Sunday 19th of September 2021

more on the fraudulent US/saudi alliance...


Down the rabbit hole, the world was upside down...

Now, after a few years of the US supporting the Saudis against the Houthis in Yemen, the US have declared that they won’t supply “offensive” weapons to the said Saudis. For many progressives, this sounds like the end of hypocritical war waged by the USA... This was like a revelation that the US recognised that the war in Yemen was a “mistake” basically started by Obama, who, like the Saudis wanted to impose a Wahhabi/Sunni ruler/dictator in that country. Far from it. Well…

Yemen is made up of a few ethnic groups “that had an arrangement" until the US/Saudis interfered. Now the US is using a weird way of blaming the war on the Houthis, when it was mostly a doing by the US/Saudis with their mates of Al Qaeda (Saudi/Wahhabi/Sunni/Daesh). We are told:

The US has slapped sanctions on two key figures of Yemen's Houthi rebel movement following the Biden administration's recent calls for the Iran-backed group to help end the Yemeni Civil War.

The Treasury Department said in a statement on Tuesday that it had blacklisted Mansur Al-Sa'adi, the Houthi Naval Forces Chief of Staff, and Ahmad 'Ali Ahsan al-Hamzi, the commander of the Houthi-aligned Yemeni Air Force and Air Defense Forces. The sanctions effectively amount to US asset freezes.

"The United States condemns the destruction of civilian sites by the Houthi militants designated today. These individuals command forces that are worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen,” said Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control Andrea M. Gacki.

Read more:

Bless my godly socks!

Andrea Gacki is the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. OFAC is the federal agency charged with implementing and enforcing economic sanctions on behalf of the U.S. government.

Andrea has previously served as the Deputy Director of OFAC, since March 2017.  She also served contemporaneously as the acting Deputy Director and as the Associate Director for Compliance and Enforcement at OFAC from 2014 until March 2017.  She was also OFAC’s Assistant Director for Licensing from 2010 to 2014.  Andrea first joined OFAC in March 2008 as the Senior Sanctions Advisor for Program Policy & Implementation.  Prior to joining OFAC, Andrea was a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where she represented OFAC by, among other things, defending against designation challenges brought by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the Islamic American Relief Agency, and where she served as a senior member of the Justice Department’s Terrorist Designation Team.  

Before joining the Justice Department, Andrea was an associate at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson LLP (now Hogan Lovells LLP), and she clerked for the Honorable Avern Cohn on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

Read more:


Andrea M. Gacki does not make the rules, but “implements the rules” as per the directives of the US administration (Trump's or Biden’s) — like a good Nazi soldier soldiering for Hitler. But by her own words, she becomes involved in designating who is a bad or good guy in "worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen”. 

At this stage, whether the Houthis are the instigator of the "worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” is a very tenuous point. The US should actually indict themselves, as well as the Saudis for the same caper. The US bombs used by the Saudis did "worsen the humanitarian crisis in Yemen”. No two ways about it. The support from the Saudis/US for Al Qaeda-in-Yemen did "worsen the humanitarian crisis in Yemen”… 

As a Lawyer, Andrea M. Gacki can smile all she wants on the photos of her official employ — and act like an archangel of god-the American Exceptional, she is a hypocritical idiot and should resign. The Americans "worsened the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” far more than the Houthis. End of story…

Unfortunately not yet… The USA has more pain to inflict on Yemen… even if from now on, they will only supply “defensive” weapons to the Saudis, whatever this means. This decision, if studied in earnest, shows that the US has now recognised their role in "worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” but will hypocritically still participate in "worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” in a more indirect discreet manner and blame the Houthis for it. Clever? Devious as hell, but one cannot expect anything better from Biden, the hypocrite Catholic. The Pope should excommunicate old Joe forthwith, especially for continuing the persecution of Assange in a UK prison. 

See also: reshaping the middle-east, a barrel at a time... in russia’s policy of peace...

was jamal about to reveal the US/Saudi alliance designed to stuff up the middle east?


bomber biden is worse than obama...


back to annoy the rest of the world...


and more, including:


our father, which art in heaven...




free assange, president biden...

meanwhile at the smart bombs department....


War Mongering for Artificial Intelligence



by Binoy Kampmark


The ghost of Edward Teller must have been doing the rounds between members of the National Commission on Artificial Intelligence.

The father of the hydrogen bomb was never one too bothered by the ethical niggles that came with inventing murderous technology. For instance: 

[it is not] the scientist’s job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used.”

Responsibility, however exercised, rested with the American people and their elected officials.

The application of AI in military systems has plagued the ethicist but excited certain leaders and inventors. Russian President Vladimir Putin has grandiloquently asserted that “it would be impossible to secure the future of our civilization” without a mastery of artificial intelligence, genetics, unmanned weapons systems and hypersonic weapons. 

Campaigners against the use of autonomous weapons systems in war have been growing in number. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres is one of them.

“Autonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement,” he wrote on Twitter in March 2019“are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law.”

The International Committee for Robot Arms Control, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and Human Rights Watch are also dedicated to banning lethal autonomous weapons systems. Weapons analysts such as Zachary Kallenborn see that absolute position as untenable, preferring a more modest ban on: 

the highest-risk weapons: drone swarms and autonomous chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons”.

The critics of such weapons systems were far away in the Commission’s draft report for Congress. The document has more than a touch of the mad scientist in the bloody service of a master. This stood to reason, given its chairman was Eric Schmidt, technical advisor to Alphabet Inc., parent company of Google, of which he was formerly CEO. 

With Schmidt holding the reins, we would be guaranteed a show shorn of moral restraint. 

The AI promise – that a machine can perceive, decide, and act more quickly, in a more complex environment, with more accuracy than a human – represents a competitive advantage in any field. It will be employed for military ends, by governments and non-state groups.”

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 23, Schmidt was all about “fundamentals” in keeping the US ascendant. This involved preserving national competitiveness and shaping the military with those fundamentals in mind. But to do so required keeping the eyes of the security establishment wide open for any dangerous competitor. (Schmidt understands Congress well enough to know that spikes in funding and outlays tend to be attached to the promotion of threats.) He sees “the threat of Chinese leadership in key technology areas” as “a national crisis”.

In terms of AI, “only the United States and China” had the necessary “resources, commercial might, talent pool, and innovation ecosystem to lead the world”. Within the next decade, Beijing could even “surpass the United States as the world’s AI superpower.”

The testimony is generously spiked with the China threat thesis.

Never before in my lifetime have I been more worried that we will soon be displaced by a rival or more aware of what second place means for our economy, our security, and the future of our nation.”

He feared that such worries were not being shared by officials, with the DoD treating “software as a low priority”. Here, he could give advice on lessons learned in the spawning enterprises of Silicon Valley, where the principled live short lives. Those dedicated to defence could “form smart teams, drive hard deliverables, and move quickly.” Missiles, he argued, should be built “the way we now build cars: use a design studio to develop and simulate in software.”

This all meant necessarily praising a less repressible form of AI to the heavens, notably in its military applications.

Two days of public discussion saw the panel’s vice chairman Robert Work extol the virtues of AI in battle. “It is a moral imperative to at least pursue this hypothesis” claiming that “autonomous weapons will not be indiscriminate unless we design them that way.” The devil is in the human, as it has always been.

In a manner reminiscent of the debates about sharing atomic technology in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Committee urges that the US “pursue a comprehensive strategy in close coordination with our allies and partners for artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and adoption that promotes values critical to free and open societies.” 

A proposed Emerging Technology Coalition of likeminded powers and partners would focus on the role of “emerging technologies according to democratic norms and values” and “coordinate policies to counter the malign use of these technologies by authoritarian regimes”. Fast forgotten is the fact that distinctions such as authoritarianism and democracy have little meaning at the end of a weapon.

Internal changes are also suggested to ruffle a few feathers. The US State Department comes in for special mention as needing reforms. 

There is currently no clear lead for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State Department, which hinders the Department’s ability to make strategic technology decisions.” 

Allies and partners were confused when approaching the State Department as to “which senior official would be their primary point of contact”for a range of topics, be they AI, quantum computing, 5G, biotechnology or new emerging technologies.

Overall, the US government comes in for a battering, reproached for operating “at human speed not machine speed.” It was lagging relative to commercial development of AI. It suffered from “technical deficits that range from digital workforce shortages to inadequate acquisition policies, insufficient network architecture, and weak data practices.”

The official Pentagon policy, as it stands, is that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems should be “designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.” 

In October 2019, the Department of Defence adopted various ethical principles regarding the military use of AI, making the DoD Artificial Intelligence Centre the focal point. 

These include the provision that: 

DoD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care, while remaining responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI capabilities.”

The “traceable” principle is also shot through with the principle of human control, with personnel needing to “possess an appropriate understanding of the technology, development processes, and operational methods applicable to AI capabilities”.

The National Commission pays lip service to such protocols, acknowledging that operators, organisations and “the American people” would not support AI machines not “designed with predictability” and “clear principles” in mind. But the note of warning in not being too morally shackled becomes a screech. Risk was “inescapable” and not using AI “to solve real national security challenges risks putting the United States at a disadvantage”.

Especially when it comes to China.


Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:



Read more: