Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s highly unpopular military conscription produces ‘ghost soldiers’ and widespread corruption

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2024

The end of June marked one month since Ukraine adopted a new law on military conscription that significantly limits the rights of Ukrainians. During this time, Ukrainian media has been full of reports, daily and even hourly, of ‘kidnappings’, as many Ukrainians put it, by military conscription officers from the streets and neighborhoods of the country of military-age men (25 and older) deemed fit for battle. Fighting between enlistment officers and civilians resisting their work is increasing, as is the publicizing of it all in Ukraine media.

Even pro-war, Western newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post can no longer hide from their readers the story of citizen resistance to conscription in Ukraine, as they have been doing for years.

Tension in Ukraine over forced conscription is growing daily. The Ukrainian military is promoting (and enforcing through conscription) its idea that justice demands that all Ukrainian men submit to the horrors of war, just as its soldiers have done for more than two years in direct confrontation with the Russian armed forces and in direct confrontation with the self-defense forces in Donbass for eight years before that. The Kiev regime launched a civil war against the people of Donbass (today the Russian Federation republics of Donetsk and Lugansk) in the spring of 2014, seeking to crush the deep-going opposition there to the far-right paramilitary coup of February 2014 that overthrew Ukraine’s elected president and legislature.

In response to the conscription terror unfolding daily in the streets and neighborhoods of the country, Ukrainian military vehicles are now being set on fire every day in various cities. Local residents believe the targeted vehicles to be transporting military enlistment officers, not ordinary soldiers. One result is that rank-and-file military personnel are increasingly placing notices on their transport vehicles reading ‘Not military recruiters’. As they conduct their work, lone military enlistment officers are coming under attack far to the rear of the front lines, even in western Ukraine.

The Ukrainian telegram channel ‘Skeptic‘ comments on the confrontations, writing, “People do not understand who, exactly, is appearing before them in uniform: is it a simple military man, or is it military enlistment officer? The forced conscription being carried out by the authorities at the hands of military recruiters leads people to take illegal actions. Along with simple efforts to avoid the conscription officers, people are increasingly fighting back with their bare hands when cornered, risking their lives or their freedom in order to do everything possible to avoid going to the war front and suffering the fate of so many before them who have lost their lives or their health.

“The number of disabled people in Ukraine now exceeds three million, and their number is growing by more than 30,000 people every month through the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU),” the Skeptic channel writes.

On June 11, Ukrainians were stirred by media broadcasting a mass brawl in the city of Odessa between ambulance drivers and the military enlistment officers who were trying to conscript one of them. Dozens of ambulance drivers from all over the city came to the aid of their colleague, at which point several civilian vigilantes joined with the recruiters in beating the ambulance drivers with baseball bats.

According to a report in the widely-read, Ukraine media outlet Strana, the vigilantes were members of voluntary police assistance squads. These have been established since 2022. Private security companies often enroll their employees in such units. In fact, these are paramilitary formations dedicated to assisting military enlistment officers and police to seize eligible conscripts. A ‘bonus’ for the members of such vigilante groups is that they are accorded protection against conscription.

The Strana report explains, “In addition, cooperation with military enlistment officers and the police gives the members of the ‘assistance detachments’ many ways for illegal earnings. For example, they often act as intermediaries in giving bribes to the enlistment officers – naturally, for a certain percentage. There are also schemes to issue, for a fee, taxi cab passes for nighttime travel [which is supposed to be forbidden]. The struggle for such financial flows periodically causes serious clashes between the ‘assistance detachments’ in Odessa.”

The terror inflicted by military recruiters against civilians is dictated not so much by the desire for ‘justice’ on the military front [equality in military service] as by common corruption. ‘Failures’ to issue conscription notices and erasing of computerized conscription data on Ukrainians liable for military service can cost several thousand dollars. Even some children of military commissars are involved in such illegal business in order to avoid service. In mid-June, for example, the son of the head of one of the military enlistment offices in the Vinnytsia region was detained after he was found to be arranging travel abroad for men seeking to escape the country at prices approaching the equivalent of US$20,000. During searches of the son’s premises, authorities found conscription notices and copies of passports of more than a dozen men of the age of military service, plus a lot of cash, including US dollars. He is now facing a possible jail sentence of eight years and the loss of his personal property. It is illegal for men of military age to leave Ukraine unless they have special permission (care of a frail elder, for example).

Ukrainians also know that military recruiters are choosing not to patrol and raid certain vacation spots or shopping locations frequented by wealthy Ukrainians. One restaurant owner told Strana on condition of anonymity, that this is happening largely due to large bribes. A restaurant owner in Odessa told the publication, “Each chain of shopping malls negotiates independently with military recruiters; not directly but through the mediation of the regional governing administration. Naturally, for large payoffs. I can’t tell you the amount of payment for the ‘security zone’, but the sums start from 5-10 thousand dollars and more, per month, depending on the size of the shopping center and its popularity.”

“Each network of shopping and entertainment centers negotiates independently with the military registration and enlistment offices, but not directly. They negotiate through mediation by the regional city administration. Naturally, for large payoffs I cannot say what is the exact fee for protection in a ‘security zone’, but the amounts start at 5,000 to 10,000 [U$] each month, depending on the size of the shopping complex and its popularity.”

Despite all the uproar taking place in Ukraine over conscription, the results on the front line are barely visible, writes a correspondent on Telegram from the ‘Kholodnyi Yar ‘unit of the AFU. “This is partly due to the fact that newly conscripted soldiers are merely replacing the dead and wounded. Corruption and fictitious servicemen who exist only on paper are partly to blame.”

The ‘First War News’ Telegram channel writes on June 18, “In Donetsk region, the accountant of one of the military units along with two other unit members organized a scheme to enter fictitious data about the participation of soldiers in combat operations in order to collect the bonuses for direct military action for all three participants in the scheme.”

A similar scheme operated in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led occupation of the country from 2001-2012. Al Jazeera reported back in 2021 why the Afghan army that was built up painstakingly for years by the occupation forces fell apart so quickly. Its report explained, “First, there was widespread corruption in Afghanistan’s defense and interior ministries, where funds, ammunition, and food deliveries were stolen before reaching the soldiers on the ground… Furthermore, some commanders embezzled money by submitting fund requests for the salaries of ‘ghost soldiers’; that is, soldiers who had never actually signed up for the military. As all this was happening, the soldiers of the Afghan comprador army were left unpaid and frequently denied for months at a time permission to visit their families on leave.

Unsurprisingly, the Afghan armed forces under Western tutelage had one of the highest desertion and casualty rates of armies in the world. One estimate placed the army’s monthly attrition rate at 5,000, while the monthly recruitment rate was 300 to 500.

The Ukrainian telegram channel ‘Kartel’ describes how similar schemes are taking place in the AFU. “The simplest schemes are those involving ghost soldiers. Fictitious recruits are enrolled and sent to the frontline and the salaries and bonuses go into the commanders’ pockets. Secondly, commanders record of non-existent ‘destruction’ of enemy equipment in order to earn bonuses. Thirdly, they sell places in the rear and in reserve units, and fourthly, they sell vacations and sick leaves to soldiers”.

The underground Ukrainian Marxist organization Workers’ Front of Ukraine (WFU)  wrote on Telegram on June 13 about the corruption that has permeated much of the AFU. “If you want to be dismissed, you must pay up. If you are found guilty of a crime or misdemeanor, you must pay up. If you don’t want any trouble, you must pay up. Tens of millions of hryvnias are leaking out of the state budget through payments to so-called ‘gray souls’ [ghost soldier] schemes, for which the military unit receives allowances.

“The alcohol trade is also blossoming. If you are caught drinking too much vodka sold to you by your officers, you are fined, further boosting corrupt earnings. And so on. In one of the buildings of the ‘second headquarters’ a mining farm has been organized, the electricity bills of which are covered by our taxes.”

The Ukrainian Telegram channel ‘Resident‘ writes on June 17 that, in essence, the ever-tightening law on military conscription is transforming military recruiters into a new economic elite, and a deeply corrupt elite at that. The already tense atmosphere in Ukrainian society due to conscription is being aggravated by all the reports of corruption and bribery. And despite the corruption scandals, military enlistment officers actually remain quite untouchable in Ukraine. They have become the unspoken and unassigned decision-makers of the fates of tens, hundreds of thousands of human beings in Ukraine. They are assigned the power to manage this diminishing number of potential military recruits, and they are managing this ‘resource’ in their own, personal interest.

In earlier times, Ukrainians paid bribes to officials for any old certificate or license. They would pay bribes for the right to receive medical care from doctors or even for a necessary conveyance in an ambulance. They would pay bribes to the police to avoid a fine for a traffic violation. Now they are paying bribes for the simple act of walking down the street, working, shopping, getting married, or adopting a child–all in order not to end up in a bombed-out foxhole at the frontline.

Recently, fugitive conscription evaders have begun to stage mass breakthroughs in large groups through the Transcarpathia region in western Ukraine and across the border.  The region is Ukraine’s gateway westward into the European Union.

On June 9, 32 people traveling in a transport truck bearing fake military license plates broke through the border to Hungary. The truck was full of fugitives and simply drove off-road at top speed into the neighboring territory. The truck was tracked down by Hungarian border guards and soon after, the fugitives surrendered to the Hungarian authorities near the village of Barabash. Local residents claimed in comments to local media that the fugitives were various Ukraine law enforcement officers who were facing assignments to the war front.

Ukrainian soldiers and officers are also, increasingly, complaining about the ineffective military tactics of their high command. The soldiers are reduced to fighting for every house and every scrap of forested land, even in the most unfavorable situations. This is due to the extreme pressure on military authorities to demonstrate ‘effectiveness’ to the U.S. and NATO military leadership in order for Ukraine may continue receiving military funding and weapons from them.

Ukrainian battalion commander Ivan Mateyko stated in an interview with the Focus newsmagazine that military units are being severely punished for abandoning their positions. For the sake of its public relations, the AFU does not withdraw people even from the last, surrounded house in a village so that the village may still be said by superior officers to be under ‘Ukrainian’ control. “Losing a military position is punished, even when you are holding the last house in a village because as long as you are in that house, the village is considered ours. It doesn’t matter how many people die for the sake of holding that house. It doesn’t matter that that house has been surrounded for a week, cannot safely receive supplies, and cannot safely evacuate the wounded and dead,” he said.

According to Mateyko, when the situation is a stalemate and there are not enough soldiers to mount an adequate defense, commanders decide to indiscriminately send everyone into battle. He believes that commanders are sending people to their deaths in such circumstances out of fear of losing their positions or fear of being penalized.

Alexei Arestovich, a former adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine (2020-2023) and a far-right ideologue, notes that the AFU is not learning anything new from its experiences in battle. He compares this to the army of the Soviet Union in Crimea during World War Two. He writes on Telegram, “They tried different methods, from mechanical to moral and psychological from 1941 onward. [Nazi Germany occupied Crimea, after bitter struggle, from late 1941 until liberation in 1944.] By 1943-1944, they had learned to fight. The difference between the Red Army of 1941 compared to the Red Army of 1944 is the difference between heaven and earth. They tried, tried, and tried again. After 30 unsuccessful attempts, the 31st attempt would succeed.”

Arestovich asks, “How does Ukraine’s army today compare? Our valiant armed forces do not want to learn, nothing happens. I am looking at this and asking myself, ‘During two and a half years of struggle against our original [sic] enemy, what changes have occurred in the armed forces? Even organizational changes, reflecting accumulated experience? This army has long been driven by inertia and is simply wearing itself out without trying to make sense of events, without trying to draw any conclusions.”

A leader of the neo-Nazi paramilitary battalion ‘Azov’, Dmytro Kukharchuk, believes that Kiev is losing its war. He believes the Russian Federation has no need at all to sue for peace as it is in a much more favorable position. “Yes, we are losing this war now. It’s obvious. We are losing territories, we are losing the best people. Many people say: ‘Everything is going fine and soon we will conclude a peace treaty with Russia.’ But the main question is, why does the Russian Federation need to negotiate peace?” According to him, the strategy of a creeping offensive (war of attrition) which the Russian army has chosen is serving it very well, while the consequences for Ukraine are not only unpleasant, they are critical.

Notwithstanding these words, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a quite specific proposal for peace in mid-June. It would require the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, renunciation by Kiev of Ukraine’s specious claim over Crimea, and renunciation by Kiev of present or future NATO membership.

The U.S. administration and then Ukraine quickly rejected this proposal, as if on cue. The key stumbling block is not so much control of the regions presently under Russia’s control, but future NATO membership for Ukraine. NATO is using Ukraine as a proxy force in this war and toward the goal of NATO membership.

Former Ukrainian journalist and today a political exile, Rostyslav Ishchenko, comments on June 18: “Russia has declared the need to create a unified security system in Eurasia, without the participation of non-Eurasian states. For the first time, albeit indirectly, Moscow has raised the issue of NATO’s liquidation, since without the U.S. military presence in Europe, the bloc loses its meaning and the USA becomes a non-Eurasian power.”

For his part, NATO head Jens Stoltenberg is promising that Ukraine will join NATO as soon as it defeats Russia, which is to say ‘never’. Despite the grim military situation facing the Ukraine regime, Western leaders are instructing Kiev to refrain from any negotiations with Russia.

Oleh Soskin, a former adviser to Leonid Kuchma (the second, post-Soviet Ukraine president from 1995 to 2004 and today a political analyst) has recently written on Telegram that the West is quite satisfied with the killing of Ukrainian citizens at the hands of the country’s capitalist elite. “They are all very satisfied with the fact that this Zelensky, A.Yermak [head of the Office of the President of Ukraine], D.Arahamiya [head of the legislature faction of Zelensky’s political machine], R.Stefanchuk [speaker of the legislature] and, naturally, D. Shmygal [prime minister since 2020] are very good at using Ukrainians as weapons and cannon fodder.”

