Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

MH370 experts think they’ve finally solved the mystery of the doomed Malaysia Airlines flight

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared above the Indian Ocean March 8, 2014. Experts are now saying the crash was an act of premeditated murder and suicide. 


All but one of the 239 people on the doomed Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 had probably been unconscious — incapacitated by the sudden depressurization of the Boeing 777 — and had no way of knowing they were on an hours-long, meandering path to their deaths.

Along that path, a panel of aviation experts speculated Sunday, was a brief but telling detour near Penang, Malaysia, the home town of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah.

On two occasions, whoever was in control of the plane — and was probably the only one awake — tipped the craft to the left. The experts believe Zaharie, the plane's pilot, was taking a final look.

That is the chilling theory that the team of analysts assembled by Australia's “60 Minutes” have posited about the final hours of MH370. The conclusions have not been backed by any official findings from investigations into the mystery surrounding the March 2014 flight. But the experts on the "60 Minutes” show sought to draw the most likely scenario of the plane's fate from the little that is known.

They suspect that the plane's 2014 disappearance and apparent crash was a suicide by the 53-year-0ld Zaharie — and a premeditated act of mass murder.

But first, the experts said, they believe that Zaharie depressurized the plane, knocking out anyone aboard who wasn't wearing an oxygen mask. That would explain the silence from the plane as it veered wildly off course: no mayday from the craft's radio, no final goodbye texts, no attempted emergency calls that failed to connect.

That would also explain how whoever was in control had time to maneuver the plane to its final location.

The wreckage has not been found, though hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into the four-year search. The secret of what happened in the final moments of the ill-fated flight — and the motive behind it all — probably died with its passengers and pilot.

But the “60 Minutes” team — which included aviation specialists, the former Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief in charge of investigating MH370's crash, and an oceanographer — put forth what they believe is the most likely theory.

“The thing that gets discussed the most is that at the point where the pilot turned the transponder off, that he depressurized the airplane, which would disable the passengers,” said Larry Vance, a veteran aircraft investigator from Canada. “He was killing himself. Unfortunately, he was killing everyone else onboard. And he did it deliberately.”

Zaharie's suspected suicide might explain an oddity about the plane's final flight path: that unexpected turn to the left.

“Captain Zaharie dipped his wing to see Penang, his home town,” Simon Hardy, a Boeing 777 senior pilot and instructor, said on “60 Minutes.”

“If you look very carefully, you can see it's actually a turn to the left, and then start a long turn to the right. And then [he does] another left turn. So I spent a long time thinking about what this could be, what technical reason is there for this, and, after two months, three months thinking about this, I finally got the answer: Someone was looking out the window.”

“It might be a long, emotional goodbye,” Hardy added. “Or a short, emotional goodbye to his home town.”

Flight 370 disappeared March 8, 2014, shortly after leaving Kuala Lumpur, bound for Beijing.
The craft is thought to have crashed in the far southern Indian Ocean.

The governments of Malaysia, China and Australia called off the official search in January 2017. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's final report said authorities were no closer to knowing the reasons for the plane’s disappearance or the exact location of its wreckage.

But the “60 Minutes” experts tried to answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the flight: How could a modern aircraft tracked by radar and satellites simply disappear?

Because, they say, Zaharie wanted it to. And the veteran pilot, who had nearly 20,000 hours of flight experience and had built a flight simulator in his home, knew exactly how to do it.

For example, at one point, he flew near the border of Malaysia and Thailand, crisscrossing into the airspace of both, Hardy said. But neither country was likely to see the plane as a threat because it was on the edge of their airspace.

“Both of the controllers aren't bothered about this mysterious aircraft because, oh, it's gone, it's not in our space anymore,” Hardy said. “If you were commissioning me to do this operation and try to make a 777 disappear, I would do the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's very accurate flying, and it did the job.”

In light of the new analysis, the ATSB should abandon its “ghost flight” theory about the plane's demise, said Mike Keane, a former military pilot and the former chief pilot at Britain-based easyJet, according to news.com.au. That theory says the plane was on autopilot and that Zaharie and his co-pilot were incapacitated when the flight crashed.

“You may recall my observation of 'complicity to a crime' if the ATSB cling to their version of events when they have knowledge to the contrary,” Keane told the Australian. “Put bluntly, the MH370 'crash' is undoubtedly a crime of the unlawful killing of 238 innocent people. The Australian government has also been remiss, they should have put pressure on the ATSB to listen, and act, on professional advice from the aviation community.”

Family members of passengers onboard flight MH370 that went missing on March 8, 2014 gather in Kuala Lumpur to mark the fourth anniversary. 
Theories about Zaharie's culpability are not new.

Zaharie and co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid were prime suspects in the plane's disappearance from the beginning, according to news.com.au. There were rumors that Zaharie's marriage was ending and that he downed the plane after learning that his wife was about to leave, the news site said.

Another theory was that he hijacked the plane in protest of the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim, who was then the opposition leader in Malaysia.

A group called the Chinese Martyrs' Brigade has also claimed responsibility for the downing, although skeptical officials called this a hoax.

Two men on the plane were flying with phony passports, but one was apparently an asylum seeker, and neither had terrorism links.

The theory posited on “60 Minutes” has something in common with previous ones about the fate of MH370, said a skeptical Sara Norton, whose brother, Paul Weeks, died on the plane: They're all guesswork.

“Basically it's the same as everything else that's happened with this particular flight,” Norton told New Zealand news website stuff.co.nz on Tuesday. “It's all assumption and supposition and opinion.”
“They have no corroborated facts to back any of it up, and we have never had anything corroborated.”

The wreckage, of course, might corroborate or dispel theories about what caused the crash, and crews were still looking for it as recently as this year.

The latest attempt to discover it was a $70 million effort by a Texas company called Ocean Infinity, according to the Associated Press. The mission scanned 500 square miles a day during a three-month search.

Ocean Infinity chief executive Oliver Plunkett said the company's technology had performed “exceptionally well” and collected “significant amounts of high-quality data.”

Still, it found no trace of MH370.


(Azhar Rahim/European Pressphoto Agency)
 Several of the dead were members of Hamas, the group that runs Gaza and has fought three wars with Israel. At least 1,300 people were wounded by live fire, Gaza’s health ministry said.
Funerals on Tuesday coincided with the anniversary of the Nakba, or catastrophe, commemorating the more than 700,000 people who fled or were expelled from their homes in the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s creation.

For six weeks, demonstrators have rallied in the “great march of return”, a movement symbolising their desire to return to their ancestral homes. Monday’s protest, the bloodiest to date, was focused on fury over the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem on the same day.

Wesal, who turned 14 in December, had been inspired by the marches and started to think intensely about “martyrdom”, her mother said.

For a decade, Israel and Egypt have imposed tight restrictions of the movement of goods and people into Gaza, and Abu Irmana said life had become unbearable for her seven children, with the family having to move every three or four months as they could not afford the rent.

“May God help the people who are living here,” she said, speaking surrounded by friends and family all crammed into a tiny room under a corrugated iron roof.

The family say they are from a small village they have never visited in what is now Israel. Three generations have lived in Gaza’s cramped al-Bureij refugee camp, in a section of the neighbourhood that residents call Block D.

Wesal never left Gaza, Abu Irmana said, recalling a girl she described as “full of joy”. Wesal had written a song for her mother’s upcoming birthday, which she had memorised and sung around the house in her last days.

Her 21-year-old brother had warned her not to go to the protests, threatening – as a joke – that he would break her legs if she tried. But she was steadfast, her mother said. “She said: ‘If I had one leg I would go. If both were broken, I would crawl.’”

Wesal’s 11-year-old brother Mohammed was with her when she was killed. He said she had been given wire cutters by other protesters and was shot in the head near the fence.

Israel’s military said on Monday that Hamas planned to “carry out a massacre in Israel”. However, no one pushed through, and since the weekly protests began on 30 March no Israeli has been harmed, except for one soldier lightly wounded in an unspecified incident.

Mohammed wanted to return to Tuesday’s protests, which were much smaller, but his mother forbade it. “My life is the same,” Abu Irmana said when asked about her plans for the future. “The only change is I don’t have a daughter.”

In Gaza City on Tuesday, shops selling snacks and fresh watermelons stayed open and children played football. Streets of the enclave were quieter than usual. “It feels like wartime again,” said one resident.

A road was blocked off by a blue tarpaulin tent. Dozens of men, old and young, sat on plastic chairs to mourn the death of Yazen al-Toubasi, another casualty from Monday. The 23-year-old cleaner had a son under the age of two.

Toubasi’s father, Ibrahim, sat among neighbours. “All the world is squeezing this small place called Gaza,” he said in a soft, fractured voice. He too had been protesting. He said it was a “national duty” for all Palestinians to continue.

Toubasi had not approached the fence but had stayed in one of the tents set up several hundred metres back for a sit-in. “Even if he tried to throw a stone, it wouldn’t reach them,” his father said.

Green flags belonging to Hamas had been positioned in the road, and a poster with Toubasi’s name embossed on it also showed photos of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.

Hamas has paid for funeral services and donated money to the families of the dead and wounded, a move Israel condemns. Toubasi’s father said his son was not affiliated to one political group but supported “all the factions”.

As he spoke, people walked up and hugged him, often whispering condolences into his ears. “Thank you,” he replied politely to each one.

“The Palestinian cause was abandoned and it is back to the forefront,” he said, promising to return to the frontier with Israel for further demonstrations. “I will be in Yazen’s place tomorrow.”

US, British lawmakers condemn Israel’s “horrific” massacre in Gaza

Palestinians mourn over the body of Yazan al-Tubasi at his funeral in Gaza City on 15 May, a day after he was killed by Israeli occupation forces during protests along Gaza’s eastern boundary.
Mahmoud AjourAPA images

Ali Abunimah-15 May 2018
Members of the US Congress are making some of their strongest statements ever condemning Israel after its massacre of dozens of unarmed civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip on Monday.
This comes amid growing international disquiet over the bloodshed.
“I am deeply saddened by the horrific slaughter of at least 52 Palestinian protesters and injuries to thousands more by Israeli forces,” John Yarmuth, a Democratic House member from Kentucky, wrote on Facebook.
“No doubt this will spark claims that Israel has a right to defend itself – and it does. But this has nothing to do with defense,” Yarmuth added. “We are witnessing the use of unabated brutality and force against civilians to stifle civil unrest. America must expect and demand more from its close allies.”
Yarmuth went on to claim that the “disingenuousness” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that the opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem is part of a “pursuit of peace” is “exposed by the Israeli soldiers meeting expected protesters onsite with gunfire at close range.”
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy issued a statement laying some blame on “both sides,” but made a rare call for Israel to be held to account.
“Shooting protesters, many of whom were reportedly unarmed or throwing rocks which did not justify such a disproportionate response, is deplorable,” Leahy said. “It should be thoroughly investigated and anyone responsible, including those who gave the orders, held accountable.”
Leahy urged that the State Department apply to Israel the US laws that prohibit aid or training to foreign military units found to be responsible for human rights violations.
We agree with @SenatorLeahy's call to open an investigation into Israel’s unlawful killing of Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza. Add your voice to the call for accountability here: http://uscpr.org/accountability 
Very few US lawmakers have spoken out at all since Israel’s first massacre of Great March of Return protesters on 30 March.
But those who are breaking the near silence are being more forthright than ever.
House member Betty McCollum wrote this week on Twitter that the opening of the embassy and the “killing of dozens of Gaza protesters advances Netanyahu’s agenda of occupation and oppression of Palestinians.”
The Minnesota Democrat has been an increasingly vocal supporter of Palestinian rights who last year introduced an unprecedented bill to bar the use of US military aid for Israel’s detention, abuse and torture of Palestinian children.
Danny Davis, a veteran of the civil rights struggle and a Democratic House member from Illinois, called the latest massacre in Gaza a “human rights catastrophe.”

Read More

Bullshit hurts democracy more than lies

If we are allowed to bullshit without consequence, though, we lose sight of the possibility of unwelcome facts. We can instead rely upon whatever facts offer us the most reassurance.

by Michael Blake-
( May 15, 2018, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Since the inauguration of Donald Trump as president, members of his administration have made many statements best described as misleading. During the administration’s first week, then-press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that Trump’s inauguration was the most well attended ever. More recently, Scott Pruitt claimed falsely to have received death threats as a result of his tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump himself has frequently been accused of telling falsehoods – including, on the campaign trail, the claim that 35 percent of Americans are unemployed.
What is extraordinary about these statements is not that that they are false; it is that they are so obviously false. The function of these statements, it seems, is not to describe real events or facts. It is instead to do something more complex: to mark the political identity of the one telling the falsehood, or to express or elicit a particular emotion. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt uses the idea of bullshit as a way of understanding what’s distinctive about this sort of deception.
As a political philosopher, whose work involves trying to understand how democratic communities negotiate complex topics, I am dismayed by the extent to which bullshit is a part of modern life. And what bothers me the most is the fact that the bullshitter may do even more damage than the liar to our ability to reach across the political aisle.

Bullshit does not need facts

Democracy requires us to work together, despite our disagreements about values. This is easiest when we agree about a great many other things – including what evidence for and against our chosen policies would look like.
You and I might disagree about a tax, say; we disagree about what that tax would do and about whether it is fair. But we both acknowledge that eventually there will be evidence about what that tax does and that this evidence will be available to both of us.
The case I have made about that tax may well be undermined by some new fact. Biologist Thomas Huxley noted this in connection with science: A beautiful hypothesis may be slain by an “ugly fact.”
The same is true, though, for democratic deliberation. I accept that if my predictions about the tax prove wrong, that counts against my argument. Facts matter, even if they are unwelcome ones.
If we are allowed to bullshit without consequence, though, we lose sight of the possibility of unwelcome facts. We can instead rely upon whatever facts offer us the most reassurance.

Why this hurts society

In the absence of a shared standard for evidence, bullshit prevents us from engaging with others.
Mike GiffordCC BY-NC
This bullshit, in my view, affects democratic disagreement – but it also affects how we understand the people with whom we are disagreeing.
When there is no shared standard for evidence, then people who disagree with us are not really making claims about a shared world of evidence. They are doing something else entirely; they are declaring their political allegiance or moral worldview.
Take, for instance, President Trump’s claim that he witnessed thousands of American Muslims cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The claim has been thoroughly debunked. President Trump has, nonetheless, frequently repeated the claim – and has relied upon a handful of supporters who also claim to have witnessed an event that did not, in fact, occur.
The false assertion here serves primarily to indicate a moral worldview, in which Muslims are suspect Americans. President Trump, in defending his comments, begins with the assumption of disloyalty: the question to be asked, he insisted, is why “wouldn’t” such cheering have taken place?
Facts, in short, can be adjusted, until they match up with our chosen view of the world. This has the bad effect, though, of transforming all political disputes into disagreements about moral worldview. This sort of disagreement, though, has historically been the source of our most violent and intractable conflicts.
When our disagreements aren’t about facts, but our identities and our moral commitments, it is more difficult for us to come together with the mutual respect required by democratic deliberation. As philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau pithily put it, it is impossible for us to live at peace with those we regard as damned.
It is small wonder that we are now more likely to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation than on racial identity. Political identity is increasingly starting to take on a tribal element, in which our opponents have nothing to teach us.
The liar, in knowingly denying the truth, at least acknowledges that the truth is special. The bullshitter denies that fact – and it is a denial that makes the process of democratic deliberation more difficult.

Speaking back to bullshit

These thoughts are worrying – and it is reasonable to ask what how we might respond.
One natural response is to learn how to identify bullshit. My colleagues Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom have developed a class on precisely this topic. The syllabus of this class has now been taught at over 60 colleges and high schools.
Another natural response is to become mindful of our own complicity with bullshit and to find means by which we might avoid rebroadcasting it in our social media use.
The ConversationNeither of these responses, of course, is entirely adequate, given the insidious and seductive power of bullshit. These small tools, though, may be all we have, and the success of American democracy may depend upon our using them well.
Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Governance, University of Washington
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article

North Korea threatens to cancel summit with Trump over U.S.-South Korean military drills

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said that the U.S. will continue planning for the Trump-Kim summit despite a North Korean threat to pull out. 
 
 North Korea is casting doubt on next month’s summit between leader Kim Jong Un and President Trump over joint Air Force drills taking place in South Korea, which it says are ruining the diplomatic mood.

North Korea always reacts angrily to the joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises, considering them as a rehearsal for an invasion. But this year, with the sudden burst of diplomacy, had appeared to be different.

The South Korean and U.S. militaries had scaled back and played down the exercises, declining the news media the usual access to the drills. North Korea barely said a word about the drills during the computer simulation exercises that took place through April.

The two-week-long Max Thunder drills between the two countries’ Air Forces, an annual event that began on Friday, have, however, clearly struck a nerve.

North Korea suggested that the drills were putting the proposed summit between Trump and Kim, scheduled for June 12, in jeopardy.

“The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-U.S. summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities,” said KCNA, the North’s Korean Central News Agency.


South Korea says it wants American troops to remain on the Korean Peninsula whether or not a peace treaty is signed with North Korea. 
Trump and Kim are due to meet in Singapore, which would be the first time a North Korean leader had meet with a sitting U.S. president.

“The United States will look at what North Korea has said independently, and continue to coordinate closely with our allies,” said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the United States has not received a notice of any change or cancellation. She said the government is continuing to plan for the summit and is confident that Kim understands the need for exercises.

A Pentagon spokesman, Army Col. Rob Manning, said Tuesday that the exercises are part of the U.S.-South Korean alliance’s “routine, annual training program to maintain a foundation of military readiness.”

Manning said the purpose of the exercises is to enhance the alliance’s ability to defend South Korea.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the United States is assuring Kim Jong Un that the U.S. is not trying to oust him. 
“While we will not discuss specifics, the defensive nature of these combined exercises has been clear for many decades and has not changed,” he said.

North Korea, as it has in the past, disagreed.

“This exercise targeting us, which is being carried out across South Korea, is a flagrant challenge to the Panmunjom Declaration and an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula,” KCNA said.

The Max Thunder exercise involves about 100 warplanes, including eight F-22 radar-evading fighters and an unspecified number of B-52 bombers and F-15K jets, according to the South’s main Yonhap News Agency. During last year's Max Thunder exercises, U.S. and South Korean fighter jets flew an average 60 sorties a day to showcase their firepower.

By mentioning the Panmunjom Declaration, North Korea was referring to the agreement signed last month by Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in following their historic summit. 

They agreed to work to turn the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953 into a peace treaty that would officially bring the war to a close, and also to pursue the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula.

Trump and his top aides, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, both previously known for their hard line views on North Korea, have express optimism that a denuclearization agreement can be worked out. 

In surprising detail, Pompeo — who says Kim watches foreign news reports — has laid out the economic and development aid that would flow to the North Korean regime if it permanently and verifiably gives up its nuclear weapons program.

But North Korea, despite being run by one totalitarian family for the last seven decades, is not entirely monolithic. It does have its hawks and its doves, and analysts speculated that hard-liners in the military, concerned about the sudden talk of denuclearization, might be trying to interfere with the current diplomatic efforts.

At the same time as threatening to scupper the summit with Trump, North Korea canceled talks with South Korean officials that had been scheduled for Wednesday, less than 24 hours after agreeing to them. 

North Korea had said it would send five senior officials to Panmunjom for meetings with South Korean officials, the first such talks since the April 27 inter-Korean summit.

They were due to discuss some of the infrastructure aid that South Korea would provide to North Korea as part of their broader detente.

The North was going to send Ri Son Kwon, who leads the North Korean agency in charge of inter-Korean exchanges and was present at the summit, while the South was going to send senior officials from the transport ministry and forest service. 

“Through the inter-Korean high-level talks, [we] will push to lay the groundwork for sustainable development and lasting peace by having in-depth discussions and faithfully implementing the Panmunjom Declaration,” the South’s unification ministry said in a statement Tuesday.

Max Thunder is a two-week operation that has been held annually in the spring for about 10 years. It features the United States and South Korea flying strike aircraft together from air bases in South Korea and Japan to practice air-to-air combat. About 1,000 U.S. troops and 500 South Koreans were involved last year, according to a U.S. military statement published at the time.

Max Thunder is significantly smaller than Foal Eagle and Key Resolve, two other military exercises that were held in April, and briefly paused to reduce tensions so Kim and Moon could meet at the border at the demilitarized zone between their nations to discuss potential peace plans.

The Pentagon said in March that Foal Eagle, which includes ground maneuvers, would involve about 11,500 U.S. troops and 290,000 South Koreans this year, while Key Resolve would focus more on computer simulation and involve about 12,200 U.S. troops and 10,000 South Koreans.

The threat by North Korea to cancel the summit now would seem to contradict the message that South Korean national security adviser Chung Eui-yong brought to the White House in March, when Kim volunteered to meet with Trump. At that time, Kim’s message was that North Korea would refrain from additional nuclear or missile testing and understood “that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue.”

Dan Lamothe and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to this article.