Israeli military planners are concerned about what they describe as “a significant change in the concept of air defense by Hezbollah in Lebanon” after the resistance group “doubled” the number of air defense systems in its possession, according to a report by Maariv newspaper published on 30 June.
The report cites unnamed military officials saying the resistance’s air defense systems will “restrict the freedom of action of the Israeli Air Force in Lebanon.”
“[Hezbollah] doubled the amount of air defense systems in its possession during the last five years … these defense systems are based mainly on modern Iranian systems,” the report adds.
Furthermore, Tel Aviv claims Hezbollah is in possession of the SA8 and SA22 Russian air defense systems, which have been previously deployed in Syria.
“The attack by an Israeli drone, in August 2019, on a facility in a building in the heart of the southern suburbs of Beirut … initiated the turning point in Hezbollah’s strategy, leading to the threat by [Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah] … to start shooting down Israeli drones,” the report highlights.
“Hezbollah implemented this threat two months later when it fired an SA8 missile at an Israeli Hermes 450 drone, which was on an intelligence-gathering mission, but the missile missed the target,” it adds.
In recent months, Israeli military planners have been on edge over Hezbollah’s vast military advancements coupled with the growing coordination among resistance factions in the region.
Earlier this week, Israeli media revealed that the US has stepped in to pressure Lebanon into having Hezbollah remove an outpost erected in the occupied Shebaa Farms.
Hezbollah has so far rejected these demands.
“You cannot threaten us with a large-scale war; it is us who are threatening you … Your follies, not ours, might blow up the entire region and lead to the Great War,” Nasrallah told Israeli leaders during a speech in May.
“The resistance is expanding by the day and has witnessed a great [positive] change in its financial and military capability,” he added.
Israel is not planning to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security adviser said on 30 June, as indirect talks between Tehran and Washington regarding the nuclear issue have continued in recent weeks.
Asked whether an Israeli decision on a preemptive strike against Iran was any closer, Tzachi Hanegbi said:
“We are not getting closer because the Iranians have stopped, for a while now, they are not enriching uranium to the level that, in our view, is the red line.”
Hanegbi added: “But it can happen. So we are preparing for the moment.”
For several decades, Israel and the US have accused Iran of being “weeks away” from building a nuclear weapon. However, Iran says its nuclear industry is for peaceful purposes, including energy, and has stressed that Islam forbids pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
Hanegbi said it was still unclear what would come of the US-Iran talks. Still, he insisted that if an agreement is signed between Israel’s primary sponsor and main enemy during the indirect talks that began in Oman, this will not obligate Israel to abide by it.
Last week, Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting that Israel opposes any interim agreement between the US and Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear program.
Israel opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and celebrated when Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018.
The deal limited Iranian uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent. After the US withdrew from the agreement, Iran began enriching to 60 percent, which is still far from the 90 percent needed for use in a nuclear weapon.
“We also tell [the US] that even… ‘mini agreements,’ in our opinion, do not serve our goals, and we oppose those as well,” Netanyahu recently stated.
At the same time, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly accused Israeli officials of leaking information about the indirect US-Iran talks while complaining that the leaked information was inaccurate.
This included claims that the Biden administration seeks to reach an informal deal with Iran limiting its nuclear enrichment to bypass getting approval from Congress.
According to the New York Times, the US seeks an agreement that would include a pledge by Tehran not to enrich uranium beyond 60 percent purity, to better cooperate with UN nuclear inspectors, to stop attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria, to avoid providing Russia with ballistic missiles, and to release three American-Iranians held in the Islamic Republic.
In exchange, the US would release billions in seized Iranian funds, commit not to impose additional sanctions, and not take action against Iran in international forums such as the UN and IAEA.
This past March marked the 20th anniversary of the US and UK-led invasion of Iraq. The war, launched on the false pretext of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s alleged cooperation with al-Qaeda, claimed up to a million lives, and brought Iraq to the precipice of failed state status.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has returned to the limelight to defend his decision to join the US’s Iraq invasion of 2003, and to offer his opinions on the crises facing the world today.
“It’s always difficult to go back with hindsight. But I always say to people there are many things we would have done different. But I still think that ultimately, in the Middle East, the removal of Saddam Hussein was an important thing to do,” Blair said, speaking to Japanese media in an interview published Saturday.
The politician, who now heads the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a Gulf sheikdom, US State Department, World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded non-profit, did not elaborate on why removing the Iraqi leader – which destroyed Iraq and destabilized the Middle East – was so important.
In hindsight, his comments are reminiscent of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s infamous 1997 60 Minutes Interview, in which Albright said that the “price” of half a million Iraqi children dying as a result of Western sanctions against Baghdad was “worth it.”
‘Important Opinions’
Blair, 70, also offered his opinion on world affairs, including the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine, and China’s significance in a shifting world order.
Blair, apparently unfamiliar with Russia’s nuclear doctrine, claimed that Beijing’s close relationship with Moscow played a key role in preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Although there are many problems connected with China’s support of Russia, the one benefit of that close relationship, which you can see in China’s insistence that Russia does not use nuclear weapons, is I think China does not believe it is in its interest at all for this to slide towards a global conflict,” he said.
The terms of Russia’s 2020 nuclear doctrine actually strictly prohibit the use of nuclear weapons – tactical or strategic, unless the country is attacked using weapons of mass destruction, or faces a conventional attack so severe that its very existence is deemed to be at risk.
Blair, who met with Putin in the 2000s during his tenure as PM, suggested that while the Russian president was once more open to cooperation with the West, “the Putin of today only understands the language of strength.” He “and any future Russian leader knows Ukraine is entitled to protect its sovereignty, and so is the rest of Eastern Europe,” Blair said.
The politician also dismissed China’s 12-point Ukraine peace plan, saying it was “obviously not going to be acceptable to the Ukrainians,” but added that China could play an “important” role if a “sensible, negotiated solution” could be hammered out. Blair did not elaborate on which specific points in China’s peace plan, such as ‘respecting the sovereignty of all countries’, ‘ceasing hostilities’, or ‘not pursuing security at the expense of others’, would be unacceptable to Kiev.
Blair believes the “big geopolitical questions of the 21st century” will revolve around China and its relationship with the West, and urged Western countries to “stay engaged” with the Asian giant, while also taking a ‘peace through strength’ approach toward Beijing. “They’ve got to be under no doubt at all that we’re strong enough to deal with whatever comes because that will be the deterrent for anything rash,” he said.
He also pointed to the West’s failure to engage the countries of the Global South, saying that the lethargic and bureaucratic negotiations process on infrastructure development projects has allowed China to “get an enormous position in these countries.”
Tony Blair became US President George W. Bush’s closest ally during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and before that sent British troops to assist in the 2001 US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Blair has faced accusations of war crimes, with activists and prominent figures including Desmond Tutu, British playwright Harold Pinter, Indian Author Arundhati Roy, British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Bindman and former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad calling for him and Bush to be dragged before the International Criminal Court.
In 2017, former Iraqi general Abdulwaheed Shannan Al Rabbat filed a case against Blair in a London court charging him with the “crime of aggression” against Iraq. The court ruled that “although there was a crime of aggression under customary international law, there was no such crime as a crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.”
After over a decade of controversy, the US-made video game “Six Days in Fallujah”, based on the real-life combat between US Marines and Iraqis, was released on the streaming website Steam last week.
The video game puts players in the shoes of US Marines fighting in Fallujah, an Iraqi city located around 69 kilometers west of Baghdad, during the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
For years, the video game was subject to intense criticism from peace and human rights activists for glorifying the illegal and ignominious war and whitewashing US war crimes and imperialism.
Some even called it an “Arab Murder Simulator” for openly glorifying the war after it barely ended.
To this day, Fallujah is still dealing with the cataclysmic effects of the war. The US military used depleted uranium shells in Fallujah (both in 1991 and 2003-2004), which caused severe pollution in the environment. They also admitted to using white phosphorus, which is considered a war crime.
The air in the city on the banks of the Euphrates is still considered toxic, and results in miscarriages, cancer, or babies born with severe abnormalities that are more than often life-threatening.
The video game developers claimed they did not want to make the game “political” but rather immerse the player in a real-life war environment.
Interestingly enough, some of the developers from the studio themselves participated in the war, and the studio itself is responsible for creating simulation technologies for the US Marines.
Peter Tamte, one of the developers, has been involved in military simulators for two decades. He was even CEO of Atomic Games, which published simulators used by the US Marine Corps and “training tools” for the world’s leading military and intelligence organizations.
But does Tamte really want to make an apolitical military simulation? Or is he complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in the United States’ nearly century-long collaboration with war propaganda in the media?
And most importantly, would the US military indeed tolerate a video game that if it were not whitewashed, would display the horrific actions and brutality of the illegal invasion and occupation?
Certainly not – especially during a period where the military is struggling to meet its recruiting metrics.
The US military cannot afford a bad image of itself. It also understands video games are immensely popular, and would drive certain perceptions of the war if painted in a negative (or realistic) manner.
An apolitical video game would likely have a fictional story, fictional characters, and perhaps even fictional weapons all within a fictional conflict. But the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation was very real, especially to the nearly million dead Iraqis.
Not only was it painfully real, it was painfully horrific, unpopular (in hindsight to Americans), and above all illegal. Making a video game about one of its battles, particularly where unlawful chemical weapons like white phosphorus were used against Iraqi civilians, is a blatant attempt to whitewash and normalize the crimes and illegal invasion by the United States.
The Iraq War claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The illegal US invasion ushered in a destabilization that created a serious power vacuum that Daesh and Al-Qaeda gladly took advantage of, causing further unexplainable horrors.
But, even if Tamte wanted to make an “apolitical” military simulator – would it really be “apolitical” even if it used a fictional conflict and fictional antagonists? Due to Pentagon and other weapons contracts, the answer is no.
Take for example the critically acclaimed series “Call of Duty.” In the US, one does not even need to play the game to know what Call of Duty is.
The ads for the military shooter appear on TV, on energy drinks, and T-shirts. Some of the series are based on real conflicts like World War II or the Cold War. However, the later installments are based on fictional “modern” conflicts that immerse players in urban settings with advanced weapon technology.
Young gamers are presented with a positive view of the US military, its missions, and its conduct, and the military then sends its recruiters to close the sales process and bring them in as real-life soldiers.
The video game industry also takes it a step further in its partnership with military enterprises. In order to use actual military hardware in the video game, the developers must obtain a license from the manufacturers themselves.
Thus, by using a Remington Shotgun in a SWAT video game (for example), the young video game player has directly played a role in supporting the military-industrial complex in the United States.
Each real weapon requires a real license, so profits made by video game companies benefit the same arms manufacturers that drop bombs on children across the globe.
Lastly, if a video game series is particularly successful (like Call of Duty), developers can then also be invited to American think tanks like The Atlantic Council.
Here they can participate in mapping out real-life invasion scenarios, protocols, and logistics – and then bring it back to the video game world should it not remain classified.
In this sense, the military genre of the video game industry is in direct collaboration with the military, its illegal adventures, and its track record of crimes.
Tamte and other video game developers can say that they wanted to create an “apolitical” experience. But there is no such thing as “apolitical”, especially not in the US military shooter genre, where the moment you pick up the controller is when you have contributed to a legacy of invasion and terror.
Shabbir Rizvi is a Chicago-based political analyst with a focus on US internal security and foreign policy.
It has been approximately a year since Russia realized there can be no negotiations with the Kiev regime, with President Vladimir Putin recently revealing why this is the case. However, even then, Moscow had a sliver of hope this might change and that rationality of some sort might spring up in Kiev. Unfortunately, this proved to be nothing more than a reverie, as the Neo-Nazi junta clearly demonstrated it’s no more than a loose cannon.
Speaking of ISIS, it should also be noted that the Kiev regime used its tactics within Russia, specifically against prominent public figures. This includes not only Russian intellectuals (journalists, writers, philosophers, etc), but also their children, as demonstrated by the terrorist attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. Then there was the case of Vladlen Tatarsky, a prominent military blogger and journalist who was killed in a terrorist attack that could’ve killed dozens of other innocent people. This was followed by another terrorist attack that targeted writer Zakhar Prilepin, another eminent public figure in Russia, in addition to numerous other attacks.
After the Neo-Nazi junta’s top officials pledged they will continue killing Russians, Moscow decided it has had enough of them, realizing its realpolitik approach and patience were clearly seen as weaknesses. Russian intelligence services and the military “took their gloves off” and started treating the said officials as legitimate targets. This includes top-ranking officers of the Kiev regime forces, various special services and sabotage units connected to the SBU and GUR (military intelligence), all of which have grossly violated the rules of conventional warfare. The Kremlin authorized its services to neutralize them after these services organized the aforementioned terrorist and sabotage attacks.
The recent disappearance of top-ranking Neo-Nazi junta officials can either be explained by a looming mutiny among its forces or perhaps even by the fact they might have been neutralized by Moscow. The well-coordinated work of all Russian intelligence services and the military made it possible to quickly identify the whereabouts of the Kiev regime’s military and special services leadership. The information acquired through ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms could have easily been confirmed by undercover intelligence and special forces assets in Ukraine itself. The data would then be relayed to the VKS (Russian Aerospace Forces), which most likely launched high-precision retaliatory strikes on the designated targets, which, at this point, include the Commander-in-Chief of the Neo-Nazi junta forces General Valery Zaluzhny and GUR chief Kirill Budanov.
Russia’s retribution for escalating attacks has been swift and decisive, with disastrous consequences for the Neo-Nazi junta, prompting even NATO itself to increase pressure on Moscow in order to alleviate some of it from Kiev. The Kremlin is not only targeting hostile military infrastructure and facilities now, but also the decision-making centers in order to minimize the likelihood of further bloodshed. While Moscow initially demonstrated its willingness to completely adhere to all norms of international law during the hostilities and even gave Kiev a chance to end the conflict through negotiations and thus avoid senseless killing, the Neo-Nazi junta rejected this in the most disgraceful manner possible. Patience and rationality were met with mass terror and rabid Russophobia. Simply put, Moscow was left with no other choice but to protect its people by achieving all the targets of the SMO.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian assets were trapped abroad in 2022 after the Ukrainian crisis escalated into a full-blown NATO-Russia proxy war. Earlier this year, reports in US business media indicated that the US and its allies were having trouble locating a substantial chunk of these funds.
Belgium plans to collect 3 billion euros a year in windfall profits from Russian assets frozen in the country’s coffers to give to Ukraine for “reconstruction” purposes, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo announced Friday.
“We are working on a windfall tax on profits,” De Croo told reporters after meeting with other EU leaders at the bloc’s summit in Brussels.
A day earlier, De Croo explained that Belgium was “very involved” in the issue because upwards of 90 percent of the Russian assets frozen in the EU’s jurisdiction are trapped in Belgian banks.
“The use of these funds for the military needs of Ukraine and its reconstruction makes sense from an economic point of view and from a moral point of view,” the Belgian leader assured.
The European Commission estimated in May that the bloc has frozen over 200 billion euros in assets belonging to Russia’s Central Bank, plus 24.1 billion owned by Russian companies, tycoons and other individuals.
US business media first reported on the possibility of collecting interest from Russian assets trapped abroad to fund Ukraine earlier this year, after concluding that there was no “reliable legal path” to allow for the funds to seized outright without undermining rule of law and international trust in European financial institutions.
‘Robbery’ in Broad Daylight
Asked to comment on Brussels’ plans, Christopher C Black, an international criminal and human rights lawyer with over 20 years’ experience under his belt, said that if realized, they would constitute “theft twice over” – first by seizing the money in the first place, and then preventing Russia from collecting its due interest.
“The crime of theft becomes compounded with insult by giving the money to Kiev to finance the war against Russia, and if the money is so transferred by EU government order, it will be [an] act of war – since a nation supplying financial support to another nation to carry on a war can be considered under international law as a party to the war,” Black explained.
Very Painful… for EU
Such theft would constitute a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and the laws of war, and would undermine the rule of law in Europe, according to the legal expert, “because if they can do this to Russia they can do it to any citizens’ assets.”
The scheme would show that in effect, “no one is protected,” and that contracts between clients and banks in the EU’s jurisdiction effectively “mean nothing” because they can be broken at will and for any reason, Black said. This, in turn, threatens to undermine the credibility of EU banks among foreign depositors, he added.
The observer isn’t surprised by Belgium’s plans, pointing out that the EU and other Western countries have already systematically violated their own laws and international law, by seizing Venezuela’s gold and oil company assets, for example, or keeping Iranian assets frozen in Western banks for decades on end.
Russian Retaliation
Black expects Russia to “retaliate in kind if possible, that is if assets of the EU are located in Russia.”
Otherwise, Russia may also “have to think of other measures to force the return” of its assets, “either through diplomacy and the help of friendly nations (for example by getting them to agree to withdraw their deposits from EU banks unless the Russian assets are released)… or further reducing energy supplies to the EU,” the legal expert suggested.
“The BRICS process can help in the future as the BRICS Development Bank is further established, and a single currency can also help break Western financial domination of other countries,” Black added.
“But so long as nations continue to deposit their assets, gold or money, bonds, etc. in EU or other Western banks, they will face the real threat of having those assets seized whenever the West decides it is in their interests to do so,” the observer summed up.
Over $300 billion in Russian assets were reported frozen in Western banks’ coffers in 2022, most of them belonging to the Russian Central Bank. In late 2022, a senior financial expert with the Atlantic Council* estimated the actual amount of money seized was closer to $80-$100 billion, and that the US and the EU have had trouble finding the frozen funds. In February, US business media reported that only about $36.5 billion of the frozen assets had been found so far.
Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin characterized the West’s asset seizure an “unseemly business,” and said “stealing other people’s assets has never brought anyone good.”
Before the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin repeatedly warned Russian businessmen to keep their money in Russia.
Former leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, alleges that he is facing what he describes as “serious political persecution” by the banking sector in the UK, claiming that the pro-Remain establishment is making a concerted effort to exclude him from the banking system. Farage asserts that this has made him contemplate whether he will be able to continue residing in the UK.
In a video released on Twitter, Farage shared that seven banks had turned down his applications for both personal and business accounts, making him feel like a “non-person.”
He stated that his bank accounts at an undisclosed financial institution, where he has been a customer for over four decades, were on the verge of being terminated without any explanation provided.
Farage posited three theories to explain why he believes the banking establishment is distancing itself from him. Firstly, he asserts that his role in championing Brexit has made him a persona non grata in the banking circles. “The banks did not want Brexit to happen,” Farage said in the video. “The corporate world will never forgive me.”
Additionally, Farage speculates that his political standing might be a factor. The “politically exposed person” protocol requires banks to conduct additional scrutiny on accounts held by politicians and their families to guard against the possibility of foreign bribery. Farage acknowledged the rationale behind such precautions but emphasized that the additional compliance burden for the banks should be commensurate.
Thirdly, Farage raised concerns about allegations that were made by Labour lawmaker Sir Chris Bryant in the previous year.
Bryant claimed that Farage had received a substantial sum of money, specifically £548,573, from Russia Today television station in 2018, an assertion that Farage vehemently denies. Farage stated, “The truth is I’ve never received any money from any sources with any link to Russia.”
WASHINGTON – US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said she filed amendments to the defense budget that would forbid the US from providing Ukraine with F-16 jets and long-range missiles and cut off all funding to Kiev until a diplomatic resolution to the conflict is found.
“We should be pushing for peace, not funding war. I filed amendments to the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that strip out all funding for Ukraine and prohibit providing them with F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles,” Greene said in a tweet on Friday.
“The death and destruction must stop, so in order to achieve peace, I also filed an amendment to prohibit any and all funding to Ukraine until a diplomatic solution to the war is reached.”
Earlier in the day, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley said he is not aware of any decisions with respect to sending the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Ukraine, but noted that it is a “continuous, ongoing process.”
Citing officials with knowledge of the developments, American media reported on Thursday that the United States is close to agreeing to send ATACMS to Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s top aide earlier this week said Kiev still hoped to receive the first supply of F-16 fighter jets in aid from Western countries by the end of 2023. Last week, US media reported, citing Western officials, that Ukraine could receive its first F-16 fighter jets from Western sponsors in early 2024.
A former Pentagon official told outlets that the Netherlands and Denmark could be among the first suppliers, but no final decision had been made yet.
Russia has slammed the possible delivery of F-16 fighters to Ukraine, warning that the jets will become a legitimate military target for Russian forces. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine will be a further escalation because the jets have a modification that makes them nuclear-capable.
After repeated hyping of the so-called Chinese spy balloon incident for nearly five months, the Pentagon on Thursday admitted the airship did not collect any information, not to mention send any data back to China. This is an objective result that should be welcomed, but it came too late, as the incident has damaged mutual trust, totally changed the environment for communication between China and the US, and caused the two sides to miss a better time to restore relations, Chinese experts said.
Analysis of debris collected from a Chinese balloon drifting into the sky over the US and shot down by the latter in February showed that “it did not collect [any information] while it was transiting the US or over flying the US” despite that it “had intelligence collection capabilities,” Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder told media on Thursday.
A Chinese balloon spent a week in February flying over the US and Canada before it was shot down by a fighter jet off the Atlantic coast, on orders from President Joe Biden. Although Chinese authorities reiterated that the balloon was a civilian weather balloon, some US media and hawkish politicians continued to hype it as a spy balloon, underscoring the increasing tensions between the world’s two largest economies.
In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a press conference on Friday that China has reiterated on many occasions that the Chinese civilian airship drifting into the sky over the US was an unintended, unexpected and isolated event caused by force majeure. Calling the airship a “spy balloon” and claiming it is used to collect intelligence is total slandering and smearing, Mao stressed.
Citing some anonymous officials, a Wall Street Journal report on Thursday claimed that the balloon was found to be carrying some American-made equipment helping it to collect photos, videos and other information. Ryder did not confirm the report on Thursday when he announced the result of the Pentagon’s analysis.
The Pentagon’s brief announcement on Thursday showed that the US, or at least the US’ defense department, is trying to close the chapter on the incident as it must have realized that the facts are slapping them in the face, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Friday.
“We should welcome the move, but I have to say that it is far from enough. The US hyping damaged the basic mutual trust between China and the US and set a bad precedent in dealing with a foreign country’s civilian facility by using the military to shoot down the balloon. They should express regret for the decision,” Lü said.
The balloon incident fundamentally changed the atmosphere between the two countries. Blinken postponed a reported visit to Beijing. This led to a delay in the progress of China-US interactions of about five months for no good reason, which is very unfavorable given the already high tension between the two countries, Lü noted.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was said to have been planning a diplomatic trip to China before the balloon incident, but reportedly postponed the plan soon after it occurred. The trip was rescheduled and Blinken visited Beijing in June.
However, the US Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency on Thursday approved new arms sales to Taiwan worth $440 million. The arms package is to include 30mm ammunition, spare parts for wheeled vehicles and other items, according to media reports. This is the 10th arms-sales package to Taiwan made under US President Joe Biden.
China urges the US to abide by the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US joint communiqués, stop selling weapons to Taiwan island, stop creating factors that lead to tensions in the Taiwan Straits and stop damaging the peace and stability in the region, Mao Ning said in response to the deal at the Friday press conference.
The US is building Taiwan island into a powder keg and ammunition depot. This is not “protecting” or “defending” the island but damaging and ruining it, the Taiwan Affairs Office of China’s State Council said Friday, slamming the deal.
Earlier this week, a US bipartisan congressional delegation led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers landed in Taiwan for a three-day visit.
We must face the fact that US diplomacy will continue to show a character of being two-faced, as it views China as a main strategic opponent and will not change its strategy of containing China before it regains an absolute advantage over China, Lü said.
The Chinese central government must have become aware of this and is making adjustments in its strategy in the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea to maintain China’s practical control of the regions amid the US’ provocation, Lü pointed out, citing China’s firm actions in the Taiwan Straits since last year including large-scale military drills and the flying of fighter jets across the so-called median line of the Taiwan Straits, which the Chinese mainland had declared a non-existent concept.
Some experts expect more windows of opportunity in China-US relations to open after US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was reported to be planning a trip to China in early July, but they also warned that the window will not be open for long, so Washington needs to make sincere moves rather than create new trouble.
When asked is there still a window of opportunity to repair China-US ties before US elections, former Chinese Ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai told the Global Times on Thursday that it’s never too late if there is political will. “China has shown its political commitment to improving relations.”
Skipping classes, getting up at 11 a.m., gluing oneself to the asphalt and blocking streets with your mates all day to save the planet is a really tough and important job, climate activists believe. And so exempting themselves from the rules they want imposed on the rest of society is understandable. After all, they are more important than the rest.
So important, in fact, that activists like Max Voegtli of Renovate Switzerland believes flying to Central America by jet plane for a couple of months of R & R is totally okay. The working class, however, should not fly at all and freeze in the wintertime.
Dealing with the climate crisis is urgent, insists Swiss radical climate activist just before hopping on a jet plane to fly to Central America for 2 months of vacation. Image cropped here.
Last Tuesday, Swiss climate activist Voegtli appeared on TalkTäglich at TeleZüri, and passionately explained how urgent it is to deal with the “climate crisis” and demanded that the planet be saved.
Off to Mexico and Central America
Then, already on Thursday, he was photographed at Zurich airport, preparing to board a plane bound for Paris. But climate rescuer Voegtli’s flying would not end in Paris, reports AUF 1: “Paris was not the activist’s destination, but there he only took the connecting flight to Mexico and Central America, where he wants to travel around for two months.”
A two-month vacation is a total fantasy for the rest of the working world, who struggle to make ends meet each month. And this traffic blocker goes unhindered for 2 months?
Climate Emergency Fund
So where does an unemployed activist like Voegtli get the money for such a holiday extravaganza? AUF 1 writes: “It is well known that some of the asphalt gluers receive a regular salary. Organization Renovate Switzerland is no stranger to lavish money: “The organization itself admits that it is financed by the Climate Emergency Fund of oil magnate heiress Aileen Getty.”
Activists cry they are being harassed!
Now that Voegtli’s hypocrisy has been exposed, the embarrassed activists justify all their globe-trotting by claiming they travel as “private persons” and so no one should be photographing them.
AUF 1 : “Spokesperson Cécile Bessire castigated the ‘media hounding against the climate movement and the people who campaign for it. I find it incomprehensible that citizens are following our activists and taking photos. These are private individuals.’”
At Twitter, the thin-skinned Voegtli defended himself: “Shows again how the @CH_Media cares more about feeding the hate media cycle further instead of talking about the crisis.”
Voegtli’s Renovate Switzerland group added: “Getting politically involved against the climate crisis often goes hand in hand with changing one’s own life. However, it is not a prerequisite to do so. […] No matter if you separate your rubbish, if your house is renovated, if you work for a bank, if you eat meat or if you fly. All you should do is wish for a livable future and get involved in the climate movement.”
AUF 1 summarizes the infantile behavior of the activists such as Voegtli: “It means the climate activists can demand anything from citizens without having to do it themselves.”
In a nutshell, according to the climate activists: it’s “incomprehensible” that citizens would take photos of activists at airports, yet it’s perfectly fine for activists to block major roadways and to harass people who are trying to make a living. That’s how they want it.
The unprecedented range and extent of Covid vaccine injury is not open to argument. Yellow Card reporting, which the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency say represents just 10 per cent of the true number of reactions, reveals that medical staff and victims have reported half a million adverse events and nearly 2,600 fatalities.
The most common issues following vaccination are low blood platelets (immune thrombocytopenia), heart inflammation (myocarditis), blood clots in the body and brain, (thrombosis and cerebral venous thrombosis) and Guillain-Barré syndrome, where the body attacks its nerves and can cause paralysis.
More than one thousand peer-reviewed research papers have documented and explained the connection between injury and the novel Covid gene therapy; 228 of those papers involve myocarditis, 150 thrombosis, 116 thrombocytopenia, 61 cerebral venous thrombosis, and 43 Guillain-Barré syndrome.
According to the American Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), who have received 35,302 reports of deaths, the Covid vaccine has led to more death reports than any other vaccine in history. The weight of evidence is startling but many doctors still deny Covid-19 vaccines can cause disability or death.
Despite such unprecedented numbers, our national medicines monitors continue to diminish vaccine injury. Last month the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) published this 51-page report on the Covid-19 vaccine programme for healthcare professionals which still describes vaccine injury as rare or of little significance. With no official recognition, there is no government investment into research to understand the pathology of vaccine injury, and no treatment trials to help the millions of vaccine injured.
Former scaffolder Alex Mitchell, 59, from Glasgow, nearly died of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) officially caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine which he received on March 20, 2021. He developed blood clots so severe that his left leg was amputated above the knee. A range of medication controls his continuing clotting problems, but Alex, who has been called a liar, conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer, despite his official diagnosis and £120,000 compensation payment, has found more help to deal with his ongoing health issues through social media than he has through the NHS.
He said: ‘Supplements were recommended by someone who contacted me on Twitter who has a degree in chemistry and biology. My energy and the fatigue that us vaccine-injured suffer from has improved since I started taking them six months ago.
‘The other things that help are acupuncture and red light therapy. They reduce inflammation, and the severe muscle spasms I was experiencing, which felt like someone had taken a cattle prod to my heel bone, have almost stopped.’
A few dedicated doctors are listening and are raising funds for independent research. One is the US organisation Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) founded by a number of doctors including Dr Pierre Kory, and Children’s Health Defence Europe, who held a conference with Dr Meryl Nass last month to discuss vaccine injury.
FLCCC is at the forefront of developing protocols to help the vaccine injured. It is spearheaded by Professor Paul E Marik, formerly chair of pulmonary and critical care at the Eastern Virginia Medical School. He talks regularly to practitioners from all over the world via phone or Zoom who share their clinical experiences. Nothing is added to the FLCCC protocols without a high degree of investigation and scientific reference. Their current vaccine injury protocol has more than 700 scientific references.
Their natural healing regime includes the enzyme nattokinase and aspirin to dissolve blood clots; the anti-inflammatory supplement resveratrol; the mineral magnesium which regulates blood pressure, blood sugar, and is needed for good muscle and nerve function; omega-3 fatty acids which regulate blood clotting; energy boosting co-enzyme Q (CoQ10); the sleep-regulating hormone melatonin; bromelain, the pain-reducing enzyme found in pineapple; the plant chemical berberine which helps strengthen heartbeat, and the brain-nourishing amino acid N-acetylcysteine (NAC).
It has had mixed results but one group called ZeroSpike hope they have made a major breakthrough. ZeroSpike was put together by Fabio Zoffi, a tech entrepreneur, who three years ago formed Federazione Rinascimento Italia (FRI), a civil society of Italian doctors, lawyers, scientists, professionals, and entrepreneurs, horrified by the draconian Covid response.
He contacted Dr Loretta Bolgan, a doctor of chemistry and pharmaceutical technology, and asked her to investigate the Sars-CoV-2 virus and the new mRNA vaccine technology. Once the team discovered that the Covid vaccines and the virus both contained the spike protein, Zoffi asked them to develop a way to get rid of it.
The spike contributes to cardiovascular, brain, and blood clotting problems, and can cause autoimmune conditions, cell deformation and cell fusion damage. It can cross the blood-brain barrier causing memory loss and brain fog, can trigger a stroke or cause other neurological issues.
Manufacturers said the injected spike would clear itself naturally but information from the respected pathologist Professor Arne Burkhardt in Germany, who died recently, and from a freedom of information request from Pfizer’s nonclinical evaluation report submitted to the Australian Department of Health, shows it does not and that it can damage major organs, including the ovaries, liver, spleen and adrenal glands.
The team of ten focused on the food supplement NAC which specifically helped the condition which the vaccine injured and those with long Covid describe as brain fog. Studies showed that NAC denaturated (removed) between 12 per cent and 15 per cent of the Covid spike protein.
NAC is derived from the amino acid L-cysteine and helps replenish glutathione levels in the body and can help to improve brain function. Glutathione is produced by the liver and helps with immune system function, as well as tissue building and repair, vital to help the injured recover. The team then used quantum physics to turbo charge – augment – the NAC molecule, which made a huge difference. In the lab (in vitro), they claim it removed 99.8 per cent of extracellular spike, although there are no traditional double-blind placebo-controlled trials to support the claim.
To prove it, the team developed a urine test which showed how much spike was being excreted. Women’s health specialist Dr Tina Peers told the audience at the Better Way conference in Bath this month: ‘If you check someone’s urine before they take augmented-NAC there aren’t the end products of the denaturation, but by day eight of taking it, they found that the urine was full of denatured spike protein.’
Health practitioners with no financial interest in the product are calling it a ‘game-changer’. Pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr Pierre Kory told the Better Way audience: ‘I integrated it into my practice two months ago. Not everybody responds but some testimonials are really earth-shattering.’
Scott Marsland, a registered nurse (RN) since 1997 and a family nurse practitioner (FRP-C) since 2014, is a partner with Dr Kory in a Covid treatment practice in Syracuse, New York. They have treated more than 2,000 Covid, long Covid or vaccine injured patients in the last 14 months.
Marsland is impressed with A-NAC. He said: ‘I have treated 72 patients with it and 75 per cent have noted benefit. Three had adverse responses of mild to severe rash, but that fully resolved quickly.
‘I had a patient with mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. After taking it, he said, “I’m sleeping like a baby. A cloud has lifted.” Another, who suffered spinal injury after a car crash, had very poor respiratory status preventing the operation. Within a week she reported her lungs were stronger than in the last three years. A young patient with 5/10 chest pain reported after three days the pain was measuring 2/10.’
Dr Peers was herself injured by two AstraZeneca vaccines. She said: ‘I had a tremor in my hand, I had dormant mast-cell activation syndrome (MCAS) which flared, my face was puffy, my eyes were swollen. It affected my immune system.’
She began taking augmented NAC more than two months ago and developed a rash, like Marsland’s patients. She said: ‘After a few days I had a detox reaction and developed eczema on my face. It lasted about 48 hours but now my tremor has gone, the rash has gone and my MCAS is under control again.’
In Italy, a country hit by some of the most brutal Covid measures including a ‘no jab, no job’ policy which lasted for 18 months, ZeroSpike have helped more than 10,000 patients. Internationally, they have treated a total of 20,000 patients and say that none has come back with any complaints. Patients will generally complain if they experience negative events.
Can this new treatment give people abandoned by their governments hope? Will the medical establishment engage with this research and its findings? With countries such as Canada already making a move to ban all natural supplements like A-NAC, there will be a huge battle for recognition. But as Alex Mitchell says, ‘They’ll stop us accessing successful treatments over my dead body.’
I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.
I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship.
In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.
All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.
Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.
Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.
The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.
My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.
The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.
Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:
If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality
Measures caused excess mortality
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality
Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.
In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.
If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.
First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.
Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:
sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union),
war (including social-class restructuring),
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.
Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.
Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.
In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.
Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.
Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:
degree of experienced psychological stress
degree of social isolation
The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.
Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.
Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.
I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).
Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.
Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.
In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.
This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.
Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.
Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.
This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.
Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.
In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:
the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty
Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.
Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.
In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.
It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”
In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.