With a ruling that raises serious concerns about government-endorsed monitoring of online speech, a German court has ordered Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, to provide researchers with data to track so-called “election-swaying” information. The decision, handed down by the Berlin district court, follows an urgent complaint filed by two civil rights organizations demanding access to platform analytics ahead of Germany’s national election on February 23.
The court justified its ruling by arguing that “waiting any longer for access to the data would undermine the applicants’ research project since the period immediately before the election is crucial.” X had reportedly failed to respond to a request for information, leading the court to rule against the company and order it to pay €6,000 ($6,255) in legal costs.
The GFF and Democracy Reporting International claim that under European law, platforms like X must provide structured, easily searchable access to information about post reach, shares, and likes.
While this data is already publicly available, albeit requiring manual collection, activists insist that X should make it more accessible to their research efforts — effectively demanding that the platform do its work for them.
With this ruling, X is now compelled to provide this data from now until shortly after the election, a move that could open the door for further demands to police speech under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” The broad and subjective nature of what constitutes “misinformation” raises concerns about selective enforcement, particularly given the German government’s increasingly aggressive stance toward online speech regulation.
Given the timing of the ruling and the increasing pressure on social media platforms to police political speech, this case highlights the growing tension between free expression and state-backed efforts to control online speech.
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he will impose 25 percent tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, as well as additional tariffs on several countries.
Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita writes about nervous movements in Brussels, which is preparing for a response if President Trump decides to go to a trade war with the EU.
“The Polish presidency organized an urgent teleconference of EU ministers on Wednesday afternoon regarding the American announcements of a trade war. No decision has come into effect yet, so there can be no counter-decision from the EU, but in the face of increasingly decisive threats from the U.S. directed by President Trump, Europe must show unity,” one source told Rzeczpospolita.
American tariffs would be a serious blow to EU countries. The EU as a whole exports around €6 billion of steel and aluminum to the US annually, €3 billion for each of these raw materials.
Furthermore, when it comes to automobiles, the EU’s import duties are clearly unfair, with the EU hitting the U.S. with 10 percent duties on U.S.-made cars, while the U.S. rate is only 2.5 percent. Trump has long pointed to this imbalance. In addition, the EU charges VAT, which Washington treats as an additional fee.
The EU is arguing it cannot reduce its tariffs on the U.S. to 2.5 percent because then it would automatically (in accordance with the rules of the most favored nation clause) also have to reduce tariffs on car imports from other member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including China. And it is already in serious dispute with them when it comes to electric cars subsidized by Beijing.
With vehicles, the stakes are incredible for the EU compared, as the auto industry accounts for €65 billion in exports to the U.S., with 74 percent of the 920,000 cars sold in the U.S. produced by the three biggest German car manufacturers, Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes. Car sales have fallen in Europe and sales are also shrinking in China, which means that the German car manufacturers cannot afford to lose the U.S. market either. Behind the scenes, there is heavy lobbying from the U.S. to avoid a trade war.
“We are deeply concerned about the possible imposition of tariffs by the United States. Instead of tit-for-tat tariffs, the EU and the U.S. should work together to reach a grand agreement to avoid a potential trade conflict,” said Sigrid de Vries, secretary general of ACEA, the EU’s automotive industry federation.
Brussels argues that starting a trade war is not in the interests of the U.S.
“The EU sees no justification for imposing tariffs on our exports, which are counterproductive. Tariffs are taxes, bad for businesses, even worse for consumers and harmful to the global trading system,” said Maros Sefcovic, EU trade commissioner.
The EU indicates that it will reduce the trade deficit with the U.S. by boosting purchases of liquified natural gas (LNG), which the EU needs anyway, and American weapons.
However, in the event that Trump slaps the EU with tariffs, there are countermeasures being prepared, including retaliatory tariffs. This already occurred during the previous trade war with Europe under the previous Trump administration, including products produced in states where Trump had substantial support, such as bourbon from Kentucky, Harley Davidson motorcycles from Wisconsin, and orange juice from Florida.
Since the last trade skirmish with Trump, the EU has also gained other ways to harass American producers. Since December 2023, it has had an instrument against economic coercion (ACI), which allows it to impose tariffs, restrictions on trade in services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on access to foreign direct investment or public procurement. It can also attack technology companies that are dear to Trump’s heart. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) contain a wide range of measures to influence large internet platforms, which could hit companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta.
At the same time, there are worries that a trade war could quickly spiral, which could wreak economic havoc on both sides of the Atlantic.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, energy issues, and the exchange of citizens in a telephone call that lasted for one and a half hours, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov revealed.
The phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has triggered a litany of reactions from European politicians.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy posted a joined statement by several European states that read: “Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”
UK Defense Secretary John Healey claimed that no peace talks could be done “about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense chief, lamented the development as “regrettable” arguing that the Trump administration had made “concessions” to Russia, while asserting that “it would have been better to speak about a possible NATO membership for Ukraine or possible losses of territory at the negotiating table.”
Joining the bandwagon, Germany Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock added that “peace can only be achieved together. And that means: with Ukraine and with the Europeans.”
In addition, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that “All we need is peace… Ukraine, Europe and the United States should work on this together.”
For his part, French top diplomat Jean-Noel Barrot insisted that “There will be no just and durable peace in Ukraine without Europeans.”
Meanwhile, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur chimed in, saying: “Europe is investing in Ukrainian defense, and Europe is rebuilding Ukraine with European Union money, with our bilateral aid – so we have to be there.”
And finally, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called for turbo-charging defense production among member states, adding: “We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of strength.”
NATO countries’ ‘aid’ agencies are reeling amid Trump’s freeze on USAID and revelations on the agency’s record of global meddling and largesse. Sputnik has already explored the shady activities of USAID’s British and French cousins. Now it’s Germany’s turn.
The German Corporation for International Cooperation (German acronym GIZ) gets most of its €4 bln ($4.1 bln US) straight from the federal budget, plus EU ‘co-financing’, to support up to 1,700 projects in 120 countries.
Many of GIZ’s projects revolve around ‘climate action’ and ‘sustainability’. From organic farming in Africa to solar/wind power in Latin America, GIZ is involved in pushing countries trying to break out of poverty to adhere to development goals set by the West.
GIZ also supports things like the digitization of governance, local media, Africa’s film industry, and refugee reintegration. In Ukraine, they’ve provided over 1,100 microloans for small businesses from dance studios to fashion ateliers.
A damning 2024 Focus Magazine exposé uncovered tens of millions in questionable GIZ spending, from “vague” multi-million euro grants for “climate awareness” and monitoring projects in Thailand and Turkiye, to €5M spent to make mosques “green” in Morocco, to €44M for bike lanes in Lima as part of a €529M “climate and development partnership.”
In April 2023, the Federal Audit Office revealed, in Focus’s paraphrasing, that “nobody knows what GIZ actually does,” with lack of economic success criteria for projects, lavish salaries up to €240k, first-class flights and a fleet of luxury cars for top officials highlighting the agency’s extravagance.
Waste, combined with the increasingly sorry state of Germany’s own infrastructure amid an unprecedented economic crunch, has prompted opposition figures including the AfD’s Alice Weidel to blast the government for “squandering” millions in tax money on GIZ projects in developing nations “while the transport infrastructure in its own country is in ruins.”
GIZ-USAID cooperation has been extensive, ranging from “climate finance” projects in the developing world to small business development projects in Georgia for the EU’s Eastern Partnership (which aims to sway Russia’s neighbors toward eventual EU membership).
In Ukraine, GIZ has provided “advisory” assistance on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine association agreement – the fateful pact that triggered the 2014 coup and the present European crisis.
The decision of Baltic nations to disconnect themselves from the unified energy system with Russia and Belarus will only worsen the economic prospects for the EU, the Russian Mission to the bloc has said, stressing that the move is politically motivated.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are all members of NATO and the EU, began the two-day process of unplugging from the BRELL Energy Ring on Saturday. They will then join the alternative European power grid, known as ENTSO-E. The step is part of EU nations’ effort to cut long-standing energy links with Russia.
“Disconnecting from the BRELL is a politically motivated move that will drive up regional electricity prices, make power grids less reliable, and further erode the EU’s economic competitiveness,” the mission said on Telegram on Saturday, emphasizing that European households and businesses, primarily in the Baltic countries, will bear the costs.
The mission stressed that the EU economy demonstrated “meager” growth of only 0.8% last year, and highlighted that the continued drive to break energy ties with Moscow would only worsen its prospects.
The three ex-Soviet republics decided to disconnect from BRELL and join ENTSO-E back in 2018. This month they plan to test their power grids in isolation before connecting to the EU energy system via Poland.
Built on the existing interconnected Soviet-era power systems, the BRELL energy ring was established on 7 February 2001. It synchronized the power systems of Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania under Moscow’s central dispatch. Initially, the Baltics depended on Russia for grid stability, while Russia relied on them to power its exclave of Kaliningrad. Russia has since upgraded energy infrastructure in Kaliningrad, reducing its reliance on the Baltic grid.
Authorities in the three states have repeatedly claimed that reliance on the network controlled by Russia jeopardizes their energy security, believing that Moscow could weaponize the electricity supply and sever them from the network on a unilateral basis. Such fears have never materialized.
Controlled by the state, Russian electricity prices are currently among the lowest in the world, averaging around $0.055 per kWh for consumers in 2024. Power prices in the EU vary from nation to nation, with Germany having the highest price per kWh last year at €0.3951 ($0.40).
German MP Sahra Wagenknecht, who leads the self-proclaimed BSW party, urged a referendum on migration in an interview. Referendums on migration are not unprecedented in Europe, the first was held in Hungary in 2016, and the second in Poland in 2023,
“A migration policy that is supported by the majority of the population requires a referendum that gives the federal government a fundamental direction,” Wagenknecht told AFP over the weekend, as reported in Die Welt.
She believes a referendum with a clear result would counter the polarization of society and could take the wind out of the sails of the increasingly popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Wagenknecht further accused the German government of a failure in its migration policy.
“For 10 years, they have allowed a loss of control over migration, which the majority of people in Germany, including most well-integrated immigrants, do not want,” she said.
There is currently no legal basis for a federal referendum in Germany, although smaller states, such as Berlin, offer non-binding referendum votes on local issues. It is also unclear what the exact wording of Wagenknecht’s proposal would be. Many polls show that a majority of Germans want reductions in migrant numbers and say that migrants bring more disadvantages than benefits.
In the wake of soaring crime, terror attacks, and massive burdens on public service, Germans are now saying that migration is the “most important problem.” That is according to the research group Wahlen, which showed 41 percent of men and women listed this, in equal numbers, as the most important issue heading into national elections. That beats out the economy and concerns about the Alternative for Germany party (AfD).
In addition, a majority of Germans are in favor of permanent border controls and rejecting asylum seekers without documentation, according to Wahlen.
“Germans are divided on the question of whether the Union should accept votes from the AfD when’voting on a stricter migration policy: 48 percent of those surveyed think this is “not a good thing,’ 47 percent think it is ‘good.’ At the same time, a clear majority of those surveyed, 63 and 56 percent respectively, are in favor of rejecting asylum seekers without documents and of permanent border controls,” writes NZZ about the Wahlen research polling.
Other countries have utilized referendums, such as Hungary and Poland.
Hungary held a referendum on resettlement quotas in 2016, in which 98.36 percent of valid voters rejected the possibility of the European Union requiring the resettlement of migrants to Hungary, even bypassing Hungarian legislation.
In 2023, Poland held a referendum, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s deputy prime minister at the time, saying that it “will decide the fate of Poland and Poles, whether they can live in a safe, peaceful country.”
NATO has lost its proxy war in Ukraine. Leaders remain in a state of denial as Russian forces advance daily. Economic sanctions on Russia and now China have caused an economic depression in most NATO states. Nations may try to leave NATO to avoid Anglo-American imperial adventures in Ukraine, Africa, and Asia and to trade freely with Russia and China.
As a result, the United States may take enforcement actions against some NATO members to force them to remain part of the alliance. Few Europeans are aware that the United Nations Charter allows this. The Enemy State clauses is a term used to refer to article 107 and parts of article 53 which are exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force in relation to countries that were part of the Axis.
Under article 107, the original United Nations members from World War II are allowed to take enforcement action against any state that had been an enemy during World War II, while article 53 states that the renewal of aggressive action against a former enemy state does not require UN Security Council approval. These may be covert actions too, which occur in Germany.
“Călin Georgescu to appeal ECHR regarding annulment of Romanian presidential elections”; Radu Dumitrescu; Romania-Insider; January 3, 2025; https://www.romania-insider.com/calin…
The belt of neutral states that created a buffer region between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War was an important part of the European security system. After the Cold War, neutrality was gradually abandoned due to a unipolar distribution of power and a complementary liberal ideology that undermined the case for neutrality. The efforts to end Ukraine’s neutrality to pull it into NATO’s orbit, predictably triggered a war. Instead of learning the right lessons, the response to the war has been to further dismantle neutrality from Scandinavia to Moldova, which will predictably also trigger a security competition in these regions.
Despite claims that migrants are going to fund the entire West and save pensions with all the tax funds they generate, reality is once again encroaching. Now, the Berlin Senate is preparing emergency loans to cover refugee costs at a time when Berlin is cutting services, including for schools, due to increasingly dire budget shortfalls.
Notably, a Christian Democrat (CDU), Kai Wegner, is the mayor of Berlin, but under his leadership, not much has changed from the previous left-wing government. Berlin’s Finance Senator Stafan Evers, also of the CDU, is reportedly preparing efforts to provide an emergency loan to cover the cost of refugees.
One of the problems is that Berlin has a debt brake that keeps the city from taking on further debt, but the government says it has the legal ability to make an exception.
Notably, Berlin already froze school budgets in 2024, but these budget cuts are not enough. The figure of €500 million also does not factor in other costs, such as education, integration efforts, and policing.
The report from the CDU, prepared in conjunction with its coalition partners, the Social Democrats (SPD), has not been yet made public, according to Tagesspiegel.
Berlin took in 21,000 fewer refugees last year than in 2022, when 32,752 refugees arrived, mostly due to an extreme shortage of housing. Currently, 41,000 people live in accommodations run by the State Office for Refugee Affairs.
In all likelihood, the solution will be more debt and more spending, with Berlin ready to declare an emergency to make up for the shortfalls.
On the federal level, the situation may be even more dire, with nearly €50 billion spent on migrants in 2023. Across Germany and much of the Western world, immigration is not only fueling a debt crisis, but it is also a major factor in skyrocketing housing prices.
The genocide unfolding in Gaza continues to expose the inadequacies of the international judiciary, organizations, and, more importantly, the complicity of part of the global community of nations in enabling such atrocities.
Germany Taken to the ICJ for Complicity in Genocide
Germany also maintains unwavering and unconditional political and diplomatic support for Israel. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock displayed a cheerleader-like demeanor during her initial visit to support Israel after October 7—a stance echoed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
According to the Middle East Eye, Germany’s support for Israel’s actions highlights a hypocritical approach to international law and human rights. The analysis goes further: “No one can reasonably believe in the fairytale of Germany’s moral responsibility anymore, as the country defends, finances, arms, and diplomatically supports the genocide of Palestinians, in addition to the bombing of Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, while shielding those responsible from accountability.”
Protests Against Israel Are Considered “Antisemitic” in Germany
With the Bundestag’s adoption last November of the resolution “Never again is now: Protecting, preserving, and strengthening Jewish life in Germany”, the country has entered a proto-fascistic state—without any condemnation from the European Union. Policymakers crafting this resolution refused input from diverse human rights groups and instead relied solely on the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
Even before this resolution, but now bolstered by it, Germany has witnessed a gradual erosion of democracy under its ‘proud guilty’ ideology. This includes prior censorship of cultural events partially or fully funded by public money, the cancellation of events featuring critics of Israel’s government, and even conferences discussing the Palestinian question. Concurrently, there has been a sharp rise in the smearing of critics with allegations of antisemitism. Make no mistake—censorship is alive and well in Germany. Protests critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza are being unjustly and undemocratically labelled as antisemitic.
Further, children can be banned from schools for wearing “pro-Palestinian symbols such as the keffiyeh,” as is written in a letter sent to school principals by Berlin’s education senator, Katharina Günther-Wünsch.
Furthermore, this resolution introduced a mandatory declaration for asylum seekers, requiring them to affirm the existence of the state of Israel and pledge not to participate in or support boycott campaigns against it.
Over the past month, German politicians have called for changing laws, including those around the right to demonstrate and freedom of opinion. The idea of withdrawing citizenship, residency, welfare benefits or funding from anyone accused of making anti-Semitic statements has been floated as well as a plan to only allow “native Germans” to protest.
Prior to this resolution, we have already witnessed undemocratic and even fascistic actions in Germany. These include the arrest of citizens for trivial reasons, such as holding a placard stating “I am not complicit in genocide,” and the arrest of a child for holding a Palestinian flag. Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis was prohibited from addressing a Jew-Palestinian conference and from permanently speaking to the German public online. A meeting organised by the progressive collective DiEM25, alongside Palestinian and Jewish Voice for Peace groups, on April 12th, 2024, was disrupted, dismantled, and labelled an “Islamist” event by the Interior Ministry.
Furthermore, the renowned British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu-Sitta, who volunteered in Gaza hospitals during the genocide, was banned from entering Germany. Dr Abu-Sitta was due to provide a firsthand account of the atrocities taking place on the ground. Due to Germany’s Schengen-wide interdiction, he was also barred from entering France to speak at a French Senate meeting, despite being invited by the Senate itself.
These actions raise pressing and undeniable questions about a democratic deficit and institutional racism within German governmental structures.
A Threat to Germany’s Academic Freedom and Reputation?
Protests critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been wrongfully labelled antisemitic. The German Education Ministry sought to explore whether academic funding could be cut for those critical of clearing the pro-Palestinian camp at Freie Universität Berlin (Free University Berlin). This crackdown led to police detaining over 70 individuals temporarily and initiating 80 criminal investigations, alongside 79 misdemeanour proceedings.
Ironically, the Education Minister, Bettina Stark-Watzinger of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), previously declared that freedom is the foundation “for the way we live in our country, for our democracy, our constitutional state, and our prosperity.” She made this statement during the launch of Germany’s Science Year 2024.
In stark contrast, over 2,900 academics have accused Stark-Watzinger of threatening freedom of expression, calling for her resignation in an open letter. The letter, signed by thousands of German and international academics, accuses the education minister of intimidation, stating: “Repressive reviews of academics who publicly express critical views of governmental decisions are characteristic of authoritarian regimes that systematically suppress free discussion, including within universities.”
Why is Germany Having This Behaviour?
Driven by its ideology of ‘proud guilt,’ which elevates support for Israel to a raison d’état, Germany appears to have abandoned all sense of proportionality and reason—where even a child wearing a keffiyeh in a school is deemed a threat to Israel’s existence and, by extension, to German security.
In many respects, it now exhibits the characteristics of a quasi-fascist state. My few examples above, out of thousands, support this claim. To make things worse, the German government refuses to comply with the ICC prosecutor’s request to arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
According to Körber Fondation’s latest survey, which polls German citizens on foreign policy, only 19% of Germans support their country’s military aid to Israel. This shows a blatant divide between Germany’s political/media elites and the people they are supposed to represent.
German citizens deserve to know why their freedoms are being restricted and whose interests are being served. Why do Israel’s interests take precedence over those of German citizens and Germany’s international reputation? Why must the Palestinian people continue to pay the price for Germany’s past mistakes? I will delve into this matter further in my next article.
To conclude, the most astonishing aspect of these atrocities against German freedoms and the Palestinian people is the deafening silence of the European Union and the European Human Rights Court. The double standards of the European institutions are blatant and hypocritical.
Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
The United States has begun the forward deployment of a new generation of its B61 nuclear gravity bomb at bases in Europe, a senior administrator has announced. What signal does the deployment send to Moscow? What impact will it have on strategic security in Europe? Sputnik turned to a senior former Pentagon insider for answers.
“The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed, and we have increased NATO’s visibility to our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements,” US National Nuclear Security Administration chief Jill Hruby revealed in a talk at the Hudson Institute this week.
“Our strategic partnership with the UK is very strong, as is their commitment to their nuclear deterrent. And we have advanced our thinking together about critical supply chain resilience. NATO is strong,” Hruby added, hinting at the prospects for ‘enhanced’ nuclear cooperation.
Reports have been swirling in recent years about US plans to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in the UK at the RAF base at Lakenheath, although no official announcements have been made to date.
The B61-12, also known as the B61 Mod 12, is the latest upgrade to the US variable yield nuclear gravity bomb design first rolled out in the late 1960s. The Mod 12 is set to replace the older Mod 3, 4 and 7 variants of the weapon, and features a 0.3-50 kt yield.
Testing of the B61-12 was completed in 2020, with production starting in late 2021, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists expecting 400-500 of the weapons to be produced, in part for deployments abroad.
Older variants of the munition are currently deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye’s Incerlick Air Base. NATO has approved the weapons to be used in battle by select alliance members as part of the bloc’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements.
The announcement of the bombs’ deployment in Europe is meant to “signal to Moscow that NATO and particularly the UK… are prepared for any ‘attack’ on any NATO country,” says ex-DoD analyst Michael Maloof.
What it really signals is just how much of a US protectorate Western European countries and the UK have allowed themselves to become, Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst with the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, said.
“When I used to live there on a military base, we used to joke how the UK was nothing but a floating aircraft carrier because of all the US bases on the RAF facilities there,” the observer, who grew up in southern England during the Cold War, recalled.
The nukes’ deployment once again “underscores how NATO has evolved not into a defensive alliance, but an offensive alliance,” with the bases where the bombs are stored obvious targets for Russia in the event of a deadly escalation, Maloof said.
Can Trump Fix a Broken Alliance?
Maloof hopes that under Trump 2.0, “a total reevaluation of the deployment of US bases throughout NATO” will take place, especially in Germany but possibly also the UK.
NATO’s continued existence, the alliance’s “Cold War 2.0” against Russia and the bloc’s eastward expansion have been a disaster for European security, the observer said.
“I think it’s the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it. This perennial cycle has just got to cease. And given how we don’t even have a defense against hypersonics… it really shows that we’re reaching a very dangerous pinnacle here of escalation.”
The nuke deployment, the termination of the INF Treaty during Trump’s first term and other factors have “made Europe an all the more dangerous place to be,” Maloof emphasized, with reaction time in case of a nuclear escalation being “virtually nil.”
“I think that this posturing that we continually see to ‘show deterrence’ is actually making the West even more vulnerable to attack because it is an agitating factor,” the observer added.
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … 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.
Aletho News 