Spent a half hour just grabbing as much as I could from the so called "report"
"a massive increase in illicit ship-to-ship transfers of petroleum products" (Associated Press) "has not stopped its nuclear and missile programs and continued to defy Security Council resolutions through a massive increase in illicit ship-to-ship transfers of petroleum products, as well as through transfers of coal at sea during 2018" (Reuters)
"increasingly sophisticated evasion techniques" (Associated Press) "increased in scope, scale and sophistication" (Reuters)
"would have to immediately halt all such transfers" (Associated Press)
"prohibited military cooperation with the Syrian Arab Republic has continued unabated" (Reuters) "attempted to supply small arms and light weapons and other military equipment via foreign intermediaries" (Al Jazeera)
I hate that people are so lazy as to never read the references an article has rather than reading a partisan viewpoint... see what the report actually says, except the report does not seem to be anywhere. This makes me curious three different news agencies got access to a Confidential report (because their reporting of what the report contains is different, three different agencies had to have got this report.)
One thing I've noticed over the years is that what is reported that an academic article says or some government report says... is often not what it actually says but what the news agency wants it to say. The quotes tend to be accurate, but are taken out of context, finding something like
"There is no evidence to suggest that North Korea has not stopped its nuclear and missile programs" which becomes "North Korea has not stopped its nuclear and missile programs", other cases I've found other cute ways of omitting information like that.
I'd be interested in seeing the report itself, but I have doubts as to whether it exists at all. There is too much change between the news reports, people adding their own influence you see.
reply
share