Gender: Do not display
Home country: Canada
Member since: Sat Jul 9, 2005, 11:46 PM
Number of posts: 15,949
Home country: Canada
Member since: Sat Jul 9, 2005, 11:46 PM
Number of posts: 15,949
- 2015 (479)
- 2014 (8)
- 2013 (207)
- 2012 (99)
- 2011 (6)
- December (6)
- Older Archives
These images of Veerender Jubbal show a selfie photoshopped to make him look like a terrorist beside his original selfie
Published Monday, November 16, 2015 1:22PM EST
Last Updated Monday, November 16, 2015 9:33PM EST
.........The altered image appears to show a man wearing a vest of explosives and holding up a Qur’an.
But Veerender Jubbal says the photo is a fake.
According to Jubbal, someone stole one of his selfies, and photoshopped the image to make him look like one of the Paris attackers.
The original photo, which has also been shared on social media, shows him without a vest and holding up an iPad.
"This despicable action was then quickly made worse when some international news outlets decided to share the image as truth."
Jubbal tweeted Saturday that he has never travelled to Paris, and is a Sikh man who wears a turban and lives in Canada.
I saw the 'ISIS' photo, but I can't remember where.
Edit: From his Twitter feed:
Veerender Jubbal @Veeren_Jubbal
"The Sikh community has faced significant violence and discrimination following major terrorist attacks because of religious appearance – we must be better than this," he said.
After Jubbal and his followers shared the real photo online, Spanish newspaper "La Razon" apologized for publishing the fake image on its front page.
Jubbal has asked other media outlets that used the image to retract the photo and apologize.
"When we paint entire faiths and communities with the same brushstrokes, we further give terrorist exactly what they want," he said.
"We're strongest in the face of terror and bigotry when we stand together."
Posted by polly7 | Tue Nov 17, 2015, 08:11 AM (8 replies)
November 16, 2015 by True Activist
By Justin King
(ANTIMEDIA) Propaganda is the wheel by which the government steers the bus of a nation; typically driving it into war or off the cliff of humanity. It is amazing to see how many people who are otherwise rational human beings will blindly follow the herd on the matter of how subhuman a perceived national enemy is.
The western media wonderfully paints Islam as a death cult bent on world domination. Over and over again the American populace is shown footage of the atrocities committed by fanatics or of Arab men burning American flags. The problem, of course, is that this isn’t remotely representative of the Islamic population of the world. Are there Muslims who employ terrorism? Of course. Are there Christians who employ terrorism? Of course. There are even Buddhists who employ terrorism.
Some general facts about Islam might help break the noose of wartime propaganda that rests around America’s neck. Below are a list of statements this journalist has seen in the last week on social media, followed by the data to put that statement in perspective.
“All Muslims are terrorists.”
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. The much-discussed ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) organization, which has been described as the “richest terrorist group in the world” can only field between 7,000 and 15,000 troops in its battle to create a fundamentalist homeland. Even taking the highest estimate of their troop strength means that fewer than 1 out of every 106,000 Muslims from all over the world are actually willing to take up arms and fight for the fundamentalist dream. The Iraqi army, however, can field 250,000 soldiers to fight against that fundamentalist vision. That figure does not include irregular forces allied to the Iraqi army. The premise that all Muslims are terrorists falls flat by a mere study of the numbers. It isn’t a majority of Muslims. It isn’t even 1% of Muslims.
“They are stuck in the Stone Age, and they want to stay there.”
This statement marginalizes the thousands of Muslim men and women who sit in prison for attempting to change their government and those that died in the attempt. Political prisoners throughout the Arab world sit rotting away for attempting to bring about change in their nations. They are Muslims. Four Saudi Princesses are currently being starved to death by the King for speaking out in favor of women’s rights. Countless journalists and bloggers sit behind bars for questioning their governments. The US government continually props up these brutal dictatorships with multi-million dollar arms deals and keeps the power in the hands of those that don’t want change.
(I am not excusing in any way the horrors committed by ISIS and other radical terrorist group.
And it's strange that Saudi Arabia, our good ally, is so brutal to its own citizens for trying to advance human rights, while Iraq pre-invasion had women who had far more rights than anyone in the region.)
Posted by polly7 | Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:56 PM (6 replies)
November 16, 2015 by Amanda Froelich
Susan Carland is is turning the hostility of Internet trolls into a "force for good" - one hate-filled tweet at a time.
The anonymity of the internet has given too many cowards false bravado. Shielded by a computer screen and miles of distance, it’s easy for individuals to nitpick and spout anger at others they do not understand or may be jealous of.
This, of course, is a form of cyber-bullying, one of the unfortunate side effects of the technological age.
When assaulted by hateful comments, one can either get mad, ignore the statement, or respond in a kind manner (which ends up getting exhausting). OR, they can do what an inspirational Muslim woman is doing, and turn the hostility of Internet trolls into a “force for good” – one hate-filled tweet at a time.
As HuffPost reports, Dr. Susan Carland is an Australian academic and well-known figure in the country’s Muslim community. An unapologetic Muslim woman, says she has become all too accustomed to the “stream of toxicity” that deluges her Twitter feed on a daily basis
Full article: http://www.trueactivist.com/inspiring-muslim-woman-donates-1-for-every-hate-tweet-she-receives/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TrueActivist+%28True+Activist%29
Posted by polly7 | Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:39 PM (0 replies)
By Robert Weissman and Amy Goodman
Source: Democracy Now
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:05 AM (2 replies)
By Joe Emersberger
November 12, 2015
RE Venezuela leader condemns ‘imperialist’ attacks after drug arrests
I am so relieved you guys included a few statements like this in your report
“Maduro and other senior officials have long said accusations of drug trafficking were part of an international campaign to discredit socialism in the South American nation.”
The article would have been terribly one-sided without them. Readers might have been left thinking that Maduro’s reaction to the arrests was to say “Damn. Those were two of my favorite drug traffickers.”
I am sure barely anyone else in the world – aside from Venezuela government officials – claims that US prosecutors seek to support the bipartisan foreign policy goals of the federal government that go back decades.
Brian Concannon – a US based lawyer who has prosecuted landmark human rights trials in Haiti – pointed out that “The U.S. Attorneys for each judicial district are appointed by the President, and can be removed by the President for almost any non-discriminatory reason.” He could also explain how US prosecutors were used to support a US-perpetrated coup against Haiti’s democratically elected government in 2004.
Glad you folks at Reuters didn’t waste time seeking out sources like that. It would needlessly confuse everyone. In the build up to the Iraq war, the media make sure to balance US government allegations that Saddam Hussein’s government was hiding WMD with denials from Hussein’s government. That worked out great – probably the best illustration of the “free press” in action. Why change?
Short article, no more at link. https://zcomm.org/zblogs/dear-reuters-keep-up-the-great-work-on-venezuela/
Does anybody but Nicolas Maduro question the motives of US prosecutors?
By Joe Emersberger
November 14, 2015
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:50 AM (12 replies)
By Justin Podur
Source: teleSUR English
November 15, 2015
The doctrine in question was called “universal jurisdiction.” The idea was that a crime like genocide and crimes against humanity were not crimes that stopped at national borders. As a result, any country could charge and try those accused of such crimes, even if they were from another country. Universal jurisdiction is a liberal doctrine, analogous to the selectively applied Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Universal jursidiction is not as prone to abuse as R2P mainly because it is not as asymmetric as R2P: any country with a judiciary can hold a trial and issue arrest warrants, but only two or three countries in the world have the military might to send military forces to other countries, whether on the pretense of protecting people or some other. For non-superpowers, for smaller countries, there was only the threat of the law.
Spain was just such a small country whose judges took up the law against human rights abusers in other countries. Under the universal jurisdiction doctrine it attempted to try Chile’s dictator Augusto Pinochet, Guatemalan military officers, and Argentinian military officers. But the Spanish judges didn’t just chase fallen dictators from smaller countries. They also pursued former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, US soldiers for crimes in Iraq, Chinese politicians for crimes in Tibet, and Israeli generals for massacres of Palestinians.
By going after the big fish and people currently in power, the Spanish judges set alarm bells ringing. Israel, which famously used the doctrine of universal jurisdiction in its trial of Eichmann in 1961, got the investigation against its officers stopped. Kissinger argued that the doctrine would degenerate into show trials against political opponents.
Last year, Spain’s legislature reduced the applicability of universal jurisdiction. A New York Times article (Feb 10/14, “Spain Seeks to Curb Law Allowing Judges to Pursue Cases Globally”) suggests that China was the last straw. But the doctrine was targeted earlier. And the last straw was not China, but the arrest in June of one of Rwandan ruler Kagame’s intelligence officers, Karenzi Karake, in London, on a European arrest warrant filed based on Merelles’s 2008 indictments. Karake was released in August through the strenuous efforts of the Blair family (Tony Blair is a friend and advisor to Kagame, and Cherie Blair was Karake’s lawyer). Less than two months later, Merelles’s indictments were dismissed in the Spanish Supreme Court.
Kagame and his men could breathe a little easier. As for Kagame himself, lest any other countries get any universal jurisdiction ideas, the Rwandan parliament voted to allow Kagame to extend his tenure beyond the end of his term limits in 2017. Maybe he’ll stay on until 2034. The parliament didn’t change the law for everyone: just for Kagame.
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-end-of-universal-jurisdiction/
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:40 AM (0 replies)
By Phyllis Bennis
Source: The Nation
November 15, 2015
France is in mourning and in shock. We still don’t know how many people were killed and injured. In fact, there’s a lot we still don’t know—including who was responsible. The ISIS claim of responsibility tells us virtually nothing about who really planned or carried out the attacks; opportunist claims are an old story. But the lack of information hasn’t prevented lots of assumptions about who is “obviously” responsible and what should be done to them. Already the call is rising across France—“this time it’s all-out war.”
But we do know what happens when cries of war and vengeance drown out all other voices; we’ve heard them before.
A few days after the 9/11 attacks, we at IPS and some of our allies organized a public statement whose lead signatories included Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Gloria Steinem, Rosa Parks and many more. The statement reflected the deeply-rooted fear we all shared, that however horrific the attacks of September 11, it was George W. Bush’s statement in response to those attacks that threatened the world. That was the moment he announced that the response to this enormous crime against humanity would be a war—that he would lead the world to war “against terror.”
Wars of vengeance won’t work for France anymore than they worked for the US.
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/after-paris-attacks-a-call-for-justice-not-vengeance/
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:31 AM (0 replies)
By Marjorie Cohn
Source: teleSUR English
November 15, 2015
Col. Morris Davis, former Chief Prosecutor for the Terrorism Trials at Guantanamo, personally charged Osama bin Laden’s driver Salim Hamdan, Australian David Hicks, and Canadian teen Omar Khadr. All three were convicted and have been released from Guantanamo. “There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home,” Davis wrote to Obama.
Of the 780 men held at Guantanamo since 2002, only eight were tried and convicted of war crimes. Of those, just three remain at Guantanamo.
Many of the detainees reported being assaulted, prolonged shackling, sexual abuse, and threats with dogs. Australian lawyer Richard Bourke, who has represented several Guantanamo detainees, charged they have been subjected to “good old-fashioned torture.” Detainees who engage in hunger strikes are subjected to force-feeding, a practice the UN Human Rights Council has called torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. At least seven men have died at the prison camp.
The United States has illegally occupied Guantánamo since 1903, after Cuba’s war of independence against Spain. Cuba was forced to include the Platt Amendment in the Cuban constitution. The amendment granted the United States the right to intervene in Cuba as a prerequisite for the withdrawal of US troops from the rest of Cuba. That provision provided the basis for the 1903 Agreement on Coaling and Naval Stations, which gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay “exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a new treaty with Cuba in 1934 that allows the United States to remain in Guantánamo Bay until the US abandons it or until both Cuba and the United States agree to modify their arrangement. According to that treaty, “the stipulations of agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect.” That means Guantánamo Bay can be used for nothing but coaling or naval stations. Article III of the 1934 treaty also says that Cuba leases Guantánamo Bay to the United States “for coaling and naval stations.” Nowhere in either treaty did Cuba give the US the right to utilize Guantánamo Bay as a prison camp.
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/close-guantanamo-and-return-it-to-cuba/
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:22 AM (3 replies)
by The Real News Network (TRNN) / November 14th, 2015
Greek port worker and union leader Giorgos Gogos says most of the demonstrations across the country were peaceful and unified against austerity measures imposed by the lenders and accepted by SYRIZA.
The Real News Network is a television news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism. Read other articles by The Real News Network, or visit The Real News Network's website.
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:06 AM (1 replies)
. I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Riverbend Girl Blog
A young Iraqi woman who blogged from the beginning of it all and eventually was forced to flee as a refugee. I don't know where she is now but hope she's safe. Her writing of the tragedy of seeing so many friends and family destroyed and changed, as well as her country, is very powerful and touching.
There is much to read, but every word is worth it. I know many of us followed her but some here may have not.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
The Promise and the Threat
Will Work for Food...
What I’m trying to say is that no matter *what* anyone heard, females in Iraq were a lot better off than females in other parts of the Arab world (and some parts of the Western world- we had equal salaries!). We made up over 50% of the working force. We were doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, professors, deans, architects, programmers, and more. We came and went as we pleased. We wore what we wanted (within the boundaries of the social restrictions of a conservative society).
Females can no longer leave their homes alone. Each time I go out, E. and either a father, uncle or cousin has to accompany me. It feels like we’ve gone back 50 years ever since the beginning of the occupation. A woman, or girl, out alone, risks anything from insults to abduction. An outing has to be arranged at least an hour beforehand. I state that I need to buy something or have to visit someone. Two males have to be procured (preferably large) and 'safety arrangements' must be made in this total state of lawlessness. And always the question: "But do you have to go out and buy it? Can't I get it for you?" No you can't, because the kilo of eggplant I absolutely have to select with my own hands is just an excuse to see the light of day and walk down a street. The situation is incredibly frustrating to females who work or go to college.
She made it out:
Posted by polly7 | Sun Nov 15, 2015, 07:58 AM (36 replies)