Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Egypt's Constitutional Referendum!

Did President Morsi Hijack Democracy? President Morsi created a new constitution for Egypt on December 26, 2012. Prior to this, Morsi was forced by massive street protests in Egypt to rescind an executive decree, that granted him sweeping presidential powers. His opponents called it an empty gesture, as Morsi's government rolled out the tanks, and brought out the Egyptian military from their barracks into the streets. Opponents of Morsi and the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood accused him and his Freedom and Justice Party, of playing a game to stupefy Egyptians by consistently making propositions, then withdrawing them, and then making them again to create confusion. After calling out the military, Morsis government would then rush a constitutional referendum forward, that would guarantee him even more powers. The constitutional changes in Egypt have divided its society. Several Muslim Brotherhood offices have even been stormed by large groups of angry protesters. In what appeared to be a turning back of the clock to the Mubarak regime's use of brute force, reports of casualties caused by the attacks on protesters and activists were far spread. Morsis supporters and Egyptian security forces, would fight in the streets across Egypt with those opposing the new constitution. A peaceful sit in of activists in front of the presidential palace in Cairo even ended in violence and death as fighting broke out. So does Egypt's new constitution enjoy popular support? In the end, Morsi's new constitution appears to have become victorious. The way numerical information or data is presented or inferred, however, can be very misleading. In many cases, the data about the referendum was very selectively presented. An examination of the numbers through some elementary statistical data analyses says a lot about the support that the new constitution received from Egyptian society, and provides an important contextual answer to the question being posed. The new constitution won by a 63.8% approval of yes. This is very misleading, when the level of participation is used to generate further data. Only 32.9% of eligible voters cast their ballots for the election, and most important the new constitution was approved with the support of 20.9% of eligible voters.        

Shabana Syed: Sunni Shia Conflict and the Continuum

of an ideology: Sectarian conflict is not only tearing Muslim countries apart, like Iraq and Pakistan, but also brewing under the surface in London and European cities. Sunni and Shia groups view each other suspiciously across a widening gap of misunderstanding, propagated by Saudi financed British Sunni Mosques and madras's attempt to label Shias as kafirs or heretics. On the surface, there is a form of coexistence, but when the owner of a media group, with the ability to influence thousands of states "the biggest threat to world peace is Iran and Shias" it becomes a worrying fact. It's even more worrying when many Muslims, suffering discrimination and treated as the enemy within, cannot comprehend that Shia Sunni bloodshed is one of the many aims of the unending war on terror, unleashed against Islam and Muslims after 9/11. The west has reduced occupation forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, as they watch the rise of sectarian bloodshed which is a far worse weapon, fueled by CIA and Mossad mercenary groups and drone attacks. Daniel Mabsout writes in 'A world called Israel', "Now the Sunnis are mobilized against Shi'as in a conflict that had no precedent in the history between Sunnis and Shias in a conflict that had no precedent in the history between Sunnis and Shi'as. The Sunnis are mobilized by the world Order to defend Israel under the cover of sectarianism and anti Shi'ism. The war we witness between the two groups, is but a sparkle of what is happening actually and daily on the ground." The attacks against Hazara Shias in Quetta, Pakistan early January killed nearly a 100 part of systematic campaign against the community, whose particular look and the fact they speak Farsi, has made them easy targets for Sunni terrorists, like Lashkar e Jhangvi, known to have CIA and Mossad links. Ali Dayan Hassan of Human Rights Watch warned: "Last year was the bloodiest year for Pakistan's Shia community in living memory, and if this latest attack is any indication, 2013 has started on an even more dismal note." Last year, Dr Ismail Salami in his article "who's behind the Shia Massacres in Pakistan" wrote" more than 250 Shias' eyes were cut out of their sockets. Many of them died while their faces had been smashed with stones or sprayed with acid. The Wahhabi attackers were void of any mercy, the criminals are now free and keep on partaking in their feast of blood."  

Jim Fetzer: Zero Dark Thirty. The deeper, darker truths!

A film that may even take the Academy Award for "Best Picture of 2012"raises serious moral issues, glorifies a political stunt, and is based on an historical fiction. It is the latest in Obama propaganda. Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011, during a raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan, on or about 15 December 2001, and he was buried there in an unmarked grave. Local obituaries reported Osama's death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave, in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan. Nick Kollerstrom has published about it, "Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001". David Ray Griffin has a book about it, "Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001". David Ray Griffin has a book about it, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive. And Scholars for 9/11 Truth has written about it. the film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, when virtually every military and intelligence expert will confirm that you are told, what those being tortured think you want to hear, to stop the pain. As TIME and The Huffington Post have reported, the film's depiction of torture has created a controversy, that may affect its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries is one by Matt Tiabbi. A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions: "If it would have been dishonest to leave torture out of the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little or nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was "honest," but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was "honest" about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else." Osama was "our man in Afghanistan" even more important, the political context has been all but lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan, and not closing Guantanamo.

Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley: The Sandy Hook Massacre.

Unanswered questions. "Truth wears no mask, bows at no human shrine, seeks neither place, not applause, she only asks a hearing." Carl A Wickland. When 20 children and 8 adults were murdered in the tiny Connecticut community of Sandy Hook, we, like most other people, were shocked and horrified at what appeared to be a series of senseless acts of brutality. When a person experiences the tragic and untimely loss of a loved one, particularly in unusual or apparently inexplicable circumstances, the initial intense feelings of grief usually give way to a desire to understand How and Why the tragedy occurred, in an effort to make sense of it, and achieve some kind of closure. This is a very normal and natural human reaction. We have an innate need to understand the world us, and how things work. In our modern technological world, most of what we understand about our world and how it works, is provided to us by some authority or other, and most of us accept the conclusions of those authorities as being true. In some cases, those explanations are true. In relation to the Sandy Hook massacre,while the HOW of the attack has been explained, as yet, there seem to be few authoritative answers as to why the massacre occurred. That is to say, why a lone gunman decided to walk into a school and murder 20 children and 6 adults. At this point, three weeks after the event, it seems that the world will ultimately have to accept the narrative that a lone, disturbed individual murdered those children because he was, well, disturbed. Specifically, it is claimed that Lanza had 'Asperger's Syndrome', yet according to experts, people with this condition do not run the risk of killing others or themselves, and indeed that they 'rarely harm others'. The 'disturbed individual' is, therefore, a rather unsatisfactory one, but it's an answer nonetheless. But here's a question: What if the explanation provided by authorities about how something happened doesn't make sense in any truly objective way? More to the point, what if you have reasonable cause to suspect that the official version of events may not be accurate? Logically, you'd think that the same desire to make sense of the tragedy, and find closure, would remain unsatisfied in such a case. But you'd be wrong to think so, because it seems that most people, particularly those affected most directly by a tragedy, will gratefully accept the first plausible official explanation that is offered to them, even if, as in the case of the Sandy Hook massacre, it doesn't explain Why the tragedy occurred. The reason that most people react in this way, is probably due to the same desire to find closure and 'put it behind them'.     

Juan Cole: Global Warming Is a Domestic Crisis!

As President Obama made clear in his inaugural address Monday, failing to confront the threat of climate change in his second term, would be a betrayal of future generations. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science," Obama said, "but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought, and more powerful storms." Actually, there are some who can avoid fires, drought and storms, but most of them voted for Mitt Romney. At a time of continued unemployment and Republican assaults on workers' rights, the climate crisis may not seem like a pressing bread and butter concern. However it is vital for the president and his allies in Congress to remember that those Americans most defenseless against extreme weather and natural disasters form the backbone of the Democratic Party. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the draft of a new federal study on global warming growing impact on the United States. Those who stand for the workers and the middle class, and for the rights of minorities, women and the underprivileged in our increasingly unequal society, are facing yet another epochal struggle. The carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere by the coal, oil and gas corporations threaten the well being of the 99 percent on a whole range of new fronts. Climate change is provoking more and more drastic weather events. Residents along the coastal regions are at risk both from more violent storms, and from a projected 3 to 4 foot sea level rise over the next eight decades. The enormous storm surge caused by Hurricane Sandy, is an example of these new threats. Hurricanes require warm water to remain active, and Sandy fed off of high Atlantic temperatures, in waters that have historically been much colder. The draft National Climate Assessment notes that people and neighborhoods along the coast were hardest hit, adding, "Many low to moderate income residents live in these areas, and suffered the damage or loss of their homes, leaving tens of thousands of people displaced or homeless." We saw with Katrina in New Orleans as well, how the least well off are often shunted to low lying and more vulnerable land. Most of New Orleans will be gone within a century, if we go on producing carbon dioxide at our current rate.  

Nicola Nasser: Qata, Sponsor of Political Movements

major ally of America. In his inaugural address on January 21, US President Barack Obama made the historic announcement that a decade of war is ending, and declared his country's determination to show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully, but his message will remain words, that have yet to be translated into deeds, and has yet to reach some of the US closest allies in the Middle East, who are still beating the drums of war, like Israel against Iran and Qatar against Syria. In view of the level of coordination and cooperation since bilateral diplomatic relations were established in 1972 between the US and Qatar, and the concentration of US military power on this tiny peninsula, it seems impossible that Qatar could move independently apart, in parallel with, away or on a collision course with the US strategic and regional plans. According to the US State departments online fact sheet, bilateral relations are strong, both countries are coordinating diplomatically and cooperating on regional security, have a defense pact. Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward Headquarters, and supports NATO and US regional military operations. Qatar is also an active participant in the US led efforts to set up an integrated missile defense network in the Gulf region. Moreover, it hosts the US Combined Air Operations Center and three American military bases namely Al Udeid Air Base, Assaliyah Army Base, and Doha International Air Base, which are manned by approximately 5,000 US forces. Qatar, which is bound by such a most intimate and closest alliance with the United States, has recently developed into the major sponsor of Islamist political movements. Qatar appears now to be the major sponsor of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, reportedly, disbanded in Qatar in 1999, because it stopped to view the ruling family as an adversary. The Qatar Brotherhood marriage of convenience has created the natural incubator of Islamist armed fundamentalists against whom the US, since September 11, 2001, has been leading what is labeled as the global war on terrorism.   

Dr. Ismail Salami: US Weaves Nuclear Fairy Tale on Iran

In a 155 page report, four US nuclear experts have called upon the Obama administration to impose tougher economic sanctions against Iran, and resort to overt operations through using warplanes and missiles on Iranian nuclear sites. Apart from the fact that morbid mindset of this nature only helps fan up chaos, and serves as an impetus to widespread pandemonium in the region, any mention of any such policy, let alone an adoption of it will gradually terminate in an endless array of military legitimizations. Co-authered  by Mark Dubowitz, who runs the Zionist controlled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and David Albright, a physicist who heads the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), and who is responsible for concocting lies and myths about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, and drawing the country into an abysmal vortex of destruction and devastation, the report can be but seen in the light of yet another overtly brash attempt by the US to push ahead with further militarism in the Middle East. Dubbed as 'US Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,' the report falls short of mentioning any other Middle Eastern countries, which may be seeking a nuclear weapons program, and instead focuses heavily on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The authors of the conspiratorial report urge Washington to "undertake additional overt preparations for the use of warplanes and-or missiles to destroy regime change in Syria, and deepening Iran's diplomatic isolation." Naturally, the words have been deliberately and carefully chosen in the report. By 'overt preparations', the authors explicitly admit that the US government has in the past used 'covert operations' as well ie, assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, and infiltrating and disrupting the computer systems. Somewhere in the report, the authors unambiguously refer to Washington's sabotage activities in Iran. They say: "Press reports indicate that sabotage has been used to slow the Iranian nuclear program, including through infiltration and disruption of procurement networks and cyber attacks, designed to inflict physical damage to the program. Judicious use of this tool should be included in continued US efforts to constrain the Iranian nuclear program."