Indeed, the Ukraine regime is acquiring yet more funding and weapons from the West and sending yet more Ukrainians to their deaths in order to please the elites of the NATO countries.

From time to time, I personally witness clashes taking place between civilians and Ukrainian military enlistment officers. I have witnessed outraged women trying to wrestle their sons and husbands out of the clutches of military conscriptors. “Let Zelensky go to the trenches!,” they shout. “Let him send his own children off to war! Let Biden himself fight the Russians!” Needless to say, this sharp, civilian erosion of support for Kiev’s and NATO’s war does not bode well for either.

June 27, 2024 Posted by | Corruption | , , , , | Leave a comment

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan suspends doctor for prescribing Ivermectin, fines him $44,784

Licence of Sask. doctor who prescribed Ivermectin for COVID-19 to be suspended

Dr. Tshipita Kabongo faced two sets of charges relating to unprofessional conduct, brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

Author of the article: Brandon Harder

Published June 17, 2024

Regina doctor Tshipita Kabongo has admitted to unprofessional conduct in relation to two sets of charges brought against him by the oversight body for Saskatchewan physicians.

That’s according to Bryan Salte, associate registrar for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS).

Kabongo had one such charge brought against him in March of 2023 in relation to his failing to know and/or follow the CPSS Policy on Complementary and Alternative Therapies when he prescribed Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, to treat COVID-19.

He also faced four additional professional charges, brought against him in March of 2024. Of those, three pertained to his work with specific patients, alleging he “failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession,” while the fourth charge was in relation to billing for his services.

The 2024 charges also made reference to inappropriate prescription of Ivermectin, as well as cannabinoids, benzodiazepines, Vitamin B12, and supplements.

Charges brought by that oversight body are not criminal charges but pertain to conduct that does not comply with the rules that govern its members.

Salte advised, via email, that a hearing was held with regard to Kabongo’s matters in June, and a penalty was imposed on him.

With regard to penalty, the CPSS council decided Kabongo is to receive a written reprimand.

In addition, his licence is to be suspended for one month, starting Aug. 1, 2024.

He is to practice only under the supervision of “a duly qualified medical practitioner approved by the Registrar.”

“The requirement for supervision will continue until the Registrar concludes that Dr. Kabongo is no longer required to practise under supervision,” the council decision states.

The supervisor is to provide the CPSS with reports as to the status of Kabongo’s practice.

Kabongo is also directed to pay costs associated to the investigation and the hearing in the amount of $44,783.72. This amount is to be paid in 24 equal instalments, beginning August 1.

If he fails to pay these costs as required, his licence is to be suspended until he pays in full.

— with files from Pam Cowan

bharder@postmedia.com

======

Regina doctor suspended for prescribing Ivermectin for COVID

Saskatoon / 650 CKOM

Lisa Schick

June 18, 2024

A Regina doctor has been suspended from practicing for a month this summer for prescribing Ivermectin for COVID-19.

The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons found that over two years, between April 2020 and March 2022, Tshipita Kabongo prescribed the drug as either a treatment or to prevent COVID-19 at his practice in Regina

He was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.

In a decision released this month, the college said Kabongo failed to follow the its policy on alternative therapies, which says patients have a right to make decisions about their health care but doctors who choose to use complementary or alternative therapies have to do so in a way that’s informed by medical evidence and science.

“It is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no acceptable scientific basis, may be dangerous, may deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking conventional care until his or her condition becomes irreversible,” the policy states.

The college’s decision on Kabongo said one or more of the prescriptions he gave out weren’t medically necessary, he failed to recommend other evidence-informed treatment options, and he didn’t properly document the prescriptions in medical records.

As a result, Kabongo will be suspended from practising for one month in August. He’ll have to have someone supervise him when he returns to practising, and he’ll have to pay the cost of the investigation and hearing, which added up to $44,783.72.

Ivermectin is a drug meant to treat parasites as an oral medicine and rosacea as a topical medication. However, some on social media promoted it as a cure for COVID during the pandemic which began in 2020.

In the fall of 2021, Health Canada and several medical groups in Saskatchewan put out public messages warning people against the use of Ivermectin for COVID, particularly the stronger and more dangerous veterinary formulation.

“There is no evidence that Ivermectin works to prevent or treat COVID-19 and it is not authorized for this use. To date, Health Canada has not received any drug submission or applications for clinical trials for Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,” explained a public notice from Health Canada issued in October, 2021.

A memo issued around the same time by the College of Physician and Surgeons, along with several other Saskatchewan medical groups, said that while there have been studies on Ivermectin, the study limitations like sample sizes and confounding factors mean that conclusions couldn’t be drawn, and so Ivermectin was disapproved of for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

DR. WILLIAM MAKIS MD | JUNE 23, 2024:

My Take…

This is yet another example of criminal behavior by a College, this time by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

It is time to start filing criminal charges against College Officials.

These Colleges, through their actions, have killed thousands of Canadians already and if Canadians don’t take the Colleges back, the Colleges will continue to take many more lives in the future.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

German Health Officials Caved to Political Pressure on COVID Policies, Newly Released Documents Show

By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | June 25, 2024

Newly released internal documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease control and prevention agency, reveal a stark disconnect between expert knowledge and public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stefan Homburg, a public finance expert and retired professor from Leibniz University of Hanover, brought “seven shocking RKI files” to the attention of the English-speaking world in a video published June 19.

The January 2020 to April 2021 documents suggest that scientific advisers tailored their COVID-19 medical and policy recommendations to align with political directives rather than available evidence.

Commenting on Homburg’s video, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon, called the political interference with RKI’s scientific analysis and recommendations “appalling” and RKI’s continuing compliance “cowardly.”

‘This event was wholly political’

RKI played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s COVID-19 response. The recently disclosed files include internal meeting minutes from the agency’s crisis management team.

Initially kept confidential, the documents came to light in March — with some portions heavily redacted — following legal action by journalist Paul Schreyer, author of the documentary, “Pandemic simulation games: Preparation for a new era?”

RKI subsequently made over 2,500 mostly unredacted pages publicly available on May 30, citing “public interest in the content of the COVID-19 crisis team protocols.”

According to the RKI’s introduction to the released files, the minutes “reflect the open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed up.”

The institute cautioned that individual statements in the documents “do not necessarily represent a coordinated position of the RKI and are not always understandable without knowledge of the context.”

Yeadon wrote, “I don’t think there’s an equivalent document which admits repeatedly that this event was wholly POLITICAL and decisions entirely driven by non-technically qualified political people at the top of government.”

‘Experts knew this but stated the opposite’

Homburg discussed how the RKI documents expose several discrepancies between internal expert discussions and public health messaging:

COVID-19 severity: Contrary to public messaging, internal discussions suggested COVID-19 might be less severe than typical influenza. “More people die in a normal influenza wave,” one entry reads. “The main risk of dying of COVID-19 is age.”

“Right — 83 years to be precise, in Germany,” Homburg said.

Mask efficacy: The files show a lack of evidence supporting widespread mask use. “There is no evidence for the use of FFP2 [also known as N95, KN95 or P2] masks outside of occupational health and safety,” one entry notes, adding that the information “could also be made available to the public.”

“Rather, the public was fooled and forced for years to wear FFP2 masks,” Homburg said.

School closures: Experts recommended school closures only in heavily affected areas. “School closures in areas that are not particularly affected are not recommended,” the documents state.

However, Homburg observed, “In the same week, politicians decided to close all German schools for months.”

Vaccine effectiveness and herd immunity: As early as January 2021, RKI experts questioned the propaganda around herd immunity. One entry reads, “Are we saying goodbye to the narrative of herd immunity through vaccination?”

“Pfizer’s preceding clinical trial had not demonstrated protection against serious illness and they had not even tested protection against transmission,” Homburg pointed out. “The experts knew this but stated the opposite in public and even before our courts.”

Vaccine side effects: One file reveals concerns about serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “Sinus thrombosis is a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine,” the document states. “There is also a 20-fold increased incidence in men.”

Homburg alleged that shortly after this statement, “German politicians pretended to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.” He showed images of various newspapers announcing vaccinations by Chancellor Angela Merkel, Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach and others.

Despite this internal acknowledgment, Homburg noted, “The experts did not inform the population about this danger, but insisted that AstraZeneca was safe and effective.”

‘Corona was a singular fraud’

The documents reveal a concerning level of political influence on scientific recommendations. One entry starkly illustrates this pressure: “Still high risk, order from the Federal Health Ministry: nothing will be changed until the first of July.”

This directive apparently led to pushing high-risk assessments despite declining case numbers. Homburg argued that this political interference helped the continuation of pandemic mandates.

“In fact, nothing was changed for three years,” he said. “To recall, in summer 2020, Corona cases were approaching zero and the public wanted a halt to the measures.”

The files also expose the experts’ fears of losing their advisory roles if they didn’t comply with political directives. One entry reads, “If the RKI does not comply with the political requirement, there is a risk that political decisionmakers will develop indicators themselves and/or no longer involve the RKI in similar assignments.”

“Corona was a singular fraud,” Homburg concluded. “The virus replaced influenza while the total number of illnesses remained unchanged.”

German politicians divided on response

The documents’ release ignited a fierce debate about the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, reaching the German Bundestag. The following is adapted from Schreyer’s April 30 report on Radio Munich (translated from German).

On April 24, 2024, the Parliament deliberated on a motion by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group to establish a commission of inquiry to review the Corona period. The proposed commission would examine the limits of intervention rights of state and federal governments and review the roles of relevant actors such as RKI.

The debate revealed deep divisions among political parties. The AfD and Free Democratic Party (FDP) supported the establishment of an inquiry commission, while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green parties (also called Alliance 90) opposed it, arguing for alternative approaches such as a citizens’ council. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) faction suggested a federal-state working group instead.

Some politicians expressed concerns about the RKI files. CDU member Simone Borchardt argued that the handling of the RKI documents — first releasing them with redactions, then later allowing access to unredacted versions — suggested a deliberate attempt to control or limit information.

The debate also touched on broader issues, with some calling for amnesty for citizens who violated lockdown measures. Others warned against seeking scapegoats or spreading “half-baked conspiracy ideas.”

Since Schreyer’s report, the political landscape in Germany has shifted significantly. The June 2024 European parliamentary elections saw a decline in support for the governing coalition parties, while the far-right AfD made substantial gains, likely strengthening the position of those critical of the government’s pandemic response.

Yeadon called for increased activism to bring more attention to Homburg’s and Schreyer’s revelations, especially in light of the recent “drumbeat of ‘avian influenza’” or bird flu.

“This task cannot be left to a small number of us with the information, because we are so effectively gagged in relation to reaching large numbers of people that the perpetrators are no longer concerned about us speaking out,” he wrote.

Homburg’s background, pandemic criticism

Homburg’s academic background is diverse, encompassing economics, mathematics and philosophy.

From 1996 to 2003, he served on the Scientific Advisory Board at Germany’s Federal Ministry of Finance. He also was a member of the Federalism Commission of the Bundestag and Bundesrat from 2003 to 2004, and the Sustainability Council of the Federal Government from 2004 to 2007.

He authored several textbooks on macroeconomics and tax theory and has been regularly called upon as an expert for Bundestag hearings on tax and financial legislation.

Homburg was generally regarded favorably in the press until 2020 when he began questioning Germany’s pandemic policies. Since then, he has written scientific articles and blog posts on the coronavirus crisis and related topics, published podcasts and participated in interviews and talk shows.

In April 2022, Homberg published, “Corona-GETwitter: Chronik einer Wissenschafts-, Medien- und Politikkrise” (“Corona Twitter-Storm: Chronicle of a Science, Media and Political Crisis”), where he presented his pandemic-related tweets on X (formerly known as Twitter).

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Rules 6-3 That Biden Regime Pressuring Platforms To Censor Speech Doesn’t Violate First Amendment

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 26, 2024 

The US Supreme Court has ruled in the hotly-awaited decision for the Murthy v. Missouri case, reinforcing the government’s ability to engage with social media companies concerning the removal of speech about COVID-19 and more. This decision, affirming that these actions do not infringe upon First Amendment rights, delineates the limits of free speech on the internet, dealing a massive blow to freedom of expression online and the interpretation that the First Amendment prevents the government from pressuring platforms to remove legal speech.

The verdict, decided by a 6-3 vote, found that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue the Biden administration. The dissenting opinions came from conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, responded to the ruling, telling Reclaim The Net, “The majority of the Supreme Court has declared open season on Americans’ free speech rights on the internet,” referring to the decision as an “ukase” that permits the federal government to influence third-party platforms to silence dissenting voices. Vecchione accused the Court of ignoring evidence and abdicating its responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions that crush free speech.

Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, echoed Vecchione’s sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty for the First Amendment” and a setback for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. “The Court has green-lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime,” Younes commented, reflecting concerns that the ruling might stifle expert voices on crucial public health and policy issues.

Further expressing the gravity of the situation, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a client of NCLA and a professor at Stanford University, criticized the Biden Administration’s regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya argued that these actions led to “irrational policies” and noted, “Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health.” He called for congressional action and a public movement to restore and protect free speech rights in America.

This ruling comes as a setback to efforts supported by many who argue that the administration, together with federal agencies, is pushing social media platforms to suppress voices by labeling their content as misinformation.

Previously, a judge in Louisiana had criticized the federal agencies for acting like an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” However, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, it was argued by the government that their requests for social media platforms to address “misinformation” more rigorously did not constitute threats or imply any legal repercussions – despite the looming threat of antitrust action against Big Tech.

Here are the key points and specific quotes from the decision:

Lack of Article III Standing: The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established the necessary standing to seek an injunction against government defendants. The decision emphasizes the fundamental requirement of a “case or controversy” under Article III, which necessitates that plaintiffs demonstrate an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling” (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409).

Inadequate Traceability and Future Harm: The plaintiffs failed to convincingly link past social media restrictions and government communications with the platforms. The decision critiques the Fifth Circuit’s approach, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show that government actions directly caused the platforms’ moderation decisions. The Court pointed out: “Because standing is not dispensed in gross, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431).The complexity arises because the platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.”

Absence of Direct Causation: The Court noted that the platforms began suppressing COVID-19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications began, indicating a lack of direct government coercion: “Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”

Redressability and Ongoing Harm: The plaintiffs argued they suffered from ongoing censorship, but the Court found this unpersuasive. The platforms continued their moderation practices even as government communication subsided, suggesting that future government actions were unlikely to alter these practices: “Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion.”

“Right to Listen” Theory Rejected: The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ “right to listen” argument, stating that the First Amendment interest in receiving information does not automatically confer standing to challenge someone else’s censorship: “While the Court has recognized a ‘First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,’ the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.”

The case revolved around allegations that the federal government, led by figures such as Dr. Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, (though also lots more Biden administration officialscolluded with major technology companies to suppress speech on social media platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration targeted content labeled as “misinformation,” particularly concerning COVID-19 and political matters, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

The plaintiffs claim that this coordination represents a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue that while private companies can set their own content policies, government pressure that leads to the suppression of lawful speech constitutes unconstitutional censorship by proxy.

The government’s campaign against what it called “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – regardless of whether online statements turned out to be true or not – has been extensive.

However, Murthy v. Missouri exposed a darker side to these initiatives—where government officials allegedly overstepped their bounds by coercing tech companies to silence specific narratives.

Communications presented in court, including emails and meeting records, suggest a troubling pattern: government officials not only requested but demanded that tech companies remove or restrict certain content. The tone and content of these communications often implied serious consequences for non-compliance, raising questions about the extent to which these actions were voluntary versus compelled.

Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become the de facto public squares of the modern era, wielding immense power over what information is accessible to the public. Their content moderation policies, while designed to combat harmful content, have also been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases.

In this case, plaintiffs argued that these companies, under significant government pressure, went beyond their standard moderation practices. They allegedly engaged in the removal, suppression, and demotion of content that, although controversial, was not illegal. This raises a critical issue: the thin line between moderation and censorship, especially when influenced by government directives.

The Supreme Court ruling holds significant implications for the relationship between government actions and private social media platforms, as well as for the legal frameworks that govern free speech and content moderation.

Here are some of the broader impacts this ruling may have:

Clarification on Government Influence and Private Action: This decision clearly delineates the limits of government involvement in the content moderation practices of private social media platforms. It underscores that mere governmental encouragement or indirect pressure does not transform private content moderation into state action. This ruling could make it more challenging for future plaintiffs to claim that content moderation decisions, influenced indirectly by government suggestions or pressures, are tantamount to governmental censorship.

Stricter Standards for Proving Standing: The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of concrete and particularized injuries directly traceable to the challenged government action sets a high bar for future litigants. Plaintiffs must now provide clear evidence that directly links government actions to the moderation practices that allegedly infringe on their speech rights. This could lead to fewer successful challenges against perceived government-induced censorship on digital platforms.

Impact on Content Moderation Policies: Social media platforms may feel more secure in enforcing their content moderation policies without fear of being seen as conduits for state action, as long as their decisions can be justified as independent from direct government coercion. This could lead to more assertive actions by platforms in moderating content deemed harmful or misleading, especially in critical areas like public health and election integrity.

Influence on Public Discourse: By affirming the autonomy of social media platforms in content moderation, the ruling potentially influences the nature of public discourse on these platforms. While platforms may continue to engage with government entities on issues like misinformation, they might do so with greater caution and transparency to avoid allegations of government coercion.

Future Legal Challenges and Policy Discussions: The ruling could prompt legislative responses, as policymakers may seek to address perceived gaps between government interests in combating misinformation and the protection of free speech on digital platforms. This may lead to new laws or regulations that more explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable government interaction with private companies in managing online content.

Broader Implications for Digital Rights and Privacy: The decision might also influence how digital rights and privacy are perceived and protected, particularly regarding how data from social media platforms is used or shared with government entities. This could lead to heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter guidelines to protect user data from being used in ways that could impinge on personal freedoms.

Overall, the Murthy v. Missouri ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point in ongoing debates about the government’s ability to influence and shut down speech.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Moldova Prepares Bill Allowing to Block Websites, Social Media Accounts – Opposition

Sputnik – 25.06.2024

Moldovan authorities are preparing a bill that will allow the blocking of websites, channels and accounts on social media, a spokesman for Moldovan opposition political bloc Podeda (Victory), Veaceslav Jukov, said on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the country’s authorities annulled a broadcasting license held by Moldova’s Media Resurse company which owned two Russian language broadcasters, Orhei TV and TV6, Moldovan news outlet NewsMaker reported.

“The Moldovan government is considering a law which presupposes the suspension and even elimination of websites, as well as blocking channels and accounts on social media. The new legislation provides measures to control and manage the information space ,” Jukov wrote on Telegram.

In 2023, Moldovan authorities blocked access to 31 websites, including 21 managed from Russia, saying that they had been used in an “information war” against Kishinev. Apart from the Russian information sources, Kishinev has also banned websites of Moldovan broadcasters Orizont TV, Prime TV, Publika TV, Canal 2, and Canal 3, among others.

Earlier in 2023, Moldovan President Maia Sandu said that Moldova would create a national center for informational defense and combating propaganda symbolically named Patriot, which would protect Moldovan citizens from disinformation and manipulation at a national level. The new center will counter Russia’s alleged information attacks as well as deal with “traitors to the homeland” who are allegedly blocking Moldova’s attempts to integrate into the European Union, Sandu added.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia retaliates against EU’s latest media ban

RT | June 25, 2024

Russia is restricting access to more than 80 EU media outlets on its territory that have been involved in spreading disinformation about the Ukraine conflict, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday.

According to a statement issued on the ministry’s website, the move comes in response to the EU’s latest crackdown on Russian media.

In May, the European Council banned four media outlets from reporting to audiences in the EU, including leading Russian news agency RIA Novosti, as well as newspapers Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The ban also applies to the relatively small Czech-based portal Voice of Europe, which the EU has described as a “Kremlin-linked propaganda network.” The restrictions on the media outlets came into force on June 25.

“The Russian side has repeatedly and at various levels warned that politically motivated harassment of its journalists and unfounded bans on Russian media in the EU will not go unnoticed,” the ministry said, noting that Brussels and other EU capitals had chosen to take the path of escalation with their latest illegal ban despite warnings, forcing Moscow to take mirror countermeasures.

“Responsibility for such a development of events lies solely with the leadership of the European Union and the countries of the bloc that supported such a decision,” according to the ministry.

The list of EU media outlets that “systematically disseminate false information” about the progress of Moscow’s special military operation includes 81 organizations from 25 member states. They include Germany’s Der Spiegel, Spain’s El Pais, Italy’s La Stampa and La Repubblica newspapers, the French Agence France-Presse, Le Monde, Liberation, as well as the pan-European Politico and EUobserver.

Moscow may reconsider its decision in relation to the media outlets if restrictions on Russian media are lifted, according to the statement.

Brussels had already barred several Russia-associated media from engaging with audiences in member states due to the Ukraine conflict. Even platforming content from the targeted organizations is illegal in the bloc. Those sanctions included RT and Sputnik, suspending their TV broadcasting licenses and blocking both websites for readers across the EU.

Moscow has accused Brussels of duplicity and attacking freedom of speech with its restrictions. The campaign to undermine the work of Russian news organizations long predates the Ukraine conflict and is aimed at preventing European citizens from hearing opinions that their governments deem undesirable, Russian officials have claimed.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Journalism under fire: Jailed for exposing Jordan

The Cradle | June 24, 2024

In Jordan, failing at self-censorship can land you in jail. Literally.

Freelance journalist Hiba Abu Taha, a passionate pro-resistance Jordanian of Palestinian origin, refused to self-censor. On 11 June, the Magistrate Court in Amman sentenced her to a harsh one-year prison term for violating the kingdom’s controversial Cybercrimes Law introduced last year.

This was due to an article she wrote for Lebanese news site, Annasher, criticizing “Jordan’s role in defending the enemy entity.” The article was published on 22 April, eight days after Jordanian, US, British, and French aircraft intercepted Iranian drones and rockets over Jordanian airspace heading towards Israeli targets.

However, Abu Taha was arrested on 13 May after Annasher published her investigative report on 28 April titled “Partners in extermination: Jordanian capital owners involved in Gaza genocide.” The timing of her arrest gave the impression that she was detained for exposing Jordanian companies transporting exports to Israel – a land corridor that government officials went out of their way to publicly deny amid growing popular outrage at Amman’s continued ties with Tel Aviv while it commits the Gaza genocide.

It is widely believed that her nearly 2,000-word investigative report, supported by a 15-minute video of evidence she gathered undercover, was the real reason for the journalist’s indictment.

Exposing government deception on Israeli trade routes

In her report, Abu Taha accused Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh and other officials of concealing the use of Jordan as a land route for UAE and Bahraini exports via Saudi Arabia to Israel to break the Yemeni Ansarallah blockade in the Red and Arabian Seas.

She cites transport and clearance company employees in Amman and Aqaba about their services to transport goods through the northern Sheikh Hussein Bridge or the southern Wadi Araba crossing. She went on to expose the names of the Jordanian companies and their influential owners, who have shown no qualms about doing business as usual with the occupation state as it commits unprecedented war crimes in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Abu Taha also identifies influential company owners acting as agents for Israeli or Israel-bound shipping companies. Resorting to official documents, she writes that Jordanian exports to Israel increased from $123 million in 2022 to $143 million in 2023, with a record monthly high of $17 million in December 2023, a month after Yemen began targeting Israeli-owned and Israel-bound cargo ships.

She notes that despite court evidence “recognizing the existence of the land bridge” as well as video footage and pictures of the movement of trucks at the Sheikh Hussein border crossing, Khasawneh insisted that:

The land bridge is a figment of imagination with no truth on the ground … The number of trucks entering and leaving Jordan for the entity has decreased, and what is being raised is nothing but self-flagellation.

Abu Taha details her exchange with government spokesman Muhannad Mubaidin, who fires back at “those accusing Jordan” of providing a land bridge for Israel as “shameful.”

She writes that he “initially tried to deny the government’s role” in this regard and “even tried to point the finger at West Bank merchants as deceiving their colleagues in Jordan by telling them that the exports are for the Arabs.”

When confronted with the facts she found, Mubaidin immediately referred to the 1994 Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel and stressed that the government would not ban trade with the Zionist state because “such a decision is a populist one that appeases a certain party or faction.”

Meanwhile, Trade Ministry Spokesman Yanal Barmawi told Abu Taha that he was unaware of the “export issue” and that “the private sector would know.” She writes that official denials and blaming the private sector, which cannot operate without government approval, “confirms that the authorities are trying to contain the Jordanian street.”

Opinion prosecution

Despite the rigor of her investigative report, Abu Taha was prosecuted for her 22 April opinion piece. Nidal Mansour, co-founder of the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ), noted that Abu Taha was convicted under the restrictive Cybercrimes Law, which was enacted shortly before 7 October 2023.

The Media Commission, a government-controlled regulatory body, filed a complaint against her, accusing her of “inciting sedition and discord among members of the community,” “threatening community peace,” “inciting violence,” and “spreading false news” through electronic media.

Abu Taha’s article accused Jordan of “treason,” among other derogatory terms, for intercepting Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel and giving the US, British, and French military forces a free hand in the country to defend the occupation state.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) quotes Media Commissioner Bashir al-Momani as saying that Abu Taha’s article contained “serious insults against Jordanian state institutions, incitement to the state’s positions, and stirring up discord among the components of the people,” which he added “necessitated her prosecution.”

According to a CDFJ statement, Abu Taha was convicted under Articles 15 and 17 of the 40-article Cybercrime Law of August 2023. Article 15 stipulates:

Whoever intentionally sends, resends, or publishes data or information through an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platforms that includes fake news targeting the national security and community peace, or defames, slanders, or contempt [sic] any person shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than three months or a fine of not less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.

Article 15 also gives the prosecutor the right to take legal action “without the need to file a complaint or claim a personal right if it is directed at one of the authorities in the state, official bodies, or public administrations,” which means that Abu Taha could have still been punished even if the Media Commission had not filed a complaint.

The court also invoked Article 17 to hand her a one-year sentence. It states that:

Whoever intentionally uses an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platform to spread what is likely to stir up racism or sedition, targets social peace, incites hatred, calls for or justifies violence, or insults religions, shall be punished by imprisonment from one to three years or a fine of no less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.

Draconian laws and legal challenges

Abu Taha’s opinion piece in Annasher undoubtedly lacked the self-censorship that Amman has successfully induced by imposing a series of restrictive press and media laws over the decades.

Mansour tells The Cradle that the press and publication laws have become more draconian with the evolution of information technology, beginning with restrictive laws on the independent weekly press back in the 1990s, to online news sites in the early 2000s, and social media with the most recent “fluid” Cybercrime Law that could effectively stifle any form of free speech on these platforms.

He notes that Abu Taha’s lawyer, Rami Odatallah, appointed by the leftist Jordanian Popular Unity Party (an offshoot of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), is more experienced in defending political activists than journalists.

Abu Taha is not a member of the political party. Still, it stood by her ordeal and denounced her arrest and sentencing, demanding her release and other activists that had been “harassed and arrested” for supporting the resistance against Israel online or on the street.

Mansour reveals that the CDFJ plans to hire a lawyer specialized in the Cybercrime Law to appeal her sentence, which his organization described as “deeply concerning” and called for “abolishing imprisonment in cases related to publication and freedom of expression in accordance with international human rights standards.”

Abu Taha’s arrest and sentencing drew attention to Jordan’s crackdown on both journalists and rightfully enraged activists by using the Cybercrime Law. … Full article

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

BlackRock: there can be no compromise with evil

By Chandra Muzaffar | MEMO | June 25, 2024

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) empathises with the concerns expressed by several NGOs and public figures in Malaysia over the involvement of the investment fund manager BlackRock in Malaysia’s infrastructure development.

BlackRock has extensive investments in companies allied closely to Israel’s arms industry. It has, for example, a 7.4 per cent stake in Lockheed Martin, a US defence contractor that has played a critical role in arming the Israeli military. This is why Lockheed has been accused of complicity in the barbaric genocide in Gaza which is now in its eighth month. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is known to be a staunch supporter of Israel in its ongoing massacre of Palestinians.

The company has earned the wrath of former Federal Ministers in Malaysia such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Saifuddin Abdullah, as well as a former legislative assembly member, Mukhriz Mahathir, and the head of the Malaysian branch of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Dr Nazari Ismail, mainly because it is now the owner of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), a partner in a consortium to manage Malaysia’s 39 airports. Although GIP holds only 30 per cent of shares in the consortium — Khazanah Nasional, the government’s investment arm, and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) own the other 70 per cent — GIP, given its expertise in airport management, will inevitably play a significant role.

Is it because of this expertise that GIP was brought into the partnership? There are other firms with a comparable level of expertise that could have been considered.

Why should we collaborate with a company owned by an entity that has such close ties to the Israeli and US military establishments?

It is a matter of serious concern because it is Malaysia’s airports — not restaurants or supermarkets — that are now being managed by a company owned by BlackRock. At stake is the fact that airport management places some highly sensitive data at the command of its managers; the Malaysian authorities should have realised at the very outset that this is a transaction that has profound security ramifications.

What makes BlackRock’s purchase of GIP and ipso facto its status now as partial owner of Malaysian airports all the more bizarre is the fact that Malaysian Airports Berhad (MAHB), which hitherto managed our airports, had no sound financial reason to sell off its shares to a US-based fund manager with close ties to Israel. It was reported in February 2024 that MAHB recorded “a net profit of RM 543.2 million for the financial year ending 31 December, 2023. This is a huge jump from the previous year, when the company made a profit of RM 187.2m, and also higher than the profit it made in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic paralysed the aviation sector worldwide.”

That there was no financial justification for the sale of MAHB shares is reinforced further by its excellent management performance. As its acting CEO Mohamed Rastam Shahrom was quoted as saying by MalaysiaNow on 20 June: “We have worked hard to deliver value to our stakeholders in the past year. Amidst improved operating conditions we have managed to deliver improved financial performance, and we are making good progress in our airport modernisation, digitalisation and commercial rejuvenation programmes.”

Some supporters of the move to bring in BlackRock and GIP opine that the real reason is linked to geopolitics. Since we have strengthened our relations with China in recent years, our leaders feel that we should also develop further our ties with the US. Balancing relations with the two superpowers should not mean a readiness to sacrifice principles. If Malaysia, which has often adhered to ethical concerns in regional and international politics, now deviates from such norms and tries to please one superpower or the other, it will tarnish its reputation and lose credibility.

As a nation, we should never be perceived to be colluding with entities that are complicit in one of the most inhuman and cruellest genocides in history. When the moral dimensions of a conflict are so stark, we must make sure that we are not dismissed as a bunch of people who “hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.” Our commitment to principles and ethical values in a catastrophe like Gaza should be demonstrated through deeds; deeds that prove over and over again that there can be no compromise with evil.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

GMO: Famine is worsening in Gaza

Palestinian Information Center – June 25, 2024

GAZA – The Government Media Office (GMO) in Gaza warned that famine is seriously worsening in the Gaza Strip, especially in Gaza City and North Gaza governorates.

The GMO Director-General, Ismail Thawabta, said in a press conference in Gaza on Monday that the humanitarian conditions have seriously deteriorated across the Gaza Strip, especially following the inhumane US and Israel’s decision to “prevent the entry of food and medicine.”

He pointed out that this comes within the framework of the genocidal war against civilians in the Gaza Strip, stressing that famine directly threatens the lives of citizens, which portends a rise in the death toll due to hunger.

About 3,500 children are currently facing the dire threat of death in Gaza due to malnutrition and the lack of essential nutritional supplements, he highlighted.

“The specter of famine looms larger each day, with a grim forecast of increased fatalities resulting from hunger,” Thawabta said.

He pointed out that “for 49 days, the Israeli occupation army has been preventing 25,000 sick and wounded people from traveling to receive treatment abroad, after it took over the Rafah border crossing with Egypt,” stressing that Israel’s control over the Rafah crossing has significantly impacted the wounded people’s access to essential medical care.

He underlined that 700,000 people endure daily famine conditions due to Israel’s obstruction of aid entry, leaving approximately 15,000 trucks stranded at border crossings, exacerbating the crisis.

Thawabta stressed that this heartbreaking reality underscores the urgent need for action to prevent further suffering and loss of life.

He charged the US administration and the Israeli occupation authorities for this catastrophic situation in Gaza, saying, “The people of the Gaza Strip are facing death as a result of famine and the starvation policy pursued by Israel and the US administration.”

The floating pier built by the United States did not do anything to stop the famine in the northern Gaza Strip, he added.

The GMO director launched a distress call to the international community, international organizations, all countries of the free world, and the Arab and Muslim countries, to intervene in order to protect the Palestinian people, who are being subjected to genocide.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Hamas slams Biden regime for political, military support of Israel’s Gaza genocide

Press TV – June 25, 2024

Hamas says US President Joe Biden’s administration is responsible for the genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian resistance movement said Washington continues to lend political and military support to Israel to carry out further destruction and carnage in the besieged territory.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the Gaza-based resistance movement also lamented the death of family members of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas political bureau, including his sister, in an Israeli airstrike on their home in western Gaza City.

“We in the Hamas movement hold the Biden administration accountable for the unrelenting genocide war against our Palestinian brethren and sisters in the Gaza Strip, as it continues to offer the Zionist regime and its criminal army unconditional political and military support to press ahead with its destruction and genocide in the Strip,” the statement read.

“In light of the continuation and escalation of these horrific massacres, we call on Arab and Muslim nations as well as freedom-loving people of the world to step up their actions, and push for an end to the aggression.”

Hamas urged the international community and the United Nations to assume responsibility for the crimes of Israel in Gaza, protect innocent civilians, and hold the leaders of the terrorist Zionist regime accountable for their crimes.

One of the sisters of Haniyeh was killed in Gaza City’s Shati refugee camp on Tuesday morning.

Palestinian sources say an airstrike on a building belonging to Haniyeh’s extended family claimed the lives of 13 people.

Earlier in April, Israel had targeted and killed three of Haniyeh’s sons, along with four grandchildren — three girls and a boy.

Israel launched the atrocious onslaught on Gaza, targeting hospitals, residences, and houses of worship after Palestinian resistance movements conducted surprise Operation al-Aqsa Storm against the usurping regime on October 7, 2023.

Israel has killed more than 37,650 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and injured nearly 86,240 in Gaza since that October day.

More than 1.7 million people have also been internally displaced.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Former PM says Ukraine has no opposition: ‘They are in prison or abroad’

By Ahmed Adel | June 25, 2024

Currently, in Ukraine, there is no opposition and politicians challenging Volodymyr Zelensky as they are either in prison or abroad, according to the country’s former prime minister, Mykola Azarov. He also highlighted that Kiev would be forced to accept any agreement between Russia and the United States.

“There is no opposition in Ukraine now. [Pyotr] Poroshenko or [Yulia] Tymoshenko are not opposition. Their policy was no different from the current policy of the Kiev regime. The real opposition was eliminated. Some were killed, others are in prison, and some were forced to go abroad,” Azarov said in an interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on June 24.

According to the former prime minister, the left-wing parties and opposition forces in Ukraine now do not exist.

“In addition, trade unions are absent, and there is strong persecution of the Church. The current conflict is often presented as a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, but this is not true,” he added.

Azarov also mentioned that some people want to oppose Zelensky in Ukraine but do not speak out.

Zelensky was elected in 2019, and his first term was supposed to have ended in May. However, the regime introduced a new martial law, saying no election could be held during the war. The Ukrainian president is consolidating his power and has even purged political opponents.

It is recalled that the former head of Ukraine’s armed forces, Valeriy Zaluzhny, was appointed as the country’s ambassador to the UK only a few months ago after being touted as a potential rival to Zelensky. After being removed from Ukraine, Zaluzhny has now stayed quiet on the political front. The case of the former general is just one of many examples of individuals purged in Ukraine if they threatened Zelensky’s power.

The Ukrainian president has also jailed his political rivals, even Petro Poroshenko, shut down independent media outlets, such as ZIK, NewsOne and 112 Ukraine, and used the SBU state security agency to go after his critics, like Gonzalo Lira.

Azarov also stated that the US understands that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war, and Washington can start an informal dialogue with Moscow on this issue and influence Kiev.

“On the other side [USA], there are still some sensible ideas that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war. There are hopes that an informal dialogue could emerge that would result in some kind of concrete agreement,” he said.

According to the former prime minister, Zelensky’s regime will have to comply with this agreement between Moscow and Washington.

“There is no way around this. The Americans have one hundred percent influence over the current leadership of Ukraine. Just stop providing funding and weapons, and the regime will literally fall and physically disintegrate. The regime cannot exist without money when salaries are not paid to soldiers and the security service,” Azarov explained.

His comments on the nuclear issue come following a Ukrainian attack on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant on June 21.

“As a result of the attack by the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, work on the infrastructure facilities was interrupted,” the press service of the nuclear plant published on its Telegram channel.

Compounding the nuclear issue, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on the same day as the attack the intentions to modernise the nuclear triad, the three components of the country’s atomic arsenal, by adding the nuclear-capable Sarmat (RS-28) intercontinental ballistic missiles, with a range of 18,000 kilometres, to its arsenal.

“We plan to continue improving the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence,” Putin said, adding that the advances in the land, air and naval components of the nuclear forces guarantee balance in the world.

“Taking into account the difficult international situation, the emergence of new challenges and risks, we will continue to improve our Armed Forces,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on June 24, citing Putin’s statement, told a briefing that “work is underway to bring the doctrine in line with current realities.”

This was the inevitable course of action after the US allowed the Kiev regime to use American-made weapons to strike inside Russian territory. Besides the attack on the nuclear power plant, there was also the brutal attack with ATACMS missiles on civilian infrastructure in Crimea that left four people dead and 153 seeking medical help on June 23.

The Kremlin previously vowed to respond to any Ukrainian attacks with US-made weapons, and Azarov’s assessment that Kiev may be forced to accept any agreement made between Moscow and Washington could eventuate if the Americans feel that the situation is escalating in a way that cannot be controlled. Meanwhile, despite the escalation, the US will continue to hypocritically overlook that Zelensky is heading a regime that has subverted democracy and human rights whilst lying that liberalism and Western values are being defended in Ukraine.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

EU accuses Telegram of hiding its reach

European Commission vice-president for values and transparency Vera Jourova, March 14, 2024. © Getty Images / SOPA Images / Contributor
RT | June 24, 2024

Telegram underreports its user numbers to avoid being targeted by EU regulators, the vice-president of the bloc’s Commission for Values and Transparency, Vera Jourova, has alleged. She also accused Moscow of using the platform to spread “disinformation” among Russian-speaking EU residents, claiming that the Baltic nations, Poland, and Bulgaria are among the most exposed.

“I don’t trust Telegram, I don’t think they only have 42 million users,” Jourova said in an interview with Suddeutsche Zeitung on Sunday. She added that the European Commission is convinced that Telegram’s audience amounts to more than 45 million people – the threshold for regulatory control.

The commission is currently examining whether it should investigate the platform, Jourova revealed.

Last month, Bloomberg cited anonymous sources as saying that EU lawmakers were considering listing Telegram, founded by Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov less than ten years ago, as a “very large online platform.” The move would open the privacy-focused messaging app up to strict censorship regulation.

As of February 2024, Telegram had an estimated average of 41 million monthly active EU users over the preceding six months. The figure is lower than the threshold required for social media platform to be subject to more specific obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulation requires companies located outside the bloc to have legal representation in one of its member states.

The DSA, which came into force in February, allows the bloc’s regulators to fine platforms as much as 6% of their global annual turnover if they are found to have broken its rules. The regulation also provides the EU watchdog with the right to ban repeat offenders from operating in the bloc.

According to Durov, Telegram respects the rights of its users to privacy and freedom of expression. In an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Durov said he had rejected requests from Washington to share user data with US authorities or to build so-called surveillance “backdoors” into the platform.

Brussels has already launched investigations into X (formerly Twitter) over alleged breaches of EU rules in areas linked to risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers. Similar probes have been opened in relation to TikTok and Meta, the latter of which is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

June 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment