Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
12/12/2016 2:51:50 PM
Israel wants mosques to turn the volume way down


The bill’s proponents describe the so-called “Muezzin Law” as necessary, not to clip religious freedom, but to muzzle excessive noise. The sponsors say their goal is to safeguard quality of life. The Muslims say their sacred tradition can't be compared to a rowdy party to be shut down by police.
(William Booth, Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

When the call to prayer begins in the Palestinian neighborhoods here, the Muslim faithful hear a song beautiful and sublime. Hour by hour, five times a day, it is the soundtrack of their lives. And it stirs deep emotions.

Across the walls, across the lines that separate Arabs from Jews, the Muslims’ call to prayer means something very different.

The Jews hear noise, they say. And worse.

During periods of heightened violence, when the Jews who live near Palestinians hear the Arabs proclaim that “God is great!” in a broadcast that travels far from the mosque’s loudspeakers, they say they do not think of God.

They hear a threat.

Israeli lawmakers now are pushing legislation to ban mosques in Israel and East Jerusalem from using loudspeakers to issue the call to prayer, especially in the early morning, when the summons begins as early as 4. The bill is being debated, and its sponsors hope to pass it in coming weeks.

One might think that after centuries of Jews and Muslims living side by side, in war and peace, these issues would be settled — but that would be naive.

The bill’s proponents describe the so-called “muezzin law” as necessary, not to clip religious freedom but to muzzle excessive noise. The sponsors say their goal is to safeguard quality of life.

As might be expected, a proposed ban on amplified calls to prayer has touched a raw nerve .

The Muslims say their sacred tradition cannot be compared to a rowdy party to be shut down by police.

In Pisgat Zeev, a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem, Yael Antebi lives in a sunny apartment with a terrace overlooking a dry desert riverbed. In the distance is a refugee camp for Palestinians in Shuafat, which today does not resemble the “camp” it was generations ago but rather a city with high-rise apartments, a mall and narrow, twisting streets.

“In tense times, the call feels threatening,” said Antebi, who sits on the Jerusalem city council and is a deputy mayor.

To her visiting grandchildren, who do not live near Arab villages, “the sound is frightening.”

Antebi said the mosques crank up the volume during conflicts. The prayer calls were especially loud in the summer of 2014, during the Gaza war.

“It’s like they’re trying to get inside your head,” she said.

Motti Yogev, a member of parliament from the pro-settler Jewish Home party, introduced the bill after hearing from frustrated Jewish residents who live in so-called mixed cities of Arabs and Jews in Lod, Acre, Haifa, Ramle and Jerusalem.

“People came to me to complain about the sound from the muezzin all day, but especially in the early morning,” he said. “The mosques would put their speakers right up near the homes of Jewish people and wake them up.”

He said some of those grumbling were Muslims, too. Arabs make up about 20 percent of the Israeli population, and most are Muslim.

Yogev said that years ago when there were no public-address systems or electricity, Muslims would knock on doors to let people know it was time for prayer. Or they would sing from the minaret without amplification. That was old-school.

“Now they can put it on the phone or an alarm clock,” he said. “They don’t need to broadcast it on speakers.”

In the Palestinian neighborhoods, residents see the threats, too. In Shuafat, locals said the muezzin bill is nothing more than power politics, the strong against the weak.

“This call doesn’t hurt anybody,” said Kamal Abdul Khader, a former boxer who works as a bus dispatcher in Shuafat.

“You know what the call is? The call is to come and pray to God,” he said. “The Jews don’t want to hear this? Tell me why.”

Told it wakes people up, Khader laughed and pointed at the chaotic street scene with its cacophony of honking horns, cellphone rings and pop music blasting from shops.

“Listen, this is Jerusalem. We Muslims don’t complain when the Christians ring their church bells. We don’t complain about the Jews with their ram horns. This is religion,” he said. “No one should interfere.”

Men attending Shuafat’s main mosque agreed. One recalled that he had heard the muezzin bill was changed to protect Jewish customs. In the deeply Orthodox communities of Israel, sirens often wail on Friday afternoons to mark the beginning of the Sabbath. Sometimes a trumpet or ram’s horn is sounded.

After the bill was first introduced, it was criticized by ultra-Orthodox Jewish lawmakers worried that it could apply to the customs of their constituents.

Proponents agreed to amend the bill to protect the Sabbath sirens.

The bill has broad support in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. “I cannot tell you how many times people of all faiths are bothered by this,” Netanyahu said recently.

The prime minister pointed to ordinances in Europe and the Middle East that control the volume or hours of the muezzin’s call. “Israel is committed to freedom of religion, but it must also protect citizens from the noise,” he said.

There are some who ask why such a divisive topic needs the blunt force of legislation and a ban.

In the ancient port city of Jaffa, the mosques in a mixed neighborhood of Jews and Muslims in the Tel Aviv municipality agreed to reduce the volume.

In two neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, members of the Jewish settlement of Gilo and their Palestinian counterparts in Beit Safafa were brought together by police to seek a compromise. There is a preliminary agreement to experiment with the placement of loudspeakers.

Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, hosted a meeting of Muslim and Jewish clerics last month to seek a middle way, without a new law.

“I am the son of someone who translated the Koran and observed the Jewish commandments, and I recognize the need to tread a fine line,” the president said.

In Pisgat Zeev, the deputy mayor said she thought the legislation was a political stunt designed to do nothing more than incite the public. “It’s cheap populism,” Antebi said. “There are already laws on the books to control noise between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. They can enforce them.”

At the mosque in Shuafat, the muezzin, who asked to be referred to as Abu Mohammad, said he has sung the call to prayer for 35 years. He was sorry to hear about all the complaints. He said he thought there was nothing more moving than hearing the call in the quiet of the dawn as it echoes across the desert where the prophets walked.

“If there is a more beautiful voice than mine?” he said. “They can do the call.”

Sufian Taha contributed to this report.

(The Washington Post)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
12/12/2016 2:57:58 PM

Israel’s bid to muffle Muslim call to prayer amplifies tensions

Dispute around high-decibel minarets is not unique to Israel, which argues that other states have similar restrictions to those it is looking to implement.


A Palestinian muezzin recites the Muslim call to prayer from the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, on November 21st (AFP))

2016/11/27


Jerusalem - At 4.30am Mufeed Sha­wana was rushing to al- Aqsa mosque as the first Muslim call to prayer of the day rang out across the Old City of east Jerusalem.

But he stopped short when asked how he felt about Israeli calls for the sound echoing from the mina­rets to be dampened.

“It upsets me. The calls to prayer have happened for 1,400 years,” he said.

A bill backed by Prime Minis­ter Binyamin Netanyahu to ban mosques around Israel and an­nexed east Jerusalem from using loudspeakers to amplify late night and early morning azans, or calls to prayers, has been approved by a ministerial committee ahead of a parliamentary debate and voting.

It has been temporarily blocked but the government is still confi­dent of pushing it through.

Shawana said nobody would deny Jews their own religious ritu­als, which are “their right”.

“This is our right,” he added, before disappearing inside the mosque to pray.

The dispute around high-decibel minarets is not unique to Israel, which argues that other states, in­cluding in Europe and elsewhere, have similar restrictions to those it is looking to implement.

But it has touched a raw nerve in Israel, where many in its minor­ity Arab population — about 17.5% of the whole and overwhelmingly Muslim — believe Netanyahu’s right-wing government is system­atically persecuting them.

They also worry that their con­nection to al-Aqsa, the third holiest site in Islam, is under threat

Large numbers of Israeli Jews view the azans as noise pollution, with the bill’s sponsor Motti Yogev, of the far-right Jewish Home party, arguing they disturb the peace of hundreds of thousands of people.

He has also claimed that in some cases they are used by religious leaders to incite against Israel.

In its current draft, the law would prevent the summons to worship­pers between 11pm until 6am from being relayed on loudspeakers.

Palestinians and Arab Israelis have organised protests against the ban, with an Arab Israeli MP per­forming the azan in Israel’s parlia­ment to the fury of some of his Jew­ish colleagues.

Government watchdogs call the bill a threat to religious freedom and the Arab League has termed it “a very dangerous provocation”.

Arab Israelis, who largely identify as Palestinians, are the descendants of Palestinians who remained on their land after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Beit Safafa in southern Jerusalem is an Arab village flanked by Jewish neighbourhoods, including the area of Pat, a few hundred metres away.

In a passionate sermon at Beit Safafa’s mosque, Najih Qiraat, a religious leader from al-Aqsa visit­ing for the weekly Friday prayers, railed against the Israeli plans.

“It is very clear the Israeli occu­pation with this law, or the attempt at this law, wants to Judaise the city. They don’t want to hear Arabic prayers in the city, they don’t want to see churches in the city,” he later said.

“The prayers represent a racket but the Israeli Jewish celebrations, celebrations at night you hear until dawn, they don’t represent a rack­et?” he asked.

For Israelis in Pat, turning the volume down is only fair and they accuse the Palestinians of being un­reasonable.

“We are a Jewish neighbourhood next to an Arab village — the noise is terrible. I have a little kid who cannot sleep,” said Ayelet Sadeh, 42.

Just like Qiraat and Shawana, she saw calculated malice rather than cultural misunderstanding behind the actions of the other side.

She pointed to the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, when life in Israel grinds to a standstill for a day, as an example — pointing out Muslim prayers also continue on that day.

“Sometimes,” she said, “it feels like they are doing (it out of) spite.”

Health Minister Yaakov Litzman of the ultra-Orthodox party United Torah Judaism blocked the bill as he was worried it would silence the weekly siren alerting Jews to the start of the Sabbath or holy day.

An Israeli official said the author­ities were confident they would find a way to pass the bill “while protecting religious freedom for all and the right of all to be free from excessive noise”.

There are more than 400 mosques in Israel and territories under its control, including east Jerusalem, according to Israeli gov­ernment figures, and implementing any law could be tough.

“Forbidden fruit is sweet,” Qiraat said, suggesting Muslims would organise loud prayer calls from homes.

“If they ban the prayers, every house will become a prayer house — every house will pray, every per­son,” he said.

“Day and night, until the occupa­tion understands they cannot inter­fere in religious issues.”

Agence France-Presse

(The Arab Weekly)




"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
12/12/2016 5:27:54 PM

Weekend brings wave of terror to Istanbul, Cairo, Mogadishu

Updated 1254 GMT (2054 HKT) December 12, 2016


(CNN) Throughout 2016, terror attacks have ripped apart small towns and big cities in the Middle East, Africa and Europe. This weekend brought no respite.

Three deadly blasts in major cities thousands of miles apart targeted sites where people gather for life's daily rituals.
Different groups claimed responsibility for two of the attacks, carrying them out in the name of different political and religious causes.
    In each of the three explosions, ordinary people paid the ultimate price, casualties of ongoing battles where there is no front line, no readily apparent uniform that denotes the combatants as friend or foe, and little anyone can do to ensure security.
    By now, the message is clear: No place is truly safe, whether it's a church, a park, a school or a busy street.

    Istanbul, Turkey

    When and where? Late Saturday night, December 10, after a heavily attended soccer game at Besiktas Vodafone Arena.
    CNN Map
    Besiktas Vodafone Arena

    What happened?
    Two blasts about a mile apart killed at least 44 people, most of them police officers, and wounded 150. A remote control detonated a car bomb in the first explosion and a suicide bomber caused the second.
    Officials investigate the scene of explosions near Istanbul's Besiktas stadium.
    Why? The Kurdish Freedom Hawks (TAK), a breakaway group of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), claimed responsibility on its website. The group, which is known to target the military and police, said the Turkish people were not the target of the attack. But the group inevitably ensnares innocent bystanders through its modus operandi, CNN military analyst Rick Francona said.
    TAK goes after government agents in locations where it knows they will find them, such as stadiums or public gatherings where they assemble to do their jobs. "We know they're responsible for a litany of violence against the Turkish government so it's not surprising that they're involved," he said. "What we're seeing is this continuation of tactics of going against the government."
    The attack will only make things worse for Kurds in Turkey, Francona said. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has identified the PKK as an immediate danger to Turkey since the July 15 failed coup.
    Erdogan has enacted emergency laws to close down pro-Kurdish media outlets, dismissed or suspended more than 11,000 teachers over alleged PKK connections, and he has selected at least 24 government appointees to replace Peoples' Democratic Party, or HDP, mayors, including in the Kurdish-majority city Diyarbakir, according to Fadi Hakura of the Turkey Project at London-based Chatham House.

    Cairo, Egypt

    A Coptic nun takes in the damage at Cairo's St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral.
    When and where? During Sunday morning mass at Cairo's main Coptic house of worship, at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral.
    What happened? A bomb ripped through a section of the church for women, killing at least 25 and injuring dozens more. President Abdel Fattah El Sisi condemned the attack and declared a three-day period of national mourning.
    Why? No group claimed immediate responsibility for the attacks. Coptic Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's 91 million residents, have been the targets of discrimination and violence since Hosni Mubarak's ouster in 2011.

    Mogadishu, Somalia

    When and where? Sunday around 7:30 a.m. in Mogadishu, the nation's largest city and capital.
    What happened? A car bomb filled with explosives rammed into the main entrance of a port, killing at least 20 people and injuring 15, most of whom were port employees and pedestrians.
    Why? The attack targeted police officers in the port's customs and tax office, a police official said, apparently missing its target. Al Shabaab, a Somalia-based militant group with ties to al Qaeda, claimed responsibility for killing 30 officers in the attack. CNN was unable to confirm the claim but the attack bears the group's hallmarks of detonating vehicles filled with explosives in busy areas. This year alone, the group claimed responsibility for a truck bomb that exploded outside the Somali presidential palace and a popular hotel in Mogadishu, killing 15; and a pair of suicide car bombings that struck a government building, killing 23 people, including rescuers.
    Al-Shabaab means "the Youth" in Arabic. It wants to turn Somalia into an Islamist state, complete with a strict form of Sharia. They've even recruited some Americans from Minnesota's Somali-American community.
    CNN's Arwa Damon, Max Blau, Ralph Ellis, Basma Atassi, Sarah Sirgany and Chandrika Narayan contributed to this report.



    "Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

    +1
    Luis Miguel Goitizolo

    1162
    61587 Posts
    61587
    Invite Me as a Friend
    Top 25 Poster
    Person Of The Week
    RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
    12/12/2016 5:56:02 PM
    Black Cat

    The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

    The CIA's latest report implicating Russia in the DNC and Podesta leaks is not founded on any evidence. Coming a few weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration it is more dangerous meddling by the US intelligence community in the US political process.

    In light of the CIA's allegations today, which are being assiduously spread by Obama administration officials speaking anonymously to the news media, that Russia materially assisted Donald Trump to win the US Presidential election, I will repeat here something I wrote on 31st October 2016.

    Note that this was written a week before the US Presidential election, and that the title of the article in which it was written was "Hillary Clinton just planted a bomb under American Democracy"
    "By far the most irresponsible and dangerous [thing] Hillary Clinton has done is however to accuse a foreign power - Russia - of meddling in the election in order to prevent her winning, and to impose Donald Trump on the American people.

    This is dangerous and irresponsible at so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.

    Firstly, it is not true. There is no evidence Donald Trump is a Russian agent or has any connection to Russia, or that Russia backs him. All the 'evidence' cited to prove he is and that it does - down to the misquotation of a single comment of Putin's and the claims about Trump's supposed Russian business connections - has proved to be so unconvincing that even Hillary Clinton has stopped talking about it.

    Secondly, it is polluting the US political system by using agencies of the US government to spread this false story.

    I have previously put on record my own strong doubts that Russia is behind the DNC and Podesta leaks. Now Craig Murray - a former British ambassador who (unlike me) is a personal friend of Julian Assange - has come forward to say that he knows 100% as fact that Russia is not behind the leaks (see here).

    Craig Murray is a man of proven integrity who as a former senior diplomat has handled classified intelligence material and who therefore knows how to separate fact from fiction. If he says he knows 100% for sure that Russia is not responsible for the DNC and Podesta leaks, then given the sources he has that is good enough for me, as it should be for all reasonable people.

    What that must mean is that the recent statement by US intelligence that Russia is behind the leaks is untrue. I have previously discussed the deeply manipulative language used in this statement, which in fact proves that US intelligence does not have the evidence to back up what it says.

    I have also pointed out that it is actually unprecedented for US intelligence to interfere in a US election in this way.

    Now that we have Craig Murray's confirmation that the claim of Russian responsibility for the leaks made in the statement is untrue, we can judge even more clearly what a deeply dishonest document this statement is.

    The big question is what persuaded US intelligence to make this statement? Based on everything we know, the suspicion has to be that Hillary Clinton and her campaign, almost certainly with the help of senior officials in the Obama administration, somehow persuaded US intelligence to put out this statement in order to swing the election in her favour.

    If so then it should be said clearly that using the nation's intelligence services to spread a false story in order to defeat a political opponent in a democratic election is a far worse thing than anything Richard Nixon ever did, whether during the 1972 election campaign or at any other point in his career.

    Thirdly, these false claims about Russia are corrupting public debate, making a proper discussion of the US's vital relationship with Russia - a nuclear superpower - all but impossible.

    The result is that the 'realist' positions that are now becoming associated with Donald Trump - which have a long and respectable history in US foreign policy (they were the policies of John F. Kennedy in the months immediately before he was assassinated, of Lyndon Johnson, of Nixon and Kissinger, of Ronald Reagan in his second term, and of George H.W. Bush) - are no longer being taken seriously, since they are being associated with a man who has all but been called a traitor.

    Fourthly, these false claims complicate relations with Russia almost beyond reason.

    How can either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton now negotiate with Putin when the first has been publicly all but accused of being Putin's agent and the other is being presented as the President that Putin tried to stop? How - if Hillary Clinton becomes President and tries to make a deal with Putin - does she explain it to her supporters after all the things she has said about him?

    Fifthly, and most dangerous of all, making this completely false claim is planting a bomb under the legitimacy of whoever is going to be the next President of the United States.

    If that person is Donald Trump, then he will have to contend with the fact that he is the candidate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, most of the political establishment, nearly all the media, and the US intelligence community, have publicly claimed Russia is helping to win.

    How in that case, if Trump does win, would he as President be able to command the respect and loyalty of the foreign policy bureaucracy, of the intelligence community, of the military, of the media, and of Congress, when they have all been told that he is the preferred candidate and quite possibly the agent of a foreign power? Would they not see it as their duty to obstruct and disobey him at every turn, so as to stop him selling out the country to his foreign puppet-masters?

    How does Trump contend with the insinuation, which will be hanging over his Presidency from the first day if he is elected, that it was only because of Russian help (right down to the hacking of voting machines) that he won, and that he is not therefore the true choice of the American people? Would not Trump have to fear possible impeachment proceedings in the event that he made the smallest mistake, with many Americans feeling that any steps were justified to remove a President who they had been told was the agent of a hostile power?"
    The latest story circulated about the CIA report into Russia's role in the election confirms every point that I made.

    To be clear the CIA is saying nothing new. It is not claiming that Russia hacked voting machines and manipulated the voting because despite Jill Stein's and the Hillary Clinton Campaign's efforts to find evidence of this through the vote recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, evidence of that there is none.

    The whole case still rests on entirely on the allegation that Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks. No more evidence of that has however been provided than was provided before, for the simple reason that no such evidence exists.

    I previously pointed out that the manipulative language in the statement made during the election by the US intelligence community accusing Russia of leaking the DNC and Podesta emails in fact confirmed that no evidence against Russia existed.

    I also asked what the FBI - the agency with competence to determine this question - thought about the "evidence" the US intelligence community was relying on and whether it had been shown it. It subsequently turned out that the FBI had been shown the "evidence" and that it refused to co-author the statement.

    It now turns that the CIA in fact has no evidence against Russia, that the entire case against Russia is inferential, and that some sections of the US intelligence community are now starting to have doubts. That all this is so is confirmed by the following passage in the Washington Post report of the CIA's report
    "The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

    Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the "Russian government is not the source.""
    The "identified individuals" - who are not officials of the Russian government - are of course not identified, though the careful placing of Julian Assange's name at the end of this passage appears to be intended to suggest that he is one of them. If so, then even to hint that Julian Assange may be "'one step' removed from the Russian government" is an outrageous and untrue slur.

    Regardless this passage confirms that the "identified individuals" - whoever they are - are not officials of the Russian government and - since they are referred to as "middlemen" - that they have no confirmed connection to it. Indeed the wording suggests they may not even be Russians.

    Putting all this aside, Donald Trump obviously did not win the election because of help from Russia, and the CIA's report actually falls short of saying he did.

    As I have discussed previously, Donald Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and because a great many Americans believe he will make their lives better.

    The CIA statement however shows what Donald Trump is up against.

    Already the Hillary Clinton Campaign has been actively lobbying electors on the Electoral College to switch support to Hillary Clinton from Donald Trump. Though this campaign is apparently meeting with little success, the CIA and the media are now assisting it, just as before the election the US intelligence community was trying to help Hillary Clinton win.

    In both cases the method used is the same: the spreading of false stories and paranoia about Russia. The implication is that Donald Trump is in some way the agent of Russia, making any step to prevent him becoming President a patriotic duty.

    I need hardly say that this is playing with fire. Never before in US history has there been an orchestrated campaign against an individual elected President in order to prevent him from being inaugurated. Never before has the US intelligence community involved itself in such a campaign.

    Though I expect this attempt to fail, no-one should be in any doubt as to the huge anger of the tens of millions who voted for Donald Trump were it to succeed.

    Though I expect this attempt to fail and Donald Trump to be inaugurated President on 20th January 2017, there is no doubt the campaign to destabilise him by painting him a Russian agent will continue after he is inaugurated.

    Probably the only way he can stop it is if he publicly renounces his policy of rapprochement towards Russia, as some are already demanding.

    Regardless of what eventually happens, it is both sinister and unprecedented for US intelligence to interfere in the US political process in this way.

    As I said at the end of my 31st October 2016 article, the American Republican is living through dark times. Perhaps given that the political situation in Washington is starting to bear the hallmarks of what in other countries would be called a pre-coup environment, it is not so surprising if Donald Trump is choosing to surround himself with generals.


    (sott.net)


    "Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

    +1
    Luis Miguel Goitizolo

    1162
    61587 Posts
    61587
    Invite Me as a Friend
    Top 25 Poster
    Person Of The Week
    RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
    12/12/2016 5:58:48 PM
    MIB

    The CIA's big lies about 'Russian hacking' puts everyone in danger

    I have watched incredulously as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story - blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilize a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

    As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks - there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

    The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

    I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
    The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bull****", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."

    "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    "If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

    "America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."
    But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming - incredibly - that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven't they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

    It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bull**** from the executive.

    In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of theGuardian writes "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump." Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a "credible source"? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?


    Comment: Execrable indeed. In the article referred to above, Freedland also goes on to perpetuate the Big Lie about Russia's actions in Syria. Basically, Jonathan Freedland could not be a better mouth piece for imperial propaganda if he was paid by the CIA or the U.S. State Department.


    Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

    Contrast this to the "credible sources" Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It's the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

    In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as "credible" give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland's mind, "credible" is 100% synonymous with "establishment". When he says "credible sources" he means "establishment sources". That is the truth of the "fake news" meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

    The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries - including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.

    Comment: The information war against Russia - and real news - has gotten white hot. But it affords us a great opportunity to see how a dying Empire responds to the threat of shared truth. It's also a chance for those of us who see this truth to carry it forward so that many may benefit from this incredible lesson in history, and take a stand where we can.

    See also: The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump


    (sott.net)


    "Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

    +2


    facebook
    Like us on Facebook!