Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Take 2: Alexander Mercouris-Enshrinement of Russian/Turkish Ceasefire at UN ?

As mentioned in yesterday’s post I’d left 2 comments at Saker’s regarding a specific claim made by Alexander Mercouris in his latest article-

Yesterday's post: Alexander Mercouris-Enshrinement of Russian/Turkish Ceasefire at UN ?

The claim made by Mercouris boils down to this: The Russian/Turkish ceasefire enshrined at the UN.

The fact that the ceasefire accord was neither endorsed, nor recognized, guarantees it was not enshrined (made sacred) at the UN.

The first response to my comment came from Veritas (I'm unfamiliar with this moniker and am bolding the relevent text)



  • Penny,
    Rather than relying on your blog and MSM press stories to support your position – wouldn’t it be better to go direct to the source?
    https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55897
    ” Also in the Russian-drafted resolution, the 15-member Counciltakes note of the documents" issued by Russia and Turkey about the agreements the two countries have brokered, including a nationwide ceasefire and a plan to convene political talks in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, between the Syrian Government and opposition groups, in January.
    The Council “looks forward to” the meeting in Astana, viewing it as “an important part of the Syrian-led political process” and “an important step ahead of the resumption of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva on 8 February 2017.”
    Further in the text, the Council stressed the importance of fully implementing all relevant Security Council resolutions, particularly 2254 (2015) and 2268 (2016), which endorsed an inclusive and Syrian-led political process based on the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 as the only sustainable solution to the current Syrian crisis, now in its sixth year……”
    also the full text can be viewed:
    https://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/index.shtml
    Alexander and Adam are correct.
    You can’t just pick bits and pieces this resolution again backs the two previous resolutions too – the last one also being a ceasefire.
    The MSM can twist and turn things but they can’t change the facts or get away from them……The agreement is covered by International Law.

If Veritas would have bothered to actually read what I had posted in my comment:
One example below:
“The resolution’s final text dropped an endorsement of the Syria cease-fire agreement reached Thursday, simply taking note of it….”
 Veritas would have realized I had already pointed out that the UN "took note of the documents"
But did not endorse the ceasefire. Veritas posted a link to the UN as proof of my error, but, Veritas  actually further verified my position and invalidated Mr Mercouris.

Larchmonter 445 then digs the hole deeper
Well done, Veritas.
Facts really help the discussions.
Many folks fail to dig for facts.
Of course, ideology hates facts. But rational thinking consumes it and requires it.
Again, thanks. Saved me the search.
Too bad the facts went right over Larchmonter's head...
  • Read the link Larchmonter- Veritas bolsters my claim and I thank him/her
    No endorsement of the ceasefire- none
    I’m waiting for the actual endorsement of the ceasefire…
    “It’s easier to fool people then convince them they’ve been fooled”
    Seems to be true. Sadly

My response to Veritas:


“taking note of the documents” is not an endorsement or an enshrinement of the ceasefire agreements in the passed resolution
from your own quoted information:
 ” Also in the Russian-drafted resolution, the 15-member Council “takes note of” the documents issued by Russia and Turkey about the agreements the two countries have brokered”
Taking note of the documents = acknowledging the presence of said documents
It is not an endorsement or an enshrinement of the agreement!
Read what is written, not what you may wish to believe is there-
Where is it written the Security Council accept and endorse the ceasefire agreement?
– It’s up to you to prove your claim, alongside Mercouris and Garrie, and all you have done is bolster mine-
Dig up the endorsement.
As for relying on my blog? I do all my own research and writing and have no reason not to rely on my own work!
 Yes, Veritas and another V, resorted to ad hominem attacks against me. As for Larchmonter's patently irrelevent statement???? What can I say
Relying on my blog- ooooohhh..  Including this gem from 'vot tak;

Thanks, V
I used to visit the pennyforyourthoughts site, but came to realise it was professional disinfo, and stopped. No sense just handing them the data they are phishing for, let ’em work for it. :D
If one will notice, they post their adverts here when the israeli-americans are in a crisis of some sort or another. Otherwise, they stay away.
Thanks too gallier for pointing out the absurdity :)
“C’est celui qui qui dit qui est” or to accuse Penny of Usraeli disinfo is outrageously funny. It only shows, either your own projections (accuse others of your own sins) or your ignorance, i.e. that you haven’t followed Penny’s blog.

I've left additional comments which have not been allowed through yet...??
As soon as they are I will put them here: 

 A response to Gallier- regarding vot tak's adhominem attack

A response to  joaopft on January 04, 2017  ·  at 12:15 pm UTC
“Taking Note of ” simply means to acknowledge the existence of: to record
Therefore ““taking note of the documents” is a simple acknowledgement of the existence of said documents- and it is no more then that-
It is not an endorsement and enshrinement or anything even close to that.
Mercouris is mistaken.
 re "taking note of " and what it means

The UN 'took note of the documents' means they acknowledge the documents exist- and it doesn't mean anything else. 
Taking note of documents does not endorse or enshrine them- Let me give you all an example?

Harkening back to the Copenhagen Accord:

 Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord.

#2- But didn’t the COP “adopt” the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15?

No. The COP “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.

#3: What does it mean for the UNFCCC to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord?

“Taking note” of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. To quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, it “is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.”

 Taking note is a legal concept- It recognizes but does not endorse. Not does it enshrine.
"Taking note of documents" Therefore only recognizes the presence of said documents..

If and when my comments are allowed at Saker's I will add them to the post
Meanwhile I look forward to someone supporting the claims of Mercouris, Garrie and the trolls at Sakers- Valid support- Thanks in advance

Finally: 


Thanks Gallier for the info and your comment over there - well said!. Saker's has long attracted the smoother higher pay-grade troll. But still I think they think that their superior attitude is all that is needed to win any argument. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is in full bloom there

Penny's counter was a knockdown.
 Dunning- Kruger it must be!

UPDATE January 05/2017-4:28 pm est

Larchmonter 445 who has yet to find a hole that cannot be dug deeper responded to me:
Below is our exchange, which I have read, noted and am actually enshrining here at the blog!
 
The UNSC legal language on most of their Resolutions use the term “taking
note of”, or “takes note of”, and thereafter delineates the topic of the Resolution.
Use a search engine and look up any of the most famous Resolutions and you will see the terminology.
It means they have examined, discussed, and are citing the heart of the issue.
Thus, it is central to the purpose of the Resolution.

Larchmonter: I understand clearly the meaning of “take note of”
Your obfuscation isn’t clarifying, rather it’s muddying- You’re noting that it’s a term commonly used means absolutely nothing- And it certainly does not mean it’s been examined or discussed.
That’s your opinion, but, it isn’t based in reality.
I clarified the issue with an example at my blog
“The UN ‘took note of the documents’ means they acknowledge the documents exist- and it doesn’t mean anything else.
Taking note of documents does not endorse or enshrine them- Let me give you all an example?
Harkening back to the Copenhagen Accord:
Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord.
#2- But didn’t the COP “adopt” the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15?
No. The COP “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.
#3: What does it mean for the UNFCCC to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord?
“Taking note” of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. To quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, it “is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.”
Taking note is a legal concept- It recognizes but does not endorse. Not does it enshrine.
“Taking note of documents” therefore only recognizes the presence of said documents..
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2017/01/take2-alexander-mercouris-enshrinement.html
And it does nothing more.. Wishful thinking aside

Penny, you suffer circular logic. No one can help you.
Stop vilifying everyone for your lack of intellectual honesty.
You don’t understand some things. And your arguments which otherwise might carry some validity remain flawed.
Repetition is not a winning tact.
The UNSC backs the ceasefire with its action.
It backs Minsk 2, also.
Take note of history and reality.
Larchmonter 445: You do know this is not about me, right? Why must you make it about me?
That tells me much about you and your abilities to comprehend and discuss.
Getting back to the issue, which is the error made by Mercouris- Regarding the legal definition of “taking note of the documents” The fact that the ceasefire was NOT endorsed etc.,
Lets discuss that issue, if you are capable of doing so without further muddying the water. So far it’s clear you are incapable of anything but obfuscation but I’ll give it yet another try except I’ll make it very simple for you…
If you cannot stay on point by discussing the actual matter which is the use of a legal term “Taking note of the Documents” and the error by Mercouris in claiming anything what so ever was ‘enshrined’ at the UNSC – don’t bother responding at all.
Simple enough I would say.
 And I wash my hands of the whole discussion- 

Not once were the points I brought forward addressed. It was a series of personal attacks. One after the other. All done with the intention to obfuscate and distract. Not once was any information put forward to demonstrate that the ceasefire had actually been "enshrined" let alone endorsed, because it was never was.
Larchmonter 445 - truly gets circular reasoning because it's engaged in abundantly by this individual... Along with appeal to authority.



17 comments:

  1. "Taking note of the documents" is the diplomatic equivalent of the business managerial trick to placate bothersome staff, " I hear what you are saying". So the manager has at least one working ear -big deal! So the documents exist - well, duh!

    The point is that in both cases the phrase employed is designed to deceive the less than bright or the inattentive. Mercouris could not be called below average IQ so that's not an excuse.

    Inattentive? Maybe. But he is a trained lawyer whose daily task is to report on the doings of political/diplomatic snakes and their deceitful language.

    As for the morons at Saker's, the less said the better. This is a perfect example of why I haven't read there for a long time, never mind reading the comments.
    Never the less, you nailed them perfectly, Pen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi james- I actually had the distinct impression Mercouris was being deceptive-- He's smarter then the average bear therefore should know better- But the fact that he's a trained lawyer makes more obvious his deception-

      The morons at Saker's did themselves in. And have no one else to blame for their foolishness

      Delete
  2. http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2016/12/29/china-willing-to-consider-turkeys-membership-to-shanghai-security-pact

    http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2016/12/29/turkey-says-does-not-buy-lies-amid-us-rejecting-arms-support-to-ypg-terrorists

    http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/middle-east/321300

    https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/egypt-send-peacekeeping-forces-syria-report/

    http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/321362

    http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/middle-east/321417

    http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/322403

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks ally

      I have another post in the works-

      Delete
    2. Hate those people who have to act all smart with you, Penny. Thinking they know everything when it clearly states that they have only had a look at it. Good that you stick up for yourself.

      Delete
    3. Ally: I'm a straight shooter- here and in the real world- always have been and always will be- I take after two old world grandma's one who died nearly six years ago and the age of 92- I loved her so much and still miss her to this day- she always gave it to me straight with a pile of love on the side- do you know what I mean?
      It's the best way to be- at least that's how I see it

      Delete
  3. It appeared from the start that the led-by-the-nose UN would not welcome an exclusively Russian-Turkish-Iranian initiative, so it appeared strange to me that any actionable recognition was forthcoming. Shortly after the peace initiative was announced as going to the UN for a formal presentation I began to read claims of an 'endorsement'...and just as you have indicated, upon further reading, there was nothing but a mention of 'taking note'.
    I believe that the UN could not afford to manifestly ignore or disclaim the submission without making itself look bad, so it did the least it possibly could, which was to acknowledge that something was submitted.
    The mention of previous UN resolutions within the same statement that 'takes note' of the Russian/Turkish offering was a ploy to both bundle the previous lame UN resolutions with the latest initiative in order to take some credit for what is currently transpiring (and what may prove to bear results), while simultaneously saving face (minimally) by 'taking note'.
    The fact that some are spinning this as an endorsement is nothing but wishful thinking (I could have said worse). This subject was dead a few days ago. But hey, this is an information war as well, and if spinning something helps the 'opposition' put down its arms, then great.
    I don't believe most forms of journalism have ever been a source of truth about anything of great importance - the format is typically too limited in scope and timing to truly reflect the big picture (not to mention its patronage). Most people only read headlines after all.
    Really, who gives a flying F**k what the UN says, after all, you can't have it both ways - either the UN is in favour of a peaceful secular Syria or it's not. So far all of its actions and inactions have clearly indicated that it is not. Again - who gives a flying F**k what the UN says about Syria?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Spinworthy:

    I'm going to bold this part of your comment:

    I believe that the UN could not afford to manifestly ignore or disclaim the submission without making itself look bad, so it did the least it possibly could, which was to acknowledge that something was submitted.

    I agree 100 percent and stated that when this news broke:

    http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2016/12/un-security-council-approves-russian.html

    some of my comments..

    What choice did the US, UK and France have other then to endorse this resolution?

    So the UN can pretend it's relevant ?


    I pointed the lack of endorsement out on the 31st of December

    " The final text dropped an endorsement of the Syria cease-fire agreement brokered by Moscow and Ankara, and it changed the draft to call the Astana meeting "an important step ahead of the resumption of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva on Feb. 8, 2017."

    The UN Security Council members didn't endorse a ceasefire agreement- An endorsement was dropped to get this passed?
    Which parties from the security council refused to endorse the ceasefire agreement?
    It wasn't Russia. It wouldn't have been China.
    If all parties truly wanted peace there would have been zero refusals to endorse, so which parties refused? etc.,


    As for the UN? I concur completely with your sentiment- who gives a F**k- I've no use for the global bureaucracy/ shiny happy mask of NATO- zero- I've said it here countless times-

    As james stated the taking note of the documents is the diplomatic equivalent of the business managerial trick to placate bothersome staff, " I hear what you are saying". So the manager has at least one working ear -big deal! So the documents exist - well, duh!

    To make it out to be something it was not, which is what Mercouris was doing is intentionally misleading, IMO

    Thanks for stopping by and adding your pennies worth :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The UN is still trying to stay relevant, you and some commenters have rightly said. But I will go a little further and say the UN (at the behest of the Usual Suspects) is trying to weasel its way back into the negotiations so they can fuck them up - as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I agree about Alexander Mercouris, Pen. I have been appreciative of his writing in the past because of his emphasis on the facts and been willing to forgive his occasional apparent naiveté.

      I have put it down to him growing up in a generationally political family and so has largely enjoyed the benefits of 'the system' and so believes in it fundamentally.

      But that doesn't cover his misrepresentation of the UN press release. So I am going to be suspicious of his writing in the future and give it much closer scrutiny.

      Delete
    2. James .."UN (at the behest of the Usual Suspects) is trying to weasel its way back into the negotiations so they can fuck them up - as usual"

      agree and have stated that here at the blog

      james: "But that doesn't cover his misrepresentation of the UN press release. So I am going to be suspicious of his writing in the future and give it much closer scrutiny."

      That's a very good idea james

      Delete
  6. I'm adding an update from the continuing laughable conversation at Saker's
    which consists of larchmonter 445 employing ad hominem attacks against me and nothing else

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pen, I used to wonder if Larchmonter was a spook employed as a sheepdog in the comments section at Saker's.

    His refusal to address your point (it's plain english after all) and his ad hominems against you together with that hasbara tone of superiority confirms that he is a shill.

    He is not addressing you, really. He is writing this garbage for the sheep amongst the commenters in the comments section - the faithful followers who can't think for themselves and need someone to follow.

    Hence the need for the superior tone even though it is ludicrous to people who can actually think and can understand plain English.

    ReplyDelete
  8. hi james: I pretty much figured he was writing to the wider audience- did you like when his alter ego came to attack me.
    Hilarious. I said if you can't address the points, don't answer back, so was it "franz" that came to reply ? Larchmonter became franz- same smug tone, and same refusal to address points raised- so obvious

    I removed Saker from the blog roll- I'd been hemming and hawing about doing that anyway... Having become quite disappointed and disillusioned with the 'new' not improved Saker- It's not a better place to visit being full of trolls- it's not a better place to visit with non credible guest posts.

    Though I don't mind the fellow names Scott- but Mercouris, Saker himself who has offered up plenty of limited hangouts (he didn't used to) that Ghassan guy??
    And the piss poor moderation! Not worth my time

    Pepe I can read anywhere..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's not worth your time, Pen. And I think that is half the point of these people, to take up your time. Never-the-less, you absolutely outed them.

      Delete
    2. Yh who is that Ghassan guy?

      Delete
    3. thanks james

      Ally- Ghassan Kadi:

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS