Pentagon says tens of thousands of troops across West Asia ‘enough to protect Israel’
The Cradle | September 20, 2024
The US is confident in its ability to defend Israel given its current force levels in West Asia, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said on 19 September, amid heightened fears of a wider war between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel.
“We’re confident in the ability that we have there right now to protect our forces and should we need to come to the defense of Israel as well,” Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said in a press briefing Thursday.
The possibility of full-scale war increased following Israel’s terror attacks in Lebanon, which targeted Hezbollah cadre and civilians with exploding pagers earlier this week. The attacks killed 37 Lebanese and injured thousands more.
US military officials began sending additional forces to the region in July. Tensions escalated after Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shakr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran at the end of that month.
While US officials say they will help defend Israel, they claim they will not help it in an offensive war against Iran or Hezbollah.
“We are there in the defense of Israel, should we need to come to their defense. We’re not going in and supporting offensive ground operations in what they do, whether it be in the north or in Gaza,” Singh stated in the press briefing.
US officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the AP that additional resources sent to the region since July have helped as the US forces carry out operations targeting Axis of Resistance groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
In addition to Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI) and the Ansarallah-led government of Yemen have hit US and Israeli targets in the region in an effort to oppose Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
The AP reported that about 34,000 US troops have traditionally been deployed to West Asia. The number grew to about 40,000 in October last year as additional ships and aircraft were sent in after the start of the war on Gaza.
Several weeks ago, the total temporarily spiked to nearly 50,000 when US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered two aircraft carriers and their accompanying warships to stay in the region.
One aircraft carrier has since left, but US navy warships remain scattered across the region, from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Oman. Air force and navy fighter jets are strategically based at several locations.
The USS Abraham Lincoln and its three destroyers are in the Gulf of Oman. Two US navy destroyers are in the Red Sea.
There are six US warships and three naval destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Six F/A-18 fighter jets and the USS Georgia guided missile submarine are in the region, but US officials refuse to say where.
The air force has four land-based fighter squadrons in West Asia, which include a squadron of A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft, F-15E Strike Eagles, and F-16 fighter jets. US officials also declined to say where the planes are based.
Should the US join Israel in fighting a war against Iran, the air force can also launch attacks from bases within the US itself.
In February, two B-1 bombers flew more than 30 hours from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and back to strike 85 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) targets in Iraq and Syria.
US agency plotted to channel government funds into anti-Iran campaign after 2022 riots: Report
Press TV – September 20, 2024
A new report has revealed that the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) privately plotted to direct government resources into an anti-Iran campaign established after 2022 foreign-backed riots.
Citing leaked documents and emails, The Grayzone news website reported Thursday that the NED had tried to channel US State Department resources into the so-called Iran Freedom Coalition.
The coalition, that is composed of pro-Western Iranian figures and warmongering US neoconservative operatives, represents a clear attempt to impose an “exiled leadership” over anti-Iran opposition, the report added.
It further said that the initiative against the Islamic Republic was spearheaded by Carl Gershman, the longtime director of the NED, which is considered Washington’s regime-change arm or the CIA spy agency in disguise.
“Regardless of the listed members’ level of participation, the composition of Gershman’s proposed Iran Freedom Coalition demonstrates how Iran’s self-proclaimed pro-democracy movement has become a plaything for the Bomb Iran lobby,” it said.
“Among those handpicked by Gershman to lead the initiative was William Kristol, the neocon impresario who has led a decades-long lobbying campaign for a US military invasion of Iran. Also selected was Joshua Muravchik, a flamboyant supporter of Israel’s Likud Party who insists that ‘war with Iran is probably our best option.’”
The report also said that the anti-Iran campaign’s Iranian members consist heavily of US government-sponsored cultural figures and staffers at interventionist Western think tanks like the Tony Blair Institute.
“As Gershman’s leaked proposal illustrates, these elements quickly hijacked the protests, inserting US government-sponsored exiles as the movement’s international face and voice, thus ensuring that their ultimate effect would be a deepening of US sanctions on average Iranians,” adds the report.
The Foreign-sponsored riots broke out in Iran in September 2022, when 22-year-old woman Mahsa Amini died in a hospital in the capital Tehran, three days after she collapsed at a police station.
The findings of an investigation into her death later attributed the tragic incident to Amini’s pre-existing medical condition, debunking claims that she was beaten by the police.
Rioters, nonetheless, went on rampage across the country, causing massive material damage to public property and, in some cases, lynching security forces as well as civilians whom they regarded as supporters of the Islamic establishment.
Iran’s intelligence community said several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, used their spy and propaganda apparatuses to provoke unrest in the country.
Elon Musk and Brazil: The conflict is more complex than it seems
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 19, 2024
The suspension of services of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil, as well as the threat of an $8,000 fine for anyone using a VPN to continue using the social network, has made global headlines. Although there had been previous reports of friction between X and the Brazilian political-legal system, the news of the suspension surprised many people, in Brazil and abroad.
For foreigners, especially those who consider themselves “anti-imperialist”, it is very difficult to construct a consistent interpretation of this conflict between Musk and Brazil because of the expectations critics of unipolarity have developed regarding Brazil under Lula’s return.
These are the same people who were shocked by Brazil’s hostility toward Nicolás Maduro and a series of other inconsistent positions taken by the Brazilian government on the international stage.
But while investigating how committed the current Brazilian government is to the idea of a multipolar order is relevant, the fact is that Lula has only marginal involvement in the suspension of X in Brazil.
First of all, how is this issue being framed by both sides of the dispute? Generally, the issue of “X” in Brazil is being treated as a conflict between “respect for the law” versus “freedom of expression.” It is difficult to take this framing seriously for a number of reasons.
X, under Elon Musk, has consistently censored or reduced the reach of pro-Palestinian accounts since Musk’s visit to Israel. If X is not like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or the newer BlueSky, it clearly cannot be seen as a bastion of free speech.
On the other side, however, the situation is also a bit more complex than simply the duty of X to comply with Brazilian laws. Elon Musk has indeed raised some concerning points regarding Judge Alexandre de Moraes, who made decisions contrary to Brazilian internet norms and tried to force X to comply with them.
Even setting aside these decisions about social media account censorship, the handling of the X case itself has drawn criticism in Brazil.
The root of this conflict is the fact that Moraes has been leading a criminal inquiry for over five years, now known as the “fake news inquiry,” where he goes beyond the usual role of a passive and impartial judge and actively investigates and judges cases of “disinformation” that allegedly threaten “democracy” and Brazil’s electoral process. The rhetoric is very reminiscent of Orwellian narratives produced in Washington and Brussels.
As the political-legal establishment and its international partners are quite satisfied with the Brazilian government’s current stance on most issues, the main targets of these investigations are figures linked to the opposition.
Thus, in the context of this inquiry, Judge Moraes has ordered the suspension of social media accounts of those under investigation. Such decisions are legally questionable under Brazilian law. First, because the inquiry has far exceeded a reasonable time frame for conclusion and doesn’t appear to have a clear objective. Second, because suspending social media accounts of individuals without a conviction, in an inquiry that seems “endless,” is inappropriate. Third, because the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework, the country’s legislation on internet-related obligations for companies, stipulates that a social media account can only be blocked for specific violations of norms – and Judge Moraes, in his orders to X, never specified the reasons for the suspensions.
These are some of the main arguments, including those raised by Elon Musk, to challenge these judicial decisions.
The situation worsened when Moraes allegedly threatened X’s office employees in Brazil with imprisonment if they failed to comply with his decisions. Amidst this confusion, the Judiciary claims that X’s representative in Brazil has been evading court summonses. On the other hand, there are indications that Moraes’ staff sent the summons to the wrong email address when attempting to notify X.
Nonetheless, these threats explain why X decided to shut down its office in Brazil. Immediately afterward, Moraes ordered X to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil, which is mandatory for companies operating in the country.
Since X did not establish a new representation in Brazil, Moraes ordered the company’s suspension.
The situation would seem more reasonable if Moraes hadn’t also imposed a daily fine of $8,000 on any Brazilians using VPNs to continue accessing the social network. Needless to say, the order was immediately disobeyed by most Brazilian X users, and the Brazilian Bar Association filed an appeal to annul the fine.
The problem with the fine is that it casts doubt on the claim that this is merely a natural consequence of X not having legal representation in the country in accordance with the law. Why, then, impose fines on ordinary users who are not part of the inquiry and were not even notified of the decision (which, again, is unconstitutional under Brazilian law)?
Next, Moraes ordered the blocking of Starlink’s accounts, a company with different shareholders, to collect the fine imposed on X – once again, a decision that violates Brazil’s entire legal framework.
However, the issue transcends the legal debate and refers back to the fact that X is a space successfully used by sectors of Brazilian politics that oppose the “Juristocracy,” as well as the influence of foreign NGOs in Brazil and the current government.
Platforms like Meta, for example, are absolutely controlled by the U.S. Deep State and impose draconian restrictions on anyone who deviates from globalist ideological orthodoxy. Moreover, this may seem incomprehensible and unbelievable to our partners in other BRICS countries, but Brazil does not have an anti-Atlanticist, counter-hegemonic mass media. The Brazilian mass media belongs to an oligopoly that is deeply tied to U.S. media conglomerates.
In this sense, spaces like X represent an “oasis” used by both the right-wing opposition and the anti-imperialist left.
To understand what Moraes and other judges think of this, one only needs to recall a statement he made a few weeks ago: “At the turn of the century, there were no social networks; and we were happier,” said to loud applause from representatives of Brazil’s major TV networks and newspapers.
Naturally – we insist – Elon Musk is not exactly a victim here. He is far from it. For example, it is also true that his Tesla lost contracts to Chinese rivals in Brazil in recent years, which greatly irritated him. It is also true that he believes he can gain greater business penetration in the Brazilian market if Bolsonaro returns to power – and he openly uses his large presence on X to occasionally boost posts from opponents of the Lula government.
Therefore, the case transcends the superficial duality presented as “sovereignty vs. freedom of expression,” and is more accurately an expression of a dispute between different sectors of the Brazilian elite, both with international ties (let us remember that Moraes was part of the international scheme of Operation Car Wash, whose objective was to destroy Brazilian companies, imprison Lula, and overthrow Dilma Rousseff under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice), and both clearly hostile to the project of a new multipolar order.
The Second Trump Shooter Believed Exactly What the Establishment Media Wanted Him to Believe
By Connor O’Keeffe | Mises Institute | September 18, 2024
On Sunday, for the second time this election cycle, a man was able to get close to Donald Trump with a rifle. The former president was golfing when Secret Service agents spotted a rifle barrel poking out of some bushes just off the course, near a hole Trump would soon play. Agents fired on the suspect, causing him to flee as Trump was rushed off the course. Shortly after, the man was apprehended by police.
A scoped rifle, two backpacks, and a video camera were recovered from the woods where the suspect was hiding. The FBI said it was investigating the incident as an attempted assassination. The suspect, Ryan Routh, has so far been charged with two gun-related crimes.
While there are clearly some major differences between this incident and the first assassination attempt in July—when Trump was shot in the ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania—the fact that an armed man was able to get so close to the former president and remain undetected until the last moment for the second time in two months is a big deal.
Yet the reaction from the political establishment and the establishment media has been notably different. Back in July, there was broad agreement within the establishment that they needed to “lower the temperature.” This week, the rhetoric has changed. While most go through the motion of denouncing political violence, establishment figures and outlets have downplayed the assassination attempt, obscured the attempted shooter’s political ideology, and even blamed Trump himself for provoking people into trying to kill him.
It’s not surprising that the political establishment and their friends in the media want to dismiss or play down what happened on Sunday. Because Ryan Routh, the suspect, appears to have been motivated by the exact narrative of the war in Ukraine and the prospect of a second Trump term that the establishment is trying so hard to get the American public to accept.
In early 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the American establishment went into overdrive to whitewash all the developments that had led to the invasion. They instead defined Vladamir Putin as an expansionist tyrant bent on conquering all of Europe simply because he hates freedom and democracy.
Because of unearthed social media posts, numerous interviews with major outlets like The New York Times, and a self-published book, we can clearly see that Routh was completely convinced by the establishment’s characterization of the war. So much so that in the months after the war broke out, Routh traveled to Ukraine to try and join the fight. He was turned away, apparently due to his age, but stuck around to try and recruit other foreigners to join Ukraine’s ranks.
In one interview with Newsweek, Routh laid out how he views the war:
To me, a lot of the other conflicts are gray, but this conflict is definitely black-and-white. This is about good versus evil. This is a storybook— you know, any movie we’ve ever watched, this is definitely evil against good. … It seems asinine that we have a leader and a country that does not understand the concept of being unselfish, and being generous, and being kind, and just the basic moral values that are required by human beings these days. It blows my mind.
That is exactly how the pundits and politicians who make up the American political establishment want us thinking about this war. Not as an unnecessary geopolitical conflict that escalated for decades before erupting into the conventional war we see today, but simply as a black-and-white showdown with an evil country.
Importantly, as can be seen in the opening to Biden’s State of the Union address from earlier this year, the establishment has explicitly conflated this threat abroad with what they call the threat at home—meaning Trump and the MAGA movement. So if a disturbed person like Ryan Routh was convinced that he would be a hero if he went and fought the evil Russians in Ukraine only to be turned away because of his age, it’s not much of a jump to expect that he concluded he could still be a hero if he set his sights on, what he was told, is the same threat at home.
That’s not to say that the establishment voices pushing the simplistic narratives that captured Routh directly incited his assassination attempt—although it would under the standard they apply to Trump and January 6. Only that the establishment is using misleading and sometimes wholly fictional narratives about the war in Ukraine and the populist anger directed toward them to try to scare us into voting in ways that support their interests. It shouldn’t surprise anyone when these contrived, simplistic, overly dramatic narratives lead some people to decide voting isn’t enough.
Silence Speaks Volumes: Biden-Harris Admin Refuses To Comment on EU Censorship Threats
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 20, 2024
The Biden-Harris administration has reportedly sided with the EU against a major US social media company, X, and decided not to (at least publicly) contest the censorship threats against the platform.
This incident involves the now former EU Internal Markets Commissioner Thierry Breton’s scandalous letter threatening X and owner Elon Musk ahead of his interview with President Trump.
Yet another emerging actor here is the US State Department, which, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, refused to publicly condemn those threats.
Breton, who was known as a strong proponent of censorship and clampdowns within the EU’s top bureaucracy, referred to the Digital Services Act (DSA) in his letter to Musk in early August, mere hours before Musk’s interview with Trump. Under the (opponents say, censorship) rules, X could have faced anything from big fines to the EU blocking the platform.
According to a report from Breitbart, Jordan revealed the State Department’s stance in this matter in a letter to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, where he also claims that Bliken’s department has internal documents revealing communications relevant to Breton’s conduct on that occasion – but it has not submitted them to the Committee.
To remedy that situation, Jordan is now asking that Blinken makes sure “all documents and communications between or among State Department personnel referring or relating to Mr. Breton’s August 12, 2024 letter to Mr. Musk” are made available to the Committee by October 1.
Breton chose to, in a manner clearly biased against Trump, “anticipate” that there may be “incitement to violence, hate, and racism” during the conversation between Musk and the former president, now presidential candidate. And so X was asked to act “preemptively” in order to prevent such – hypothetical – content from spreading in the EU.
Breton’s behavior in this instance can be viewed as a case of “prebunking” – but it was done at a very high level and basically turned into an attempt to meddle in another country’s affairs by muzzling a US presidential candidate, and a US social platform.
However, this instance of meddling from abroad was ignored by the Biden-Harris White House. Jordan points out in his letter to Blinken that the State Department not only had not yet condemned Breton’s actions but also apparently had no intention to do so.
“The Biden-Harris Administration’s silence in the face of Mr. Breton’s threats against free speech in the United States signals to the world that it does not support free speech online and is unwilling to protect American companies from foreign actors who seek to punish their adherence to First Amendment principles at home,” reads Jordan’s letter.
Washington’s new plan to control the Global South
By Anna Belkina | RT | September 20, 2024
When US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced a new “joint diplomatic campaign” to be implemented in concert with Canada and the UK last week, he clearly set out the initiative’s goal – “to rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT and other machinery of Russian disinformation and covert influence.”
Make no mistake: there is nothing diplomatic in this latest US effort to silence any voice that does not adhere to the Washington- and London-dictated narratives about the world.
The point of all news media is to inform. Any information has the potential to influence people. Thus, the collective West has set out to curtail all potential influence that is not theirs.
Helping hand
James Rubin, the coordinator for the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center, elaborated on how this plan would work in an interview with his ex-wife, Christiane Amanpour, on CNN.
“Other countries will make decisions for themselves,” of course, but the charitable, the always-benevolent, the never self-interested American hand will be “helping other governments come to their own decisions about how to treat” RT.
Ah, all those poor, hapless “other governments” that clearly cannot read, watch, think, and decide for themselves. They were just waiting for Big Brother to help them.
What Rubin was really doing was scapegoating RT – and by extension, all other independent voices in what is supposed to be a free and diverse global information space, reflecting a diverse, very complicated, multipolar world – for the increasingly diminishing buy-in of much of the world into Washington’s foreign policies, and propaganda campaigns that accompany them.
As Rubin admitted during his press conference, “one of the reasons […] why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be […] is because of the broad scope and reach of RT – where propaganda, disinformation, and lies are spread to millions if not billions of people around the world.”
Which countries refused to jump on board with the US and NATO support of the Kiev regime and the continuous escalation of the conflict? In reality, it is most of the world, including such geopolitical giants as India and China, who preferred to leave regional issues to the region in question.
Where official positions are concerned, it’s mostly NATO and its cohorts’ one billion vs our planet’s other seven. And while in those seven not everyone in the general population is of the same mind, neither is everyone in the US and other NATO countries.
Yet, due to the decades-long domination of the international information space by American and European mainstream news media (can you believe the BBC is over 100 years old?), many have been conditioned to think of the world – in the sense of who defines the global order, its rights and its wrongs – as the US and its vassal-state allies.
Notably, Mr Rubin specifically referred to Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa as regions where RT must be stopped. In other words, the so-called Global South. What’s got the US State Department so worried there?
RT’s success is Western media’s loss
Western military, political, and media establishments have been panicked over their loss of monopoly on global information in general, and about RT’s growing reach and influence in particular, for a while now. The self-proclaimed champions of free press, speech and thought cannot handle any of that free-thinkin’ they campaigned for.
To wit, have a scroll:
THE FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES, US: “Washington is struggling in the battle for hearts and minds in the ‘Global South’, where Russian propaganda outlets are often more popular than Western media.”
NEWSWEEK : “… it’s in the Global South that Russia has reaped the most significant rewards. The popularity of the Kremlin-controlled TV station Russia Today is high…”
POLITICO : “… many of the Kremlin-backed accounts – especially those from sanctioned media outlets like RT and Sputnik – have an oversized digital reach. Collectively, these companies boast millions of followers in Europe, Latin America and Africa…”
ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE, UK: “Latin America has witnessed a growth in Russian information efforts. Just like in the Middle East, Russia is operating a number of popular media channels, such as RT en Espanol, Sputnik Mundo and Sputnik Brasil, with substantial followings.”
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, US: “Russia’s […] media presence and influence [in Latin America] are unmatched… The reach of Russia’s technique has proven to be effective … Actualidad RT and Sputnik Mundo have become so mainstream in LAC, that in December 2022, RT Spanish won three prestigious Mexican journalism awards for their coverage of the war in Ukraine.”
WILSON CENTER, US: “Russia has successfully implemented long-term strategies to capture and influence intellectual elites in Latin America.”
ATLANTIC COUNCIL: “Russia has established a significant media and information footprint throughout the [Latin American] region with Russia Today and Sputnik News.”
EL MUNDO, SPAIN: “In addition to hybrid channels, [Russia] uses public companies such as Russia Today, whose propaganda is triumphing in Latin America – the Spanish-speaking version of RT […] is integrated into family daily life from Venezuela to Bolivia.”
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES, UK: “Egyptian media ran headlines and reports verbatim from RT Arabic, […] EU Reporter, an independent media outlet, reported that ‘Russian media outlets like RT Arabic and Sputnik are extremely popular, with RT Arabic becoming one of the most trafficked news websites in the country.’”
FOREIGN POLICY : “RT Arabic and Sputnik Arabic emerged as major sources of legitimate regional news in the Middle East.”
JOSEP BORRELL, HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EU FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY: “When you go to some African countries and you see people supporting Putin, supporting what Putin is doing in Donbass, saying Putin has saved Donbass, now he will come to Africa and save us.”
ABC, SPAIN: “The Kremlin has tried to increase its influence in the media using Russia Today and Sputnik News. And there have also been collaboration agreements with local media, hiring African journalists and African activists, and at the same time generating news in Arabic, English or French to gain the support of the African population.”
Thank you, thank you very much.
Exporting censorship
Since RT’s launch in 2005, our journalists have brought to light countless stories and points of view disallowed in the Western mainstream. We have built a massive global audience and won the trust of viewers and readers worldwide.
But, despite Western elites’ declarations to the contrary, any voice that fails to fit into the rather cramped echo-chamber they have set up to accommodate supposedly free discourse, is inherently seen as illegitimate. Therefore, it must be silenced.
Which is why, having pushed out official RT channels from Western airwaves and digital platforms, they now want – nay, need and ought – to export their particular brand of censorship globally. They pledge to wage a coordinated campaign to force other nations into following their example, all so that the West can recover its information monopoly. They must “disrupt [RT] activities” everywhere. It is not enough for them to silo off their own people from inconvenient facts and alternative viewpoints. They have the megalomania and the audacity to say that no one in the world should hear them either.
This is especially so in the Global South countries – the ones that the US has gotten accustomed to patronizing, manipulating, dominating, undermining and overthrowing unsuitable-to-them regimes, and outright controlling in any way they could, over the last century.
Welcome to neocolonialism, Taylor’s 2024 Version.
Government folks have also already lined up Silicon Valley wunderkinds – the tech giants that are ever so eager to curry political favor in order to stay on the lax side of corporate regulation – in this endeavor. Meta, which blocked access to RT’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the EU in 2022, has overnight removed RT from its platforms – entirely and worldwide.
YouTube removed RT’s record-breaking channels everywhere that same year, but Google’s parent company, Alphabet, had already worked to “de-rank” RT and Sputnik in Google searches back in 2017.
After all, “RT is the top recommended source for news concerning Douma’s chemical weapons attack, Skripal poisoning and the Syrian White Helmets,” wrote the Atlantic Council in 2018. In 2019, “Bild conducted a test and entered the query ‘Ukraine’ into Google News. Again, among the top ten articles were three from RT Deutsch and Contra Magazin.” When people looked for news, they came to RT.
This could not stand.
A quick aside: despite all the claims by the Americans and the Brits about RT’s supposed attempts to “sow discord” in their societies, the network really should be lauded for bringing people together instead. In the US, where political bipartisanship is a near-extinct species, the Biden administration’s present-day efforts are fully endorsed by Fiona Hill, of Donald Trump’s National Security Council, who argued that “there has to be concerted action against RT.” In the UK, the recently elected Labor leadership has fully adopted their Tory predecessors’ anti-RT playbook.
Not going away
Let me be clear: RT is not going anywhere, in the West nor in the Global South. Our journalists will continue to do their jobs. We will continue to find ways to have our voice heard. Our audiences “of millions if not billions of people around the world” expect nothing less of us. This is our duty to the global community.
As for the global community, where does it stand, in the face of this new US-led campaign?
The Hindu, one of India’s newspapers of record, reported that already “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions against what they call ‘Russian disinformation’, by revoking accreditations and designating [RT] journalists under the ‘Foreign Missions Act’. However, while the ministry has been silent on the issue, government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India, while a former diplomat said that banning media organizations showed ‘double standards’ by Western countries… An official said that the matter ‘does not pertain’ to India and pointed out that India does not follow unilateral sanctions that are not approved by the United Nations.”
We are confident that the rest of the truly independent world will follow suit.
Anna Belkina is RT’s deputy editor in chief and head of communications, marketing and strategic development.
New Report: State Department Funded Fact-checkers to Censor ‘Lawful Speech’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 18, 2024
The U.S. Department of State-funded domestic and international fact-checking entities that censored American independent media outlets and social media users who questioned the Biden administration’s COVID-19 and other policies, according to a congressional report.
The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business stated:
“The Federal government has funded, developed, and promoted entities that aim to demonetize news and information outlets because of their lawful speech.”
The government’s actions fueled “a censorship ecosystem” that suppressed “individuals’ First Amendment rights” and “the ability of certain small businesses to compete online.”
The report focused on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), which promoted and funded “tech start-ups and other small businesses in the disinformation detection space … with domestic censorship capabilities.”
The “fact-checking” firms named in the report include the International Fact-Checking Network — owned by the Poynter Institute — and NewsGuard.
The International Fact-Checking Network, established in 2015, has received funding from another State Department-affiliated group, the National Endowment for Democracy — and from Google, the Open Society Foundations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
According to the House report, the federal government “assisted the private sector in detecting alleged MDM [misinformation-disinformation-malinformation] for moderation” and “worked with foreign governments with strict internet speech laws,” including European Union member states and the United Kingdom, to censor speech.
The report determined that the GEC and the National Endowment for Democracy violated international restrictions by “collaborating with fact-checking entities” to assess the content of domestic media outlets.
The “fact-checking” operations targeted independent media outlets, and as a result, “the scales are tipped in favor of outlets which express certain partisan narratives rather than holding the government accountable.”
Whether the State Department’s actions rise to “unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment is currently before the courts,” the report stated.
The State Department and several GEC officials are defendants in Murthy v. Missouri, a lawsuit alleging the Biden administration colluded with social media to censor free speech.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and its chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, a similar lawsuit that last year was consolidated with Murthy v. Missouri.
The Poynter Institute is a defendant in another censorship lawsuit, CHD v. Meta, that CHD filed against Facebook’s parent company.
NewsGuard partnered with CDC, WHO to censor online content
According to the report, NewsGuard used money it received from the GEC and the U.S. Department of Defense to fund efforts to lower the advertising revenue “of businesses purported to spread MDM.”
“A system that rates the credibility of press is fatally flawed as it is subject to the partisan lens of the assessor, making the ratings unreliable,” the report states.
NewsGuard leveraged taxpayer dollars to develop Misinformation Fingerprints, a product that “catalogues what it determines to be the most prominent falsehoods and ‘misinformation narratives’” circulating online, “essentially outsourcing the U.S. government’s perception of fact to NewsGuard,” the report states.
NewsGuard later partnered with dozens of companies, organizations, universities and media outlets, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General and the World Health Organization (WHO).
“During the pandemic, the WHO enlisted NewsGuard for its input, including regular reports, on which COVID-19 narratives it determined to be misinformation were prevalent online,” the report states. “The WHO then contacted social media companies and search engines asking them to remove this content.”
‘Nobody wanted’ fact-checkers until ‘actual truths started getting out’
Tim Hinchliffe, publisher of The Sociable, told The Defender, “These so-called ‘fact-checkers’ are not in the business of actually checking facts. They are in the business of controlling narratives … Nobody wanted or needed these organizations until actual truths started getting out.”
Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told The Defender the government increasingly relies on censorship to promote its favored narratives.
“They need to institute more and more censorship,” Fitts said. “It’s hard to refute the gaslighting that flows from this imagination factory.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender he wasn’t surprised that the State Department is “working to censor those who disagree with U.S. government policies and their globalist agenda.”
The report recommends that no federal funds “should be used to grow companies whose operations are designed to demonetize and interfere with the domestic press” and that federal agencies “should not be outsourcing their perception of fact to speech-police organizations subject to partisan bias.”
GEC also faces the loss of its government funding. According to the Washington Examiner, “A provision through the annual State Department appropriations bill, which passed the House this summer and will be negotiated in the Senate, aims to ban future checks to the GEC.”
But for Boyle, this is not enough. He said the State Department has, “at a minimum,” committed “the federal crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.”
Censorship ‘a pendulum that swings both ways’
The Gateway Pundit last week reported on additional links between the International Fact-Checking Network, other “fact-checking” firms and Big Tech.
In 2015, Poynter partnered with Google News Lab, which earlier that year, helped establish First Draft News. Active until 2022, First Draft was a consortium of social media verification groups that shared methods for combating “fake news.”
Another First Draft founder, fact-checking firm Bellingcat, also received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy.
First Draft was previously led by Claire Wardle, Ph.D., a Brown University professor who, according to “Twitter Files” released last year, advised the Biden administration on COVID-19 “misinformation” — despite having no science or medical credentials.
In 2016, Poynter and the International Fact-Checking Network partnered with First Draft “to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the [news] verification process.” Other partners included Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, NBC News and BBC News.
In 2017, Google News Lab partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network “to dramatically increase the searchable output of fact-checkers worldwide, expand fact-checking to new markets and support fact-checking beyond politics, such as in sports, health and science.” The following year, Poynter acquired PolitiFact.com.
Google was also one of the original funders of The Trust Project, a consortium of news organizations that developed eight “trust indicators” to help the public “easily assess the integrity of news.”
These “trust indicators” later became “one of the sources being used by NewsGuard Technologies for a new product to improve news literacy,” and formed “a foundation for NewsGuard review development.”
Hinchliffe warned that the beneficiaries of censorship based on today’s “fact-checking” may become its targets in the future.
“One of the problems of censorship that operates under the guise of misinformation and disinformation, apart from stifling free speech and suppressing actual truths, is that it’s a pendulum that swings both ways,” he said. “The people calling for censorship now may be in a greater position of power to do so, but it will one day swing back at them.”
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.
How Could Lebanon Blasts Affect Global Security and Attitude to Western Hi-Tech Producers?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 19.09.2024
A series of blasts reportedly involving Taiwanese, Japanese, American, and European-made devices in Lebanon on September 17 and 18 have prompted grave security concerns worldwide.
“Weaponizing mobile communications devices will fill many people with horror and fear,” Marc Ostwald, chief economist at ADM Investor Services International, told Sputnik. “It may, at the margin, dampen demand.”
The Lebanese government attributed the attack to Israel, accusing Tel Aviv of an outright act of terrorism.
Given almost “unconditional support” provided to Israel by some Western countries, some of them may have colluded with Tel-Aviv, said Hasan Abdullah, analyst and researcher at Global Security and Strategy Institute.
“The US is going to be the country that’s going to generate the greatest trust deficit with their customers, primarily because of its very close collaboration with Israel,” Abdullah told Sputnik.
The US has long been one of the largest suppliers of communication equipment, including for military needs, to the Global South, the pundit noted, adding that the recent blasts could alienate the developing world from Western producers.
Earlier, researcher Mehmet Rakipoglu and military analyst Alexei Leonkov told Sputnik they did not rule out US involvement in the Lebanon attack.
The Intercept reported on Wednesday that the US military had explored the possibility of planting remote-activated bombs in innocuous devices starting from the 1960s.
Middle East and other developing countries could eventually turn to Russian, Chinese or Turkish tech firms out of fear that the US involvement could compromise their security, Abdullah said.
Ostwald and Abdullah believe that several measures could be taken to stop the covert bombings, starting with investigations into manufacturing processes and ending with the deployment of international watchdogs to oversee production and supply.
Ukraine at the Crossroads
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | September 18, 2024
The West is being increasingly confronted with the cold realization that Ukraine cannot win this war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has set as a threshold for victory, not only the recapture of territory up to his country’s prewar borders, but the reclamation of all of its territory to the 2014 border, including the Donbas and Crimea. There are few among Ukraine’s Western backers who subscribe any longer to that illusion.
But Western governments and the Western media delude their public into believing that the war is a stalemate that Russia also cannot win. This assessment is based on the unsubstantiated claim that the threshold for Russia winning is, as a start, the subjugation of Ukraine in its entirety.
But that has never been Russia’s stated goal. Just as listening to Zelensky’s stated definition of victory leads to the realization that it cannot be attained, so listening to Vladimir Putin’s leads to the conclusion that it can. Russia cannot subjugate all of Ukraine. But it has also never claimed that as its goal. Putin has consistently said that “this conflict is not about territory… [it] is about the principles underlying the new international order.” He has said that Russia never intended to conquer Kiev and that the early advance toward the capital was intended to force Ukraine into the negotiations that the United States declined.
Putin’s stated goals have always been a written assurance that Ukraine will not join NATO and protection of ethnic Russians in the Donbas. His June peace proposal contains those very points. The proposal states that Ukraine must guarantee that it will be a non-nuclear, non-aligned neutral nation that will not join NATO. It states that Ukraine must completely withdraw from Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, that they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and that they must ensure the rights of the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.
If that is Russia’s definition of victory, then it is not impossible that Russia could win the war. And the advance on Pokrovsk is bringing some of those key points closer to realization.
Ukraine’s Western partners are at a crossroad. Plans of providing Ukraine with whatever they need for as long as it takes to push Russia out of Ukraine have been replaced by reinvigorating Ukraine’s position on the battlefield to strengthen their position at the inevitable negotiating table, even if that means, as one Western columnist put it, allowing Ukraine to “bomb Putin to the negotiating table.”
That would be one side of the crossroad: escalating war to advance peace. But that road, if it crosses Russia’s red line, is fraught with hazards. The other would be to find an offroad to the war, a road that leads to diplomatic negotiations and peace. Ukraine and some of its NATO partners, perhaps most importantly Britain, are urgently pushing the former. But a growing choir of Ukraine’s partners may be beginning to consider the second road.
In a vague article that names no names, Bloomberg reports that “some of Ukraine’s allies are starting to talk about how the fight against Russia’s invasion might end.” According to the report, “officials are more seriously gaming out how a negotiated end to the conflict and an off-road could take shape.” Facing the realization that Ukraine is unlikely to improve its position on the battlefield, “some allied officials” have begun “exploring ways in which diplomacy could break the deadlock.”
One of Ukraine’s partners is Germany. In a September 7 TV interview, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “I believe that now is the time to discuss how to arrive at peace from this state of war, indeed at a faster pace.” Scholz’ statement may mark the most significant brake in NATO unity since the early days of the war. There are even unconfirmed reports that Scholz, who recently announced that Germany would provide no financial aid to Ukraine for the war after 2025, is preparing a plan for a diplomatic settlement to the war that could include Ukraine making territorial concessions.
And, though out in front, Germany may not be alone. The Wall Street Journal reports that some European diplomats are telling Ukraine that the battlefield reality necessitates that “Ukraine needs to be more pragmatic in its wartime aims and strategy.” Senior European officials have told the Ukrainian leadership that “a full Ukrainian victory would require the West to provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth of support, something neither Washington nor Europe can realistically do.”
The French newspaper Le Figaro reported on September 16 that the battlefield reality, the “slowly but steadily” advancing Russian forces and the realization in the West that “Donbass and Crimea are beyond the military reach of the Ukrainians,” are causing some of Ukraine’s Western partners in the United States and Europe to “discreetly” discuss a negotiated settlement. A “senior French diplomat” reportedly told the Le Figaro that France, too, is now contemplating a “lasting and negotiated solution to the war.”
All of these reports point to the slow birth of momentum to choose a different path at the crossroad. Even Zelensky has said, “I feel that not all territories should be regained by hand or with weapons. I believe this will take a long time and involve a significant number of people. And I think this is a bad thing. As a result, I believe we might retake our territories diplomatically.”
But Zelensky is still trying to push his NATO partners to take the road of escalation to future peace talks. And he seems to have the backing of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Calling daily for the U.S. to sign off on using Western long-range missiles to fire deep into Russian territory, Zelensky and Starmer are advocating the “bomb Putin to the negotiating table” route.
There appear to be delays on that route while the U.S. awaits the presentation of Zelensky’s promised plan for winning the war and what it needs from the West to do that. His “Ukrainian Victory Plan” promises to identify the steps needed on the battlefield to “give us the strongest possible position to bring about peace—a real, just peace.” Zelensky promises, “For each step, there is a clear list of what is needed and what will strengthen us.” Officials expect Zelensky to request NATO and European Union membership, security arrangements, economic commitments, and a steady flow of advanced weapons. Zelensky has also promised to include a list of targets inside Russian that Ukraine believes would help achieve victory.
Both roads lead to diplomatic talks. The one at “a faster pace,” in the words of Olaf Scholz, the other at risk of escalation that will, in Putin’s words, “change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict” and, potentially, mean that NATO countries… are at war with Russia.”
How seriously Ukraine’s partners take Putin’s warning will help determine which road they take at the crossroad. The lack of a decision being announced after the September 14 meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Starmer suggests that the United States may be taking the warning seriously. National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby told a press conference that the Biden administration would never say “that we don’t take Mr. Putin’s threats seriously… He has obviously proven capable of escalation over the last, now, going on three years. So, yeah, we take these comments seriously.”
But, more concerningly, he qualified that seriousness by saying, “it is not something that we haven’t heard before. So, we take note of it. Got it. We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not.” More concerningly still, was Biden’s dismissive response to Putin’s caution. “ I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin,” Biden said.
Which attitude prevails in Washington and which view, Germany’s or Britain’s, prevails in Europe will help determine which road is chosen at the current crossroad: escalation or a faster pace to diplomacy. The first risks crossing red lines that could pull the West into direct conflict with Russia and offers little hope of improving Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table that the second road arrives at more quickly and directly. The first seems too dangerous to consider; the second seems like dangerous folly not to consider.
FDA Approves Vaccine for Mpox — Warns It May Cause Death in Vaccinated and People They Come in Contact With
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 17, 2024
A vaccine approved in August by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for people deemed to be at “high risk” for mpox infection may cause more harm than good, according to the FDA’s own medication guide for the product.
ACAM2000 — made by Emergent BioSolutions, a company specializing in vaccines for biochemical warfare threats such as anthrax and smallpox — was approved for smallpox in 2007.
However, on Aug. 29, the FDA issued an expanded supplement approval for ACAM2000’s use against mpox.
Since then, social media users have been posting clips of the FDA’s ACAM2000 medication guide, which warns the vaccine may cause “serious complications” in both the vaccinated person and those with whom they come into close contact up to 6 weeks after getting the shot.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D. — senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense — told The Defender that the FDA’s approval of the shot is a “public hazard, not the practice of public health.”
“You can call ACAM2000 a ‘vaccine,’ but its impact on the United States will be as a ‘disease,’” Jablonowski said.
He added:
“For instance, the drug’s package insert reveals (see Table 3) that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found roughly 520 per million ACAM2000 recipients contracted myocarditis or pericarditis.
“That is about 1 in 2,000. But elsewhere in the package insert, the FDA acknowledges that — based on additional studies — the risk is actually 5.7 per 1,000 vaccinations.
“That’s about 1 in every 175 people. If the 262 million adults in the U.S. received this vaccine, an estimated 1,493,000 would contract the serious adverse reaction of myopericarditis.”
Myopericarditis is an umbrella term for myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart.
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert, told The Defender that the CDC also acknowledged this same figure — myopericarditis in 5.7 per 1,000 primary ACAM2000 vaccinations — during a June 23, 2022, meeting.
“It’s a huge number,” Nass said. “The fact that the FDA and CDC are acknowledging it means no one should get the vaccine.”
She explained:
“Myopericarditis is a life-threatening condition. It lowers your life expectancy.
“Most people are never going to be exposed to mpox or smallpox. Vaccines are typically given to healthy people who are never even going to be exposed, therefore the risk posed by the vaccine needs to be low.
“That’s why vaccine safety is critical — even more than drugs, because drugs are given to people who are already sick.
“This risk — 1 in 175 — is higher than all other licensed vaccines for which the CDC acknowledges side effects. This is the worst.”
ACAM2000 can also cause fetal death when taken during pregnancy, the package insert states.
Additionally, the shot contains a “live vaccinia virus” that can be spread to — and possibly cause the death of — people who have close contact with the vaccinated person up to 6 weeks following vaccination, according to the medication guide.
The guide — which the FDA requires to be given to patients before they get the ACAM2000 vaccine — says, “ACAM2000 can cause serious complications in vaccinated individuals and in their close contacts to whom the vaccine virus has spread.”
Jablonowski said, “The spread of vaccinia virus is an infliction and an assault, as an unsuspecting person cannot possibly consent.”
“For good reasons you would not consent to this vaccine,” Jablonowski said, “even if you believed your benefits outweigh your risks, as you become a potential vector of a disease that is damaging to the heart and fatal to both fetus and infant.”
Risk of serious complications and death in vaccinated and those exposed to vaccinated individual
ACAM2000 is a single-dose vaccine administered using a bifurcated needle that’s been dipped into the vaccine solution, according to an Emergent BioSolutions press release.
In its Aug. 30 press release, the FDA stressed that “every person” who receives ACAM2000 is “required” to be given the drug’s FDA-approved medication guide.
“A Medication Guide is necessary,” the FDA said, “for safe and effective use of the vaccine because it could help prevent serious adverse events and inform the vaccine recipient of serious risks relative to benefit that could affect their decisions to be vaccinated.”
The guide lists serious possible complications, including: myocarditis, inflammation of the brain or spinal cord, serious skin infections, spreading the vaccine virus through the blood to other parts of the body and fetal death if taken during pregnancy.
According to the guide, “The risks for serious vaccine side effects are greater for people who:
- have heart problems or a history of heart problems
- are taking steroid eye drops or ointment
- have a weakened immune system
- have skin problems such as eczema, atopic dermatitis, burns, impetigo, contact dermatitis, chickenpox, shingles, psoriasis, or uncontrolled acne
- are less than 1 year old
- are pregnant or become pregnant within 6 weeks after vaccination.”
ACAM2000’s package insert warns of a longer list of possible serious complications, including:
“Myocarditis and/or pericarditis, encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, encephalopathy, progressive vaccinia (vaccinia necrosum), generalized vaccinia, severe vaccinial skin infections, erythema multiforme major (including Stevens-Johnson syndrome), eczema vaccinatum, accidental eye infection (ocular vaccinia) which can cause ocular complications including keratitis and corneal scarring that may lead to blindness, and fetal death in pregnant women.”
The insert also goes into more detail about the risk of death:
“Historically, death following vaccination with live vaccinia virus is a rare event; approximately 1 death per million primary vaccinations and 1 death per 4 million revaccinations have occurred after vaccination with live vaccinia virus.
“Death is most often the result of sudden cardiac death, post-vaccinial encephalitis, progressive vaccinia, or eczema vaccinatum.
“Death has also been reported in unvaccinated contacts accidentally infected by individuals who have been vaccinated.”
U.S. stockpile contains more than 100 million doses
The FDA’s approval of ACAM2000 for use against mox followed just days after Emergent BioSolutions pledged to donate 50,000 doses to address the mpox outbreak in Africa.
On July 2, the U.S. Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the HHS signed a $99.9 million deal with the drugmaker to obtain more ACAM2000 doses this year. Although the exact number of doses was not disclosed, Forbes on Sept. 8 reported that the U.S. currently has over 100 million doses.
HHS did not respond when The Defender asked if these doses are reserved for an emergency smallpox outbreak or are being made available as an mpox vaccine.
The Defender reached out to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) with the same question but was told by a CDC spokesperson, “We defer to the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) where the National Stockpile is housed.”
The CDC website on mpox vaccination states that ACAM2000 “has not been used in the ongoing clade II mpox outbreak that started in 2022″ but “has been made available for use against mpox in the clade II outbreak under an Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol, which requires informed consent along with completing additional forms.”
When The Defender asked the CDC to clarify if the agency currently recommends ACAM2000 for mpox, an agency spokesperson said:
“It has not been used for U.S. civilians affected by the clade II global outbreak that began in 2022, and there are no plans to use it broadly during Mpox outbreaks.
“This is because JYNNEOS, the alternate to ACAM2000 in the United States, has fewer side effects.”
The Defender asked Emergent BioSolutions what it wants to tell members of the public who may be concerned about risks associated with ACAM2000 but did not receive a response by our deadline.
This article has been updated to clarify that both the FDA and CDC acknowledge that the myopericarditis risk for ACAM2000 is estimated at 5.7 per 1,000 primary vaccinations.
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.
Featured Video
The American Retreat from Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- US publishes docs on ‘dangerous’ Ukrainian biolabs
- Trump’s ERAM cruise missiles for Ukraine blow up his peace overtures to Russia
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 
