News in english
33.3K views | +0 today
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez
onto News in english!

he Lebanese authorities detain activists Ali Latifa Fakhry and activist/ blogger Khodor Salameh while they were doing some graffiti in Beirut.

The Lebanese authorities detain activists Ali Latifa Fakhry and activist/ blogger Khodor Salameh while they were doing some graffiti in Beirut. They were stopped by the Lebanese army and taken to the Military Police station next to Matthaf! They continue to be under arrest. There is a solidarity protest right now in Beirut check hashtags #FreeAli & #FreeKhodor for information. You can send emails to, fax the Prime Minister office on 009611983065, also tweeting @Najib_Mikati demanding the immediate release of Ali and Khodor.

Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (Preamble and Article 19), and in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, that Lebanon has ratified in 1972:

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Lebanon, now would be the time to uphold the obligations you submitted yourself to! FREE ALI! FREE KHODOR!

No comment yet.
News in english
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

Open Letter to #Nestlé by @yasminemotarjemi #FoodSafety #Suisse #Justice #Swiss


Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:

join this FB page please :in order to support the fight for dignity and justice of Yasmine against Nestlé :

Open Letter by 
Yasmine Motarjemi , Former Corporate Food Safety Manager (2000-2010), Assistant Vice President
Mr Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Nestlé, S.A
55 Avenue Nestlé
CH-1800 Vevey

"Nyon, 4th Septembre 2010
Dear Mr Chairman,
I was your Corporate Food Safety Manager from 2000 to 2010. I write to you today for two reasons: 
first, to share with you my concerns regarding a culture and management practices in Nestlé, which 
undermine food safety; and, second, to inform you of my personal experiences while attempting to
improve the situation.
I long nourished the hope that you would be interested in meeting the person responsible for dealing 
with everyday problems of the Company in an area as important as the safety of Nestlé products. 
However, to my regret we have never had the opportunity to meet and discuss the food safety 
situation in the Company. As both corporate-level management of food safety and my professional 
status deteriorated to the point of being unacceptable, I was compelled to report my concerns to 
Management with the expectation that a fair evaluation of the situation would be undertaken. In 
the event, my efforts were in vain. 
Mr Chairman, I always found listening to your speeches a source of motivation and inspiration. 
Moreover, Nestlé Policies and Management Principles portray a model Company, with the most 
laudable corporate values. A glance at the Company building, offices and facilities is enough to make 
any outsider believe that this is an ideal working environment. 
However, after only a short time, I was profoundly disappointed at how people are managed, the 
discrepancies between your public statements and the private deeds of managers; between the 
Company’s policies and management principles and actual practices; and between the proclaimed 
values and the prevailing fear culture (including mobbing and intimidation) that managers nourished. 
I was particularly saddened by the growing realisation that Management was not only aware of this 
situation but that it was also fully accepted by the very people who should have been, in fact, the inhouse guardians of policy compliance.I failed to see the flawless execution of policy that you promoted in your speeches. Didn’t you state 
that the management of food quality and safety depends on the quality of management? What can 
be said about food safety management when the members of Management themselves do not 
respect Company policies and principles? 
If I dared challenge the Company’s food safety and human resource practices I can assure you that it 
was not out of disrespect. On the contrary, it was because of my loyalty to the Company, my 
colleagues and the consumers we served. It was also because for me the safety of our products and 
respect for our colleagues were non-negotiable values. Involving staff in building a better company 
unavoidably includes exposing shortcomings. But surely it is better to receive timely feedback from 
within than to be publicly embarrassed later by failures.
You have often expressed your commitment to food safety. Please allow me to share with you my 
own vision in this regard. Over and above the technical and scientific aspects, the foundation of 
good food safety management is an equitable system of people management that is based on 
professionalism, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness, respect for staff and, most importantly, for 
their dignity. I regret to say that I failed to see this approach implemented at the Nestlé Head Office. 
My own situation is a case in point. 
On several occasions I reported – first to members of Management and then, in November 2009, to 
Mr Paul Bulcke – serious shortcomings in food safety management, the professional difficulties I 
faced, and the shameful treatment that I experienced in Nestlé. I hoped that I would be given the 
opportunity to provide a full and accurate account of events during the period 2005-2010. In 
response, my contract was terminated with no opportunity to provide details of my experience. 
Nevertheless, I am prepared to meet with you, at your convenience, to share my observations on 
practices in Nestlé and their eventual repercussions on Nestlé’s reputation and consumers. I would 
also hope to use this opportunity to identify an equitable solution for my personal difficult situation, another consequence of the past events in Nestlé" 
source :
more here (in french)
more again (in french) 
more (in german ) :

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People    : Information Clearing House - ICH #USElections

This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People    : Information Clearing House - ICH #USElections

By Moon Of Alabama

Via Adam Johnson:

"Total mentions all 4 debates:

  • Russia/Putin 178
  • ISIS/terror 132
  • Iran 67
  • ...
  • Abortion 17
  • Poverty 10
  • Climate change 4
  • Campaign finance 3
  • Privacy 0"

October 20, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Moon Of Alabama"- The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8 and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like.  Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#Clinton Emails Reveal Direct US Sabotage Of #Venezuela   

#Clinton Emails Reveal Direct US Sabotage Of #Venezuela  

By Telesur

October 20, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "teleSur"- As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton led a team committed to delegitimizing the politics of the late Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

While Hillary Clinton publicly welcomed improved relations with Venezuela as secretary of state, she privately ridiculed the country and continued to support destabilization efforts, revealed her emails leaked by WikiLeaks.

In 2010, Clinton asked Arturo Valenzuela, then assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, how “to rein in Chavez.” Valenzuela responded that, “We need to carefully consider the consequences of publicly confronting him but ought to look at opportunities for others in the region to help.”

His answer was in line with the U.S. embassy strategy in 2006, also revealed in WikiLeaks intelligence cables: “Creative U.S. outreach to Chavez’ regional partners will drive a wedge between him and them,” said the confidential cable from the embassy. “By refusing to take each of Chavez’s outbursts seriously, we frustrate him even more, paving the way for additional Bolivarian miscalculations. We also allow room for other international actors to respond.”

Spain was among the countries willing to help the U.S. in its subversive foreign relations strategy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright passed on a message from the administration of conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in 2012 expressing intentions “to re-orient Spanish foreign policy so that it can work with the U.S. in Latin America, especially on Venezuela and Cuba … As a transition in Cuba and something significant in Venezuela (and possibly the Andes) loom, a stronger working relationship between the U.S. and Spain could be very helpful.”

When keeping an eye on regional meetings, Clinton was especially concerned with Venezuela. Responding to a United Nations statement against the coup in Honduras in 2009—that she supported—Clinton shifted the attention to Venezuela: “Ok—but have they ever condemned Venezuela for denying press freedom?” she wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan.

He responded “I highly doubt it. And that is just the tip of the iceberg,” to which Clinton wrote, “Ah, the proverbial iceberg.”

Clinton was cautious not to respond to all of Hugo Chavez’s “antics,” but her staff insisted that Venezuelan politics were a threat to U.S. interests.

An email advising how to spend USAID funds strongly suggested refraining from backing leftist states like Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba because the money “could undermine real democratic development to hand over ‘ownership’ to populist centralizers.”

Clinton should use language like “‘local ownership’ in a nuanced way” to avoid having her words “used against her by demagogues and kleptocrats,” said the email. Any funds channeled into such unreliable states, it added, must be accompanied by “(h)uman behavioral changes.”

International aid to Venezuela was siphoned off, but broadcasts to counter local “propaganda” were amplified.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors—which runs the Marti stations, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks—requested more funding in a 2010 email forwarded to Clinton to “combat the public diplomacy efforts of America’s ‘enemies,’ which he (chairman Walter Isaacson) identifies as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and China.”

 The BBG, with a US$700 million annual budget—now increased to over US$750 million, though not because of Clinton—was “facing increased competition from other governments’ forays into international broadcasting … including Venezuela’s teleSUR.”

A month later, when the board was facing cuts, Cuban-born Florida Senator Ileana Ros-Lehtinen suggested focusing resources on high-priority countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador.

“Let the fun begin—and let’s keep going w(ith) our plans,” responded Clinton.

Another leaked email from Stratfor described the BBG as “responsible for the radio and TV aggressions against Cuba,” which received its own category of state funding of nearly US$40 million. The board separated from State Department control in 1999, officially becoming an independent agency. “Congress agreed that credibility of U.S. international broadcasting was crucial to its effectiveness as a public diplomacy tool,” according to Congress’s 2008 budget on foreign operations.

While giving the cold shoulder to Venezuela, Clinton was cozy with Latin American players that opposed the country’s leftist politics.

Her counselor and chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, forwarded her a recommendation for Mari Carmen Aponte to be appointed as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte, noted the email, “has consistently fought Cuba and Venezuela’s efforts to gain influence in Central America and as a result of her negotiating skills, the U.S. and El Salvador will open a new, jointly-funded, electronic monitoring center that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime.”

She won the appointment and later became assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

Clinton also drew fire for saying, “We’re winning!” when the Venezuelan opposition won a majority of seats in parliament in 2015 and for serving as secretary of state while the National Security Administration regularly spied on Venezuela.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

 The Real Purpose Behind the "Liberation" of  #Mosul?  : by #RobertFisk - The Independent

 The Real Purpose Behind the "Liberation" of  #Mosul?  : by #RobertFisk - The Independent

When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?

The entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington

By Robert Fisk 

October 18, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "The Independent"- Syria’s army and Hezbollah and Iranian allies are preparing for a massive invasion by thousands of Isis fighters who will be driven out of Iraq when Mosul falls. The real purpose behind the much-trumpeted US-planned "liberation" of the Iraqi city, the Syrian military suspect, is to swamp Syria with the hordes of Isis fighters who will flee their Iraqi capital in favour of their "mini-capital" of Raqqa inside Syria itself.

For weeks now, Western media and the American experts it likes to quote have been predicting a Stalingrad-style battle to the death by Isis inside Mosul – or a swift victory over Isis followed by inter-sectarian Iraqi battles for the city. The UN is warning of massive refugee columns streaming from a besieged city. But the Syrians – after witnessing the sudden collapse and evacuation of Palmyra when their own army retook the ancient Syrian city earlier this year – suspect that Isis will simply abandon Mosul and try to reach safety in the areas of Syria which it still controls.

Already, Syrian army intelligence has heard disturbing reports of a demand by Isis in towns and villages south of Hasaka – a Syrian city held by regime forces and Kurds in the north of the country – for new electricity and water supplies to be installed for an influx of Isis fighters from Mosul. In other words, if Mosul falls, the entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington. When the Iraqi city of Fallujah fell to Iraqi army and militia forces earlier this year, many Isis fighters fled at once to Syria.

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader who sent thousands of his men to fight (and die) in the struggle against Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, said in a speech marking the Ashura commemorations last week that the Americans “intend to repeat the Fallujah plot when they opened a way for Isis to escape towards eastern Syria” and warned that “the same deceitful plan may be carried out in Mosul.” In other words, an Isis defeat in Mosul would encourage Isis to head west to try to defeat the Assad regime in Syria.

These suspicions have scarcely been allayed by a series of comments from American generals and US military sources over the past few weeks. The newly appointed US commander in the region, Lt Gen Stephen Townsend – heading what the US has presumptiously called ‘Operation Inherent Resolve’ – has said that not only Mosul but the Syrian city of Raqqa would be captured “on my watch”. But who exactly does he think will capture Raqqa? The Syrian army still intends to fight on to Raqqa from its base on the the Damascus-Aleppo military road west of the city after an attempt earlier this year which was abandoned for political rather than military reasons. Russia apparently preferred to concentrate its firepower on other militias, especially Nusra/al-Qaeda, which both Moscow and Damascus now regard as being far more dangerous than Isis.

Both have noticed how Nusra – which changed its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the "Support Front for the People of the Levant", in the hope of escaping its al-Qaeda roots – is increasingly referred to by both Western politicians and journalists as “the rebels”, along with a plethora of other militia outfits fighting the Syrian regime. An unidentified US general was quoted last month expressing his concern that Iraqi Shia forces might seize the town of Tal Afar on the Iraqi-Syrian border in order to trap Isis fighters inside Iraq – and thus prevent their flight into Syria. Isis itself is reported to have abandoned Tal Afar several days ago.

The US-based Military Times online magazine (which, as the saying goes, is "close" to the Pentagon) has argued that General Townsend, who has a mere 5,000 US troops on the ground in both Iraq and the far north of Syria, must “pursue Isis into Syria, where the US has few allies on the ground” – which is quite an understatement – while Townsend himself is talking of “a long, difficult fight” for Mosul. He has also referred to a “siege” of Mosul. These are the dire predictions in which the Syrians do not believe

Assad’s own army, with its 65,000 fatalities in a battle that has now lasted five years, has already been bombed by the Americans at Deir Ezzor at a cost of at least 60 dead – Washington described this as a mistake – and is now preparing to challenge the huge influx of Isis fighters which could cross the border after the collapse of Mosul. Nasrallah himself made an intriguing allusion to this in his speech. He suggested that if Isis forces are not defeated by the Iraqis themselves in Mosul then the Iraqis – presumably the Iraqi Shia militia which are one of the spearheads of the government army – “will be obliged to move to eastern Syria in order to fight the terrorist group”

Given the possibility that Syrian troops and their Russian allies may have to confront this same group, it’s little wonder that they are trying to conclude their capture of eastern Aleppo – whatever the cost in lives – before the fall of Mosul.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

In #Aleppo civilians ‘shouldn’t have to leave,’ in  #Mosul displacement ‘inevitable’ - #US State Dept

In #Aleppo civilians ‘shouldn’t have to leave,’ in  #Mosul displacement ‘inevitable’ - #US State Dept

The US State Department appears to have double standards when it comes to humanitarian crises and civilian displacement due to conflicts. When it comes to Aleppo, the US State Department says civilians “shouldn’t have to leave, they shouldn’t be bombed by their own government and the Russian military.” But when it comes to Mosul, where a US-backed operation to retake the city from ISIS is under way, the State Department says, “Civilian displacement is inevitable.” RT correspondent Gayane Chichakyan explores the contradiction and Janice Atkinson, member of the European parliament, joins RT to discuss the issue.

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez from Art and culture!

Oscar Winning Director #OliverStone on Freedom of Speech & Debating Downfalls of #Trump & #Clinton - RT 27 mn

Oscar Winning Director #OliverStone on Freedom of Speech & Debating Downfalls of #Trump & #Clinton - RT 27 mn

Ajoutée le 19 oct. 2016

We speak to award winning director, Oliver Stone about Hillary's hacks, CIA backed cinema and the British government bank that appears to have tried to stop you from seeing this programme. Going Underground producer Pete Bennett and deputy editor Sebastian Pacher, argue which presidential candidate is worse for you and the world at large

Oliver Stone, Platoon, Snowden, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, UK, parliament, Chilcot, British, war, Guardian, Edward Snowden, Tony Blair, Iraq, , Theresa May, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, David Cameron, London, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Hillary Clinton, MI5,MI6, ISIS,

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#US air strikes pound #Libya 's Sirte to oust #IslamicState militants - Reuters 17.10.16 #NoCiviliansKilledHere ?

#US air strikes pound #Libya 's Sirte to oust #IslamicState militants - Reuters 17.10.16 #NoCiviliansKilledHere ? | News in english |

Les bombardements US sur Syrte, personne n'en parle ..

Ah oui, j'oubliais, eux ne tuent jamais de civils .... #doublestandards


#US air strikes pound #Libya 's Sirte to oust #IslamicState militants - Reuters 17.10.16 #NoCiviliansKilledHere ?

U.S. aircraft hit Islamic State targets with more 30 strikes over the last three days on the Libyan city of Sirte as pro-government forces push into its last militant-held districts, the U.S. military said on Monday.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

Leaked emails show donors drive #HillaryClinton ’s pro- #israel positions #BDS #zionism #corruption

Leaked emails show donors drive #HillaryClinton ’s pro- #israel positions #BDS #zionism #corruption | News in english |

Leaked emails show donors drive #HillaryClinton ’s pro- #israel positions #BDS #zionism #corruption

Democratic nominee revealed her real views on Syria and Saudi Arabia only behind closed doors.

A batch of internal Clinton campaign emails published by Wikileaks in recent days reveals the extent to which campaign donors drive Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric and policy positions on Israel and the broader Middle East.

Last year, Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to billionaire media mogul Haim Saban on her campaign stationery vowing “to make countering BDS a priority” if she wins the presidency.

Saban has donated at least $7 million to getting Clinton elected president and openly confesses that his number one priority is influencing US policy in Israel’s favor.

According to the emails between Clinton’s senior campaign aides, the letter to Saban was deliberately leaked to friendly media to attract pro-Israel donors concerned about the rise of the BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – movement.

The way the campaign aides discuss the issue is completely devoid of emotion or ideology. It’s all about the donors.

Opposing BDS to please donors

In a 3 July 2015 email to campaign staffers, Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “I was just thinking: has she made a clear statement on Israel yet? I get this question from donors all the time. Does she need to state her principles on Israel before Iran? Or do both at the same time?”

“That’s basically the goal of the BDS letter,” responded Clinton speechwriter Dan Schwerin.

“We could either get a donor to leak it or just give it to a reporter if we want to get it out there. I’m semi-surprised it’s not out yet,” replied deputy communications director Christina Reynolds.

Clinton’s voice is nowhere to be seen in the correspondence. “We have a two pager I’m getting clearance from her on. That is what we have to ship around,” Jake Sullivan, a senior foreign policy adviser to Clinton, wrote.

“Let’s def give it to someone. I see zero downside to a story. Then we can circulate around right away (hopefully) in advance of Iran,” reasoned Mook.

“If Haim’s going to give it to the Jewish media, I think that solves our problem. Once they write, we can make sure it gets picked up by some of our beat guys,” Christina Reynolds responded.

Three days later, Politico reported on and published the letter.

The emails show Saban coordinating directly with the Clinton campaign, offering positive reinforcement for Clinton’s pro-Israel messaging and strategizing with Clinton aides against BDS.

Israel’s liaison

The emails show that Stuart Eizenstat, a former US ambassador to the EU under President Bill Clinton, acted as a liaison between the Israeli government and the Hillary Clinton campaign, counseling senior staffers on how to adjust their messaging to the liking of the Israeli leadership.

Eizenstat wrote lengthy and detailed emails to campaign aides summarizing his meetings with Israeli government officials and recommending talking points for Clinton to adopt.

The Clinton campaign frequently thanked Eizenstat for his counsel, regularly implemented his suggestions and often sought his approval on speeches related to Israel.

“I took some of your concepts but left out the specifics,” foreign policy adviser Sullivan wrote in a July 2015 email to Eizenstat.

Sullivan was seeking pointers for Clinton’s statement in response to the passage of the Iran nuclear deal.

A month earlier, Sullivan messaged Eizenstat for advice on BDS: “I was talking to HRC [Hillary Clinton] today about the idea of having her meet with some Jewish leaders later this week about BDS/delegitimization efforts. She and the leaders could go out and make a statement following the meeting.”

Sullivan sought Eizenstat’s opinion on who Clinton should include in such an initiative.

Netanyahu is ready for Hillary

In December 2015, Eizenstat reported on his “meeting with a senior [Israeli] official who is very close to the Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu], and knows his thinking.”

“The prime minister always had a ‘surprising good relationship’ with Hillary; she is ‘easy to work with,’ and that she is more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House,” Eizenstat wrote.

The official also told Eizenstat that “Israel [sic] Arabs are a ‘real problem.’ The government had to dismantle the northern branch of the Islamic Association because they were radicalizing the Israeli Arabs, who are 20 percent of the population.”

Eizenstat was referring to Israel’s ban on the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement, a political party with a large following among Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Eizenstat’s emails also reflect the Israeli leadership’s intense hostility toward President Barack Obama.

In a May 2015 email to the Clinton campaign, Eizenstat noted that in his meeting with the Israelis, “The level of vitriol against the president was striking, to such a degree that one participant urged that he was being unfairly demonized.”

In June 2015, Eizenstat wrote, “I was struck in my week in Israel, not only among Israeli officials, but among my friends across the political spectrum (most are former officials) and apolitical relatives, at the depth of antipathy and distrust of President Obama, as ‘weak,’ ‘pro-Muslim’ and ‘anti-Israel.’”

“Attack, attack, attack”

In another June 2015 email, Eizenstat provides details of a meeting with Netanyahu and his cabinet in which Netanyahu urges attacking BDS and recruiting Latinos, Evangelical Christians and Asian Americans to assist in the effort.

Summarizing Netanyahu’s views, Eizenstat wrote: “On BDS, Israel should move from the defense to the offense. It should be attacked on moral grounds. It is ‘unjust’ and ‘cruel.’ Israel must attack its attackers. The best defense is a good offense: ‘attack, attack, attack.’”

Smearing BDS

In an August 2015 email labeled “NOT FOR CIRCULATION,” Eizenstat passed along advice to Hillary Clinton from Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador in Washington.

A US-born right-winger who has been called “Bibi’s brain,” Dermer told Eizenstat that the Israeli government was plotting to smear Palestine solidarity activism on college campuses as terrorism.

“They will shortly expose the funding base for the main BDS group on campus, Students for Justice in Palestine, which tie it with terrorist funding,” Eizenstat wrote. “The key is to expose BDS as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.”

No-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians”

During the Democratic Party primary race, Bernie Sanders repeatedly called on Clinton to release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street banks, but she refused.

One of the most damning aspects of the latest Wikileaks dump is the excerpts of Clinton’s paid speeches.

In a speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton confessed that a no-fly zone in Syria would “kill a lot of Syrians.” This is because it would require bombing Syria’s air defenses, “many of which are located in populated areas,” according to Clinton.

While making this assessment in private, Clinton has continued to publicly advocate for a no-fly zone, ostensibly to protect Syrian civilians.

Saudi support for ISIS

Clinton told the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago at a luncheon in 2013 that Israel and Jordan were working in close partnership for the purpose of “shoring up King Abdullah.”

That same year she told congregants at a synagogue, “One of the developments of the Arab Spring is that you now have Israel and Saudi Arabia more closely aligned in their foreign policy” in the region.

Publicly, Clinton frequently casts Iran as the single greatest funder of terrorism in the world. But privately she has repeatedly acknowledged Saudi Arabia’s contribution to violent extremism.

At a Jewish United Fund dinner in 2013, Clinton said she preferred “a more robust, covert action” to arm Syrian rebels against the government of Bashar al-Assad.

But she added that this was complicated because, “the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate.”

She also described Saudi Arabia’s fierce opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood as “kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.”

In one of the leaked emails Clinton accuses Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding the Islamic State, sometimes referred to as ISIS or ISIL.

Citing “Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region,” Clinton wrote, “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

It’s all about the donors

The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

And while serving as secretary of state, Clinton greenlighted enormous weapons deals to those countries.

From Israel to Saudi Arabia, it is clear that Clinton’s donors are in charge. They exert more influence over her public positions and policy prescriptions than she does.

If Clinton were running against Senators Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, these emails would be scandalous.

Instead, the leaks have been completely overshadowed by the even more sensational and lurid October surprise that befell Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Clinton is lucky her opponent is more disliked and disingenuous than she is.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

How the #WarOnTerror has killed 1.3 million people (at least) #StateTerrorism #US #WarCrimes

How the #WarOnTerror has killed 1.3 million people (at least) #StateTerrorism #US

Ajoutée le 12 oct. 2016

The Physicians for Social Responsibility is an organization based in Washington DC. They actually won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. And they released a report entitled, “Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the War on Terror.” The report takes on the huge task of trying to add up all the people who have lost their lives to our 15-year-old War on Terror, and the number they came up with is around 1.3 million people. They report we’ve killed about 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 people in Afghanistan, and 80,000 people in Pakistan. They also say that these estimates are probably low, as it’s really hard for anyone to try to tally since we keep dropping bombs from unmanned drones. It’s nearly impossible to account for every life lost, so the 1.3 million is actually a conservative estimate. It doesn’t even take into account everything going on in Yemen, or Libya, for instance. The researchers say the real number could easily be in excess of 2 million. The Resident discusses. Follow The Resident at

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

What happens when the #US gov is asked the difference between #Russia in #Syria and #SaudiArabia in #Yemen

What happens when the #US gov is asked the difference between #Russia in #Syria and #SaudiArabia in #Yemen | News in english |

vidéo déjà culte ...


What happens when the #US gov is asked the difference between #Russia in #Syria and #SaudiArabia in #Yemen - The Independent


A US government spokesperson has struggled to answer questions put to him on why the US condemns Russian bombing in Syria, and supports Saudi-led bombing in Yemen, both of which have killed thousands of civilians.

During a media briefing in Washington DC on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson John Kirby was asked repeatedly about whether Saudi coalition bombing of Houthi rebels in Sanaa - facilitated by US arms sales to the Gulf state - deliberately targets civilian infrastructure.

On Saturday, an air strike in the Yemeni capital killed 140 people at a funeral hall, in one of the worst single incidents of violence in the 18-month-old civil war between the exiled Yemeni government and Houthi rebels who are in contro (...)

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#Syrie #BombardementduConvoiHumanitaire Tout le monde accuse tout le monde.Sans preuves.Quelqu'un ment

#Syrie #BombardementduConvoiHumanitaire Tout le monde accuse tout le monde.Sans preuves.Quelqu'un ment | News in english |

#Syrie #BombardementduConvoiHumanitaire Tout le monde accuse tout le monde.Sans preuves.Quelqu'un ment. Et mon ptit doigt, au vu du passé, me dit que c'est Washington qui ment

#Putin : We know who destroyed aid convoy in Aleppo, #Syria
Published time: 12 Oct, 2016 12:52Edited time: 12 Oct, 2016 17:15

The attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy near the Syrian city of Aleppo last month, which Washington has blamed on Russia, was actually carried out by one of the terrorist groups present in the area, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

It was one of the terrorist groups. And we know that, say, the Americans know it too, but prefer to take a different position, to falsely accuse Russia. This is not helping,” Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow.

The aid convoy was attacked on the night of September 20. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported 20 civilians killed and 18 vehicles destroyed.


The Pentagon alleged that the convoy was destroyed from the air and that Russian warplanes were present in the area, concluding that it was a Russian strike that was responsible.

Russia denied the accusation and said a US drone was monitoring the convoy, so Washington should know the truth about the attack.

(...) (là.. il y a un passage sur la crise diplomatique entre la France et la Russie suite à l'annulation de sa visite à Paris par Poutine . Je l'ai censuré car, internationalement, tout le monde s'en tape de cette France qui, depuis Sarko et avec Hollande, le président le plus con du monde, est devenu un nain que personne ou presque n'écoute si ce n'est les éditocrates parisiens sur l'échiquier international)


The situation in Syria will be discussed on Saturday in Lausanne, Switzerland, where top diplomats from the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are to gather for a meeting.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#ChrisHedges: It’s Our Bombs, Not #Trump ’s Comments, that Fuel Hatred Towards the #US - 15 mn - The Real News

#ChrisHedges: It’s Our Bombs, Not #Trump ’s Comments, that Fuel Hatred Towards the #US - 15 mn - The Real News

Ajoutée le 10 oct. 2016

Veteran journalist Chris Hedge says though Clinton’s rhetoric on Muslims is more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter of 'bombing our way to peace' in the Middle East
Visit for more videos.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

‘Only partially true’:  #AP says #Trump wrong about #Assad fighting #ISIS, retracts in hours -  #Syria #Media

‘Only partially true’:  #AP says #Trump wrong about #Assad fighting #ISIS, retracts in hours -  #Syria #Media | News in english |

‘Only partially true’:  #AP says #Trump wrong about #Assad fighting #ISIS, retracts in hours -  #Syria #Media
While providing fact check comments on the latest presidential debate, the Associated Press claimed Donald Trump’s assertion that Syrian President Bashar Assad was fighting Islamic State was not true. Their comment was retracted just hours later, however.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#US -led coalition strike killed dozens of civilian mourners 30km from Kirkuk – Russian MoD #Irak #Iraq

#US -led coalition strike killed dozens of civilian mourners 30km from Kirkuk – Russian MoD #Irak #Iraq | News in english |

#US -led coalition strike killed dozens of civilian mourners 30km from Kirkuk – Russian MoD #Irak #Iraq
The Russian Ministry of Defense says that the US-led coalition is responsible for striking mourners in the Iraqi city of Daquq on Friday, killing dozens of civilians, including women and children.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#Syria and the Left: Time to Break the Silence     : Information Clearing House - ICH

Sur les gauches .. à côté de la plaque concernant la Syrie depuis le début du conflit


Syria and the Left: Time to Break the Silence

By Eric Draitser

October 21, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Counterpunch"- The cold, hard reality of the war in Syria is that the violence, bloodshed, and chaos continues unabated while the Left, such as it is, continues on in a state of schizophrenic madness. Different points of view, conflicting ideological tendencies, and a misunderstanding of the reality of the conflict are all relevant issues to be interrogated, with civility and reasoned debate in short supply. But those issues are not the urgent task of this article; the Left does need to seriously self-reflect though about just how it responds to crises of imperialism and issues of war and peace.

However, what is urgently needed at this moment is a clear and unequivocal position on the future of this war, and the lives of all Syrians – political allegiances notwithstanding – as the escalation of the war approaches. There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton will win the crown of ringmaster of the political circus that is the US election. And, as she eases her freshly osculated behind into the leather captain’s chair in the Oval Office, it is only a matter of time before she ratchets up US military involvement in Syria, with a full US war, and attempted regime change, becoming all but a certainty.

And where will the Left be then? This question is not merely rhetorical as the Left has found itself in the usual circular firing squad predicament over the war in Syria. And though the issue continues to be debated, what should be beyond dispute is what the position on intervention into the war should be.

And as I brace for the predictable barrage of hate mail and name-calling from both sides of this debate – I’m mostly inured to that sort of thing after years of it – I want to make one point that should be obvious, and yet has become somehow controversial: opposing the war is the duty of all true anti-war activists.

But what does it mean to oppose the war? Does it mean that we should be opposing just Russian and Syrian bombs being dropped? Does it mean that only US-Saudi-Turkey-Israeli supplied weapons are doing the killing? Sadly, these too are not rhetorical questions as so many on the Left, including many self-described anti-imperialists, have positioned themselves as hawks in a war that has utterly devastated the country. It seems that many, myself included up to a point, have gotten so enveloped in the embrace of partisanship in this war that we have forgotten that our responsibility is to the people of Syria and to peace and justice.

Some on the pro-Assad side of the argument will correctly note that the role of the anti-war activist in the West is, above all, to oppose the imperialism of the West itself. And indeed, that is a primary responsibility. Others on the Left will argue that the responsibility of activists is to support liberation struggles of fellow revolutionaries. And while the revolutionary content of the rebel side in Syria has been sidelined by a hodgepodge of Saudi and Qatari-financed jihadists – the uprising began as a response to the Syrian government’s neoliberal policies and brutality, among other things – this cannot be taken to mean that countless innocent men, women, and children have not been maimed and killed by Syrian and Russian weapons, jets, and fighters.

Be that as it may, the question now before us is this: where do you stand on direct US intervention?

In the long and convoluted history of this war there have been precious few moments of clear and unmistakable moral judgment. If anything, the portrait of the war in Syria is colored in shades of gray, with little black and white to be found.

If you’re supportive of the anti-Assad forces, then it’s quite likely you’ve chosen to ignore the mountains of evidence that there is no “revolution” in Syria but rather a vicious contra-style war being fomented by US-NATO and its toadies in the Gulf, Turkey, and Israel. If you’re supportive of Assad then it’s a certainty that you’ve chosen to ignore or downplay the horrific violence of the bombings, the brutality of the torture chambers, and other unspeakable atrocities (I admit that I have often strayed too far into the latter) out of a desire to uphold the nominally anti-imperialist position.

And where has this left Syria? Where has it brought the Left? We’re no closer to an end to this horrific war, nor are we any closer to a resolution to the cancerous spread of terrorism in the region. Maybe just a few more US-supplied weapons and US-funded fighters will do the trick? Maybe a few more Russian and Syrian bombs will solve the crisis? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, neither one of those has brought Syria any closer to peace. And isn’t that what we’re allegedly supposed to be upholding?

And how about the refugees? I’ve seen the fascist talking points spouted by many fake “anti-imperialists” who with one breath proclaim their commitment to peace and justice, and with another demonize and scapegoat Syrian refugees whose politics don’t align with the pro-Assad position. Words like “traitors,” “cowards,” and “terrorists,” are shamefully applied to ordinary Syrians fleeing to Europe and elsewhere in hopes of saving their families. Indeed, it is precisely this narrative that is at the core of the white supremacist, fascist ideology that underlies a significant amount of the support base for Assad and his allies (see David Duke, David Icke, Alexander Dugin, Brother Nathanel, Alex Jones, Mimi al-Laham, Ken O’Keefe, and on and on and on). I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true, and too many of the pro-Assad camp have willfully ignored this fundamental point.

On the other side though, the unwillingness of the “Syrian revolution” camp to face up to the fact that they have unwittingly made themselves into the left flank of US interventionism and imperialism is cause for public shaming as well. Were this the 1980s one wonders whether they’d be saying the same things about the “revolutionary” contras in Central America who, like the so-called rebels in Syria, were also backed with US weapons, money, and training. How about the mujahideen in Afghanistan? Has the collective memory of the Left gotten so short? And what about those foreign fighters fleeing Syria? Are they revolutionaries when they go back to Libya and engage in human trafficking for profit? Or to Chechnya to smuggle Afghan heroin? Or to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else?

Undoubtedly there are people on both sides of this debate who, if they’re still reading (doubtful), are frothing at the mouth with rage as they prepare to send their hate mail or attack this article and me on social media. All of that is perfectly fine by me as my feelings are of little consequence in this war that has killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions.

But the conversation I’m hoping to spur here is not about the past, but about the future.

And so I put out the call, here and now, to all people of the Left and all those who wrap themselves in the shroud of revolution and anti-imperialism: where do you stand on intervention?

To the anti-Assad camp, I ask: What will you be doing when Hillary’s fire burns and cauldron bubbles? Will you continue to ignore the material reality of this war in favor of the chimera of a revolution betrayed? Put simply: will you be supporting US imperialism in the name of the “revolution”?

To the pro-Assad Syria fetishists, I ask: Will you continue to pretend that the only crimes and atrocities being committed are those veiled behind Old Glory? Are you comfortable in the knowledge that this war will continue on indefinitely so long as all outside actors continue to use Syria as merely a square on their respective geopolitical chessboards? Will you continue to delude yourselves by refusing to accept the plainly obvious truth that no state or group has the best interests of Syrians at heart? Will you allow yourselves to be the useful idiots of carefully calculated political maneuvering?

I ask these questions as someone who took a firmly pro-Assad position from the very beginning, someone who felt (as I, and many others, still do) that Syria, like Libya, was a victim of US-NATO-GCC-Israel imperialism and that, as such, it should be defended. And while I still uphold that resistance, I also have enough humility to know that, in doing so, I abandoned other core beliefs such as defense of ALL oppressed people, including the ones with politics I reject.

I ask these questions as someone who takes the very notion of anti-imperialism seriously, and who is dismayed by the disgusting cooptation of that word by fascists, chauvinists, white supremacists, and neocolonial degenerates who use it for political expediency. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The direct US war in Syria is coming. Russia’s war in Syria is already active. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel have been fomenting war in Syria from the beginning, all in support of the Empire’s strategic goals. And hundreds of thousands of bodies have been buried in the sand and soil.

How many more bodies are we comfortable burying? How much longer before peace is once again on the table? How many more years before we realize that this war will never end on a battlefield?

Either way, I’ll see anyone who wants to join me on the front lines of protest when the Queen of Chaos launches her war. That’s where I’ve been many times before, and will be for years to come.

And that’s where the Left ought to be.

Eric Draitser is the founder of and host of CounterPunch Radio. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#BernieSanders Suggests #Election Is Rigged, Unendorses #HillaryClinton

#BernieSanders Suggests #Election Is Rigged, Unendorses #HillaryClinton | News in english |

#BernieSanders Suggests #Election Is Rigged, Unendorses #HillaryClinton

People thought it was a horrible double standard when Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. However, in an unexpected announcement Bernie Sanders has suggested that the Presidential election may be rigged, leaving many to suggest that he is un-endorsing Hillary Clinton. In a cryptic Facebook message posted on Sunday, Sanders warned the American citizens…

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

Facts : #US biggest tax dodgers are #Clinton 's biggest donors - #corruption #NeitherTrumpNorHillary

Facts : #US biggest tax dodgers are #Clinton 's biggest donors

According to a new report from Bernie Sanders, who tracked earnings and tax reports from our biggest multinational corporations between the years of 2008 and 2012, our biggest tax dodgers are also Hillary Clinton's biggest donors. The Resident breaks it down. Follow The Resident at

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#GlennGreenwald educates #CNN on reporting #HillaryClinton #Wikileaks publications- #medias #PodestaEmails

#GlennGreenwald educates #CNN on reporting #HillaryClinton #Wikileaks publications- #medias #PodestaEmails

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#Devastating : 'What planet is she on?':  #Clinton adviser mocks #Hillary in latest #PodestaEmails

#Devastating : 'What planet is she on?':  #Clinton adviser mocks #Hillary in latest #PodestaEmails | News in english |

#Devastating : 'What planet is she on?':  #Clinton adviser mocks #Hillary in latest #PodestaEmails

Published time: 19 Oct, 2016 12:31

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#History #finance - #Citigroup Chose #Obama ’s 2008 Cabinet, #WikiLeaks Document Reveals  cc @Potus

Le genre de news dont Le Monde, le NY Times, etc glissent comme chat sur braise .. il y a des priorités éditoriales ..


#History #finance - #Citigroup Chose #Obama ’s 2008 Cabinet, #WikiLeaks Document Reveals 

By Tom Eley

October 17, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "WSWS"- One month before the presidential election of 2008, the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup submitted to the Obama campaign a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions in an Obama administration. This list corresponds almost exactly to the eventual composition of Barack Obama’s cabinet.

The memorandum, revealed by WikiLeaks in a recent document release from the email account of John Podesta, who currently serves as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, was written by Michael Froman, who was then an executive with Citigroup and currently serves as US trade representative. The email is dated Oct. 6, 2008 and bears the subject line “Lists.” It went to Podesta a month before he was named chairman of President-Elect Obama’s transition team.

The email was sent at the height of the financial meltdown that erupted after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15. Even as Citigroup and its Wall Street counterparts were dragging the US and world economy into its deepest crisis since the 1930s, they remained, as the email shows, the real power behind the façade of American democracy and its electoral process.

Froman’s list proved remarkably prescient. As it proposed, Robert Gates, a Bush holdover, became secretary of Defense; Eric Holder became attorney general; Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security; Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff; Susan Rice, United Nations ambassador; Arne Duncan, secretary of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services; Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget; Eric Shinseki, secretary of Veterans Affairs; and Melody Barnes, chief of the Domestic Policy Council.

For the highly sensitive position of secretary of the Treasury, three possibilities were presented: Robert Rubin and Rubin’s close disciples Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner. Obama chose Geithner, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner, along with Bush Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, had played the leading role in organizing the Wall Street bailout.

Rubin had served as Treasury secretary in the Bill Clinton administration from 1995 until 1999, when he was succeeded by Summers. In that capacity, Rubin and Summers oversaw the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which had imposed a legal wall separating commercial banking from investment banking. Immediately after leaving Treasury, Rubin became a top executive at Citigroup, remaining there until 2009.

A notable aspect of the Froman memo is its use of identity politics. Among the Citigroup executive’s lists of proposed hires to Podesta were a “Diversity List” including “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level,” in Froman’s words, and “a similar document on women.” Froman also took diversity into account for his White House cabinet list, “probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each position.” This list concluded with a table breaking down the 31 assignments by race and gender.

Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.

Then-presidential candidate Obama played a critical political role in shepherding the massively unpopular bank bailout through Congress. The September financial crash convinced decisive sections of the US corporate-financial elite that the Democratic candidate of “hope” and “change” would be better positioned to contain popular opposition to the bailout than his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.

The same furtive and corrupt process is underway in relation to a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump administration. Froman’s email is one of many thousands released by WikiLeaks from the account of Podesta. Those communications, such as the Froman email, which expose who really rules America, have been virtually ignored by the media. The pro-Democratic Party New Republic called attention to it in an article published Friday, but the story has received little if any further coverage.

The media has instead focused on salacious details of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s sexual activities, designed, in part, to divert attention from the substance of the Clinton campaign-related emails being released by WikiLeaks and other sources.

The New Republic drew attention to the Froman memo not because it opposes such machinations, but as a warning to the interests it represents that they must move now to influence the eventual composition of a Hillary Clinton administration.

“If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors,” wrote New Republic author David Dayen. “And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late.”

Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site


No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

#WIKILEAKS :Emails Show #HillaryClinton Selling Access 2 #HumanRights Abusing Govt of #Morocco #corruption #Maroc

#WIKILEAKS :Emails Show #HillaryClinton Selling Access 2 #HumanRights Abusing Govt of #Morocco #corruption #Maroc | News in english |

Encore du très lourd sur la profonde corruption de #HillaryClinton revélée par Wikileaks

Pendant ce temps, on pointe nos regards sur le sexisme de Trump tout en nous cachant ces révélations


#WIKILEAKS :Emails Show #HillaryClinton Selling Access 2 #HumanRights Abusing Govt of #Morocco #corruption #Maroc


By Andrew Stiles | 12:33 pm, October 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton agreed to attend a Clinton Foundation event in Morocco as a “condition” set by the country’s authoritarian government, according to a November 2014 email published by WikiLeaks.

In the email, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin discusses some of the former secretary of state’s “schedule issues” for 2015. One of the bullet points reads [emphasis added]:


– Morocco: No matter what happens, she will be in Morocco hosting CGI on May 5-7, 2015. Her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this. Important that you know background.

The Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh, hosted by Moroccan King Mohammed VI, was a lavish affair funded by a $1 million contribution from OCP, a phosphate conglomerate owned by the Moroccan royal family.

Hillary Clinton announced the conference in September 2015, calling Morocco a “vital hub for economic and cultural exchange,” and thanking the Moroccan government “for welcoming us and for its hospitality.”

Ultimately, Hillary did back out of the commitment. By April 2015, shortly before formally launching her presidential campaign, scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation and its long list of shady foreign donors had increased dramatically. The political optics of attending the conference would have been terrible for a candidate who had just announced her candidacy.

Politico reported at the time that Hillary was “unlikely” to attend the CGI event, although former President Bill Clinton did make an appearance at the ritzy gathering, where he cited “Morocco’s longstanding friendship to my family,” and personally thanked King Mohammed, who pledged as much as $500,000 to the construction toward the construction of the Clinton Library in Arkansas.

The CGI conference took place at a “lavish palm-tree-lined golf resort with a cocktail reception featuring Moroccan hors d’oeuvres and a saxophonist serenading about 50 donors, non-profit leaders and dignitaries including Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal.”

The Washington Post reported that attendees in Marrakesh were “chauffeured across the city to an opulent 56-room palace that boasts a private collection of Arabian horses, overlooks the snow-capped Atlas Mountains and serves a fine-dining menu of ‘biolight’ cuisine.”

The Moroccan government is one of several foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation that have been widely denounced for abusing human rights. Amnesty International, in a report published several days after the CGI conference in 2015, blasted the Moroccan government for its abusive treatment of political prisoners.

According to the report, dissidents in Morocco are subjected to “beatings, stress positions, asphyxiation, simulated drowning, psychological and sexual violence,” as a means of securing confessions for alleged crimes against the state. One tactic, known as the “roast chicken,” involves “suspending detainees from an iron bar by their wrists and knees.”

Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty denounced the Moroccan government’s human rights record in a statement. “Morocco’s leaders portray the image of a liberal, human-rights-friendly country,” said Shetty. “But as long as the threat of torture hangs over detention and dissent that image will just be a mirage.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

Leaked #HillaryClinton Emails: Could #BernieSanders Have Won Primary If Leak Occurred Earlier? - DemocracyNow

Leaked #HillaryClinton Emails: Could #BernieSanders Have Won Primary If Leak Occurred Earlier? - DemocracyNow | News in english |

Leaked #HillaryClinton Emails: Could #BernieSanders Have Won Primary If Leak Occurred Earlier? - DemocracyNow

On Friday, WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of John Podesta’s emails, including excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s paid remarks to Wall Street firms. The emails showed Clinton’s closed-door remarks were starkly at odds with many of her public positions. In one speech to a housing trade group in 2013, Clinton spoke of needing "both a public and a private position" when crafting laws. In other speeches, Clinton largely absolved Wall Street firms for the crash of 2008 and said financial reform "really has to come from the industry itself." The leaked emails also show Clinton openly boasted about her support of fracking while secretary of state. In a speech to Deutsche Bank in 2013, she said, "I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world." We speak to Lee Fang of The Intercept, co-author of the recent piece, "Memo Shows What Major Donors Like Goldman Sachs Want from Democratic Party."

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

‘It’s different’:  #US justifies #Saudi ‘self-defense’ in #Yemen , slams #Russia ’s actions in #Syria

‘It’s different’:  #US justifies #Saudi ‘self-defense’ in #Yemen , slams #Russia ’s actions in #Syria | News in english |

‘It’s different’:  #US justifies #Saudi ‘self-defense’ in #Yemen , slams #Russia ’s actions in #Syria

The US says Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemen was an act of “self-defense” against Iranian missiles on its border. While there are similarities with the Syrian conflict, Washington sees “differences” between the deaths of over 150 civilians, blamed on Riyadh, and the situation in Aleppo.

“It is different,” the State Department’s John Kirby has told AP’s Matt Lee, when asked whether Capitol Hill sees a difference between the recent attack in Yemen and “what you accuse the Russians and the Syrians and the Iranians of doing in Syria, particularly Aleppo?”

The question specifically referred to an airstrike that targeted a funeral service in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, killing more than 150 civilians and injuring over 525.

Located on opposite sides of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria bear few similarities, but have one thing in common: a civil conflict between their governments and rebels, which later evolved into larger-scale wars, with the intervention of foreign forces. However, the rules of the game appear to be different for each case. 

For the State Department, the Saudi pledge to investigate the bombing seems to offer some reduction in the significance of its actions.

“The Saudis publicly said that they were going to investigate this as – for the potential of it being, in fact, wrongly implemented and wrongly executed,” Kirby said. That is something, he added, he hasn’t seen the Syrian army or the Russian military do “not once.”

When asked about Russia’s recent demand for an investigation into an attack on a humanitarian convoy in Syria, Kirby said “it’s not exactly been a clarion call.”

Addressing the attack in Sana’a, the UN called the bombing “outrageous” and pointed out constant strikes, specifically at places of mass congregation, which lacked proper recourse.

“Since the beginning of this conflict in Yemen, weddings, marketplaces, hospitals, schools – and now mourners at a funeral – have been hit, resulting in massive civilian casualties and zero accountability for those responsible,” the UN said in a statement Monday.

Yet, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and its intervention in Yemen, the State Department said it is important to remember that Riyadh has a “pressing requirement for self-defense” because of threats it faces from Iranian missiles launched by Houthi rebels near the border.

However, there is no similar judgment regarding Syria, where rebel groups along with Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists presumably hold people at gunpoint in Aleppo.

Kirby accused Moscow and the Assad forces of “a concerted” and “very deliberate” effort to take “to subdue” the city by force.

As RT learned from locals still living in western Aleppo, it was not Russian forces that terrified them.

A woman said that everyone trying to get water from a well was also shot at while children described shells destroying their house.

RT has asked the State Department to comment on whether the people were effectively being “held” in Aleppo.

“I can’t confirm that report. You know I don’t get into battlefield reports; I’m not going to do that,” Kirby. “And your question about being held hostage, there should be – and I’ve seen reports that they’re allowed to leave,” he added, blaming the Syrian government and the Russian military.

The Department’s spokesman also declined to speak about Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, who remain in the area along with anti-Assad rebels. Moscow has unsuccessfully been asking the US to dissociate terrorists from the so-called moderate opposition.

Kirby says it’s unlikely they would want to leave Aleppo, hinting that the responsibility also lay with Russia.

“They’re not likely to want to leave while they’re continuing to be bombed,” he said.

When specifically asked whether it was America’s strategy to let Al-Qaeda run the area, Kirby declined to answer.

Washington has been supplying rebels with arms, some of which it has admitted ended up in the hands on terrorists.


In September, a US military spokesman said that rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and about one-quarter of their ammunition to Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front, now known as Jabhat Fatah al Sham, in exchange for safe passage.

When it comes to Yemen, the US also played, though indirectly, its part in the conflict aiding Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners with weapons, often used in attacks targeting civilians. Following the airstrike, the White House said it would reassess its help to Saudi Arabia.

Despite massive casualties and some opposition among lawmakers, US-Saudi arms sales have been thriving with the Senate just recently blocking a bipartisan bill that would stop the deal with Riyadh.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

In #Haiti , a Factory Where #BigMoney, #StateDepartment & the #Clinton s Meet - ABCNews #hillary #humanitarian

In #Haiti , a Factory Where #BigMoney, #StateDepartment & the #Clinton s Meet - ABCNews #hillary #humanitarian | News in english |

un scoop de ABC News et une casserole de plus pour Hillary

  • By Matthew Mosk
  • Brian Ross
CAP HAITIEN, Haiti — Oct 11, 2016, 1:42 PM ET


In #Haiti , a Factory Where #BigMoney, #StateDepartment & the #Clinton s Meet - ABCNews #hillary #humanitarian


ill and Hillary Clinton have hailed the factory churning out Old Navy sweatshirts in an industrial park here as a shining achievement in their efforts to rebuild this island nation after a destructive earthquake in 2010.

But the garment factory has underdelivered on projected jobs. Haitian workers have accused managers of bullying and sexual harassment. And an ABC News investigation has found that after opening its factory in the Haitian industrial park — built with $400 million of global aid — the Korean firm became a Clinton Foundation donor and its owner invested in a startup company owned by Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff.

“This was ‘building back better,’ in the words of Bill Clinton,” said Jake Johnston, an analyst with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonpartisan group that has studied the earthquake reconstruction. “Haiti was going to stand on its own two feet. Certainly, by that standard, it’s been a complete failure … Six years later, it’s pretty clear that hasn’t happened.”(...)

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

Watch #JILLSTEIN decimate them all!! #NeitherTrumpNorHillary

Watch #JILLSTEIN decimate them all!! #NeitherTrumpNorHillary

No comment yet.
Scooped by Juan Carlos Hernandez!

L’ennemi commun des peuples : Le moment #Hillary par #BrunoGuigue

L’ennemi commun des peuples : Le moment #Hillary  par #BrunoGuigue | News in english |

L’ennemi commun des peuples : Le moment #Hillary par #BrunoGuigue

Source : Comité Valmy, Bruno Guigue, 03-10-2016

Le moment Hillary

L’avantage, avec Hillary Clinton, c’est qu’elle annonce clairement la couleur. A grand renfort de rhétorique chauvine, la candidate démocrate galvanise les énergies du complexe militaro-industriel, du lobby sioniste et de la finance mondialisée. Elle est fière comme un Artaban de ses exploits guerriers en Libye. Elle promet de liquider sans délai Bachar Al-Assad. Elle couvre d’injures le président de la Russie et l’accuse de comploter contre son élection. D’une arrogance à toute épreuve, Hillary version 2016 incarne cette fraction de l’oligarchie yankee qui est prête à tout pour étendre sa domination. Mais pour bien comprendre cette séquence politique que j’appellerai le « moment Hillary », il faut la resituer dans un continuum historique.

Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama : depuis 1992, les trois présidents qui se sont succédé à la Maison Blanche n’ont pas ménagé leur peine pour servir une oligarchie qui se gave des prodigieux dividendes de la merveilleuse mondialisation libérale. Le plus décrié des trois, George W. Bush, n’a pas eu besoin, pourtant, d’inféoder la politique de son pays aux majors pétrolières et aux magnats de l’armement : elle était déjà sous leur coupe depuis longtemps ! Prototype du guerrier pacifiste, redoutable expert en communication, son prédécesseur Bill Clinton a largement contribué à cette inféodation, et il a légué un héritage politique dont on a parfois tendance à oublier l’importance.

Cet héritage, il faut le rappeler, est inséparable des circonstances exceptionnelles qui l’ont vu naître. L’élection de Bill Clinton eut lieu au lendemain d’un événement majeur, l’effondrement de l’URSS. Cette disparition de la superpuissance rivale ouvrit la voie à l’instauration d’un monde unipolaire. Poussant les feux de la globalisation économique, servant docilement les intérêts du capital financier, cet apôtre décontracté du mondialisme conforta la domination sans partage de Washington. Bill Clinton n’a pas inventé l’impérialisme, mais il l’a étendu à la planète. De quelle manière ? En réalisant trois avancées hégémoniques auxquelles Hillary compte bien s’arc-bouter pour repousser encore plus loin les limites du leadership US.

Lourde de conséquences, la première avancée hégémonique fut la transformation de l’OTAN en machine de guerre agressive. Bras séculier d’une alliance défensive destinée à parer à la « menace soviétique », cet appareil guerrier survécut à son ennemi potentiel. Au lieu de le dissoudre, les dirigeants US en firent une machine à émasculer les vieilles nations occidentales et l’instrument d’une offensive permanente contre Moscou. Provocation sans précédent, cette alliance belliqueuse élargie aux pays de l’Est européen a atteint les frontières occidentales de la Russie.

La deuxième avancée hégémonique de l’ère Clinton est de nature idéologique. Pour justifier l’intervention militaire contre un Etat souverain, on invoquerait désormais le prétexte des droits de l’homme. Cette doctrine fut expérimentée dans les Balkans, où la propagande humanitaire servit de paravent à l’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures de la Serbie, ce petit Etat au nationalisme ombrageux et jaloux de son intégrité territoriale. On inventa alors au Kosovo un génocide qui n’eut jamais lieu, on bombarda les infrastructures serbes, puis on confia le service après-vente de ce désastre à Bernard Kouchner, dont le don pour le maniement de la serpillière est de notoriété mondiale.

Cette opération militaire eut pour résultat de créer un Etat voyou, livré clé en main à une mafia particulièrement glauque dont le ralliement à l’Occident lui permit d’accroître les marges bénéficiaires de ses trafics en tout genre. Pour la première fois, un Etat-croupion fut porté sur les fonts baptismaux par une intervention militaire de l’OTAN en l’absence de mandat de l’ONU et en violation flagrante de la loi internationale. On croyait naïvement que l’intangibilité des frontières était un principe de droit international. C’est fini. La politique des droits de l’homme lui a tordu le cou.

Troisième avancée hégémonique, enfin : le génie inventif de la présidence Clinton porta sur la façon de faire la guerre. Avec les bombardements frénétiques infligés à la Somalie, à l’Irak et à la Serbie, le Pentagone expérimenta sa « révolution dans les affaires militaires ». Au lieu d’expédier sur place des troupes risquant de se faire hacher menu, Washington frappa ses ennemis, du haut du ciel, en déchaînant attaques aériennes et missiles de croisière. D’une parfaite asymétrie, ces frappes chirurgicales cumulaient les avantages de l’ubiquité, de la précision et de l’absence de pertes dans le camp du bien.

Embrigadement des alliés dans une OTAN sans frontières, droit-de-l’hommisme en casque lourd et déchaînement du feu céleste contre les récalcitrants : ces trois sauts qualitatifs ont fourni un modèle inoxydable de politique étrangère. Même les détracteurs républicains de Bill Clinton ont retenu la leçon. Ses successeurs George W. Bush et Barack Obama n’y ont pas dérogé. Le premier a profité du 11 septembre pour lâcher les faucons du Pentagone sur le Moyen-Orient, mais cet interventionnisme a fait l’effet d’un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine. Devant ce fiasco, le peuple américain élut en 2008 un démocrate plutôt avenant qui avait pour carte de visite son opposition à cette aventure guerrière. Hélas l’illusion fut de courte durée, et la politique néo-conservatrice continua de plus belle.

Afin de limiter l’envoi de troupes sur le champ de bataille, Barack Obama a préféré le « leading from behind » à l’intervention directe. Mais il a aussi intensifié la guerre des drones et maintenu le bagne de Guantanamo. Jouant avec le feu, il a pactisé avec Al-Qaida, fait détruire la Libye par ses larbins européens et vainement tenté d’anéantir la Syrie, où il est tombé sur un os nommé Poutine. C’est pourquoi il a installé en Europe un bouclier anti-missile qui menace Moscou, favorisé un coup d’Etat à Kiev et imposé à la Russie des sanctions que rien ne justifie.

La campagne au lance-flammes d’Hillary Clinton montre que la fraction belliciste de l’oligarchie est décidée à poursuivre cette politique agressive. Le secrétaire à la Défense, Ashton Carter, a récemment déclaré que les Etats-Unis se réservaient le droit d’utiliser l’arme nucléaire en première frappe. Sans état d’âme, les Docteur Folamour du néoconservatisme évoquent une future guerre avec la Russie ou la Chine. Une chose est sûre. Cette stratégie de la tension l’emportera si la candidate démocrate gagne l’élection du 8 novembre. Et le « moment Hillary » mettra la planète au bord du gouffre.

Bruno Guigue, ancien élève de l’École Normale Supérieure et de l’ENA, Haut fonctionnaire d’Etat français, essayiste et politologue, professeur de philosophie dans l’enseignement secondaire, chargé de cours en relations internationales à l’Université de La Réunion. Il est l’auteur de cinq ouvrages, dont Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, L’invisible remords de l’Occident, L’Harmattan, 2002, et de centaines d’articles.

Source : Comité Valmy, Bruno Guigue, 03-10-2016

No comment yet.