Video at Ben Gurion University and other universities.
It is important to mention that in principle all political activity on this campus is forbidden, and that leftist activists demonstrating outside of the campus during the war on Gaza last year were arrested. This demonstration was held with collaboration of the University authorities and contrary to these same authorities
regulations.
Once again, western MSM blackouts the real story. Here is a taste of the truth.
And while some western media dutifully reported Israeli government words of
being sorry for the deaths and their verbal attack on the ships' passengers
(calling them terrorists or terrorist sympathizers), no media reported on
Israeli fascists celebrating the massacre in front of the Turkish embassy in
Tel Aviv
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1275348204
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Hellen Thomas Gets Real About Israel's Siege of Gaza
Raw video from AP shows helen Thomas in an act of courage.
We need more reporters like Helen, and the Shoe Thrower.
News reporters should report the news, and not allow themselves to be the vectors of propaganda from one side.
By the way, is Israel a real country? I mean, do they even have a constitution?
And from democracy Now we have...
"JAMES ABOUREZK: Now, that’s an offhanded remark. I mean, the guy caught her unawares. She probably hadn’t thought that much more about it. But I understand what she really meant: they’re taking the place of Palestinians who cannot return to Palestine, their home. That’s basically what she was trying to say. And I don’t think she ought to be hammered because of that. Look, she lost her job. She lost her position in the Press Club. She lost her position in the White House press corps. That’s punishment over-the-top for what she was really intending to say there."
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/8/veteran_white_house_reporter_helen_thomas
"James Abourezk, former Democratic senator and congressman from South Dakota. The first Arab American in the Senate, he’s also the founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee."
Farewell Helen Thomas:
http://warincontext.org/2010/06/08/farewell-helen-thomas/comment-page-1/#comment-12523
.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
If MSM Goes Belly-up, What Will Be The Next Vector Of Propaganda?
Is Internet Freedom A Human Right?
Cedric Moon and Dana Loesch discuss the impending demise of the MSM.
Surprise, surprise, the web is the second source of information for Americans. They discuss how many Americans are concerned about opinion being presented as news, and of course, propaganda being diseminated daily. Many see the "Internet," read the world wide web, as "Freedom guarenteed," and may not be aware that when on line, one is not annonomous as one believes, that using Google sets one up for "rigged" search results, which usually bring one to MSM news, and that spying on private individuals is the name of the game.
Today, we learn that the Obama administration is considering taking China to the WTO for unfair trade practices by sensoring Google. Is the US confounding Human Rights with the right to supervise, and impose standards on internet "providers" of content, like Google? Do countries have meaningful sovernty, and do they have the right to limit propaganda and spying that is pushed on them thru the new "free" web companies. What is internet freedom, and is it a value, a human right or a trade barrier issue?
H Clinton has been the most outspoken on the issue: "Properly, she did not hide the fact that communication over the Internet can be used for good (human rights activists) and evil (terrorists)." But one must remember that one countries human rights activist may be another countries terrorist. This "freedo," can be turned against the US in no time at all. Beware of what you wish for, you may get it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security
The attempted "Twitter Revolution" in Iran should be a cautionary tale. Rather than jump on the "internet freedom" bandwagon, based on perceptions generated by a known to be biased MSM, one should consider what "internet freedom" is really about.
What is really behind the Google-China-US internet freedom issue?
http://news.discovery.com/tech/internet-freedom-and-human-rights-20.html
But is Internet freedom itself a human right -- an entitlement that no just nation could infringe upon?
First, let's define Internet freedom, which really incorporates two ideas: access and privacy.
...........................
China may have the most extensive Internet surveillance and enforcement apparatus in the world, but they're not alone in censoring content or targeting users for political reasons or otherwise.
Furthermore, although authoritarian governments, including China, are typically accused of being the major players in the censorship game (and they often are), the fact is: democracies do it, too.
The French government, for example, was recently engaged in a campaign to combat copyright infringement by targeting users on peer-to-peer networks.
It could be argued that China and France have the same justification for restricting Internet access: Both countries were simply enforcing the law. For both nations, the restrictions they choose to impose are simply a matter of priorities. China probably cares as much about enforcing copyrights as France does about limiting political discourse online. As in, not at all.
For a more direct comparison of the kind of censorship seen in China, let's take a look at India or South Korea (both democracies and U.S. allies).
India, the second most populated country in the world behind China, and the largest democracy, has taken an active role in censoring content from radical religious groups. India's Constitution dictates that free speech restrictions can be imposed for the purpose of maintaining "public order, decency or morality," so the government's right to censor other kinds of content can and has been applied to other situations. The nation even plans to step up its Internet surveillance and enforcement efforts.
South Korea, which has the highest percentage of connected citizens of any nation, has actively taken measures to curtail Internet privacy, imposing laws in 2008 targeting online anonymity.
If government restrictions on content are such an issue, why hasn't Google similarly pulled out of India, South Korea or other such countries? (For a list of other countries that have some kind of restrictions on content, click here.)
Cedric Moon and Dana Loesch discuss the impending demise of the MSM.
Surprise, surprise, the web is the second source of information for Americans. They discuss how many Americans are concerned about opinion being presented as news, and of course, propaganda being diseminated daily. Many see the "Internet," read the world wide web, as "Freedom guarenteed," and may not be aware that when on line, one is not annonomous as one believes, that using Google sets one up for "rigged" search results, which usually bring one to MSM news, and that spying on private individuals is the name of the game.
Today, we learn that the Obama administration is considering taking China to the WTO for unfair trade practices by sensoring Google. Is the US confounding Human Rights with the right to supervise, and impose standards on internet "providers" of content, like Google? Do countries have meaningful sovernty, and do they have the right to limit propaganda and spying that is pushed on them thru the new "free" web companies. What is internet freedom, and is it a value, a human right or a trade barrier issue?
H Clinton has been the most outspoken on the issue: "Properly, she did not hide the fact that communication over the Internet can be used for good (human rights activists) and evil (terrorists)." But one must remember that one countries human rights activist may be another countries terrorist. This "freedo," can be turned against the US in no time at all. Beware of what you wish for, you may get it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security
The attempted "Twitter Revolution" in Iran should be a cautionary tale. Rather than jump on the "internet freedom" bandwagon, based on perceptions generated by a known to be biased MSM, one should consider what "internet freedom" is really about.
What is really behind the Google-China-US internet freedom issue?
http://news.discovery.com/tech/internet-freedom-and-human-rights-20.html
But is Internet freedom itself a human right -- an entitlement that no just nation could infringe upon?
First, let's define Internet freedom, which really incorporates two ideas: access and privacy.
...........................
China may have the most extensive Internet surveillance and enforcement apparatus in the world, but they're not alone in censoring content or targeting users for political reasons or otherwise.
Furthermore, although authoritarian governments, including China, are typically accused of being the major players in the censorship game (and they often are), the fact is: democracies do it, too.
The French government, for example, was recently engaged in a campaign to combat copyright infringement by targeting users on peer-to-peer networks.
It could be argued that China and France have the same justification for restricting Internet access: Both countries were simply enforcing the law. For both nations, the restrictions they choose to impose are simply a matter of priorities. China probably cares as much about enforcing copyrights as France does about limiting political discourse online. As in, not at all.
For a more direct comparison of the kind of censorship seen in China, let's take a look at India or South Korea (both democracies and U.S. allies).
India, the second most populated country in the world behind China, and the largest democracy, has taken an active role in censoring content from radical religious groups. India's Constitution dictates that free speech restrictions can be imposed for the purpose of maintaining "public order, decency or morality," so the government's right to censor other kinds of content can and has been applied to other situations. The nation even plans to step up its Internet surveillance and enforcement efforts.
South Korea, which has the highest percentage of connected citizens of any nation, has actively taken measures to curtail Internet privacy, imposing laws in 2008 targeting online anonymity.
If government restrictions on content are such an issue, why hasn't Google similarly pulled out of India, South Korea or other such countries? (For a list of other countries that have some kind of restrictions on content, click here.)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Iran Announces capture of Abdul Malik Rigi, head of Jundullah Terrorist Group Reportedly Funded By CIA USA
Iran has announced the capture and arrest of Abdul Malik Rigi, the leader of Jundullah, a group known for terror attacks on Iran. Reportedly, Rigi had a forged passport given to him by the US , and claimed that the US offered him a military base on Iran's border from which to opperate. UK has denounced the bombing of the Mosque, last year, during the Iran elections, as a terrorist act, while the US has remained curiously silent.
Recently we have heard that there are talks going on in Afghanistan that would bring the Taliban back into the Afghanistan government. meanwhile, the war heats up with action in helmand province, including house to house searches, and the clearing of mine fields. This would be required to farm, and to lay the TAPI gas pipeline, the one the US prefers, even though it goes thru territory controlled by the Taliban and not the Karzai government.
This flirting with the Taliban is not new, as they were guests of the White House before 911, and even visited Mount Rushmore.
"There has been no Western outcry against Saudi Arabia’s mediation between the Taliban and the Afghan government. On the contrary, the Mecca talks were accompanied by senior British and U.S. officials indicating that such discussions were an evitable part of ending the war in Afghanistan. Only one country has denounced the meeting as an unacceptable capitulation to terrorism and extremism: Iran. This position reflects the untold story of Iran’s tussle with Saudi Arabia for regional influence."
http://www.diplomaticourier.org/kmitan/articleback.php?newsid=228
http://www.diplomaticourier.org/kmitan/articleback.php?newsid=228
Iran claims that the Jundullah is a terrorist group, supported by UK, USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia. It operates from within Pakistan. I am still waiting for Senator Kerry's office to return my phone call about this opperation, and it's purported funding with American tax dollars. Recently, two US senators, Conyers and brownback, filed a bill, S 3008, that would send tax dollars to support "opposition groups" against Iran. Rigi, in a confession published on PressTV, claims that his US handler claimed that at this time the US cannot conduct military ops against Iran, so they need his group to do so.
The captured ringleader of the Jundallah terrorist group, Abdolmalek Rigi, has confessed that the US administration had assured him of unlimited military aid and funding for waging an insurgency against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The following is the detailed transcript of Rigi's confession, stated in Farsi, as broadcasted on Press TV.
"After Obama was elected, the Americans contacted us and they met me in Pakistan.They met us after clashes with my group around March 17 in (the southeastern city of) Zahedan, and he (the US operative) said that Americans had requested a meeting."
"I said we didn't have any time for a meeting and if we do help them they should promise to give us aid. They said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran."
"They asked to meet me and we said where should we meet you and he said in Dubai. We sent someone to Dubai and we told a person to ask a place for myself in Afghanistan from the area near the operations and they complied that they would sort out the problem for us and they will find Mr. Rigi a base and guarantee his own security in Afghanistan or in any of the countries adjacent to Iran so that he can carry on his operations.
"They told me that in Kyrgyzstan they have a base called Manas near Bishkek, and that a high-ranking person was coming to meet me and that if such high-ranking people come to the United Arab Emirates, they may be observed by intelligence people but in a place like Bishkek this high-ranking American person could come and we could reach an agreement on making personal contacts. But after the last major operation we took part in, they said that they wanted to meet with us.
"The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran… not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran. We don't have a military plan against Iran. Attacking Iran is very difficult for us (the US). The CIA is very particular about you and is prepared to do anything for you because our government has reached the conclusion that there was nothing Americans could do about Iran and only I could take care of the operations for them.
"One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system. They reached the conclusion that your organization has the power to create difficulties for the Islamic Republic and they are prepared to give you training and/or any assistance that you would require, in terms of telecommunications security and procedures as well as other support, the Americans said they would be willing to provide it at an extensive level."
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=119481§ionid=351020101
This is another one of those stories you wont see on MSM in America. It is just another in a string of US interventions in the affairs of other countries since WWII.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
And from Wayne Madson we have this...
The CIA's support for Iranian Baluchis operating against Tehran has also had the effect of restoring the Baluchi Liberation Army, with CIA munitions destined for the Jundallah guerrillas falling into the hands of Baluchi secessionists in Pakistan, particularly among the Bugti, Marri and Mengal tribes that now threaten to disrupt trans-Pakistani pipelines to the Pakistani port of Gwadar, which is being developed by Chinese engineers and construction companies. The CIA, apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish between the Iranian and Baluchis and their agendas, permitted explosives and detonators destined for use in Iran to be used against regular Pakistani army units and Chinese assets assisting in the Gwadar port project.
Pakistan also suspects American energy politics at play. By stirring up Baluchis on both sides of the Pakistani-Iranian border, the CIA stands to disrupt planned natural gas pipelines from Qatar to Pakistan that will transit through Iran and the Iran-Gujarat oil pipeline.
http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/2010/02/intel-updates-iran-baluchistan-echelon.html
UPDATE:: It is reported that Jundullah is claiming the US aided Iran in the arrest og Rigi.
Like I said, I have a call in to Senator Kerry's office, the current Chair of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, and am awaiting a call back.
Change we can believe in, or more of the same?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Freedom and Human Rights via War and Humiliation?
Last year many of us voted for change we can believe in. Now we hear that we may give Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Woman's rights groups advocate for more war in the name of woman's rights, meanwhile, woman and children are the biggest victims of America's war on terror. What exactly are America's goals in Afghanistan, and are they different from our goals in Colombia, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc...
This you tube video is the first in a series of five. Let's look at the devestation left in the wake of the US bombing of "terrorists" in Afghanistan, and almost 10 years later, the abject failure of the US taxpayers billions of dollars, that flow "thru" Afghanistan, to reach the people we have dispossessed.
This you tube video is the first in a series of five. Let's look at the devestation left in the wake of the US bombing of "terrorists" in Afghanistan, and almost 10 years later, the abject failure of the US taxpayers billions of dollars, that flow "thru" Afghanistan, to reach the people we have dispossessed.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Faked Photographs Nothing New
We learn from the piece in the New York Times that faked photos are nothing new to journalism.
"“The very nature of photography was to record events,” said Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth University and a detective of photographic fakery. "
what an opportunity for manipulation. It didn’t take long for schemers to discover that with a little skill and imagination, photographic realism could be used to create manufactured realities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23marsh.html
But faking or manipulating photo images is not the only way editors and reporters alike distort reality to "sell" their "version" of the "news." In this story posted on the Cambridge Chronicle website, Wickedlocal/cambridge, it is noted that the headline, or title, if you will, of an op-ed piece by the CEO of Whole Foods was replaced by the Wall Street Journal's own staff.
"the title of the piece was changed by Wall Street Journal staff from Health Care Reform to Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, giving the impression that Mackey is actively opposing the Presidents plan. "
Certainly, for many reporters, letter to the editor writers, and now in an op-ed piece on an important issue, changing the 'title' of the piece is one way the editors of MSM can skew or distort both the purpose and the meaning that people get from reading the piece.
In some cases, like this one, the title results in inciting emotional bias to the point that those who 'support' Obama's plan, cannot give a fair reading to what Mackey wrote.
I found Mackey made several extreemly excellent points and suggestions, while other points fell well short of the mark. I am thrilled that he put himself 'out there,' in the current enviornment that has been poisoned by the two Ps in a pod, Palin with her death panel remarks, and Pelosi calling Americans who express different views, 'Unamerican!' We not only need a discussion of health care reform, we can all learn from such discussion, and learn about how others are actually doing in America.
The substtuted headline for the op-ed piece being is emotionally disruptive it generates outrage rather than considered discussion. It might sell papers, but it won't further civil discourse.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/business/x772313978/Protestors-converge-on-Cambridge-Whole-Foods-attacking-CEOs-health-care-reform-plan
For what purpose does manipulation like this occur?
In my opinion, this kind of distortion constitutes a denial of free speech, or should I say, a denial of the people's right to know. The reader is robed of his "mind" by being supplied a false "truth" and therefore is unable to form his own opinions. This is the true danger of propaganda like this. people fail to understand where and how they develop their "own" opinions.
"“The very nature of photography was to record events,” said Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth University and a detective of photographic fakery. "
what an opportunity for manipulation. It didn’t take long for schemers to discover that with a little skill and imagination, photographic realism could be used to create manufactured realities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23marsh.html
But faking or manipulating photo images is not the only way editors and reporters alike distort reality to "sell" their "version" of the "news." In this story posted on the Cambridge Chronicle website, Wickedlocal/cambridge, it is noted that the headline, or title, if you will, of an op-ed piece by the CEO of Whole Foods was replaced by the Wall Street Journal's own staff.
"the title of the piece was changed by Wall Street Journal staff from Health Care Reform to Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, giving the impression that Mackey is actively opposing the Presidents plan. "
Certainly, for many reporters, letter to the editor writers, and now in an op-ed piece on an important issue, changing the 'title' of the piece is one way the editors of MSM can skew or distort both the purpose and the meaning that people get from reading the piece.
In some cases, like this one, the title results in inciting emotional bias to the point that those who 'support' Obama's plan, cannot give a fair reading to what Mackey wrote.
I found Mackey made several extreemly excellent points and suggestions, while other points fell well short of the mark. I am thrilled that he put himself 'out there,' in the current enviornment that has been poisoned by the two Ps in a pod, Palin with her death panel remarks, and Pelosi calling Americans who express different views, 'Unamerican!' We not only need a discussion of health care reform, we can all learn from such discussion, and learn about how others are actually doing in America.
The substtuted headline for the op-ed piece being is emotionally disruptive it generates outrage rather than considered discussion. It might sell papers, but it won't further civil discourse.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/business/x772313978/Protestors-converge-on-Cambridge-Whole-Foods-attacking-CEOs-health-care-reform-plan
For what purpose does manipulation like this occur?
In my opinion, this kind of distortion constitutes a denial of free speech, or should I say, a denial of the people's right to know. The reader is robed of his "mind" by being supplied a false "truth" and therefore is unable to form his own opinions. This is the true danger of propaganda like this. people fail to understand where and how they develop their "own" opinions.
Friday, July 17, 2009
We've Lost Cronkite!
Walter Cronkite, one of the greatest investigative journalist of all time, died today. His presence and voice are oftn inseperable from the great events of the 50s through the 70s. After the US fled Vietnam, there were those who blamed the media, and especially Cronkite for causing the American people to stop supporting the war. This is often the excuse that has been used by the Pentagon to refuse to permit journalists to report in the theatre of war, today. However, the result is harmful to the US. because, as a democracy we need to know what is going on.
Freedom of the press has limitations, with PR campaings, propaganda, and biased reports replacing true acurate and unbiased reporting, Americans have never before been so ignorant about what is happening in the world.
We have lost a great reporter, and he will be missed. perhaps now we can reconsider the People's Right to Know, especially in light of new revelations that the CIA was operating a secret program. I wonder how Cronkite would report this, and the rank buildup for regime change in Iran.
Take care, Walter, and thanks for your honest opinions.
Freedom of the press has limitations, with PR campaings, propaganda, and biased reports replacing true acurate and unbiased reporting, Americans have never before been so ignorant about what is happening in the world.
We have lost a great reporter, and he will be missed. perhaps now we can reconsider the People's Right to Know, especially in light of new revelations that the CIA was operating a secret program. I wonder how Cronkite would report this, and the rank buildup for regime change in Iran.
Take care, Walter, and thanks for your honest opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)