| Video: NuttyYahoo [1978] doesn’t recognise Palestine!

NuttyYahoo [1978] doesn’t recognise Palestine: Google: MILEIKOWSKI

Israel’s current PM, speaking on US TV in 1977 under the name Ben Nitay claims: 

‘Palestinians don’t have a right to a separate state … Jordan is a Palestinan state!’

He added: ‘nobody wants peace more than Israel … If the demand for a separate state is abandoned we can have real and genuine peace!’

Can you see through this point-blank refusal to simply behave as good neighbours?
Google: MILEIKOWSKI to see how many times he has changed his name.

It isn’t hard to appreciate why he and his ilk are hell-bent on DENYING any form of Palestinian human rights, self-determination, sovereignty and statehood.

Fact is though we live in a post-colonial world now where under the UN Charter and International Law nearly ALL of Israel’s actions are ILLEGAL.
So, who should recognise whom?

| Palestinians and a Jewish state??? http://wp.me/p1xXtb-pd
A Synopsis of the Israel/Palestine Conflict: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/
Video URL: http://youtu.be/jAWP0t0wuWY

| Assange: ‘Snowden safe but journalists dealing with him at risk!’

Assange: ‘Snowden safe but journalists dealing with him at risk’ ~ RT.

Edward Snowden is safe in Russia, but the fates of journalists who helped him and published his leaks are now of more concern for WikiLeaks, Julian Assange said in an exclusive interview with RT Spanish ‘Behind the News’ host Eva Golinger.

Assange also shared his views on the NSA scandal in Latin America and the future of freedom of information.

He criticized the US and the White House for abusing its power more than any other administration in history, stressing that President Obama has prosecuted twice as many journalists under the espionage act as all previous US presidents combined since 1917.

US can blackmail almost every influential person in Latin America

Eva Gollinger: We’re at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and with us is the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.

Issues such as cyber warfare, espionage, surveillance, you have analyzed and written extensively about. Your organization WikiLeaks has exposed the way the US and its allies use these mechanisms to advance their power in influencing the world and the recent documents and revelations made public by Snowden, a former National Security Agency analyst, have caused a furious reaction throughout Latin America. Documents particularly pointing to mass surveillance and data collection of different Latin American nations, but especially Latin American leaders, heads of states in Brazil and Mexico, the Ecuador government, in Venezuela and strategic interests. How have you viewed the revelations by Snowden and the impact they have had on Latin America and the reaction from these Latin American governments?

 

screenshot from RT interviewscreenshot from RT interview

 

Julian Assange: Ninety-eight percent of Latin American telecommunications to the rest of the world – that means SMS, phone, email etc. – passes through the US. That’s a function of the geography of the Americas, and as a result the US has what its intelligence agencies call a ‘home field advantage’, where they can easily intercept these communications that pass through them, index them, store aspects of them forever, and therefore gain understanding of how Latin America is behaving, where it is moving, its economic transfers, the activities of its leaders and major players.

That permits the US to predict in some ways the behavior of Latin American leaders and interests, and it also permits them to blackmail. Nearly every significant person in Latin America is blackmailable by the US, because the US has access to those telecommunications records that have passed through the US, as well as other records it has obtained within LA by planting fiber optic taps, surveillance equipment at embassies and DA bases. Even one of those revealed in Ecuador as a result of Snowden`s leaks.

So you have a situation where the US has mapped out the entire community structure, the relations between every individual who has any chance of having any influence in Latin America. And is able to shift and play off different parties against one another. If you say that it is true then why did Maduro win the Venezuelan presidential election? Why did president Correa win with a significant majority in the Ecuadorean elections, given the US attitude towards these two states?

Well it`s not a function of the US not having enough intelligence data about Latin America, it’s a function of the US taking its eye for a 10 year period off Latin America, and putting its eye on the Middle East and to a degree on to Asia as well. And during that period a number of Latin American states have developed an increased independence from the US and its activities and now unfortunately the US is turning its interests back to Latin America. But unlike 10 years ago, it has a worldwide mass surveillance apparatus to detect nearly every single person.

US controls states not invading them

EG: The President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff recently in her speech before the UN General Assembly had very harsh strong words for the US mass espionage program, and particularly for President Barack Obama, who was there in her presence when she gave the speech, and she not only denounced and condemned that espionage as a violation of sovereignty, but she also called for the creation of an independent internet and communications platform within Latin American nations, or even internationally, that is not subject to US control.

 

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)

 

Countries like Venezuela have developed fiber optic cables with the Caribbean, with Cuba exclusively having also launched communication satellites into space to ensure their own communication sovereignty. Is this the solution to protecting them against this type of US invasion and violation through technological sovereignty?

JA: Look, just like there is no meaningful sovereignty without control of freedom of movement, no meaningful sovereignty without economic sovereignty, there is no meaningful sovereignty without control of your own communications. It’s freedom of movement, freedom of communication, freedom of economic interaction that defines a state. Now the US has been aggressively trying to interdict economic exchange through interception of control over Swift, Visa, MasterCard, payments going through Latin America via the Bank of America. But it’s also delving in to Latin American major computer systems, operate important segments of government and the media and Pertobras in Brazil and other major economic interests and interfering with the sovereignty of communications. That’s what it is about.

You know, when is a person or an organization is part of one state or another? Well, it’s part of a state if that state can control its movements, its economic interchange or its telecommunications interchange, the US is grabbing hold of economic interaction and telecommunications interaction and so what is left is some degree of control of the physical force in a state. Even that is being eroded.

When we look at what happened in the Edward Snowden case when the US sprayed out extradition requests, Neil McBride, the same national security prosecutor who is prosecuting me, behind that sprayed out extradition requests for Edward Snowden to Venezuela, to Bolivia, to Hong Kong, to Iceland, to Ireland. That was about trying to take advantage of treaty arrangements which force the police and judicial systems of other countries to obey the interests of the US government.

So by subordinating regulatory or policing systems in treaty arrangements to another government, that third component – the control of use of force – is also given away. In academic theory about what is happening there, we call this ‘lawfare’, which is using international treaty arrangements and multilateral organizations to get the territory or gains that you would normally get by war instead by law. When you couple that activity to telecommunications interception and economic interception then in fact you control the state without invading it. And that’s what leaders and policymakers must be aware of in Latin America. That there’s no effective sovereignty without sovereignty in the most important parts – economic interaction, telecommunications and control of police and judicial instruments.

EG: But is it possible knowing also what you know of about the US capacity in terms of its technology and its massive reach through surveillance that in Latin America they can develop sovereign technology that would be free from US control, or is it merely a dream?

JA: Well, this idea that Dilma proposed of perhaps setting up an international regulatory commission for the internet. There are some that the US is terrified of: the ITU – the international communications union – taking over regulation of key aspects of the internet. ITU is European-dominated, has been for many years. I don’t believe that the internet should be dominated by any one region and to a degree it shouldn’t be dominated by governments. I mean, the great liberty of communications for individuals and trade for businesses has come about because of a lack of control by states.

See, some of the proposals by Dilma being put forward are not a mechanism to give Brazilians greater freedom from interception, rather they are a mechanism to give the Brazilian government equal access to that intercepted information. So we must be quite careful. There’s a natural tendency by states, of course, to want to increase their own power. And they are more concerned in increasing their domestic power really, than they are typically concerned by the United States increasing its power.

Google spends more money to lobby in Washington than Lockheed Martin

EGI want to talk about Google. Because you’ve criticized Google extensively and also referred to it as an extension of US foreign policy and power. These are strong statements to make about a service that is used around the world. And for example in many Latin American countries, even the highest levels of government, have Gmail accounts. So can you elaborate a little bit on why you perceive Google as such a danger to our society and what are the alternatives?

JA: I wrote about that this year in my book ‘Cypherpunks’ and some recent articles reviewing the chairman of Google’s book ‘The New Digital Age’. In that book it’s very clear what is happening. Google is presenting itself to Washington as a geopolitical visionary who can show the US the way forward in Latin America, in Asia, in Europe and so on. And that’s quite a reactionary piece of work. With backcover praise chosen pre-publication by Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, [Michael] Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency, the NSA. The primary acknowledgement is to Henry Kissinger.

So where’s that coming from? That is coming from Google that started out in California as part of grad student culture in Stanford University, pretty nice, naïve, wanting to build services that the world would use. But as Google got big it got close to government. As it tried to enter into foreign markets it became reliant on the State Department to the degree where the head of Google ideas is now immediately a former advisor of Hillary Clinton and Rice from the State Department.

This close nexus and interaction between Google and the State Department is something that we’ve documented on WikiLeaks in releases and also in cables – meetings between key State Department advisors and execs of Google. It wasn’t much of a surprise when we learnt that as far back as 2009 Google had paired up with the National Security Agency to enter into the PRISM program.

So we can see that Google is now part of Family America. It spends more money now on lobbying in Washington than Lockheed Martin. In the Google book it even states that what Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century, hi-tech companies will be to the 21st. It’s a really quite strong form of neo-imperialism. And I don’t want to use that phrase as some sort of hackneyed Marxist expression, but that’s what it’s about – jacking in the entire world into the US economic and informational system.

Banking blockade against WikiLeaks is similar to blockade against Cuba

EG: Your organization WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents, many of them from the US government, classified documents. You’ve come under heavy fire, the organization has come under attack. And yet you continue to publish documents. Is that going to go on, how is WikiLeaks functioning and are the attacks also continuing?

JA: The attacks are continuing. Let’s go back to 2010. Pentagon gave a 40-minute public press conference. During that press conference they made a demand to us, the organization, to me personally. “You must destroy everything that we had published in relation to the US government.” Destroy everything we were going to publish. And cease stealing with [the help of] US military whistleblowers or else we will be compelled to do so. As a result we said no, we were not going to do so. We’re a publisher, we made a promise to our sources and the public to publish fearlessly and frankly.

The US government then engaged in a three-year-long war against WikiLeaks, which continues to this day. It started up a whole government investigation, including over 12 different agencies including the CIA, publicly declaring the grand jury into WikiLeaks, that investigation the Department of Justice admits as recently as August 23 continues.

The position that we’re in is that our important source of WikiLeaks, Private Manning, has been sentenced to 35 years. A tactical victory, believe it or not, for his defense team, because the US was demanding life imprisonment without parole. And probably as a result of our intervention in the Edward Snowden matter, we know it for a fact that the sentiment in Washington against WikiLeaks as a result of the Edward Snowden matter is increasingly adverse.

But the organization continues to publish, continues to fight in courts where we’ve intervened in multiple times. In the Bradley Manning case we’ve had a series of victorious court cases against the banking blockade. Interestingly all court cases that WikiLeaks has been involved and that have come to a judgment, it has won. There have been significant victories in the European Parliament where we’ve managed to push forward legislation which outlaws this sort of banking blockade that is against us, the blockade that’s similar to that blockade that’s happening against Cuba.

Interestingly in relation to financial blockades and the freedom of economic interaction, that sovereign right for states to interact within states, to interact economically. The internet has meant that economic interaction and communication are now merged together. So when the US wants to intercept and surveil [sic] the economic interactions between people and companies, it just intercepts the internet and it gets both of these at the same time. Similarly if it wants to block off economic interaction with some bank, say in Iran, well it can just block off telecommunications with that bank.

Espionage Act: Obama prosecuted twice as many people than all previous presidents

EG: You mentioned Private Manning’s case. And in that case, now known as Chelsea Manning, she was accused of espionage for passing documents to a media organization. Classified documents. But not to the so-called traditional enemies. So this treatment now of media organizations or journalists as an enemy – is that dangerous in terms of whistleblowers for one? But also the media outlets? And do you think that this forms part of what President Barak Obama referred to in his speech before the UN recently as the exceptionalism of the US. This kind of persecution, treatment of media and whistleblowers as terrorists.

JA: Look, whenever you see a president talk about exceptionalism, what he’s trying to say is the rules of civil behaviour doesn’t apply to him. Whether that’s in invading another country or whether that’s abuse of laws at home. In relation to Barack Obama’s use of the espionage act against alleged journalistic sources and journalists, that’s something new. So it’s very important that people understand that this is not just a bit more of the same, it’s a radical change.

Barack Obama has prosecuted more people under the espionage act, more journalistic sources under the espionage act than all previous presidents combined, going back to 1917. In fact he’s prosecuted double the number. So this is a deliberate conscious decision by the White House to create a chilling effect, using the espionage act as opposed to some other mechanism. In the case of Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning there’s no allegation, has never been an allegation that he has passed information on to another country, that he has sold information, that he was intending to harm the United States or its people in any manner whatsoever. So that’s just a linguistic abuse to call speaking to the media espionage. Similarly it’s a linguistic abuse to say that WikiLeaks as a publisher, when it publishes, is conducting espionage.

 

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Jewel Samad)US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Jewel Samad)

 

EG: I want to talk about your case a little bit. We’re here in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where you’ve been for over a year, close to a year-and-a-half. And as of now there has been no resolution to the situation. You’ve been given asylum by Ecuador, but you can’t get to Ecuador because the British government would detain you if you set foot outside these doors. Recently the foreign minister of Ecuador, Ricardo Patino, has confirmed the fact that they have been working aggressively with the UK government trying to reach a solution. They’ve been unsuccessful and now they’re considering taking a case to a foreign international court: violation of sovereignty as well as the right to asylum amongst other rights that have been violated. How do you see the resolution to this situation? And is there one?

JA: It’s a political, diplomatic, legal mix. I think in a reasonably short time frame – year, year-and-a-half actually, there are some good signs that there will be a resolution. That time is on my side in this situation, because as times goes by, more of the facts of the situation are coming out. We’ve been filing criminal cases in Sweden, in Germany, in relation to intelligence activity against the organisation there. So I think the position of the some of the players involved is becoming aggressively more untenable as time goes by. And we have seen even the Conservative Lord Mayor of London Boris Johnson denounce the expenditure of the police outside this embassy spying on me. He said that now this money amount to $10 million and should be spent on frontline policing, what police are meant to do, not ringing this embassy.

EG: And both you and Edward Snowden have received asylum in Latin American nations. You in Ecuador and he’s been offered asylum in Venezuela and Bolivia and also in Nicaragua. He is in Russia with temporary asylum which your organization helped him obtain. But how do you view the fact that it has been Latin American nations, traditionally known as less powerful and developing countries, that they had the courage to stand up to US power and support both of you.

JA: It’s extremely interesting, isn’t it? We were involved in filling out asylum requests for Edward Snowden formally and informally to around 20 different nations. Some because we thought there was a decent chance, others because we wanted to show the public the refusal to generate some public debate and awareness about how the government is behaving. But you’re right, in terms of those nations that stepped forward, it was Latin America and Russia. Not all of Latin America either, but Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador showing a keen interest. What does that mean?

These are not very powerful countries. Russia we can understand, it has its own nuclear armaments, it’s geographically fairly independent. Whereas Latin America is not so. That’s really I think is an expression of Latin American democracy, where you have governments who feel the need to be responsible to their people, who feel the need to live up to the sort of values that they are preaching or they will held to account by the population.

And so I see that as a part of the democratic nature of Venezuela, Ecuador and perhaps now even Brazil, which hasn’t yet made an offer, but it’s starting to respond – in relation to the surveillance matter, in protecting Glenn Greenwald – it’s starting to respond to the public pressure there.

 

The Guardian's Brazil-based reporter Glenn Greenwald (R) and his partner David Miranda in Brasilia on October 9, 2013 (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)The Guardian’s Brazil-based reporter Glenn Greenwald (R) and his partner David Miranda in Brasilia on October 9, 2013 (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)

 

EG: Also a shift in global power and the growing sentiment of sovereignty and independence in Latin America, but I want to ask about something…

JA: You can compare in an interesting way, say Germany and Venezuela. So in Germany privacy is a really big concern, it’s probably of all the medium sized countries, privacy is the most in value in Germany, because of what happened in the WWII, and some other cultural aspects. And in Germany we had Angela Merkel up for election. So not only did these events about Edward Snowden’s asylum and then spying occur in the context where a country is interested in privacy, but in the context of a country that had federal election. And with reporters like Laura Poitras, based in Germany, working with Der Spiegel, publishing about German documents. And yet the German government did not offer Snowden asylum, did not seek to transport him or assist him in any manner whatsoever.

So I think this is an example when even if the population has the democratic desire, population has the will, that the government doesn’t properly reflect the will of the population. Whereas we can see in Ecuador and Venezuela, that the government is more…

EG: Bolivia as well…

JA: …and Bolivia… that the government is more responsive. At least in relation to sovereignty issues, to the demands of the population.

Snowden is safe, I am more worried about Sarah Harrison, Guardian journalists

EG: Unwilling to subordinate itself to US power. I can only get in one last question. I want to throw in a few things.

One is the issue if the future of journalism. Is investigative journalism under extinction because of this treatment and prosecution of journalists who are exposing US abuses and those also other powerful entities around the world and are therefore being treated as terrorists or enemies? Snowden’s possibilities in the future: what awaits him in terms of whistleblowers’ treatment? Would he come under severe prosecution by the US? And also I want to tie into all of that a question about the film that’s coming out. Is it another attempt, the same thing in terms of trying to discredit and distort the work that you’re doing, WikiLeaks is doing, Snowden is doing? Anyone, who’s trying to expose those abuses?

JA: Edward Snowden: he’s now safe in Russia. He has asylum for a one-year period formally. But assuming he doesn’t run anyone over in a car, I imagine that the Russians will be happy to extent that indefinitely. I’m more concerned in terms of present people at risk, with our journalist Sarah Harrison, who was involved in getting Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, spent 39 days with him in the Moscow airport, protecting him filing asylum applications and is still in Russia. Now, she’s from the UK, as we know. The Guardian newspaper was raided, Glenn Greenwald’s partner detained for nine hours on account of terrorism charges here without charge. A formal investigation, a formal terrorism investigation has started up in relation to all those people.

 

Edward Snowden (3rd R) alongside UK WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison (2nd R) and the US whistleblowers (L to R) Coleen Rowley (FBI), Thomas Drake (NSA), Jesselyn Raddack (DoJ) and Ray McGovern (CIA). (Photo by Sunshinepress/Getty Images)Edward Snowden (3rd R) alongside UK WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison (2nd R) and the US whistleblowers (L to R) Coleen Rowley (FBI), Thomas Drake (NSA), Jesselyn Raddack (DoJ) and Ray McGovern (CIA). (Photo by Sunshinepress/Getty Images)

 

EG: Well the head of MI5 has also just declared that Edward Snowden, his documents have placed national security in danger…

JA: Yeah, I mean just absurd. But also it’s a position by the UK which is clearly that they’re going after anyone who has had something to do with this matter, probably in order to show to the US that they feel their pain and that they are a part of the same club. And possibly in relation to GCHQ. So that’s a concern for us, what will happen to Sarah Harrison? But I think if we look at the bigger picture, OK, yes, there’s some development in the US and the UK, which is extremely serious. It’s obvious to everyone. The rule of law is gradually starting to collapse. The mechanisms of government are lifting off from the population, from the judicial system. The judicial processes are becoming more and more secret. Here, introduction of a secret court.

Even the Labour Party here, Ed Miliband from the Labour Party pushing legislation saying that soldiers should not be able to be criticized, adding them to hate speech legislation. This is a sort of proto-fascism. I mean, that’s a strong thing to say, but I think that’s a correct description. And the US – yes, that is making people extremely timid. It has made. The Guardian does good work here, but it has made the Guardian also very timid in its publications. It’s been holding a lot of stories back. It’s been extensively redacting, it has been holding documents back, same in the US.

From the point of view of WikiLeaks as a publisher, of course, we think that’s great, that we we’ll be the only player left in the field. From the point of view of Julian Assange as a free speech activist, I think that’s an abomination and extremely concerning. On the other hand, just because you can smell the gun powder in the air, you can smell the heat of the battle between those people, who are revealing information about the crimes of state, and war crimes and mass surveillance and so on. And those who are trying to suppress it. It doesn’t tell you which side is winning.

There’s a serious conflict going on between a growing national security system in the West and those people who are trying to expose what that system is doing. That’s for sure. Which one of these two groups is winning is not clear. We actually have some pretty important winds under our belt as well as saying many journalists are surveyed and prosecuted.

EG: The film?

JA: OK, so the film, Fifth Estate …or actually introduced already…

EG: Do you think it’s an attempt to discredit you and your organization?

JA: I don’t sort of look at the things that way. This film comes from Hollywood. I know the book that it was based on. The books were definitely an attempt to do precisely that. DreamWorks has picked the two most discredited libellous books out of dozens of books available for it to pick. But it’s coming out of a particular milieu about.. within Hollywood and that constraints, it seems, what scripts can be written and what things would get distribution. I don’t know if that was the intent of the filmmakers. It’s certainly the result, but it’s been doing quite poorly in the reviews.

I think the information we have published about it was pretty successful in knocking out any view that is inaccurate history. It’s interesting to see that in the America’s Disney, who’s responsible for the distribution there, has been putting up posters of me with the word ‘traitor’ emblazoned across my face. You know, a laughable concept ‘cos because I’m an Australian, I couldn’t even be a traitor, in theory, to the United States. I mean it’s a type of libel.

I think ultimately people are starting to become immune to those sorts of attacks. There’s been so many as time is going by. And people who’ve been watching the WikiLeaks saga have seen many of these attacks, having seen that they’ve turned out not to be true. So I think our base is not going to be affected by the film.

_________________________________________________________________________

ObLies1

BrainwashMethod

| June 30 anti-Morsi crowd figures just don’t add up + Anti-coup Statement!

Mubarakism

June 30 anti-Morsi crowd figures just don’t add up ~ MEMO.

Tahrir Square Crowd figuresDespite the well-known difficulties of estimating large crowds, it is clear that the numbers game was played by the opposition and the military to orchestrate and justify the coup d’etat against President Mohamed Morsi. For whatever reason, several external parties also used the numbers claimed to validate their support for the military intervention.

The Army presented a video to the media taken by military helicopter of demonstrations in Cairo to justify their coup; emphasising that the entire population had risen up against President Morsi and as such, it had no choice but to align itself with the people. No one questioned the fact that some of the video footage presented as evidence against Morsi was actually the filming of a pro-Morsi demonstration.

Disturbingly, certain countries in the west and leading political figures supported the argument without confirming the veracity of the figures quoted. They went along with the coup, which to all intents and purposes targeted not just the elected president but the entire process of democratic transition in Egypt, on the basis that this was the will of the overwhelming majority of the people.

To give their statistics an air of respectability and credence, the anti-Morsi alliance claimed that their crowd statistics were obtained from coverage and analyses conducted by Google Earth. Though never confirmed by the satellite giant, the estimates given ranged from 14.3 million to 33 million demonstrators. A search of the net revealed no official statement by Google Earth to confirm these claims. Meanwhile, MEMO requested a comment from Google but has not received a reply.

What made matters even more dubious was the intervention by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said that the army had to choose between “intervention or chaos”. He added that while “seventeen million” on the streets is not an election, “it is an awesome manifestation of people power.”

Ten years ago, on 15 February 2003, the organisers and media reported that two million British citizens marched in London against the war in Iraq. The Metropolitan Police estimated the crowd to be at least 750,000. Notwithstanding, Mr Blair ignored his people with consummate disdain. The enormity of that historic demonstration was recorded by a Metropolitan Police helicopter. At the time, London was not alone in its opposition to the invasion. There were simultaneous demonstrations in 800 other cities around the world, and an estimated 30 million protesters participated in what was considered the largest global demonstrations in one day in the history of mankind. That said, comparing the videos of these demonstrations to that of 30/6, it seems highly improbable that 30 million people or even a tenth of that figure were mobilised in Egypt on 30 June.

Although Google is yet to confirm the huge figures quoted by the Salvation Front and Tamarod, western researchers had previously used Google Earth Ruler to measure the capacity of Tahrir Square and the accessible spaces surrounding it. Having used this method himself, Dr Clark McPhail an emeritus professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois, and an expert in the science of crowd-sizing, ruled out the possibility of fitting one million people into the square.

While Cairo is by no means representative of Egypt it has, like most capitals, been the centre of major national protests. The area of Tahrir Square is 53,000 square metres. While the area from its peripheries to the other side of the Nile across the Nile Palace Bridge is 13,000 sq m. The area from Tahrir Square to the 6 October Bridge is 20,000 sq m. Accordingly, the total area that contained the demonstrators was 86,000 square metres.

Assuming that the highest number of people which can be squeezed into one square meter is four, it means that the maximum capacity of Tahrir Square and its environs on 30 June was 344,000 demonstrators.

As for the area of the Presidential Palace and its environs, the video shown by the opposition revealed that the length of the demonstration was 1,400 metres (just under a kilometre and a half); it had a width of 45 metres, giving a total area of 63,000 sq m.

Added to this, there was another demonstration north of the palace in an area of 9,000 sq m. Altogether, therefore, the total area accessible to the demonstrators in the vicinity of the Presidential Palace was 72,000 square metres.

Accordingly, the total number of demonstrators around the Presidential Palace, using the base figure of four people per square metre, would be 288,000. The grand total from Tahrir Square and the Presidential Palace area would therefore be about 632,000 protesters on the day. These calculations are consistent with findings of various researchers and bloggers.

Even if the figures are stretched, the number of June 30 protesters could not have been more than a few million people in the whole country. In fact, no credible media, even those which inflated the numbers and exaggerated them, ever used anything other than the vague term, “millions of protesters”. The Egyptian media, however, were not as restrained in their reporting. Muhammad Hasanayn Heikal, the veteran Egyptian writer and former information minister under Gamal Abdel Nasser described the demonstrations on June 30 as “unprecedented in the modern human politics, larger than whatever England or France had witnessed.”

However, there is nothing in the conduct of the Egyptian media prior to June 30 that suggests that they would offer an impartial estimate of the crowds on the day. Their anti-Morsi and anti-Brotherhood campaign throughout last year and even after his overthrow, as well as the media’s role in endorsing, publicising and cheering Tamarod’s actions from its inception until the realisation of its aim, all prevent us from regarding the Egyptian media as a neutral and reliable source on the June 30 protests.

It is incredible that the coup plotters’ reference to Google Earth has never been viewed critically in Egypt, the Middle East or indeed in the west. People in positions of authority and influence have accepted the figures without any critical analysis or corroboration. Whether this was on account of their own laziness or because of complicity with the anti-Morsi opposition is anyone’s guess.

What is absolutely certain is that today Egypt stands perilously close to the brink of national disaster. With no constitution, no parliament and a civilian president handpicked by the military, the country has become politically paralysed and polarised. Although the process of democratic transition which started on 25 January 2011 has clearly suffered a setback, it has not been aborted. The revolutionary Egyptians who brought down the Mubarak regime in 18 days will, in the fullness of time, regain the initiative and restore democratic legitimacy for the greater good. Unsubstantiated Google Earth estimates cannot replace the ballot box in ascertaining the real democratic will of the people.

___________________________________________________________________

Statement by Pro-Democracy Pro-Morsi Protestors in Response to Al-Sisi Speech ~ IKHWAN WEB.

Peaceful sit-in protests issue their own statement to condemn commander Al-Sisi’s actions, from the illegitimate coup to the massacre of worshipers and the witch hunt to stifle opposition and dissent.

Coup commander Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi betrayed the oath he took before the head of State – the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. He spilled the blood of innocent Egyptians, killing more than a hundred citizens and injuring more than a thousand, including women and children, supporters of democratic legitimacy, opponents of the bloody military coup. He then threatened peaceful protestors and restricted their freedoms. Then again faked justifications to defend his coup against electoral legitimacy.

These fake justifications included a claim that the President fought battles with the judiciary, the police, the media, public opinion and the army. This is an utter lie, because in fact, it was corrupt members of the judiciary, the media and the police, which the January 25 Revolution demanded be purged, were the ones who waged war against the President since the first moments.

It is absurd that Al-Sisi included the army in this list, although it was President Morsi who appointed him Minister of Defense and provided him with all resources needed for the development of the armed forces.

Shamefully, Al-Sisi pitted the armed forces against two-thirds of the people, in support of the remaining third – the leftist, liberals and Copts. Even more shamefully, Al-Sisi murdered worshipers at dawn prayers in cold blood in front of the Republican Guard Officers’ Club.

Al-Sisi never offered condolences to the families of the martyrs and the injured. Instead, he arrogantly sought flimsy excuses to justify his heinous crime, seeking other commanders and officers’ support to escape the deserved isolation he increasingly feels.

Earlier, Al-Sisi did reveal a distinct bias for some Egyptians against others. He criticized what he described as the siege of the Constitutional Court and Cairo’s Media Production City, but did not utter a single word about the repeated sieges of Itehadia Presidential Palace, Tahrir’s major government office buildings and Maspero TV Center building. He never said anything about the burning of the Courts of Cairo and Alexandria, the torching and total destruction of headquarters of political parties and even the home of President Morsi. Al-Sisi also criticized what he saw as ‘forcing religion into politics’, a language used by liberals and leftists’ camp.

We ask commander Al-Sisi:

Why did you not talk to the army commanders and officers about the massacre of worshipers outside the Republican Guard compound? And why did you not apologize for that?

Why did you not talk about the closings of satellite TV channels and the censoring of newspapers and other TV channels to force them to follow the ‘official’ line?

Why did your speech make no mention of the great January 2011 Revolution – as if you wish to bury it completely?

Why do you falsely claim that the army sided with the people on June 30, ignoring the masses of people who turned out in millions in support of the elected President and constitutional legitimacy?

How can you pretend to call for containment of opponents, while your men persistently hunt and arrest Islamists and political symbols representing all currents and orientations?

How can you pounce on all the January 25 benefits and gains January 25 awarded to the Egyptian people, just as those began to bear fruit both domestically and internationally? You pushed these brave and patient people to square one yet again, wasting two years of their hard work and struggle with which they wrote a new history for Egypt and the region!

How could you and your cronies and collaborators turn a blind eye to the great changes in the region around us and the duties imposed on the brave Egyptian army accordingly? You pushed this country’s army a million miles back, directing its military machine towards unarmed Egyptians, tearing up the national fabric of the homeland for the benefit of enemies of the homeland who are plotting to involve the Egyptian army in this treasonous quagmire.

The consequences of injustice are severe, and lies are invariably exposed, shamefully.

“Those who do wrong will soon come to know where they will end up.” (Quran 26:227)

______________________________________________________________________

RestoreMorsi1

Mubarakism Executioner1

| Snowden faces execution as sealed complaint charges espionage!

Snowden faces execution as sealed complaint charges espionage ~ RT.

US federal prosecutors have charged whistleblower Edward Snowden with espionage, theft and conversion of government property in a sealed criminal complaint, and asked Hong Kong to detain him ahead of a move to extradite him.

Though the criminal complaint is sealed, charges of espionage and theft are undoubtedly based on Snowden’s extraction of classified documents from NSA servers, which led to publication of several articles regarding the NSA’s surveillance programs, including PRISM, which is alleged to harvest private user data through cooperation with a slew of American corporations including Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Apple and Microsoft.

The implicated companies have denied granting US intelligence services “direct access” to their servers, though during an online chat on Monday Snowden alleged that they had been purposely deceptive in their responses.

When asked to “define in as much detail as you can what ‘direct access’ means,” Snowden went into greater technical detail:

“More detail on how direct NSA’s accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want,” he said.

The specific details of how Snowden transported the classified NSA documents are somewhat unclear, with The Guardian saying they were extracted using four laptops taken to Hong Kong, though subsequent reports suggested that Snowden simply copied secret files on USB drives. Even though the use of thumb drives is banned in SIPRNET, the Defense Department’s secret network, as a system administrator Snowden had much broader access to data.

______________________________________________________________________

Paranoia1

NSA1

| Uniformed mafia: Kern County man beaten to death by deputies!

Kern County man dies after alleged beating by deputies ~ Paul Pringle and Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times.

 

The sharp cracks echoing from the East Bakersfield street were loud enough to jolt Ruben Ceballos from a midnight slumber. Then he heard screams.

The 19-year-old jumped from his living room sofa and hurried to the kitchen door, which offered a view of the violent scene outside — Kern County sheriff‘s deputies repeatedly striking a man in the head with batons as he lay on the pavement.

“I saw two sheriff’s deputies on top of this guy, just beating him,” Ceballos said in an interview Monday. “He was screaming in pain … asking for help. He was incapable of fighting back — he was outnumbered, on the ground. They just beat him up.”

Deadly sheriff’s beating prompts charges of coverup

LIVE CHAT: Discuss the case at 9 a.m.

The man was David Sal Silva, 33, a father of four, and he was pronounced dead less than an hour later. The altercation last week was videotaped by witnesses and has roiled the Central Valley city for days.

One woman frantically called 911, telling the operator: “The guy was laying on the floor and eight sheriffs ran up and started beating him up with sticks. The man is dead laying right here, right now. I got it all on video camera and I’m sending it to the news. These cops have no reason to do this to this man.”

In an unusual move, sheriff’s officials later detained for several hours two witnesses who had videotaped the incident on their phones. They were released only after they surrendered their phones to deputies.

“It makes it look like a coverup,” said David Cohn, a lawyer for Silva’s children and parents, adding that he has not been able to see the footage. “What we’re all concerned about is, ‘Are these videos going to be altered? Are they going to be deleted?’ ”

Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said in an interview Monday that it was too early in the investigation to reach any conclusions about Silva’s death. But he defended the decision to take custody of the phones as a way of preserving possible evidence. The sheriff said his office obtained a search warrant for the phones.

“We still have to secure the evidence, especially when the evidence can tell us whether we did it right or wrong,” Youngblood said.

He said his agency, to remove the appearance of any conflict, has asked the Bakersfield Police Department to analyze the phone videos.

KERO-TV Channel 23 in Bakersfield broadcast a security camera video from the scene showing grainy images of figures pummeling someone on the ground, with about 20 swings of what appear to be batons or sticks. It’s difficult to see Silva in the seven-minute video or how many of those swings connected.

A earlier statement by the Sheriff’s Office said Silva might have been intoxicated and resisted the deputies’ efforts to restrain him, forcing them to use their batons. It said six deputies, a sergeant and two California Highway Patrol officers were at the scene. One deputy had a K-9 dog.

Silva stopped breathing and was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 12:44 a.m. Wednesday, the statement said. Youngblood said it could take the coroner’s office up to four months to complete toxicology tests and determine a cause of death.

In an email to The Times on Monday, the CHP said it “is deeply sympathetic” to the Silva family and “takes seriously all incidents where an individual dies while in custody.” The agency said it could not discuss the matter further because of the investigation.

The Silva episode follows several high-profile brutality cases involving the Kern County Sheriff’s Office in recent years.

One led to criminal convictions of three deputies and a $6-million civil judgment in the 2005 death of a jail inmate, according to attorneys. Another resulted in a $4.5-million court award for the family of a man who died in 2010 after being struck 33 times with batons and Tasered 29 times, attorneys said.

A deputy accused in the civil lawsuit over the 2010 death has the same name as one of those who confronted Silva. Youngblood would not confirm that it was the same deputy, however.

According to Cohn, Silva became upset Tuesday morning and abruptly left the home he shared with his girlfriend and their children. He later visited his mother’s house before turning up at Kern Medical Center seeking help for some sort of emotional trouble. He left the hospital when a security officer told him he could not sleep there, Cohn said.

Silva fell asleep in front of a house across the street, the spot where the deputies confronted him, the attorney said. He said he did not know if Silva had been drinking. Court databases show that Silva pleaded no contest in 2008 to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was charged with being drunk and disorderly two years later, but the case was dismissed.

Cohn represented the son of the inmate killed in 2005, an offshore oil field worker who was arrested after behaving erratically. “They don’t seem to have any training when it comes to people with a mental illness,” Cohn said of the Sheriff’s Office “There seems to be a culture of striking first and asking questions later.”

Legal experts were surprised that deputies detained the witnesses for the purpose of seizing their phones.

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor and former federal prosecutor, said the department’s tactics were “very heavy-handed, but technically may have been legal because the 911 call created a probable cause to obtain the videos.”

But she said law enforcement officers “cannot detain people for hours on end, and if they did here that would be problem.”

Dmitry Gorin, a Los Angeles defense attorney, said: “The deputies could secure the house, but they cannot detain the people. The argument here would have to be they would not let them leave because they could take the cellphone with them. This is very unusual. I have never had a client detained in this way.”

_______________________________________________________________________

police-state-brutalityA

| More money than sense: Prince Alwaleed ‘Severs Ties’ With Forbes Billionaire List — Claims Bias Against Mideast Investors!

Prince Alwaleed ‘Severs Ties’ With Forbes Billionaire List — Claims Bias Against Mideast Investors ~ 

Today Forbes came out with its latest billionaires list. 

After the publication of the 2013 edition, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal has informed the publication that he would no longer like to be included (thank-you-very-much).

According to a press release from the Prince’s investment firm, Kingdom Holding Company, he sent a letter to Steve Forbes severing his relationship with the list. That means Forbes will no longer receive information from Kingdom about its finances.

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud

Kingdom claims that it has discovered “what appear to be intentional biases and inconsistencies in the Forbes valuation process…”

From the press release:

Shadi Sanbar, CFO of Kingdom Holding explained, “We have worked very openly with the Forbes team over the years and have on multiple occasions pointed out problems with their methodology that need correction. However, after several years of our efforts to correct mistakes falling on deaf ears, we have decided that Forbes has no intention of improving the accuracy of their valuation of our holdings and we have made the decision to move on. KHC puts a premium on tracking the true value of our investments and it is contrary to both our practice and nature to assist in the publication of financial information we know to be false and inaccurate.”

This year Kingdom says it found four glaring errors/inconsistencies in Forbes’ reporting (from the press release):

  • A sudden refusal after six years to accept share values as listed by the TadawulSaudi Arabia’s fully regulated, 21st century, high-tech stock exchange that services the largest economy in the Middle East and is a member of the World Federation of Exchanges.
  • A completely unsupported and biased allegation based on rumors that stock manipulation “is the national sport” in Saudi Arabia because “there are no casinos.”
  • The application of differing standards of proof for different individuals and organizations resulting in an arbitrary and confusing set of standards that seems demonstrably biased against the Middle East. For example, the valuations of other emerging markets such as the Mexican stock exchange are accepted while those of the Tadawul are not.
  • Unexplained and purely arbitrary discounts applied to holdings not backed up by brokerage statements when pre-IPO investments such as those in Twitter and China’s 360Buy would not appear on any brokerage statement, and after impressing on Forbes that KHC’s investments are covered by confidentiality agreements.

The real killer here is at the end of the release where Kingdom says that it will continue to work with Forbes’ rival list, the Bloomberg Billionaires List, since they ” use a more accurate method of calculating financial holdings.”

Brutal.

Prince Alwaleed

Forbes responded to these allegations in an e-mail to Business Insider saying, “Prince Alwaleed has issued a press release in response to fact-checking questions from Forbes. For our 27th annual Billionaires ranking, released today, Forbes has listed Alwaleed at $20 billion, which is $2 billion more than what he was listed at last year but $9.6 billion less than he claims he is worth. Forbes has been investigating the prince’s finances for several years, and will detail its findings in a feature story in the magazine, which will be released online tomorrow morning.”

Check out some screenshots of Kingdom’s press release below:

 

Prince Alwaleed Press release page 1

Kingdom Holding Company

 

 

Prince Alaweed press release

Kingdom Holding Company

______________________________________________________________________

commonsenseAAA

 

common sense001

| Thou shalt NOT steal: Google Launches Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Library!

Google Launches Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Library ~ Time Tech.

JERUSALEM, Israel (AP)Israeli authorities say they have put 5,000 fragments of the ancient Dead Sea scrolls online in a partnership with Google.

The digital library launched on Tuesday, with important texts like the Book of Deuteronomy, which includes the Ten Commandments, and a portion of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, dated to the first century B.C.

It is part of a broader attempt by the custodians of the celebrated manuscripts – who were once criticized for allowing them to be monopolized by small circles of scholars – to make them broadly available.

Shuka Dorman, director of the Israel Antiquities Authority says: “Now, everyone can touch the stroll on-screen around the globe,” says

Last year, Google also partnered with the Israel Museum to put five scrolls online.

Online: WWW.DEADSEASCROLLS.ORG.IL
________________________________________________________________

judasB

bloody handsAJesusBathingB

| What is Love? Five theories on the greatest emotion of all!

What is love? Five theories on the greatest emotion of all ~  and guardian.co.uk.

It’s the most popular search on Google – but what’s the answer? Experts in fields from science to fiction share their thoughts.

What is love” was the most searched phrase on Google in 2012, according to the company. In an attempt to get to the bottom of the question once and for all, the Guardian has gathered writers from the fields of science, psychotherapy, literature, religion and philosophy to give their definition of the much-pondered word.

A Bulgarian couple kiss in Sofia's central mall

Looking for answers in Sofia’s central mall, Bulgaria. Photograph: Valentina Petrova/AFP/Getty Images

 

The physicist: ‘Love is chemistry’

Jim Al-Khalili
Jim Al-KhaliliJim Al-KhaliliBiologically, love is a powerful neurological condition like hunger or thirst, only more permanent. We talk about love being blind or unconditional, in the sense that we have no control over it. But then, that is not so surprising since love is basically chemistry. While lust is a temporary passionate sexual desire involving the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and oestrogen, in true love, or attachment and bonding, the brain can release a whole set of chemicals: pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. However, from an evolutionary perspective, love can be viewed as a survival tool – a mechanism we have evolved to promote long-term relationships, mutual defence and parental support of children and to promote feelings of safety and security.

• Jim Al-Khalili is a theoretical physicist and science writer

The psychotherapist: ‘Love has many guises’

Philippa PerryPhilippa PerryUnlike us, the ancients did not lump all the various emotions that we label “love” under the one word. They had several variations, including:

Philia which they saw as a deep but usually non-sexual intimacy between close friends and family members or as a deep bond forged by soldiers as they fought alongside each other in battle. Ludusdescribes a more playful affection found in fooling around or flirting. Pragma is the mature love that develops over a long period of time between long-term couples and involves actively practising goodwill, commitment, compromise and understanding.Agape is a more generalised love, it’s not about exclusivity but about love for all of humanity. Philautia is self love, which isn’t as selfish as it sounds. As Aristotle discovered and as any psychotherapist will tell you, in order to care for others you need to be able to care about yourself. Last, and probably least even though it causes the most trouble, eros is about sexual passion and desire. Unless it morphs into philia and/or pragma, eros will burn itself out.

Love is all of the above. But is it possibly unrealistic to expect to experience all six types with only one person. This is why family and community are important.

• Philippa Perry is a psychotherapist and author of Couch Fiction

The philosopher: ‘Love is a passionate commitment’

Julian BagginiJulian BagginiThe answer remains elusive in part because love is not one thing. Love for parents, partners, children, country, neighbour, God and so on all have different qualities. Each has its variants – blind, one-sided, tragic, steadfast, fickle, reciprocated, misguided, unconditional. At its best, however, all love is a kind a passionate commitment that we nurture and develop, even though it usually arrives in our lives unbidden. That’s why it is more than just a powerful feeling. Without the commitment, it is mere infatuation. Without the passion, it is mere dedication. Without nurturing, even the best can wither and die.

• Julian Baggini is a philosopher and writer

The romantic novelist: ‘Love drives all great stories’

JojoJojo MoyesWhat love is depends on where you are in relation to it. Secure in it, it can feel as mundane and necessary as air – you exist within it, almost unnoticing. Deprived of it, it can feel like an obsession; all consuming, a physical pain. Love is the driver for all great stories: not just romantic love, but the love of parent for child, for family, for country. It is the point before consummation of it that fascinates: what separates you from love, the obstacles that stand in its way. It is usually at those points that love is everything.

• Jojo Moyes is a two-time winner of the Romantic Novel of the Year award

The nun: ‘Love is free yet binds us’

Catherine WybourneCatherine WybourneLove is more easily experienced than defined. As a theological virtue, by which we love God above all things and our neighbours as ourselves for his sake, it seems remote until we encounter it enfleshed, so to say, in the life of another – in acts of kindness, generosity and self-sacrifice. Love’s the one thing that can never hurt anyone, although it may cost dearly. The paradox of love is that it is supremely free yet attaches us with bonds stronger than death. It cannot be bought or sold; there is nothing it cannot face; love is life’s greatest blessing.

• Catherine Wybourne is a Benedictine nun

______________________________________________________________

LoveTrap

| Quit Posting Facebook Copyright/Privacy Messages — It’s a Hoax!

Quit Posting Facebook Copyright/Privacy Messages — It’s a Hoax ~
, Time.

 

Have you seen the one where you’re supposed to post a legal notice to your Facebook profile to ensure the social networking titan can’t use anything you’ve written without your permission?

No, doing so won’t accomplish anything legally speaking, and yes, it’s a hoax — an old one that already made the rounds earlier this year according to urban legend tracker Snopes.com.

I scraped a copy of the message off my own Facebook NewsFeed this afternoon (one of my friends had posted it), and other TIME editors confirmed seeing it in their feeds this morning. Here it is, in full:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines, I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, graphics, comics, paintings, photos, and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For any and all commercial use of the above my written consent is required in every instance.

(Those reading this may copy and paste this text on their Facebook walls. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I hereby notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents, and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, then you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be allowing tacitly the use of elements such as your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates

The idea seems to be that by posting this, you can somehow override the privacy strictures you agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Let’s be clear: You can’t. It’s that simple. Posting such messages, whatever you’ve read about your rights and the power of self-declared legalese, will simply clutter up your timeline and annoy your friends. If you have a problem with Facebook’s privacy policies, you can either stick it out and lobby for Facebook to amend its terms, or you can quit Facebook.

Part of the appeal behind this particular version of the hoax lies in its citation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Section 1-308, which supposedly confers certain legal privileges if you drop it somewhere in the vicinity of your signature. In short, it doesn’t, and it certainly doesn’t protect you on Facebook. The only thing that’ll protect you on Facebook is you, in other words — taking care not to post anything you’d rather stay private.

Perhaps “hoax” is too strong a word. Sometimes these things are just viral mistakes — someone taking a well-intentioned misunderstanding and driving it viral (though that’s often also a definition for “conspiracy theories”). People pick it up thinking they’re immunizing themselves with, as Snopes puts it, a “legal talisman.” No such thing exists. The person who devised this particular message may have been going for viral clutter, or they may simply have been misinformed.

__________________________________________________________________