Justice4thepoor

hello? anybody there?

2011-05-15T19:58:00.002Z

Probably time to clean the cobwebs off this blog

How to write propaganda devoid of facts; anatomy of a liberal propaganda article

2010-09-29T11:13:00.004Z

Below is an article printed today on the Guardian Website -slightly amended by me. Apparently 'they' [the intelligence agencies] prevented a 'mumbai-style' terrorist attack Western Europe. This article should be subheaded: 'how to write a propaganda laden article full of bullshit from unnamed intelligence officials'.

These so called enlightened journalists are attempting to justify the drone murders of local guerillas by scaremongering and pointing the finger at a terrorist attack in India two years ago in an article completely devoid of evidence.

'Mumbai-style' terror attack on UK, France and Germany foiled [insert scary headline; add some EU countries]

� Drone attacks intercept militants based in Pakistan
� Western intelligence agencies confirm plot fears

* Richard Norton-Taylor and Owen Bowcott
* The Guardian, Wednesday 29 September 2010

25 dead, at least 50 injured in Mumbai terror attacks One hundred and sixty-six people were killed in a series of gun and grenade assaults in Mumbai in 2008. Photograph: EPA [add scary photo of former terrorist incident here]

A plot to launch "commando-style" attacks on Britain, France, and Germany has been intercepted and foiled by drone attacks on militants based in Pakistan, security and intelligence sources said last night.

The plan for suicidal onslaughts similar to the 2008 atrocity in Mumbai � where 166 people were killed in a series of gun and grenade assaults � was disrupted after a combined operation involving US, UK, French and German intelligence agencies, officials said.
[add dramatic statement about suicide bombing in the West]
British security and intelligence sources, who have been concerned for some time about the possibility of a Mumbai-style attack in Europe, confirmed that they believed a plot was being hatched from Pakistan.

The increased rate of coordinated US drone raids along the border with Afghanistan is believed to be a response to intelligence gathered about the plot. Security sources insisted that attacks in Europe were not imminent. [justify the increasing campaign of murder by drones here]

The Eiffel Tower in Paris, however, has been evacuated twice because of a bomb scare in the past two weeks, a precaution that may have been prompted by the intelligence. [mention a prominent landmark in the West and some bomb scares]

No further evidence of such a plot was provided.[but we can base a whole front page article on it] Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, earlier this month spoke publicly about the continuing threat of terror attacks in the UK. In his speech, he suggested that around 50% of the plots identified had links to Pakistan � a decline on previous estimates that suggested the figure was nearer 75%. [add more intelligence official quotes here]

The terror group behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks was the outlawed, Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In the aftermath of the attack western intelligence agencies gained access to computers seized from the Islamist group which listed other potential targets outside the Indian subcontinent for commando-style terror strikes.

Nine of the gunmen were killed � but a lone survivor gave Indian investigators a full confession that the assault was planned in Pakistan by Lashkar, a militant group that originally began an armed campaign against the Indian army in Kashmir.

US military briefings suggested the latest missile attacks in Pakistan had been coordinated by the CIA and were an unusual example of using drones to pre-empt possible terror plots. [quote military briefings]

"There are some pretty notable threat streams," one US military official told the Wall Street Journal, adding that the significance of the threats is still being assessed by counterterrorism experts.[more quotes about the threat here]

The CIA is believed to have launched at least 20 drone strikes this month in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the region bordering Afghanistan That is the highest monthly total in the past six years, according tofigures from the New America Foundation think tank which monitors drone operations. [add some statistics about drone attacks]

Four people were reported killed in the latest raid on Monday by US Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that are operated remotely out of air force bases in the US. A senior al-Qaida leader was among one of those killed in drone raids, Pakistani and US officials said yesterday. [add a reference to the bogeyman]

There has also been speculation that some of the attacks may be targeted against the Islamist Haqqani network, a group that has not previously operated outside the region. [add mention of another official enemy network]

The group controls the area in north-western Pakistan where intelligence officials suspect Osama bin Laden may be hiding. [add mention of the big bogeyman]

American officials declined to comment on specific plots in Europe or elsewhere but acknowledged that targeted drone strikes in Pakistan were meant to disrupt militant networks planning attacks. [rephrase previous statement for effect]

"It shouldn't surprise anyone that links between plots and those who are orchestrating them lead to decisive American action," a US official told Reuters.

"The terrorists who are involved are, as everyone should expect, going to be targets. That's the whole point of all of this." [more official quotes from a US official to Reuters]

[job well done boys, go and collect your generous salary and perks]

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/29/terror-attack-plot-europe-foiled

Israel spends big on propaganda

2009-09-24T17:34:00.003Z

Relevant today as it always was

2009-09-17T12:26:00.000Z

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Mark Twain 1916

Two-state solution or one-state solution to the Palestine problem?

2009-09-07T11:07:00.003Z

The argument regarding the so-called middle east peace process appears to centre around the premise that a two state solution is the best and only feasible alternative and that a one state solution is unthinkable because it would mean that the state of Israel would cease to exist due to demographic reasons. However, If you think about it, the existing situation is already a one-state situation. By refusing to recognise borders, by its seizure of legally owned lands for settlers, by refusing to accept the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to the land, and by controlling the whole of the territory in Palestine ( land, sea and air including Gaza ), Israel has in a meaningful sense imposed a one state solution already. The problem with this Greater-Israel state are apartheid policies, lack of democratic rights, legal discrimination and state terrorism against the Arabs whether they have Israeli identity papers or not. Arabs with Israeli identity are also not immune from the racist whims of the state and continue to suffer from discrimination, demolitions and settlement activity. The assumption that the one state solution means the disappearance of Israel is mistaken. It assumes that discrimination would automatically disappear and democratic rights would prevail. A single state can still subjugate and discriminate against a section of the population. This is the case in many states across the world.

The two state solution is really a mirage. It allows the Israelis to give the impression that they are allowing a viable state for the Arabs, but in practice they will never concede any kind of control over the borders, air space or waters of the whole of the territory. Any rump Palestinian state will have limited economic freedom, limited or no defence capability, and no control over their own airspace and borders. Realistically, that would not be a state at all but rather a a semi-autonomous enclave/province subject to Israeli control. The Palestinians would only have nominally more freedom than they have now.

The problem as I see it is perception rather than reality. As long as they can continue to sell the perception of a possiblity of an an autonomous Palestinian state, the Zionists are content to let things drift along and continue their racist policies. The Western states are happy to go along with this and sell this perception to their own public.

Many Israelis would prefer a final solution that involves expulsion of the Palestinians into Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. However, they realise that international outrage makes this scenario difficult so they prefer a slow genocide/ethnic cleansing whereby they allow the Arabs limited ability to fight back so they can claim to be fighting 'terrorism'. By subjecting the Arab population to state terror they hope that most will leave of their own accord.

Debate in the West about which solution is preferable is ironic since the West hold the key to the solution. If they were not conniving with the Zionists, they would have long ago isolated the zionist reshime, stopped funding it and arming it. That is the only way that the politicians and public of Israel will be forced to accept that Arabs too have a right to democracy. They also must have rights to security, to land, to fresh water, to gas off the coast of Gaza, to fishing, to travel without restriction, to play football and take part in the other activities that are available to free people.

Genius caricature from California

2009-05-23T19:54:00.003Z

In response to an article reporting that Schwarzenegger intends to cut off Welfare completely for the poor in CA....

        It is about time! I went to collage and paid every dime my own self. My husband made too much money ($18,000. a year ) ,but standing in line one day a girl from another country was there to get her $3500. pell grant. Always hearing people talk about what they was going to do with their money. These darn females needs to start taking birth control pills. I was 14 when I had my son with no help from anybody so don't tell me it can't be done. Just a bunch of girls want to suck tax paider money. get rid of the green cards and illegals. Also stop sending money to people who hates us. I also don't have insurance so will just have to lay down and die, but don't expect somebody to give it to me. Get a life and get off your butt dead beats!!!
   
    Posted by:    Kathleen |    May 22, 2009 at 04:42 PM   

Letter to the Office of Tony Blair

2009-02-17T20:52:00.002Z

Dear Sir/Madam,

May I be one of the first to congratulate Tony Blair on a well deserved prize. He has been an outstanding leader and I agree that this prize

marks his "foresight", "exceptional intelligence" and "steadfast determination" to end conflicts.

Just like Lebanon in 2006 no doubt where he strove extremely hard to prevent a ceasefire! I thought he should get more than a measly 1 million dollars though. Perhaps they are saving the big prizes for his steadfast determination to 'end' conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan by creatively inventing threats and plagiarising PhD tomes?

I understand that the money will go to Mr Blair’s new charity for religious understanding. I guess that charity will be run by his wonderful and extremely tolerant Israeli friends who promote religious understanding by using 3000lb bombs, White Phosphorus and DIME bombs to spread the message of love and tolerance in the region. It is great to know that the prize will fund graduates in his field. Is this a combined degree in Genocide, Untruth and Hypocrisy? I must have missed this one when I did my UCAS application many years ago. Please could you send me the course number? I must enrol my own offspring on that course so they too can emulate this great statesman of modern times.

Yours truly,

David Milipede

If you would like to email your congratulations as well please do contact: faithsact@tonyblairfaithfoundation.org

Do journalists intentionally lie about Palestine?

2009-02-06T15:13:00.008Z

I don't subscribe to the idea that journalists rarely lie intentionally. In the real world, there are a lot of scumbags in the media world who WILL and DO lie intentionally. We also know that they will deliberately distort facts, miss out facts and frame the argument to suit their own viewpoint. Other journalists will do it less readily and will be uncomfortable but will follow the editorial direction all the same.

Writing an article is about planning - working out a story flow. This is a very conscious process because you are forced to think about what you want the story to convey and put it together so that the ‘facts’ are framed in the context that you want them to read. You decide what ''facts' are the 'attention grabbers' and put those at the top so they can be easily internalised by the casual reader who reads the headline and the first paragraph. Then you arrange the rest according to your story flow using what is known as the pyramid approach. The approach helps you not only to capture attention but to structure your story. It is not necessary for the 'facts' to be true; they can be controversial or attention grabbing statements. The point is to convey YOUR message according to editorial direction. If it does not meet the standards expected (i.e. is not in keeping with the house style and politics) then you will have to redo it.

Why does the BBC always remind us in virtually every article that ‘Israeli invaded Gaza to stop the firing of rockets into Southern Israel’? Why has this Israeli explanation appear to be accepted in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and why does it have to be repeated endlessly? The BBC claim not to have the time or space to add vital context for example the continuing occupation, the Hamas offers for peace based on 1967 boundaries, over 11000 Palestinians currently rotting in Israel prisons (including over 400 children) but they are OK to repeatedly include the Zionist key message that they are merely 'reacting against rockets'. This is a good example of known context that is deliberately ignored. These facts are shocking enough to be headlines. The grotesque images of dead children are available to these media outlets but they are deliberately omitted on the grounds of 'taste'. The media decide for us what constitutes good taste just as they decide what we want to read about.

The lies and distortions would not be swallowed so readily by the public if they were not reasonably credible. It is not that journalists are unaware of the occupation, or unaware of the misery imposed by Israel. Most know full reasonably well the bloody history of ethnic cleansing.Why is it then that the real history does not reach our screens and airwaves? Why are the extremists murderers of Kadima and Labour in Israel portrayed as ‘centrists’ when they order the massacres of children in Gaza? The answer, at least partially, lies in the modern face of Israel with its high standard of living, its ‘democracy’, its Western outlook and lifestyle, which is a world away from misery on the other side of the wall. It is much easier develop relations with Israeli press officers who speak good English and fluently answer questions on ‘terror’. It is easier (and cheaper) to accept the Israeli press releases and dress them up as reporting. The Arabs are difficult to understand, difficult to reach and their culture appears alien. Like people passing by a beggar averting their eyes and pretending not to notice, it is a deliberate and conscious decision to ignore the Palestinians. This is why you see many more Zionist spokespeople on TV and hear them on the radio whilst fluent Palestinians are virtually absent (even though Palestinians are among the best educated peoples in the world).

Reality is complex and the Herman/Chomsky propaganda filters are relevant but it is possible for most intelligent journalists to recognize that what their employers/editors are demanding is not the truth but an angle that favours their proprietor or their own political leanings. Many consciously take the decision to either compromise their beliefs/ethics or do not care anyway and just want to further their careers. The commercial aspect of media business plays a part too despite the usual claims that their advertising is firewalled from the journalism. Which media outlet would risk losing an important advertising account, rather than tone down or ignore a story? It is no conspiracy theory that Zionist business links are spread throughout the corporate world whether it is media, banking, insurance or retail. Many politicians fall over themselves to be ‘friends of Israel’ because this eventually translates into powerful contacts, lucrative consultancies and business opportunities. The links that have been forged with the West are powerful and allow the Zionists to control the agenda to some extent. Establishment propaganda and commercial pressures do the rest.

Those BBC impartiality rules in full

2009-02-03T10:46:00.004Z

We must have 'the militant group' tag attached every time Hamas are mentioned just in case the reader forgets this at first mention in the first paragraph.

Include footage of an injured Israeli where possible, despite the disparity in the number of casualties. These pictures are much easier to come by when you are embedded with the Israelis.

Where possible include condemnation of Hamas by
a. the Palestinian authority
b. by several Israeli ministers/spokespeople

Always mention that Israels aim is to stop rockets or quote Israel as saying such.

Remember to include a count of the number of rockets wherever possible and the effect it had whilst ignoring the Israeli bombs/shells/rockets and their effects. If you must mention the effects then the passive word 'explosions' must be used alongside 'smuggling tunnels' and 'weapons'.

When mentioning ceasefire violations, timelines should always begin with Hamas violating the ceasefire and Israel responding. Ignore any preceding Israeli violations - they did not happen.

Count the number of Israeli civilians but don't use this word for Palestinians; they are either just Palestinians or militants.

Include when possible the Israeli right to 'self-defence'. Do not mention under any circumstances the Palestinian right to self-defence or not be be turfed off their land or not to have their homes demolished.

Where possible mention Israeli democracy and contrast against er.. Hamas seizing power in Gaza.

Mention as often as possible that Hamas are sworn to the destruction of Israel in the Hamas charter. Ignore the Likud charter which swears to the destruction of Palestine by claiming all land to the west of Jordan. Ignore the shrinking of Palestinian territory and the fact that Israel does not recognise Palestine. Also ignore the numerous offers by Hamas to recognise Israel on the basis of the internationally recognised 1967 boundaries.

Ignore continuing illegal settlement activity in the West Bank and quote Israeli ministers as saying they will allow 'natural growth' of settlements.

You must faithfully obey these rules at all times otherwise our impartiality may be questioned.

DEC appeal

2009-01-29T08:54:00.002Z

DEC appeal for Gaza

2009-01-23T20:02:00.008Z

Following the disgusting decision of the BBC in blocking the broadcast of a DEC appeal to raise money for the appalling plight of Palestinians in Gaza, all bloggers with a conscience should post this DEC appeal.

Please send your complaints to the BBC for taking this appalling political stance instead of being impartial. Complain online here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml

or phone the BBC to complain 03700 100 222

22 Jan: Aid agencies launch joint appeal to relieve Gaza humanitarian crisis

Leading UK aid agencies are today (Thursday, 22 January) appealing to the public for urgently needed funds to help ease the desperate plight of people affected by the conflict in Gaza.

Launching the Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza Crisis Appeal, chief executive Brendan Gormley said that the devastation wrought in the Gazan territory was so huge that British aid agencies were compelled to act.

Over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, and many thousands have been injured, overwhelming local hospitals. The destruction has left people without homes and many children without schooling; power, food and water supplies are insufficient to cover the population’s needs.

Mr Gormley said: “DEC agencies have a humanitarian mandate. We are not proposing to attempt to rebuild Gaza – that is not our role. But with the public’s support we can help relieve short-term needs. Agencies are already providing food, drugs and blankets as well as delivering clean water.

“But we will soon reach the limit of what we can do, without more money. For Gazans struggling to survive, receiving urgent humanitarian aid will help them take the first step to recovery.”

Mr Gormley stressed that DEC aid agencies were non-political. “We work on the basis of humanitarian need and there is an urgent need in Gaza today. Political solutions are for others to resolve, but what is of major concern to us all is that many innocent people have been affected by the situation – and it is them that we seek to help.”

- ENDS -

The DEC press office can be contacted on 0207 387 0200 or out-of-hours on 07930 999014.

Notes to editors:

1. The DEC consists of: Action Aid, British Red Cross, CAFOD, CARE International UK, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Help the Aged, Islamic Relief, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tearfund, World Vision.

2. The Palestinian Ministry of Heath (MOH) has reported 1,314 Palestinian fatalities since 27 December 2008. This is noted in the Situation Report on the Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip – No.14, 19 January 2009 (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).

3. How to donate:
It’s easy to donate. Please visit our website on www.dec.org.uk or call the DEC on 0370 60 60 900. We know people are facing financially difficult times but even a small donation makes a difference. Even a small donation to the appeal will help get food, water, shelter, emergency and medical supplies to people who desperately need it.

4. The DEC criteria to launch an appeal are:
The disaster must be on such a scale and of such urgency as to call for swift International humanitarian assistance. The DEC agencies, or some of them, must be in a position to provide effective and swift humanitarian assistance at a scale to justify a national Appeal.There must be sufficient public awareness of, and sympathy for, the humanitarian situation so as to give reasonable grounds for concluding that a public Appeal would be successful.

5. For new footage, photographs, case studies and pre-recorded or live interviews with both aid agency staff on the ground and in the UK, please contact the DEC press office on 0207 387 0200 or out-of-hours on 07930 999014.

Eva's blog

2009-01-22T16:03:00.004Z

Eva Barlett has been blogging throughout the the weeks of terror and destruction that the zionist scum waged against the people of Gaza. Her reporting has been graphic and her bravery and compassion are an example to us all. Here is a snippet of her latest post:

Rudely, I left before a meal, though all insisted I stay. Normally, I would not turn it down, particularly after they had just begun to get their house into less of a disaster state: feces cleaned up from where the IOF soldiers had strewn it, all over the house; bags of soldiers’ filthy leavings taken out; soldier-soiled clothing gathered, bagged, and burned; and the many shattered dishes and broken items cleared out. It is barer, and there are so many new bullet and tank shelling holes. The un-describable, terrible, stench still lingers, that of an army which occupied the house for 2 weeks and left shit and unknown foul smells throughout the house. It is a stench I’ve smelled in other houses in the area occupied by the IOF.

But even though I was very happy they had progressed enough to cook in their kitchen and bask in the hospitality they love, I had to leave, to allow time for visiting Arafa’s family.

Obama: time for optimism?

2009-01-22T09:55:00.002Z

Obama managed to raise more than any other candidate in history and that did not involve saying no to the lobbyists.

Anyone is better than Bush but they must be judged by their actions not fine words. It is all very well saying to the Muslim world that we will extend a hand of friendship and so on but when in practice you are planning a 'surge' in Afghanistan that will kill god knows how many Muslims, that is indeed a very bad omen. Afghanistan does not need a surge nor is it a threat to the USA. I am no fan of the Taliban; most of them are ignorant armed bandits but their AK47s and Kalashnikovs are no threat to the US and never were. There is no secret lair of international terrorists sitting in a cave despite the fantasies of the Western media. There are a lot of pissed off tribesmen who unsurprisingly are out for revenge and will probably take it by killing more Pakistani civilians by targeting westerner frequented hotels in the nearest country.

How will Obama be judged? My guess is that if he invests in green technologies to tackle global warming and some social welfare programmes, even despite the US forces carrying on killing in Afghanistan and Israel carrying on murdering Palestinians and robbing their lands, he will be judged by the media as a success and a hero.

There is nothing wrong with optimism but it has to be balanced with some healthy skepticism. He may and I hope he does manage to benefit the poorer sections of the US society - but if he wanted he could end the war in Afghanistan now. The US military have no real reason to be there.

He could say enough is enough and bring the troops home but he will not and thousands more will die and millions will suffer. He is not some secret weapon of the working classes but a wily politician who knows that he need to press a few popularity buttons to get votes. Keep watching out for the omens but don't get carried away with his 'brilliance'.

We must not stop. There is no ceasefire but a cynical tactic - the protests must continue

2009-01-18T10:33:00.006Z

We must not stop and forget the result of the Zionist terrorism - over 400 innocent children murdered, countless homes destroyed, ambulances, schools, mosques, hospitals and the UN buildings attacked.

The unilateral 'ceasefire' is a charade which the UK and US are backing because it means that the starvation and seige of Gaza will continue, the blockade will indeed be enforced with our tax money. Israel will continue to murder people in Gaza and the West Bank at will. The F16's and drones will still be prowling the skies of occupied Palestine. The Zionists will now use the blood letting to boost their support in their internal racist election - an election in which Arab parties are now banned. Palestinian children will continue to pay the price of Zionist terrorism. This is not a ceasefire but a cynical tactic for sympathy by mass murderers who are drenched the blood of Palestinians.

I appeal to all those who have taken part in the protests in worldwide, in the name of the murdered Palestinian children, do not stop you protests!! This is not over until the lasts troops have left Gaza and the Palestinians are free to control their own borders and are freed from an illegal siege. The world has no right to enforce the starvation and strangulation of this sliver of Palestinian territory. The Zionist war criminals must be brought to justice.

Wake up and see also what the Zionists are still doing on the West Bank. Unlike the media would have you believe, this is not just a few checkpoints that inconvenience Palestinians:

The land grabbing continues
The attacks on Palestinians by settlers and soldiers continue
The illegal house demolitions continue
The diversion of water to Israeli settlements continues
The eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem continues
The apartheid wall continues to be built on Palestinian land
Settlement expansion continues
New jewish only roads continue to be built in the West bank, again on Palestinian land carving up what remains of the West Bank.
Arab parties are now banned from the so called 'democracy' of Israel

Please maintain the pressure on your elected representatives. The world cannot now relax and forget the results of Zionist terrorism. This is not over for the terrified children of Gaza and therefore it should not be over for us.

Which murderous Witch is the ugliest bitch?

2009-01-16T22:15:00.001Z

And which one has promoted the most murder?

Slo mo genocide

2008-12-31T11:09:00.001Z

Fuck the biased media: this is real coverage of the Zionist terrorism against Arabs

2008-12-30T14:21:00.004Z

Here is some more powerful testimony from Eva reporting from Gaza...

http://ingaza.wordpress.com/

Let me give you some personal examples of mass-bombing, indiscriminate bombing, and the targeting of civilians:

8 men, including a father (age 55), 6 of his sons (ages 15- mid-20s), and one friend (age 15) who were targeted by a missile from an Israeli drone yesterday at 5 pm while they attempted to return scrap metal to a metal workshop. This attack came 1 hour after an Israeli F-16 targeted the shop but hit the house next door, alleging the shop had missiles in it (it held oxygen tanks, for the work involved in a metal shop).

The 8 dead were torn to pieces by the missile which targeted them.

Yesterday also, 3 children were collecting firewood for cooking, as they have no cooking gas (because of Israel’s siege on Gaza, cooking gas being among the many banned materials which also include medicines, replacement parts for hospital equipment, building cement, and a very extensive list which i don’t have time to write at present but which is very well documented by the UN and other “objective” sources.) The youths, ages 13 and 14, were in a small patch of olive trees collecting wood when a missile from a drone targeted them, killing one and seriously injuring the other two who are now in critical condition. It was between 11 am and noon.

The mother of a family in Jabaliya was on the street going to buy bread on Saturday afternoon when she was killed by shrapnel from a missile which landed metres from her. The same family lives in fear, in an unprotected room (no bomb shelters here) as bombs explode 30 m from their house and in the neighbouring area. Each bomb near them shakes their house and blows out remaining windows. I know, I sleep there. The missile which struck land across the street was targeting an enclosed olive grove. This morning, the same land was attacked, 20 minutes after I had left the home. The family is terrified. This is a massive missile capable of levelling 2 and 3 storey buildings, leaving craters 8-14 m deep.

Two brothers, ages 10 and 12, left their Beit Hanoun home around 10 am this morning to throw the garbage out. They are dead, killed from a missile stike.

At least 4 mosques in Jabaliya alone have been targeted, damaging buildings and houses around them. The mosque across from Shifa hospital was levelled, leaving a crater approximately 15 m deep. A mosque in Khan Younis was leveled yesterday. Islamic university has twice been targeted, on two different days. Al Quds open universtiy buildings were targeted. The coast of Gaza is being fired upon by Israeli naval vessels, from Rafah in the south to up in the north. There are now 370 known killed and over 1450 known injured, half of whom cricitally so. Sixty of the dead are children, 12 are women.

I am not sitting in a comfortable hotel room, I am visiting the sites, talking with the affected people. I am not cushioned from this, my ears also ring from the explosions, and I haven’t slept well in three nights. The explosions are extremely loud (that doesn’t suffice to describe it), and the drones and Apache helicopters and F-16s continue to circle over all areas of the Gaza Strip

I’d invite anyone who doubts the severity and seriousness of these ongoing attacks on Gaza to come here to witness this for yourself, to write your own balanced account, but of course that is impossible, because Gaza is under siege, all crossings are closed, and even the Free Gaza boat which brought me here was attacked this morning, rammed by Israeli naval vessels, and prevented from delivering needed medical supplies and bringing journalists to Gaza to report on the situation.

I strongly disagree, and will never agree, that Israel is taking precautions to limit the number of civilian casualties. I disagree with the statement Israel is carrying out airstrikes on Hamas targets, because by that definition, any supporter of Hamas can be a target, as we have seen. Would it be acceptable to bomb the police stations and ministries of Israel’s government, any government, because the political party is viewed as a target. George Bush is a war criminal and supports crimes against humanity. But that doesn’t mean we bomb the police stations and ministries of the United States. Clearly, these are acts of terrorism.

Hamas has publically said it will “recognize” Israel, an Israel with defined border and without the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

I don’t have the luxury of a serene place from which to write. I am reporting what i see, hear, and feel from Gaza, and that is my intention.

I usually don't bother with the comments on CiF, full as it is of bastard zionist trolls out to defend the indefensible terrorism against Gazans, but here is a comment by DonnaSaggia which I feel captures the feelings of all people who have a conscience and a semblance of compassion:

The pathetic rockets are not even close to a legitimization of Israel's blockade and bombing of Gaza. You don't starve an entire civilian population and deny it medicine--especially cancer medicine--because of rockets that have killed fewer than 10 people in two years. In reality, the root cause of the violence is the occupation--Israel may have "left" Gaza, but it has never left it alone. Bombing Gaza's tunnels actually broke the cease fire first--and those tunnels were Gaza's only means of getting in food, medicine, and were also used by children to travel to school. Israel is committing crimes of the highest order--and the US government is complicit by its silence. The politicians of the world ought to stop buying the "Israel has a right to defend itself" spin and start demanding that this criminal nation adhere to basic tenets of human decency and civility.

Zionist murdering scumbags - may you rot in hell

2008-12-28T11:18:00.003Z

Stop the Zionazi slaughter! The zionist scum are using airstrikes against a densely populated area where civilians are inevitably being blown to bits by missiles. Bush and Brown refuse to call on Israel to stop this massacre just as they refused to call for them to stop starving the people of Gaza. May they rot in hell alongside the right wing lunatics in charge of Israel.

BBC lack of balance on the issue of Palestine/Israel

2008-10-24T21:20:00.002Z

Compare the following two BBC stories found on BBC Online today:

Article 1, Title:Israeli dies in settlement attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7686047.stm

Article 2, Title:Israelis kill Palestinian youth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7671132.stm

There appears to be a superficial balance but take a look at the facts...

Facts:

- both stories have been in the middle east news section today, but the former has had a consistently higher profile and was a featured story on the middle east front page this morning, when the latter was just a link article. Since then both have been demoted but the former retains a higher profile.

- both stories quote Israeli witnesses or Israeli authorities

- both portray Palestinians as the source of the violence even though the latter purports to describe the killing of a Palestinian teenager

"A Palestinian man has stabbed and killed an elderly Israeli civilian in a Jewish settlement"

"Gilo is on land in the West Bank captured by Israel in 1967, and has been a target for attacks by Palestinian militants in the past."

"A number of attacks have been carried out in Jerusalem since July by Palestinians who live on the west, or Israeli-controlled, side of the extensive barrier system Israel has built around autonomous Palestinian areas."

"The military says the youth had been preparing to throw petrol bombs at the cars of Jewish settlers."

- The second article also has a gross distortion:

"Tension is rising across the West Bank with each side, Israeli settlers and Palestinians, complaining of violent attacks by the other."

In fact the vast majority of attacks are committed by settlers against Palestinians rather than the number of attacks being equivalent.

- Yet again Israel is given an automatic right of reply in the article 2:

"Settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this."

They wouldn't ever say that robbing banks is considered a crime, but the bank robbers dispute this.

In fact, on balance from the two articles, the only thing that Israel appears to be charged with is the rather bland crime of 'building settlements' that are 'disputed'. This bland facade of a term, ignores the land seizures, house demolitions, evictions, arbitrary detentions, assaults, torture, shootings, stoning, destruction of crops, diversion of water, and a multitude of other crimes that take place before the 'settlement building' can take place.

The Post office RIP: insane treachery and murder by New Labour

2008-10-05T19:20:00.001Z

Already stabbed in the back numerous times by the government, the owners of thousands of post offices are now facing wipeout as one of the main services they provide is set to be ripped out of their hands and gifted to the private sector. One of my friends has what one would consider an extremely busy high street branch; of the type that few would foresee closing. However, this one move to remove the post office card account and hand it over to PayPoint will lead to the loss of a dozen jobs and bring the business to its knees and probably lead to closure within months. There is no doubt in my mind that this move will wipe out most of the existing branches as they find themselves unable to pay the rent or staff wages. In July this year, the government had already removed the ability of post offices to accept payment of the water bill and handed it over to Payzone. Slowly but repeatedly the government has knifed local community post offices in the back with a poisoned dagger by removing their services. Then it has the cheek to say that they are not making a profit!

Personally, I have severe doubts about the ability of newsagents with a paypoint or payzone facility to cope with the thousands of people and vast amount of money that post offices deal with. Who will provide security for the huge amounts of cash required? On a typical Monday a post office hands out tens of thousands of pounds of money and also has the facilities to look after the cash securely. They have knowledgeable staff trained to look after elderly and disadvantage people in the community. This is not just about removing a vital financial service but an important social one as well.

This latest piece of insane, ill-thought out treachery is set to be delayed until after the Glenrothes by-election in which New Labour will be annihilated anyway. Read part of the story in this article in todays Observer.

Harnessing Africa for Europe

2008-07-30T05:20:00.004Z

Rhetorical questions: Did anybody ask the Africans about this grand scheme? Isn't it typical of Europeans to assume that they are entitled to do what they like? Do we need electricity more than Africa? What benefit will the millions of destitute people in Africa get from this scheme?

Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU

· Huge £35bn supergrid would pool green sources
· Brown and Sarkozy back north African plan

Alok Jha, science correspondent
The Guardian

A concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Spain that uses panels to refl ect light on to a central tower to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa. Photograph: AP

A tiny rectangle superimposed on the vast expanse of the Sahara captures the seductive appeal of the audacious plan to cut Europe's carbon emissions by harnessing the fierce power of the desert sun.

Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with clean electricity.

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Arnulf Jaeger-Waldau of the European commission's Institute for Energy, said it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe's energy needs.

The scientists are calling for the creation of a series of huge solar farms - producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun's heat to boil water and drive turbines - as part of a plan to share Europe's renewable energy resources across the continent.

A new supergrid, transmitting electricity along high voltage direct current cables would allow countries such as the UK and Denmark ultimately to export wind energy at times of surplus supply, as well as import from other green sources such as geothermal power in Iceland.

Energy losses on DC lines are far lower than on the traditional AC ones, which make transmission of energy over long distances uneconomic.

The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, answers the perennial criticism that renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm somewhere.

Scientists argue that harnessing the Sahara would be particularly effective because the sunlight in this area is more intense: solar photovoltaic (PV) panels in northern Africa could generate up to three times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe.

Much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also needs a major re-structuring, according to Jaeger-Waldau....continued at link

Media blind to Israeli terrorism

2008-07-24T18:39:00.004Z

When an Arab runs riot with a digger, it becomes front page news. Headlines scream about another 'terror' attack. Yet, when Jewish extremists run riot and destroy a Palestinian village, it warrants a small paragraph at the very end of an article about settlement expansion in the Guardian, and is ignored by the BBC and other major media outlets. What would have been the media priority if this attack was by Arab on Jewish settlers?

Palestinian officials said yesterday that a group of Jewish settlers had attacked a Palestinian village, Burin, near the West Bank city of Nablus, smashing cars and windows and cutting electricity wires. The attack was filmed by an Israeli group, Rabbis for Human Rights. The village was close to a settlement where an Israeli was arrested this month for allegedly trying to fire a rocket at the Palestinians.

Is it a virus or is it a bacterium?

2008-07-13T07:47:00.005Z

The Gruniad find it difficult to tell the difference:

· The TB virus is spread by mycobacteria through people coughing and sneezing and affects patients' lungs and pulmonary systems, making it difficult for them to breathe.

· The disease is thought to have either originated in cattle or to have stemmed from a bacterium that evolved separately to infect both species.

· In 2006, 1.6 million people died of TB. India currently has the highest rate of infection with about 3.5 million patients, compared to around 7,000 in Britain.

· Famous TB victims include Robert Burns, George Orwell, Immanuel Kant and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Real Job Advert

2008-07-02T19:09:00.004Z

I'm mildly surprised that Mr Halliburton hasn't got the job already! Then again perhaps they don't want to repeat the same kind of 'reconstruction' in London that Baghdad enjoys on a daily basis.

The Embassy of the Republic of Iraq would like to invite qualified and experienced contractors to tender for the:

1. Repairs and refurbishment of its offices at 21 Queens Gate, London, SW7 5JG.

2. Repairs and refurbishment of the residence of the Ambassador.

Interested and qualified contractors should obtain full set of tender documents and drawings by contacting:

Mr Sadik Shaker

Tel: 07778 247708

Email: lonemb@iraqmofamail.net

Bidders should demonstrate their capabilities by listing similar work executed with relevant references.

Site visit is mandatory.

Tenders should be submitted no later than 4pm on 10th July 2008 Link

Complaint about BBC propaganda

2008-06-29T09:32:00.004Z

Not so dear BBC,

I would like to complain about Wyre Davies' article. This is one of a large series of articles where the BBC claims that Israel acts only in retaliation for Palestinian rocket attacks.

Please could you present any evidence that you have for this automatic supposition.
Why does the BBC insist every time that Israel acts in retaliation?

In this article, according to Davies, apparently Israelis have only 'retaliated' because of the those nasty Palestinian lobbing rockets. He even has the temerity to compare the suffering of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza with 'suffering' of the people who live in border towns like Sderot.

"After months of suffering, Hamas has had to admit the blockade is really hurting.

Over the same period, the people who live in Israel's towns and communities, just across the Gaza border, have been suffering too.

Hundreds of crude, but effective, rockets fired by Palestinian militants have landed in towns like Sderot, killing and injuring several Israelis.

As Israel retaliates, launching air strikes against Gaza, hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed."

In another article, the BBC headline focuses on the generosity of Israel in allowing fuel to enter Gaza. The BBC headline ignores the fact that Israel was acting illegally in preventing food and medicines reaching over a million besieged desperate people.

Why is the allowing of fuel into Gaza considered more important than the denial of food and medicines to Palestinians?
Also in this article why is the photo caption used that of an Israeli youth posing behind a broken window?
Is this more important than the shootings and vastly greater criminal damage committed by Israel?
Why does the BBC side with Israel in propagating such propaganda?

Has Pakistani 'cooperation' outlived its usefulness?

2008-06-22T15:18:00.004Z

It seems the tide is turning against Pakistan in the global disinformation game. The country is fast turning from being portrayed as a friendly dictatorship dutifully bombing mullahs in the North West Frontier Province to one that is portrayed as actually collaborating with the Taliban to attack Western forces. The recent killing of Pakistani troops by missile from US predator aircraft did not go down well with the new government in Islamabad. It seems that if the obedient dictator is sidelined by a democratic vote then that is unacceptable and the Pakistani government must take note that attitudes in Washington are hardening against it. No doubt the previous links of the ISI as Taliban sponsors will now be trotted out for a fresh airing despite the former being virtually a branch of the CIA in Pakistan.

Teenage delinquent media dirtbags

2008-06-21T09:20:00.002Z

Watching the wildly different coverage of different types of disasters around the world gives you an insight into the collective mindset of the media. Some disasters simply get little or no exposure because they are not photogenic. They do not provide a worthwhile 'story' to get the media excited.

The media reaction is rather like that of a teenage delinquent who cannot concentrate on anything for long and wants excitement all the time. The less picturesque and dramatic events are simply of no interest to them although millions may die or suffer. However, if there is something like a large earthquake with lots of pictures of suffering, death and destruction, that will capture their attention for a couple of days. Alternatively, if they can find a convenient political axe to grind such as with Zimbabwe or Myanmar, they will harp on about the dreadful reshime that is stopping western aid whilst using pictures of suffering to illustrate their argument.

If 1.5 million people in Gaza can be starved and besieged without the western public realising that this means more than a few road blocks and missiles hitting 'militants', that surely tells us something about the media agenda. The trivial events of reality TV shows and celebrity gossip take precedence over death and destruction (particularly if our governments are responsible).

The appeals for money and charity shows are only to massage away our collective guilt; to show that we are the 'good guys'. Never mind that most of the money never reaches the declared cause, if it fills up a few minutes of air time, then it's good cheap filler 'entertainment'.

If as a nation, we were truly concerned about the plight of the poor people in other nations, our trade terms and economic policies would be radically different. Instead as Mark Steele pointed out recently, we seem to have no problem flooding these countries with western made arms. There is no shortage of bullets, mines or bombs! We seem to have no problem funding political coups at enormous cost. We are extremely big-hearted when it comes to helping 'friendly' nuclear arms nations such as Israel terrorise the indigenous people. We are very generous when helping the oil giant corporations gain valuable contracts in oil rich countries. We are extremely munificent when bribing foreign officials to buy our weapons. Our capacity to fund our nuclear missile program and fund foreign invasions also seems to have no limit.

Headlines never seen vs actual headlines

2008-06-18T16:07:00.004Z

First female civilian killed in Afghanistan vs. First female British soldier killed in Afghanistan
Doctors to be rated on being smiley vs. Nurses to be rated on being smiley
Hizbollah call for peace talks vs. Israel calls for Lebanon peace talks
Iraq voters told: choose our puppet or you face a bullet vs. Zimbabwe voters told: choose Mugabe or you face a bullet

Dastardly treacherous enemies seek tailor made missiles- gruniad exclusive

2008-06-16T09:35:00.004Z

Does any of this sound familiar?

"These advanced nuclear weapons designs may have long ago been sold off to some of the most treacherous regimes in the world," wrote Albright.

"These would have been ideal for two of Khan's other major customers, Iran and North Korea."

Albright found the blueprints included designs for a compact warhead that could fit on Pyongyang's medium-range Nodong rockets as well as on the Iranian Shahab-III missile.

Just like the road side bombs in Iraq that are said to be of Iranian origin without any requirement for proof, it appears that these theoretical nukes are an especially good fit only for Iranian and North Korean missiles. Of course, it is only a coincidence that these are our official 'treacherous' enemies. It's not like we would do anything treacherous like bomb a country like Iraq to smithereens and then try and maintain de facto control of it by forcing them to agree to us having permanent military bases, control of their airspace and oil, and immunity from war crimes.

China or Burma? The charities play to the public gallery

2008-05-27T18:48:00.008Z

This press release is featured by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) website, explaining why it has failed to react to the earthquake disaster in China:

Press release: 16 May 2008

China Earthquake Response

Why is the DEC not responding to the disaster in China?

The DEC has three criteria that need to be met before we launch an appeal: overwhelming un-met needs; ability of our members agencies to respond in a timely and effective way, and evidence of concern by the British public.

In this instance the second criteria has not been met. Apart from the Red Cross movement the DEC member charities have a modest humanitarian capacity in China and it would not be appropriate to channel substantial funds via them. It is part of the effectiveness of the DEC appeals that donors know who is going to spend the money we raise.

It is because of this that we have encouraged potential donors to give to the British Red Cross directly, a valued member of the DEC. Anyone wishing to donate can at www.redcross.org.uk

The first problem with this is that the DEC have very visibly taken action to raise funds for the victims of the Cyclone Nargis disaster in Myanmar. This is a country that has been roundly and repeatedly condemned by media and politicians alike, for not cooperating with aid agencies. Given that the DEC also has modest humanitarian capacity in Myanmar, why was this cause chosen above the earthquake? Because we have seen little or no pressure on chinese authorities should we presume that the aid effort for Myanmar is linked to the political pressure on Myanmar government to accept aid?

Secondly, how do the DEC know that a particular disaster is of more concern to the British public? Surely, the public response depends mostly on media exposure? Do the DEC carry out a public survey every time a disaster strikes or are they actually just responding to the promptings of the rabid press who insists on making a political football out of a social disaster in another country when it is politically expedient? I find it disturbing that evidence of public concern should be a criterion for charitable work.

The death toll in China is expected to exceed 80000 according to official estimates. Today there are further reports that another 420,000 homes have been destroyed by aftershocks (with unknown numbers of dead). As many as five million people are homeless. The Myanmar death toll is estimated at around 130000. Around 2 million people are homeless. The scale of the tragedies is staggering as is the difference in the response of the western world including the charities.

Isn't it time our charities stopped playing politics with global disasters?

Palestine links

2008-04-23T20:45:00.004Z

The pictures speak for themselves:

Eddie Vassallo

Children of Hebron

US fears peace outbreak

2008-03-23T09:58:00.002Z

The parties involved in Pakistan's new government have taken western policy makers by surprise by announcing that they would be prepared to talk to the 'militants' and 'extremists' against whom the US has been fighting a war, sometimes directly but largely by proxy.

The army and the politicians for once seem to be reading from the same script by stating the obvious: that you cannot pursue and indefinite war against a large part of your population just because the US doesn't like them. Ironically, by supporting the dictatorship of Musharaff, the US has isolated itself from the parties that maintain the facade of democracy inside Pakistan.

The bloodshed and terror unleashed against these people has been a disaster for Pakistan but also a humanitarian disaster that gets no coverage from media.

Most Pakistanis will not care a jot what the US thinks or wants; they simply want an end to the daily carnage resulting from the internal civil war encouraged by Washington.

BBC evasion

2008-03-16T10:59:00.000Z

See below for original complaint:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I understand you feel that our coverage of the Middle East situation has been biased in favour of the Israelis.

However, I assure you that this is not the case, though it is difficult to respond to your main issue and 1st 2 points as you haven't provided any examples of this bias you refer to or where you programme name or website URL, we could research the matter further.

As for your 3rd point, it is difficult to explain the reasoning of either side and it is not our place to do so. We have tried to explain the history of the conflict and the facts though it is not feasible to do this every time we report on the conflict.

Equal representation is not always possible or practical within individual programmes and account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time. Individual reports may give more time to one particular incident, but we regularly report the suffering felt by both sides. Not every report can include all aspects of the conflict, but this does not constitute bias. Perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion but overall it is a more achievable goal.

We have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management.

If replying to this e-mail please use the webform which you used for your initial complaint. This can be found at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Paul Kettle
BBC Complaints

Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation

2008-03-07T20:49:00.004Z

The BBC and other media outlets are giving wall-to-wall coverage to the deaths of eight Israelis yesterday. The tears, emotions and grieving are shared intimately with the world.

Unfortunately, the dozens of Palestinian civilians murdered by Israel in the last week have been relegated to the status of statistics and collateral damage. The stark contrast in coverage between the two set of victims, is a reflection of the ingrained racism and bias of these media organisations. They are willing to accept Israeli propaganda and broadcast extended scenes of suffering for 8 victims yet will only mention in passing the deaths of dozens of Palestinian civilians. The BBC in particular go out of their way to demonise Palestinians by referring to them as 'militants' and extremists, whilst portraying the murderous bloody actions of Israel as 'defensive' or in reaction to rockets. They help to shore up the image of Israel in the West keeping the public ignorant about the true nature of the Israeli zionazi occupation of Arabs. They are willing accomplices of the murdering extremists that run Israel. My TV licence money is paying these lying bastards for broadcasting propaganda for mass murderers.

Complaint to the BBC

2008-03-04T20:11:00.002Z

Another complaint to the BBC about the scandalous coverage of Israeli terrorism against Gaza:

I would like to make an official complaint about the BBC news bulletins on radio and TV regarding the attacks against Gaza by Israel.

The BBC has repeatedly stated in its headlines that: Israel has ended its ‘incursions’ into Gaza, in response to Palestinian rocket ‘attacks'.

This is a blatantly biased statement. The use of 'incursions' to describe attacks that have killed dozens of unarmed bystanders dead including women and children, is a grave distortion. Eye witnesses point to innocent bystanders in Gaza being gunned down by Israeli forces for no reason. This has been acknowledged by B’tselem and other human rights organizations. Please can you reply to the following points:

1. Please could you explain why you believe the Israeli account that the bloody assault in Gaza is simply a response to rockets? Ask any Palestinian and they will tell you that the rockets are reprisals for Israeli killings of Palestinians and attacks on Gaza. Why is the BBC prepared to accept the Israeli version rather than the Palestinian version?

2. Why do your timelines always start with Palestinian rocket attacks? Why do you presume that rocket attacks are not a response to Israeli attacks?

3. How do you explain the fact that despite the absence of rocket fire from the West Bank, Israeli attacks against the West Bank and its citizens have continued?

Hero Harry Hurries Home after Heroics

2008-02-29T19:59:00.003Z

Another member of the Royal family has become a 'hero' by joining the armed forces to kill a few brown natives in Afghanistan. 'Brave' Harry has been praised to the sky by the media for his ability to direct bombs onto the heads of 'Taliban'.

Harry, the brave soldier and trained JTAC served with honour for a whole ten weeks before some Yank website blew his cover and the MOD was forced to step in. However, before being airlifted out, he had single handedly managed to restore democracy and women's rights and still had time to pose for pictures in a clean uniform for the benefit of the world media who didn't know he was there. Most of the British media kept a stiff upper lift and refused to tell the world he was there even though like any modest hero, he made himself available for pictures on a daily basis.

The Scum, The Daily Heil and other prestigious organs of journalism have ensured that the bashful hero receives all the publicity he deserves.

Hand out your credit card details and mobile numbers

2008-02-23T07:29:00.003Z

Check out this novel idea from the government that has lost the personal details of about half of the UK population about a dozen times in the last year:

'Passengers travelling between EU countries or taking domestic flights would have to hand over a mass of personal information, including their mobile phone numbers and credit card details, as part of a new package of security measures being demanded by the British government. The data would be stored for 13 years and used to "profile" suspects.'

Don't you feel safer knowing the government will have your credit card details and mobile number at all times? I do worry when the authorities are borrowing ideas from Internet scammers and putting them into law. If you happen not to have either a mobile phone or a credit card, then you are probably hiding something.

The miracle of Vitamin C

2008-02-19T21:21:00.002Z

The ghost of Pauling is back and this time he has cancer in his sights. What will the Pharmas make of this? The will probably mix it with their own concoctions and go on to 'show' how their molecule works better with ascorbate than rival X molecule.

Research backs theory that vitamin C shrinks tumours.

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Tuesday, 28 March 2006

New research suggesting that vitamin C can be effective in curing cancer will renew interest in the "alternative" treatment for the terminal disease.

Three cancer patients who were given large intravenous doses over a period of several months had their lives extended and their tumours shrunk, doctors reported yesterday.

A 49-year-old man diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer in 1996 was still alive and cancer-free nine years later, having declined chemotherapy and radiotherapy in favour of regular infusions of vitamin C.

A 66-year-old woman with an aggressive lymphoma who had a "dismal prognosis" in 1995 was similarly treated and is still alive 10 years later. A 51-year-old woman with kidney cancer that spread to her lungs diagnosed in 1995 had a normal chest X-ray two years later. The findings were confirmed by pathologists. Although they do not prove the vitamin cured the cancer they do increase the "clinical plausibility" of the idea, the researchers say.

Vitamin C therapy was first promoted by Linus Pauling, the Nobel prize winner, 30 years ago. Dr Pauling's claims sparked the continuing boom in sales of vitamin C, but attempts to confirm his findings failed and high-dose vitamin C became an "alternative" therapy.

The latest study, published in the Canadian Association's Medical Journal, could trigger renewed interest in Dr Pauling's claims. Studies show that vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not to normal cells. The problem has been delivering a high enough dose.

The researchers say attempts to replicate Dr Pauling's work failed because they used oral doses of the drug which is rapidly excreted. However, injections achieve blood levels 25 times higher that persist for longer. At these very high doses, the blood level of vitamin C is high enough to selectively kill cancer cells.

Several clinical trials of vitamin C therapy are about to start, including one at McGill University, Montreal, the authors say.

link

Question for visiting BBC employees

2008-02-05T06:38:00.001Z

What is the 'Talk Gateway'? Is it an internal forum where letters of complaint are discussed? I'd love to know for example, what it says on this page:

http://talk.gateway.bbc.co.uk/...31&MessageID=49191&TopicPage=2

I cant access it, so presumably it is an internal discussion board. Any help you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks

Reply to the BBC

2008-02-02T21:11:00.000Z

Dear Tarik,

Hope you are well. Thank you for your considered response to my complaint. I too in turn have taken some time considering your reply. However, I am rather perplexed that rather than answer the specific charges that I made, you decided to cite BBC articles that purport to show the ‘other sides’ view. In fact, these cited articles do not even do that.

You have cited a few reports from Gaza but your citations actually strengthen my argument. Just in case you missed my charges about equivalence in statements, let me lay them out for you in bullet points:

• The BBC report that ‘rocket fire has continued into Southern Israel, ever since Israels withdrawal from the territory’. This is a straightforward BBC reporter’s observation, rather than an Israeli viewpoint. You are missing vital context here. Rocket fire has also continued from the West Bank. Has Israel withdrawn from the West Bank too? No, they have not. Why is this apparent anomaly not explained? Why not explain that Israeli bombings, shellings and shootings have also continued over this period? Why is this conspicuous by its absence?

o Why is the resistance viewpoint on rockets never reported by the BBC?

• The BBC always portrays the situation in Gaza as one of Hamas terrorism involving rockets on Sderot and portrays the Israelis as 'responding' or trying to stamp out the rocket threats

Nothing in your cited articles reports the reverse view that Hamas and other Palestinians are responding to Israeli missile and attacks with rockets. Therefore it appears that your correspondents do align with Israeli perspective otherwise we would see the reverse point made in other articles.

• While the BBC shows the context of Palestinian attacks on Israel the reverse is not true. Hamas were on a ceasefire for over a year whilst the Israelis kept on killing elected politicians in all Palestinian parties. Why not mention this relevant fact?

• When reporting that Israel has ‘withdrawn’ from Gaza, there is no mention that under International law they are still occupiers by virtue of the fact that they control the airspace, the borders and coast of Gaza. They also control the supply of food and medicines.

• The BBC always refer to murdered Palestinians are ‘militants’ even if they are just ordinary members of Hamas. Why does the BBC choose to forget that Hamas was/is an elected government?

• The BBC always say Hamas ‘seized’ Gaza as if they were not elected and mounted a coup against an elected Fatah government. In fact the reverse is the truth is it not?

• Israeli arguments are shown but there is no context. One example in the article I complained about is Israel saying that ‘electricity is still flowing’. This was actually contradicted by the UN on the same day. Why does the BBC fail to report the relevant view of independent observers, so that readers can judge for themselves?

• Why is the psychological pressure of occupation and continual attack on Gaza not explained as a reason for pressure on Palestinians groups to retaliate with rocket attacks? This point remains unanswered.

• Mr Olmert has chosen a middle way; tightening economic restrictions, increasing the intensity of Israeli military operations inside the Gaza Strip, and stepping up the targeted killings of Palestinian militant leaders." This is yet another BBC observation not an Israeli perspective. You could also mention that this ‘middle way’ involves illegal assassinations and collective punishment. Your statement appears to justify the ‘targeted killings’ because the leaders are ‘militant’. Is extrajudicial killing acceptable in the BBC’s view?

• "Israel clearly hopes that the suffering in Gaza will lead to pressure on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks" How do you know what Israel hopes, unless you believe what they say?

Returning now to your reply, I examined the articles you cite in detail. None of them cite what Hamas or the Palestinian resistance would consider to represent their view. There is a charity workers diary – very interesting but nonetheless unrepresentative. There is also some not very informative reporting of the border incident by Tim Franks. The Egyptian point of view you cited actually contains classic BBC reporting including:

Paragraph 3 ‘…breaching the economic blockade of Gaza, imposed Israel says to stop militants from firing rockets into its territory.’

Paragraph 17 ‘….Israel and Washington who fear an open border allows weapons to be easily taken into Gaza.’

Although you say there are two reports from Gaza you actually cited the same one twice. In this report by Martin Patience from Gaza http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7199335.stm

I find this:

‘Israeli officials say this was in response to the almost continuous rocket fire from the territory onto neighbouring Israeli towns and villages.’

Where is the Hamas or resistance view on this oft reported allegation? This is again conspicuous by its absence.

Given that Hamas control Gaza and have considerable support there, I’m sure you could have found someone with a viewpoint on this matter. However, you found one gravedigger, two business people and a metal scavenger, but failed to find a Hamas viewpoint. Extraordinary is it not?

I turn now to your contention that you do not give running death counts. Regular reporting of the threat of rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli military operations in Gaza is not credible unless the reader can judge the claimed threat of rockets for themselves. The simple mention of deaths for both sides would provide good context and allow the reader to judge the parties words against the reality of the threat. Reporting the death toll once a year is not adequate for this situation.

I know from past experience that the BBC always believe that they are fair and balanced and so will reject all charges even when they are backed by evidence. However, I am not alone in making the accusation that your coverage is unfair and unbalanced. A Glasgow University study of BBC coverage found the following after analysis:

• A preponderance of official Israeli perspectives

• Origins of the conflict overlooked in BBC reports.

• Israeli actions contextualized but not Palestinian actions

• An undue emphasis on Israeli casualties

It seems that I am far from alone in detecting your biased output. I hope you will consider my points again and think about how the BBC output is failing to represent the Palestinian viewpoint adequately.

Kind regards,

Kebz

Reply from the BBC

2008-01-31T20:33:00.000Z

I will post my response to this reply in due course:

Dear Kebz,

Thank you for your comments regarding our coverage of the recent events in Gaza.

Jonathan Marcus' report was intended to outline the Israeli position on Gaza at a time when events and reporting were completely dominated by the opening of the border, the Egyptian reaction and response, and statements from Hamas. We feel it was an important contribution as part of the wider coverage which concentrated on the Palestinian perspective on the situation. These are just a few examples of features and reports of this kind:

A diary by a correspondent in Gaza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7212945.stm

Correspondents from either side of the border:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7209495.stm

A correspondent looking at the issue from the Egyptian point of view http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7210650.stm

A dairy, in four parts, from a Palestinian aid worker in Gaza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7215844.stm

An analysis arguing that Hamas has put itself centre stage again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7217020.stm

There were a whole range of picture galleries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7207596.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7204102.stm

Just before the opening of the border we had a correspondent in Gaza for the website. These are two of his reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7199335.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7199335.stm

We do not have a permanent English language correspondent in Gaza. You may remember the BBC correspondent there was kidnapped. We do have a Palestinian reporter, producers and researchers, and the BBC regularly deploys in Gaza. We also have a permanent correspondent in Ramallah. The main bureau is in Jerusalem.

We have raised the issue of collective punishment many times. You can find mentions by putting it in the search engine alongside the word "Gaza".

We report all deaths in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - civilian, militant and military. We do not publish ad running toll. We do report annual figures when they are made available by researchers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7165652.stm

We do our very best to treat this and all other news stories with scrupulous fairness and accuracy. We do not accept your criticism that we are somehow one-sided or reprinting Israeli propaganda.

Best regards,

Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website

For the BBC murder and seige is a middle way

2008-01-22T21:16:00.000Z

Official complaint to the BBC about their general coverage and this one particular online article:

I would like to make a serious complaint about BBC coverage of the situation in Gaza and particularly this article by one of its correspondents in Jerusalem;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7200194.stm

Why has the BBC become a tool of the Zionist propaganda machine? As licence payers we are entitled to a fair and accurate description of events in the middle-east, not as dictated by Tel Aviv. I have watched in dismay as time and time again the BBC portrays the situation in Gaza as one of Hamas terrorism involving rockets on Sderot and portrays the Israelis as ‘responding’ or trying to stamp out the rocket threats. That is a completely dishonest portrayal.

Is it not true that most of your correspondents are based in Jerusalem? It is a coincidence then that the BBC line always favours the Palestinian aggression/Israeli retaliation angle?

The BBC has done little to portray the true face of the occupation. The closure of Gaza is not recent and goes back to the withdrawal of settlements from Gaza. Since that day and before it, Israel has had de facto control of the borders and airspace, controlling food, medicines, human passage, fuel, water and electricity. Why is it that the BBC never portrays Palestinian rockets as retaliation for the daily assassination of Palestinian politicians, the wanton destruction of Palestinian property by missiles, shells and bombs and the killing of innocent bystanders?

Why does not the BBC supply the true death count on both sides in the recent conflict? Is it because it would show that Palestinians have rather one-sidedly been the victims of overwhelming violence carried out by the IOF and settlers? Perhaps if your news didn’t depend on the ‘access’ to official statements of Israeli spokesmen, we might have a tiny chance of a fairer approach to reporting the crimes against Gaza.

Take this article for example entitled, Propaganda battle over Gaza Plight. It is an ironic title, given the way Jonathan Marcus regurgitates Israeli propaganda and dresses it up in respectable BBC clothes.

“As the rocket fire from Gaza has increased in intensity over the past 10 days so the fuel restrictions have begun to bite. Already difficult living conditions in Gaza are being made worse.”

This implies that all the difficulties of Gaza are simply due to increasing rocket fire. That simply is not the case. Hamas had maintained a one-sided ceasefire for over a year, and the only rockets were from other factions in retaliation for assassination and bombings carried out by Israel.

"Israel argues that if restrictions are to be lifted then there is a simple answer; the rocket fire should be halted. But the Israelis also seem surprised at the scale of the power shortages in Gaza."

Israel argues and argues again. The BBC continues to regurgitate those arguments:

"They argue that about three-quarters of the electricity used there comes from either the Israeli or Egyptian power grids and this electricity is still flowing."

Again a blatant lie because the UN has verified that electricity is not flowing. Are the UN engaged in pro-Palestinian propaganda? The BBC continually reports Israeli official statements without equivalent statements from the Palestinian side.

"The Israelis seem to be suggesting that it is Hamas which is manipulating the power supply to increase the suffering to win propaganda points."

More propaganda regurgitated by the BBC.

"Israel considers itself to be at war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Rocket fire into southern Israel has continued ever since Israel's withdrawal from the territory."

Again an untruth served up ungarnished: rocket fire is not the only thing that has continued. It has context. Why is this not explained? Why not explain Israeli bombings, shellings and shootings over this period? Why is this conspicuous by its absence? Why not report the death toll on both sides? Why is Israel at war with Hamas when Hamas maintained a ceasefire for over one year?

"in recent weeks the barrages have increased in intensity; physical casualties have been few, but the psychological pressure of living under the daily threat of attack has made ordinary life in the south very difficult. In turn this has brought huge pressure on the Olmert government to act."

Yet more crude propaganda, this time directly from BBC editorial staff, aimed at getting sympathy for Sderot residents whilst ignored the plight of 1.5 million Arabs being deliberately starved and suffocated by Israeli occupation. Where is your proof that rockets have been the cause of this escalation? How can you take Israeli words at face value and ignore Palestinian statements? Are you simply racist or just biased?

Why is the psychological pressure of occupation and continual attack on Gaza not explained as a reason for pressure on Palestinians groups to retaliate with rocket attacks?

"Israeli military commanders fear that this could lead to considerable Israeli casualties quite apart from a bloody death toll among Palestinian civilians if troops were forced to assault densely-populated urban areas."

Don’t you mean Israeli ‘troop’ casualties and why do you say if troops were ‘forced to assault’. Nobody is forcing them to barricade Gaza, nor to shell it, nor to starve it of food, fuel and medicines. They are doing it of their own volition because of their insane hatred of Arabs. The BBC continues to portray Israel as reluctant and retaliatory due to aggression against it. Why do you persist in peddling these lies, using my licence money?

"Mr Olmert has chosen a middle way; tightening economic restrictions, increasing the intensity of Israeli military operations inside the Gaza Strip, and stepping up the targeted killings of Palestinian militant leaders."

So now murder is the middle way is it? Starving 1.5 million people and imposing a siege on them is COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. Why is the BBC reluctant to acknowledge it as such? Targeted killings are not new; they did not stop in the West Bank from where no rockets have been fired. Why is this anomaly not explained?

"Israel clearly hopes that the suffering in Gaza will lead to pressure on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks"

That is always what they say. How do you know what it 'clearly' hopes? Are you psychic? Or is it because you always believe what they tell you? Or is it because you deliberately don’t want to acknowledge that your hosts in Jerusalem, who give you access to the official propaganda, are liars? The BBC is a willing mouthpiece for a nasty racist regime in Tel Aviv. I demand that you start reporting the reality on the ground, instead of the disgraceful one-sided fiction handed to you on a plate by the Zionist propaganda machine.

I request a full answer to each of the questions I have posed here and not the standard BBC brushoff.

Damned lies or nonkosher?

2008-01-21T22:13:00.000Z

Interesting article I found on Medscape:

Statistics Is Unscientific! (Well, as Clinicians See it, Anyway)

Andrew J. Vickers, PhD

I once read a letter to the editor in which the correspondent, a clinician, described a paper's statistical analysis as "not strictly kosher." This might well be true, on the grounds that the statistician involved had probably not been certified by the appropriate rabbinic authorities. Leaving aside the issue of whether the Mann-Whitney test counts as milk or meat, the idea of "kosher statistics" does give a wonderful insight in to how many clinicians view statistics. Statistics is often seen as a set of laws, handed down from above, violation of which constitutes a transgression. As a statistician, I am repeatedly asked whether a particular statistical analysis is "allowed" or whether it would be "against the rules"; as a statistics teacher, my students' questions often concern "right and wrong."

It is hard to think of any other area of science that is characterized by so many religious and legalistic metaphors. We don't wonder whether, say, use of frozen and rethawed serum for a biomarker analysis would break any laws, or whether errors in flow cytometry technique constitute an eternal or just a venial sin. Hence my view that statistics, as clinicians see it, is unscientific.

One of science's defining characteristics is that new ideas are developed, and that both new and old ideas are tested empirically. This is as true for statistics as for any other science. Many of the techniques I use in my day-to-day work -- Cox regression, bootstrapping, k-fold cross validation, general estimating equations -- were invented relatively recently. I myself have developed a new statistical technique, decision curve analysis (which I'd be happy to explain to any reader experiencing insomnia). Moreover, statisticians test statistical methods experimentally: we have computers simulate data sets, then apply different statistical methods and see which come up with the right answers. If I recall correctly, the clinician who liked his statistics kosher was concerned about the use of a t-test on skewed data. Statisticians have tried applying the t-test to data simulated with skew and have found out that, although it sometimes fails to detect a true difference between groups, the t-test works just fine in terms of not telling you that there is a difference when there isn't. The trial that this clinician criticized reported that the drug worked; the use of the t-test was therefore not a problem.

So, no, the t-test was not inscribed on the stone tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai along with the commandment "Thou shalt not use with skewed data." The t-test was invented by a statistician (a guy who worked in a beer company) and has been subsequently been tested by other statisticians (including me) to find out if it is any good (it turns out it isn't ideal for the applications I need, and I rarely use it at all). Just like any other science, what you want to know about any statistical technique is the degree to which it might give you a wrong answer, and whether there other methods around that give you a better chance of getting things right. There aren't rules, laws, and commandments about this; you just have to know the latest research data.

Note: Andrew Vickers is Jewish, but admits that he has not had his statistical software certified as glatt.

Source link

Israeli terrorists continue their campaign of murder and oppression

2008-01-18T21:26:00.001Z

The world is silent over the starvation, bombing and siege of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Israel continues its relentless terrorism against a helpless, defenceless population, whilst the western media suck up to the zionist lobby with sympathetic stories about Sderot, which bears the brunt of Palestinian retaliation with puny rockets.

"It's time that Hamas decide to either fight or take care of its population," the Israeli defence ministry spokesman, Shlomo Dror, said.
"It's unacceptable that people in Sderot are living in fear every day and people in the Gaza Strip are living life as usual."

Life in Gaza as usual means being bombed, attacked, starved, your hospitals denied vital medicines and power. It means being unable to come and go from your own territory and having no control over your airspace. It means enemy aircraft can attack with bombs and missiles at will or flyover at supersonic speed yards over ordinary houses. Zionists are sick murdering fuckers and the world's worst hypocrites. Shame on the West for supporting the scum of the earth and helping them to murder Arabs.

Few voices are heard that tell the real story. This is one of them in a letter to the Guardian:

Your story (Israeli troops kill 19 in Gaza Strip incursion, January 16) has inevitably been followed by another Israeli atrocity yesterday, with three Palestinians, including a 14-year old boy, killed by an Israeli air strike on a car in Gaza City. The Israeli military have admitted they were all civilians. How much more killing and collective punishment are we expecting the Palestinians in Gaza to take? Israel is restricting the Gazans' access to food, fuel, electricity and water, ensuring all entry and exit points are closed to them, and forcing Palestinians to watch family and friends dying because the Israeli authorities are preventing them from leaving Gaza to access medical treatment. President Bush's visit has clearly emboldened the Israeli government to escalate its military assault on Gaza. The government must call for the siege to be lifted. A protest against the crime being perpetrated on Palestinians is planned for January 26.
Sarah Colborne
Chair, Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Then there is this from the channel 4 e-bulletin 'Snowmail':

The facts are only just beginning to clarify but there has been an appalling bomb attack in Gaza. Israeli jets targeted what they thought was the interior ministry and destroyed the block.

It was empty but the building next door collapsed, with loss of life, with a number of children killed. There are harrowing pictures but at this stage it is hard to tell whether they intended to do what they did or it was some sort of mistake.

Most media outlets are still reporting the strike as attacking an empty building.

Arab Jabour

2008-01-11T19:43:00.000Z

Media reports indicate that US warplanes have dropped tonnes of bombs on Arab Jabour, a built up area that was widely parroted by a servile media as an 'Al-Qaeda safe haven'. Baghdad Dweller points out that the same military was earlier claiming that Arab Jabour had been cleared of the alleged Al-Qaeda threat. American Third Infantry Division Captain Joseph Inge is quoted as saying:

We cleared the Area Arab Jabour from Al Qaeda threat, with the help of the citizens [Awakening Council]

Leaving aside from the fact that this was an outrageous act of terrorism on a civilian target containing god knows how many families, it does not even occur to our stupid media to question why the military is contradicting itself and why it is bombing civilian areas. Perhaps as mere Arabs they do not merit the kind of attention focused upon a single missing child who dominates the headlines seemingly every other day. Officially there were no civilian casualties....it would seem that people had vanished into thin air. The scale of the crime is revealed here:

Despite the massive size of the airstrikes, Donnelly said that to the military's knowledge, no civilians were killed.

Maj. Alayne Conway, a spokeswoman for troops in central Iraq, said the amount of ordnance dropped in 10 minutes nearly exceeded what had been used in that region in any month since last June.

Conway said the air attack "was one of the largest airstrikes since the onset of the war" in March 2003.

An AP reporter in Zambaraniyah observed that the bombing continued until Thursday evening.

Even before Thursday's massive attack, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Mark Solomon told a small group of reporters in Zambaraniyah that residents were returning to their homes and that stores and schools were reopening.

So it appears that they invited the resident to return and then started the massive aerial assault involving 40000 lbs of high explosives. That is what I call a cold blooded massacre of innocents and yet another war crime.

One also wonders how in the rather conspicuous absence of reporting of number of dead and wounded from the area (some of whom were likely to have been completely obliterated), how certain organisations who count Iraqi casualties by counting reported deaths can possibly factor in the resulting inaccuracy in their counts. The media continue to spout military propaganda whilst admitting that there is no independent confirmation of how many civilians were killed. They do however report the number of 'insurgents' killed as quoted by military spokesmen. Is this propaganda taken at face value, if reported independently in at least three media outlets?

Whodunit: The Bhutto Conspiracy

2007-12-31T22:23:00.000Z

After viewing the graphic images and videos of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, I must confess that I remain as unconvinced by most media explanations of the event, as I am by the Musharaff government's rather pathetic efforts to deny that Bhutto was shot prior to a bomb exploding near the car.

To me this looks like a classic ISI operation. The manner of the assassination is extremely suspicious. Most current media stories revolve around the theory of a lone suicide bomber assassin who also had a gun. However, after repeatedly watching the videos, I have come to a different conclusion. Three shots were fired. According to to the first medical reports, she was hit twice in the head and once in the neck. That was before the hospital mysteriously changed their statements. The young man in dark glasses with the pistol, appears to be a hit man (very common and easy to find in Pakistan) who had been hired for the job. As Ms Bhutto was exiting Liaqut Park, he most likely would have had a motorcycle accomplice standing by to aid his getaway. If you look carefully at the tragic aftermath of the bomb, amidst the bodies and body parts, there is a motorcycle lying close to the back of the car, only a few yards from the spot where the assassin shot Bhutto. This could well been the intended 'getaway' vehicle.

The bomb was insurance to make sure that the hit man did not survive and to also make it look like an Al-Qaeda operation. After the first attempt on Bhutto's life in October, the planners would have known that a suicide bomb would be ineffective against the armoured vehicle. Therefore, sending another one simply to kill bystanders would be a waste of time. The 'suicide bomber' was almost certainly sent to eliminate the gun man.

This scenario is also supported by an article in today's Indie which also seems to suggest that the real suicide bomber was lurking behind the man with glasses.

"In the latest images, the suspected assassin is shown to be a young man of Pakistani origin in his early twenties. He is clean-shaven, wearing sunglasses, and dressed in black tie and waistcoat.

In the first photograph, he is captured looking towards the camera with another man – suspected to be a suicide bomber – standing behind him with a scarf across his face. The second photograph shows the suspected assassin raising his pistol in the direction of Ms Bhutto's vehicle."

It seems inconceivable to me that this assassin was also the suicide bomber, just as it is inconceivable that Bhutto fell so hard that she killed herself on the sunroof. His dress, and the way that he accurately shot Bhutto in the head and the neck shows that he was a hired killer rather than a suicide bomber. Which jihadist would shave off their beard and dress like that , simply in order to kill a woman? Even the man quickly accused by the government of masterminding the attack, Baitullah Mehsud, hurriedly denied his involvement saying that he would not have done it as she was a woman.

Also take a look at this Channel 4 video which conclusively appears to show that Bhutto was shot in the head from the rear and fell into the car before the explosion. Watch the events in real time and you will realise that the explosion goes off literally milliseconds after the third shot is heard. The gunman could not possibly have had time to detonate a suicide vest so quickly after the third shot.

Why was the scene of this crime hosed down so quickly? My mind cannot help but think back to the aftermath of the bloody massacre at the Red Mosque. Remember the shiny weapons laid out in rows? Remember the rather efficient clean up operation to sanitise the scene, before favoured reporters were escorted to selected areas of the Mosque? This is certainly not a government that shies away from ruthless extermination of its enemies.

J4P transmission frequency lowered to minimal for a few weeks

2007-12-14T22:12:00.000Z

I offer my apologies to punters for the lack of posting recently. I am rather preoccupied with three jobs all demanding equal attention and a family to boot. I may increase the posting frequency a little if I get any time during the holiday period..then again I may not. Meanwhile there are plenty of worthy reads elsewhere.... checkout the Sharp side, which remains as sharp as ever. Craig Murray is always a good read and the Curmudgeon continues a relentless campaign of sarcastic and funny urine extraction. If you want hard nosed politics try the Tomb, POV or MediaLens for a full antidote to the diet of codswallop implanted into your brain by MSM. In fact, just check out all of the damn links on the right of this post, OK!

Rachel Corrie

2007-12-01T20:58:00.000Z

Gone but not forgotten. Her words are worth listening to; they report the reality that you will never see reported on the BBC or CNN.

Brutally and inhumanly tortured

2007-11-23T06:08:00.000Z

Torture and repression continue in Uzbekistan:

Relatives say Islamic prisoners were tortured. Two Uzbek men convicted of Islamic extremism have died in prison and their bodies showed signs of severe torture, said relatives and a rights activist. The family of Takhir Nurmukhammedov, 42, received his body on November 15 and it was clear he had been "brutally, inhumanly tortured", one of his sisters said. The body of Fitrat Salakhiddinov, 40, was delivered to his family with signs of torture, human rights advocate Surat Ikramov said. The torture of people imprisoned for alleged Islamic extremism has increased ahead of next month's presidential elections in Uzbekistan, he added.
Associated Press in Tashkent

I wonder if this would be news in brief, if the victims were British or American Christians?

The Blair Which Project

2007-11-19T21:44:00.000Z

That Blair middle-east peace plan in full:

Industrial parks to create jobs for all those unemployed Palestinians with nothing better to do than protest against Israeli tanks and settlers killing their kids and destroying their homes

Agricultural ventures - no doubt to replace the thousands of olive trees and fruit orchards the Israeli tanks have destroyed. In fact this could become a perpetual industry with the new schemes rebuilding what the zionist bulldozers destroy

A new sewerage system for Gaza- this is badly needed because so many people shit themselves when Israeli jets fly 10 metres above their roofs whilst breaking the sound barrier. Apparently this will be done secretly without Hamas finding out.

David 'The drip' Millibland has promised 'cash infusions'. I'm not sure if these will adequately replace the real medicines that are desperately needed in both Gaza and West Bank hospitals.

In a gesture of reconciliation, Israel has said it will unilaterally start building mega-terminals for the convenience of processing Palestinians on occupied land, and controlling the movement of food into peoples' mouths. Hitler would have been envious. The UN spokesperson apparently launched a scathing attack on this project saying:

"An insidious new regime to limit freedom of movement is threatening to further stifle economic activity and smother social interaction between villages and towns in the West Bank"

This is like complaining that a mad axe murderer is torturing his victims, whilst ignoring the fact that he is also killing them.

Minging Excuses for Dictators

2007-11-14T20:49:00.000Z

Musharaff invents a new reason for the imposition of Martial Law in Pakistan. First, it was to protect the country from terrorists. Now this:

Seeking to wrest the spotlight from the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who has dominated the airwaves, Musharraf admitted that he had considered resigning but felt he was the man to lead Pakistan to democracy.
"I am not a dictator, I want a democracy," he told Britain's Sky News. "The day when there is no turmoil in Pakistan, I will step down."
Meanwhile, with an eye on the all-important US audience, the general told the New York Times that the state of emergency was crucial to fair elections - a position the opposition strongly rejects.
"The emergency is to ensure elections go in an undisturbed manner," he told the paper.

This must rank as probably the sorriest set of excuses for imposing dictatorship in history. He has only had 8 years to lead the country to democracy but only just got around to realising that he needed to do this. What made me laugh was the declaration that he will step down the day Pakistan is not in turmoil. This is like the Eurosceptics declaring that they will commit to a federal state of Europe as soon as the oceans have evaporated. Or like the BNP saying they will welcome immigrants as soon as they all pledge to whiten their skin and draw swastikas on their foreheads. Soon, Ian Blair will be announcing that he will resign as head of the Met, as long as everybody else in the country resigns their jobs too.

Didn't you know that it is necessary to have a state of emergency before elections? This is what poor Gordon Broon didn't know, before his prematurely aborted autumn election. He should have declared Martial Law and put David Cameron under house arrest (not a bad idea actually). On that theme he could have gone even further like Musharaff:

Pakistani authorities today charged the opposition politician Imran Khan under the anti-terrorism act after he was arrested at a student demonstration in Lahore.

Brown should have arrested Ming Campbell under the terrorism act for talking to students. In fact he could have done everybody a favour and outlawed all students unions and made attendance at lectures compulsory too. Mind you, arresting elderly gentlemen under the terrorism act is not exactly new territory for the NuLab gestapo.

The real Mexico

2007-11-09T06:33:00.001Z

Falafel Bureau of Investigations

2007-11-07T22:07:00.000Z

Spot the balls competition

Thanks to Haitham for pointing out this amusing story about how the brains of America dreamt up a scheme to track Iranian terrorist cells in the USA. Allegedly they wanted to follow sales of Falafel to track down the sleeper cells of dangerous Iranian agents. Meanwhile it is reported that Hamas have managed to set up their own drug peddling, cigarette smuggling and fake Viagra scams in the US. No doubt the FBI will soon discover the Syrians running brothels in California and the North Koreans running an illegal gambling racket in South Dakota.

Martial law returns to Pakistan

2007-11-04T10:28:00.000Z

No surprise then that the West's favoured military dictator in Pakistan has caved in and declared military rule. While the West ridicules legitimately elected leaders like Hugo Chavez as dictators, the hypocrisy of supporting Musharaff could not be more stark. I think the arrest of people Imran Khan, lawyers and the chief justice Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, illustrates the desperation and lies of Musharaff's government. For once the Observer headline is accurate. Chaudry's lawyer said as he was bundled into a police van:

'Musharraf is acting like a spoiled child, holding the whole country hostage. These are the last days of Pervez Musharraf'

The claim of a threat to the country is laid bare as an empty lie. What has Imran Khan done, except to criticise the government for its conduct? Has he planted any bombs or supported the Taliban? Certainly not. The chief justice and lawyers have only demanded independence and lack of interference. The threat of suicide bombers and instability in the north is all the creation of the USA and Musharaff, killing and provoking local tribes, simply to show they are 'fighting terrorism'.

Western politicians are only expressing 'dismay' because it strips away the tiny veneer of democratic appearance from a military dictatorship, they are supporting. Their military support continues. What will martial law achieve in Pakistan? The same old corrupt politicians including Benazir Bhutto are waiting in the wings for the dictatorship to collapse so they can carry on looting the country when the pretence of a civilian administration is resumed.

The country is need of a revolution but is riddled with the cancer of corruption that no military dictatorship has resolved or corrected. There will certainly be not be a popular celebration for this latest seizure of power by the military. The country seems to be destined to forever repeat cycles of dictatorship with corrupt civilian rule, whilst the population suffer.

Who sprung the nukes?

2007-11-03T22:14:00.000Z

Some interesting observations and pertinent questions by David Lindorff on the mysterious Minot-Barksdale nuclear weapons flight:

at least two people, since it’s long been a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclear weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem—had to deliberately and consciously disable those alarms......

we’re asked to believe that some low-ranking ground crew personnel at Minot AFB simply walked out of a nuclear weapons bunker with six nuclear armed Advanced Cruise Missiles, not knowing what they were carrying, and labored for eight hours to mount those missiles and their launch pylon on the wing of a B-52 strategic bomber without ever noticing that they were armed with nuclear weapons. We’re asked to believe that none of those electronic alarms and motion sensors built into the system went off during that whole process....

Who disabled the alarm systems on those [nuclear] weapons and on the bunker itself?
Who mounted six nuclear weapons on the noses of six cruise missiles and put those missiles onto a B-52 launch platform?
Who authorized them to perform this operation?
Who moved the armed weapons out of the Bunker at Minot AFB and mounted them on the wing of a B-52 bound for Barksdale AFB? (Barksdale, it should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being flown to the Middle East Theater.)
Were the six missiles flyable? Were they fueled up and ready to fire, or were they not fueled at the time of the Minot-Barksdale flight?
Was there targeting information in the missile’s guidance computers and if so, what were those targets?
What happened to the three military whistleblowers who blew the whistle on this incident and reported it to a journalist at the newspaper Military Times?
Why hasn’t the Air Force or the FBI investigated the 6-8 untimely deaths including three alleged suicides, one of a Minot weapons guard, one of an assistant defense secretary, and one of a captain in the super-secret Air Force Special Commando Group, as well as alleged fatal vehicle “accidents” involving four ground crew and B-52 pilots and crewmembers at Minot and Barksdale?
Could any of this strange cluster of deaths have been related to the incident? The Air Force “investigation” didn’t even mention these incidents, and my investigation, reported in the Oct. 24 issue of the magazine American Conservative, found that none of the police investigators or medical examiners in those incidents had even been contacted by Air Force or other federal investigators.

Lindorff point the finger at Cheney as the chief suspect based upon his track record of shady dealing and intelligence manipulation. I doubt though that Cheney is the only one. Iraq was not solely a Cheney plot and neither is Iran. So if he did it, then it is probable that many others in the Bush junta were aware and approved of it.

Big News; Small Exposure

2007-10-30T22:03:00.000Z

This is an interesting little titbit about a dam in Iraq, tucked away at the end of an article about the Blackwater mercenaries being granted immunity by the Bush junta:

In a separate development, the US congressional investigator into billions of dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, today published a report that said a $27m (£13.5m) US effort to help Iraq repair the Mosul dam, "has yet to yield significant improvements".
There was a danger, he said, that the dam could burst, flooding large parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, with the risk of hundreds of millions being killed [my emphasis].
The US army corps of engineers assessment is that Mosul could end up under 65ft of water and Baghdad 15ft.

Surely this should be FRONT PAGE NEWS??????

Why the hell is the story of the possible demise of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, hidden away in a barely related story?

Is the fact that the bastard mercenaries of Blackwater may get away with murdering 17 more Iraqi citizens, more important than the possible death of a million or more?

What they appear to be saying is that the money superficially allocated for 'reconstruction' has done another disappearing act, whilst the Mosul dam remains in a critical condition. If the dam bursts, then it has the potential to match or exceed the 1 million plus Iraqis already dead as a result of the invasion and occupation. FFS, how many BILLIONS have the spent on bombs destroying and killing in the last four years? A tiny fraction of that would ensure the safety of millions. The combined population of the two cities was estimated to be around 10 million in 2005.

Street Children

2007-10-29T22:38:00.000Z

The truth about Iran's nuclear co-operation with the IAEA

2007-10-25T19:49:00.000Z

The pronouncements are grave. They talk openly of a nuclear weapon program and threaten Iran with dire consequences. Added to unproven allegations of interference in Iraq – galaxy size hypocrisy aside – it adds up to a massive campaign of rhetoric against Iran. So what is the truth about Iran’s nuclear capability? What is the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) investigating in Iran and what have they found? Bear in mind that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has opened its doors to IAEA inspection for years. Reading the IAEA reports it is hard not to reach the conclusion that the accusations against Iran are politically motivated lies, just as the nuclear accusations against Iraq were false. It is instructive to compare the actual findings of the IAEA with the hysteria in the media. Note also the media silence about the massive nuclear arsenal of Israel which gets automatic approval despite daily Israeli terrorism against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Presented below are some findings in the latest IAEA report. The report shows that Iran:

Has consistently co-operated with the IAEA inspections

Has supplied full and scientifically credible answers to technical questions regarding its operations

Has satisfactorily explained leakage and contamination problems

Has continued small scale testing with full knowledge of the IAEA

Has satisfied the physical inventory verification process

Has dismissed allegations about secret documents [no doubt like the infamous Iraq-Niger documents] that it has yet to see with claims about conversion of uranium dioxide to UF, high explosive testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.

Questions remain on how it acquired P1 centrifuge technology in 1987; clarifications of dates; information on purchase of magnets for P2 centrifuges

Since 2006, Iran has not provided information about research on advanced centrifuges [since the campaign against Iran started].

The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use

Parts of the report are reproduced here:

Since May 2007, Iran has continued to test single centrifuge machines, the 10- and 20-machine cascades and one 164-machine cascade at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). Between 17 March and 22 July 2007, Iran fed 14 kg of UF into the single machines; there was no feeding of nuclear material into the cascades. Since February 2007, Iran has fed approximately 690 kg of UF into the cascades at the Fuel

Enrichment Plant (FEP), which is well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design.

While Iran has stated that it has reached enrichment levels up to 4.8% U-235 at FEP, the highest enrichment level measured from environmental samples taken so far by the Agency from cascade components and related equipment is 3.7%. Detailed nuclear material accountancy, which is necessary to confirm the actual enrichment level, will be carried out when the product and tails are withdrawn from the cascades. As of 19 August 2007, twelve 164-machine cascades were operating simultaneously and were being fed with UF; one other cascade was operating without UF ; another cascade was being

vacuum tested; and two more were under construction. Since 22 March 2007, the Agency has implemented safeguards at FEP through interim inspections, design information verification, unannounced inspections and the use of containment and

surveillance measures (GOV/INF/2007/10). To date, four unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP.

Plutonium Experiments

As agreed in the meeting of 11–12 July 2007, the Agency provided Iran in writing on

1 August 2007 with the remaining open questions regarding plutonium separation experiments carried out by Iran at TRR (GOV/2007/8, paras 20–21). On 7 August 2007, during a technical meeting in Tehran, Iran provided additional information on the neutron flux distribution for the reactor core…... Using this additional information, the Agency made revised estimates of the Pu-240 abundance that could be expected from irradiation of the targets. The revised estimates derived from this new information were not inconsistent with the Agency’s previous findings from samples taken during its investigations. Taking all available information into account, the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements concerning these experiments are consistent with the Agency’s findings with respect to the dates, and quantities and types of material involved in the experiments (GOV/2006/53, paras 15–16). This issue is therefore considered resolved.

In the meeting on 7 August 2007, the presence and origin of high enriched uranium (HEU) particle contamination found in samples taken from the spent fuel containers at the Karaj Waste Storage Facility (GOV/2006/53, para. 17) was addressed. Iran has maintained that the reason for the contamination was leaking TRR fuel assemblies….

The data indicate that several control fuel assemblies had in fact leaked, and that the stated burnup matched that calculated for a majority of the HEU particles. The Agency has concluded, therefore, that the statements of Iran are not inconsistent with the Agency’s findings, and now considers this issue as resolved.

The Agency has finalized its assessment of the results of the physical inventory verification (PIV) of nuclear material at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) carried out in March 2007, and has concluded that the physical inventory as declared by Iran was consistent with the results of the PIV,

On 12 July 2007, Iran agreed to the designation of five new Agency inspectors (GOV/2007/8, para. 23), bringing the total number of inspectors designated for Iran to 219. Iran also agreed to provide thirteen Agency inspectors with one year multiple entry visas.

In order to clarify certain aspects of the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency has requested discussions with Iran about alleged studies related to the conversion of uranium dioxide to UF, to high explosive testing and to the design of a missile re-entry vehicle (GOV/2006/15, paras 38–40). To that end, the Agency has offered to provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in its possession regarding such studies. As indicated in the work plan, while Iran considers the allegations “as politically motivated and baseless”, it has undertaken to review the documentation and to inform the Agency of its assessment thereof.

The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities…..since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research.....

The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme.....

The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. The Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the above work plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.

Jaws 6: the return of the sharks

2007-10-23T19:25:00.000Z

The weak and vulnerable in society are always the most likely to fall victim to people determined to profit from their vulnerable status. There have been plenty of warnings of fraudsters and loan sharks who charge exorbitant rates of interest to people desperate for some cash. In fact, at the beginning of the year Gordon Brown announced the nationwide extension of an anti-loan shark scheme. This involves giving advice and prosecuting people who are unlicensed money lenders offering illegal loans and threatening people.

However another dangerous but perfectly legal shark has now appeared on the scene and apparently neither the government or anybody else appears to object to their operations despite them charging interest rates that would make loan sharks envious. The first example is a company involved in the mortgage/remortgage business. They have been recently advertising a service where anybody who is in the process of a remortgage application to release equity can get hold of 50% of the debt free equity within 48 hours. After the mortgage process is completed, they pay back the loan plus 1% per week of the borrowed amount. That is a scandalous 52% rate of interest.

Another example I came across was a company offering loans via radio advertisements. At the end of the advert where they have to declare the APR by law, the figure was given as one-one-eight-eight percent. That is exactly how it was read out. That's not 1.188%, not 11.8%, not 118.8% but a staggering 1188% interest rate. I suppose they think people will not be able to figure out that one-one-eight-eight equals one-thousand-one-hundred-and eighty- eight. Where the hell are the authorities who are supposed to be policing this sort of thing? Probably busy planning now to prevent legitimate anti-war protesters embarrassing war criminal politicians or how to fit up some Asian teenager as an Islamic terrorist for surfing the internet for information supplied by Mossad.

Dirty Iran

2007-10-22T18:34:00.000Z

The BBC appear to have a terminal obsession with allowing the UK establishment to perpetuate lies on its radio stations. I was unfortunate enough to catch some of the typical fare on the way home courtesy of its afternoon drive time show on Radio 5 - or five live as they call themselves. It involved Liam Fox from the Conservative bench teaming up with government minister Des Browne to launch a volley of unproven allegations against Iran, this time in Afghanistan. Fox, speaking in the commons, typically set up the question of Iran doing the dirty on our boys in Afghanistan and Browne followed up with stereotypical fervour.

Luckily enough, Fox was available for interview too, so that listeners could enjoy the reinforcement of the allegations. Allegedly, only Iran is sophisticated enough to make 'these types of weapons'. The accusations are so frequently aired that they don't even bother changing the script these days. They just use the search and replace feature on Word and voila, instantly Iran changes from simply being a supporter of terrorism in Iraq to also supporting the Shia-hating Taliban. The absurdity of the allegation doesn't prevent BBC presenters taking it seriously. So why exactly are they doing this? they ask. Even the introduction doesn't miss a trick - mentioning the 'current focus on Iran's nuclear weapons' before launching into the script. If Browne and co. ever make to trial for the shameless warmongering and butchery they are responsible for, then the BBC surely deserve a place in the dock as willing accomplices.

Fortunately, the story doesn't seem to have made it to the BBC online pages as yet. However, they do wade in with Cheney threatening Iran because of its non-existent nuclear weapons, Blair's accusations against Iran earlier in the week as well as Iran hanging some alleged criminals.

Peace from the barrel of a gun?

2007-10-20T09:16:00.000Z

I don't know what sickens me most; the state of Pakistani politics or the western media who haven't a clue about what is going on and present it as a battle between terrorism and democracy. I guess the most sickening thing this week though was the brutal murder of over a hundred people in the streets of Karachi. Life has become cheap and politics so debased that opposition political supporters are considered no better than cockroaches. That is the attitude of the religious extremists who are traitors to their own religion though they claim to fight for it. That is also the attitude of secular politicians with the exception of minor parties such as that led by ex-cricketer Imran Khan.

The circus surrounding Bhutto's return to Pakistan was bound to end in tragedy. Her constant posing in Washington and ingratiating herself to the US establishment had one purpose only and that was to convince them that she was the most pro-US Pakistani politician and that she would give them whatever they wanted. While the yanks like nothing better than servile foreign leaders, they recognise from the past that even when she served as prime minister in the past, she had little or no control over the state. That control as ever lies with the military and the bureaucracy. Therefore, even if she ends up in the same position, there is no likelihood that she will be any better for Washington than any of Musharaff's puppets.

If you read the papers and keep in mind the media propaganda output as a litmus test of western political thinking, it will be clear to you that Pakistan is almost on a par with Iran as the next target for intervention. According to commentators, an embryonic terrorist state within a state is being born in northern Pakistan where Al-Qaeda sympathisers have the upper hand and violence and terrorism are the norm. As usual this is a cleverly concocted lie disguised as an evident truth. The only evidence you need for the scenario are to look at the guns and violence in the region. However, the NWFP has never been a particular peace loving region. Some Pathan tribes have been carrying guns for decades and indulging in murder and drugs behind a veil of fake religious fervour. The actions of Musharaff in sending troops to Waziristan have served only to stoke up the fires.

The real challenge is not to battle terrorism as an external shapeless deadly enemy gathering on the north western borders of Pakistan. The challenge is to rip apart the very foundations of the political establishment in Pakistan - root and branch - and to replace them with something that is consistent with real democracy (not a fake western imposed model). There has to be a negotiated an end to the warring in the region. Peace cannot be imposed from the barrel of a gun unless you intend to commit genocide. Frankly, it looks like an impossible job because the system owns the people. They are enslaved to the big parties or bullied into voting for them. They are brain-washed by the media and abused by the establishment. People grow old and cynical but the system recruits newer generations and perpetuates like an aggressive tumour.

Shame

2007-10-19T21:41:00.000Z

Rendition

2007-10-14T10:23:00.000Z

Interesting review here of 'Rendition', a film that uses the US practice of extraordinary rendition as the basis for a plot. The film reveals the huge lack of US understanding of militancy or 'terrorism' in the Islamic world. Take this passage for example:

But Rendition's ambitions stretch beyond America. The film attempts to expose the roots of terrorism, by exploring the back-story of the chief torturer, Abasi Fawal (Igal Naor), whose daughter Fatima (Zineb Oukach) is secretly dating an Islamist boy, Khalid (Moa Khouas), who has been radicalised by the knowledge that his father was tortured to death. Fawal tells Freeman: "We have a saying - beat your woman every morning. If you don't know why, she does."

The torture scenes are pretty grim as Fawal attempts to force El-Ibrahimi to explain why his mobile phone records show that he has been in contact with a known terrorist. Freeman is horrified at first, but gets used to the brutality fairly quickly, albeit not quickly enough for his boss Corrine Whitman, the CIA's Cruella De Vil-style head of terrorism (Meryl Streep). She calls when he is puffing away his troubles on a hookah in a belly-dancing bar. "You're new to this, aren'tcha?" Streep says. "This is my first torture," Gyllenhaal replies. "The United States does not do torture," Streep rebukes. Soon, Gyllenhaal is taking his frustrations out on the prisoner, strangling him after being called a coward.

Belly-dancing and wife-beating is fairly typical fare when it comes to stereotyping the middle-east. There appears to be little distinction between Arabs, Persians and other cultures in the world of cinema. The middle-east to these people, is one amorphous blob full of dark haired moustached or bearded people speaking guttural tongues and wearing strange white dresses. Whether you are a religious Pakistani or an armed Uzbek fighting against a brutal fascist dictator, the western world sees you as a threat and an exporter of 'Jihad', despite not even knowing what the word means. This probably a consequence of the successful Zionist propaganda campaign, which has completely infiltrated mainstream America and seeks to portray Muslims as an existential threat, no matter where they are from or what they actually think.

I also wonder at the purpose of this type of film. It certainly fails miserably to expose 'the roots of terrorism'. Apart from reinforcing stereotypes, this review appears to indicate that is an attempt to mitigate the disgusting practice of rendition and torture. It is basically saying that those damn terrorists are so darn bad, we are justified in abandoning our stated principles of fairness and justice (which are a myth anyway). Therefore, if they happen to get tortured to death by one our middle-eastern allies, then it is too bad. At the same time it shifts the blame for doing the actual dirty deed onto more smelly foreigners:

Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, explaining the process in brutal terms: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt."

It's not even that surprising that Syria is named as one of the countries 'helping out' by carrying out torture on our behalf. This smoothly helps to reinforce their labelling as a terrorist state.

Jabba in the mines

2007-10-09T18:52:00.000Z

I must be psychic. No sooner have I posted about diamonds and a diamond story pops up out of the blue. It involves the repulsive old toad Alisher 'Jabba the hut' Usmanov who in currently but unsuccessfully engaged in wiping Craig Murray off the cybermap. Craig merely mentioned that Usmanov was a crook with connections to a man that boils people to death, but rather than suing Craig, Usmanov issued legal papers against the website's ISP and others who propagated Craig's allegations. Usmanov apparently objects to anybody mentioning that he is a crook and has threatened any media outlet that should dare to divulge his criminal history.

The diamond story involves allegations against Usmanov, by an equally repulsive and filthy rich diamond cartel known as ADC. Apparently they are squabbling over the 'Grib pipe' a lucrative diamond mine in Russia.

The diamond potential of the Vladimir Grib pipe is much higher than that of any pipe of the Lomonosov deposit. The diamonds are characterized by a larger proportion of octahedral crystals, particularly in coarser fractions (>2 mm); a low proportion of dodecahedra (D); and large proportions of transitional forms (O–D), cubes, and pseudohemimorphic stones. The amount of tetrahexahedral crystals is three orders of magnitude lower than in pipes of the Lomonosov deposit. Parageneses of various types are revealed for olivine, garnet, clino- and orthopyroxenes, and ilmenite. The heavy mineral fractions contain large proportions of minerals that could associate with diamonds.

Is there anything more revolting than obscenely rich people fighting over rocks whilst billions starve?

Diamonds are forever... a symbol of slavery

2007-10-08T19:04:00.000Z

Competition

2007-10-07T20:17:00.000Z

What's this a picture of?

Traffic terrorism

2007-10-07T14:23:00.000Z

Janessa Gans, a former US official reveals the behaviour of Blackwater drivers in Iraq:

"We would careen around corners, jump road dividers, reach speeds in excess of 100 mph and often cross over to the wrong side of the street, oncoming traffic be damned," she writes. "I began to wonder whether my meetings, intended to further U.S. policy goals and improve the lives of Iraqis, were doing more harm than good. With our drivers honking at, cutting off, pelting with water bottles (a favorite tactic) and menacing with weapons anyone in their way, how many enemies were we creating?"
Gans describes a particularly "infuriating" incident where the lead Chevy Suburban in her convoy allegedly crashed into a sedan ferrying an older man, a young woman and three children.
"As we approached at typical breakneck speed, the Blackwater driver honked furiously and motioned to the side, as if they should pull over," she pens. "The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt."
"Where do you all expect them to go?" she allegedly cried. "It was an old guy and a family, for goodness' sake. Was it necessary for them to destroy their poor old car?"
How many of these incidents occur on a daily basis? How many die? There is simply no accounting for the disgraceful and murderous way in which Blackwater conducts its operations in Iraq. They are a law unto themselves.

I have actually seen videos of this type of driving in Iraq, available on Youtube. The footage is apparently from official US armoured vehicles driving recklessly often on the wrong side of the road and on pavements, causing pedestrians to throw themselves out of the way.

Ignobel

2007-10-06T15:49:00.000Z

I always enjoy the IgNobel prizes. They are just so much more fun than the Nobel ones. This year is no exception. I would love to know what was in the mind of the US military scientists who set about inventing the 'gay bomb'. Did they really think that the enemy would drop their guns and start... ahem doing stuff to each other?

Some of the research sounds off-the-wall but there is actually real science behind it. The study of bed bugs is not really that odd at all because there is actually a whole ecosystem in most of our beds.

One of my favourite winners is Glenda Browne who studied the word 'the' and its effect on sorting words into alphabetical order. I think that is no worse than the mathematician (whose name escapes me) who wrote an entire volume proving that 1 + 1 = 2 . They didn't have IgNobels in his day but I am sure he would have won one. However other mathematicians such as Mill reckoned that 1+1 can equal any number including 1596. I don't think he would been a convincing candidate for a job at the bank.

Equally delightful is the award for Kuo Cheng Hsieh who patented a device to catch bank robbers by dropping a net over them. I thought Batman already had that in his collection. Who was it that funded the team in the University of Barcelona, who showed that rats can't tell the difference between people speaking Japanese backwards or Dutch backwards? I thought research grants were difficult to get!

Vultures party

2007-10-04T18:46:00.001Z

Am I the only one already fed up with the Diana non-story?

Extensive CCTV images shown to the jury also captured the final tender moments between Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed prior to the car ride which claimed their lives.

The clips, shown in full for the first time, revealed how the Princess snuggled in Dodi's arms in the far-from-grand surroundings of the rear service exit of the hotel.

More evidence of the mad and obsessive nature of the media. Why should anybody care to watch a video of some rich person who has been dead for a decade? Haven't any other people died in 10 years? When will we see the same kind of interest in the 1.2 million people dead in Iraq since 2003, or the millions dying in Africa from hunger?

Debate with the MediaLens Editors.

2007-09-30T21:22:00.000Z

Just how important is the figleaf effect? Do writers like Monbiot and Klein give legitimacy to the corporate liberal press? They appear to think that just because link to her work published in the Guardian appears on her website, that she is an enthusiastic supporter of the Guardian. An important issue of debate:

Kebz: I don't understand this obsession with attacking figures on the left because they don't quite match up to the infinite purity demanded by Gabriele and the Editors. You need less of a holier than thou attitude and should stick to tackling the liberal press rather than singling out people like this.

Gary Younge, Seumas Milne, Monbiot, Bunting and others have written some excellent stuff over the years. Do you want them to stop writing and leave the way clear for the likes of Tisdall and Cohen? Do you only want them to only publish on obscure websites where a tiny fraction of the readership of the guardian will read them?

Do you buy stuff from the shops? Do you have no corporate goods in your house? I guess you live in mud huts and don't use Microsoft or other corporate software or connect using corporate ISPs?

Can I suggest that Monbiot et al, have spread the message to a lot more people than we have. I would respectfully suggest that Klein has also done more than we have. These writers may use the corporate press but ask yourself is it a price worth paying to spread the message? Are there not better targets for your derision?

ML editors:Why is it "attacking" to ask Klein what she thinks of the Guardian's performance, for example on Iraq? Would it be "attacking" to ask Chomsky what he thinks of the NY Times' performance on Iraq? Is it seen as "attacking" because the question's deemed awkward because Klein's working closely with the Guardian, being well paid by them, with agreements to have their logo on her website, links to her work on theirs? If so, isn't that all the more reason to ask the question?

Eds

Kebz: It is perfectly reasonable to ask as you say. But I get the feeling based upon what I have seen before that that it is a prelude to attacks on the integrity of the person in question. How about answering the questions I asked?

Eds: Of course Monbiot's done some great work. Very rare exceptions aside, he's written very little about the structural corruption of the corporate media and its impact on the world. We've discussed Younge's work on Haiti in detail in our alerts. We've also discussed Milne's performance as gatekeeper of the Guardian's comment page - packed full of the likes of Garton Ash waging a propaganda war on Iraq while some of the great dissident writers were excluded year after year. Surprised Bunting's even on your list. Shortly after street protests by hundreds of thousands of protestors in Seattle (November 1999) and Washington (April 2000), Bunting wrote:

"Let's be honest, who cares much about politics beyond a small elite of professional politicians, commentators, policy wonks and a rump of party activists? When did you last have a raging row - or even brief conversation - with anyone about politics?" (Madeleine Bunting, 'No politics, we're British', The Guardian, 15.5.00) Do you really think we have the power to wreck this kind of havoc on UK liberal dissent? Do you think asking awkward questions of journalists is liable to end in this result? If so, US liberal and dissident journalism would have been wrecked beyond repair long ago by Herman, Chomsky, Zinn, Albert and others. What they have done is really obscene by comparison, by this logic.

If you have to be pure before you work for progressive change, then we should all give up now and accept that challenging anyone on anything is wrong. The point is we should all be challenging each other in this way. Even more importantly, we should also be challenging ourselves about the positive or harmful impacts we might be having on the world. It's extremely difficult to know if we're doing more harm than good, if only because it's very easy to convince ourselves that we're doing good when our actions make our own lives easier, more comfortable. I can tell you that we ask ourselves these questions all the time.

Well the world's most-read writer on international affairs is Noam Chomsky. If the suggestion is that Guardian journalists have to hold their tongues to do good, then Chomsky's impact is the ultimate refutation of that claim. And again, what we would he make of a comparable question on the performance of the New York Times on Iraq? Would he cringe with embarrassment because the New York Times Syndicate distributed the op-eds he published as his book Interventions? It's laughable, isn't it?

The question for us is a simple one: what is the impact when one of the world's leading progressive voices openly and enthusiastically endorses a newspaper like the Guardian? The Guardian has been a key component in a propaganda system that has resulted in the destruction of Iraq and the deaths of more than 2 million people over the last couple of decades. It helped bring Blair to power and protected him through his worst crimes. The list goes on and on: Haiti, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iran, climate change, globalisation... These are extremely serious issues.

Eds

Kebz: Thanks Eds. You say 'what is the impact when one of the world's leading progressive voices openly and enthusiastically endorses a newspaper like the Guardian?'

How do you know she is enthusiastic about it? Does having a link on your website mean you are enthusiastic about it? She has published articles in the Guardian. Ask yourself, is it not natural that she should have links to websites where her articles have been published? (I can't find any trace of the logo on her website.)

So what if the likes of Monbiot and Bunting have not written about the structural failures of the media. Just because it is our hobby horse does not mean everybody else has to focus on the same issue and disregard the rest. Monbiot focuses on the environment as that is his self declared brief, although you know that he has considered the questions you put to him in his articles.

Bunting is more of a social commentator. The remarks you attribute to her are taking her out of context. You are considering the wider world picture, whilst she is focusing on the UK political scene in that piece. In any case, there is hardly likely to be 100% agreement on all issues between these commentators who fall into the 'left' category. That is the heterogeneous nature of political discourse.

You say 'Do you really think we have the power to wreck this kind of havoc on UK liberal dissent? Do you think asking awkward questions of journalists is liable to end in this result?'

This is not a matter of asking awkward questions but why you are asking those questions. What do you hope to achieve? Sure, I understand that you are challenging the writers perception of the guardian but I ask again, would you rather that these writers did not appear on the Guardians pages?

Would you rather that your challenge resulted in them withdrawing saying that they will never publish in the guardian again because it is tainted because of its disgusting record?

Sure the Gruaniad is everything you say, but it is also a platform for the excellent work that you mentioned. It is a very important question that needs to be asked here: Is it not important to challenge the establishment line on the very pages that the establishment line is being promoted? Is that not the most effective way can you hope to directly tackle the promotion of war to the wider public?

You don't have to tell me these are serious issues. That is why the argument boils down to is, should these writers stop using corporate platforms like the Guardian? Why do you automatically assume they are enthusiastic supporters of everything that appears in the Guardian because they also choose it as a vehicle to spread a very important message to the public, in it? What other vehicles do they have available with the same reach?

By all means ask questions, but it appears to me (and I am not alone) that the awkward questions appear to be posed such that they appear to attack the integrity of the person in question.

Eds: we think it's wrong to appear in the corporate media without drawing attention to the problem of the corporate media. The reason being that the "fig leaf" effect otherwise has a major impact in reinforcing the illusion that the media system is free and open.

We're asking: What does Naomi Klein think about the performance of the Guardian, for example on Iraq? That question is legitimate, important and reasonable. From the response so far, it seems likely we're not going to get an answer. That then potentially raises a whole lot of other issues.

As you probably recall, we asked Chomsky what he thought about dissident writers completely boycotting corporate media like the Guardian. He said he wasn't sure whether it would be better or not. Nor are we. In the age of the internet, the feasibility of such a boycott changes. It's certainly something to think about and discuss.

"By all means ask questions, but it appears to me (and I am not alone) that the awkward questions appear to be posed such that they appear to attack the integrity of the person in question."

This is what we sent:

Dear Naomi

Hope you're well. I'm co-editor of a UK-based media watchdog, Media Lens. In your latest posting on the Guardian Unlimited website, you praise a number of regular Guardian journalists, including Madeleine Bunting, Seumas Milne and Gary Younge. I notice you also have a Guardian advert and link on your website. What is your view of the Guardian's performance in relation to the issues you discuss? Specifically, for example, what is your opinion of the Guardian's coverage of the Iraq war?

Best wishes
David Edwards

Can you explain how this appears "to attack the integrity of the person in question"? How could we have taken out the attack on Klein's integrity, in your view?

Eds

Kebz: So you think that every one of these writers should have a disclaimer in each piece saying how bad and terrible the Guardian is? Or should they spend most of their time regurgitating the propaganda model instead?

Is it really counterproductive to present the reality to a million people on a corporate platform rather than to storm off and avoid being labelled a rhetorical figleaf?

Even Chomsky cannot make up his mind about what a boycott of the corporate media would achieve. I would suggest that says something about the power of the alternatives. Although you wax lyrical about the age of the internet and so on, the reach of weblogs and sites like ZNET is a drop in the ocean compared to the reach of corporate media. In the end, a small part of the public has only ever heard of Chomsky because he has his books published by publishers and his name mentioned in the Guardian.

Lets say we go along with the idea of a boycott. How many people will that involve? Lets be realistic. I would suggest that no more than a few thousand at most would be involved. Why don't you try it and see what happens? What would it achieve? Absolutely nothing in my opinion except to remove the few strands of the alternative media already crowded with pro-war pro-corporate lackeys. That brings us full circle. Would you really like to leave the field clear for the pro-war people and have no dissenting voices at all in the mainstream? You may not have the power to do it but would you like to see it happen?

Do you honestly think the alternative media will be able to make up the for that loss? Do you really think these intelligent people are unaware of the problems involved in publishing in the Guardian? Why do you read so much into somebody putting a link on their website?

I think, what you really want is somebody to be talking full time in the corporate media about the failings of the corporate media. That would not be a bad thing but is hardly likely to happen is it? That is why the Guardian ignore MediaLens as much as possible. They see it the same as allowing somebody into their house to put up posters about how evil the residents are. It is wrong but in reality they see their readership as their 'followers' so to speak. They will not allow people to tell their followers that they are evil.

I accept that so far you have only posed a question for Klein. That doesn't yet constitute an attack but the question is leading to something is it not? Experience suggests that calling people a figleaf and going on to suggest that they are guilty of propping up the system and subsequently complicit in the wars etc, follows in these exchanges. That is not a positive way of debate. If that is not what you intend, then I apologise but I base my question on past observations.

In the final analysis, to anybody reading this debate, I would say think about how much legitimacy Monbiot et al give to the Guardian by writing their articles. Balance that against how much good they do by spreading the anti-war anti-corporate message to millions in a more subtle and eloquent way. Do you think the figleaf effect really outweighs the direct message?

David Wearing: Eds - I have sympathy for both yours and Kebz's postions. You're right to raise these issues, and Kebz is right to challenge you on just how far you want to take this.

Firstly, lets clear something up re. your email to Klein. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're not merely asking a question, are you? Anyone familiar with your work knows that there's a criticism implicit in your question and your question is set up as a prelude to a criticism. Of course there's nothing wrong with that. But lets not say that all you're doing is asking a question and nothing else. Lets not wonder (as you do in an earlier post on this thread) why people get all sensitive when all you're doing is asking innocent questions of their favorite writers. People aren't being sensitive. They're recognising the criticism you're making and disagreeing with it.

When discussing this issue with Gabriele and Miriam in the past the response I've had has been, "are these people immune from criticsm?" and that seems to be your response as well. This is dodging the issue. No one's said these people are immune from all criticsm. The question is whether your criticism (which is plainly implicit in your email to Klein) is justified. Kebz is not saying you shouldn't ask the questions - he's giving you his answer to them.

Secondly, while I think the use of the Guardian logo on the No Logo website does raise a legitimate question (albeit one which I think has now been dealt with satisfactorily by Bern), the preceding sentence in your email is a bit concerning.

"you praise a number of regular Guardian journalists, including Madeleine Bunting, Seumas Milne and Gary Younge".

And? Plainly there's a criticism implicit here, so why not just make it? You're saying such praise might not be justified given that these people work for the Guardian and given some of their own performances, no? Better to say so instead of "just asking a question".

So lets look at this. Take Seumas Milne. Its plain that Milne identifies the same problems that we identify in the political economy, but has taken a different approach to yours in dealing with them. You choose to work outside the system in order to offer your criticisms of it. Milne has chosen to work within the system, to play the game cleverly and to open up avenues for dissent to people who might not otherwise enjoy such opportunities.

Your method leaves you free to work entirely on your own terms. Milne's doesn't. He sometimes has to make compromises. Could he have held down that job for five minutes if he'd barred the likes of TG Ash etc and filled the Guardian comment pages with Pilger and Chomsky? Plainly not. But in his time he gave space to countless excellent dissenting voices. A significant proportion of the stuff he got published advanced a thoughtful and humane view of the world. Think of Priya Gopal, Karma Nabulsi, Jonathan Steele, George Monbiot. Do TGA etc simply nullify all of these? Plainly not.

Milne's chosen method can't be dismissed. As Kebz has said, you have to balance:
(a)the effect of a dissenting voice getting the chance to speak to the mainstream, with
(b) the fig leaf effect that you identify.

Does the figleaf effect cancel out any good that can be done? That's the argument put forward by Miriam Cotton to me in a previous discussion on this board. She argued that for all Robert Fisk's good reporting, the fact that this reporting appeared in the Independent made him little better than a collaborator. I'm afraid its this sort of hardline, black-and-white view that can give (and in some places has given) the good work of the Medialens community bit of a bad name.

Surely it is more sensible to recognise your approach and Milne's as complimentary. You can achieve things that he cannot achieve in his position, and vice versa. By all means pressure msm journalists to introduce cricism of the cm within the cm, but don't decry them as "gatekeepers" for failing to behave within the corporate media as though it wasn't corporate, thus nullifying all the important things that they do achieve.

You asked Kebz whether he seriously thought you had the power to expel journalists from the corporate media. Clearly that wasn't his point. He was asking what you advocate. Do you want these people to leave the msm and write for ZNet only? (Ludicrously there are some in the ML community who apparently would think even this too much). Would the world be better off if the likes of Fisk, Klein etc slashed millions from their readership? If millions less people knew of the opinions they espouse or the facts they draw our attention to? The fig leaf effect is important to consider, but is it really so overriding? Obviously not, in my view. You've asked the question. I think that's your answer.

At last

2007-09-29T16:14:00.000Z

The US army and CIA are finally designated as terrorists. About time too.

The hard-line dominated [Iranian] parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

What about the victims of US sponsored death squads in Central America? Surely, they count too?

Surfing the nightmare

2007-09-28T18:54:00.000Z

I am saddened by this story from Tokyo. It reveals the fact that a large underclass of effectively homeless people, are sheltering in 24hr Internet cafes because this is the cheapest way to live other than living on the pavement.

Tanaka has been dividing his time between internet cafes, capsule hotels and all-night saunas for the past three years since fleeing his home in Saitama prefecture, north of Tokyo, after falling behind on his rent. "I know it's cramped here, but there is no way I could afford the deposit and rent on an apartment, even a one-room place," he says as he devours a Slush Puppie with a plastic spoon. "All the drinks are free, I can use the PC for as long as I like, and there's even a shower upstairs."
For all this he pays about 1,000 yen (£4.30) a night. On days when there is no room at the cafe, or when he craves a little more comfort, he pays a little more and stays at a capsule hotel - a bed and a TV in a room only slightly bigger than a coffin, with communal showers

If this is what you can look forward to after a long day slaving on a building site, how is this much different to slavery? We cannot expect to help those in Africa or living under the jackboot of western approved dictators, when we tolerate this kind of stuff under our very nose. If our country is about 'British values of justice' etc, we should not have thousands of people sleeping on our streets and totally reliant on charities for survival. How can we afford billions for missiles to kill foreigners and yet not be able to feed and house our own population?

Don't stand up Gordon

2007-09-24T19:50:00.000Z

Brown:

"This is my pledge to the British people: I will not let you down. I will stand up for our schools and our hospitals. I will stand up for British values. I will stand up for a strong Britain. And I will always stand up for you."

That would be why my local 6-year old hospital is losing its maternity unit and its accident and emergency unit. Thanks to Brown and colleagues, everybody in my town will have to travel at least six miles on roads renowned for appalling traffic.

Bloody Sunday

2007-09-21T19:07:00.000Z

There is a horrific story in the Independent about the recent bloody Sunday massacre of 28 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater mercenaries. Despite the call for Blackwater to leave by Iraqi government officials, military and diplomatic sources are clear that simply will not happen. Blackwater have too many connections (Bush, CIA, Pentagon etc) and too many contracts to protect top US officials based in Iraq. Blackwater said after the killing of of four employees (that led to the destruction of Fallujah by US forces),

"we also feel pride and satisfaction that we are making a difference for the people of Iraq."

That difference can be measured in terms of hundreds of innocent Iraqis gunned down by trigger happy mercenaries earning several thousand dollars a day.

Blackwater is run by a personal friend of George Bush. Erik Prince is an ex-navy seal, a right-wing fundamentalist Christian and a former intern in the administration of George Bush Sr.

Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, said this:

You tell me what nation in the world has operatives deployed in nine other countries around the world, can boast of a force of 20,000 men to call on at a moment's notice, has a fleet of aircrafts............one senior-ranking US military official, Brigadier General Karl Horst, the deputy commander of the Third Infantry Division, he became so outraged with contractor misconduct, that he began just tracking cases of contractor violence over a two-month period. He documented twelve instances of contractors firing at Iraqi civilians, resulting in six Iraqi civilian deaths and three injuries. That’s just two months and one general with his eyes open. So you multiply that across the scene, and what we have in Iraq is a Wild West-type scenario.

Another miscarriage of justice or another terrorist locked away?

2007-09-17T17:56:00.000Z

A Scottish Muslim student has been convicted on charges of terrorism. If the circumstances described by his lawyer are correct, this is a major miscarriage of justice as well as being against the principles of individual freedom and liberty. The laughable level of evidence included him 'growing a beard' and discussing suicide bombing with fellow students at college when he was 18.

Apparently this guy had in his possession some CDs and DVDs. How you can use CDs and DVDs for terrorism, I don't know. Perhaps they were made with TNT. Apparently viewing a beheading or desecration of a dead US soldier's body is enough to make you worse than a paedophile. It surely is no worse than the dozens of US based Internet users that come to this blog looking for pictures of dead bodies, dead Iraqis and dead kids.

He also set up up a website with links to an ISRAELI website complete with links. The Israeli website is apparently a Mossad site and makes available links to bomb making material for anybody to download. The site has not been removed and apparently has the blessing of the Israeli establishment. Apparently even the BBC have featured the site, so I reckon that should make them terrorists too. The Israeli government are terrorists and are making material available for the BBC to distribute. Not far from the truth really.

In fact in this case no actual evidence was found of terrorism:

'in media briefings before the trial, senior officers admitted that they had not found any evidence that Siddique himself was planning to carry out an attack.
Instead, prosecutors tried to convince the jury that the material found on Siddique's computer and websites he owned was intended to encourage others to carry out attacks.
But the biggest problem facing them was that most of the videos stored on Siddique's computer could easily be found by using internet search engines like Google.
Indeed, footage of Osama Bin Laden urging Jihad against the West was little different from the one issued by the al-Qaeda figurehead which was broadcast by the mainstream media, including the BBC, on the anniversary of 9/11.'

There you have it. An admission from the BBC of its guilt, M'lud. They go on:

'The court heard, for example, that Siddique told a college classmate he had actually met Bin Laden.

Siddique had visited several hardline Islamist websites, some of which preached anti-Semitism and encouraged young Muslims to martyr themselves as suicide bombers.
However, officers discovered that Siddique had also surfed pornography sites. He had played online poker and registered a team in an internet football manager game.'

That's right folks. This fundamentalist was also a porn surfer and gambler too. These things were not at all against his religious beliefs. Remember Forest Gate and the allegations of paedophile porn?

So the upshot is that if you are a Muslim fantasist with a few DVDs featuring say Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, or if you have downloaded the odd beheading video from youtube, then you are likely to be locked up for dozens of years. However, if you are white supremacist fantasist from Nelson with chemicals, explosives and weapons, then you can get away with it.

News roundup

2007-09-16T09:42:00.000Z

The ORB polling survey supports previous results from the Lancet over excess deaths in Iraq. Some 1.2 million people have died in the war started by the neocons based upon lies.

Another set of lies leaked by the military to turn up the pressure on Iran - allegedly NATO have 'seized Iranian weapons' in Afghanistan. Don't hold your breath waiting for proof.

Speculation continues on the Israeli terrorist air attack on Syria carried out in secrecy last week. Journalists quote US and Israeli sources describing the attack as being on a cement shipment that was allegedly hiding nuclear technology from North Korea. Others say it was an agricultural research centre that was extracting uranium from fertiliser. Don't ask me which is the more ridiculous claim. The BBC, in comedy mode quotes the Syrians:

Damascus said last week the Israeli warplanes had violated Syrian airspace in the north of the country, describing the incident as a "hostile act".

Trust the BBC to put 'hostile act' in quote marks. Do they think it is not a hostile act to invade other countries for no reason and bomb them? Sorry, I forgot about Iraq. It must be liberation time again.

The Zionist terrorists have attacked the Moath bin Jabal Mosque in Rafah, causing substantial damage. Israeli bulldozers are destroying Palestinian farmland and Israeli special forces continue to kidnap people from their homes. So much for the peace process.

Meanwhile Benazir Bhutto announces her return to Pakistan for the umpteenth time, but this time actually specifies a date in October. She has been busy courting US politicians for support so that she can share power with or take over from Musharaff. Her weakness is that she will never have control over the Pakistani military, which is the major consideration in Washington.

Talking of cows, the movement ban on livestock has been lifted outside of the three mile zone in Surrey. Seems a bit soon to me, but time will tell.

Puppets

2007-09-13T19:33:00.001Z

Reply from Jon Snow

2007-09-13T19:31:00.000Z

Alas Kebz, I didn't see it from where I was but will check..I
agree..we shouldn't..thanks for drawing it to my attention..best wishes,
jon snow

Snow Mail

2007-09-13T04:42:00.000Z

Dear Jon,

Hope you are well. Interesting interview with Mr Ahmadinejad. What on earth was the montage of Iranian military hardware for? Why did you feel you needed to set a context to paint Mr Ahmadinejad as a warmonger? Funnily enough we don't see the same thing for western politicians when they appear on Channel 4 news to justify the mayhem and deaths of up to a million people in Iraq.

best wishes,
Kebz

The divide

2007-09-12T05:26:00.000Z

Rather than leading with Bush and General Petraeus yet again, the Gruniad should feature this story on the front page. The figures from the World Federation of United Nations Associations are stark and and reveal the state of inequality between the rich and the poor of this world today.

211m: Globally, the number of people affected by natural disasters every year

225: Number of rich people with the same combined income as 2.7 billion poor

18%: Proportion of people unable to read, compared with 37% illiteracy in 1970

1 in 5: Proportion of women who will be a victim of rape or attempted rape

$1000bn: The cost of world corruption in 2006

13-15 million: children orphaned through AIDS

The vast majority of bribes go to officials in rich countries not in developing countries.

BBC blatant bias

2007-09-11T17:23:00.000Z

Yet another disgraceful article from the BBC. Today they report on a story about a rocket fired from the Gaza stripe which hit an Israeli military camp and injured 69 soldiers. The BBC headline is "Rocket injures dozens in Israel". Why not put dozens of soldiers in the headline so that the browsing public do not get a biased impression from the headline?

The story comes complete with a picture of a man with an injured leg on a stretcher. This is the same injured man also featured in the Guardian. When was the last time, that mere injuries on the Palestinian side merited this kind of coverage? In fact, whenever the Israeli army hit people by shelling or shooting, we hardly ever see a picture of the injured Palestinians unless there has also been a large death toll too.

The BBC explains the injured soldiers were 'recruits'. Awww, let's have a wave of sympathy for the 'recruits' who kill little Arab kids for wandering too near the fence on their own side. What about the Hamas recruits? The teenagers who are regularly murdered by Israel?

The BBC yet again move on to reporting propaganda from Israeli officials. Have a gander at this:

"We pulled out of the Gaza Strip two years ago, we took down all of the settlements, we pulled out all our military personnel, we ended the military occupation and these extremists who are shooting rockets really have no positive agenda. It's just nihilism."

This disgracefully obvious and blatant lie goes completely unchallenged and is reported verbatim by the BBC. How about pointing out that the occupation army controls the borders of Gaza and that they control who and what goes into Gaza. They also control the airspace and the coastline bordering Gaza. They maintain an economic and military stranglehold that holds 1.5 million people under permanent siege, unable to maintain a functional economy and reliant on foreign aid. This foreign aid is also used as political leverage against the ordinary residents in Gaza. Dozen of elected Hamas officials are also held without charge in Israeli prisons. Who gives a shit about a fucking positive agenda when these zionazis are killing your kids and starving your people? Why is it only Israel who is allowed the excuse of retaliatory violence?

The crap from the BBC does not end there. It goes on:

Few of the attacks cause casualties but their psychological impact on life in the area has been significant.

What about the psychological damage being suffered by 1.5 million prisoners, you twats? What about the psychological damage of kids being hammered by sonic booms deliberately created night after night by Israeli jets flying low over Gaza? What about the psychological damage of thousands who spent weeks trapped unable to get into Gaza and suffered many personal tragedies during that period? What about the psychological damage of being tortured in Israeli prisons?

The only questions the BBC is worrying about are all from the Israeli perspective. Why were the soldiers only under canvas? How can Israel prevent further rocket strikes? It would be a refreshing change if the BBC were ever to consider similar question from a Palestinian viewpoint. They do however manage to note for once that the Israelis have killed hundreds of Palestinians in a previous incursion but yet again accept at face value the Israeli excuse that the reason for the orgy of destruction was to prevent rocket strikes rather than just another act of general terrorism against Gaza that Israel routinely indulges in.

The BBC pic

The Guardian pic

The amazing shrub

2007-09-10T05:18:00.000Z

That bandwagon looks and sounds familiar.........

Titan rain or earthly smog?

2007-09-05T19:00:00.000Z

The dastardly Chinese have allegedly been hacking their way into the computers of the British establishment including Whitehall. They have also had the temerity to hack into the US defence computer system and various German ministries. The BBC, sticking as firmly as ever to the principle of evidence-based reporting, duly reported the rumour/allegation that the hackers were linked to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China. Despite the dearth of evidence (other than the words of unnamed US officials that the BBC takes as solid proof), several newspapers and media channels are pointing the finger of blame firmly at the Chinese government. Coincidentally, today there are also reports of the Chinese arming the Taliban.

According to some UK government officials, this is a 'very disturbing' trend and of tremendous 'concern'. Some go as far as to liken it to a nuclear attack. The next war could well be a cyberwar and the hackers could bring down critical control systems and bring the country to its knees, they suggest.

However, something does seem to be conspicuous by its absence from these analyses. The idea that western hackers sitting in GCHQ and the Pentagon are doing the same thing against official enemy targets, does not seem to feature at all, never mind prominently. The possibility that the Western powers, who control much of the infrastructure of the Internet and have their own armies of computer experts involved in espionage, could indulge in such unsporting behaviour, obviously did not cross the mind of any of the media editors.

Hacking is just like 'terrorism'. They terrorise; we defend. They attack; we protect. They invade; we liberate.

Diego Garcia Chagossians get British sympathy

2007-09-04T19:18:00.001Z

Bill Rammel makes excuses for the British government's actions, in slinging the Chagossian Islanders off Diego Garcia, so that the US could turn it into a military base.

Jeremy Corbyn (Lab),

The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra....The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands.

Alex Salmond (SNP),

Every Foreign Office Minister, up to and including current Ministers, and every Foreign Office staffer who has been involved in the story over the past 40 years should hang their heads in shame at what has been done to these defenceless people.

John Grogan (Lab)

I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on whether any payment by the US Government has ever been made. Officially, the Foreign Office denies it, but time and again the suggestion in the literature is that the British Government at the time got a $14 million reduction in the cost of the Polaris nuclear missile system.

Bill Rammel, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,

..the decisions taken by successive Governments in the 1960s and 1970s to depopulate the islands do not, to say the least, constitute the finest hour of UK foreign policy. In no sense am I seeking to justify the decisions that were made in the 1960s and 1970s....During French rule, and for a short period thereafter, the copra plantation was run with slave labour. However, when slavery was abolished in all British possessions in the 1830s, the work force became contract labourers. That continued to be the basis of employment for as long as the copra plantations remained in operation......Some time after the islands had been set aside for defence needs in 1965, it was decided that the islanders should be relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles, and arrangements for that to be done were made in the late 1960s and early 1970s....

In 1982, Britain made an ex gratia payment of £4 million in return for withdrawal of legal proceedings brought by a member of the Chagossian community in Mauritius, in addition to the previous £650,000 for the Chagossian community in Mauritius. Everyone who was registered as a Chagossian—approximately 1,350 people—benefited from the fund. At today's prices, that sum is the equivalent of £9 million. At that stage, it was agreed by all concerned, including the Chagossians and their representatives, that that payment by the British Government was a full and final settlement against all the claims....

the Government had also commissioned a study in 2000 into the feasibility of resettling the Chagossians on the islands....I am directly quoting from that study, which was drawn up independently. It concluded that, "whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive."

That was not dreamed up by a Foreign Office official or a Minister; it was the conclusion of the independent experts.....Even in the short term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population....we have no legal obligation to pay any further compensation beyond what has already been provided

Basically the government is saying:

Tough shit. The French are to blame. They created this motley crew of islanders when they didn't exist. Then we gave them lots of money to resettle somewhere else (even though they didnt exist). That was after we decided they should be turfed out and their dogs gassed. We asked these independent commission guys (who we also paid lots of money), and they said we can't let this rabble back on the islands because they might suffer hardship. After all, the whole bloody place is surrounded by water and they might get flooding, storms, earthquakes and stuff. It's not nice out there. The US forces on the base are used to the hardship. They hardly have anything to eat apart from MacDonald's whoppers and KFC.

Anyway, we legally don't have to pay the Chaggosians a penny more, because they got all that money, back in the eighties.

Give us the money or the rainforest gets it!

2007-08-31T16:24:00.000Z

A couple of interesting articles in the papers today. First this one:

Oil has been pumped from here for almost four decades and the result, say environmentalists, is 1,700 square miles of industrial contamination, with rivers poisoned, wildlife wiped out and humans falling sick.
But now, mindful of the environmental and political cost, the state has made a startling proposal: if wealthy nations pay Ecuador $350m (£174m) a year - half of the estimated revenue - it will leave the oil in the ground.
Supporters say it is an idea whose time has come, a logical step forward from carbon offsetting in which rich polluters in developed countries compensate for environmental damage caused by their consumer habits.
Since it was first floated in June there have been promising signals, said Alberto Acosta, a former mining minister and close ally of President Rafael Correa. The German and Norwegian governments have expressed interest, as have parliamentarians from Italy, Spain and the European Union. "This could be a historic accommodation," he said. Donors could pay in cash, debt relief or other indirect ways.
Some greens champion the proposal as a way to protect biodiversity and combat global warming while allowing a poor country to develop. "It's not utopian, it's realistic," said Esperanza Martínez, of the Quito-based Acción Ecológica.
But others are sceptical. They predict that rich countries will not stump up the money and that Ecuador's government will ultimately find its oil bounty too tempting to pass up. The government and oil companies are already eyeing another chunk of Amazonian rainforest, the Yasuni national park, a Unesco-designated biosphere reserve. Beneath part of the 982,000-hectare (2.45m-acre) park lie the Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini oilfields, with an estimated 1bn barrels of heavy crude. For the cash-strapped government this is a tempting bounty potentially worth up to $700m a year.

Then this piece on fair trade:

ETHICAL consumerism has grown so fast that supermarkets are fighting to have the shiniest halo, increasing eco-friendly lines and labelling the source of products more clearly.

But while the latest must-have accessory is a social conscience, ethical buying is still in its infancy when it comes to fashion. UK consumers spent £5 million on Fairtrade cotton goods last year - a good start, but a tiny faction of the £300m spent on other Fairtrade goods.

High Street clothing is becoming cheaper, placing pressure on suppliers to produce our jeans and T-shirts at a greater cost to the environment and to their often exploited workforce. And for what? Half a million tonnes of unwanted clothing end up in landfill sites across Britain each year.

Peer reviewed science

2007-08-30T17:37:00.000Z

It made me laugh when I saw this banner displayed by the Heathrow climate change protesters.

I am not the greatest critic of the peer review process, but I had just come across a wonderful example of a real peer reviewed paper. (names and citation removed to protect the innocent ) Here are some excerpts from the aforementioned article.

This patient, a 38-year-old virgin spinster who had never had a boy friend and lived with her mother, by 24 weeks of treatment was co-habiting and engaged to be married.

From the same paper:

Another patient receiving drug X had severe domestic problems and complained of mood swings, heaviness in the head and feelings of detachment. Two patients receiving drug Y had gastroenteritis with transient headache, sedation and nausea. Both of these patients had eaten together at a local cafe.

Attitudes to Aborigines

2007-08-26T16:51:00.000Z

Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador’s controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror

2007-08-21T20:02:00.001Z

By Craig Murray.

The author Craig Murray is widely acclaimed as one of the few establishment figures who has emerged as a person of principle in modern times. Murray narrates the grim and sometimes horrific story with aplomb and a sense of humour that does not betray the serious topic of human rights addressed in the book. In fact, a sense of humour must have been an important part of the author’s armoury when he was dealing with crimes of barely imaginable horror.

The workings of the foreign office and embassies in other countries are not subjects that immediately excite the imagination. However, the book outlines a fascinating picture both of the political machinations that keep the diplomatic staff in line with government policies and also the routine work that goes on behind the scene, without overdosing on the boring detail. Murray to his credit is very frank about both his feelings and his personal life and this makes for a fascinating thread throughout the story. He admits to human failings and indiscretions in an honest way, which even the most critical reader, cannot help but admire. His concern for human rights and incredulity at the way the ‘system’ colludes with torturers and murderers, is evident throughout, and a sign of genuine compassion that one rarely expects in serving diplomats.

Interwoven with this grim story of repression, are anecdotes of meals, conversations, and observations on the figures of various girls who catch the roving eye of the author. Frankness and honesty can be refreshing qualities in government officials, but they are rarely seen in these quantities. This extends even to discussions on monthly earnings as an ambassador and financial problems.

Despite his background and training, Murray frequently comes across as confrontational and undiplomatic, at times even confronting armed thugs physically. Clearly the revulsion at state-sponsored torture had a profound effect on his behaviour and thinking. Murray backs up his story with valuable documents (mostly available on-line) which the Foreign Office fought tooth and nail to suppress, probably because they are damning evidence of the rotten core of New Labour. The double standards of politicians like Blair and Straw are obvious to most, but this book gives a valuable insiders view. It corroborates all the evidence from other whistleblowers who have described the treachery and spin that characterised the years of the Blair reshime.

His meetings with Karimov the Uzbek President and other Uzbek officials expose the hypocritical and loathsome qualities of US and UK foreign policies. The hidden subtext of conversations is well explained by Murray as he relates the double-speak that is copious in diplomatic conversation. Throughout the book, political, cultural and geographical details emerge on Uzbekistan that educate, alarm, and amuse the reader, in equal measure.

Given his undoubted commitment to economic liberalisation and capitalism, Murray has become a rather surprising hero for the left, which condemns the excesses of capitalism and free enterprise that Murray promotes. However, in the context of Uzbekistan, where the soviet style economy is maintained by nothing less than slavery in the cotton fields and factories, his calls for liberalisation do not seem out of place. The fact that the USA and UK godfathers of the market economy actually claimed that Uzbekistan’s economy was making progress, despite massive evidence to the contrary, is superficially surprising but these topsy-turvy facts don’t seem to be out of place with the prevailing cynical outlook of contemporary government.

The main criticism of the book is that some of the characters appear one-dimensional and their persona does not come across to the reader. One example is Chris Hirst, who is the first character to be introduced, but remains a bit of mystery other than some ‘disciplinary problems’ and the allegations (probably politically motivated) made against him by the Uzbeks. In contrast, the pretty girl characters are predictably better fleshed out (no pun intended) and add a touch of colour to the story, contrasting with grey harsh mood of repression described. None of this detracts from the quality of the writing and at times the story assumes the engaging quality of a relentless page-turner.

The narrative heads towards a somewhat predictable conclusion given the outspoken nature of the ambassador, the stuffy FO officials charged with gagging Murray, the totalitarian system that prevails in Uzbekistan, and the US efforts to keep Karimov sweet. Very predictably the smears start flying against Murray, with accusations of sexual misdemeanours and other untoward activities. Various dastardly but obvious and clumsy attempts follow, to try and stitch up the outspoken ambassador.

I was very interested in the Blackburn election and to learn what motivated Murray to take on Jack Straw for this multi-cultural seat. However, I was rather disappointed because this section is brief and seems to have been added as an afterthought, because it pops up rather unexpectedly whilst failing to go into the juicy details. It would have made for a fascinating chapter by itself, but perhaps he is reserving this for another book. If that is the case, he would have been better off leaving out this couple of pages. What he does write on the subject, highlights his political naivety in thinking he could outflank a wily politician like Straw and his army of ‘community leader’ acolytes.

To his immense credit, Murray comes across as a likable man committed to values of humanity and justice, battling those who only use these terms for decorating their speeches. This ambassador has done society a great service by exposing vile torture and murder, and rejecting them on our behalf.

The good news is that despite the health problems described in the book, he is still around and providing an expert commentary on current political events on his popular blog. I have no hesitation in recommending this book as an essential and entertaining read.

Brave Israeli soldiers beat up kids

2007-08-21T05:22:00.001Z

Bomb plots

2007-08-19T06:34:00.001Z

It seems terror scripts are all the rage. The regular portrayal of Muslims in the UK as suicide bombers or terrorists is not sensible given the rampant islamaphobia that the media have already whipped up. If you want to typecast a community, this is a good way to go about it. The BBC have chickened out at the last minute and are substituting the Muslim bombing plot in Casualty with an animal rights bombing plot. Way to go, Auntie Beeb. Why not pick on refugees, gypsies and the homeless too? No doubt, soon they will have an episode featuring a disabled elderly woman bombing a New Labour party conference.

Channel 4 meanwhile, are sticking to their guns. The observer claims the C4 drama will:

"..portray an increasingly radicalised female Muslim from Bradford who, after travelling to a militant training camp in Pakistan, becomes a suicide bomber and causes carnage in Canary Wharf. Another character from the same background joins MI5 because he wants to protect Britain."

Fantastic! Yet another opportunity to bash Pakistan whilst whipping up the fear of young muslim women who choose to wear a Niqab.

I would have added a sub-plot where the character who joins MI5 is betrayed by them and shipped off to a CIA torture facility, before transfer to Guantanamo Bay, but perhaps that would add an unnecessary element of realism.

'What drives young Muslims to make choices like this? It confronts the issues facing them at the moment, but not in a stereotypical way.'

You can picture it can't you? Sitting at the breakfast table munching on cornflakes, young British Muslims wondering...Should I go shopping for a new pair of shoes or put on a suicide belt and blow up Canary Wharf? Very realistic and not stereotypical at all. Channel 4 is quoted as saying:

'It's a very sensitive and multi-faceted view of what it's like to be Muslim in modern Britain. It is not sensationalist.'

I don't think it is sensationalist at all to portray a million people in the UK, as potential killers lurking in our midst. But I suppose it is unfashionable to talk about the army in that way, rather than some brown people. Perhaps it could be 'sensitive and multi-faceted' if they had an alternative plot where bombs and explosions didn't feature, but then the controversy element would be missing and the ratings would suffer.

Daleks on Red Dwarf

2007-08-18T12:01:00.000Z

lack of blog activity

2007-08-16T23:06:00.000Z

Sorry for the decrease in frequency of postings at this difficult time. Rest assured we are doing our best to restore normal service. If you have any complaints or comments, please feel free to record them after the beep.

BEEP

BAA BAA black sheep

2007-08-13T19:52:00.000Z

BAA have some bizarre excuses for climate change protesters not to take action against them at Heathrow. The dear old BBC is doing its best to help by vigorously quoting these objections to protestors and suggesting they were being 'irresponsible'. The irresponsibility of building a third runway to the busiest airport in the world at time when man made global climate change is spiralling out of control, is not questioned. The idea that the protesters distract police from catching terrorists and therefore pose a security risk is laughable but it is still presented with a straight face. People waving a few placards and munching vegetables do not inconvenience the 'hard working families' going on holiday but they do annoy the BAA officials who could do without all the bad publicity. The same BAA officials claim that they are also concerned about climate change and worried about the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, yet fail to explain how this concern is addressed by expanding airport capacity. The threatened direct action involves not breaching the perimeter of Heathrow and holding a mass picnic in Sipson, so why are the authorities in such a panic? At this rate, Downing Street will be having another sitting of COBRA soon if the picnic carries on beyond the scheduled time.

Ramallah

2007-08-11T09:47:00.000Z

Not a genocidal tyrant

2007-08-09T12:56:00.000Z

Murdoch complains about being treated like a 'genocidal tyrant'.

2CV Bot

2007-08-07T13:27:00.001Z

Who let the nutters out?

2007-08-06T11:04:00.001Z

The Herald Tribune reveals that one presidential hopeful is calling for nuking Mecca and Medina as a policy to deter terrorist attacks. In the wake of Obama's call for attacking Pakistani territory, it seems like insanity has run riot. Somebody please fetch a lot of straitjackets and lock these sick, twisted evil lunatics up for their own safety.

EMERGENCY APPEAL FOR FLOOD RELIEF

2007-08-04T22:31:00.000Z

A monumental disaster is occurring in the Indian subcontinent which is news but is not big enough news. Just think what the response would be if the same scale of disaster were to affect Europe.

When the UK worried about torrential downpours and widespread flooding in the south of the country, the media carried dramatic footage of the damage. In Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Nepal there is a huge monsoon disaster unfolding of epic proportions. Hundreds of people are reported killed. The number of people displaced beggars belief; upwards of 20 million are affected according to UNICEF. That is equivalent to one third of the total UK population. Hundreds of thousands have lost everything and the local authorities are powerless to deal with the crisis. Millions are without drinking water and sanitation. Food is scarce or unavailable. Several charities have launched an emergency appeal to deal with the crisis.

Donate here:

SAVE THE CHILDREN

OXFAM

ISLAMIC RELIEF

How the media works

2007-08-04T17:44:00.001Z

I like this:

Hat tip

Who said it?

2007-08-03T09:28:00.000Z

1. When you look at yourself from a universal standpoint, something inside always reminds or informs you that there are bigger and better things to worry about.

2. Times have changed; opiates are now the religion of the masses.

3. When you become important enough for them to worry about, you better start worrying about them.

You have two guesses for each quote.