Archive | June 21, 2015

Baron Rothschild Indicted in France for Fraud*

Baron Rothschild Indicted in France for Fraud*

By Rob Horgan

French police have been ordered to track down one of Europe’s wealthiest aristocrats over a fraud involving hundreds of British pensioners.   

Baron David de Rothschild has been indicted over the allegations after the victims, mostly expats living in Spain, bought into his loan scheme.

The banking magnate will now be questioned in his native France five years after a Marbella-based law firm began legal action against him.

French police have been told by a judge in Paris to track down the wealthy scion who has various homes in the country.

The case involves his company, the Rothschild Financial Services Group, which stands accused of falsely advertising an equity release loan scheme, bought into by more than 130 pensioners between 2005 and 2008.

More than 20 British pensioners in Spain took up legal action against Rothschild’s company after losing their dream properties and thousands of euros.

Paris-based liaison judge Javier Gómez Bermudez – famous for his role in prosecuting the Madrid bombers – announced the summons this week after the Denia Court issued the order.

The Baron is believed to be staying at his Normandy castle, or near to his Paris offices, and lawyers have provided state prosecutors in France with two possible addresses to find him.

Marbella-based lawyer Antonio Flores of Lawbird said the indictment was a ‘breakthrough moment’ in the case.

“It is a good step in the right direction,” Flores told The Olive Press.

“The courts are now in agreement with us that there is enough evidence to interrogate Baron Rothschild.

“The first thing they will have to do is find him. Once they have done that they can begin to question him.

“It is a real breakthrough moment for everyone involved.”

Rothschild’s product, the Credit Select Series Mortgage Loan, was sold to pensioners as a legal means to reduce the value of their homes for inheritance tax mitigation purposes.

The Tax Agency ruled that such a scheme constitutes fraud and Flores believes that Rothschild should be held accountable.

“In short, independently of what happened to the investment, Rothschild advertised a loan aimed at reducing inheritance tax, which is a breach of tax law,” he said.

Flores, and two other prosecuting lawyers, will submit questions for Rothschild in relation to fraudulent advertising.

The Rothschild Group has so far failed to comment.

Source*

Related Topics:

Once a Rothschild, always a Rothschild Bankster Replaces Hollande’s Economic Minister*

Hungary Kills The Rothschild Banks: Ordered To Vacate Country.

Rothschild Forced to Sell Stakes in Asia Coal*

Elite Zionist with Rothschild Connection is Dead*

Rothschild Becomes Sole Owner of Semiconductor Patent as Four Co-owners Went Down with Malaysia Airlines MH370*

Advertisements

When Euthanasia Crosses the Line into Murder*

When Euthanasia Crosses the Line into Murder*

By Joshua Krause

Wherever you stand on the issue of euthanasia, you would have to admit that consent must be given the highest order of importance during the process. After all, without consent you can’t rightly call it euthanasia anymore can you? At that point it’s just plain old murder, right? Don’t tell that to the doctors in Belgium though, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002. A few of them at least, seem to be more than willing to “jump the gun” on so many of their elderly patients.

A study published this month in the Journal of Medical Ethics examined the “deliberate” euthanasia of patients in Belgium without their explicit, voluntary consent as required by law.

The study’s author, Raphael Cohen-Almagor, a professor of philosophy and ethics at the United Kingdom’s Hull University, found that life-ending drugs were used “with the intention to shorten life and without explicit request” in 1.7 percent of all deaths in Belgium in 2013.

In 52.7 percent of these cases, the patients were 80 years of age or older. The decision to euthanize was not discussed with the patient in 77.9 percent of the cases because he/she was comatose, had dementia, or “because discussion would have been harmful to the patient’s best interest,” according to the study.

That last sentence is chilling isn’t it? Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that Belgian medical staff have been outed for straight up murdering their patients. In 2010, the Daily Mail reported on the admission of 100 nurses, who claimed that they’d participated in the euthanization of patients (if you can call it that) without their consent.

More than 100 nurses admitted to researchers that they had taken part in ‘terminations without request or consent’.

Although euthanasia is legal in Belgium, it is governed by strict rules which state it should be carried out only by a doctor and with the patient’s permission.

The disturbing revelation  –  which shows that nurses regularly go well beyond their legal role  –  raises fears that were assisted suicides allowed in Britain, they could never be properly regulated.

However, Britain shouldn’t be so quick to judge their friends across the channel. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the National Health Service asked their doctors and nurses to start cold calling sick and elderly patients, to see if they’d like to establish a “do not resuscitate” order for future health emergencies.

Now that I think of it, perhaps euthanasia isn’t the problem here. Whether or not assisted suicide is ethical, I doubt the sky would fall down on a country that allowed it. No, the real problem here is when you allow any form of assisted death in a country that has forced socialized medicine on their citizens, which is exactly what Britain and Belgium have done.

Bureaucrats see the world through the lens of money, numbers, and paperwork, and they’re the last people who should be charged with the healthcare of millions of people. For them, saving money and increasing the efficiency of healthcare is just a simple matter of killing everyone who is expensive for the system. Allowing euthanasia in this kind of system makes it pretty easy for doctors to meet their quotas, if you know what I mean.

Enjoy your new socialized medical system America. You’re about to receive all the “healthcare” you’ll ever need.

Source*

Related Topics:

Eugenics: UN “Death Targets” include the Elderly*

Your Age Matters to Them

Drone Operators Asked to Follow their Conscience*

Drone Operators Asked to Follow their Conscience*

By Sarah Lazare

Dozens of U.S. military veterans released an open letter this week urging drone operators to “refuse to fly missions” or support them in any way—and letting them know that if they say “no” to surveillance and assassination orders, there is a whole community rooting for them.

“At least 6,000 peoples’ lives have been unjustly taken by United States drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, the Philippines, Libya and Syria,” states the letter, which was organized by the education and advocacy organization KnowDrones.com.

“Those involved in United States drone operations who refuse to participate in drone missions will be acting within accordance of Principle IV of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal, The United Nations 1950,” states the letter.

“So, yes, you do have a choice—and liability under the law. Choose the moral one. Choose the legal one.”

The letter’s 45 signatories include retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright, who stepped down from her State Department position in 2003 to protest the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Numerous veterans of the so-called “War on Terror” also signed the letter, including Aaron Hughes, Iraq veteran and organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Hughes told Common Dreams that he backed the initiative because he thinks it is “extremely important for those who are flying those vehicles or doing logistics to know that there is a whole community out there that supports them in saying no.”

Nick Mottern, coordinator of KnowDrones.org, echoed this point in a press statement released this week:

“The people signing this letter know that they are asking drone operators to take a heavy step, but we feel it is perfectly legitimate to advise military people to stop taking part in illegal activity that has killed thousands without due process, is terrorizing thousands more and is wracking their own ranks with moral injury and PTSD.”

The Air Force recently revealed that, due to “stressors” of the job, the military is losing drone pilots and being forced to cut back flights. And in a Government Accountability Office report (pdf) released in April 2014, the agency warned that drone pilots are quitting far more quickly than they are being recruited.

In an article published this March in TomDispatch, writer Pratap Chatterjee asked,

“Are pilots deserting Washington’s Remote-Control War?” He continued,

“Could it be that the feeling is even shared by drone pilots themselves, that a sense of dishonour in fighting from behind a screen thousands of miles from harm’s way is having an unexpected impact of a kind psychologists have never before witnessed?”

Former drone operators, including Heather Linebaugh, have testified to the horrors inflicted by the remotely operated lethal weapons. This reality is confirmed by civilians and reporters, including the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the high number of civilian drone killings in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

“When our country unjustly inflicts violence on civilian populations it is our duty to resist,” Maggie Martin, Iraq veteran and organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, told Common Dreams.

“Whether at home or abroad we have to take action to stand in solidarity with those facing state violence.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Forgetting 1,600 Deaths‏ is not for a Drone Operator

U.S. Drones Out of Africa and Everywhere!

Four Fates for Egypt*

Four Fates for Egypt*

By Esam Al-Amin

Husam Al Sane’i, Tayseer Abu Sneima, and Ahmed Al Jaa’bari were three Palestinians from Gaza killed or assassinated by Israel between 2008 and 2012.

egypt_dees1The first was killed during Israel’s war on Gaza in late 2008, while the second was assassinated in 2009 after being accused of taking part in the abduction of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was held by Hamas for over five years until Israel agreed to release more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners in October 2011. The third was a senior commander in the military wing of Hamas and his assassination in 2012 ignited the war between the two archenemies in November of that year. Another Palestinian by the name of Hasan Salamah was sentenced in 1996 by Israel to 48 life sentences and has been imprisoned ever since, mostly in solitary confinement.

What these four Palestinians share in common is that they were sentenced to death this week by an Egyptian court on the charge that they helped free hundreds of people, including ousted President Mohammad Morsi, in a prison break outside Cairo on January 29, 2011, in the midst of Egypt’s popular uprising.

But the death sentences of these and seventy other Palestinians were just the sideshow to the main story, in which the same court sentenced 122 people to death, including Morsi, most of the senior leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the most senior cleric in the Sunni world, academics, activists, and even a young female student for being part of Morsi’s presidential team. This and other trials have been widely condemned around the world. Amnesty International has called the trial a “charade” and “grossly unfair.” Consequently Egypt’s politicized judiciary has become the laughing stock of the world as it manifestly serves as the convenient tool of repression against the regime opponents ever since the July 2013 coup that ousted Morsi and thwarted Egypt’s path towards democracy. It is unlikely that Egypt’s judiciary did not know these facts. The judges just do not care as they try to re-impose the state of fear that engulfed Egyptian society before it was decimated with the toppling of Mubarak in February 2011.

There was none other Gen. Sami Anan who was the Army Chief of Staff at the time who refuted the essence of the fabricated charges when he said that he was unaware of any border breach by Hamas or Hizbollah operatives during these tumultuous days as claimed by government prosecutors in the political trial.

The gross human rights violations by the regime of coup leader Gen. Abdelfattah al-Sisi, have been well documented, including the killing of over five thousand people, injuring over twenty-seven thousand, the systematic use of rape, torture, kidnapping, and forced disappearances as instruments to subjugate the Egyptian people (similar to the los desaparecidos that took place against dissidents during the rule of the junta in Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s), and the imprisonment of over forty-one thousand of its opponents. Yet despite the harsh sentences and brutal measures employed over the past two years, the military-backed government and its counterrevolutionary supporters have not been able to hold firm control of the streets or enforce stability. The army has been battling militant groups in Sinai and losing soldiers every week. The security forces have aimlessly been lashing out and cracking down on all opposition groups and activists to the point of exhaustion. Economically, Egypt is on the verge of collapse despite the infusion of over $50 billion in the past two years, primarily by the coup sponsors, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The country’s infrastructure is deteriorating, unemployment exploding, currency collapsing, inflation rising, and the misery index being among the highest in the world. The tourism industry is devastated and the country is virtually bankrupt as its foreign currency reserve is at $20 billion, with a total of only $6B not owned by foreign governments, including $3B in non-convertible gold assets. Sisi’s government was recently forced to borrow $1.5B at the very high interest rate of 6.25 percent, even though the interest rate charged to banks has fluctuated for years between zero and 0.25 percent as set by the Federal Reserve. Every day the country has to borrow internally nearly one billion pounds ($130 million) just to cover its budget deficit, despite the drastic cut of most subsidies. The internal debt has surpassed 2 trillion pounds or $262 billion (96 percent of its GDP), while the external debt has reached $40 billion.

So why is the coup regime intent on following this path of self-destruction? To answer this question one has to understand the make-up of the current political landscape in the country.

Four Political Factions

The recent history of modern Egypt that started with the 1952 bloodless coup was marked by the rise of a state controlled by the army. The first four presidents were military officers (Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.) Between the mid-1950s and 1970, Nasser dominated the scene and embarked on a neo-socialist discourse in order to redraw the political power structure in the country. Old political parties were banned and political life choked, as new political elites were born within an authoritarian state dominated by military officers. The 1967 defeat at the hands of Israel shook this new reality leading eventually to Sadat’s controlled opening that gave rise to plutocracy, a new class of political and economic elites dominated by unrestrained capitalism, corrupt businessmen, and retired military officers and their cronies. When Mubarak took over after Sadat’s assassination in 1981, he allowed the army to build its own economic empire and business enterprises in order to finance the lavish styles of its senior officers, ultimately becoming a direct competitor and threat to many businesses and conglomerates dominated by the country’s new economic elites. Meanwhile, Mubarak consolidated his power with the latter group especially when his son Gamal started in the late 1990s taking direct control of the state apparatus as he began to prepare himself to become Egypt’s next president. But these two factions, the military and the fulool (remnants of Mubarak’s regime as they came to be known after the 2011 uprising), were firmly under the grip of Mubarak during his reign, as he knew how to manoeuvre between them.

Meanwhile, street politics since the 1970s had gradually come under the influence of grassroots movements dominated by Islamist social movements led by the Muslim Brotherhood. But their expanding charitable networks and social work were tolerated by the regime because it supplemented the lack of services the government could not provide to the poor and lower middle class. By the turn of the century, there was a tacit understanding between these three factions. Each was aware of the other two, yet content with its sphere of power and influence: the military with its high social status and economic privileges, the plutocrats with their rising influence and control of state institutions, economy, and carefully managed political life, and the Islamists with their expansion and domination of the social networks, the mosques, and the streets.

With the advent of the satellite television networks and social media a new youth generation emerged that was fed up with the corrupt regime and unsatisfied with the agenda and cautious pragmatism of Islamist groups. These activists started organizing in groups such as the April 6 movement and took initiatives challenging the regime over its economic and social policies. Other independent opposition groups also organized themselves under the umbrella of the Kefaya (Enough) movement. With each challenge the group became bolder as many traditional opposition parties were either supporting them from behind the scenes or cheering them from the sidelines, including many Islamist movements. In fact, many youth members from the MB quietly joined these activities and some even started their own independent groups and became more vocal and daring. It was the collective efforts of these groups that ultimately sparked the January 25, 2011 popular uprising and toppled Mubarak. Even though the MB played a crucial and decisive role during the momentous days that led to Mubarak’s overthrow, its official entry into the revolutionary path against the regime was January 28, three days after the protests began in Tahrir Square.

Four Factions with Four Dates: Jan. 24, July 3, June 29, and Feb. 12

The unity of the revolutionary factions brilliantly displayed during the electrifying days of January and February 2011 gave way to recriminations and tension as soon as Egypt’s military took over from Mubarak. Two opposing positions about the way forward emerged, one favored by the Islamist bloc and the other by the revolutionary youth groups. The youth groups called for a revolutionary path that centred on writing a new constitution that would restructure the social contract between the state and its citizens. The Islamists favoured a reformist agenda and endorsed an electoral path under the control of the military that they knew Islamists were destined to win. The former group accused the latter of cynically betraying the revolutionary goals and forming a tacit alliance with the military. During most of the transitional period under the direct rule of the military council, the revolutionary youth movements clashed with the state, while the MB called for calm as it won five electoral victories including the majority of seats in parliament as well as the presidency.

By the time Morsi became president in July 2012, the political maneuvering playbook became clear. Two out of the four factions would momentarily ally themselves and defeat a third, while the fourth would watch from the sidelines. In early 2011, the Islamists and the youth groups were allied against the fulool, while the military watched from the sidelines, since it considered it in its interest to halt the ascendency of Mubarak’s son, who did not come from its ranks. Soon after, the interests of the Islamists and the military were aligned as the former wanted to gain legitimacy through electoral wins while the latter wanted to maintain the status quo until it hatched a strategy to reverse the revolutionary momentum. When the interests of these two forces were aligned, the demands of the revolutionary youth were ignored and their ranks devastated as thousands were subjected to military trials while Islamists looked the other way. During this period, the fulool were watching from the sidelines, still licking their wounds from the fall of their chief benefactor. By the time the Islamists came to power in the summer of 2012, the fulool had regained their footing, emboldened by the 12 million votes Mubarak’s last prime minister, Gen. Ahmad Shafik, garnered in his losing presidential bid against Morsi.

Justifiably or not, by the end of 2012, the revolutionary youth groups felt betrayed by the MB and accused it of consolidating power to advance its political and social agenda. Meanwhile, the MB president bitterly complained that the revolutionary partners were abandoning him and allowing themselves to be manipulated by the counterrevolutionary groups. As the military, which was by then led by Gen. Sisi, and the state’s security apparatus observed closely from the sidelines, the positions were hardened and the mistrust grew between the former revolutionary partners. Because of inexperience, political naiveté, or miscalculation, the MB did not offer sufficient compromises to its former allies thinking that without the support of the army (which the MB erroneously believed was supporting it) the other groups could not impose their will.

Once the dust settled in the aftermath of the coup, it was well established that Morsi was never allowed to govern, and that the revolutionary groups were easily manipulated by the deep state, while the fulool provided all the logistical and media support needed to topple the rule of the Islamists. But this time it was all three factions allied against one with devastating consequences. The country has been deeply polarized as the levels of hatred, mistrust, and anger reached unprecedented levels. All were easily played by the military that again presented itself in the person of Sisi as the country’s saviour from instability and civil war. But despite the euphoria that came with the removal of the first democratically elected president, the revolutionary groups soon learned that the military does not share their lofty goals. In their zeal to end Morsi’s reign they betrayed their own long established principle of rejecting military rule. In a matter of months, all the major revolutionary youth leaders were either in prison, exiled, silenced or on the run.

Sisi became president in May 2014 in sham elections where he received over 96 percent of the vote. A year into his term has produced no major accomplishments and the tactical alliances have frayed as each faction was not only alienated from its ideological foe, but has also become wary of its own natural ideological ally. The fulool remain nervous because most major investment projects have been subsumed within the army’s mighty economic machine. Since it relies on practically free labour, pays no taxes, uses subsidized energy and skilled engineering workforce, and owns precious real estate, the military is nearly impossible to compete against economically. In less than one year, Sisi has seemingly made it his chief ambition to fulfill the saying that “Egypt is not a state that has an army, but an army that has a state.” Moreover, Sisi continued to demand hefty concessions and large contributions from wealthy businessmen without offering much in return. Politically, Sisi never fully trusted Mubarak’s former cronies and has not built his own political constituency. As a result, he keeps postponing the parliamentary elections fearing that the fulool would dominate it and restrain his autocratic rule.

For their part, the fulool found a new figurehead in Shafik, the losing candidate in the 2012 presidential race. After the election, he fled to the UAE for fear of being arrested on corruption charges. Even after the politicized judiciary acquitted or overturned all the convictions of Mubarak, his sons, and his cronies, including Shafik, he remained in exile knowing that Sisi was keen on not allowing him to play any political role, even though he established a party and vowed to lead it to parliamentary victory. This tension recently came to the fore as Shafik gave an interview in which he questioned Sisi’s legitimacy and vowed to challenge the 2012 elections results. In the interview Shafik allegedly said,

“I know more than the intelligence services do. It’s better if everyone keeps his mouth shut so that I do too. No one can dare tell me not to run for parliament.”

In turn, Sisi prevented the interview from airing in Egypt even after it was heavily promoted. Sisi furthermore declared during his recent trip to Germany, in a clear rebuff to Shafik, that there was no doubt that Morsi was the actual winner in the 2012 race but that the people had turned against him. Subsequently, Sisi sent his intelligence chief to appeal to the UAE rulers to restrain Shafik. Many political observers now believe that forces within the state allied with Shafik were most likely the source of the frequent audio leaks that exposed Sisi’s corrupt and incompetent rule during the past two years.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary ranks have also suffered from rancour and finger pointing. The revolutionary youth groups accuse the MB of turning its back on the revolution once it attained political power. The MB accuses these groups of facilitating the coup and justifying the restoration of military rule and return of the police state. It further contends that even if it committed mistakes while in government, the alliance with the counterrevolutionaries could never be justified. It points to the fact that since the coup it categorically refused to compromise with the military rule and has consequently suffered the most at the hands of the coup with thousands of its leaders, members, and supporters killed, injured or in exile, while its assets confiscated, and institutions and charities banned.

Each faction ventures to return Egypt to a certain date in the past. The fulool hope to return Egypt to January 24, 2011 and to restore their political and economic dominance. Their strength includes support from a significant segment of the deep state, much of Mubarak’s corrupt yet experienced political machinery, as well as many business oligarchs and tycoons with their media empires that played a crucial role in alienating the public from Morsi and the MB, but is now willing to gradually criticize Sisi. This group apparently has had the tacit support of the UAE, which was recently beseeched by Sisi to silence Shafik. Within days, Shafik stepped down as head of his newly established party, called the Egyptian Patriotic Movement, but vowed to remain vocal.

The military, led by Sisi and a close circle around him, hail July 3, 2013, the day Morsi was ousted and detained, and the start of their ascendency to power, as the beginning of a new dawn in Egypt. Sisi loves to remind people that he had to remove Morsi in order to prevent a civil war even though there is no evidence that the former president ordered any crackdown on the opposition. Talk of Morsi’s authoritarian rule pales when compared with those who succeeded him. Adly Mansour, who was installed as an interim president by Sisi, had in fact held the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all at once, since he was simultaneously the acting president, the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, and ruled by decree when Sisi suspended the constitution. The strength of this group is of course the backing of the army that still enjoys a large degree of reverence and respect from a significant number of Egyptians, as well as the fear of instability by many if the army were to lose its grip on the country. But so far Sisi has failed to articulate any grand vision for the country or unite its deeply polarized citizens. To consolidate his rule he has relied heavily on the tactics of the police state and the exhaustion of the Egyptian people after four years of uncertainty and instability. It is doubtful that he could bring Egypt back from the abyss, or succeed in tackling Egypt’s political unrest, economic challenges, and social polarization.

The MB has seen the fastest rise and fall of any political group in the region’s modern history. To its credit it refused to grant legitimacy to the coup or compromise its principled position of rejecting military rule and has insisted on bringing to justice those who committed atrocities against the Egyptian people. Yet it advocates returning Egyptians to June 29, 2013 by insisting on the return of Morsi as the legitimately elected president, the restoration of the polarizing 2012 constitution, and the elected institutions of parliament dismissed by Sisi. Its immediate goal is to reverse the effects of the coup and delegitimize the effects of the June 30 demonstrations. To the disappointment of its critics from within the revolutionary ranks, it still refuses to acknowledge the deeply polarized politics it practiced against its former revolutionary partners, which paved the way to the June 30 events and the current crisis. Furthermore, its critics contend that its rhetoric of a revolutionary path would directly contradict the constitutional path its supporters are pursuing by insisting on the demand of Morsi’s return to power and the 2012 constitution. A constitutional path, they argue, does not allow for revolutionary purge of the politicized judiciary, corrupt prosecutors, and compromised media outlets. It also shields the military and confers on its senior officers undeserved protections and privileges.

The degree of brutality against the MB by the Sisi regime has surpassed all its past experiences with government repressions since the 1940s. It has shaken its members to the core but the strength of the organization has been demonstrated as it is largely kept intact despite the unprecedented levels of suffering and abuse. After a period of defiance that ended publicly with several massacres in July and August 2013, many members of MB who were able to escape the security apparatus and leave the country launched into a vigorous internal debate. By April 2014, the re-evaluation was settled in favour of a new leadership that, according to the most senior MB official outside Egypt, comprises 65-70 percent from the youth generation under 45. The internal dynamics within the group recently became public when one of the old guard leaders issued a statement that rejected violence and dismissed the new leadership. Within hours the new leadership rejected his assertions and renewed its call for an uncompromising revolutionary path that would continue until the fall of Sisi and his repressive regime. The internal youth leadership within Egypt soon followed with another call that endorsed the unbending approach.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary youth groups have been arguing from the very beginning for the return of a purely revolutionary path reminiscent of the heady days of the 2011 revolution. They argue that their revolution has been aborted and must be resumed as if it were February 12, 2011. The biggest mistake, they argue, was that the revolutionaries went home and accepted the rule of the military council. Some of the most prominent among these groups include the April 6 movement, whose leaders such as Ahmed Maher and Mohammad Adel, and activist Ahmed Doma have been imprisoned by the Sisi regime, the Revolutionary Socialists, and other leaders such as Alaa Abdel Fattah who received a 5-year sentence for defying the military regime. Their critics, especially from the Islamist camp, argue that most of these revolutionary groups are big on rhetoric but lack substance, sophistication and widespread support. Furthermore, many of the revolutionary youth that played key roles during the early moments of the revolution but not vigorously pursued by the government have been exiled, given up, or remained silent including Wael Ghoneim, one of the most prominent youth figures that ignited the 2011 revolution. Furthermore, football ultras have also played a significant role in opposing the repressive measures of the current regime. Their future involvement would be crucial, as they have demonstrated courage, determination, and organization, three ingredients needed for real revolutionary change.

The Way Forward

History rarely repeats itself but the wise always learn from its lessons. The 2011 Egyptian uprising was a remarkable event that displayed many positive attributes about the Egyptian youth and their future aspirations. But the moment the revolutionary partners broke ranks within days of toppling Egypt’s former dictator, there was not much chance to advance the march towards genuine change. Their dream was easily hijacked. Those who were advocating gradual change and a reformist agenda have in essence put their trust in, and subjugated their agenda to, the same people who have benefited the most from the corruption and repression of Mubarak’s regime. A revolutionary path does not necessarily mean a resort to violence or chaos. It means in essence a complete break from the former regime and its compromised institutions and personalities, and building a new state from the ground up. Such undertaking is indeed enormous but the Egyptian state is so deeply entrenched in repression and corruption, anything short of its total dismantlement would simply not result in any meaningful change.

Still, the success of a revolutionary path has a dilemma. It cannot succeed without the MB because of their discipline and ability to mobilize large segments of society. But it also cannot succeed with them alone. To recreate that moment of unity that was displayed in Tahrir Square, defeated Mubarak’s regime, and broke its security apparatus is the first step towards ending Sisi’s neo-Mubarakist regime. Yet both sides have to agree on the strategic goals of this renewed partnership and offer real confidence-building measures. Such strategy must be centered on a revolutionary path, which all have advocated, in order to achieve three main goals: (a) the end of the Egyptian military involvement in politics, the forced retirement of its most senior officers, and the restructuring of its institutions to focus solely on the defense of the country against external threats, coupled with the complete dismantlement of its economic empire, (b) the dismantlement of the deep state in all its aspects from the police, security apparatus, and the intelligence agencies, to the compromised judiciary, corrupt business conglomerates, and their media empires, and (c) the future state must be formed on the basis of building genuine democratic institutions with guaranteed rights, freedoms, and protections of minorities, as well as a pledge from all partners not to impose social agendas, nor promote or seek competitive politics until the deep state is dismantled and democratic institutions are in place and functioning.

Once the main strategy is agreed upon, confidence-building measures must be established. The controversial issue of Morsi’s return to power appears to be the sticking point. On the one hand the MB argues that it is important to stand for legitimacy and respect the people’s will, and to reject the usurper of power and all the consequences of the coup regime, especially on the economic front. On the other hand, the revolutionary youth assert that they would not be willing to revolt against Sisi to simply restore Morsi whom a significant number of them had also revolted against in 2013. Both groups have a point and this impasse must be resolved by the latter group acknowledging that Morsi was legitimately and democratically elected as president by the majority of Egyptian citizens. Moreover, as long as the revolution is in progress and Sisi is in control, all revolutionary groups must concede this fact and acknowledge their respect of the will of the electorate, and thus accept Morsi as the elected, yet kidnapped, president of Egypt. If somehow Morsi were to be restored to power by any other means, he would then resume his presidency. However, if Sisi and his regime fall through a revolutionary path, then all parties including the MB must acknowledge the new reality of a successful revolution where a new path, structure, and constitution would emerge without any regards to the past.

Revolutions are so rare in history because several factors and conditions have to dynamically coexist simultaneously. The sooner the revolutionary partners resolve their differences and start working on creating these conditions, the sooner Egypt can throw off the yoke of subjugation and restore honor and dignity to its people as well as to the dead and sentenced Palestinians.

Source*

160 Muslim scholars call on Saudi king to save Morsi

As many as 160 Muslim scholars have signed a statement calling on Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Bin Abdulaziz to intervene and lift the death sentence issued against the country’s first democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi.

The signatories described the death sentence against Morsi and his supporters as “unjust, issued through politicised trials”.

The statement said what happens in Egypt “is not an internal affair for Egypt alone, but it is an affair that would affect the Arab and Islamic nations as a whole.”

The statement said the sentences against Morsi were politically motivated and had no relation to the law as they include misleading information.

Related Topics:

New Evidence Reveal Leaked Recordings of Sisi to be Genuine*

South African Lawyers Call for Arrest of Egypt’s Sisi*

Former Egyptian President Mubarak Sentenced to 3 Years Jail Time*

In Their Own Words: Egypt’s Young Revolutionaries Behind Bars*

Clinton Emails Reveals Egyptian Special Forces Role in the Destruction of Libya*

Egypt Begins to Import Gas from Israel*

European Central Bank Forcing Greece into Perpetual Debt*

Egypt: Israel to Support Sisi’s Regime*

Saudi Prince Calls for Prosecution Of Officials Who Backed Egyptian Coup*

From Egypt to Rwanda Musical Traditions Mingle to Protect the Nile*

The Sinai Portrayed by Egyptian Media is not Sinai*

Egypt’s Mafia Fund*

Jailed Egyptian Children Moved to ‘torture camp’*

Egypt: Torturing University Students*

US Apache Attack Helicopters for Egyptian Junta*

Egypt’s Lost Power

Egypt: Opposition Builds*

Members of Egypt’s Elite Admit to Planning and Financing the Coup as they Conspired to Bring Down Sisi*

Genetically Engineered Trees*

 

Genetically Engineered Trees*

By Luis Miranda

Corporations in the US and Brazil have requested government authorization to release hundreds of millions of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees for fuel and pulp.

We have recently learned that the GE Loblolly Pine and Arctic Apple have been approved by the USDA.

If communities do not learn about, organize and STOP the requested unrestricted release of 500 million GE eucalyptus trees or the Loblolly Pine, inhaled pollen could perhaps take away our choice to live GMO free, FOREVER.

The rush to apply these ideas is absolutely dangerous because we don’t have a clue what the long term impacts of our manipulations are going to be…” said Dr. David Suzuki, from the 2007 film, A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees.

Source*

Related Topics:

Lifelessness in the Middle of a Drought and GM Crops!*

Nature Bites Back at GM Corn!*

GM Crops Entrench U.S. Drought

PepsiCo’s Naked Juice Laced with Synthetic and GMO Ingredients

GMOs Are Mutating Microorganisms and Spawning Deadly New Life Forms‏

GM Mosquitoes Causing Dengue Fever*

Drought Riddled California Bans GM Salmon*

Ebola Virus GM Bioweapon Invented by CDC*‏

Deltapine’ the Name of Monsanto’s GM Cotton*

Eugenics and the World’s First GM Babies!

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

Conscientious Scientists want a Ban on Editing the Human Genome*

The Vatican and the GMO Connection*

Banksters Turning the Ukraine into the GMO Basket of Europe*

U.S. Farmer Harvests a Profit by not Planting the Big GMO Lie*

Britain is arming Saudi Arabia in Yemen Conflict*

Britain is arming Saudi Arabia in Yemen Conflict*

The British establishment of the Saudi Arabia has paid off, especially as it is forbidden in Islam to incite terror, and it s only permitted to defend one’s self during the blessed month of Ramadhan ….

Britain’s Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is providing technical support and arming Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war against Yemen, RT has learned.

An MoD spokesperson said the UK’s assistance to Saudi Arabia includes providing “precision guided weapons,” but added the British government had been assured they will be used in compliance with international law.

Anti-arms trade campaigners condemned Britain’s support for the Gulf monarchy, claiming the UK cares more about arms sales than human rights and democracy.

RT contacted the MoD to ask if British weapons are being used in Saudi airstrikes on Yemen and if the UK is providing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) said:

The Saudi bombing has created a humanitarian catastrophe and now we know the UK weapons have contributed to it.

“These weapons have not just given military support to the bombardment, they have also provided a strong political support and underlined the closeness between the UK and Saudi governments.”

“With the destruction of Yemen and the intensifying crackdown on dissent in Saudi Arabia, the UK government is sending the message that human rights and democracy are less important than arms sales,” he added.

CAAT said the “precision guided weapons” used by the Saudi Air Force are likely to be Eurofighter Typhoons or Tornado jets.

Saudi Arabia has spent an estimated £2.5 billion upgrading its fleet of 73 Tornados as part of a deal negotiated with UK-based arms manufacturers BAE Systems.

Saudi Arabia and the UK have long had close dealings in the arms trade. Saudi Arabia is Britain’s largest customer for weapons and the UK is the Gulf nation’s single biggest supplier, according to CAAT.

An Amnesty International report found that British fighter jets were “extremely likely” to have been used in the 2009 Saudi bombing of Yemen.

At the time Amnesty called on the UK government to ensure British weapons “did not facilitate violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes, by the Saudi Arabian air force.”

The confirmation of Britain’s indirect support for the Gulf kingdom’s war against Shia Houthi rebels comes as the reported total casualties pass the 10,000 mark.

According to UN estimates, 2,288 people have died as a result of Saudi Arabian airstrikes, half of whom are civilians. Another 9,755 are reported to have been wounded.

UNICEF stated in late May that 135 children had been killed and 260 wounded since the start of the conflict in March.

Yemen’s humanitarian crisis is also becoming increasingly grim, with the World Health Organization warning that 8.6 million people are in need of “urgent” medical aid.

Source*

Related Topics:

Saudi: Prince Charles Seals What Cameron Could Not*

The Butcher of Bahrain is British*

How the British Empire aka New World Order Sowed Seeds of Destruction towards Islam*

Takfirism a Saudi and CIA Creation*

Israeli Officers Captured, Killed in Yemen*

The CIA, Saudia and Bin Laden Were Behind the Chechen Wars*

Eastern Yemen Frantically Trying to get Food into Aden*

Princes Fleeing Saudi after Yemen Missile Attacks*

Saudi Set to Implode*

Europe’s Population ‘Management’ Agenda in Yemen.

British Museum “guards” Looted Syrian Object?

British Museum “guards” Looted Syrian Object?

By Kwame Opoku

“We are holding an object we know was illegally removed from Syria and one day it will go back.” -Neil MacGregor, BBC.

“Museums, libraries and archives must take precautions to ensure that they acquire, or borrow, only ethically acceptable items and reject items that might have been looted or illegally exported. To ensure they do this, they need to exercise due diligence. Museums should acquire or borrow items only if they are certain they have not been illegally excavated or illegally exported since 1970.” – Combating Illicit Trade, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, October 2005.

We were, to put it very mildly, surprised to read in the mass media several articles stating that the British Museum was “guarding” a looted Syrian artefact until peace returns to that country. The Times wrote: “The British Museum is holding a precious object illegally removed from Syria in the hope of returning it when the country is stable, Neil MacGregor, the outgoing director has disclosed.”

The director also added that the British Museum has been trying to protect antiquities looted from conflict areas. He is also reported to have called on the British Government to explain why it has not signed the Hague Convention on protection of artefacts in cases of armed conflict.

No one would deny that the venerable British Museum has vast experience in dealing with looted objects. After all, the museum has more looted objects than any other museum in the world. Among its reported 9 million objects are a considerable number of looted objects from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania.

Some might think therefore that the museum in Bloomsbury has “impeccable credentials” for dealing with such objects. We noted in the reports that nobody raised the question whether it is right that a museum that is under permanent criticism for holding looted objects of others or objects acquired under dubious circumstances now presents itself as “guardian” of looted artefacts.

The British Museum’s “guarding” of looted antiquity lends itself superbly to interesting analogies and comparisons in various sectors of life – farm life, hunting practice, banking experience, animal life and everyday life.

Most readers will be familiar with how this museum “guards” the Benin Bronzes: it refuses to return them but sells them.

The handling of the Parthenon Marbles which the British Museum always claims to be holding for the benefit of humanity needs no elaboration here but a recall of the disputed recent loan of the Ilissos statue to Russia and the refusal to have UNESCO mediation of its dispute with Greece throw light on the singular and arrogant character of this particular “guardian.”

From the reports on this peculiar guardianship of a looted Syrian artefact, it appears the museum is not willing to state the following:

1. The name and exact description of the precious object it now wishes to guard.
2. How the object or objects reached the British Museum.
3. Why that museum was chosen to receive the object.
4. Previous contacts and relationships with whoever brought the object or objects.
5. The conditions attached to this “guardianship”.
6. Who will determine whether peace has returned to the country and it is stable enough to return the object or objects.

How does the holding of the looted Syrian artefact by the British Museum comply with the guidelines issued by British Government in 2005, ‘Combating Illicit Trade’, which the Chairman of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, Mark Wood, welcomed as follows?

“I very much welcome these guidelines. They mark a significant step in the steady progress museums, libraries and archives have been making to ensure that as collections develop and diversify, it is on the basis of the highest ethical standards. It is no longer acceptable for our public institutions to collect or borrow material which comes from an unethical source. This document gives the clear guidance which all institutions will welcome and want to implement.”

If a museum, or for that matter any person, knows that an object, whether artefact or not, has been looted or illegally exported, it would be my view that the matter should be reported to the police and in any case one should refuse to handle or deal with the object, however precious it may be.

That the object is precious or of an extreme importance to the history of a particular country should not be allowed to prevail. Lord Renfrew and all those who have studied the illegal traffic in antiquities have said that the trade is driven by the desire of the museums and other institution to acquire artefacts. If those dealing in illicit traffic thought there would be no market for the items they would be less inclined to go to all the trouble to loot or illegally export the objects.

Laws and regulations must be respected, both in spirit and word. When some years ago, this author raised the issue whether legitimacy and legality were still viable concepts for western museum directors, not many were happy but they kept quiet. Philippe de Montebello, however, responded in his way by an attack.

But the issue still remains whether museums should or should not abide by normal morality and legality. Recent acts of the British Museum and reports on the looted Syrian artefact show that many believe the institution does not have to abide by normal standards. None of the reports raises the issue whether the conduct of the museum is correct.

Is this new role of the museum to be confined to the British Museum or extended to others? Can other museums in the West replicate the latest exploit of the famous museum? If this becomes the practice of most museums, we can be sure that most of artefacts from conflict areas will soon be under “guardianship” of museums in the West and we can hardly distinguish between legitimate acquisition and illegal acquisition.

Source*

Related Topics:

Syria: The Elite’s Compulsive Theft of a Country’s Art, Culture and Heritage While Colonizing It in One Form or Another

JP Morgan Chase & the Looting of Iran

The Return of Looted Antiquities

Mining and the Return of Indigenous Americans Ancestors’ Bones*

By Way of a Gift Obama gives Iran President what belongs to Iran

Hebrew Bibles from Syria Taken by MOSSAD*