Archive | February 16th, 2012

Zio-Nazi on Facebook celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children


Following the news on the tragic accident today on Jaba road near Ramallah, due to clash of track with school bus, where at least nine children and one teacher were killed and tens were injuried, Israeli comments on facebook, were inhumane to say the least.

Comments on Israeli news website Walla’s post on it’s Facebook page about the accident, showed despicable satisfaction and celebration by Israelis and a disgraceful wish there will be more of such:

Benny: Calm down, they are Palestinian Children.

Tali: It seems like they are Palestinian children.. Thank God..

Tal: Thank God they are Palestinians

Ajala: Great less terrorists!!!!

Eliya: Only Palestinian children were injured about ten.

Itai: Thank God its Palestinians, let it be such bus every day.

Aleyah: calm down, Its a bus with Palestinian children, lets pray there will be deaths, or at least severe injuries, this is great news to start the day with.

End of translation.

Please note the likes on each one of the racist and hateful comments.

And no one tell me this is exception and not the Israeli mainstream.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi on Facebook celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children

When is an ‘NGO’ not an NGO? Twists & Turns Beneath the Cairo Skies


Egyptian investigating judges referred 43 NGO workers, including 19 Americans, to trial before a criminal court for allegedly being involved in banned activities and illegally receiving foreign funds. Among the Americans is Sam LaHood, the head of the Egypt office of the International Republican Institute and the son of. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. — AP

“Egypt, along with other countries, is likely to be far better off if it prohibits American IGOs from operating freely within its national territorial space, especially if their supposed mandate is to promote democracy as defined and funded by Washington.”

by Richard Falk

A confusing controversy between the United States and Egypt is unfolding. It has already raised tensions in the relationship between the two countries to a level that has not existed for decades. It results from moves by the military government in Cairo to go forward with the criminal prosecution of 43 foreigners, including 19 Americans, for unlawfully carrying on the work of unlicensed public interest organizations that improperly, according to Egyptian law, depend for their budget on foreign funding.

Much has been made in American press coverage that one of the Americans charged happens to be Sam LaHood, son of the present American Secretary of Transportation, adopting a tone that seems to imply that at least one connected by blood to an important government official deserves immunity from prosecution.

Washington has responded with high minded and high profile expressions of consternation, including a warning from Hilary Clinton that the annual aid package for Egypt of $1.5 billion (of which $1.3 billion goes to the military) is in jeopardy unless the case against these NGO workers is dropped and their challenged organizations are allowed to carry on with their work of promoting democracy in Egypt. And indeed the U.S. Congress may yet refuse to authorize the release of these funds unless the State Department is willing to certify that Egypt is progressing toward greater democratization.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has already said the issue may lead to America pulling its substantial military aid to Egypt’s army…

President Obama has indicated his intention to continue with the aid at past levels, given the importance of Egypt in relation to American Middle Eastern interests, but as in so many other instances, he may give way if the pressure mounts. The outcome is not yet clear as an ultra-nationalistic Congress may yet thwart Obama’s seemingly more sensible response to what should have been treated as a tempest in a teapot, but for reasons to be discussed, has instead become a cause celebre.

The Americans charged are on the payroll of three organizations: International Republican Institute (IRI), Democratic National Institute (DNI), and Freedom House. The first two organizations get all of their funding from the U.S. Government, and were originally founded in 1983 after Ronald Reagan’s speech to the British Parliament in which he urged that help be given to build the democratic infrastructure of newly independent countries in the non-Western world put forward as a Cold War counter-measure to the continuing appeal of Marxist ideologies. From the moment of their founding IRI and DNI were abundantly funded by annual multi-million grants from Congress, either directly or by way of such governmental entities as the U.S. Assistance for International Development  (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy.

IRI and DNI claim to be non-partisan yet both are explicitly affiliated with each of the two political parties dominant in the United States, with boards, staffs, and consultants drawn overwhelmingly from former government workers and officials who are associated with these two American political parties. The ideological and governmental character of the two organizations is epitomized by the nature of their leadership. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State during the Clinton presidency, is chair of the DNI Board, while former Republican presidential candidate and currently a prominent senator, John McCain, holds the same position in the IRI. Freedom House, the third main organization that is the target of the Egyptian crackdown also depends for more than 80% of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and is similarly rooted in American party politics. It was founded in 1941 as a bipartisan initiative during the Cold War by two stalwarts of their respective political parties, Wendell Wilkie and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Dempsey urges Egypt to resolve dispute with US

Against this background the protests from Washington and the media assessments of the controversy seem willfully misleading. Since when does Washington become so agitated on behalf of NGOs under attack in a foreign country? Even mainstream eyebrows should have been raised sky high when Martin Dempsey, currently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, while visiting Cairo was reported to have interceded with his military counterparts on behalf of these Americans made subject to a travel ban and faced with the threat of prosecution. When was the last time you can recall an American military commander interceding on behalf of a genuine NGO? To paraphrase Bob Dylan, ‘the answer my friends, is never.’ So even the most naïve among us should be asking ‘what is really going on here?’

The spokespersons for the organizations treat the allegations as a simple case of interference with the activities of a political and benevolent NGOs innocently engaged in helping Egyptians receive needed training and guidance with respect to democratic practices, especially those relating to elections and the rule of law. Substantively such claims seem more or less true at present, at least here in Egypt. Sometimes these entities are even referred to by the media as ‘civil society institutions,’ which reflects, at best, a woeful state of unknowing, or worse, deliberate deception. Whatever one thinks of the activities of these actors, it is simply false to conceive of them as ‘nongovernmental’ or as emanations of civil society. It would be more responsive to their nature if such entities were described as ‘informal governmental organizations.’ (IGOs)

It is hardly surprising that a more honest label is avoided as its use would call attention to the problematic character of the undertakings: namely, disguised intrusions by a foreign government in the internal politics of a foreign country with fragile domestic institutions of government by way of behavior that poses at the very least a potential threat to its political independence. With such an altered interpretation of the controversy assumes a different character. It becomes quite understandable for the Egyptian government seeking to move beyond its authoritarian past to feel the need to tame these Trojan Horses outfitted by Washington.

It would seem sensible and prudent for Egypt to insist that such organizations, and especially those associated with the U.S. Government, be registered and properly licensed in Egypt as a minimum precondition for receiving permission to carry on their activities in the country, especially on matters as sensitive as are elections, political parties, and the shaping of the legal system.

Surely the United States, despite its long uninterrupted stable record of constitutional governance, would not even consider allowing such ‘assistance’ from abroad.  If it had been proposed by, say, Sweden, an offer of help with democracy would have been immediately rebuffed, and rudely dismissed as an insult to the sovereignty of the United States  despite Sweden being a geopolitical midget and U.S. being the gorilla on the global stage.

And these Washington shrieks of wounded innocence, as if Cairo had no grounds whatsoever for concern, are either the memory lapses of a senile bureaucracy or totally disingenuous. In the past it has been well documented that IRI and DNI were active in promoting the destabilization of foreign governments that were deemed to be hostile to the then American foreign policy agenda. The Reagan presidency made no secret of its commitment to lend all means of support to political movements dedicated to the overthrow of left-leaning governments in Latin America and Asia.

The most notorious instances involving the use of IRI to destabilize a foreign government is well known among students of American interventionist diplomacy. For instance IRI funds were extensively distributes to anti-regime forces to get rid of the Aristide government in Haiti, part of a dynamic that did lead to a coup in 2004 that brought to power reactionary political forces that were welcomed and seemed far more congenial to Washington’s ideas of ‘good governance’ at the time. IRI was openly self-congratulatory about its role in engineering a successful effort to strengthen ‘center and center/right’ political parties in Poland several years ago, which amounts to a virtual confession of interference with the dynamics of Polish self-determination.

Although spokespersons for these organizations piously claim in their responses to these recent Egyptian moves against them to respect the sovereignty of the countries within which they operate, and especially so in Egypt. Even if these claims are generally true, ample grounds remain for suspicion and regulation, if not exclusion, on the part of a territorial government. An insistence upon proper regulation seems entirely reasonable if due account is taken of the numerous instances of covert and overt intervention by the United States in the political life of non-Western countries.

Against such a background, several conclusions follow: first, the individuals being charged by Egypt are not working for genuine NGOs or civil society institutions, but are acting on behalf of informal government organizations or IGOs; secondly, the specific organizations being targeted, especially the DNI and IRI are overtly ideological in their makeup, funding base, and orientation; and thirdly, there exist compelling grounds for a non-Western government to regulate or exclude such political actors when due account is taken of a long American record of interventionary diplomacy. Thus the Washington posture of outrage seems entirely inappropriate once the actions of the Egyptian government are contextually interpreted.

SCAF = Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Ghawayesh )

Yet the full story is not so simple or one-sided. It needs to be remembered that the Egyptian governing process in the year since the uprising that led to the collapse of the Mubarak regime has been controlled by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which is widely believed by the Egyptian public to be responsible for a wave of repressive violence associated with its fears that some democratic demands are threatening their position and interests in the country. A variety of severe abuses of civilian society have been convincingly attributed to the military. 

As well the military is responsible for a series of harsh moves against dissenters who blog or otherwise act in a manner deemed critical of military rule. In effect, the Egyptian government, although admittedly long concerned about these spurious NGOs operating within its territory even during the period of Mubarak rule, is itself seemingly disingenuous, using the licensing and funding technicalities as a pretext for a wholesale crackdown on dissent and human rights so as to discipline and intimidate a resurgent civil society and a radical opposition movement that remains committed to realizing the democratic promise of the Arab Spring.

There is another seemingly strange part of the puzzle. Would we not expect the United States to side the Egyptian military with which it worked in close harmony during the Mubarak period. Why would Washington not welcome this apparent slide toward Mubarakism without Mubarak? Was this not America’s preferred outcome in Egypt all along, being the only outcome that would allow Washington to be confident that the new Egypt would not rock the Israeli boat or otherwise disturb American interests in the region.

There is no disclosure of U.S. motives at this time for its present seemingly pro-democracy approach, but there are grounds for thinking Washington may be reacting to the success of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nour (Salafi) Party in the Egyptian parliamentary elections and even more so to the apparent collaboration between these parties and the SCAF in planning Egypt’s immediate political future.

In such a setting it seems plausible that sharpening state/society tensions in Egypt by siding with the democratic opposition would keep alive the possibility of a secular governing process less threatening to U.S./Israeli interests, as well as inducing Egypt itself to adopt a cautious approach to democratic reform. Maybe there are different explanations more hidden from view, but what seems clear is that both governmental in this kafuffle have dirty hands and are fencing in the dark at this point, that is, mounting arguments and counter-arguments that obscure rather than reveal their true motivations.

In the end, Egypt, along with other countries, is likely to be far better off if it prohibits American IGOs from operating freely within its national territorial space, especially if their supposed mandate is to promote democracy as defined and funded by Washington. This is not to say that Egyptians would not be far better off if the SCAF allowed civilian rule to emerge in the country and acted in a manner respectful of human rights and democratic values. In other words what is at stake in this seemingly trivial controversy lies hidden by the smokescreens relied upon by both sides in the dispute: weighty matters of governance and democracy that could determine whether the remarkable glories of the Arab Spring mutate in the direction of a dreary Egyptian Autumn, or even Winter.

Editing: Debbie Menon

Posted in EgyptComments Off on When is an ‘NGO’ not an NGO? Twists & Turns Beneath the Cairo Skies

Financial Oligarch Power Raping Greece


by Stephen Lendman


On February 12, Greece’s banker controlled parliament passed sweeping austerity measures on top of multiple previous rounds.

New ones include:

  • sacking 15,000 public workers in 2012 and 150,000 by 2015;

  • slashing private sector wages by 20%;

  • lowering monthly minimum wages from 750 to 600 euros;

  • cutting fast disappearing monthly unemployment benefits from 460 to 360 euros; and

  • reducing pensions many Greeks need to survive by 15%.

At issue is securing another 130 billion euro bailout. The more financial aid Greece gets, the greater its debt, the harder it is to repay, the more future aid’s needed, and deeper the country’s economic abyss heading for total collapse.

No matter. Troika power kleptocrats demanded deep cuts – the IMF, EU and European Central Bank (ECB). Money power dictates bankers get paid first. People needs are sacrificed to assure it.

Since crisis conditions began, Greece’s three major parties capitulated:

  • the social democratic Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) led by banker-sacked former prime minister George Papandreou;

  • the center-right New Democracy under Antonis Samaras; and

  • the hard right Popular (or People’s) Orthodox Rally (LAOS) lead by Georgios Karatzaferis. Until now, it went along.

Ahead of the vote, Karatzaferis said:

“It is unacceptable that right now our politicians’ petty political and public relations maneuvering should be leading the country to bankruptcy.”

“The country is tumbling towards a cliff-edge, and a tough European establishment is putting out the view that Greece cannot be saved and lacks credible politicians. Our politicians back that view with their carryings-on.”

Most often on issues of banker capitulation, differences among the three are largely rhetorical. This time LAOS broke with coalition unity.

Nonetheless, at midnight on Sunday, after hours of perfunctory debate, MPs rubber-stamped measures (199 to 74 with 27 abstentions) party leaders agreed on earlier despite tens of thousands raging in Syntagma Square outside parliament throughout the day and night.

Clashes also occurred in Salonika, Patra, Volos, Crete and Corfu. Expect more ahead by growing numbers unwilling to accept social injustice destroying their ability to survive.

Greece’s working class faces impoverished neoserfdom. Those on pensions have less than ever to survive on, and the nation’s youths have no futures.

As a result, violent protests erupted. Police thugs clashed with people demanding justice. Dozens of buildings burned.

Banker appointed prime minister Lucas Padademos, a former ECB vice president, lied saying “living standards of Greeks would collapse and the country would be dragged into a spiral of recession, instability, unemployment and misery” unless predatory cuts are made.

He lied again claiming pernicious austerity measures will “restore the fiscal stability and global competitiveness of the economy, which will return to growth, probably in the second half of 2013.”

In fact, under crisis conditions, Greece’s economy is dying. In December, manufacturing plunged 15.5% year-over-year. Industrial output sank 11.3%. Unemployment topped 20%. Youth joblessness approaches 50%, and suicides doubled since economic decline began.

As a result, capital flight’s increasing. People are voting with their feet and leaving. Those remaining face hospitals short of medicines, unprecedented homelessness and hunger, schools without basic supplies, and imagine what’s coming when new cuts are implemented.

Moreover, bankers demand more. So far, mandated wealth confiscation alone is their only excluded diktat, but it’s happening incrementally. Under systematic sacking, Greece’s life force is dying in meltdown.

It desperately needs Argentina’s solution. Nothing else offers hope. In December 2001, facing economic collapse, Buenos Aires halted all debt payments to domestic and foreign creditors.

Months earlier, IMF loans deepened the country’s burden. Finally, $100 billion in debt was restructured. In 2005, it was completed on a take it or leave it basis.

Stiff haircuts were imposed on creditors of around 65%. Most decided something was better than nothing. In 2010, holdouts finally capitulated on similar terms.

Sustained economic growth followed from 2003 through 2007. Vital debt restructuring and a devalued currency assured it.

Greece and other troubled Eurozone countries can relieve their burdens the same way. At issue is reclaiming sovereign rights by reinstating their pre-euro currencies. They never should have sacrificed them in the first place.

A Final Comment

Trapped under euro straightjacket rules, Greece surrendered control over its ability to monetize debt freely, devalue its currency to make exports more competitive, and enact stimulative fiscal policies.

Instead, it’s entrapped by foreign bankers demanding tribute at the expense of mercilessly exploiting the nation’s working class, youths, and retirees.

Financial oligarchs dominate ruthlessly. They make the rules, set terms, issue diktats, control parliaments, and pressure, bribe or otherwise force capitulation on terms no loan shark would demand.

They include mass layoffs, deep wage and benefit cuts, higher taxes, selling off the nation’s crown jewels, and more to assure bankers get paid first. No wonder economist Michael Hudson calls predatory finance “a form warfare.”

It operates like pillaging armies, seizing land, infrastructure, other tangible assets, and all material wealth. In the process, countries and ordinary people are devastated.

Greece is effectively bankrupt. Only its obituary remains to be written. Its people have a simple choice – leave or rebel.

Street protests and strikes produce nothing. Banker controlled parliamentarians don’t care.

By whatever means necessary, replacing them is crucial. Nothing else can work, and delay only exacerbates intolerable conditions.

Posted in GreeceComments Off on Financial Oligarch Power Raping Greece

Eye in the Sky Spying on Americans


by Stephen Lendman


Money power runs America. So do lobbies representing all corporate and other interests.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) represents dozens of influential companies.

They include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Bell Hellicopter Textron, Sikorsky Aircraft, Goodrich, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hill & Knowlton, and many more promoting unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drone technology.

Against targeted countries, it’s America’s newest sport. From distant command centers, operators kill by remote control. They use computer keyboards and multiple monitors. UAVs stand ready round-the-clock for missions.

Predator drones perform sanitized killing on the cheap compared to manned aircraft. Independent experts believe militants are hit about 2% of the time. All others are noncombatants, despite official disclaimers.

In 1995, Predator drones were used for the first time in Bosnia. In 2001, the Global Hawk drone was used in Afghanistan. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Pentagon used various type drones for combat and spying missions.

In Libya, Obama authorized Predator drones. They operated throughout the war. They’re also used in Yemen, Somalia, and wherever Washington designates targets to kill.

US citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi was assassinated this way. So can anyone anywhere on America’s hit list, including perhaps domestically before long.

Washington plans escalated drone killing, as well domestic spying on Americans. Currently, around one in three US warplanes are drones. One day perhaps they’ll all be unmanned.

Domestic Drone Spying in America

On January 10, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Jennifer Lynch headlined, “Are Drones Watching You?” saying:

EFF sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for information on domestic drone use. Who’s flying UAVs it asked?

Drones carry surveillance equipment, including video cameras, infrared ones, heat sensors, and radar for sophisticated virtually constant spying. Newer versions carry super high resolution “gigapixel” cameras. They enable tracking above 20,000 feet. They can monitor up to 65 enemies simultaneously, and can see targets up to 25 miles away.

Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions. A new model’s able to penetrate Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone calls covertly.

Even domestically, drones may be weaponized with tasers, bean bag guns, and other devices able to harm or perhaps kill.

Currently, the US Customs and Border Protection uses UAVs for surveilling borders. State and local law enforcement agencies also use them to investigate “cattle rustling, drug dealing, and the search for missing persons.”

Flying above 400 feet requires FAA certification. Information’s unavailable on who obtained authorizations for what purposes.

FAA comes under the Department of Transportation (DOT). It failed to respond to EFF’s April 2011 FOIA request. EFF attorney Lynch said:

“Drones give the government and other (UAV) operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans’ movements and activities.”

“As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveil United States citizens.”

Drones “could dramatically increase the physical tracking of citizens – tracking that can reveal deeply personal details about our private lives. We’re asking the DOT to follow the law and respond to our FOIA request so we can learn more about” what the public has a right to know.

The Supreme Court hasn’t been people friendly on many issues, including privacy. In United States v. Place (1983), the court held that sniffs by police dogs trained to detect illegal drugs aren’t searches under the Fourth Amendment.

They’re sui generis, intended only to reveal the presence or absence of narcotics. In other words, Fourth Amendment protections don’t apply to non-human searchers. As a result, privacy rights are on the chopping block for elimination. Already, in fact, they’re gravely compromised under institutionalized Bush administration surveillance policy.

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized spying through the National Applications Office (NOA). It was described as “the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States.”

With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch may authorize state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans covertly.

Though initial plans were delayed, eye in the sky spying ahead potentially will monitor everyone everywhere once full implementation’s achieved. Included will be thousands of Big Brother drones watching.

On February 3, the FAA Reauthorization Act (HR 658) cleared both houses of Congress after differences between Senate and House versions were resolved. Expect Obama to sign it shortly.

It authorizes domestic drone spying under provisions to test and license commercial drones by 2015. Estimates of up to 30,000 UAVs could overfly America by 2020. Privacy advocates are concerned. Steven Aftergood, head of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said:

“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities.”

According to Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Amie Stepanovich, “Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates.”

Changing the rules changes the game. Expect it. It’s coming once Obama signs HR 658. UAV proliferation already is expanding rapidly. A July 2010 FAA Fact Sheet said in America alone, “approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs.”

America’s expected to account for about 70% of global growth. In 2011, Congress, DOD, state and local governments, as well as AUVSI pressured the FAA to review and expand its current “Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)” program related to unmanned aircraft (UA).

The agency’s also examining its own rules for small UAs. It’s expected to authorize expanded COA use shortly.

ACLU Concerns

On February 6, the ACLU headlined, “Congress Trying to Fast-Track Domestic Drone Use, Sideline Privacy,” saying:

In fact, Congress already authorized expanded domestic drones. Obama’s poised to sign HR 658 into law. Provisions in it include requiring FAA:

(1) to simplify and accelerate permission for drone operations. The agency’s already working on loosening regulations by spring 2012.

(2) to establish a pilot project within six months for six test zones to integrate drones “into the national airspace system.”

(3) create a comprehensive plan within nine months “to safely accelerate the integration of civil (privately operated) unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.”

(4) after submitting a comprehensive plan, publish final rules within 18 months to allow civil operation of small (under 55 pounds) drones in America’s airspace.

On December 15, the ACLU published a report titled, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft,” saying:

They’re coming to America. Privacy may be seriously compromised. Protections are urgently needed. The report recommends that “drones should not be deployed unless there are grounds to believe that they will collect evidence on a specific crime.”

“If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required.” The report also urges “restrictions on retaining images of identifiable people, as well as an open process for developing policies on how drones will be used.”

Overflying America with drones unrestrained changes the game. A “surveillance society” will be institutionalized to monitor, track, and record “our every move.”

Given a bipartisan penchant for spying, expect the worst. Privacy, like other civil and human rights, is fast disappearing under policies in place or coming to destroy it.

Posted in USAComments Off on Eye in the Sky Spying on Americans


Israeli Arab journalist switches airline after ‘humiliating’ El Al security check

Nazareth-based women’s magazine editor Yara Mashour tells Haaretz she felt as if she was ‘raped’ by airport security agents in Milan airport.

By Jack Khoury


An Arab journalist says she was so profoundly insulted by El Al security staff at a Milan airport that she changed her itinerary and may sue the Israeli national carrier.

Yara Mashour is the editor of the Nazareth-based women’s magazine Lilac and the daughter of the late Lutfi Mashour, the editor and publisher of the Arabic weekly Al-Sinara. Yesterday she related what she said happened to her, her brother-in-law and another relative when they arrived at Milan’s Malpensa Airport on Monday for their return flight to Israel, and reached the El Al security checkpoint.

“As soon as they realized we were Arabs they immediately separated us from the other passengers. Three security people started asking us questions. At first we considered it to be routine, but it went on and on,” Mashour said.

She said that at some point security agents separated each member of her party “like criminals,” adding, “I began arguing and asking them why they were asking so many questions. One of the guards, apparently the one in charge, got mad and began yelling, ‘You won’t board the plane until I have asked you all the questions and you have passed the strictest security check,'” Mashour said. She was then asked to follow a number of security agents to another part of the airport, for a body search.


What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow on Facebook and share your views.

“I said I refused to undergo this humiliation and that I had no intention of cooperating. I said I was even willing to give up my flight,” Mashour said.

“I felt like they were raping me in many senses, and I am not prepared to let this go. The issue has already been given to a lawyer to handle, to check whether a suit can be filed for damages, for the insult and humiliation we suffered,” Mashour said.

According to Mashour the man in charge of security said it would be better if she did not fly, and that her money would be refunded.

“I went to the airline ticket counter to check and they told us they wouldn’t refund our tickets because it was our decision not to board the plane,” Mashour said.

According to Mashour, her two traveling companions were also subjected to humiliating security checks, in which they were forced to remove the contents of their bags for examination.

“It looked like they were doing this on purpose, because we asked why we were being humiliated,” she said.

On Tuesday the group flew to Israel, via Istanbul, on a Turkish airline.

“In Turkey we went through the usual check and amazingly, the plane reached Israel safely and did not blow up,” Mashour commented.

In a response, El Al said it operates “in accordance with the instructions of Israeli security agencies,” adding, “We regret that the passengers were offended and chose not to fly with us.”


Urgent Request to Release of Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa


Jewish boy

Wednesday, 15 February 2012,


14 February 2012

Mr. Ehud Barak

Minister of Defense

Re: Urgent Request to Release or Try Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa


Dear Mr. Minister:

I am writing to ask for your urgent intervention to ensure the immediate release of Khader Adnan, currently in administrative detention, who has been on a hunger strike for 60 days; or alternatively – if the evidence so warrants – to put him on trial.

Mr. Adnan was arrested on 17 December 2011 and has been in administrative detention since 8 January 2012; to this day, no charges have been filed against him and he has not been given the opportunity to address any claims in a fair trial. To protest the abuse and brutal treatment that Mr. Adnan says he experienced during his arrest and interrogation, and to protest his continued detention without trial, Mr. Adnan began a hunger strike. According to Israeli human rights organization Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-Israel), Mr. Adnan’s health has seriously deteriorated as a result of the hunger strike, and continuing it will endanger his life. Under these circumstances, denying Mr. Adnan his freedom without trial is particularly grave, and immediate measures should be taken to release him or give him a fair trial.

Administrative detention, which allows the denial of a person’s freedom for months without trial, severely harms basic human rights, above all the right to freedom and dignity. Although administrative detainees are brought before a judge for review of their detention, the preponderance of material on which the detention is based remains classified – hidden from the suspect and his attorney – hence the detainee has no real opportunity to defend himself or refute the accusations against him. Under these circumstances, judicial oversight is no real guarantee of the lawfulness of the detention, and even the fairest of judges cannot administer justice. Judicial oversight in this context lacks the minimal assurance of a proper judicial process, and can doubtfully be regarded as a fair judicial procedure.

Beyond the injury of administrative detention to a person’s elementary right to due process, such detention is not limited in time (since it can be extended indefinitely). Therefore the detainee is in an untenable situation of ongoing uncertainty about his future and the length of his incarceration. This can be a source of severe emotional strain and constitutes additional humiliation, as the individual lacks all tools to defend himself.

Despite the extreme nature of administrative detention, Israeli security forces have over the years made routine use of it in the Occupied Territories. On 31 December 2011, according to B’Tselem data, no fewer than 307 Palestinians were being held in administrative detention – and this number has shown a worrisome increase recently. Mr. Adnan’s hunger strike is yet another reminder of the severe violation of human rights caused by isolating someone from his environment and family with no manifest reason or proven basis.

According to the ruling by the Military Court of Appeals on 13 February 2012, the detention order against Mr. Adnan was issued because of “organizational activity” attributed to him in the Islamic Jihad organization. Clearly terrorist activity is completely unacceptable, and is itself a fatal blow to the most fundamental human rights, including the right to life. However, if a claim is being made that Mr. Adnan is involved in any unlawful activity, there is a basic obligation to inform him of the nature of the specific accusations against him, and to conduct a fair proceeding that allows for investigation of his guilt.

This case is particularly grave in light of the shocking reports of Mr. Adnan’s detention conditions. According to Physicians for Human Rights, he is handcuffed to his bed on both sides in Sieff Hospital in Safed – in contravention of procedures concerning the shackling of a detainee in a public place, medical ethics, and logic, as this would not be necessary to prevent the escape of someone in such poor physical health.

In light of the above, and considering the deteriorating state of Mr. Adnan’s health, I urgently appeal to you to ensure Mr. Adnan’s immediate release from administrative detention or that he be put on trial. Human morality, rational thinking, and concern for the democratic character of Israel obligate us to bring this terrible affair to an end.


Sami Michael, President

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)



Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Urgent Request to Release of Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa

Greek as Athens Burns


ATHENS (Reuters) – Greece’s parliament approved a deeply unpopular austerity bill on Monday to secure a second bailout and avoid national bankruptcy, as buildings burned across central Athens and violence spread around the country.

Cinemas, cafes, shops and banks were set ablaze in central Athens and black-masked protesters fought riot police outside parliament before lawmakers voted on the package that demands deep pay, pension and job cuts – the price of a 130 billion euro bailout needed to keep the country afloat.

State television reported the violence spread to the tourist islands of Corfu and Crete, the northern city of Thessaloniki and towns in central Greece. Police said 150 shops were looted in the capital and 34 buildings set ablaze.

Altogether 199 of the 300 lawmakers backed the bill, but 43 deputies from the two parties in the government of Prime Minister Lucas Papademos, the socialists and conservatives, rebelled by voting against. They were immediately expelled by their parties.

The rebellion and street violence foreshadowed the problems the government faces in implementing the cuts, which include a 22 percent reduction in the minimum wage – a package critics say condemns the Greek economy to an ever-deeper downward spiral.

Papademos, a technocrat brought into get a grip on his country’s crisis, denounced the worst breakdown of order since 2008 when violence gripped Greece for weeks after police shot a 15-year-old schoolboy.

“Vandalism, violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country and won’t be tolerated,” he told parliament as it prepared to vote on the new 130 billion euro bailout to save Greece from a chaotic bankruptcy.


But he admitted that imposing the austerity on a nation that has already endured several years of cuts would be tough.

“Ahead of us, we have a complete and credible economic programme to exit the fiscal and economic crisis. It is a programme which safeguards, more than anything else, the country’s place in the euro,” he said.

“The full, timely and effective implementation of the programme won’t be easy. We are fully aware that the economic programme means short term sacrifices for the Greek people.”

Greece needs the international funds before March 20 to meet debt repayments of 14.5 billion euros, or suffer a chaotic default which could shake the entire euro zone.

Outside parliament Veteranstoday Reporter photographer saw buildings in Athens engulfed in flames and huge plumes of smoke rose in the night sky.

“We are facing destruction. Our country, our home, has become ripe for burning, the centre of Athens is in flames. We cannot allow populism to burn our country down,” conservative lawmaker Costis Hatzidakis told parliament.

The air in Syntagma Square outside parliament was thick with tear gas as riot police fought running battles with youths who smashed marble balustrades and hurled stones and petrol bombs.

Terrified Greeks and tourists fled the rock-strewn streets and the clouds of stinging gas, cramming into hotel lobbies for shelter as lines of riot police struggled to contain the mayhem.

State NET television reported that trouble had also broken out in Heraklion, capital of Crete, as well as the towns of Volos and Agrinio in central Greece.

On the streets of Athens many businesses were ablaze, including the neo-classical home to the Attikon cinema dating from 1870 and a building housing the Asty, an underground cinema used by the Gestapo during World War Two as a torture chamber.

As fighting raged for hours, protesters threw bombs made from gas canisters as riot police advanced across the square on the crowds, firing tear gas and stun grenades. Loud booms from the protests could be heard inside parliament.

Posted in GreeceComments Off on Greek as Athens Burns

Television’s Illusions Enthrall America’s Cavemen


by Stewart Ogilby

Front-Lit Moon ManFront-Lit Moon Man

Around 2400 years ago a philosophy student of the brilliant and kindly Socrates wrote his conception of the ideal State. Plato’s form of government fits our definition of fascism. His “Republic” shares shelf-space with Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in personal libraries of manipulators of mankind’s economic and social relationships, the aspiring fascist dictators of today’s nations and, perhaps, of tomorrow’s world.

In his “Allegory of the Cave”, Plato was able to create images. Lacking today’s technology, he devised a hypothetical light-source by means of controlled fire located behind the participants. Thomas Edison’s electric bulb was a couple of thousand years in the future. Plato’s subjects faced a wall of the cave upon which fire-light cast shadows. The “Allegory of the Cave” gives us a glimpse of Plato’s understanding of how easily his countrymen could be manipulated into substituting moving images for reality. His allegory gives us a glimpse of why Plato espoused a benevolent fascism. Along with the light-bulb, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and George Orwell’s “1984″ were in the distant future. Plato would have understood television’s enthralling illusions.

Edward Bernays, a double nephew of Sigmund Freud, is often referred to as founder of America’s public relations industry. He could not have harbored a more cynical view than Plato’s toward his own countrymen. Bankers who pulled the strings of President Woodrow Wilson employed Bernays to manipulate America’s masses in support of the first World War. Bernays was successful without television, today’s highly efficient source of enthralling and illusory imagery.

I recall sitting in front of a small black and white television set with “rabbit-ears” antennae on its top back in the days before hand-held pocket calculators had been invented. How many readers recall using a slide-rule when solving problems in physics class? In those days of primitive electronics I was enthralled as I watched US astronauts go to the moon and back, not once, but seven times! Thankfully, not one of those brave men was lost in space. Those who now express skepticism at how that could actually have been done, especially knowing the facts of our earth’s Van Allen Radiation Belt, are summarily tossed into today’s “conspiracy nut” bin along with 9/11 researchers.

I don’t recall when the first time was that I wondered why men, supposedly on the moon, moved so slowly in a field of gravity only one sixth that of the earth, and why they bounced no higher than they could have jumped on their own front lawns. It was too radical, at the time for me to realize that the video had been filmed in a studio and that the speed of the film had simply been slowed down. Today’s proofs including that of studio lighting and near-earth orbits are overwhelming and make the TV illusion totally obvious. If you have something of an open mind, access two online sources – and this fine video –

The visual character of televised 9/11 illusions results in strong support for their validity through underlying psychological benefits, given years of crafted and TV-implanted anti-Arab propaganda. Anyone who proposed that the NY buildings had been brought down by explosives, regardless of the strength of evidence, generally met with an irrational and angry emotional response even from functionally intelligent persons. Myths and narratives acquired through audio-visual means via television are powerfully imbedded. That is what makes the medium valuable to advertisers.

One who acquires data through television keeps returning to segments of the narrative as valid working premises when attempting to research or to analyze the fundamental validity or truth of the narrative itself. Nearly everything that is supposedly known by the public about what may have happened on 9/11 has come from television and newspapers, sources that are highly censored and controlled. Such media may be reliable in some matters and unreliable in others. Because there is no way to determine which case is operative at any time it is necessary to disregard both sources of information entirely. What are we then left with?

A more scholarly form of this question becomes, “What is it that we can truly know, based upon sources acceptable to us as being reliable, of events, background, participants, and related matters involving what is being referred to as 9/11?” If we discard television, newspapers, and “official sources”, the answer is “Far less than we thought we knew”. Buildings, planes, and victims – all are lost in a haze of speculative and contradictory hypotheses. News reporting should be more reliable, don’t you think? Clues are emerging such as at Simon Shack’s It may be too soon to expect Americans to understand that 9/11 was also simply a huge TV and mainline-media hoax, the purpose of which was to demolish commercial real-estate in a financially profitable urban renewal project, spinning a story into a politically expedient narrative. Exposing this fact certainly ought not take as long as it did to expose the imagery of trips to the moon, media’s ongoing censorship and 9/11 victimology nonsense notwithstanding.

Since the 1945 end of WW-II a televised American myth , in the words of the bard’s MacBeth, is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The time for the truth is now and may actually be passing. Tyranny, fascism, New World government, Orwell’s image of mankind’s face with a boot on it, this is our future unless we are willing to separate TV’s illusions from facts. It is not easy. The two formidable psychological stumbling blocks are fear and denial. Not everyone is going to get a grip on the extent of the deceit. It is the responsibility of those who understand to confront corporate and banking criminals, the few who threaten us and everyone, themselves and their own children included. Their fascism, a psychopathic drive to pseudo-benevolently manipulate economic and social relationships of other human beings in order to pursue their lust for money and power, is aided and abetted by their media partners in crime, especially the criminals who support them with our enthralling televised illusions.

Posted in USAComments Off on Television’s Illusions Enthrall America’s Cavemen

BBC: Caught in the Act


by Stephen Lendman


On February 11, the London Independent headlined, “BBC to issue global apology for documentaries that broke rules,” saying:

“….(P)rograms were made by third-party in pay of governments and firms.”

In other words, they were propaganda, not legitimate news and information. More on the scandal below.

Throughout its history, BBC’s been an imperial tool. It replicates the worst of America’s major media, its NPR/PBS managed news operations, and Qatar controlled Al Jazeera on major world and national issues.

Reliability’s not its mandate. Owned, operated and controlled by Britain, government officials appoint its management. Nothing fundamentally changed from 1922 inception to today. Only technology’s different, not BBC’s state controlled message.

It’s pro-government, pro-imperial, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-corporate, and anti-populist. Deception triumphs over truth. Step over the line and get fired.

In 2003, correspondent Andrew Gilligan, Chairman Gavyn Davies, and Director-General Greg Dyke got the boot because Gilligan reported government officials “sexed up” WMD documents, knowing they were false.

In other words, fake information, in league with Washington, promoted war on Iraq. Exposing it got Gilligan and top management axed. New bosses replaced former ones. Seamlessly it was back to business as usual, producing propaganda instead of truth and full disclosure.

In March 2011, the London Guardian headlined, “BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US State Department,” saying:

BBC will “receive a ‘significant’ sum of money from the US government to help (circumvent) the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China,” as well as develop early warning software to more easily detect jamming.

At the time, BBC’s Jim Egan said software would help “monitor dips in traffic which act as an early warning of jamming, and can be more effective than relying on people contacting us and telling us they cannot access the services.”

Proxy servers are also used to misdirect web site blockers to countries other than where broadcasts emanate.

Egan left unexplained why foreign blocking occurs: namely, to prevent state-sponsored propaganda vilifying targeted regimes. Funding buys influence. According to Institute of Economic Affairs director Mark Littlewood:

“The minute you actually start taking the money, there is bound to be a certain element of ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’ It is a strange arrangement, and I would worry that the more complicated we make (BBC), the less pure its message can be.”

Of course, BBC’s tainted and disreputable, not pure. Its state controlled message serves wealth and power. EU Parliament member Gerard Batten once called it “institutionally politically biased, certainly in favour of things like the European Union, mass immigration, and a whole other ‘politically correct’ ideas that I think it peddles to the public.”

He added that the “sponsorship of any news and current affairs TV programs (is prohibited) across the EU. Now it would appear then, that if the US State Department is going to fund BBC that would appear to be in breach of the directive.”

BBC’s Latest Scandal


 London Independent investigation learned how BBC’s paid nominal fees of as little as one British pound for programming produced by Britain’s FactBased Communications (FBC Media).

It calls itself “a European-based media and entertainment group specializing in television format creation, production and distribution.”

Its activities include “current affairs content for television and airlines plus original TV format creation and quality production for the UK and international television markets in the business, economy, entertainment, sport and factual genres, as well as FBC’s international sales, sponsorship and distribution of syndicated programmes.”

The spotlight is on the relationship between FBC Media — the British publicity firm led by media giant Alan Friedman (picture) and former CNN reporter John Defterios …

FBC’s run by former Financial Times correspondent Alan Friedman and former CNN reporter John Defterios until he resigned. Its services include government and corporate propaganda.

Its clients are featured in programs made for CNBC, India, Greece, Kazakhstan, Italy, Zambia, Indonesia, Hungary, and corporations like Microsoft. Its promotional literature says it “cultivate(s)” key opinion makers, the types showing up on major media TV. It boasted that its:

“clients include heads of state, governments and ministries, special economic zones and property projects, companies and international organizations.”

It produced eight Malaysia propaganda pieces for BBC without mention of being paid 17 million pounds by its government for “global strategic communications.” Material portrayed Malaysia’s controversial palm oil industry favorably.

BBC also aired FBC’s documentary about Egypt’s 2011 uprising produced by former dictator Hosni Mubarak. BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee discovered 15 World Service editorial breaches. Eight were about Malaysia. Others were on violating sponsorship rules.

As a result, on February 11, BBC apologized on air to millions of viewers. The Independent called it a “remarkable broadcast, available in 295 million homes, 1.7 million hotel rooms, 81 cruise ships, 46 airlines, and on 35 mobile phone platforms,” as well as anyone worldwide online.

Given BBC’s longstanding government controlled mandate, it apologized tongue in cheek for breaking “rules aimed at protecting our editorial integrity.” In fact, it got caught with its pants down.

Saying “(e)ditorial integrity is the highest priority for BBC World News” falsifies facts. Perhaps its most flagrant breach occurred on 9/11. At 4:54PM EDT, BBC’s Jane Standley reported WTC 7′s collapse – 27 minutes before it happened at 5:21PM EDT.

Later she disingenuously claimed she didn’t “remember minute-by-minute what she saw.” Of course, neither she or BBC could explain how an event was reported before it occurred. BBC knew in advance, but erred by informing viewers too early.

The Independent concluded its report, saying:

It “kept strict divisions between (FBC’s) editorial and PR operations. Still operating in Europe and India, FBC closed its London offices and went into administration (last) October. Broadcasting regulator Ofcom is investigating” its operations.

Administrator Hillier Hopkins Corporate Recovery’s David Butler said:

It’s “working on establishing the extent of the company’s assets (to) maximize any potential return to the ex-employees and other creditors. As with any insolvency, the circumstances surrounding and the reasons for they company’s failure will be fully investigated in due course.”

Expect nothing further exposing BBC’s state controlled propaganda, not real news, information and analysis. Its mandate entirely excludes them.

Posted in Politics, UKComments Off on BBC: Caught in the Act

Debate About Iran Strategy Heats Up in IsraHell

Zio-Nazi Army: Zio-Nazi Brass Galant and Zio-Nazi Barak

In IsraHell the debate over whether to attack Iran has seen the political leadership of the Zio-Nazi Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak and the Prime Minister, Zio-Nazi Benjamin Naziyahu face a resistant security echelon with the heads of Zio-Nazi intelligence agencies (and their predecessors) opposing such an attack.

The question of Iran was expected to be at the top of the agenda at this year’s Herzeliya Conference, which took place last week.

The conference is Zio-Nazi main security and strategic gathering with speakers from the Zio-Nazi army, various ministries, major corporations, and security think tanks.

The army’s chief of staff, head of military intelligence, minister of defense, and the former head of the Zio-Nazi Gestapo ‘Mossad’ spoke, with the later warning for the leadership to be patient as the sanctions are working.

At the annual top security conference in IsraHell sharp divisions over talk of attacking Iran

 by TheRealNews

NAZI Major-General Yoav Galant, southern command chief. He was the chief commander in charge of “Operation Cast Lead”. He personally participated in the Holocaust against civilians in Gaza. (Kawther Salam, Journalist in Palestine)

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Debate About Iran Strategy Heats Up in IsraHell

Shoah’s pages


February 2012
« Jan   Mar »