Trump Pledges to Fire Federal Employees Engaged in Censorship Pressure
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2024
Former United States President Donald Trump’s pledge to safeguard the First Amendment was a highlight of his recent campaign rally in Wisconsin. Standing against the Big Tech censorship attempts by the ruling Biden-Harris administration, Trump stated his commitment to protecting the free speech of Americans, “I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.”
His remarks come in the wake of heightened debate around safeguarding free speech rights. The First Amendment, recognized as the bedrock of American values and rites, guarantees every citizen the right to voice their opinion, peacefully protest, and practice their religion without intrusion from the government. However, these liberties have come under fire in the online world, with government pressuring social media platforms to censor speech.
Under the Biden-Harris governance, the administration has been accused of muzzling so-called “misinformation.”
Congressional investigations like those conducted by the Select Subcommittee Government Committee on Weaponization and lawsuits against the administration have brought many incidents of censorship pressure to light.
This suppression undermines public trust in institutions by concealing inconvenient information.
In 2022, the administration introduced the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board. The board was shut down following pushback over First Amendment concerns.
Germany’s Neglect of National Interests & a Pending Nationalist Backlash
By Glenn Diesen | September 10, 2024
Security competition is the main source of conflict in the international system, as states pursuing national interests and security for themselves often undermine the security of other states. The ability to transcend nationalism by pursuing a more cosmopolitan world order is thus an attractive proposition. For Germany, with its destructive history of radical ethno-nationalism and fascism, idealist internationalism has an immense appeal.
However, is it possible to transcend power competition when the state is the highest sovereign? Should aggressive power politics be addressed by ignoring national interests or managing competing national interests? Cosmopolitanism and liberal idealism do not transcend power politics and create a global village, rather it results in the neglect of national interests and subordination to foreign powers. Aggressive nationalism will likely be the predictable backlash to ignoring national interests.
In the early 19th century, Germans fell under the lure of international idealism and failed to defend national interests. Cultural nationalism and economic nationalism became instruments for the Germans to balance the French and restore dignity and national interests. Two centuries later, Germany is yet again not capable of pursuing national interests until it decouples from American cosmopolitanism, universalism and hegemony. It seems likely, that history will repeat itself as Germany will return to cultural and economic nationalism or be condemned to vassalage and irrelevance.
German Subordination to France
In the late 18th and early 19th century, France represented a cosmopolitan universal civilisation in which development meant becoming more like France. Napoleon could thus find some people willing to support him in all countries, although internationalist initiatives usually served a French national cause.
When Napoleon invaded in the early 19th century, some German princes surrendered their sovereignty and national interests to the French with great enthusiasm. In what became known as the “shame of the princes”, many German rulers welcomed Napoleon’s annexation of the West bank of the Rhine. A combination of receiving economic compensation and fawning over France resulted in the German princes abandoning national interests and their dignity.
The Germans and other Europeans became increasingly concerned about France and the obedience demanded by allies under the Napoleonic Continental System. Under the guise of internationalism and cosmopolitanism, a system developed that was primarily for the benefit of French manufacturers. The cultural fawning over France resulted in Germans failing to further develop their own culture. While the French had promised peace under its leadership, the Europeans instead had constant war as they became instruments of war to be used against the British.
What was the solution? Germany began to pursue cultural sovereignty and economic sovereignty as conditions to restore dignity, national interests, and political sovereignty. The cosmopolitan philosophy of Voltaire and a common path to cosmopolitanism and universal civilisation were challenged by the philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder, who argued that cultural differences should be preserved to contribute to the richness of humanity.[1] Culture is a specific link between a distinctive people required for social cohesion and societal dignity. Herder cautioned that imitation of foreign cultures made the people shallow, artificial, and weak. In Russia, there were similar concerns that imitating French culture undermined Russia’s unique development and its ability to contribute something new to the world.
Economic sovereignty was also a requirement, as Friedrich List recognised that excessive economic dependence also undermined political sovereignty:
“As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles… a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare and independence”.[2]
German Subordination to the US
Following the Second World War, the pendulum swung in the opposing direction as German national power had to be dressed up in internationalist initiatives. As Chancellor Helmut Schmidt argued in 1978, it was:
“German foreign policy rests on two great pillars: the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance… It is all the more necessary for us to clothe ourselves in this European mantle. We need this mantle not only to cover our foreign policy nakednesses, like Berlin or Auschwitz, but we need it also to cover these ever-increasing relative strengths, economic, political, military, of the German Federal Republic within the West”.[3]
The pillars of German development were also a prison to ensure its subordination to the US. In the words of Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, acknowledged that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.[4] The historical role of Britain and the US had always been to prevent Germany and Russia from getting too close as it would form a centre of power capable of challenging the dominance of the maritime hegemon at the periphery. Peacetime alliances that contain and perpetuate the weakness of adversaries also ensure the dependence and obedience of allies. Much like its French predecessor, the US appeals to cosmopolitanism and universalism to manage an international system that upholds a US national cause.
Germany in Decline
Until recently, Germany had become known as the industrial engine that was driving European economies forward, while it had seemingly learned from its history by attempting to elevate liberal democratic principles above power politics.
This era is seemingly over as Germany has transformed itself in a remarkably short period of time. Germany fails to defend its basic national interests, its economy is deindustrialising, society becomes more pessimistic, the political leadership has rediscovered enthusiasm for war, German tanks are yet again burning in Kursk, there are some signs of political violence to come, the freedom of expression is undermined, and the political upheaval opens the door to political alternatives that the government rejects.
The German economic model has been broken as Germany cut itself off from Russia as a source of cheap energy and a huge export market for manufactured goods. Washington is also increasingly pressuring Germany to sever its economic ties with China as well, resulting in a less competitive economy and excessive reliance on the US. Germany’s submissiveness was demonstrated by the deafening silence when its key energy infrastructure was destroyed by allies (the US and Ukraine), while European allies such as the Czech Republic referred to the attack as legitimate and Poland told Germany to stay quiet and apologise for having built the pipeline. As Germany deindustrialises and its economy declines, the US has responded by offering subsidies to German industries that will move across the Atlantic to the US.
At the heart of the problem is that Germany no longer sufficiently defends its national interests. As the public flees to alternative media and new political parties, the government does not know how to respond. Police appear on the doorsteps of journalists, and protesters are beaten by the police for protesting a genocide in Palestine that Germany has supported with arms shipments. German Foreign Minister felt comfortable declaring that Ukraine will continue to receive support “no matter what my German voters think”. The media is dismissive of political violence against Sahra Wagenknecht on the political left, which is to some extent justified by arguing she is actually on the political right. On the actual political right, the AfD is surging to fill the vacuum left behind by an incompetent government without a plan, and the political-media elites have responded to the surge by discussing whether this opposition party should be banned. The rise of the AfD is compared to the rise of Hitler, yet the AfD is pushing for a negotiated peace in Ukraine while the government has backed military solutions.
The EU is also acting deeply irrationally in the Ukraine War. The Europeans used to recognise that the American ambition to pull Ukraine into the orbit of NATO would result in another European war. In 2008 the Europeans attempted to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for this reason. In the words of Angela Merkel, Moscow would interpret the attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO as “a declaration of war”. Yet, they went ahead with the promise of future membership in 2008 to appease Washington. After destabilising the Ukrainian government, the Europeans were guarantors for a unity government in Kiev in 2014, but then betrayed this agreement for stability as the US pushed for a coup instead. After a war broke out in Donbas as a direct result of the coup, the Germans and French negotiated the Minsk Peace Agreement but then later admitted it was only to buy time to arm Ukraine. When Russia invaded in 2022, the Europeans were yet again silent as the US and Britain sabotaged the Istanbul Peace Agreement and instead pushed for war.
Even as Ukraine is losing the war, the Europeans do not want to discuss restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Instead, the incoming EU foreign policy chief argues there should not be any diplomacy with Russia as Putin is a “war criminal”, and she has defined victory as breaking up Russia into many smaller nations. Hungary has attempted to restore diplomacy and negotiations and Orban travelled to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. The EU responded by punishing Hungary. Subsequently, the EU has limited itself to the unachievable objective of defeating the world’s largest nuclear power and a vital trading partner, while rejecting any diplomatic solutions.
Resolving the problems of Germany and the EU requires some reflection on the European security architecture that was built over the past 30 years. The decision to redivide Europe and incrementally move these dividing lines to the East was a recipe for collective hegemony – not peace or stability. In the words of President Bill Clinton in January 1994, we cannot afford “to draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[5] Expanding NATO triggered a new Cold War over where the new dividing lines should be drawn in Europe. This has nothing to do with liberal democracy, and everything to do with advancing a unipolar world order that has now come to an end. Continuing down this path ensures that Europe will transition from a subject of security to an object of security. Reversing the path to irrelevance requires admitting the mistakes made over the past 30 years that were celebrated as virtuous politics. Without any correction, the EU will tear itself apart and Germany will continue declining in relevance.
A Nationalist Backlash to Come?
The failure to defend national interests leaves a vacuum for nationalist political forces. Nationalism can be a movement for national liberation, sovereignty, freedom and prosperity in the spirit of Johann Gottfried Herder. However, times of crisis can also produce uglier forms of nationalism. Either way, a political correction (or over-correction) will eventually come.
[1] .G. Herder book in 1784 “Ideas of the Philosophy of the History of Mankind”.
[2] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia, p.30.
[3] Bundesbank. ‘EMS: Bundesbank Council meeting with Chancellor Schmidt (assurances on operation of EMS) [declassified 2008],’ Bundesbank Archives, N2/267, 30 November 1978.
[4] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm
Typhon Missile Deployment is Part of US Plans to Maintain ‘Primacy Over the Planet’
Sputnik -10.09.2024
Having previously deployed the medium-range Typhon missile systems – a weapon banned under the now-obsolete INF Treaty – in the Philippines, the United States now moves to station them in Japan in relatively close proximity to China and North Korea.
Washington’s plans to deploy these weapons in Asia are “part of a much wider long-running US strategy to encircle and contain China,” with this move itself being “part of a global post-Cold War strategy to eliminate any peer or near-peer competitor and maintain US primacy over the planet,” geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic tells Sputnik.
The US plans to deploy Typhon missile systems in Europe are also “part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia,” Berletic adds.
According to him, the deployment of these weapons “reveals several important factors regarding US foreign, policy including continuity of agenda.”
For one, Berletic notes, the US pulled out from the INF Treaty during Donald Trump’s presidency, but the deployment of the Typhon missiles in various corners of the globe takes place with Joe Biden at the helm.
“The process of withdrawing from a treaty, developing, and then deploying such systems took place over the course of two presidential administrations, serving one single agenda, regardless of who sat in the White House,” he says.
“The Typhon’s deployment also reveals the true nature of US foreign policy and its disruptive nature for supposed US ‘allies’,” Berletic remarks.
Though both the Philippines and Japan “count China as their largest trade partner,” they both end up hosting US missiles aimed squarely at Beijing, which does little to improve their relations.
“This is just the latest in a long line of provocations complicating what would otherwise be increasingly constructive relations with China,” Berletic explains, arguing that the Philippines and Japan’s willingness to enable such US provocations “reveals the absence of agency in terms of either nations’ foreign policy.”
“It is very clear that this policy of hosting US forces seeking to encircle and contain China is a policy determined in Washington, not Manila or Tokyo, and is a policy serving US interests at the expense of the Philippines and Japan,” he states.
Berletic also deemed ironic the fact that the United States claims that its deployment of weapon systems around the world “is necessary to ensure global peace and stability,” even as the US “consistently demonstrates that it itself is the greatest threat to both.”
Trump’s Grand-Jury Indictments Don’t Mean Squat
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 10, 2024
A recent Los Angeles Times column by Times’s columnist Jackie Calmes entitled “Should a Five-Time Loser with Grand Juries Be President?” displays a woeful lack of understanding regarding grand-jury indictments.
Calmes’s article, of course, is about Donald Trump and argues that the five grand-jury indictments against Trump are a good reason for rejecting his candidacy for president. Adding authority to her argument, Calmes quotes former Justice Department official and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann: “For those counting, FIVE separate grand juries (scores of citizens) have now found probable cause that Trump committed multiple felonies.”
As a former prosecutor, Weissmann should know that grand juries are usually nothing more than rubber stamps for whatever prosecutors want. As Sol Wachtler, chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court, put it, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
Grand juries are normally composed of good, little, patriotic, deferential citizens who look upon prosecutors and judges, especially at the federal level, as gods. When a federal prosecutor enters the grand-jury room armed with a bit of evidence and an indictment, the grand jurors are going to do what he wants them to do.
Keep in mind, after all, that there is no judge in the grand-jury room. There is also no defense attorney representing the person they want indicted. There is no one to challenge or rule out incompetent evidence. The prosecutor can use hearsay evidence, illegally acquired evidence, or even evidence acquired by torture. The grand jury is not going to challenge him on the evidence he is presenting to them. They are simply going to grant his request for an indictment.
Calmes makes a big deal over the fact that a grand-jury indictment is based on “probable cause.” Big deal. What she apparently doesn’t realize is that “probable cause” can be based on hearsay or other evidence that is not admissible at a trial. That makes the indictment worthless in terms of whether the accused is actually guilty of what the indictment charges him with.
The fact is that a grand-jury indictment is nothing more than an accusation. In a court of law, it doesn’t constitute any evidence whatsoever. In terms of determining whether a person is guilty of a crime, an indictment is worthless.
Whatever reasons people might have for rejecting Trump’s quest to be president again, those grand-jury indictments against him are a ludicrous one. Calmes, Weissmann, and the Los Angeles Times should know better than to make such a ridiculous argument for rejecting Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Durov still does not get it
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 10, 2024
After being released on bail from a French prison, Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov made several statements which indicate that he is labouring under grave illusions about the nature of his predicament. He described the action of the French authorities, which resulted in his arrest and detention on French territory, as “surprising and misguided.” He then went on to question the legal premise of his detention and subsequent indictment, which is that he could be held “personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram.”
It is disappointing to see a thirty-nine years old sophisticated cosmopolitan adult, traumatised as he must be by his recent experiences, reasoning like a child. One should have expected a person of Durov’s wealth to secure competent legal assistance to help him understand the legal “facts of life” pertaining to his case.
There are two basic facts that the lawyer selected by Durov to represent him should have explained to his client. Incidentally, that lawyer is extremely well wired into the French establishment and the judicial system which is persecuting his bewildered protégé. It would not be uncharitable to say that his loyalties are dubious.
The first and most fundamental of these facts is the political nature of the case. Durov’s predicament cannot be properly understood apart from that reality. Recognition of that fact does not exclude entirely the effective use of legal arguments and remedies but it marginalises their practical impact. The second important fact that a conscientious legal professional already in the first interview would have made clear to his client is that in the real world in which Durov is facing grave criminal charges, indulging intuitive notions of justice, including the premise that a person cannot be held criminally liable for third-party acts, is a naïve and utterly misguided approach.
Pavel Durov is a highly intelligent and, in his field, very accomplished individual. But on another level he is just a computer nerd and his incoherent actions and statements are proof of that. Contrary to what he seems to think possible, and as incompatible as that may appear to be with the concept of natural justice, under specific circumstances an individual can be criminally charged for the acts of third parties. Mechanisms that make that possible already are firmly in place. We would not necessarily be wrong to characterise those mechanisms as repugnant to the natural sense of justice, or even as quasi-legal. But formally they are well established and are integral components of criminal law. Tyrannical political systems are free to invoke those instruments whenever they decide to target a bothersome non-conformist such as Pavel Durov.
Whilst on the one track relentless pressure is undoubtedly being applied to the conditionally released but still closely supervised Durov to accede to the demands of deep state structures and turn Telegram’s encryption keys over to security agencies, on a parallel track the legal case against him is being constructed. It will be based on some variant or derivative of the theory of strict liability. The exact contours of that variant are yet to be defined as the case proceeds, and everything will depend on how the defendant responds to the combination of carrots and sticks that are now being put in front of him. Since no evidence is being offered to prove that acting personally in his capacity as Telegram CEO Durov was complicit in any of the incriminating activities listed in the charge sheet, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that some version of strict liability will be the vehicle of choice to make the accusations stick. Unless he capitulates, the objective is to put him away for a long time, or at least to threaten him credibly with such an outcome in order to exact his cooperation. Strict liability is a convenient tool because it offers many shortcuts to the Prosecution. It achieves the desired effect in the absence of proof of specific intent and regardless of the defendant’s mental state, thus eliminating for the prosecution major evidentiary hurdles.
Furthermore, from the beginning of the Durov case groundwork was notably being laid for the application of the Joint Criminal Enterprise [JCE] doctrine as developed by the Hague Tribunal, its category III to be precise. Even seasoned lawyers practicing at the Hague Tribunal were at a loss what to make of that legal improvisation. But their incomprehension did not prevent successive chambers from sentencing defendants to decades of prison, wholly or in part based on it.
Durov is being charged on 12 counts, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing and money laundering. It should again be recalled that it is not even alleged that Durov personally committed or intentionally participated in the commission of any of those offences. The charges stem from the accusation that Telegram’s lax moderation rules allow for the widespread criminal use of the platform by others, with whom it is not claimed that Durov entertained any direct personal link or that he was even aware of their existence.
But the marvellous feature of the category III JCE doctrine, specially invented by the chambers of the Hague Tribunal to accommodate the Prosecution in situations in which it could not contrive even the semblance of a nexus between the defendant and the crimes being imputed to him, is that it does not require any of those things. A vaguely inferred commonality of purpose, coupled with the assumption that the defendant should have been able to foresee but failed to prevent the illicit conduct of the third parties with whom he is being associated by the Prosecution, and with whom he needn’t have had direct communication or even personal acquaintance, serves as a sufficient link. If in the chambers’ considered judgment the defendant contributed substantially to generating conditions conducive to third-party unlawful conduct, that is enough. Proof that the third parties had committed the charged acts is sufficient basis to convict and no disavowal of criminal liability is practically possible.
If in relation to the third parties the defendant is situated in a position that the court deems culpable, nothing more is needed for liability for their conduct to be imputed to him.
The system’s prosecutors are eager to make those and perhaps some even more ingenious arguments to sympathetic judges. Woe to the person sitting in the dock.
That is precisely the general direction in which the Durov case is moving. In an ominous but highly indicative development, the French prosecutors are highlighting the alleged paedophile offences of an individual user of Telegram, who for the moment is identified cryptically only as “X,” or “person unknown,” and who is suspected of having committed crimes against children. The prosecution’s objective is to individualise and dramatise Durov’s guilt by connecting him to a specific paedophile case, the details of which can be disclosed later. If that sticks, some or all of the remaining charges in due course may even be dropped, without prejudice to the prosecution’s overarching goal of incarcerating Durov for a long period of time, unless he compromises. Paedophilia and child abuse alone merit a very lengthy prison sentence, without the necessity of combining them with other nasty charges.
In that regard, equally ominous for Durov is the activation, as it were on cue, of his ex-whatever in Switzerland, with whom he is alleged to have sired at least three out-of-wedlock children. Prior to his detention in France, Durov had capriciously terminated her 150,000-euro monthly apanage. This was a financial blow which naturally left her disgruntled and receptive to the suggestion of the investigative organs to come up with something to take revenge on her former companion. The woman is now accusing Durov of having molested one of the children that he had conceived with her. That is an independent and serious new charge whose potential for further mischief should not be underestimated.
Pavel Durov should stop wasting his time attempting to lecture his French captors on the wrongfulness of the persecution to which they are subjecting him. They are completely uninterested in the philosophical and legal principles to which Durov is referring. Like their transatlantic colleagues, who display juridical virtuosity by indicting ham sandwiches, with equal facility and with as little professional remorse French prosecutors are prepared to indict bœuf bourguignon, if that is what the system they serve demands of them. Far more than a legal strategy, Durov now needs an effective negotiating position (and perhaps also a crash course in poker) to preserve the integrity of his enterprise and to regain fully his freedom without sacrificing honour. For an excellent introduction to the Western rules based order, Durov need look no further than the woeful predicament of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the German-American lawyer who for months has been languishing in a German prison after being targeted on trumped-up charges for exposing the fraud of the recent “health emergency” that we all vividly recall.
Properly understood, the Durov affair should come as a sobering lesson not only for its principal but more importantly for the edification of the frivolous Russian intelligentsia who still entertain adolescent illusions about where the grass is greener and continue to nourish a petulant disdain for their own country, its way of life, and culture.
ISM Response to Israeli Army Statement on the Murder of Aysenur Eygi
View of Israeli army on the road and on house’s roof
International Solidarity Movement | September 10, 2024
On Friday, September 6, Turkish-American human rights activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) Aysenur Eygi was killed by a single shot to the head from an Israeli sniper while supporting a demonstration against illegal Israeli settlements Beita’s lands. After a brief internal investigation conducted by the Israeli army itself, the Israeli army has released a statement asserting that “the inquiry found that it is highly likely that she was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire which was not aimed at her.” The ISM entirely rejects this specious claim and continues to demand an independent investigation of the Israeli army’s killing of our comrade Aysenur Eygi. ISM is joined in this demand by people worldwide who have watched Israel operate with impunity for decades. The world sees through this transparent attempt to conceal the Israeli army’s responsibility for the death of Aysenur Eygi, who is just one of the hundreds of thousands of martyrs Israel has killed over decades of ethnic cleansing, displacement, and genocide.
The military’s account of the events is blindly based on the accomplices’ version, which completely contradicts the testimonies of multiple eye witnesses, who the military did not even contact. All eyewitnesses said immediately following the killing that the scene where Aysenur was killed was completely quiet, and that there could have been no excuse to open fire, let alone directly hitting a woman peacefully standing in an olive grove.
According to activists who were present when Aysenur was killed, the Israeli army’s brief statement “includes an array of evident falsehoods, clearly indicating how its investigation is concerned with deflecting fault and avoiding any sort of accountability.” These falsehoods include:
• The military version claims Aysenur was not the target of the kill-shot, but rather that she was hit “indirectly and unintentionally” when a soldier targeted a key instigator. This statement does not align with the physical reality on the ground for several reasons:
1. It is unclear what the claim that Aysenur was hit “indirectly” is based on, as there is no forensic evidence to back this up this claim.
2. The closest Israeli forces to were Aysenur was when she was shot, were those positioned on a rooftop some 750 feet (220m) away from her, at an elevated position. Considering the distance and the soldiers’ elevation, stones could not have physically been thrown towards the soldiers from the location Aysenur was at when she was shot.
3. There were two separate shots fired, with a few seconds in between them. The first shot hit a metal object and a shrapnel hit a Palestinian teenager in the pelvis. Had there been any truth to the military’s false narrative of confrontations taking place where and when Aysenur was shot, reason would have it that he was the main instigator the statement is referring to. However, Aysenur was hit by a second shot, several seconds after the man was already down. It was aimed directly at her, as there was no one else around (apart an activist standing next to her) who could have been the target of the shot.
4. The teenager was located further away to the side from the soldiers than Aysenur, so a shot aimed at him could not have possibly hit her, directly or indirectly.
• The statement very manipulatively conflates two events that are separate in time and place. The first event is the one during which short confrontations that took place soon after the midday prayer at the top of the hill (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2zLgMr4UGfN7QKj49). It was then and there that a few burning tires were placed on the road. The second event is the shooting of Aysenur, which took place more than half an hour later – when there was no confrontations at all – more than 900 feet (274m) from where the burning tires were, and about 750 feet (220 m) from the rooftop where the soldier who shot her was positioned on, in an elevated, tactically controlling position.
• Aysenur was not shot at the Beta Junction. The Beita Junction is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uRnMHnWRcRsrTs5R8 , while she was shot here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/17jEQwVPzbRqujvi9 . The two locations are more than a mile away from each other (1.16miles, 1.87km).
The Israeli army has a long history of using sham investigations as a method of covering up their human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in Palestine. According to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, from a report published jointly with the Palestine Centre for Human Rights, Israel has long been “unwilling and unable” to investigate its soldiers for attacking peaceful protesters. This history of fake investigations as a cover ups goes back decades, and has been documented by B’Tselem and other human rights groups. When ISM activist Rachel Corrie was killed by the Israeli Army in Gaza in 2003, a similar sham investigation swiftly cleared the Israeli forces of all responsibility. Rachel Corrie’s parents have spoken out demanding that a thorough investigation happens in this case. Warning about another coverup, they have said clearly that if an independent, truthful investigation had been conducted 21 years ago, many lives that have been taken by Israel in the ensuing decades could have been saved. Even US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that “The killing of the American activist in the West Bank was unjustified and without provocation on her part, and it is not permissible to shoot someone because he participated in a demonstration.”
40 killed after Israel attacks displaced Gazans with US-provided 2,000-pound bombs
Press TV – September 10, 2024
The Israeli regime has attacked displaced Palestinians in the southern part of the Gaza Strip with US-provided 2,000-pound bombs, killing at least 40 civilians, mostly women and children.
As many as 60 others were injured in the attack that targeted an area previously declared by the Israeli military as a “humanitarian zone” at the al-Mawasi refugee camp in the city of Khan Younis on Tuesday.
The military alleged that it had struck members of the Hamas resistance movement, who were “operating a command and control center” inside the targeted area, a claim that was rejected by the group as a “blatant lie.”
“The resistance has repeatedly confirmed the absence of any of its members among civilian gatherings or the use of such areas for military purposes,” Hamas said.
The bloodletting took place as part of the regime’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, which began on October 7 in response to a retaliatory operation staged by the territory’s resistance groups.
So far, close to 41,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 94,800 others wounded in the brutal military onslaught.
The Tuesday massacre came after the refugee camp witnessed an influx of homeless Palestinians, who had fled there from the death and destruction spree caused by the war elsewhere across the coastal sliver. Between 30,000 and 34,000 people were living upon each square kilometer of the camp at the time of the attack, the United Nations estimates show.
The weapons deployed during the massacre have been identified as American-made MK-84 bombs, which carry 900 pounds of explosives.
The payload can create a crater about 15 meters wide and over 10 meters deep, besides being capable of causing deadly damage around it within a radius of approximately 73 meters.
This is not the first time when the regime deploys the ammunition against civilian targets during the war.
More than 70 Palestinians were killed after it struck the refugee camp with the same bombs in July.
As part of its unbridled military support for the regime, the United States has armed it with as many as 14,000 of the bombs since the onset of the war.
Hamas also called the US “complicit” in such massacres that “are being deliberately carried out without regard for international law, humanitarian law, or resolutions calling for an end to the aggression.”
Israel tasks US Congress with pressuring South Africa to drop ICJ genocide case
The Cradle | September 10, 2024
Israel is lobbying members of Congress to pressure South Africa to drop its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Axios reported on 9 September.
South Africa has until 28 October to submit its arguments for continuing its case, claiming Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention due to its war in Gaza.
Israeli officials say they want members of Congress to threaten South Africa with consequences for continuing to pursue the case.
On Monday, the Israeli foreign ministry sent a classified cable to the Israeli embassy and consulates in the US with instructions for dealing with South Africa.
“We are asking you to immediately work with [US] lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price,” the cable read.
In December, South Africa filed a case at the ICJ accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case alleged Israel’s actions “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part” of the Palestinian population in Gaza.
After the start of the war on 7 October, Israeli political and military leaders issued statements suggesting they intended to pursue a genocidal military campaign against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Israeli forces have killed over 40,000 Palestinians since then, the majority women and children, in a vicious 11-month bombing campaign.
The ICJ issued an interim ruling in January demanding Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
However, Israel hopes the new coalition government in South Africa can be pressured to take a different approach to Israel and the war in Gaza, the officials speaking with Axios said.
In parliamentary elections in June, the African National Congress (ANC) party lost its majority for the first time since the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule 30 years ago.
The Israeli diplomats were instructed to ask members of Congress to issue public statements condemning South Africa and threatening to cut off trade relations with South Africa.
Axios adds that the Israeli diplomats were also instructed to ask members of Congress and Jewish organizations in the US to reach out directly to South African diplomats in the US and make clear South Africa would “pay a heavy price” if it doesn’t change its policy.
The Israeli foreign ministry asked Israeli diplomats to lobby for hearings about South Africa’s policy towards Israel in state legislatures.
According to the cable, Israeli diplomats were instructed to emphasize to the ANC and “pursue dialogue” with Israel “instead of boycotts and punishments.”
Ukraine offers ‘drones-for-fighters’ deal to Syrian extremist group: Report
The Cradle | September 10, 2024
Ukrainian government representatives recently met with members of Syria’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) extremist group to discuss a drones-for-fighters deal, Turkish newspaper Aydinlik reported on 9 September.
“A delegation from Ukraine went to Idlib in recent months and met with the leaders of the terrorist organization,” the newspaper said. According to the report, the meeting took place on 18 June.
The report said Kiev requested the release of a number of Chechen and Georgian militants being held in HTS prisons. In recent years, HTS began rooting out foreign fighters from its ranks, as well as those belonging to other armed opposition groups in northern Syria.
The newspaper added that in exchange for the release of the fighters – who Kiev plans to enlist in the fight against Russian forces – Ukraine offered 75 drones to HTS.
Aydinlik goes on to cite Kurdish reports as saying that “HTS accepted the conditions … and some radical figures were released from their prisons,” adding that “75 [Ukrainian] drones were handed over” to the extremist faction. It does note, however, that no further information or images have emerged to confirm this.
The report also says that Ukraine has been working with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its affiliates in Syria “to conduct covert operations against Russian soldiers in Syria.”
Over the past two years, there have been numerous reports of HTS and ISIS militants being sent to fight Russia in Ukraine.
“The Kiev regime has been in contact with terrorists for a long time, and Ukrainian authorities themselves have already become an international terrorist group,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in response to the Turkish newspaper.
In July 2022, Sputnik cited a source as saying that the CIA was recruiting ISIS fighters and training them in preparation for deployment to Ukraine. The outlet had reported months earlier that scores of HTS fighters were being released from prisons in Idlib to be sent to the Ukrainian battlefield.
Before these reports started emerging, Syria’s ambassador to Russia, Bashar al-Jaafari, said, “We, as a state, have evidence that the US military in Syria is transferring terrorists from one place to another, especially members of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra [HTS] … So, one should not be surprised, and we do not exclude, that tomorrow ISIS terrorists will be sent to Ukraine.”
The Hidden Face of War. NATO Sponsored War Professionals in Russian Region of Kursk.
By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | September 10, 2024
The Forward Observations Group, a private military company based in the United States, published a photo of its war professionals in the Russian region of Kursk, a presence confirmed by a video showing the destruction by the Russian armed forces of Forward Observations Group armoured vehicles and commandos in Kursk. This US military company, whose role is described by the authoritative Military Watch magazine as ‘very obscure’ (evidently, it is linked to US intelligence services), has been engaged for more than two years with Ukrainian forces against Russia with the task of carrying out special operations, including preparing attacks with toxic chemicals.
There is documented evidence that Ukraine is involved in the preparation of attacks with chemical and biological weapons. This US military company is not the only one operating covertly in the theatre of war against Russia. Based on precise documentation Military Watch writes:
‘Numerous facts have emerged about the role of military personnel from NATO member states (including Royal Marines and British SAS commandos) in supporting Ukrainian war operations against Russia. Military advisers, both logisticians and combatants, and other personnel have been operating since 2022 in the theatre of war with a range of newly delivered complex weaponry.’
This confirms that the Ukrainian armed forces are not only armed and trained by the US and NATO, but that US-NATO military companies and special forces operate directly in the theatre of war in command and management roles of sophisticated weaponry, such as long-range missiles and drones, for the use of which military satellite networks are needed, which Ukraine does not have.
At the same time, the US is deploying nuclear weapons (bombs and missiles) at intermediate range in Europe, increasingly close to Russia. Even the missile defence systems, which they deploy in Europe on the official grounds of protecting European populations from the ‘Russian nuclear threat’, are in fact prepared for nuclear attack. The two US Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania and the US Navy destroyers operating in the Baltic and Black Sea are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK-41 vertical launch systems, which, as the manufacturer itself documents, can be used for any warfare mission, including nuclear attack on land targets.
Italy actively contributes to the preparation of nuclear war. Violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it hosts US nuclear weapons (the new B61-12 bombs), which the Italian Air Force is trained to use, and through Leonardo it manufactures nuclear weapons. Now Italy has pledged to build – together with France, Germany and Poland – ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of more than 500 km, i.e. a more advanced version of the US intermediate-range nuclear missiles deployed at Comiso in the 1980s, which were eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty, a treaty that the US tore up in 2019.
*
This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.
Kiev Uses Israeli, Turkish Cluster Munitions Against Russia – Cluster Munition Coalition
Sputnik – 10.09.2024
MOSCOW – The Ukrainian armed forces use cluster munitions from Turkiye and Israel in conflict with Russia, according to the 2024 report released by the Cluster Munition Coalition on Monday.
“Israeli-made or copied M971 120mm cluster munition mortar projectiles were photographed in the possession of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in December 2022. Israel originally produced this type of cluster munition, but it is not known how or from whom Ukraine acquired it,” the report said.
It is added that Turkish and Ukrainian high ranking government officials had denied US media reports of January 2023 stating that Turkiye had transferred cluster munitions to Ukraine in November 2022.
However, a photo posted on social media in August 2023 showed the 155mm M483A1 dual-purpose improved conventional munitions produced by Turkiye being used in Ukraine, the report said, adding that Turkish officials denied providing cluster munitions to Ukraine.
Ukraine might also use cluster munitions from Poland, the coalition added.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC) is a global network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Geneva, Switzerland, that promotes adherence to and implementation of the treaties banning landmines and cluster munition.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Oil and the Israel Lobby
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alam offers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister
- SNSC secretary dismisses US response to Iran’s conditions as ‘inadequate’
- Sanaa says Taiz roads open, secure for residents, warns Saudi forces
- Iraqi resistance group urges Saudi leadership to admit defeat, lift Yemen siege
- Trump’s Retreat: How Al-Aqsa Flood Took Down the US Empire
- Israel’s Military Actions in Lebanon Grossly Violate International Law — Lavrov
- Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
- Leaders Condemn Ansarallah Attack on Saudi Arabia While Ignoring Illegal War Against Yemen
- Leaked: Britain’s Covert Iraqi Psyops Network
- Yemeni Armed Forces Warn Airlines Against Using Saudi Airports, Exempt Mecca and Medina
- If Americans Knew
- No state has a ‘right’ to exist – least of all an apartheid, genocidal state like Israel
- Testimonies about Gaza’s civilian death toll expose Israel’s atrocities – Daily Update
- How Israel Conquered the Latin American Right
- Agents search Rep. Omar’s Washington home in criminal probe as she vows she won’t ‘be silenced’
- “The Rule Was: ‘Shoot Everyone You See'”
- Israel goes ballistic over Nobel Laureate Navi Pillay
- U.S. May Join Yet Another Middle Eastern War — TCN
- Yellow Line moves again as Israel closes in on trapped Gazans – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks Kill Seven Palestinians in Gaza Including Six-year-old Girl
- Gaza: Ceasefire Anniversary Marks Year of Failed Promises
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
