Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Waxing Indignant Over 9/11 Truth

Video by B’Man’s Revolt.

Poem by DC Dave

Waxing Indignant Over 911 Truth

“How dare you!” they said;
What else can they say?
The facts of the case
Will not go away.

Skyscrapers came down
Like they were demolished.
The iron laws of physics
Were neatly abolished.

They fell straight and fast.
It’s never happened before
With fire as the cause.
What about the steel core?

To produce the effect
That we witnessed that day,
There had to be something
That sliced it away.

Five foreigners filmed it,
Some said gleefully,
But the cover-up master
Just let them go free.

One structure fell later,
Like a judgment from heaven.
Maybe God pulled it,
That large Building 7.

Of the many anomalies,
I’ve listed but few.
The string-pullers did
What they set out to do.

The war motivation
They feared that we lacked
Was duly provided
When we were “attacked.”

November 5, 2014 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 4 Comments

2 children killed, 4 injured in shelling nr Donetsk school – report

RT | November 5, 2014

Two schoolchildren were killed and four injured as an artillery shell hit a stadium in front of a school in the Eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, local self-defense forces said.

“All the wounded were taken to the Donetsk regional trauma unit,” Natalya Yemchenko, a militia official with the Donetsk People’s Republic, was cited as saying by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. “They are now in intensive care. One of them is in critical condition and three other are in a state of moderate severity.”

“There were children – a lot of them – at the stadium” when the shell hit, Yemchenko wrote on her Facebook page.

“When attempts were made to evacuate them from the pitch, the massive shelling continued in the area. It was hard for the medics to get to them,” she said.

Yemchenko said the school building was also seriously damaged in the explosion.

November 5, 2014 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

An Overwhelming Majority of Lebanon’s Christians Believe Hizbullah Protects Their Country

By Anthony F. Shaker | Mittag’s Journal | October 26, 2014

A recent poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information (BCRI) found that two thirds (62.6%) of Lebanese Christians feel that, contrary to its vilification by members of the NATO alliance, Hizbullah has in fact protected their country from its most determined enemies—Israel, IS (known locally as Da‘ash), and Wahhabi-style terrorist groups linked to the Syria-Iraq conflagration.

The poll revealed also that very few of the respondents prefer UNIFIL to Hizbullah on the front line with the terrorist groups, as some domestic and regional actors have insisted. Nor do they believe the claim that the foreign “coalition” presently targeting IS in Iraq and parts of Syria seeks to “destroy” IS, as President Obama and his allies have declared.

As many as 73.1% dismiss this view entirely, which comes in the wake of endless reports in the mainstream media worldwide and growing evidence regarding Saudi, Turkish, Qatari, Israeli and NATO collaboration with anti-Syrian terrorist fronts and organizations.

Although some have interpreted the survey results as indicative of a “significant increase” in favorable attitudes—at least compared to two similar surveys in June 2013 and February 2014—there is no history of enmity between the Christian and Muslims communities, much less with Shi‘i Muslims.

During a visit to France in 2011, Maronite Patriarch Beshara Boutros Rai defended the government of President Bashar al-Assad and criticized states that had begun supplying arms to the terrorists gathering in Syria. Again in 2013, he said, “There is a plan to destroy the Arab world for political and economic interests and boost interconfessional conflict between Sunnis and Shi’ites. Some Western and East powers are fomenting all these conflicts. We are seeing the total destruction of what Christians managed to build in 1,400 years,” referring to peaceful cohabitation and historically productive relationship with Muslims.

“I have written to the Holy Father twice to describe what is happening,“ he had added. “I appeal again to the Holy Father, who only talks about peace and reconciliation.”

Hizbullah, which solidified the resistance against the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, began largely in the Shi’a community, but then quickly expanded ties with other communities and organizations across the country. Today, it identifies its primary interests with Lebanon and does not claim to act on behalf of Shi’a Muslims only.

Strictly speaking, Lebanon’s woes are not confessional, even if they fed on endless disputes over confessionally based electoral rules and representation.

That a Wahhabi terrorist claims to speak for “Sunnis” does not by itself make for a Sunni-Shi’a divide. Nor does it define the armed conflicts that have erupted since the West began to sponsor a massive armed campaign to destroy the Syrian government and state. Few people know that this sponsorship dates, not from 2011 (when the terrorist onslaught gained traction), but from the early 1990s, after Syria insisted that Israel declare its intention to return the Golan Heights during the ”peace“ negotiations phase, a demand Israel categorically refused at the time.

The “West” (essentially, the United States, United Kingdom and France) has blacklisted Hizbullah as a “terrorist” organization and for years fought hard to pin the Hariri assassination on it, which many now believe Israel carried out, possibly even at Saudi Arabia’s behest, nearly provoking another civil war.

Hizbullah officials have repeatedly warned that a “terrorist” listing is a “big mistake,” one that will further damage the West’s standing in the region. In fact, this is no longer in doubt, given NATO’s current desperate effort to insinuate itself back into Iraq and to intervene for the first time inside Syria itself. NATO now has no choice but to tolerate Iran’s determined assistance to Iraqi military and security forces. This tolerance naturally must now be extended to Syria, where Hizbullah aims to deal decisively with the terror emanating from the Gulf, Turkey and Israel before it overwhelms Lebanon too.

Clearly, the events surrounding the Syria conflict have thrown deep doubts on Western intentions—and competence—in the Middle East. For some time, these doubts have been seeping into Western policymaking circles, diplomatically around the world, and most tellingly, inside the intelligence communities themselves.

Years ago, under a previous government just before Canada put Hizbullah on the terrorism list, Canadian security analysts and some federal cabinet ministers had cautioned against such a blanket interdiction. The former Liberal government’s decision, it had transpired, was based in the ever-quaint Washington Times, which merely quoted a professor claiming that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah had issued a worldwide call for “a suicide bombing campaign”and “don’t be shy about it.”

The “professor’s” claim happens to be in keeping with the Mickey Mouse warnings that Israel has for years been dishing out to Western countries about the Lebanese resistance. Yet, suicide bombings then, as now, are the Wahhabi terrorists’ choicest method in asymmetric warfare, not Hizbullah’s.

Developments since then have shrunk Canada’s blacklisting of Hizbullah to insignificance as an issue. This is because Canada has lost most of its diplomatic influence thanks to the deeply ideological character and the arrogant style of  Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Many Canadians have questioned the wisdom of blacklisting a party with elected members in the Lebanese parliament and government cabinet. This year marks a new watershed: few either in Canada or in the West are sure any more which side they are on according to their government.

To the Christians of Lebanon, such hesitation would have been unthinkable for the fatal consequences it entailed for them and their country.

One can only recall with nostalgia Hillary Clinton’s shrill call with the Friends of Syria: “Mr. Putin, you are on the wrong side of history!”

Dr. Anthony F. Shaker is the editor-in-chief and founder of Mittags Journal and visiting scholar at McGill University; his published works and articles are in classical Islamic philosophy and history, as well as modern politics.

 

November 5, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dozens injured during Aqsa clashes, several detained

026

Ma’an – November 5, 2014

JERUSALEM – Dozens of Palestinians suffered tear-gas inhalation and several others were injured by stun grenades, shrapnel and rubber-coated steel bullets during clashes in the Al-Aqsa mosque compound area on Wednesday, an official said.

Palestinian Red Crescent official Amin Abu Ghazaleh told Ma’an that Red Crescent ambulances moved nine injured to the Al-Maqased Hospital where their injuries were reported as moderate.

Two were injured in the eye, and 32 with stun grenades, shrapnel and rubber-coated steel bullets in addition to many who suffered severe gas inhalation.

Three Palestinian members of Israel’s Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, Talab Abu Arrar and Ibrahim Sarsour, were able to enter the mosque during the closure and clashes.

Israeli soldiers neared the Al-Qabali mosque inside the compound as they fired stun grenades and tear-gas bombs inside, the director of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Omar al-Kiswani, said.

He said that a fire erupted inside the muezzin’s hall and cables and speakers were also burned and damaged.

Soldiers “deliberately” threw holy books on the floor, he alleged.

Israeli forces detained Tareq al-Hashlamon, an employee of the Islamic endowment department, after assaulting him inside Al-Aqsa, along with another endowment employee identified as Hussam Seder and three Palestinians.

Four Palestinians were also detained, one of them a minor. Two others were identified as Omar al-Kilani and Amin Qirsh.

Meanwhile, Jordan recalled its ambassador to Israel over the violence.

Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Nsur asked the foreign minister to “recall the Jordanian ambassador from Tel Aviv in protest at Israel’s escalation on the Al-Aqsa mosque compound,” the Petra news agency reported.

The clashes came amid continued tensions over right-wing Jewish demands to be able to pray inside the compound despite being off-limits in mainstream Judaism, in addition to the expansion of Israeli settlement building in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

Earlier, a police spokeswoman said that “Dozens of masked protesters threw stones and firecrackers at security forces who then entered the Temple Mount and pushed the demonstrators back inside the mosque.”

November 5, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Leave a comment

The price of positive reviews of Bahrain’s sham ‘reforms’

By Alastair Sloan | MEMO | November 5, 2014

Not much, as British parliamentary records reveal – the ruling Al-Khalifa family shelled out just £5,400 per head for British parliamentary grandees Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Lord Gulam Noon, Hazel Blears MP, Lord Patel of Bradford and Lord Clive Soley to visit the Kingdom in April.

I’ve recently acquired a copy of the 24 page report the delegation produced following their trip, and it’s a whitewash. Yet to be made public, it’s a perfect case study of Bahraini reputation laundering.

Each of the delegates demonstrates interests that illustrate the cunning of the Al-Khalifas and how they have tried to spin the revolution – firstly through false accusations of terrorism, and secondly that the pro-democracy movement is anything but, instead being secretly influenced by theocratic Iran.

Both are myths but the report shows that the delegates were happy to accept and propagate them nonetheless.

Lord Gulam Noon, for example, is on the record saying: “I personally consider Bahrain as my second home and look forward to settling here.”

“I would describe myself as half Bahraini,” he added.

Noon admitted to me some months ago he was a personal friend of the Al-Khalifas.

Hardly impartial, Noon spins the secret-Iranian-influence lie unashamedly. In an article entitled “Traitors Not Refugees” published in Bahrain during the delegation’s visit, he told a local reporter that the 500 or so Bahraini activists who have fled to London are undesirable.

They “are not refugees or asylum seekers, but are connected with the external agencies that are against the Kingdom.”

“In the UK, we are fully aware of the situation where our judicial system is allowing citizenship too easily,” he went on. “We are trying to review the possibilities of a change in the legal system, as we see that many are abusing this privilege.” Noon offered no evidence for these claims.

Lord Noon also has a quality which is admirable in itself – a strong agenda on terrorism and extremism. Indeed, Noon was briefly caught at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai during the November 2008 terrorist attack and has advocated since for far tougher measures on extremist preachers in the UK, making frequent overtures in the Lords regarding tough terror laws.

In parallel, it has been a standard tactic of the Bahraini government to smear pro-democracy activists as terrorists. On the day Noon and the other British politicians landed in Bahrain, local human rights activist Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja was serving the 1,025th day of his life sentence, handed down after the 2011 uprising. He, and seven others, had been charged with “organising and managing a terrorist organisation”.

Al-Khawaja’s real crime was defending human rights. He was the co-founder of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, not a terrorist. He was a regional representative for human rights group Frontline Defenders, not a bomber. He had previously been invited on a “fact-finding mission” to Iraq by Amnesty International, not Al-Qaeda.

Unfortunately, the wording of the delegation’s report, which is being published by Lord Gulam Noon, lends credibility to these false accusations of terrorism, through its frequent allusions to balancing human rights with “national security”.

You might reject the view that allegations of terrorist tactics are unfounded. The month previous to their visit, three policemen had been killed in a bomb attack for which the government blamed the opposition movement. The report adopts a concerned, but frustratingly unquestioning, tone.

“We were shown some of the weapons confiscated by the police. Unsurpris­ingly some of them were of Iranian origin, but perhaps more worryingly some had clearly been manufactured locally in a crude but effective way.”

“They included homemade bombs, one of which was thought to be similar… to that which may have been responsible for killing the three police officers… Such manufactured weapons indicate the existence of organised resistance in the Shia villages.”

Aside from whether “unsurprisingly” was an appropriate word to use in an impartial report – here are a few questions for the delegation about that “terror attack”: Consider simply who stood to gain more, the Bahraini regime or the opposition movement if that bomb went off? Wouldn’t the opposition movement lose greatly? Would the international community come to their aid if they resorted to terrorism?

There is a credible theory that this attack wasn’t the fault of the opposition movement. It is more likely that the security services planted the explosives. This point has been raised by an ex-Bahraini lawmaker and is widely believed in the anti-monarchy community.

Another delegate, Hazel Blears MP, is also ripe for exploitation on this point, having staked her career on being “tough” on terrorists.

As the biography that accompanies the report emphasises: Blears served as Police and Counter Terrorism Minister under the Labour government, has “a depth of expertise in national and international security matters”, and implemented the (disastrous) “Prevent” counter-terrorism strategy in the UK.

You might ask why any of this is relevant to assessing human rights abuses.

Perhaps because the Al-Khalifas wanted powerful Britons who see the world through “national security” eyes, who nod when someone smears revolutionaries as terrorists. It’s easy to distract from atrocious human rights abuses when the politician you are presenting to believe themselves to be at the forefront of the “war on terror”.

The report makes clear that Blears, along with Baroness Scotland, was on the trip because of her experience in the “engagement of the wider community”. Blears also had, the report insists, “extensive experience in overseeing community policing developments in the UK”.

Yet the document I’ve seen makes no mention of Bahrain’s cruel policing – in particular its lavish use of teargas. Just a month before the delegation’s visit, South Korea banned all teargas exports to Bahrain for fear they may be misused by security forces. By all accounts, police brutality, including torture, is at its worst not just since 2011, but since the uprising in the nineties.

What of Lord Clive Soley? Maybe he was chosen to lead the delegation because Lord Gulam Noon’s allegiance to the Al-Khalifa cause was too obvious, or perhaps because of his proven track record assisting another Gulf autocracy.

In 2012, the state-run Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) in Abu Dhabi invited Soley to speak about the rule of law. He promptly and profusely praised “the legal framework and the impressive track record of the rule of law in the UAE”.

A report of his speech, published by the ECSSR concluded that “the most important remark in Lord Soley’s lecture was the link between the rule of law and stability in the UAE and the country’s development, economic prosperity and preservation of human rights and freedom.

Yet the United Arab Emirates don’t allow any independent human rights organisations to operate in the country, they are yet to answer to torture allegations against both British citizens and local political activists, and they were reviewed by the US State Department in 2013 as having serious “limitations on citizens’ civil liberties (including the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, and internet use)”, and “arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, and lengthy pretrial detentions”.

If Soley is so easy to dupe or willing to be a stooge for the UAE, why not Bahrain? He readily admits to be no expert on the Middle East, his profile on the House of Lords’ website declares his foreign policy focus lie in far-away south east and central Asia. It was only after he attended the delegation visit that he even mentioned Bahrain in his frequent speeches to the Lords on the Middle East.

Lord Patel of Bradford, the final delegate, is a mighty academic and a passable politician – but again, admits on the Houses of Parliament’s website that his specialty is India, not the Middle East. Like Soley he may have been easy to fool.

Strangely, Patel also holds a Professorship at the University of East London (Baroness Scotland holds an honorary degree there). This is an establishment which has already made up its mind on Bahrain. With funding from none other than Lord Gulam Noon (who is also Honorary Chancellor for UoEL), the university already runs an exchange programme with the Bahraini government.

The Bahraini regime invited delegates who were either close friends – Lord Noon, naive – Lord Patel and Lord Soley, pre-disposed through their own beliefs and agenda to believing smears of terrorism – Lord Noon and Hazel Blears, or linked to organisations which already credited Bahrain with engagement – Lord Patel, Baroness Scotland and Lord Noon.

The report they have produced gives an impression of progress. There has been anything but. Human Rights Watch judge that Bahrain has “regressed further in key areas in 2013 and the government made little real progress regarding reforms it claimed to pursue”.

Amnesty International warned that the regime is torturing children. Even the US State Department recently released 49 pages of bruising rebuke. Yet this delegation saw only what the Bahraini dictators wanted them to see, and lavished them with praise. They should be ashamed.

November 5, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

Israel guilty of war crimes over Turkish aid ship attack, ICC says

Al-Akhbar | November 5, 2014

Prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague have told a Turkish organization that Israel is guilty of “war crimes” for attacking a Turkish aid ship for Gaza in 2010.

In May of that year, Israeli commandos killed nine peaceful activists, eight Turkish nationals and an American of Turkish origin, in international waters by using lethal force on the Mavi Marmara, a ship participating in a “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which was under a seven-year Israeli blockade at the time.

The Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a Turkish NGO, in a statement Tuesday said the prosecution team had finished its investigation in the Mavi Marmara case and concluded that Israel committed “war crimes.”

The aid ship Mavi Marmara belonged to the foundation, whose law committee had filed a petition at the court for a fair and speedy trial in the case. The court took up the petition in March 2014.

The 2010 incident caused international outrage and soured Turkish-Israeli ties.

In March 2014, Turkey received an apology from the Israeli government.

The two states are now looking to normalize their relations with a deal said to be involving compensation for the victims’ families.

The Palestinians have threatened to join the ICC to allow legal action to be taken against Israel.

Based in The Hague, the ICC opened its doors in 2003 and is the world’s first independent court set up to try the worst crimes, including genocide and war crimes.

In 2012, the Palestinians won the status of observer state in the United Nations, which gives them the ability to become a party to the ICC, where they could sue Israeli officials over alleged war crimes.

As neither Israel nor Palestine are ICC members, the court lacks jurisdiction over Gaza. This could be granted by a UN Security Council resolution, but Israel’s main ally, the United States, would probably veto any such proposal.

The overwhelming General Assembly vote recognizing the “non-member state” of Palestine was strongly opposed by the United States and Israel.

Membership of the ICC opens countries to investigations both on their behalf and against them. Several major powers, including the United States, as well as Israel, have declined to ratify the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute.

The Palestinians in 2009 and 2014 pushed the ICC’s prosecutor’s office to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Israeli military in Gaza.

(Anadolu, Al-Akhbar)

November 5, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

Fukushima dismantling crew removes 400 tons of spent fuel from crippled reactor

RT | November 5, 2014

The first of four sets of spent nuclear fuel rods has been removed from a damaged reactor building at Japan’s Fukushima power plant, scoring a major success in an effort to dismantle the quake and tsunami-wrecked facility.

The 1,331 spent fuel rod assemblies weighting some 400 tons have been recovered from the upper levels of the Reactor 4 building after a year-long operation, a spokeswoman for Fukushima operator TEPCO reported on Wednesday. The last 11 assemblies were removed on Tuesday.

The recovered assemblies were placed in a storage pool at ground level of the plant, the company said.

TEPCO is still to remove 180 rod assemblies that haven’t been used at the reactor and are considered less dangerous because, unlike the spent fuel, they have not been irradiated. Some of the unused rod assemblies are already in the new storage pool. The task is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Three other reactor buildings are holding almost 1,400 fuel assemblies in storage pools, and they must be recovered too. The operation started with Reactor 4 because it was damaged most in the March 2011 disaster due to a series of hydrogen explosions inside the building and is in danger of collapsing.

The operations at Reactors 1, 2 and 3 would be more difficult, because unlike Reactor 4 they were operational at the time of the disaster and experienced meltdowns, resulting in higher levels of radioactive contamination.

TEPCO plans to start removing fuel from Reactor 1 in 2019, two years later than originally planned. At the moment preparations for the removal are underway, with the operator recently removing the canopy over the building to allow debris removal.

The utility is surveying the interior of the Reactor 2 building and removing debris at the Reactor 3 using remote-controlled robots.

After dealing with the fuel, the most difficult task may be addressed – the recovery of reactor cores. The unprecedented operation may start in 2025, five years after initially planned.

November 5, 2014 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment