A Football Massacre in Egypt!

Around 73 persons were proclaimed dead and another 180 seriously injured yesterday in Egypt following a soccer match between the local teams of Al Masri (of Port Said) and Al Ahli (the national champion). 

When the news of this "football massacre" invaded the news channels yesterday, I could not really bring myself to "dig deeper" than the "handed-out" headlines. I got the sudden but automatic feeling I have been frequently experiencing: I am becoming increasingly intolerant to any party, and thus any news piece, explaining why yet another one dozen, two dozens, three dozen, ..., ten dozens, of Arab people died.

In the Middle East, and in Lebanon in particular, life has been seriously threatened by stupid, stupid, civil strife for so long that one gets "freaking-ly" accustomed  to news about death.

However, brutal and blood thirsty Zionism never ceased, not for one day, to add insult to injury. The day-in day-out crimes of the Zionist so-called State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories brings the value of life to a new low, every single day. So one grows even more accustomed to news about death.

The US sponsored -but of course Zionist plotted- invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq, and the subsequent "Arab Springs", managed to put news about the "tragic" death of hundreds of people at par with news about a cat stuck in a tree in Elk City in Idaho. The trend of US actions in "foreign policy" over the last decade, made the good old American "cowboyism" less about simple, filmed, occurrences where the US "hero", such as Sylvester Stallone, knocks-down the bad Russian boxer in the heart of Russia itself. It made it more about "complex" and "live" actions where, for example, the President of the USA oversees himself the killing of the leaders of the US-invented Al-Qaeda, and later on, brags about such accomplishment and reclaims suitable praise for it. The last era of US / Zionist deeds in the Afghani, Iraqi, and other Muslim and or Arab soils really managed to make one grow unimaginably accustomed to news about death.

Back to the "football massacre".

Did it really originate in the offensive slogans used by Al-Ahli fans (against the City of Port Said)? Or was it, as claimed in some newspapers, a plot by the Ministry of Interior to punish the Ultras (fans of the Al-Ahli) for being a major player in the Egyptian revolution of the 25th of January (of 2011)?

Whether the former or the latter, or whether it is a mix of both...the life of an Arab person has became more dispensable than the shoes we wear and tear everyday, and thus, change without thinking about it, also everyday! 

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Gives Civil Rights In The US The Kiss Of Death

Following are excerpts from two articles commenting on the issuance of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Sections in red-font words are written by an 18 year old Alton Lu of The Huff Post High School. Those in blue-font words are written by analyst Joe Wolverton II of the New American. I "knitted" them together in black-font words. I think of the result as a coherent opinion of the unbelievably crazy, freedom blowing, NDAA!

--------

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. [...] this year, the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

With the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.

So, the provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

The pro-NDAA Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens' turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

He, without any slight sign of shame, declared, that the USA is now a theatre in the War on Terror and Americans can be detained indefinitely... and when you say to the interrogator, 'I want my lawyer,' the interrogator will say, 'You don't have a right to a lawyer because you're a military threat.'

The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world... influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

With this bill, the President is “granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being” belligerents. He promises he won't use it, however.

Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

But, promises to restrain oneself from abusing power are unreliable. As Thomas Jefferson once warned: Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

© Alton Lu, The Huff Post High School

© Joe Wolverton II, The New American

Threat of Muslim-American [and of All Muslims] Terrorism in U.S [and Everywhere] Is Exaggerated

As by the "Terrorism Report 2002-2005" published by the FBI on its publications' Webpage, around 285 occurrences of terrorism were accounted for during the period between 1980 and 2005 in the United States of America.

An article on the Loonwatch Website commented on the reports' findings as such:

“[...] According to this data, there were MORE JEWISH acts of terrorism within the United States than ISLAMIC (20 events or 7% for Jewish Extremist vs. 17 events or 6% for Muslim Extremists). 

[...] Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. 

It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group [cited in the report; see pie chart here-below].

FBI's Report: Terrorist Events in the USA (1980-2005)

[...] Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. 

It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

This article, entitled “All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t”, was posted on the Loonwatch Website following the publication of a study conducted by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, and which concludes that the “Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S” is “exaggerated”.

Read (and download) the full Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans study here.

You read CNN's comment on the study here.

“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”: A Harvard Working Paper

 Professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (KGS) wrote a working paper on "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". The paper was then published by the KGS at Harvard University.

Given that the theme of the paper is no less than a forbidden thought, an untouchable issue, and a taboo-like notion, Harvard was –of course- harassed by pro-Israeli lobbyists (deeply incarnated in every possible institution in the World), and consequently, decided to "to remove its logo from a study that denounces the pro-Israel lobby's impact on American foreign policy, in order to distance itself from the study's conclusions" (see article here).

In their study, the authors ask the one-trillion-dollars of whether the "the Lobby’s power" could "be curtailed?" 

"One would like to think so," they remark, especially "given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing U.S. government secrets to Israel."

They, consequently, conclude that: "[…] There are ample grounds for U.S. leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East.

But that is not going to happen anytime soon. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by expanding their activities and staffs. Moreover, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

[...] This situation is deeply worrisome, because the Lobbyʹs influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face—including Americaʹs European allies.

[...] Furthermore, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the United States to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We do not need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility toward these countries makes it especially difficult for Washington to enlist them against al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

[...] There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. 

[...] Moreover, the Lobby’s campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts—or by suggesting that critics are anti‐Semites—violates the principle of open debate upon which democracy depends. The inability of the U.S. Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these vital issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic deliberation. 

Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities ‐‐ including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords ‐‐ that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists."

Read the whole study for yourself.