According to the majority of Americans, the “War on Terror” began September 11, 2001 when 19 Muslims hijacked four planes, crashing them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. While this official version of the story, fueled by policymakers and mainstream media, ignores concrete evidence of other—distinctly non-Muslim—fingerprints on the tragedy, let us assume for the time being that these men were Islamic radicals aiming to destroy prominent American symbols and inflict mass casualties.
One of those killed in the World Trade Center was a young man named James Gadiel whose hometown of Kent, Connecticut wanted to commemorate a plaque in his honor. Since Gadiel’s father demanded the words “killed by Muslim terrorists” be engraved on the plaque, it was rejected by town council members. Ruth Epstein, one of the town leaders who voted it down, correctly pointed out that such language is disparaging, detrimental to the town’s image and hurtful to its Muslim residents.
However, “killed by Muslim terrorists” is not so offensive in that it is insensitive or promotes a negative stereotype: it is just plain inaccurate.
A “Muslim terrorist,” is a myth, a fictional character based in part on the hypocritical definition of terrorism that Western policymakers and the media have used to promote their own agenda and partly due to territorial and political conflicts being erroneously framed in a religious context. Most of the “terrorist groups” and “state sponsors of terrorism,” so named by the US State Department are reactive, formed as organized resistance in the face of oppression.
During her recent visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Clinton condemned marketplace bombings as terrorism, while stating in a town hall meeting that US drone attacks on villages were not, even though such attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of madrasas, religious schools for children.
Throughout the world, Muslims have had no choice but to form organized resistance to the myriad injustices committed against their communities and institutions. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to the Shah’s bloody regime and the CIA’s now admitted role in the coup which overthrew democratically elected (and secular) Mossadegh to put him in power. The Abu Sayyaf movement in the Philippines formed as a result of the government’s policy to encourage Catholic settlers to move from the north to Mindanao, which was richer in natural resources. Poorer Muslim communities were subsequently displaced and marginalized. Abu Sayyaf’s desire for an independent state in the southern Philippines has more to do with historical injustice (along with Spanish and American colonial influence) than religion.
The same false religious context is ascribed to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a fight between Muslims and Jews. In reality, Zionism begin as a secular movement, later establishing a state atop the mass graves of Deir Yassin, Ramleh, Acre and countless other villages decimated by the western-backed Irgun, Stern and Israeli military. In the 61 years following that disaster, the United States—founded on the principles of religious equality and freedom—has become the greatest ally of a state who has co-opted religion to justify the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, while turning survivors into the world’s largest refugee population.
Recent weeks have seen Islam’s third holiest shrine, Al-Aqsa Mosque, fall under a siege by the Israeli police, attacking worshippers therein with tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. If we really lived in the alternate universe of FOX News and AM talk radio, Muslims would be carrying out daily spectacular attacks to avenge this desecration; instead Al-Aqsa is defended by a band of youths with rocks while there is silence from Islamic countries, most of whom boast corrupt western puppets as heads of government.
The assault on Al-Aqsa is the latest outrage Muslims have endured; from genocide and strangulation by the Israeli assault on Gaza to the humiliating maltreatment suffered in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and elsewhere. According to Newsweek, tactics used in US military prisons in Iraq include the use of loud music during interrogations; one of the most frequently played songs is entitled “F-k Your God” by Deicide, attacking their very faith itself.
However, the persecution of Muslims does not just take place overseas. On October 28, FBI agents shot Detroit imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah during a botched arrest in which they loosed a police canine on him. Abdullah fired at the dog and was subsequently shot 18 times, dying at the scene. The dog was airlifted to a medical facility where it was pronounced dead. According to the FBI, Abdullah was allegedly dealing in stolen goods and was “anti-government.”
Now as the latest violent incident involving a Muslim unfolds, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups are tripping over each other to condemn the Ft. Hood shootings. Koreans did not feel such urgency when Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. The difference is, Koreans have not been the victims of a sustained media campaign to define alleged criminals on the basis of their religion or nationality. Muslims have.
For far too long, our politicians and the media have preyed on an uneducated public, attempting to turn us all into Islamophobes, fearing a Muslim takeover that will turn the United States into a caliphate. For those misguided individuals, rest easy: Muslims worldwide are too busy fighting for their very existence in a war the West declared long ago.
November 11, 2009
October 12, 2009
End Israeli Exemption to International Law
Throughout the world, people have attempted to distinguish ordinary Americans from the United States government. Perhaps our complacency for aiding and abetting war crimes has been attributed to lack of education, apathy in the face of an omnipotent pro-Israeli lobby or that we are simply hapless workaholics with time for little else. Yet private citizens, either for some warped religious or political viewpoint, or through sheer ignorance often exacerbate the control pro-Israel interest groups have over American institutions.
In September, the city of Dayton, Ohio--population roughly 160,000--signed a three-year commitment to share military technology with Israel. One of the key components of the agreement is the further development of unmanned aircraft. County officials reported $350,000 in private donations was raised to contribute to this and other “economic development projects” in Israel.
The attitude of this small Midwestern city is reflective of the American nation as a whole. Sharing military technology with a nation that is known to use such technology against civilians is against international law; yet human rights take a back seat to the promise of job opportunities and economic growth at the expense of people half a world away. While Americans enjoy the freedom of unfettered Internet access and ample educational opportunities, the majority choose to remain deliberately ignorant of the law and an all but forgotten value system.
The American Society of the Red Cross offers a four-hour class on International Humanitarian Law during armed conflict, which draws its legal basis from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Ratified by all 194 of the world’s countries, the Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians and institutions such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools. They also mandate the humane treatment of sick and injured combatants as well as prisoners of war.
In 1998, the world community took additional steps to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) responsible for prosecuting individuals for violations of International Humanitarian Law. Ironically, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute which created the ICC and notified the United Nations that it will not recognize the authority of such a court.
Not coincidentally, the United States made this announcement in May 2002, less than a month after Israel’s attack on the Jenin refugee camp. Untold numbers of civilians were massacred in the onslaught and survivors were subsequently denied Red Cross and Red Crescent access, representing yet another grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Journalists were kept out in an attempt to conceal mass graves of Palestinian men, women and children from the rest of the world—crimes worthy of referral to the ICC.
Small wonder the United States, protector-in-chief of the Jewish State, chose that time to deny the court’s right to exist. Yet, as horrific as was the Jenin massacre, it served as a merely a bloody preamble to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and most recently, Gaza.
During Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive, Gazans suffered indiscriminate attacks on civilian neighborhoods, mosques, clinics and a UN school.
The BBC reported a clinic run by Christian Aid, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical equipment, was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack. The clinic provided free health care, with specific focus on mothers and children. Its purpose was well-known, as Israeli military officials called the organization 15 minutes prior to its destruction, alleging “terrorist operations in the area.”
Civilians, particularly children, were targeted by Israeli soldiers. Dr. Ahmed Yahia, head of neurosurgery at the El-Arish hospital in Egypt told BBC News that brain scans “made it clear that a number of the child victims had been shot at close range.”
Compounding the human toll, Israel used white phosphorus and the DIME bomb, a heinous weapon causing catastrophic internal wounds and the rapid onset of cancer in those exposed to it.
The Geneva Convention calls on its signatories—all 194 of them—to prosecute war crimes. When a nation is unwilling or unable to do so, it is up to the international community to step in and apply sanctions against the offending nation.
However, when governments are unwilling to live up to their agreements, it should fall into the hands of private citizens to pressure these said governments; when private citizens are ignorant of international law, the pro-Israeli media juggernaut and corrupt politicians are all too eager to fill the vacuum.
Such was the case at the recent G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The United States, France and Britain called for sanctions against Iran for pursuing nuclear power, hypocritically ignoring Israel’s already hefty nuclear arsenal along with its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
It is time International Humanitarian Law be made an educational requirement in our public schools rather than an optional course offered intermittently. Only then will we have a citizenry capable of demanding government adherence to the Geneva Convention.
The alternative is unfolding before our very eyes: a decline in civility, the breakdown of morality and the rapidly decreasing value we place on a human life. This is the legacy the children of the world are doomed to inherit if teaching international law is not made a priority.
In September, the city of Dayton, Ohio--population roughly 160,000--signed a three-year commitment to share military technology with Israel. One of the key components of the agreement is the further development of unmanned aircraft. County officials reported $350,000 in private donations was raised to contribute to this and other “economic development projects” in Israel.
The attitude of this small Midwestern city is reflective of the American nation as a whole. Sharing military technology with a nation that is known to use such technology against civilians is against international law; yet human rights take a back seat to the promise of job opportunities and economic growth at the expense of people half a world away. While Americans enjoy the freedom of unfettered Internet access and ample educational opportunities, the majority choose to remain deliberately ignorant of the law and an all but forgotten value system.
The American Society of the Red Cross offers a four-hour class on International Humanitarian Law during armed conflict, which draws its legal basis from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Ratified by all 194 of the world’s countries, the Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians and institutions such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools. They also mandate the humane treatment of sick and injured combatants as well as prisoners of war.
In 1998, the world community took additional steps to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) responsible for prosecuting individuals for violations of International Humanitarian Law. Ironically, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute which created the ICC and notified the United Nations that it will not recognize the authority of such a court.
Not coincidentally, the United States made this announcement in May 2002, less than a month after Israel’s attack on the Jenin refugee camp. Untold numbers of civilians were massacred in the onslaught and survivors were subsequently denied Red Cross and Red Crescent access, representing yet another grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Journalists were kept out in an attempt to conceal mass graves of Palestinian men, women and children from the rest of the world—crimes worthy of referral to the ICC.
Small wonder the United States, protector-in-chief of the Jewish State, chose that time to deny the court’s right to exist. Yet, as horrific as was the Jenin massacre, it served as a merely a bloody preamble to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and most recently, Gaza.
During Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive, Gazans suffered indiscriminate attacks on civilian neighborhoods, mosques, clinics and a UN school.
The BBC reported a clinic run by Christian Aid, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical equipment, was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack. The clinic provided free health care, with specific focus on mothers and children. Its purpose was well-known, as Israeli military officials called the organization 15 minutes prior to its destruction, alleging “terrorist operations in the area.”
Civilians, particularly children, were targeted by Israeli soldiers. Dr. Ahmed Yahia, head of neurosurgery at the El-Arish hospital in Egypt told BBC News that brain scans “made it clear that a number of the child victims had been shot at close range.”
Compounding the human toll, Israel used white phosphorus and the DIME bomb, a heinous weapon causing catastrophic internal wounds and the rapid onset of cancer in those exposed to it.
The Geneva Convention calls on its signatories—all 194 of them—to prosecute war crimes. When a nation is unwilling or unable to do so, it is up to the international community to step in and apply sanctions against the offending nation.
However, when governments are unwilling to live up to their agreements, it should fall into the hands of private citizens to pressure these said governments; when private citizens are ignorant of international law, the pro-Israeli media juggernaut and corrupt politicians are all too eager to fill the vacuum.
Such was the case at the recent G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The United States, France and Britain called for sanctions against Iran for pursuing nuclear power, hypocritically ignoring Israel’s already hefty nuclear arsenal along with its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
It is time International Humanitarian Law be made an educational requirement in our public schools rather than an optional course offered intermittently. Only then will we have a citizenry capable of demanding government adherence to the Geneva Convention.
The alternative is unfolding before our very eyes: a decline in civility, the breakdown of morality and the rapidly decreasing value we place on a human life. This is the legacy the children of the world are doomed to inherit if teaching international law is not made a priority.
August 10, 2009
The King-Crane Commission: Required Reading Buried Under 100 Years of Zionist Propaganda
“Down with American Imperialists.” This sign, or one of its variations, can be seen at protests and demonstratons throughout the world. U.S. policies have given credence to it, fueling legitimate hatred in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and others victimized by America’s lust for oil and support of the Israeli military juggernaut. Yet less than 100 years ago, the United States was admired in the global arena as a bastion of justice and freedom. Furthermore, Zionism—the belief that all Jews are entitled to a “homeland” in Palestine—was condemned in an official document.
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
July 21, 2009
Obama: What Change?
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for duping the Arab and Muslim community in America yet again with another hollow speech. He became the darling of many by opening his recent Cairo address with “Assalamu Aleikum.” So he is better at languages and public relations than G.W. Bush. Other than that, there is little difference between the two administrations.
First, there is the matter of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama has backpedaled on the issue of releasing photos of prisoner abuse citing it would “enflame anti-American sentiment.” Sound familiar? Then there is the manufactured red tape regarding which country will take the detainees once they are released. Common sense dictates they should be dropped off wherever U.S. soldiers captured them before unlawfully whisking them away to an overseas limbo.
If Obama supporters can stop fist-bumping long enough at their success in bringing hope and change to the masses, they might have time to raise these points and also question the status of detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, America’s new Guantanamo. If they get around to it, maybe they can also ask why Obama (like Bush in the beginning of his first term) pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state without holding the Israelis accountable for their actions.
In Cairo, Obama stood lamenting how “terrorists” could fire rockets at sleeping children in Sderot without one word as to the utter devastation and carnage visited on Gaza by Israeli Occupation Forces less than six months ago. Not a single word. Obama never mentioned the 1,500 Palestinian men, women and children that were murdered, not to mention the thousands of mutilated wounded: amputees, burn victims and those who simply died due to lack of equipment, electricity and medicine during the Israeli-imposed blockade.
It is frustrating when supporters of a Palestinian state—to be built on less than 20% of historical Palestine—express hope in Obama’s empty rhetoric against Israeli settlement construction, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu states that Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of “Israel” and that there will be no Palestinian military. No military with a hostile nuclear neighbor? The scenario would be laughable except that so many are buying into it.
To add insult to injury, Obama followed up his Cairo visit with a tour of Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Nothing plays into Zionist spin better than tying a visit to the Arab World with a Nazi concentration camp. Obama is smart enough to know that, and with quintessential opportunism, he invoked the Holocaust at every turn during that visit and later at the D-Day commemoration in France.
Obama also used these occasions to launch a verbal attack against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad for his “threats” against the Jewish State, mostly created when western media mistranslated and misrepresented his words. Also appearing at Buchenwald, fellow opportunist Elie Wiesel recited a litany of man’s inhumanity to man in the decades since WWII. After Rwanda and Darfur, the massacre in Gaza was blatantly omitted yet again.
So while Obama enthusiasts talk about hope, change, and what a pleasant departure from the Bush-Cheney era the last few months have been, nothing has changed on the ground.
Ask a villager in Waziristan if she has seen any change since Obama’s inauguration. Has she seen any respite from drone attacks and do she and her children sleep any more easily?
Ask Mohammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih, who was detained at Guantanamo Bay for over seven years with no charges if he saw any change from the endless torture of being held indefinitely. Did a brief surge of hope rise up in his chest as Obama pledged to close the facility? We will never know what Salih hoped and dreamed; he killed himself on June 2.
It is high time we step up the pressure on Obama and not let him get away with the double-talk, smokescreens and blatant lies which got him elected in the first place.
First, there is the matter of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama has backpedaled on the issue of releasing photos of prisoner abuse citing it would “enflame anti-American sentiment.” Sound familiar? Then there is the manufactured red tape regarding which country will take the detainees once they are released. Common sense dictates they should be dropped off wherever U.S. soldiers captured them before unlawfully whisking them away to an overseas limbo.
If Obama supporters can stop fist-bumping long enough at their success in bringing hope and change to the masses, they might have time to raise these points and also question the status of detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, America’s new Guantanamo. If they get around to it, maybe they can also ask why Obama (like Bush in the beginning of his first term) pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state without holding the Israelis accountable for their actions.
In Cairo, Obama stood lamenting how “terrorists” could fire rockets at sleeping children in Sderot without one word as to the utter devastation and carnage visited on Gaza by Israeli Occupation Forces less than six months ago. Not a single word. Obama never mentioned the 1,500 Palestinian men, women and children that were murdered, not to mention the thousands of mutilated wounded: amputees, burn victims and those who simply died due to lack of equipment, electricity and medicine during the Israeli-imposed blockade.
It is frustrating when supporters of a Palestinian state—to be built on less than 20% of historical Palestine—express hope in Obama’s empty rhetoric against Israeli settlement construction, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu states that Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of “Israel” and that there will be no Palestinian military. No military with a hostile nuclear neighbor? The scenario would be laughable except that so many are buying into it.
To add insult to injury, Obama followed up his Cairo visit with a tour of Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Nothing plays into Zionist spin better than tying a visit to the Arab World with a Nazi concentration camp. Obama is smart enough to know that, and with quintessential opportunism, he invoked the Holocaust at every turn during that visit and later at the D-Day commemoration in France.
Obama also used these occasions to launch a verbal attack against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad for his “threats” against the Jewish State, mostly created when western media mistranslated and misrepresented his words. Also appearing at Buchenwald, fellow opportunist Elie Wiesel recited a litany of man’s inhumanity to man in the decades since WWII. After Rwanda and Darfur, the massacre in Gaza was blatantly omitted yet again.
So while Obama enthusiasts talk about hope, change, and what a pleasant departure from the Bush-Cheney era the last few months have been, nothing has changed on the ground.
Ask a villager in Waziristan if she has seen any change since Obama’s inauguration. Has she seen any respite from drone attacks and do she and her children sleep any more easily?
Ask Mohammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih, who was detained at Guantanamo Bay for over seven years with no charges if he saw any change from the endless torture of being held indefinitely. Did a brief surge of hope rise up in his chest as Obama pledged to close the facility? We will never know what Salih hoped and dreamed; he killed himself on June 2.
It is high time we step up the pressure on Obama and not let him get away with the double-talk, smokescreens and blatant lies which got him elected in the first place.
The Zionist Occupation of American Media
Western media has eroded into little more than sound bytes of celebrity gossip or inane stories about how cutting calories can help people live longer. When there is no way to get around reporting "hard news" so-called journalists build careers by regurgitating whatever they are spoon-fed by administration officials in scripted interviews.
All cannot be attributed to sheer incompetence. Often facts are omitted or so distorted that newscasts take on the sinister feel of state-run media, serving merely as a government mouthpiece to promote a particular agenda. The majority of the time, this is accomplished in one of three ways:
1) shoddy coverage of the dual U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan in which soldier and civilian casualties are grossly under-reported
2) portraying Muslims and Arabs as aggressive terrorists (conversely, events in which Muslims and/or Arabs are victimized go unreported)
3) blatant pro-Israel bias
The murder of Marwa Sherbini, an Egyptian woman stabbed 18 times in a German courtroom while police stood idle--although they shot her husband “accidentally” when he tried in vain to thwart the brutal attack--should have caused international outrage. However, much of the world was not aware of the tragedy. A comment posted to Al-Jazeera’s website correctly pointed out that it would have been a much different reaction if the situation had been reversed: imagine if a Jew or a Christian was murdered in an Egyptian courtroom.
On a broader scale, the media has depicted the hell that was once Gaza as resulting from “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Furthermore, the detrimental effect that the U.S. alliance with the Jewish State has had on our own citizens is kept a closely guarded secret.
On July 4, while every network was still engaged in 24/7 coverage of Michael Jackson’s death, there was a crippling cyber attack on U.S. government websites, including the Department of Treasury, the Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation. The same day, South Korea suffered a similar attack on the websites of the Presidential Blue House, Defense Ministry and banking institutions. It was not reported until four days later.
Both the U.S. and South Korea came to the logical—if not overly simple—conclusion that the perpetrator was North Korea. Less-than-mediocre journalists were quick to circulate the story over the airwaves and the Internet. If they had done their jobs, they might have looked at other events reported the same day and connected a few dots. But that would have taken some actual investigative work, something foreign to today’s media.
The same day that news broke of North Korea’s alleged attack, Reuters reported that Israel has been preparing a cyber war against Iran. A spokesperson from Technologies Institute, a U.S. consultancy, stated that Israel is the sixth biggest cyber warfare threat, after China, Russia, Iran, France and “terrorist/extremist” groups. Oddly enough, North Korea, who was behind this “unusually lengthy and sophisticated attack,” according to the Associated Press, did not make the list.
Israeli officials admitted to successful tests of cyber attacks on an internal pipeline, and that furthermore, the same methods could be used to attack sites of uranium enrichment facilities in Iran. It only makes sense that Israel would have wanted to test their tactics before proceeding, and what better way to divert suspicion than attacking South Korea as well?
It wouldn’t be the first time Israel attacked their largest supporter. The USS Liberty was destroyed by Israeli bombers in 1967. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were injured. Naval personnel listening to radio relays heard President Lyndon B. Johnson say “I don’t care if the ship sinks, I’m not going to embarrass an ally.”
The unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks have always pointed to an Israeli factor, despite government secrecy and media complicity. In the weeks prior to September 11, 140 Israelis were detained as part of a suspected espionage ring. Nearly all had served in the Israeli army with specialties in either explosives or intelligence, although Carl Cameron of Fox News quoted a senior investigator as stating "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified."
Those cases were separate from the arrests of five Israelis who were caught filming the World Trade Center attack, laughing, giving each other high-fives and dancing as it happened. This story was verified by the Washington Post, The Palm Beach Post and ABC News. Shortly after, they returned to Israel, where four of the five filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the United States for false arrest.
The media was conspicuously absent when Rachel Corrie, an American citizen, was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza while trying to prevent a home demolition. She should have been a household name; yet her death was ruled “accidental” and was never investigated by Congress despite persistent pressure from Ms. Corrie’s parents and numerous fellow activists.
Citizens must hold news organizations accountable through letters, phone calls, education and other grass roots means. If not, we may as well live with the lies that punctuate most mainstream media reporting and surrender our First Amendment right to a free press.
All cannot be attributed to sheer incompetence. Often facts are omitted or so distorted that newscasts take on the sinister feel of state-run media, serving merely as a government mouthpiece to promote a particular agenda. The majority of the time, this is accomplished in one of three ways:
1) shoddy coverage of the dual U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan in which soldier and civilian casualties are grossly under-reported
2) portraying Muslims and Arabs as aggressive terrorists (conversely, events in which Muslims and/or Arabs are victimized go unreported)
3) blatant pro-Israel bias
The murder of Marwa Sherbini, an Egyptian woman stabbed 18 times in a German courtroom while police stood idle--although they shot her husband “accidentally” when he tried in vain to thwart the brutal attack--should have caused international outrage. However, much of the world was not aware of the tragedy. A comment posted to Al-Jazeera’s website correctly pointed out that it would have been a much different reaction if the situation had been reversed: imagine if a Jew or a Christian was murdered in an Egyptian courtroom.
On a broader scale, the media has depicted the hell that was once Gaza as resulting from “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Furthermore, the detrimental effect that the U.S. alliance with the Jewish State has had on our own citizens is kept a closely guarded secret.
On July 4, while every network was still engaged in 24/7 coverage of Michael Jackson’s death, there was a crippling cyber attack on U.S. government websites, including the Department of Treasury, the Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation. The same day, South Korea suffered a similar attack on the websites of the Presidential Blue House, Defense Ministry and banking institutions. It was not reported until four days later.
Both the U.S. and South Korea came to the logical—if not overly simple—conclusion that the perpetrator was North Korea. Less-than-mediocre journalists were quick to circulate the story over the airwaves and the Internet. If they had done their jobs, they might have looked at other events reported the same day and connected a few dots. But that would have taken some actual investigative work, something foreign to today’s media.
The same day that news broke of North Korea’s alleged attack, Reuters reported that Israel has been preparing a cyber war against Iran. A spokesperson from Technologies Institute, a U.S. consultancy, stated that Israel is the sixth biggest cyber warfare threat, after China, Russia, Iran, France and “terrorist/extremist” groups. Oddly enough, North Korea, who was behind this “unusually lengthy and sophisticated attack,” according to the Associated Press, did not make the list.
Israeli officials admitted to successful tests of cyber attacks on an internal pipeline, and that furthermore, the same methods could be used to attack sites of uranium enrichment facilities in Iran. It only makes sense that Israel would have wanted to test their tactics before proceeding, and what better way to divert suspicion than attacking South Korea as well?
It wouldn’t be the first time Israel attacked their largest supporter. The USS Liberty was destroyed by Israeli bombers in 1967. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were injured. Naval personnel listening to radio relays heard President Lyndon B. Johnson say “I don’t care if the ship sinks, I’m not going to embarrass an ally.”
The unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks have always pointed to an Israeli factor, despite government secrecy and media complicity. In the weeks prior to September 11, 140 Israelis were detained as part of a suspected espionage ring. Nearly all had served in the Israeli army with specialties in either explosives or intelligence, although Carl Cameron of Fox News quoted a senior investigator as stating "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified."
Those cases were separate from the arrests of five Israelis who were caught filming the World Trade Center attack, laughing, giving each other high-fives and dancing as it happened. This story was verified by the Washington Post, The Palm Beach Post and ABC News. Shortly after, they returned to Israel, where four of the five filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the United States for false arrest.
The media was conspicuously absent when Rachel Corrie, an American citizen, was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza while trying to prevent a home demolition. She should have been a household name; yet her death was ruled “accidental” and was never investigated by Congress despite persistent pressure from Ms. Corrie’s parents and numerous fellow activists.
Citizens must hold news organizations accountable through letters, phone calls, education and other grass roots means. If not, we may as well live with the lies that punctuate most mainstream media reporting and surrender our First Amendment right to a free press.
September 25, 2008
Election 2008: A Lose-Lose Situation
I will be the first to admit I have a bad case of tunnel vision when it comes to the Palestinian conflict. This in itself makes it nearly impossible to choose a worthy candidate in a nation where allegiance to Israel is a prerequisite to becoming electorally viable.
I will also admit the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is probably the furthest thing from the minds of most Americans, who have more immediate worries such as mortgage payments, inadequate or non-existent medical coverage and/or loved ones deployed to some illogical war zone.
However, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is in so many ways a summary of the disasters plaguing the United States today. The staggering cost of aiding and abetting the Israeli government, to the tune of $30 billion over the next ten years, is both an economic drain and a major component of our failed foreign policy.
American taxpayers are not only forced to funnel hard-earned dollars to military and economic aid for Israel, but are also providing substantial assistance to the Fatah party, as reported last year by Christian Science Monitor.
According to CSM, “Senior US officials in Washington promised ongoing military support for secular Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas amid his power struggle with Islamist Hamas as part of an $84 million aid package largely aimed at improving the fighting ability of an elite corps of loyalists from his Fatah Party.”
Such action is used to exacerbate and prolong civil strife, whereby the lack of security in the Palestinian territories can be utilized as a perfect excuse not to establish a Palestinian state. With no official state and no defined borders, Israel is free to grab more land at will, whittling away at the last 20% of historical Palestine.
Additionally, the same Israeli lobby that demands Congress’s unflinching support of the Jewish state helped sell us the now over $650 billion Iraq War, a figure which pales in comparison to the human cost. Those who deny Israeli influence in the fiasco must remember former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement after the fall of Baghdad: “That’s one enemy of Israel gone.”
Next on their hit list is Iran. According to U.S. News and World Report, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is coming to New York next week to attend a “pro-Israel, anti-Iran rally.”
At one point, I was actually leaning McCain-Palin’s way; or rather leaning away from Senator Barack Obama and his expressed solidarity for the “brave citizens of Sderot.” His spineless denial of former friends who were pro-Palestinian activists in Chicago didn’t exactly raise his stock with me, either.
However, there is one thing Obama does have going for him: he is not of the Zionist “Christian” ilk that brought us eight years of George W. Bush. Lest we forget, McCain and Palin belong to the special evangelical breed that believes all Jews have to congregate in “Greater Israel” before Jesus Christ can return to earth. These views have been downplayed by the McCain-Palin ticket, as pointed out by conservative political activist George Ajjan on his website, www.ajjan.com.
In his analysis of Palin’s Republican National Convention Ajjan states:
“If Sarah Palin is the evangelical Christian's dream candidate, you'd never guess it from this speech - she used the word God twice, exactly as many time as Barack Obama did in his keynote remarks last week.”
Alaska’s governor may be more savvy than was our illustrious President about airing her beliefs. However, on August 17, 2008 at the Wasilla Bible Church attended by Palin and her family, the congregation was singing in Hebrew and blaming Palestinian reprisals against Israelis as “judgment from God” rather than the American-backed occupation.
All of which brings us back to our choice—or lack thereof—in the 2008 election: a candidate who supports Israel on the basis of warped religious beliefs versus a candidate who supports Israel on the basis of grabbing the Jewish community’s votes and money. Either way, the American people lose.
I will also admit the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is probably the furthest thing from the minds of most Americans, who have more immediate worries such as mortgage payments, inadequate or non-existent medical coverage and/or loved ones deployed to some illogical war zone.
However, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is in so many ways a summary of the disasters plaguing the United States today. The staggering cost of aiding and abetting the Israeli government, to the tune of $30 billion over the next ten years, is both an economic drain and a major component of our failed foreign policy.
American taxpayers are not only forced to funnel hard-earned dollars to military and economic aid for Israel, but are also providing substantial assistance to the Fatah party, as reported last year by Christian Science Monitor.
According to CSM, “Senior US officials in Washington promised ongoing military support for secular Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas amid his power struggle with Islamist Hamas as part of an $84 million aid package largely aimed at improving the fighting ability of an elite corps of loyalists from his Fatah Party.”
Such action is used to exacerbate and prolong civil strife, whereby the lack of security in the Palestinian territories can be utilized as a perfect excuse not to establish a Palestinian state. With no official state and no defined borders, Israel is free to grab more land at will, whittling away at the last 20% of historical Palestine.
Additionally, the same Israeli lobby that demands Congress’s unflinching support of the Jewish state helped sell us the now over $650 billion Iraq War, a figure which pales in comparison to the human cost. Those who deny Israeli influence in the fiasco must remember former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement after the fall of Baghdad: “That’s one enemy of Israel gone.”
Next on their hit list is Iran. According to U.S. News and World Report, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is coming to New York next week to attend a “pro-Israel, anti-Iran rally.”
At one point, I was actually leaning McCain-Palin’s way; or rather leaning away from Senator Barack Obama and his expressed solidarity for the “brave citizens of Sderot.” His spineless denial of former friends who were pro-Palestinian activists in Chicago didn’t exactly raise his stock with me, either.
However, there is one thing Obama does have going for him: he is not of the Zionist “Christian” ilk that brought us eight years of George W. Bush. Lest we forget, McCain and Palin belong to the special evangelical breed that believes all Jews have to congregate in “Greater Israel” before Jesus Christ can return to earth. These views have been downplayed by the McCain-Palin ticket, as pointed out by conservative political activist George Ajjan on his website, www.ajjan.com.
In his analysis of Palin’s Republican National Convention Ajjan states:
“If Sarah Palin is the evangelical Christian's dream candidate, you'd never guess it from this speech - she used the word God twice, exactly as many time as Barack Obama did in his keynote remarks last week.”
Alaska’s governor may be more savvy than was our illustrious President about airing her beliefs. However, on August 17, 2008 at the Wasilla Bible Church attended by Palin and her family, the congregation was singing in Hebrew and blaming Palestinian reprisals against Israelis as “judgment from God” rather than the American-backed occupation.
All of which brings us back to our choice—or lack thereof—in the 2008 election: a candidate who supports Israel on the basis of warped religious beliefs versus a candidate who supports Israel on the basis of grabbing the Jewish community’s votes and money. Either way, the American people lose.
November 20, 2007
Home-Grown Terrorists: "Hate Bloggers"
It may seem passé to speak of Islamo-Fascism Awareness week, held on our campuses in October. It may seem silly to harp on the likes of David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and flustered Joe Kauffman--who could have used his hackneyed gig at UCLA to land a show on Comedy Central. It may seem counterproductive to mention these well-known bigots who make their millions preaching to the FOX News choir.
So let’s not waste more time or space rehashing the misguided babble of these nationally recognized pawns who somehow wind up on the bestseller list. We already know them for what they are.
Of more concern are certain bloggers, aspiring to join the ranks of Daniel Pipes and the ilk, dreaming of that name recognition that has thus far eluded them. These folks work at the local level to launch personalized attacks against private citizens, posting half-truths, rumors and malicious lies in cyberspace without all those pesky libel laws that constrain print media.
Several of my friends and colleagues have fallen victim to this type of intimidation in the past: one college professor, a Palestinian-American, found his name, work address and telephone number--along with thinly veiled threats--posted on the Fresno-based Free Republic website.
Most recently, an activist friend, also a Palestinian-American and a 20-year veteran of the armed forces, has found himself on the receiving end of a flagrant character assassination initiated by Patrick Poole.
Poole, a self-proclaimed “terrorism expert” and founder of Central Ohioans Against Terrorism (COAT) has posted the rough drafts of every letter to the editor my friend has written (how he obtained the originals is still a mystery), along with accusations that he supports suicide bombings and attacks on Americans. He even went so far to post my friend’s home address and phone number on the blog.
Curious, I decided to follow the links to Poole’s accounts on YouTube and MySpace. I was shocked when I played one of his “favorite” videos called “Open Season.” The song calls for the murder of Muslims. I clicked on another of Poole’s favorite videos and was treated to images of screaming fighter jets hitting soft targets in Afghanistan and Iraq to the repeated lyric, “Die, (expletive), die.”
Yet Arabs and Muslims are not the only ones considered “fair game” in the domain of these keyboard warriors.
In my former life, I was a staff writer and opinion columnist for the Daily Advocate, a small newspaper published in Greenville, Ohio. With a circulation of only 7,000 readers, I was quite surprised when one of my articles popped up in a smear on BizzyBlog.com run by one Tom Blumer. Blumer is a Certified Public Accountant out of Mason, Ohio.
My short article focused on how county agencies were being impacted by a data theft scandal in the Statehouse. I was informed no action was being taken because state officials told the agencies that the data was encrypted.
Several weeks later, Blumer posted my name all over his blog, attacking my credibility and citing a source claiming the data was not encrypted.
For those unfamiliar with Ohio geography, Greenville and Mason are not that close. Scratching my head and musing how a small article from a small newspaper could have incurred such wrath from a CPA located 70 miles away, I took a closer look at this self-proclaimed source of financial news.
What I found was much more than financial news: the bulk of BizzyBlog is devoted to attacking government social programs, peppered with virulent anti-Muslim articles and cross-posts to the blog of none other than Patrick Poole.
At that point, it all made sense. Blumer was evidently incensed by one of my opinion columns (which had been picked up by several newspapers in southwestern Ohio) and had been waiting for his angle. The attack on my credibility as a reporter, rather than as an opinion columnist, was a cheap attempt to do more professional damage.
Blumer even admitted to contacting my former editor, still obsessed with creating some kind of trouble for me in real life.
Why should we care happens in Ohio? Because the problem isn’t unique to Ohio. The aforementioned Free Republic is based right here in California, and hate-blogs are in existence all over the country. The real problem is that these bullies are rarely content to stay on their cyber-pulpits.
They attempt to interfere with your real world job. They post your real world address and look the other way when one of their faithful subscribers starts harassing you in real life. They post video of your real world kids on YouTube.
Any one of us could become the next target. Until legislation is passed to afford victims of cyberspace libel the same protections as those that are wronged in print media, we must stand together to face this enemy head-on.
So let’s not waste more time or space rehashing the misguided babble of these nationally recognized pawns who somehow wind up on the bestseller list. We already know them for what they are.
Of more concern are certain bloggers, aspiring to join the ranks of Daniel Pipes and the ilk, dreaming of that name recognition that has thus far eluded them. These folks work at the local level to launch personalized attacks against private citizens, posting half-truths, rumors and malicious lies in cyberspace without all those pesky libel laws that constrain print media.
Several of my friends and colleagues have fallen victim to this type of intimidation in the past: one college professor, a Palestinian-American, found his name, work address and telephone number--along with thinly veiled threats--posted on the Fresno-based Free Republic website.
Most recently, an activist friend, also a Palestinian-American and a 20-year veteran of the armed forces, has found himself on the receiving end of a flagrant character assassination initiated by Patrick Poole.
Poole, a self-proclaimed “terrorism expert” and founder of Central Ohioans Against Terrorism (COAT) has posted the rough drafts of every letter to the editor my friend has written (how he obtained the originals is still a mystery), along with accusations that he supports suicide bombings and attacks on Americans. He even went so far to post my friend’s home address and phone number on the blog.
Curious, I decided to follow the links to Poole’s accounts on YouTube and MySpace. I was shocked when I played one of his “favorite” videos called “Open Season.” The song calls for the murder of Muslims. I clicked on another of Poole’s favorite videos and was treated to images of screaming fighter jets hitting soft targets in Afghanistan and Iraq to the repeated lyric, “Die, (expletive), die.”
Yet Arabs and Muslims are not the only ones considered “fair game” in the domain of these keyboard warriors.
In my former life, I was a staff writer and opinion columnist for the Daily Advocate, a small newspaper published in Greenville, Ohio. With a circulation of only 7,000 readers, I was quite surprised when one of my articles popped up in a smear on BizzyBlog.com run by one Tom Blumer. Blumer is a Certified Public Accountant out of Mason, Ohio.
My short article focused on how county agencies were being impacted by a data theft scandal in the Statehouse. I was informed no action was being taken because state officials told the agencies that the data was encrypted.
Several weeks later, Blumer posted my name all over his blog, attacking my credibility and citing a source claiming the data was not encrypted.
For those unfamiliar with Ohio geography, Greenville and Mason are not that close. Scratching my head and musing how a small article from a small newspaper could have incurred such wrath from a CPA located 70 miles away, I took a closer look at this self-proclaimed source of financial news.
What I found was much more than financial news: the bulk of BizzyBlog is devoted to attacking government social programs, peppered with virulent anti-Muslim articles and cross-posts to the blog of none other than Patrick Poole.
At that point, it all made sense. Blumer was evidently incensed by one of my opinion columns (which had been picked up by several newspapers in southwestern Ohio) and had been waiting for his angle. The attack on my credibility as a reporter, rather than as an opinion columnist, was a cheap attempt to do more professional damage.
Blumer even admitted to contacting my former editor, still obsessed with creating some kind of trouble for me in real life.
Why should we care happens in Ohio? Because the problem isn’t unique to Ohio. The aforementioned Free Republic is based right here in California, and hate-blogs are in existence all over the country. The real problem is that these bullies are rarely content to stay on their cyber-pulpits.
They attempt to interfere with your real world job. They post your real world address and look the other way when one of their faithful subscribers starts harassing you in real life. They post video of your real world kids on YouTube.
Any one of us could become the next target. Until legislation is passed to afford victims of cyberspace libel the same protections as those that are wronged in print media, we must stand together to face this enemy head-on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)