i singled that pic out for a reason. yikes. ahahahaha...
Sunday, January 5, 2014
this is absolute rubbish. we've reached the point where the information the news gives us is literally the opposite of what's actually happening.
isis is the same group that the americans and saudis have been funding in syria. these are "our guys". we're paying them to fight. and they're carrying out our goals in the area.
it was bad enough when we were at war with al qaeda in one theatre and aligned with them in another. now, content that that went over with people just fine, that it wasn't dissonant enough, they've got the official narrative set so that we're simultaneously aligned and at war with the same group in the same theatre.
well, why not. when you're basing your entire foreign policy on elaborate and transparent lies, what's the use in bothering with consistency or logic?
here's the actual deal: the americans want maliki out of there. the idea of the invasion was to create a shiite region that would compete with iran, mostly to appease the saudis. shiites are numerically more populous in iraq, so it's majority rule. the hope was that the american backed shiite regime would dominate the iranian one. in other words, regime change in iraq was a tactic to facilitate regime change in iran.
however, it's backfired. instead, iraq has become closely aligned with iran. one of the talking points that isn't a lie is that iraq is co-operating with iran to get weapons into syria. "a shiite crescent" has developed that places iraq in a regional alliance that includes syria and iraq (and hezbollah). the saudis aren't impressed...
....so they're going in with their guys (and with american support) to take him out. why now? because it's a part of the push by the saudis to take control of syria. they had to take syria out to contain iran. and it turns out they have to take iraq out to take syria out.
you'll see a few articles pop up over the next few weeks at sites like counterpunch that explain this. i'm not breaking any news, i'm just explaining the context. people that have been paying attention to this have actually been expecting it. some people were actually talking about us airstrikes to remove maliki.
the state and corporate media will state nothing of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25611034
it really amplifies the question: just what are the saudis (and i say "saudis", but it's really a coalition of gulf states of which the saudis are the leading state, a coalition that's increasingly including israel as a junior partner) angling for? i mean, we know they want to contain iran, but it only answers half the question. why the obsession with containing iran?
the usual answer is that they fear the spread of democracy in the region and want to do everything to stamp it out. they see iran as an existential threat not due to the religious difference (although it plays a role on some level) but because they see iran's representative democracy as a threat to their theocracy. compare that to the official narrative about iran. there's nothing approaching a convergence. but i didn't just make it up. it's been widely extrapolated out of the saudi aristocracy's own statements going back a number of years. it's on a firm footing.
and, if you look at the saudi reaction to the arab spring uprisings, it provides quite a bit of evidence for this. they were personally involved in suppressing uprisings in bahrain and yemen. they co-opted the uprising in syria, and have now turned it into a sort of dual invasion of syria and iraq. they also orchestrated the coup in egypt, and have since become it's dominant donor. that's a notable event in itself. for years, the americans have been pumping money into egypt in order to "maintain order", which means uphold the peace treaty with israel. the saudis have taken over this responsibility. they were also instrumental in the destruction of libya, although the west had it's own motives on that one.
when you put it together, it seems as though the saudis are trying to assert themselves as a regional hegemon, backed by american power. words like caliphate and empire seem natural in context, but i don't expect to see any annexations. rather, the outcome is probably going to look something more like a theocratic european union, enforced by hard power from riyadh.
of course, a lot of people are going to have to die to see that new (old) order take hold in the region. and to what extent it's sustainable by force, and without reform, is a difficult - but open - question.
there's a side of me though that could see a pax arabia as a benefit. it's just hard to stomach the road to get there.
tl;dr - decolonization.
but, just from a sort of captain obvious perspective - the west has been selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to the saudis (one of the most oppressive regimes on earth) for years. it shouldn't come as a shock that they're using them to control the areas surrounding them, or that their sphere of influence has expanded as a function of their investments (itself a function of their wealth). as simple-minded an analysis as it is, the fact is that money is power.
isis is the same group that the americans and saudis have been funding in syria. these are "our guys". we're paying them to fight. and they're carrying out our goals in the area.
it was bad enough when we were at war with al qaeda in one theatre and aligned with them in another. now, content that that went over with people just fine, that it wasn't dissonant enough, they've got the official narrative set so that we're simultaneously aligned and at war with the same group in the same theatre.
well, why not. when you're basing your entire foreign policy on elaborate and transparent lies, what's the use in bothering with consistency or logic?
here's the actual deal: the americans want maliki out of there. the idea of the invasion was to create a shiite region that would compete with iran, mostly to appease the saudis. shiites are numerically more populous in iraq, so it's majority rule. the hope was that the american backed shiite regime would dominate the iranian one. in other words, regime change in iraq was a tactic to facilitate regime change in iran.
however, it's backfired. instead, iraq has become closely aligned with iran. one of the talking points that isn't a lie is that iraq is co-operating with iran to get weapons into syria. "a shiite crescent" has developed that places iraq in a regional alliance that includes syria and iraq (and hezbollah). the saudis aren't impressed...
....so they're going in with their guys (and with american support) to take him out. why now? because it's a part of the push by the saudis to take control of syria. they had to take syria out to contain iran. and it turns out they have to take iraq out to take syria out.
you'll see a few articles pop up over the next few weeks at sites like counterpunch that explain this. i'm not breaking any news, i'm just explaining the context. people that have been paying attention to this have actually been expecting it. some people were actually talking about us airstrikes to remove maliki.
the state and corporate media will state nothing of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25611034
it really amplifies the question: just what are the saudis (and i say "saudis", but it's really a coalition of gulf states of which the saudis are the leading state, a coalition that's increasingly including israel as a junior partner) angling for? i mean, we know they want to contain iran, but it only answers half the question. why the obsession with containing iran?
the usual answer is that they fear the spread of democracy in the region and want to do everything to stamp it out. they see iran as an existential threat not due to the religious difference (although it plays a role on some level) but because they see iran's representative democracy as a threat to their theocracy. compare that to the official narrative about iran. there's nothing approaching a convergence. but i didn't just make it up. it's been widely extrapolated out of the saudi aristocracy's own statements going back a number of years. it's on a firm footing.
and, if you look at the saudi reaction to the arab spring uprisings, it provides quite a bit of evidence for this. they were personally involved in suppressing uprisings in bahrain and yemen. they co-opted the uprising in syria, and have now turned it into a sort of dual invasion of syria and iraq. they also orchestrated the coup in egypt, and have since become it's dominant donor. that's a notable event in itself. for years, the americans have been pumping money into egypt in order to "maintain order", which means uphold the peace treaty with israel. the saudis have taken over this responsibility. they were also instrumental in the destruction of libya, although the west had it's own motives on that one.
when you put it together, it seems as though the saudis are trying to assert themselves as a regional hegemon, backed by american power. words like caliphate and empire seem natural in context, but i don't expect to see any annexations. rather, the outcome is probably going to look something more like a theocratic european union, enforced by hard power from riyadh.
of course, a lot of people are going to have to die to see that new (old) order take hold in the region. and to what extent it's sustainable by force, and without reform, is a difficult - but open - question.
there's a side of me though that could see a pax arabia as a benefit. it's just hard to stomach the road to get there.
tl;dr - decolonization.
but, just from a sort of captain obvious perspective - the west has been selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to the saudis (one of the most oppressive regimes on earth) for years. it shouldn't come as a shock that they're using them to control the areas surrounding them, or that their sphere of influence has expanded as a function of their investments (itself a function of their wealth). as simple-minded an analysis as it is, the fact is that money is power.
timed out near 80. ugh. i'm only going to try it one more time before i give a reinstall a try.
....and now it just rebooted, so here comes an attempt at a reinstall....
i don't want to delete the partition yet. it would be nice to recover my open tabs. yeah. lol. well, it would. i don't see why a reinstall would wipe them out...
....and now it just rebooted, so here comes an attempt at a reinstall....
i don't want to delete the partition yet. it would be nice to recover my open tabs. yeah. lol. well, it would. i don't see why a reinstall would wipe them out...
on
the other hand, it just jumped very quickly through 30,000 segments - a
quarter of the partition. it went from 50% to 75% in a flash. so, it
may still balance out. and 5% of the partition is still less than 1% of
the drive....
(i'm also making the error of attaching file segments to physical segments, which i know is an error, but can't really be applied like that)
which is to say i'm talking about the percentage of the mft, rather than the percentage of the disc. i'll probably keep doing that. intuition. but knowing that 5-10% of the file records are unreadable doesn't *actually* tell me how much of the disc is "bad". and knowing this is a drive with a windows os, office and other programs with lots of little files means it really honestly might not be as bad as it looks. i mean, it could be 5000 corrupt 10K files. no, it could. an optimistic projection, but it could.
...and that's why we run the utilities.
(i'm also making the error of attaching file segments to physical segments, which i know is an error, but can't really be applied like that)
which is to say i'm talking about the percentage of the mft, rather than the percentage of the disc. i'll probably keep doing that. intuition. but knowing that 5-10% of the file records are unreadable doesn't *actually* tell me how much of the disc is "bad". and knowing this is a drive with a windows os, office and other programs with lots of little files means it really honestly might not be as bad as it looks. i mean, it could be 5000 corrupt 10K files. no, it could. an optimistic projection, but it could.
...and that's why we run the utilities.
i
don't know whether it's normal or not, but it's a little relieving to
realize that 3% means 30%, 4% means 40%, etc. seems like a bug in the
program.
so, i'm at a little over 40% after 18 hours, indicating it should be done by this time tomorrow.
well, the first pass anyways.
of the first partition. i'm really hoping i don't need to do this for the second partition. it's roughly 10x the size. yeah. but size isn't the only factor. in fact, i'll try a reinstall before i do it. i'm kind of still hoping it's just the boot sector.
it's kind of got me wondering if i should defrag the fucker from time to time. the conventional wisdom is not to defrag large drives. but is a 50 gb partition that big?
there were a lot of errors at the front of the mft, but now i'm going 10-20K sectors between problems.
see, it never told me it couldn't find a hard drive, or there wasn't an os. the hard drive test failed, but that's not the same thing as "no hd" or "no os". it bootstrapped itself into a 100 MB startup utility partition - on the hd. yet, it couldn't find the boot database thing (whatever it is now, i should know this, i went over it in vista support training, but in practice all i ever had to tell anybody was to run the utility, which i can't get to start because i can't read the partition). that says dead partition, meaning dead database shit, not dead disc.
i just can't parse randomly dying drives. but i've seen mbrs evaporate.
it hit a rough spot around when i fell asleep this afternoon and may even still be in it. its still hard to say if its salvageable, but the damage report is going to be bad. upwards of 5% of the partition, even, maybe.
it's a big drive. as mentioned, i could halve it and still have too much space. but that indicates imminent mass failure.
so, i'm at a little over 40% after 18 hours, indicating it should be done by this time tomorrow.
well, the first pass anyways.
of the first partition. i'm really hoping i don't need to do this for the second partition. it's roughly 10x the size. yeah. but size isn't the only factor. in fact, i'll try a reinstall before i do it. i'm kind of still hoping it's just the boot sector.
it's kind of got me wondering if i should defrag the fucker from time to time. the conventional wisdom is not to defrag large drives. but is a 50 gb partition that big?
there were a lot of errors at the front of the mft, but now i'm going 10-20K sectors between problems.
see, it never told me it couldn't find a hard drive, or there wasn't an os. the hard drive test failed, but that's not the same thing as "no hd" or "no os". it bootstrapped itself into a 100 MB startup utility partition - on the hd. yet, it couldn't find the boot database thing (whatever it is now, i should know this, i went over it in vista support training, but in practice all i ever had to tell anybody was to run the utility, which i can't get to start because i can't read the partition). that says dead partition, meaning dead database shit, not dead disc.
i just can't parse randomly dying drives. but i've seen mbrs evaporate.
it hit a rough spot around when i fell asleep this afternoon and may even still be in it. its still hard to say if its salvageable, but the damage report is going to be bad. upwards of 5% of the partition, even, maybe.
it's a big drive. as mentioned, i could halve it and still have too much space. but that indicates imminent mass failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)