he will be found guilty under current CT law for possessing them.
Finally, Wagshol did admit to ordering a kit to build an AR. A lot of preppers and gun enthusiasts have done the exact same thing. That’s more than understandable with the government chomping at the bit to enact more gun control. Wagshol will likely be in legal trouble in CT for that too.
Be Careful What You Post on Social Media
This is where a “concerned citizen” stepped in. Wagshol shared a meme on Facebook that someone found scary.
According to News12 Connecticut:
FBI investigators say the Norwalk Police Department received a tip about Wagshol’s activity from a concerned citizen. The joint investigation began after the FBI received a tip that Wagshol was trying to buy high capacity magazines from out of state.
Police say all the weapons recovered from the home are legally owned and registered to Wagshol’s father, but that the 22-year-old had access to them. Investigators also recovered body armor with a titanium plate, camouflage shirt, pant and belt, ballistic helmet, tactical gloves, camouflage bag and computers. (source)
That’s right. The confiscated guns belong to his father. The son “had access” to them by living in the same house, but they are his father’s property. His father didn’t do anything wrong, but his property has been seized nonetheless.
This might be a good time to remind your own kids, both young and adult, to watch what they say on social media because it has real-world implications.
Let’s take a look at those other confiscated items, shall we? Camouflage clothing, body armor, gloves, bags, and computers are all legal to own. Listing it all, however, sure makes it sound super-scary. But, seriously, how much danger were people facing from that camouflage bag?
What kind of firearms were confiscated?
I bet you’re expecting to read a long list of firearms. The media spin has been predictable. CNN said “numerous” firearms were confiscated. The Washington Post described the weapons confiscated as a “cache” However, according to the Hartford Courrant:
Inside the condominium, authorities reported seizing a .40-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle, a rifle scope with laser, firearm optics and flashlights, along with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. They also found body armor with a titanium plate, and tactical attire, police said.
So, two firearms. That’s what we’re talking about. And, the rifle takes the smallest rounds possible. It’s the kind of round you use plinking or to shoot squirrels or small pests. Who doesn’t have this stuff kicking around?
So, what was this scary Facebook post that led to Wagshol’s arrest?
Good question. There doesn’t seem to be one.
The “concerned citizen” reported a Facebook post regarding buying 30-round magazines. However, no post has surfaced stating Wagshol wanted them for a mass shooting.
The police claim, however, that Wagshol was indeed planning a mass murder. From the Hartford Courrant:
Norwalk police Lt. Terry Blake said Wagshol had posted on Facebook that he “was into planning a mass murder.” (source)
From the CTPost
Police claimed Wagshol made social media posts showing an interest in mass shootings, but did not specify any particular posts. (source)
According to Wagshol’s lawyer, Stamford attorney Darnell Crosland, the police failed to cite any actual Facebook posts in the official report.
Crosland also said the report did not include any of Wagshol’s Facebook posts in question.
“What I understand is that he didn’t make any comments on Facebook, but there might have been other memes, as they call it, that he might have re-posted, but he didn’t make a statement on Facebook as related to any mass shooting.” (source)
Some readers here may also be familiar with the Facebook page, Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children. Their page posted an article from their website with the potential offending meme.
The article goes on to clarify what those terms mean.
“Boogaloo” – a slang term for shit-hits-the-fan, or government gone bad and they’re coming for you, time to fight back. Boogaloo toys refers to guns. The opposite of “bugging out.”
“Alphabet bois” – ATF, FBI, DEA, etc.
“Coat hanger sears” – hand-crafted drop-in auto sears for an AR.
Could this be the offending post? Maybe, maybe not. The article from Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children also says Instagram has blacklisted the term, “boogaloo”. However, I was able to search Instagram and find both the hashtag and multiple users with “boogaloo” as part of their name. So, that doesn’t seem to be entirely accurate.
The CTPost stated the “concerned citizen” reported Wagshol’s posts after talking about getting the 30-round magazines from out of state that are illegal in Connecticut.
Regardless if it was the above-mentioned meme, or a post about magazines which were banned in CT, neither mention mass shootings.
If it is, how many times have we seen similar memes shared by prepper friends or by fellow members in prepper groups on social media or prepper forums?
Rights for Some, Or Rights for All?
Red flag laws are unconstitutional on multiple levels. I know lots of people believe they are necessary. But, we make better decisions when we keep things logical and constitutional, not emotional and reaching.
Here’s what we know:
Wagshol is a 22-year old man, attending college, living with his 2A-supporting dad.
This 22-year old holds some hostile and bigoted views.
He also holds some anti-government views.
He has lied about prior military status and employment history.
He decided that his state of residence has imposed unconstitutional laws that violate his second amendment rights and chose to ignore them buy buying 30-round magazines from a Bass Pro shop in NH and ordering an AR kit from CA.
Someone reported a meme he shared to police under Connecticut’s “red flag law”.
An investigation took place without his knowledge, and his father’s firearms have been confiscated along with some clothing and gear.
The official report does not include any specific Facebook posts, never mind Facebook posts discussing mass shootings.
He has been banned from the college campus he attends until after the investigation.
I know I’m going to catch some flak for this assessment, and that’s ok. I’m fine with holding unpopular opinions. I try to remain consistent in my libertarian views, regardless of what’s popular or not.
But, constitutionally-protected rights apply to everyone, even jerks with bigoted views.
We’ve got an angry, young man who has run his mouth on social media combined with a general atmosphere of fear over mass shootings and firearms in general. Someone got freaked out and reported him under CT’s “red flag” law. Rather than moving to a state where the laws reflect his values, he chose to violate the law and obtain banned magazines and a kit for a banned gun. These were only found during the confiscation, which was the result of a ruling that denied him and his father (who legally owned the guns) due process. The confiscation violated multiple constitutionally-protected rights. Regardless of what is or isn’t constitutional, he’s still in jail. While Wagshol doesn’t sound like someone I would want to spend much time with, he still has civil rights which appear to have been violated.
Many would say that because of his views toward other races or towards transsexuals, that alone is enough to constitute a credible threat of violence. Except, that it isn’t. There is a difference between saying, “I don’t like you” and “I am personally going to harm you.” Red flag laws are pure “Thought Police” and “Pre-Crime Division” stuff. 1984 and The Minority Report were supposed to be warnings, not blueprints.
We either have rights for all, or we have rights for none. If we can overlook someone’s rights because we dislike their beliefs or views, then we should have every expectation that our own rights can and will be overlooked as well. groups we dislike, or we will be torn apart from within by our differences.
I’m hoping it will be the first but preparing for the second.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MAZA3Z Tyler Durden
Hong Kong stocks remain in a bear market (-20% from 1Q18 peak). They’re poised to record the worst corporate earnings since at least 2008 as the local political situation and trade war continue to deepen in 2H19.
Data compiled by Bloomberg show a 19% slump in operating income for Hong Kong stocks, would be the most significant contraction for Hang Seng Index companies since the financial meltdown in 2008.
Citywide protests, US-China trade war, and a weak yuan are mostly to blame for earnings losses.
Hong Kong’s political turmoil has rattled economic growth citywide, demand for bank loans to real estate loans to automobile loans to even utility gas usage has declined.
“The third quarter could be even worse given the local political situation and the trade war escalation,” said Jackson Wong, asset management director at Amber Hill Capital Ltd. “Potential downside surprises have not been fully reflected in share prices.”
*chart
Shangri-La Asia Ltd. fell 7.4% on Thursday and 2.7% on Friday after telling investors “political events” in Hong Kong depressed business at its hotels in the city, while a weaker yuan hurt revenues in mainland China.
Cathay Pacific, the leading airliner in Hong Kong, said political and social turmoil would have a “significant impact” on revenue for August.
The Hong Kong and China Gas Company has seen its shares dive nearly 10% since Tuesday after it said the local business environment is “full of challenges.”
“Hong Kong might not be able to avoid a financial crisis this year or next despite possible stimulus packages to shore up its faltering economy amid violent protests across the city. This has led to a rapid decline in tourism, forcing major hotel chains in the city to substantially slash room prices.”
The escalation of the trade war and at least 11 weeks of protest are also damaging the property market and retail sales.
HSBC Holdings Plc and BOC Hong Kong Holdings Ltd have seen their shares down significantly this month with the risk of capital flight building as there is no end in sight to the turmoil in Hong Kong.
And perhaps the global economy has opened up a cycle of vulnerability where a shock could trigger a worldwide recession. That shock could be the events playing out in Hong Kong at the moment. Investors should be on high alert for possible spillover effects into international markets in the coming quarters.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Zkdrm9 Tyler Durden
