Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘health/medicine’ Category

Efficiency of the human cognitive power or mind

Written in March 6, 2006

Cognitively, human is excellent in simple detection tasks or null indicator such as whether a sensation exist or not;.

The mind is fairly good in differentiating the direction of strength of a sensation such as bigger or smaller than a standard, but he is bad in evaluating whether a sensation is twice or three times stronger, and he is worst as a meter for exact measurements.

Human is more accurate in feeling than when relying on his mind. That is why a subject is forced to make a choice between two stimuli rather than responding that the sensation between a standard and a variable stimulus is equally strong.

Man is Not a good observer of complex events;.

Even when viewers are forewarned that they are to see a movie about a crime and that they are to answer questions about details later on, the accuracy of the observers are very low.

The mind is unable to be an objective recorder of the events that transpire because he gets involved in the scene actions.

The mind has a very narrow range of attention and barely can satisfactorily attend to a couple of stimuli.

This observation deficiency is compounded by our sensory differences and illusions. For example, one in sixteen subjects is color blind, many suffer from tone deafness, taste blindness and so on.

The mind does Not think of himself objectively but rather has convictions, feelings, and explanations based on very restricted experiences, hearsays, memories and he tends to generalize and develop a set of beliefs concerning the operation of the mind.

The human usually expects to see and then see what he wants to see and hardly deviates from his beliefs, and sometimes, even when faced with facts.

Many scientists have overlooked obvious data because they clanged to their hypotheses and theories.

Human has to generate an abundance of reliable information and assimilate them before he could eliminate a few systematic biases that he acquired from previous generations and his personal experiences.

This lack of objectivity in human is referred to by the term “common sense”.

The fact is common sense ideas change and are undergoing continual revision, mainly because of the results of research and controlled experimentations and paradigm shifts. away from traditional knowledge

For example, common sense says heavy objects cannot fly until airplanes are common realities.

Common sense says that human cannot see in the dark until infrared goggles have been tested.

Common sense says that it is laughable to use earplugs in order to hear people talking in very noisy backgrounds, until it is experimented and proven to be correct.

The fact that your father or forerunners have always done something in a particular way does not prove that this is the best way of doing it.

The fact that famous people purchase a product from the best known firm does not permit the manufacturer to state that there cannot be very much wrong with the product since the famous people have bought it.

Big oil multinationals are comfortable working with Virgin materials:

Is Recycling anathema to profitability for multinationals?

The forecast is generation of Plastic will Triple by 2050?

Plastic cannot be Recycled? How Big oil misled the public?

Are they backtracking under environmental pressures?

None of this plastic, containers, bags, packaging, strawberry containers, yogurt cups… will be turned into new plastic things. All of it is buried.

When Leebrick tried to tell people the truth about burying all the other plastic, she says people didn’t want to hear it.

“I remember the first meeting where I actually told a city council that it was costing more to recycle than it was to dispose of the same material as garbage,” she says, “and it was like heresy had been spoken in the room: You’re lying. This is gold. We take the time to clean it, take the labels off, separate it and put it here. It’s gold. This is valuable.”

“To me that felt like it was a betrayal of the public trust,” she said. “I had been lying to people … unwittingly.”

Rogue, like most recycling companies, had been sending plastic trash to China, but when China shut its doors two years ago, Leebrick scoured the U.S. for buyers. She could find only someone who wanted white milk jugs. She sends the soda bottles to the state.

But it’s not valuable, and it never has been.

And what’s more, the makers of plastic — the nation’s largest oil and gas companies — have known this all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the American public the opposite.

This story is part of a joint investigation with the PBS series Frontline that includes the documentary Plastic Wars, which aired March 31 on PBS. Watch it online now.

NPR and PBS Frontline spent months digging into internal industry documents and interviewing top former officials. We found that the industry sold the public on an idea it knew wouldn’t work — that the majority of plastic could be, and would be, recycled — all while making billions of dollars selling the world new plastic.

The industry’s awareness that recycling wouldn’t keep plastic out of landfills and the environment dates to the program’s earliest days, we found. “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis,” one industry insider wrote in a 1974 speech.

Yet the industry spent millions telling people to recycle, because, as one former top industry insider told NPR, selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn’t true.

“If the public thinks that recycling is working, then they are not going to be as concerned about the environment,” Larry Thomas, former president of the Society of the Plastics Industry, known today as the Plastics Industry Association and one of the industry’s most powerful trade groups in Washington, D.C., told NPR.

In response, industry representative Steve Russell, until recently the vice president of plastics for the trade group the American Chemistry Council, said the industry has never intentionally misled the public about recycling and is committed to ensuring all plastic is recycled.

“The proof is the dramatic amount of investment that is happening right now,” Russell said. “I do understand the skepticism, because it hasn’t happened in the past, but I think the pressure, the public commitments and, most important, the availability of technology is going to give us a different outcome.”

Here’s the basic problem: All used plastic can be turned into new things, but picking it up, sorting it out and melting it down is expensive. Plastic also degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can’t be reused more than once or twice.

On the other hand, new plastic is cheap. It’s made from oil and gas, and it’s almost always less expensive and of better quality to just start fresh.

All of these problems have existed for decades, no matter what new recycling technology or expensive machinery has been developed. In all that time, less than 10 percent of plastic has ever been recycled. But the public has known little about these difficulties.

It could be because that’s not what they were told.

Starting in the 1990s, the public saw an increasing number of commercials and messaging about recycling plastic.

“The bottle may look empty, yet it’s anything but trash,” says one ad from 1990 showing a plastic bottle bouncing out of a garbage truck. “It’s full of potential. … We’ve pioneered the country’s largest, most comprehensive plastic recycling program to help plastic fill valuable uses and roles.”

These commercials carried a distinct message: Plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it.

It may have sounded like an environmentalist’s message, but the ads were paid for by the plastics industry, made up of companies like Exxon, Chevron, Dow, DuPont and their lobbying and trade organizations in Washington.

Industry companies spent tens of millions of dollars on these ads and ran them for years, promoting the benefits of a product that, for the most part, was buried, was burned or, in some cases, wound up in the ocean.

Documents show industry officials knew this reality about recycling plastic as far back as the 1970s.

Many of the industry’s old documents are housed in libraries, such as the one on the grounds of the first DuPont family home in Delaware. Others are with universities, where former industry leaders sent their records.

At Syracuse University, there are boxes of files from a former industry consultant. And inside one of them is a report written in April 1973 by scientists tasked with forecasting possible issues for top industry executives.

Recycling plastic, it told the executives, was unlikely to happen on a broad scale.

“There is no recovery from obsolete products,” it says.

It says pointedly: Plastic degrades with each turnover.

“A degradation of resin properties and performance occurs during the initial fabrication, through aging, and in any reclamation process,” the report told executives.

Recycling plastic is “costly,” it says, and sorting it, the report concludes, is “infeasible.”

And there are more documents, echoing decades of this knowledge, including one analysis from a top official at the industry’s most powerful trade group. “The costs of separating plastics … are high,” he tells colleagues, before noting that the cost of using oil to make plastic is so low that recycling plastic waste “can’t yet be justified economically.”

Larry Thomas, the former president of the Society of the Plastics Industry, worked side by side with top oil and plastics executives.

He’s retired now, on the coast of Florida where he likes to bike, and feels conflicted about the time he worked with the plastics industry.

“I did what the industry wanted me to do, that’s for sure,” he says. “But my personal views didn’t always jibe with the views I had to take as part of my job.”

Thomas took over back in the late 1980s, and back then, plastic was in a crisis. There was too much plastic trash. The public was getting upset.

Garten Services, a recycling facility in Oregon, where paper and metals still have markets but most plastic is thrown away. All plastic must first go through a recycling facility like this one, but only a fraction of the plastic produced actually winds up getting recycled.

In one document from 1989, Thomas calls executives at Exxon, Chevron, Amoco, Dow, DuPont, Procter & Gamble and others to a private meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington.

“The image of plastics is deteriorating at an alarming rate,” he wrote. “We are approaching a point of no return.”

He told the executives they needed to act.

The “viability of the industry and the profitability of your company” are at stake.

Thomas remembers now.

“The feeling was the plastics industry was under fire — we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products,” he says.

At this time, Thomas had a co-worker named Lew Freeman. He was a vice president of the lobbying group. He remembers many of the meetings like the one in Washington.

“The basic question on the table was, You guys as our trade association in the plastics industry aren’t doing enough — we need to do more,” Freeman says. “I remember this is one of those exchanges that sticks with me 35 years later or however long it’s been … and it was what we need to do is … advertise our way out of it. That was the idea thrown out.”

So began the plastics industry’s $50 million-a-year ad campaign promoting the benefits of plastic.

“Presenting the possibilities of plastic!” one iconic ad blared, showing kids in bike helmets and plastic bags floating in the air.

“This advertising was motivated first and foremost by legislation and other initiatives that were being introduced in state legislatures and sometimes in Congress,” Freeman says, “to ban or curb the use of plastics because of its performance in the waste stream.”

At the same time, the industry launched a number of feel-good projects, telling the public to recycle plastic. It funded sorting machines, recycling centers, nonprofits, even expensive benches outside grocery stores made out of plastic bags.

Few of these projects actually turned much plastic into new things.

NPR tracked down almost a dozen projects the industry publicized starting in 1989. All of them shuttered or failed by the mid-1990s. Mobil’s Massachusetts recycling facility lasted three years, for example. Amoco’s project to recycle plastic in New York schools lasted two. Dow and Huntsman’s highly publicized plan to recycle plastic in national parks made it to seven out of 419 parks before the companies cut funding.

None of them was able to get past the economics: Making new plastic out of oil is cheaper and easier than making it out of plastic trash.

Both Freeman and Thomas, the head of the lobbying group, say the executives all knew that.

“There was a lot of discussion about how difficult it was to recycle,” Thomas remembers. “They knew that the infrastructure wasn’t there to really have recycling amount to a whole lot.”

Even as the ads played and the projects got underway, Thomas and Freeman say industry officials wanted to get recycling plastic into people’s homes and outside on their curbs with blue bins.

The industry created a special group called the Council for Solid Waste Solutions and brought a man from DuPont, Ron Liesemer, over to run it.

Liesemer’s job was to at least try to make recycling work — because there was some hope, he said, however unlikely, that maybe if they could get recycling started, somehow the economics of it all would work itself out.

“I had no staff, but I had money,” Liesemer says. “Millions of dollars.”

Liesemer took those millions out to Minnesota and other places to start local plastic recycling programs.

But then he ran into the same problem all the industry documents found.

Recycling plastic wasn’t making economic sense: There were too many different kinds of plastic, hundreds of them, and they can’t be melted down together. They have to be sorted out.

“Yes, it can be done,” Liesemer says, “but who’s going to pay for it? Because it goes into too many applications, it goes into too many structures that just would not be practical to recycle.”

Liesemer says he started as many programs as he could and hoped for the best.

“They were trying to keep their products on the shelves,” Liesemer says. “That’s what they were focused on. They weren’t thinking what lesson should we learn for the next 20 years. No. Solve today’s problem.”

And Thomas, who led the trade group, says all of these efforts started to have an effect: The message that plastic could be recycled was sinking in.

“I can only say that after a while, the atmosphere seemed to change,” he says. “I don’t know whether it was because people thought recycling had solved the problem or whether they were so in love with plastic products that they were willing to overlook the environmental concerns that were mounting up.”

But as the industry pushed those public strategies to get past the crisis, officials were also quietly launching a broader plan.

In the early 1990s, at a small recycling facility near San Diego, a man named Coy Smith was one of the first to see the industry’s new initiative.

Back then, Smith ran a recycling business. His customers were watching the ads and wanted to recycle plastic. So Smith allowed people to put two plastic items in their bins: soda bottles and milk jugs. He lost money on them, he says, but the aluminum, paper and steel from his regular business helped offset the costs.

But then, one day, almost overnight, his customers started putting all kinds of plastic in their bins.

“The symbols start showing up on the containers,” he explains.

Smith went out to the piles of plastic and started flipping over the containers. All of them were now stamped with the triangle of arrows — known as the international recycling symbol — with a number in the middle. He knew right away what was happening.

“All of a sudden, the consumer is looking at what’s on their soda bottle and they’re looking at what’s on their yogurt tub, and they say, ‘Oh well, they both have a symbol. Oh well, I guess they both go in,’ ” he says.

Laura Leebrick, a manager at Rogue Disposal & Recycling in southern Oregon, is standing on the end of its landfill watching an avalanche of plastic trash pour out of a semi trailer: containers, bags, packaging, strawberry containers, yogurt cups.

Unwanted used plastic sits outside Garten Services, a recycling facility in Oregon.

The bins were now full of trash he couldn’t sell. He called colleagues at recycling facilities all across the country. They reported having the same problem.

Industry documents from this time show that just a couple of years earlier, starting in 1989, oil and plastics executives began a quiet campaign to lobby almost 40 states to mandate that the symbol appear on all plastic — even if there was no way to economically recycle it. Some environmentalists also supported the symbol, thinking it would help separate plastic.

Smith said what it did was make all plastic look recyclable.

“The consumers were confused,” Smith says. “It totally undermined our credibility, undermined what we knew was the truth in our community, not the truth from a lobbying group out of D.C.”

But the lobbying group in D.C. knew the truth in Smith’s community too. A report given to top officials at the Society of the Plastics Industry in 1993 told them about the problems.

“The code is being misused,” it says bluntly. “Companies are using it as a ‘green’ marketing tool.”

The code is creating “unrealistic expectations” about how much plastic can actually be recycled, it told them.

Smith and his colleagues launched a national protest, started a working group and fought the industry for years to get the symbol removed or changed. They lost.

“We don’t have manpower to compete with this,” Smith says. “We just don’t. Even though we were all dedicated, it still was like, can we keep fighting a battle like this on and on and on from this massive industry that clearly has no end in sight of what they’re able to do and willing to do to keep their image the image they want.”

“It’s pure manipulation of the consumer,” he says.

In response, industry officials told NPR that the code was only ever meant to help recycling facilities sort plastic and was not intended to create any confusion.

Without question, plastic has been critical to the country’s success. It’s cheap and durable, and it’s a chemical marvel.

It’s also hugely profitable.

The oil industry makes more than $400 billion a year making plastic, and as demand for oil for cars and trucks declines, the industry is telling shareholders that future profits will increasingly come from plastic.

And if there was a sign of this future, it’s a brand-new chemical plant that rises from the flat skyline outside Sweeney, Texas. It’s so new that it’s still shiny, and inside the facility, the concrete is free from stains.

Chevron Phillips Chemical’s new $6 billion plastic manufacturing plant rises from the skyline in Sweeny, Texas. Company officials say they see a bright future for their products as demand for plastic continues to rise.

This plant is Chevron Phillips Chemical’s $6 billion investment in new plastic.

“We see a very bright future for our products,” says Jim Becker, the vice president of sustainability for Chevron Phillips, inside a pristine new warehouse next to the plant.

“These are products the world needs and continues to need,” he says. “We’re very optimistic about future growth.”

With that growth, though, comes ever more plastic trash. But Becker says Chevron Phillips has a plan: It will recycle 100% of the plastic it makes by 2040.

Becker seems earnest. He tells a story about vacationing with his wife and being devastated by the plastic trash they saw. When asked how Chevron Phillips will recycle 100% of the plastic it makes, he doesn’t hesitate.

“Recycling has to get more efficient, more economic,” he says. “We’ve got to do a better job, collecting the waste, sorting it. That’s going to be a huge effort.”

Fix recycling is the industry’s message too, says Steve Russell, the industry’s recent spokesman.

“Fixing recycling is an imperative, and we’ve got to get it right,” he says. “I understand there is doubt and cynicism. That’s going to exist. But check back in. We’re there.”

Larry Thomas, Lew Freeman and Ron Liesemer, former industry executives, helped oil companies out of the first plastic crisis by getting people to believe something the industry knew then wasn’t true: That most plastic could be and would be recycled.

Russell says this time will be different.

“It didn’t get recycled because the system wasn’t up to par,” he says. “We hadn’t invested in the ability to sort it and there hadn’t been market signals that companies were willing to buy it, and both of those things exist today.”

But plastic today is harder to sort than ever: There are more kinds of plastic, it’s cheaper to make plastic out of oil than plastic trash and there is exponentially more of it than 30 years ago.

And during those 30 years, oil and plastic companies made billions of dollars in profit as the public consumed ever more quantities of plastic.

Russell doesn’t dispute that.

“And during that time, our members have invested in developing the technologies that have brought us where we are today,” he says. “We are going to be able to make all of our new plastic out of existing municipal solid waste in plastic.”

Recently, an industry advocacy group funded by the nation’s largest oil and plastic companies launched its most expensive effort yet to promote recycling and cleanup of plastic waste. There’s even a new ad.

New plastic bottles come off the line at a plastic manufacturing facility in Maryland. Plastic production is expected to triple by 2050.

“We have the people that can change the world,” it says to soaring music as people pick up plastic trash and as bottles get sorted in a recycling center.

Freeman, the former industry official, recently watched the ad.

“Déjà vu all over again,” he says as the ad finishes. “This is the same kind of thinking that ran in the ’90s. I don’t think this kind of advertising is, is helpful at all.”

Larry Thomas said the same.

“I don’t think anything has changed,” Thomas says. “Sounds exactly the same.”

These days as Thomas bikes down by the beach, he says he spends a lot of time thinking about the oceans and what will happen to them in 20 or 50 years, long after he is gone.

And as he thinks back to those years he spent in conference rooms with top executives from oil and plastic companies, what occurs to him now is something he says maybe should have been obvious all along.

He says what he saw was an industry that didn’t want recycling to work. Because if the job is to sell as much oil as you possibly can, any amount of recycled plastic is competition.

“You know, they were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell virgin material,” Thomas says.

“Nobody that is producing a virgin product wants something to come along that is going to replace it. Produce more virgin material — that’s their business.”

And they are. Analysts now expect plastic production to triple by 2050.

Cat Schuknecht contributed to this report.

Your body is Acidic. If it were Alkaline, Cancer and microbes couldn’t live in.

Our body is a microbe. That is how we evolved.

SIMPLE WAYS TO enhance an Alkaline environment while we live

Many people who are reading this have a high acidity level in his or her body. This is due to the typical first world diet of processed foods, refined sugars, and GMOs.

However, many people do not know that an acidic body is a breeding ground for cancer, excess weight, pain and many health issues.

Making your organism more alkaline is very simple and easy.

Making alkaline environment is in fact the opposite of acidic environment.

Here are 10 simple natural ways that you can practice every day and they will alkalize your organism.

At same time you will gain more everyday energy and vitality:

1. Most important is to start your day with smile and with a large glass of water with the juice of a freshly-squeezed lemon. Lemons actually have the opposite effect on your body even they may seem acidic. Drink first thing in the morning to flush the system.

Another option is to drink one or two glasses of organic apple cider vinegar and water daily. You should only mix one to two tablespoons of vinegar in eight ounces of water.

2. Eat large portion of green salad tossed in lemon juice and quality olive oil. Greens (vegetable or fruit) are among the best sources of alkaline minerals, like calcium. Eat alkaline foods during the day like most fruits and vegetables. They sustain the body’s pH on a daily basis and keep balance in your organism.
3. Your snack should consist on raw, unsalted almonds. Almonds are full with minerals that are natural alkaline like magnesium and calcium, which actually help to balance out acidity and in the same time to balance blood sugar.
4. Drink almond milk and make yourself nice berry smoothie with added green powder like spirulina, or other greens. If you have choice between almond milk and cow’s milk, almond milk is better option.
5. Go for a nice walk or some other exercise. It’s very important to be active. Exercise actually helps move acidic products so your body can better eliminate them.
6. Breathe deeply. Ideally, choose a spot that has fresh, oxygen-rich air and go there whenever you can. While you are there, drink lots of water (and on daily basis as well) to flush the system of waste.
7. Do not eat meat every day. If you can skip few days without meat it will be great because eating meat every day leaves an acid residue behind. We have a lot of vegan or vegetarian recipes for you. Alkalize your body!
8. Skip dessert loaded with sugar and skip drinking sodaSugar is one of the worst acidic foods we consume and our enemy. If you drink just ONE can of soda, you will actually need more than thirty glasses of neutral water to neutralize the acidity in your body!
9. Add more vegetables to your diet. Be careful, potatoes don’t count. However, sweet potatoes are good choice but don’t make them with butter, use olive oil and Himalayan salt for baking. Peppers, Asparagus, squash, Aubergines, and other vegetables are also great choices.
10. And last but not least: Add more sprouts to your daily diet. They are extremely alkalizing and rich in nutrients and energy-boosting enzymes.

Covid-19: Faked information and simple avoidance and treatment recommendations

Covid-19 is Not a cell but a series of RNA that cannot survive outside a living environment. Thus, dead people cannot test positive for Covid-19 in order to test the family members.

Avoid taking Cortisone, Cetamol, Azitromycine… any products (sugar, proteine…) that disturb the natural function of the liver or tax its proper job of increasing the temperature and strengthen the immune system.

It takes 5 days for the liver to stabilize the condition of the patient when in confinement. Being sent to a hospital might aggravate the condition of the patient, as a last resort.

منقول من صفحة الرفيقة نهاد الصاحب

منقول مقالة طبية هامة . بقلم السيد الدكتور Jehad Shabboh

الهيستريا الاعلامية العالمية بلغت حدا خطيرا على الجميع – ولايمكن السباحة بعكس التيار – لذلك فضلت ان اعرض ما أعرفه من حقيقة على اصدقائي بالحد الادنى عسى ان احميهم من المخاطر المحتملة .

لمحة عن الفيروس : يشبه بتركيبه فيروسات الانفلونزا الموسمية – اقل فوعة – واسرع انتشارا – وككل الفيروسات فهو غير قادر على البقاء الا في الانسجة الحية – ويموت بعد مغادرتها بثواني –

لذلك التوصية بمسافة مترين عن المصاب وهي المدة التي يستغرقها الفيروس حيا قبل مصادفة مضيف جديد – وتتم العدوى حصرا عن طريق التنفس ووصول الفيروس للجهاز التنفسي للمضيف .

بعد موت المريض يموت الفيروس فورا – بسبب عدم توفر النسيج الحي – اي ان المرض المتوفى غير معدي .

الفيروس عبارة عن سلسلة من RNA – ليس خلية – وليس قادرا على الحياة بالطبيعة خارج المضيف الحي كما تفعل الجراثيم.
مالذي تم ترويجه اعلاميا ؟

أشيع اعلاميا عن منظمة الصحة العالمية ان الفيروس يعيش على السطوح الصلبة مدة 12 ساعة – والاقمشة 9 ساعات – والايدي ساعتين – مع ملاحظة التناقض في المعلومات .
وهذه المعلومات كاذبة جملة وتفصيلا – وذهبت المنظمات المدنية الى حد محاولة تعقيم الشوارع والجدران والحدائق وغيرها بمنتهى السذاجة – بقناعة تواجد الفيروس .

ما حقيقة انتشار الفيروس حاليا؟

حسب الاحصائيات التي تعرفونها – فالعدد المثبت بتحليل pcr يفوق 20 مليون بالعالم – وهذا العدد يشكل نسبة ضئيلة جدا من المرضى المشتبه اصابتهم او كانت اصابتهم خفيفة وبقوا في منازلهم دون مراجعة المشافي .
ماذا يعني ذلك؟

يعني بكل بساطة ان جميع الناس اصيبو بالفيروس الذي هو اسرع انتشارا من الكريب – وكلنا نعلم ان الجميع اصيبو بالكريب يوما ما .
اما عن الوفيات :

تم التصريح عن ارقام كاذبة – وتم تسجيل اعداد كبيرة من الوفيات على ان المسبب فيروس كورونا بينما كانت الوفيات لاسباب اخرى – ومنهم من كانو زملاءنا و اصدقاءنا ونعرف اسباب وفاتهم الحقيقية .

لكن كنا نتفاجئ بنشر اخبار مضللة على وسائل التواصل دون معرفة الهدف .

علاج الفيروس :

أود طمئنة الجميع أن الشفاء من الاصابة سهل – وقد تمر الاصابة بشكل خفيف ويحصل الشفاء العفوي دون تشخيص المرض .
علميا لاعلاج دوائي للفيروس في الاسواق – المناعة وحدها هي الكفيلة بالقضاء عليه.

المطلوب تقوية المناعة – وهي تتشكل في الكبد بعد اليوم الخامس تقريبا للاصابة.

يحتاج المريض للتهوية الجيدة – الرياضة – تحسين الحالة النفسية – اكثار سوائل – دفء – حمية غذائية فقيرة بالمشتقات الحيوانية والدسمة والسكاكر – وغنية بالفينامينات ومضادات الاكسدة والارجاع ومثالها : قرنفل – قرفة – كمون – ليمون – برتقال – اناناس – حبق – نعنع … وغيرها – مع الانتباه لكونها نيئة غير مطبوخة لان المواد الفاعلة ضمنها تموت بالحرارة.

ومن مبادئ علم الفيروسات المحافظة على راحة الكبد بعدم اعطاء الادوية ذات الاستقلاب الكبدي

وينصح اصلا بعدم اعطاء اي ادوية – ويتربع ( السيتامول ) على عرش الادوية المخربة للكبد – وتعتبر الجرعة القاتلة للانسان الطبيعي 10 غرام – واقل منها للمريض الضعيف – ويستطيع اي منكم الحصول على هذه المعلومات عبر النت من الاف المواقع العلمية – وليس عبر الاقنية الفضائية.

الكارثة اليوم :

هي البروتوكول العلاجي المتبع من منظمة الصحة العالمية لعلاج الاصابة – وبالتالي متبع لدينا – والخطأ القاتل في طريقة تطبيقه .
البروتوكول يتضمن :

1 – كورتيزون : وهو القاتل الاول – لكونه الدواء الخافض للمناعة – ومن بديهيات علم الفيروسات تحريم استعماله بتاريخ الطب حتى زمن الكورونا
2 – سيتامول : وقد تحدثنا عن خطورته بسبب تخريبه للكبد
3 – ازيترومايسين : قاتل جراثيم ضعيف لايؤثر على الفيروسات بتاتا – مع احتمال اذية الكبد

سوف يسأل احدكم كيف نخفض الحرارة ؟
الحرارة يتم انتاجها بالكبد كرد فعل طبيعي للدفاع عن الجسم – لاداعي لتخفيض الحرارة الا في خال الاختلاجات – السوائل تكفي – وعند الضرورة يتم تخفيض الحرارة لمرة واحدة فقط .

ما لذي يحدث اليوم :

يبدأ اغلب الزملاء ( وليس الكل طبعا ) بتطبيق هذا البروتوكول للمريض فور التشخيص او الشك – ولن اذكر هنا مسيرة القصص المرضية للمرضى المقبولين في المشافي ومراكز العزل ونتائج العلاج لأنها مختلفة حسب حالة المريض ومناعته –

لكني سأذكر معلومة تعرفونها جميعا دون الانتباه اليها وهي : ان جميع الوفيات حصلت في المشافي ومراكز العزل – ولم تذكر حالة وفاة واحدة لمريض مشخص او مشتبه مع بقائه في منزله –

علما ان اعداد المصابين الذين التزمو المنزل اكثر بأضعاف مضاعفة .
ارجو منكم جميعا الحذر الشديد من تطبيق هذا البروتوكول – والمحافظة على المناعة الجيدة و اساليب الوقاية واهمها التباعد الاجتماعي .
أنا أعلم تماما صعوبة الاقتناع بما سبق – وصعوبة معاكسة السيل الجارف من المعلومات المضللة من خلال وسائل الاعلام – وانجرار الكثير من الزملاء العاملين بالحقل الطبي خلف الهيستريا العالمية – ونسيان كل مادرسناه في كلياتنا من قواعد اساسية متصلة .

 

How to handle house waste and keep it clean?

How to learn to stay clean? How to handle house waste? 

For decades Lebanon is plagued with how to dispose of garbage. Most of the time, garbage are Not collected in municipalities for weeks and this pseudo-State refuse to resolve this major problems under all kinds of unfounded excuses.

So far, most of land dumps are filled and those by the sea are also filled. As if no other alternatives adopted by most countries should Not be contemplated and emulated.

Jamil Berry posted

DECHETS (Waste)

Tout Parent sait les efforts soutenus et continus pour apprendre à son jeune enfant à “devenir propre” .

Une action pérenne qui ne doit ni reculer ni faillir.

A ce prix, l’enfant devient “propre” et pourra alors sortir à la société.

Comment faire lorsque c’est la Société qui n’est pas proper? Peuple et Responsables

1/ Côté Population:

Il ne suffit pas de fustiger la”dawleh ” (State) et faire rimer et jouer avec mots et slogans.

Si la population triait (sorting out) à l’origine ses déchets ( séparer l’organique qui ne pollue pas la nappe phréatique, du toxique qui la pollue durablement et sévèrement) , la crise actuelle n’aurait pas connue toute cette acuité.

La société n’est pas propre mais n’est pas enfant pour autant.

Le Liban est en train de vivre un Tchernobyl Biologique , moléculaire toxique qui continuera à retentir sur nos générations à venir .( Avortements, Malformations etc…)

Sans compter la flopée des infections intercurrentes.

On peut se soustraire à un bombardement, mais peut-on se soustraire à l’eau et à l’air? (Not on the current atomic conflagration on Beirut by the US)

Une société qui trie ses déchets , gagnera en santé publique, en propreté et fera des bénéfices financiers évidents.

2/ Côté Responsables Politiques :

Le problème n’est absolument pas technique. Il est un BRAS DE FER , en rapport avec la PART DU GÂTEAU ( si puant soit-il ) entre les PROTAGONISTES des déchets et leur circuit au Liban.

Là nous nous trouvons devant un état parent représenté par des responsables qui manquent de coercition vis à vis des mafieux des déchets car ils ont grandi sur la même déchetterie, et qui ne prennent pas la peine d’enseigner à l’enfant peuple la propreté à un échelon social

Car nous ne sommes pas plus idiots que d’autres peuples et nous aurions, malgré notre indiscipline légendaire, fini par apprendre, et appliquer …
( Jamil BERRY )

It is no business of anyone if I believe in a God: I reserve mine. All for myself

Have your Gods. One and only or multiple. 

Let the people who need to re-read the Old Books for stories, which are actually happening everyday and everywhere, do what they please: I prefer to read fresh versions, rooted in the current realities.

Truth , or the illusion of it, is uncovered by getting engaged in the reality, with all its miseries, injustices, indignities…

Let people who feel this urge to continually re-interpret the outdated and obsolete notions in Old Books, abstract notions that you’ll never be able to experiment with and that you’ll never comprehend, do what they please: I have this one life to experiment with and a rich reality to investigate, at my reach everyday

The live-forces in society have challenges to tackle, and difficulties to prosecute, while still healthy and full of energy and curiosity…

Fictional abstract notions of the after-life are for the weak-minded and those witnessing serious degradation in their health and mind power…

The live-forces in society need to:

1. Confront injustices on all fronts: Elite rich classes of exploiters, dictators and oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, absolute monarchies…

2. Demand and capture their rights, civil, political, and human dignity…Free preventive health care, retirements, educations, opportunities to all…

3. Shoulder their responsibilities to the common good of communities…

4. Keep practicing their talents and skills that they invested countless time and energy to acquire and enjoy…

5. Keep acquiring comprehensive knowledge in order to make sense of books and be able to write interesting books…

6. Get engaged in social and political laws processes and ensuring transitions to government systems that guarantee free speech, free expression of opinions, free gathering…All the requirements of a Renaissance Age…

This is a one-life shot, and I want to live it. And I want to live what I desire in the living.

Complications, complications…a long string of imaginary complications.

Life is so simple though.

You are born by the fluke of an impossible series of events.

You get to survive to be 5 year-old, a miracle 7 decades ago even in developed nations.

Your mother survived your birth, a miracle 6 decades ago in developed States, after giving birth to half a dozen of “unlucky” babies who didn’t make it among the living…

A couple of suckers of parents think they ought to sacrifice their lives to take care of this “happy happening“, way until he reaches over 50 years, on account that a baby is a baby as long as he looks chubby, roundish, and healthy.

And the parents die.

And you wait the long life expectancy statistics to come true.

And other persons, not your parents, are changing your diapers and cursing: “What’s this piece of shit they threw my way to tend to?

They are exploiting my energy and hard work for naught: For negative results in performance, degeneration by the day…” (Fortunately, you are almost deaf, and if you did hear anything, you are in no position to confront the nurse “argument”)

The result of medications that extend life and destroy its quality

Not an elegant return of the cycle to childhood, by any long shot, with the permanent infirmity you are in…

And ultimately, fodder to worms. And “dust to dust…” and ultimately to boson, this utra tiny particle?

And you say: “How could you be engaged in the common good, if your outlook to life is so down right gloomy?”

And I reply: “A pragmatic demonstration for my respect of other people’s opinions, contrary to mine, in the notion and possibilities in the after life…”?

 

Blood Begins to Dry

As War Criminals In Our Midst are put on trial…

Especially, including the leaders of the colonial powers who are exclusively out of trial blame

In transmitting President Richard Nixon’s orders for a “massive” bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, “Anything that flies on everything that moves“.

As Barack Obama ignites his 7th war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger’s murderous honesty.

By John Pilger johnpilger.com

As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery – including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields – I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again.

A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect.

They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of “fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders“.

Once Nixon’s and Kissinger’s B 52 bombers had gone to work as part of “Operation Menu“, the west’s ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of 5 Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air.

The terror was unimaginable.

A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors “froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over.”

A Finnish Government Commission of Enquiry estimated that 600,000 Cambodians died in the ensuing civil war and described the bombing as the “first stage in a decade of genocide”.

What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed.

Under the US bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.

ISIS has a similar past and present.

By most scholarly measure, Bush and Blair’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of some 700,000 people – in a country that had No history of jihadism.

The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common.

Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear.

On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence.

Bush and Blair blew all this to bits.

Iraq is now a nest of jihadism. Al-Qaeda – like Pol Pot’s “jihadists” – seized the opportunity provided by the onslaught of Shock and Awe and the civil war that followed.

“Rebel” Syria offered even greater rewards, with CIA and Gulf state ratlines of weapons, logistics and money running through Turkey. The arrival of foreign recruits was inevitable.

A former British ambassador, Oliver Miles, wrote recently, 

“The [Cameron] government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy – and in particular our Middle East wars – had been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here.”

ISIS is the progeny of those in Washington and London who, in destroying Iraq as both a state and a society, conspired to commit an epic crime against humanity.

Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in “our” societies.

It is 23 years since this holocaust enveloped Iraq, immediately after the first Gulf War, when the US and Britain hijacked the United Nations Security Council and imposed punitive “sanctions” on the Iraqi population – ironically, reinforcing the domestic authority of Saddam Hussein.

It was like a medieval siege.

Almost everything that sustained a modern state was, in the jargon, “blocked” – from chlorine for making the water supply safe to school pencils, parts for X-ray machines, common painkillers and drugs to combat previously unknown cancers carried in the dust from the southern battlefields contaminated with Depleted Uranium.

Just before Christmas 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry in London restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever.

Kim Howells, parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Blair government, explained why. “The children’s vaccines”, he said, “were capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction“.

The British Government could get away with such an outrage because media reporting of Iraq – much of it manipulated by the Foreign Office – blamed Saddam Hussein for everything.

Under a bogus “humanitarian” Oil for Food Programme, $100 was allotted for each Iraqi to live on for a year. This figure had to pay for the entire society’s infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water.

“Imagine,” the UN Assistant Secretary General, Hans Von Sponeck, told me, “setting that pittance against the lack of clean water, and the fact that the majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of getting from day to day, and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable.”

Disgusted, Von Sponeck resigned as UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. His predecessor, Denis Halliday, an equally distinguished senior UN official, had also resigned. “I was instructed,” Halliday said, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.”

A study by the United Nations Children’s Fund, Unicef, found that between 1991 and 1998, the height of the blockade, there were 500,000 “excess” deaths of Iraqi infants under the age of 5.

An American TV reporter put this to Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the United Nations, asking her, “Is the price worth it?” Albright replied, “We think the price is worth it.”

In 2007, the senior British official responsible for the sanctions, Carne Ross, known as “Mr. Iraq”, told a parliamentary selection committee, “[The US and UK governments] effectively denied the entire population a means to live.”

When I interviewed Carne Ross three years later, he was consumed by regret and contrition.

“I feel ashamed,” he said. He is today a rare truth-teller of how governments deceive and how a compliant media plays a critical role in disseminating and maintaining the deception. “We would feed [journalists] factoids of sanitised intelligence,” he said, “or we’d freeze them out.”

On 25 September, a headline in the Guardian read: “Faced with the horror of Isis we must act.” The “we must act” is a ghost risen, a warning of the suppression of informed memory, facts, lessons learned and regrets or shame.

The author of the article was Peter Hain, the former Foreign Office minister responsible for Iraq under Blair.

In 1998, when Denis Halliday revealed the extent of the suffering in Iraq for which the Blair Government shared primary responsibility, Hain abused him on the BBC’s Newsnight as an “apologist for Saddam”.

In 2003, Hain backed Blair’s invasion of stricken Iraq on the basis of transparent lies. At a subsequent Labour Party conference, he dismissed the invasion as a “fringe issue”.

Now Hain is demanding “air strikes, drones, military equipment and other support” for those “facing genocide” in Iraq and Syria. This will further “the imperative of a political solution”.

Obama has the same in mind as he lifts what he calls the “restrictions” on US bombing and drone attacks. This means that missiles and 500-pound bombs can smash the homes of peasant people, as they are doing without restriction in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia – as they did in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos.

On 23 September, a Tomahawk cruise missile hit a village in Idlib Province in Syria, killing as many as a dozen civilians, including women and children. None waved a black flag.

The day Hain’s article appeared, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck happened to be in London and came to visit me. They were not shocked by the lethal hypocrisy of a politician, but lamented the enduring, almost inexplicable absence of intelligent diplomacy in negotiating a semblance of truce.

Across the world, from Northern Ireland to Nepal, those regarding each other as terrorists and heretics have faced each other across a table. Why not now in Iraq and Syria.

Like Ebola from West Africa, a bacteria called “perpetual war” has crossed the Atlantic. Lord Richards, until recently head of the British military, wants “boots on the ground” now.

There is a vapid, almost sociopathic verboseness from Cameron, Obama and their “coalition of the willing” – notably Australia’s aggressively weird Tony Abbott – as they prescribe more violence delivered from 30,000 feet on places where the blood of previous adventures never dried.

They have never seen bombing and they apparently love it so much they want it to overthrow their one potentially valuable ally,  Syria. This is nothing new, as the following leaked UK-US intelligence file illustrates,  and written in 1957:

In order to facilitate the action of liberative [sic] forces… a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals [and] to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria. CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main [sic] incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals… a necessary degree of fear… frontier and [staged] border clashes [will] provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS should use… capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”

In the imperial world, nothing essentially changes.

Last year, the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed that “two years before the Arab spring”, he was told in London that a war on Syria was planned.

“I am going to tell you something,” he said in an interview with the French TV channel LPC, “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria… Britain was organising an invasion of rebels into Syria.

They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate… This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned.”

The only effective opponents of ISIS are accredited demons of the west – Syria, Iran, Hezbollah. The obstacle is Turkey, an “ally” and a member of Nato, which has conspired with the CIA, MI6 and the Gulf medievalists to channel support to the Syrian “rebels”, including those now calling themselves ISIS.

Supporting Turkey in its long-held ambition for regional dominance by overthrowing the Assad government beckons a major conventional war and the horrific dismemberment of the most ethnically diverse state in the Middle East.

A truce – however difficult to achieve – is the only way out of this imperial maze; otherwise, the beheadings will continue. That genuine negotiations with Syria should be seen as “morally questionable” (the Guardian) suggests that the assumptions of moral superiority among those who supported the war criminal Blair remain not only absurd, but dangerous.

Together with a truce, there should be an immediate cessation of all shipments of war materials to Israel and recognition of the State of Palestine. The issue of Palestine is the region’s most festering open wound, and the oft-stated justification for the rise of Islamic extremism. Osama bin Laden made that clear. Palestine also offers hope. Give justice to the Palestinians and you begin to change the world around them.

More than 40 years ago, the Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia unleashed a torrent of suffering from which that country has never recovered. The same is true of the Blair-Bush crime in Iraq.

With impeccable timing, Henry Kissinger’s latest self-serving book has just been released with its satirical title, “World Order“.

In one fawning review, Kissinger is described as a “key shaper of a world order that remained stable for a quarter of a century”.

Tell that to the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Chile, East Timor and all the other victims of his “statecraft”.

Only when “we” recognise the war criminals in our midst will the blood begin to dry.

When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren’t Called ‘Hitler’

Note: Lebanon suffered 15 years of civil war and all the militia leaders were pardoned by the parliament and they ruled and controlled Lebanon for another 30 years. Lebanon total bankruptcy is due to these militia/mafia sectarian “leaders’

Currently, Beirut witnessed an atomic conflagration that killed 200 and injured more than 6,000 and devastated residential quarters on a radius of 3 miles. Apparently, no ministers or deputies or any militia leader will face trial

An atomic conflagration? Can’t Complain, minimal damages…

From the start of the fire and the second atomic conflagration:

50 min that could have saved thousands of injured people if proper warning were actively underway.

Is true that Lebanon has no emergency warning sound, like during any enemy military jet crossing our airspace?

Is it true the State of Lebanon has No emergency institution to vacate citizens to already planned location?

An emergency institution that can control and administer all the emergency processes?

Like to whom all the aid supply and medical teams had to report to, team who know where to transfer the necessary aid?

Why the road/highway to the port was Not blocked for traffic?

كتب Obada Alladan

أفظع جريمة صارت هيي إنو الناس ماتوا هني وواقفين عم يتفرجوا، مش عارفين حتى إنو حياتن بخطر.

50 دقيقة بين اكتشاف أول حريق والانفجار الكبير.

على الأقل إدارة المرفأ والجمارك ومخابرات الجيش وأمن الدولة كانوا بيعرفوا موقع الحريق، وخطر امتداده لنيترات الأمونيوم.

شو كان بدّا بدولة التماسيح حدا يبلغ إدارة الإهراءات لإخلائها،

حدا يبلغ كهرباء لبنان، حدا يطلق نداء عبر التلفزيونات والإذاعات لسكان الأبنية المواجهة للابتعاد وعدم سلوك الشوارع المجاورة؟

أديش كان بدا وقت للدرك يسكروا الطرقات المؤدية للمرفأ؟
بدا إنشتاين؟

هيدا الواتس أب الزفت وغروبات الزفت وفايسبوك الزفت وتويتر الزفت و5000 موقع إخباري ما كانوا كافيين يبلغوا أهل بيروت بالخطر؟

وزير الداخلية ورئيس الوزراء ورئيس الجمهورية ما كان عندن فضول يسألوا شو اللي عم يحترق؟

ما حدا خطرلو يحذر الناس، يطلق صفارة إنذار؟ يعمل إجراءات طوارئ؟ إخلاء، أي شي؟

هيدي دولة فيها 350 ألف موظف؟ بربكم، هيدي شو؟

ما كان ممكن عدد الشهدا يكون أقل بـ 70% بس لو حدا من الجبنا حكي؟ لو حدا من السفلة، القتلة، المافيوز عمل أي شي؟

في 100 شهيد على الأقل قتلوهن الجبناء اللي سكتوا وكتموا الخطر، إذا ما بدنا نحكي عن أي مسؤولية أخرى.

#جو_عقيقي كان واقف عم يصوّر الجريمة وقت قتلوه، أبطال فوج الإطفاء بعتوهن ع قلب المحرقة، كمال حايك كان بمكتبو. عشرات الموظفين بالعنابر.

بس حسن قريطم وبدري ضاهر وكم جنرال كانوا عرفانين بالخطر ومتخبيين من الموت هني وساكتين، لأنو مش رجال.

أمك يا جو من حقها تدعي عليهن كلن، من ميشال عون ونزول،

لأنو المدينة ما فيها صافرة إنذار، ما فيها خطة طوارئ، ما فيها خطة إخلاء،

لإنو 50 دقيقة ما بتكفي الإنسان عنا يتخبى من الخطر،

لأنو الكلاب ما بيطلعوا يصرحوا إلا وقت يكونوا عم يتقاتلوا على التعيينات والمكاسب والمناهب.

Israeli proposal to flatten Beirut in 2016: Done this August 4, 2020

At 6 pm, two conflagrations shook Beirut and demolished all of the port installations, neighboring streets 2 miles away, all buildings…

Half of public institutions located in the area, the central Electricity building, the Foreign minister., the hospitals around, about 5 of them., the sturdy wheat silos crumbled., newspaper dailies (Al Nahar), all the newly expensive and luxury high rises on this sea front..

So far, over 170 deaths and increasing and more than 6,000 injured and patients dispatched outside of Beirut for overflowing and for the poisonous environment due to the burning of 2, 750 tons of nitrate ammonium and other kinds of chemicals stored in the port hangard #12.

The latest news are that these highly flammable and detonating chemicals were stacked in the port since 2014 after requisitioning a Turkish ship that was transferring these chemicals from Georgia and was meant to stop in Beirut port and be discharged.

Why Beirut instead of Mozambique as the manifest declared?

Mind you that it was the US that built this nitrate of ammonium plant in Georgia.

Mind you that Hillary Clinton admitted that the US was highly involved in creating ISIS (Daesh) to occupy Mosul in Iraq. And all these Syrian insurgent factions since 2011 needed plenty of explosives.

A tsunami-kind of conflagration, red colored (color of depleted uranium/miniature atomic bomb detonation), that mushroomed in the sky like a small atomic bomb and advanced instantaneously inland and toward the sea at the speed of 750 m a second.

The hole that this conflagration left was 65 m deep. And generated a 4.3 earthquake scale.

A wide area of total devastation that remind people of picture of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…

People vacating Beirut to higher and far regions in order Not to be affected by the dangerous chemical inhalation.

How Israel would have reacted if the port of Haifa experienced the same devastation? I bet more than half the injured Israelis would have died for lack of individual zeal to come to the rescue.

In Lebanon, minutes after the conflagration people were busy transferring the injured to the hospitals. 5 of the hospitals close to the seafront were totally devastated and the injured had to be transferred and hundreds were welcomed in Damascus.

Israel refuse to admit that it attacked the port with depleted uranium missiles, though Israel knew very well of these stored chemicals: Netanyahu mentioned two years ago that hangard #12 contained Hezbollah missiles, in preparation for this attack

Trump declared that Beirut was attacked, but was not precise. (Just the message that he doesn’t give a damn of Beirut and the Lebanese pseudo-citizens)

So far, most countries are proposing “humanitarian” and clinical aids to Lebanon and movable hospitals.

The question is: And what afterward?

The government resigned because more than 7 ministers sided with their sectarian militia leaders.

As usual, Lebanon is bound Not to have a working government.

What kinds of help and aid to this totally bankrupt pseudo State that treated the Lebanese as pseudo-citizens since “independence” in 1943?

Currently, the Lebanese high security command ordered the army to take full control of Beirut for 2 weeks.

I have seen a video of 10 bodies flying in the air after the second conflagration: they were the first fire fighters who arrived to the scene.

And this clean-handed government could Not confront the militia/mafia clan and had to resign.

Amitai Etzioni, supposedly a prominent American professor, and who teaches at renowned universities, says Israel may have no choice but to destroy Lebanon — again and flatten Beirut

A prominent American scholar who teaches international relations at George Washington University has publicly proposed that Israel “flatten Beirut” — a city with around 1 million people — in order to destroy the missiles of Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

Professor Amitai Etzioni — who has taught at a variety of prestigious U.S. universities, including Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley, and who served as a senior advisor in President Jimmy Carter’s administration — made this proposal in an op-ed in Haaretz, the leading English-language Israeli newspaper, known as “The New York Times of Israel.” Haaretz represents the liberal wing of Israel’s increasingly far-right politics.

Etzioni’s op-ed was first published on Feb. 15 with the headline “Can Israel Obliterate Hezbollah’s Growing Missile Threat Without Massive Civilian Casualties?” (the answer he suggests in response to this question is “likely no”).

Topics: 

The rubble of Beirut’s southern suburbs in August 2006, after Israel’s war in Lebanon, which destroyed tens of thousands of homes(Credit: Reuters/Jamal Saidi). It also look as Gaza under the ruin.

“Should Israel Flatten Beirut to Destroy Hezbollah’s Missiles?” was the next, much more blunt title, chosen sometime on or before Feb. 16.

As of Feb. 18, the headline is “Should Israel Consider Using Devastating Weapons Against Hezbollah Missiles?”

Etzioni served in the Haganah — the terrorist army that formed Israel after violently expelling three-quarters of the indigenous Palestinian population — from 1946 to 1948, and then served in the Israeli military from 1948 to 1950. He mentions his military service in both the article and his bio.

(If a Palestinian or any “Arab” was discovered to have joined any military group, would he be teaching in the USA?)

In the piece, Etzioni cites an anonymous Israeli official who estimates that Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles in Lebanon.

In January, the U.S. government put that figure at 80,000 rockets. The anonymous official also says the Israeli government considers these weapons to be its second greatest security threat — after Iran.

Etzioni furthermore cites Israel’s chief of staff, who claims that most of Hezbollah’s missiles are in private homes. Whether this allegation is true is questionable. Israel frequently accuses militant groups of hiding weapons in civilian areas in order to justify its attacks.

On numerous occasions, it has been proven that there were no weapons in the civilian areas Israel bombed in Gaza. But that was beside the point for Israel.

Assuming it is true, the American scholar argues, if Israeli soldiers were to try to take the missiles out of these homes one at a time, it “would very likely result in many Israeli casualties.”

In order to avoid Israeli casualties, Etzioni writes: “I asked two American military officers what other options Israel has. They both pointed to Fuel-Air Explosives (FAE).

These are bombs that disperse an aerosol cloud of fuel which is ignited by a detonator, producing massive explosions.

The resulting rapidly expanding wave flattens all buildings within a considerable range.”

“Such weapons obviously would be used only after the population was given a chance to evacuate the area. Still, as we saw in Gaza, there are going to be civilian casualties,” Etzioni adds.

“The time to raise this issue is long before Israel may be forced to use FAEs.” (As people in Gaza were given 5 minutes to vacate an area and succumb to the shrapnel?)

Etzioni concludes his piece implying Israel has no other option but to bomb the city of Beirut. “In this way, one hopes, that there be a greater understanding, if not outright acceptance, of the use of these powerful weapons, given that nothing else will do,” he writes. (How about desist from the preemptive wars strategies and abide by UN resolutions?)

Lebanese journalists and activists have expressed outrage at the article.

Kareem Chehayeb, a Lebanese journalist and founder and editor of the website Beirut Syndrome, said in response to the piece “Should Israel kill me, my family, and over a million other people to destroy Hezbollah’s missiles? How about that for a headline?”

Chehayeb told Salon Etzioni’s argument is “absolutely absurd” and reeks of hypocrisy. “If some writer said the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just to bomb Israel,” he said, “people would go up in arms about it.”

He called it “ludicrous” that a prominent American professor “can just calmly say the solution is to flatten this entire city of 1 million people.”

“I’m just speechless. It sounds ISIS-like, just eradicating an entire community of people,” Chehayeb added.

Salon called Etzioni’s office at George Washington University’s Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies several times with a request for comment, but no one answered.

After this article was published, Etzioni emailed Salon a statement. “I agree with you that any suggestion to bomb or ‘flatten’ Beirut (or any other city) would be beyond horrible and outrageous,” he said. He said Haaretz had changed and then later corrected his headline.

“Ethics aside — Beirut is not where the missiles are housed,” Etzioni added. “The issue though stands how is a nation to respond if another nation or non-state actor rains thousands of missiles on its civilian population?”

Salon also reached out to the university. Jason Shevrin, a spokesperson, told Salon “the George Washington University is committed to academic freedom and encourages efforts to foster an environment welcoming to many different viewpoints. Dr. Etzioni is a faculty member who is expressing his personal views.” The spokesperson did not comment any further.

Etzioni is by no means an unknown scholar. He notes on his George Washington University faculty page that, in 2001, he was among the 100 most-cited American intellectuals. He has also served as the president of the American Sociological Association.

Israel has already flattened Beirut before

Writer Belén Fernández, an author and contributing editor at Jacobin magazine, published a piece in TeleSur responding to Etzioni op-ed, titled “No, Israel Should Not Flatten Beirut.”

Fernández points out “that Israel has already flattened large sections of Lebanon, in Beirut and beyond.”

She recalls visiting a young man in a south Lebanon village near the Israeli border who “described the pain in 2006 of encountering detached heads and other body parts belonging to former neighbors, blasted apart by bombs or crushed in collapsed homes.”

Note 1: Hezbollah General Secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, replied: All we need is to launch a couple of missiles on the Ammonium plant in Haifa. The conflagration is as powerful as an atomic bomb.

Israel executed this idea and stored an amount of ammonium nitrate in the port of Beirut and let it be forgotten.

Apparently most of these tons of nitrate of ammonium were sold, transferred and whisked away to Syrian insurgent factions. Possibly, from the extent of the conflagration, only about 300 tons remained in the port

Note 2: Who still believes that this calamity is a simple matter of laziness of every responsible during the last 6 years?

Who is still unable to believe that Israel is Not able to prepare for a long-term catastrophe and that hangar #12 was being prepared and targeted for a timely decision to flatten Beirut?

The next article will try to answer the why and how Israel/US wanted Beirut flattened.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,418,643 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: