Posts Tagged ‘collateral damage’
How many women and men are needed to convince you of a rape act?
Rape is not sex.
Men don’t rape women because they need to get laid.
Rape is violence. It’s power and dehumanizing of women.
Many wonder why they (this group of men) raped girls while they could have consensual sex, but that’s not the point. They don’t want vanilla: they want violence. They want to humiliate, inflict pain and violate.
They want to take what they want without permission. Because they can.
We tip the nurse at the birth of the boy double the girl.
We say “go make your brother a cup of tea” and allow him to boss his sister around.
We raise our boys to do as they please. To pee in the street because “they can’t hold it”.
To sleep in and get breakfast to his bed instead of helping at home.
We praise his “masculinity” with the amounts of hearts he has broken because “boys will be boys”.
We forgive his fling with the neighbor’s girl because he is a boy while we beat the girl in submission, all her life.
We laugh at the stolen kisses in the staircase priding our “boy has grown” while we curse the girl who gave in.
But she is not ours so we don’t care. She is collateral damage.
We teach him that the girl he touched must be a slut, a sinner and if she has done it with you she must have done it with others.
We tell “our boy” not to cry or show kindness because a real man is tough and angry. We poison him with toxic thoughts and connect his masculinity to the level of hate and control he develops towards women.
We don’t tell him about consent.
When he has an urge it must be stilled. He can’t otherwise because “all men are like that, they are hunters by nature”.
We teach him that sex is something he does to women for his own pleasure only. We call them boys whereas they should be men.
We raise girls to comply. To become the perfect victim.
We teach her that her body is sin and must be hidden.
We teach her that anything is always her fault. She is sin. Her voice is 3awra. We teach her that she is a burden and not worthy of love, not worthy of autonomy over her body and life.
We tell her “all men are like that” when she comes home disrespected and defeated. We tell her “the boy likes you” when he is mean to her.
We tell her “your honor” is a membrane and that her life is worthless without it.
We cut her her genitals so she can be “controlled”, we make her bleed to prove virtue.
We tell her to be silent and do as she is told. We tell her to shrink so she is likable. We tell her to be silent so she can please. We tell her not to laugh too loud, to keep her legs closed, to dress to undress. To be a ghost.
It takes 100 girls to convince you he is a rapist and just 1 guy to convince you she is a slut.
Patriarchy is the reason for violence against women. Patriarchy is actually safeguarded by women. Break the cycle. Step out of it.
Start at the root. Raise your children differently.
Change the laws that enable rape culture and the dehumanizing of women.
Give women equality to men by law and enforce it. We have to stop being a society that hates and fears women so much.
CIA and Israeli Mossad assassinated Hezbollah’s operations chief: Imad Mughniyah
Posted on: February 2, 2015
CIA and Israeli Mossad assassinated Hezbollah’s operations chief: Imad Mughniyah
On Feb. 12, 2008, Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah’s international operations chief, walked on a quiet nighttime street in Damascus after dinner at a nearby restaurant. Not far away, a team of CIA spotters in the Syrian capital was tracking his movements.
As Mughniyah approached a parked SUV, a bomb planted in a spare tire on the back of the vehicle exploded, sending a burst of shrapnel across a tight radius. He was killed instantly.
The device was triggered remotely from Tel Aviv by agents with Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, who were in communication with the operatives on the ground in Damascus. “The way it was set up, the U.S. could object and call it off, but it could not execute,” said a former U.S. intelligence official.
A Lebanese Hezbollah supporter holds a poster of Imad Mughniyah during a rally in the southern suburb of Beirut on Feb. 16, 2009, to commemorate the first anniversary of the slain Hezbollah commander’s death. (Hussein Malla/Associated Press)
The United States helped build the bomb, the former official said, and tested it repeatedly (over 50 times) at a CIA facility in North Carolina to ensure the potential blast area was contained and would not result in collateral damage.
[Read: Who was Imad Mughniyah?]
“We probably blew up 25 bombs to make sure we got it right,” the former official said.
The extraordinarily close cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services suggested the importance of the target — a man who over the years had been implicated in some of Hezbollah’s most spectacular terrorist attacks, including those against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the Israeli Embassy in Argentina.
The United States has never acknowledged participation in the killing of Mughniyah, which Hezbollah blamed on Israel. Until now, there has been little detail about the joint operation by the CIA and Mossad to kill him, how the car bombing was planned or the exact U.S. role.
With the exception of the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, the mission marked one of the most high-risk covert actions by the United States in recent years. (Regardless of the countless drone attacks that killed more civilians than the targeted persons in Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq)
U.S. involvement in the killing, which was confirmed by 5 former U.S. intelligence officials, also pushed American legal boundaries. (Better not to mention them by names, especially those closely involved in the assassination))
Mughniyah was targeted in a country where the United States was not at war with (explicitly, by heavily involved in the raging civil war in Syria).
Imad was killed in a car bombing, a technique that some legal scholars see as a violation of international laws that proscribe “killing by perfidy” — using treacherous means to kill or wound an enemy.
“It is a killing method used by terrorists and gangsters,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame. “It violates one of the oldest battlefield rules.”
Former U.S. officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the operation, asserted that Mughniyah, although based in Syria, was directly connected to the arming and training of Shiite militias in Iraq that were targeting U.S. forces. There was little debate inside the Bush administration over the use of a car bomb instead of other means.
“Remember, they were carrying out suicide bombings and IED attacks,” said one official, referring to Hezbollah operations in Iraq. (A lot of bullshit, I guess)
The authority to kill Mughniyah required a presidential finding by President George W. Bush. The attorney general, the director of national intelligence, the national security adviser and the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department all signed off on the operation, one former intelligence official said. (Legitimate targets)
The former official said getting the authority to kill Mughniyah was a “rigorous and tedious” process. “What we had to show was he was a continuing threat to Americans,” the official said, noting that Mughniyah had a long history of targeting Americans dating back to his role in planning the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
“The decision was we had to have absolute confirmation that it was self-defense,” the official said.
There has long been suspicion about U.S. involvement in the killing of Mughniyah. In “The Good Spy,” a book about longtime CIA officer Robert Ames, author Kai Bird cites one former intelligence official as saying the operation was “primarily controlled by Langley” and it was “a CIA ‘black-ops’ team that carried out the assassination.”
In a new book, “The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins,” former CIA officer Robert B. Baer writes how he had considered assassinating Mughniyah but apparently never got the opportunity. He notes, however, that CIA “censors” — the agency’s Publications Review Board — screened his book and “I’ve unfortunately been unable to write about the true set-piece plot against” Mughniyah.
The CIA declined to comment.
“We have nothing to add at this time,” said Mark Regev, chief spokesman for the prime minister of Israel.
The operation in Damascus highlighted a philosophical evolution within the American intelligence services that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Before then, the U.S. government often took a dim view of Israeli assassination operations, highlighted by the American condemnation of Israel’s botched attempt in 1997 to poison the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Amman, Jordan. The episode ended with Mossad agents captured and the Clinton administration forcing Israel to provide the antidote that saved Meshal’s life.
The Mughniyah killing, carried out more than a decade later, suggested such American hesitation had faded as the CIA stretched its lethal reach well beyond defined war zones and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where the agency or the military have deployed drones against al-Qaeda and its allies.
A former U.S. official said the Bush administration relied on a theory of national self-defense to kill Mughniyah, claiming he was a lawful target because he was actively plotting against the United States or its forces in Iraq, making him a continued and imminent threat who could not be captured.
Such a legal rationale would have allowed the CIA to avoid violating the 1981 blanket ban on assassinations in Executive Order 12333. The order does not define assassination.
In sanctioning a 2011 operation to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and an influential propaganda leader for al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, the Justice Department made a similar argument. Noting that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had targeted U.S. commercial aircraft and asserting that Awlaki had an operational role in the group, government lawyers said he was a continued and imminent threat and could not feasibly be captured.
“It’s fairly clear that the government has at least some authority to use lethal force in self-defense even outside the context of ongoing armed conflict,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University’s Washington College of Law. “The million-dollar question is whether the facts actually support a determination that such force was necessary and appropriate in each case.”
The CIA and Mossad worked together to monitor Mughniyah in Damascus for months prior to the killing and to determine where the bomb should be planted, according to the former officials.
In the leadup to the operation, U.S. intelligence officials had assured lawmakers in a classified briefing that there would be no collateral damage, former officials said.
At the time of his death, Mughniyah had been implicated in the killing of hundreds of Americans, stretching back to the embassy bombing in Beirut that killed 63 people, including eight CIA officers. Hezbollah, supported by Iran, was involved in a long-running shadow war with Israel and its principal backer, the United States.
The embassy bombing placed Hezbollah squarely in the sights of the CIA, a focus that, in some respects, foreshadowed the targeting of Mughniyah.
In his 1987 book “Veil,” Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward reported that CIA Director William Casey encouraged the Saudis to sponsor an attempt to kill a Hezbollah leader. The 1985 attempt on the life of Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah with a car bomb failed, but killed 80 people, and he fled to Iran. Mughniyah’s brother was among those killed.
Former agency officials said Mughniyah was involved in the 1984 kidnapping and torture of the CIA’s station chief in Lebanon, William F. Buckley. The officials said Mughniyah arranged for videotapes of the brutal interrogation sessions of Buckley to be sent to the agency. Buckley was later killed.
Mughniyah was indicted in U.S. federal court in the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 shortly after it took off from Athens and the slaying of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, a passenger on the plane. Mughniyah was placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list with a $5 million reward offered for information leading to his arrest and conviction.
He was also suspected of involvement by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials in the planning of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
For the Israelis, among numerous attacks, he was involved in the 1992 suicide bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed four Israeli civilians and 25 Argentinians, and the 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in the city that killed 85 people.
“Mughniyah and his group were responsible for the deaths of many Americans,” said James Bernazzani, who was chief of the FBI’s Hezbollah unit in the late 1990s and later the deputy director for law enforcement at the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.
The Bush administration regarded Hezbollah — Mughniyah, in particular — as a threat to the United States. In 2008, several months after he was killed, Michael Chertoff, then secretary of homeland security, said Hezbollah was a threat to national security. “To be honest, they make al-Qaeda look like a minor league team,” he said.
Beginning in 2003, Hezbollah, with the assistance of Iran, began to train and arm Shiite militant groups in Iraq, which later began attacking coalition forces, according to Matthew Levitt, who recently wrote a book about Hezbollah and is director of the Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
The Hezbollah-trained militias proved to be a deadly enemy, wounding or killing hundreds of American troops. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated and coalition casualties spiked in 2006, the United States decided it had to stanch the losses.
The Bush administration issued orders to kill or capture Iranian operatives targeting American troops and attempting to destabilize Iraq. It also approved a list of operations directed at Hezbollah, officials said. The mandate applied directly to the group’s notorious international operations chief.
“There was an open license to find, fix and finish Mughniyah and anybody affiliated with him,” said a former U.S. official who served in Baghdad.
In January 2007, Bush, in an address to the nation, singled out Iran and Syria, two countries with the closest ties to Hezbollah.
“These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” Bush said. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
Shortly after Bush’s speech, Hezbollah’s involvement in Iraq became clearer. On Jan. 20, 2007, five American soldiers were killed in Karbala. That March, Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Hezbollah operative with ties to Mughniyah, was captured by the British along with two others and turned over to U.S. forces.
While in U.S. custody, Daqduq confessed to playing a key role in the killing of the soldiers and provided the United States with a deeper understanding of Hezbollah’s networks, said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as executive officer to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
“In interrogations with these folks, we finally discovered the full nature of Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in Iraq,” Mansoor said, noting that by then Iran had “outsourced the advisory effort to Hezbollah.” Mansoor said he had no knowledge of the operation that killed Mughniyah.
U.S. officials said Mughniyah played a pivotal role in linking Hezbollah to the Shiite militias that were working with Iran. It remains unclear if he ever entered Iraq. One former U.S. senior military official said there was information he traveled to Basra in southern Iraq in 2006, but it was not confirmed.
Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq when Mughniyah was killed, said: “All I can say is that as long as he drew breath, he was a threat, whether in Lebanon, Iraq or anywhere else. He was a very intelligent, dedicated, effective operator on the black side.”
Crocker said that he didn’t know anything about the operation to kill the Hezbollah operative and had doubts about Mughniyah traveling to Iraq. That said, he added: “When I heard about it, I was one damn happy man.”
Rescuers survey the damage sustained by the U.S. Marine barracks a day after a suicide truck bomb exploded at the site near the Beirut airport in October 1983. (Zouki/AP)
U.S. officials had explored ways to capture or kill Mughniyah for years. Those scenarios gained new urgency in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks when the Bush administration turned to the CIA and the U.S. military’s elite Joint Special Operations Command for stepped-up plans to stop major terrorist operatives — including those without ties to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 plot.
A former U.S. official described a secret meeting in Israel in 2002 involving senior JSOC officers and the chief of the Israeli military intelligence service. Amid a broader discussion of counterterrorism issues, the JSOC visitors raised the prospect of killing Mughniyah in such an offhanded fashion that their Israeli hosts were stunned.
“When we said we would be willing to explore opportunities to target him, they practically fell out of their chairs,” the former U.S. official said. The former official said that JSOC had not developed any specific plan but was exploring scenarios against potential terrorism targets and wanted to gauge Israel’s willingness to serve as an evacuation point for U.S. commando teams.
The former official said that the JSOC approach envisioned a commando-style raid with U.S. Special Operations teams directly involved, not the sort of cloak-and-dagger operation that occurred years later.
“It never went anywhere,” said the former official, who was unaware of the CIA-Israeli operation to kill Mughniyah.
Still, the 2002 encounter suggests that Mughniyah continued to be a focus for U.S. counterterrorism officials even after their overwhelming attention had shifted to al-Qaeda.
“We never took our eye off Hezbollah, but our plate was full with al-Qaeda,” said Bernazzani, who retired from the FBI in 2008 and said he had no knowledge of the operation to kill Mughniyah.
It is not clear when the CIA first realized Mughniyah was living in Damascus, but his whereabouts were known for at least a year before he was killed. One of the former U.S. intelligence officials said that the Israelis were first to approach the CIA about a joint operation to kill him in Damascus.
The agency had a well-established clandestine infrastructure in Damascus that the Israelis could utilize.
Officials said the Israelis wanted to pull the trigger as payback. “It was revenge,” another former official said. The Americans didn’t care as long as Mughniyah was dead, the official said, and there was little fear of blowback because Hezbollah would most probably blame the Israelis.
Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli military intelligence until 2010, said Mughniyah was positioned right under the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah.
“He was the commander and chief of all military and terror operations,” Yadlin said, who declined to discuss Mughniyah’s demise. “He was the agent of the Iranians.”
The operation to target Mughniyah came at a time when the CIA and Mossad were working closely to thwart the nuclear ambitions of Syria and Iran. The CIA had helped the Mossad verify that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor, leading to an Israeli airstrike on the facility in 2007. Israel and the United States were actively trying to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.
Once Mughniyah was located in Damascus, the intelligence agencies began building a “pattern of life” profile, looking at his routine for vulnerabilities.
Mossad officials suggested occasional walks in the evening — when Mughniyah was unescorted — presented an opportunity. CIA officers with extensive undercover experience secured a safe house in a building near his apartment.
Planning for the operation was exhaustive. An Israeli proposal to place a bomb in the saddlebags of a bicycle or motorcycle was rejected because of concerns that the explosive charge might not project outward properly. The bomb had to be repeatedly tested and reconfigured to minimize the blast area. The location where Mughniyah was killed was close to a girls’ school.
One official said the bomb was tested many times at Harvey Point, a facility in North Carolina where the CIA would later construct a replica of Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Officials eventually concluded they had a bomb that could be used with no risk of others being killed or injured.
Mughniyah wasn’t alone in his confidence to operate freely in Damascus. During the operation, the CIA and Mossad had a chance to kill Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, as he and Mughniyah walked together. Soleimani was an archenemy of Israel and had also orchestrated the training of Shiite militias in Iraq.
“At one point, the two men were standing there, same place, same street. All they had to do was push the button,” said one former official.
But the operatives didn’t have the legal authority to kill Soleimani, the officials said. There had been no presidential finding to do so.
When the bomb used to target Mughniyah was detonated, officials estimated the “kill zone” extended approximately 20 feet. The bomb was “very shaped and very charged,” an intelligence official recalled.
There was no collateral damage. “None. Not any,” the official said.
Facial recognition technology, another former official said, was used to confirm Mughniyah’s identity after he walked out of a restaurant in his neighborhood and moments before the bomb was detonated.
After the attack, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah blamed Israel for the killing and swore revenge: “Zionists, if you want an open war, let it be an open war anywhere.”
In fact, the damage to Hezbollah may have been compounded by the fact that the man charged with exacting revenge on Israel was a suspected Israeli asset. He was recently reported to be on trial in a Hezbollah court in Lebanon, but the group’s leader has downplayed the spy’s importance.
In a statement in 2008 after Mughniyah’s death, the office of then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office said: “Israel rejects the attempt by terror groups to attribute to it any involvement in this incident. We have nothing further to add.”
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at the time: “The world is a better place without this man in it. He was a coldblooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost.”
Inside the intelligence community, a former official recalled, “It wasn’t jubilation.”
“We did what we had to,” the official said, “and let’s move on.”
William Booth in Jerusalem and Greg Miller, Karen DeYoung, Anne Gearan and Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.
Israel Drops Cancer-inducing Bombs on Gazans
A Norwegian doctor working in Gaza has strongly criticized Israel for using cancer-inducing bombs against Palestinian civilians.
According to Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency, Dr. Erik Fosse recently stated to Press TV that the majority of patients hospitalized in Gaza are civilians injured in attacks on their homes, and that about 30% of these victims are children.
Dense Inert Metal Explosive, known as DIME, is an explosive device developed to minimize damage to things that are incidental to the intended target, known as “collateral damage“.
The bombs reportedly effect a relatively small but rather significantly damaging blast radius, and are believed by medical experts to have severe biological effects on those hit with the bomb’s micro-shrapnel.
DIME munitions were developed by the US Air Force, in 2006, and have since been tested repeatedly on the people of Gaza, who, according to the Electronic Intifada, have long served as involuntary lab rats for Israel’s weapons industry.
DIME bombs contain tungsten, a cancer-causing metal which helps to produce blasts which slice through flesh and bone, often completely destroying the lower limbs of people within the blast radius.
See related link: Israel DIME Weapon effect on Gaza-Article and Gallery
(Warning — graphic images.)
The doctor also says that some Palestinians in the besieged enclave have been wounded by a new type of weapon which even doctors with previous experience in war zones do not recognize.
Israel has used banned weapons in the past, including depleted-uranium and white phosphorus, which is nearly impossible to extinguish and leaves its victim hideously burned and scarred, should he or she even survive such an attack.
The ground assault continues in Gaza, today, with nearly 300 reported deaths and over 2,000 wounded in Gaza, to include elderly, disabled and children not even a year old — all victims of targets which include mostly civilian homes,hospitals and municipal facilities.
Related:Doctors Evacuate Patients After Israel Bombs Hospital
Chemotherapy: No longer toxic?
The End of Toxic Chemo and Radiation
Chemotherapy and radiation, as presently practiced, attacks both cancer cells and healthy cells, which is why chemotherapy and radiation are terrible to endure.
The essence of chemotherapy is to use chemicals strong enough to kill cancer cells. This is a good idea as long as the chemo agents do not harm the host, meaning they do not harm us. That is not the case!
Biochemists discovered a long time ago that cancer cells grow at a much faster rate than regular cells, so if a chemical can be injected that only kills fast-growing cells (cytotoxic), cancer cells and tumors will be killed.
The problem is that cancer cells are not the only fast growing cells in the body. When there is cellular rejuvenation occurring, it will get hit with chemo including hair, mouth, digestive tract, and our all-important white blood cells. Like radiation therapy, the loss of white blood cells is the part of chemo that doctors are most concerned about when administering it.
The immune system is toasted, yet this is considered acceptable collateral damage. For this oncologists put themselves in an extraordinarily weak position that history will not remember them fondly for.
Oncologists have it wrong in their choice of rays for radiation therapy and chemicals chosen for chemotherapy. They chose the heavy killing nuclear type of radiation that causes cancer as opposed to the intense life-generating kind of radiation (near and far infrared and Bioresonance frequencies) that offers healing.
Their choice of chemicals that destroy life and health instead of those that bring immune strength and healing will brand the present generations of oncologists in a way that they will not enjoy.
The Biomat, which I love to use, increases the generation of heat shock proteins. Pharmaceutical companies are trying to increase with nasty vaccines!
Basic medical science agrees on the value of heat shock proteins. The interplay between the immune system and cancer, and specifically, the role of heat shock proteins in viral infections and tumorogenesis has been studied proving the case for the use of infrared in the treatment of cancer.
How we generate them can be either safe or dangerous, depending on which types of treatments and doctors one follows. Why did they not choose medicinals and the type of radiation that targets the enemy cancer cells while leaving our healthy cells alone?
Why not since it is very possible to strengthen the immune system with the right natural chemo and radiation if one chooses the right medicinals and the right kind of radiation? 
In my new book Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy, I introduce oxygen itself as the ultimate chemotherapy. Pharmaceutical scientists would not ever have thought of this freebie though it does cost money to concentrate it to the levels necessary to annihilate cancer cells.
With oxygen, doctors can blast cancer cells to smithereens and patients can do it in the comfort of their own homes. There are plenty of substances like cannabinoids and selenium that scientists have studied which shrink tumors reducing a person’s chances of dying from cancer.
These nutritional medicines are not toxic like the mustard gas derived chemotherapy, which still sets the standard for barbarism in the field of oncology.
The medicines in my Natural Allopathic Protocol present a more intelligent form of chemotherapy and radiation. The protocol surrounds and flanks oxygen delivered (made safe with CO2 medicine) at concentrations 5 times higher than a hyperbaric chamber.
You will be reading a lot about oxygen in the next two weeks as I finish the new book. This oxygen will roll over the bodies of cancer cells like an army of panzer divisions loaded with Tiger tanks. The throw weight of the Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy system is enormous.
Oxygen supplied in large quantities for short duration is completely safe because more than enough carbon dioxide is created in the process when the patient exercises for the 15-minutes a day, which is the time necessary to do Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy each day. Life is very sweet indeed, when we get enough oxygen.
In the book I introduce a new way of injecting massive amounts of oxygen into the cells, which will profoundly affect them. In fifteen minutes, one can blow the cells doors down, allowing them to detoxify as they gulp down high levels of oxygen. I have discovered a technique that offers much higher therapeutic results than these expensive, inconvenient hyperbaric chambers and can be done in your bedroom.
A person needs an oxygen concentrator, exercise bicycle or rebounder and a new mask kit with a reservoir that stores up enough O2, before you even begin to use it, to supply the correct amount of oxygen needed for one fifteen minute session. It offers a trip to cellular heaven. This therapy is like putting out a candle flame with your fingers.
In the first 15 minute session (or let’s say first four sessions) the inflammation in the capillaries will begin to be snubbed out and their toxins will be cleared. Oxygen will rush into the cells bringing the energy and the physiological processes necessary to heal. Oxygen is all around us but hardly anyone gets enough.
It is a paradox that few understand. But it is the reason that sodium bicarbonate is such a wonderful medicine. It gives one instant access to more oxygen because the bicarbonates/CO2 dilate the blood vessels ensuring more blood and oxygen get delivered. (Tomorrow I will publish ‘Carpet Bombing Cancer with Invincible Oxygen’, which is a chapter of the book.)
Chemotherapy: High Rate of Failure 
It is well known that chemotherapy drugs have a high rate of failure. This was brought out a long time ago in the January 10, 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, where it was noted that 20 years of clinical trials using chemotherapy on advanced lung cancer have yielded survival improvement of only 2 months.
This editorial pointed out that while new chemotherapy regimens appear to be improving survival, when these same regimens are tested on a wider range of cancer patients, the results have been disappointing.
In other words, oncologists at a single institution may obtain a 40% to 50% response rate in a tightly controlled study, but when these same chemotherapy drugs are administered in the real world setting, response rates decline to only 17% to 27%. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy as they are practiced now are highly toxic treatments aimed at killing cancer cells.
The problem is these therapies create cancer stem cells and that means instead of treating cancer they are causing cancer. Fox News and many others have published the news about the undesirable effect of helping to create cancer stem cells—cells that researchers say are particularly adept at generating new tumors and are especially resistant to treatment.
The medical media is saying that this might help explain why late-stage cancers are often resistant to both radiation therapy and chemotherapy. We know that cancer stem cells give rise to new tumors.
These stem cells are ultimately responsible for the recurrence of cancer or the dangerous spreading of it throughout the body. Scientists also have found that cancer stem cells are more likely than other cancer cells to survive chemotherapies and radiation therapies, probably because their “stemness” allows them to self-replenish by repairing their damaged DNA and removing toxins.
“Radiotherapy has been a standard treatment for cancer for so long, so we were quite surprised that it could induce stemness,” said study researcher Dr. Chiang Li of Harvard Medical School in Boston.
An amazing statement considering these doctors have all along been playing around with super-toxic chemotherapy poisons and radioactive death-inducing rays—and now they are surprised that this is the mechanism of death?
The New York Times writes, “When it comes to taming tumors, the strategy has always been fairly straightforward. Remove the offending and abnormal growth by any means, in the most effective way possible. And the standard treatments used today reflect this single-minded approach — surgery physically cuts out malignant lesions, chemotherapy agents dissolve them from within, and radiation seeks and destroys abnormally dividing cells.”
You Don’t Want Brutal Treatments That Don’t Work The New York Times believes that, “these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumor.” The entire field of oncology is vulnerable to attack not only because of the brutality of its treatments but also because new and better options are coming to the surface.
The main point, besides the cruel wrongness of present approaches, is that mainstream approaches to cancer DO NOT WORK FOR LATE STAGE CANCER.
Dr. Ulrich Abel, who poured over thousands of cancer studies, published a shocking report in 1990 stating that chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers; that 80% of chemotherapy administered was worthless. Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician.
In the 80s, he contacted over 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. Dr. Abel’s report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990) described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked.
Everyone knows someone who has died of cancer, chemotherapy and radiation but oncologists like to hide the fact that patients die from the chemo and radiation before they would die from the cancer. Abel’s research led him to a sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature where he concluded that treatments for advanced epithelial cancer rarely were successful.
By “epithelial” Dr. Abel is talking about the most common forms of adenocarcinoma – lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. These account for at least 80% of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.
“This is an astounding charge coming from a member of the cancer establishment. In Germany they earned Abel a big, largely favorable, article in Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time.
Here, the powerful chemotherapy establishment has maintained discreet silence. More and more, toxic chemotherapy is being used against advanced cases of such diseases.
More than a million people die worldwide of these forms of cancer every year and the majority of them now “receive some form of systemic cytotoxic therapy before death,” wrote Dr. Ralph Moss who continued on to say: “The personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public.
Indeed, studies cited by Abel have shown that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.” Dr. Abel stated, “there is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease.
The almost dogmatic belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy is usually based on false conclusions from inappropriate data.” Small-cell lung cancer “is the only carcinoma for which good direct evidence of a survival improvement by chemotherapy exists,” wrote Dr. Abel but this improvement amounted to a matter of only three months!
The Judge, the Righteous, the Honorable… And what this has to do with using chemical weapons?
Posted on: October 11, 2013
The Judges, the Righteous, and the Honorable
Cedric Choukeir, regional director of the World Youth Alliance in the Middle East, posted this Oct.5, 2013:
Lately, I find myself repeatedly wondering whether our ability to choose is a gift at the heart of human freedom or a curse that keeps my mind preoccupied as it is now in choosing the words of this blog post.
Charles Malik defines humans as struggling and caring beings, struggling because they constantly have to make irreversible choices, while caring for the impact of these choices on themselves and on others.
How do we make our choices today, at a personal and global level, in a world of continuous injustice?
So the question is narrowed down to a simple “how can we know what the right choice is… if there ever was one…”
Let me clarify that this is not a simple mathematical calculation of choosing the option that provides me with the highest return. I would probably define that as the “the best choice that benefits only me on the short term”.
This version of the best choice is not always the right choice. The best choice for me might not be the best choice for you and so we enter into an internal debate of placing ourselves somewhere between two extremes; one of selfishness and another of sacrifice.
What follows is my modest contribution in my quest in search of the right rather than the best.
I would like to think that acting upon our decisions usually involves three parties, the subject, the object, and the collateral damage or collateral benefits. The choices I make can affect me, the person I am directing my choices at, and people who are not directly involved in my decision.
Every day, we are faced with situations of conflict with other people caused by contradictory interests, beliefs, practices, or simply bad communication skills. Let’s face it, in almost every situation of conflict, both parties involved think they are right.
By thinking that I am right, I feel that an injustice has been done to me and therefore I make my decisions in order to “restore that justice”.
For example, my boss scolds me in front of other employees for not being professional. I feel a certain injustice when I see my boss being unprofessional himself and doing what I myself was being scolded for (Disclaimer: I am not hinting to the lack of professionalism of WYA’s president… my boss).
I get the a feeling that I need to restore justice or else I will lose part of what my Arab brothers would call “dignity”, when in fact it is just pride.
In fact, I think the loss of pride leads to more humility, which might not be such a bad thing after all, but that is a separate topic for another post. So restoring justice always caries its price. In this case, I might lose my job, a promotion, or simply the good favor of my boss.
So I need to make a choice, do I fight to restore my pride or do I suck it up and become a boot-licker?
I personally would chose the second option and substitute the term of “sucking it up” with “making the smart choice”. I am willing to sacrifice my pride as it is born of my ego, which needs to be kept in check.
However, honor is a different matter. It is built on right decisions aimed at doing good, (I am not referring to the hereditary family honor of the European dark ages and modern Arab societies).
To complicate things further, let me consider the situation where I feel an obligation to restore justice to those who do not have the ability to do it themselves.
Let me take the example regarding the likely use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad regime. President Obama felt the need to restore justice by punishing Bashar through a military strike.
The truth is that a military strike might have restored the heavenly sense of the word justice, but it would have led to the death of the same civilians whose justice Obama vowed to uphold. The strike would have had a short term and long term collateral damage on the Syrian population sitting idly between the two men.
The short term damage refers to the civilian causalities caused by western military interventions that media likes to ignore (such as the 125,000 dead civilians between 2003 and 2013 caused by the war on Iraq).
The long term damage refers to clearing the ground for Al Qaeda linked Jihadists to strengthen their grip on Syria. Luckily, Obama decided to suck it up and make the smart decision.
Restoring justice puts the person in the seat of the judge, a position for someone who supposedly knows what is right or wrong. In making that judgment, remember not to step on others’ toes as you pass your judgment and do not ignore the collateral damage you may cause.
The right choice is not about your personal pride or the pride of the person you are judging, it is about doing what is best for the other negatively affected people. Making the right choice requires a bit of humility, and in that humility you are able to find yourself and achieve a true sense of honor.
U.S. Blurs Fact With Fiction Stories In Yemen
The US is heavily involved militarily in Yemen, particularly in south Yemen on the basis that al Qaeda is making serious inroad in that impoverished region. Drone attacks are daily occurrences, and civilians are dying like flies as “collateral damage“.
James Gundun posted on April 2 (with slight editing):
Instead of holding Ali Abdullah Saleh (deposed Yemeni President) internationally accountable as the strongman openly defies the UN/GCC-led “transition” process, the Obama administration has organized another information campaign to muffle Saleh’s commotion and defend U.S. policy in Yemen.
The latest strike was just transmitted through The Los Angeles Times, but it seems to have missed its mark again. The report’s misleading main body ends with a refutation of U.S. counter-terrorism and illustrates how far the administration is willing to exaggerate in order to conceal a foreign policy meltdown. CENTCOM’s new chief, General James Mattis, told Congress that the virtual standstill of operations in Yemen is a lull… What is Washington’s Definition of “Lull”?
Plutonium depleted bombs effects? Ask the Iraqis, Palestinians, and Afghanistanis
Posted on: March 16, 2012
Last week a US “rogue soldier” massacred in Afghanistan 16 civilian victims, nine of whom were children. This soldier is to face trial and defense minsiter Paneta think that the soldier will ultimately be sent to death row.
Ross Caputi wondered in March 13: “Why aren’t Westerners equally outraged when drone attacks kill entire families?”
Drone attacks that kill civilians usually fall into our category of “collateral damage”, because the dead civilians weren’t specifically targeted, and we treat this category as an unfortunate consequence of war, not murder.
Afghans see little difference : their loved ones are dead because of the conscious actions of NATO forces. Is the distinction between collateral damage and murder come down to the question of intent?
Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to hone in on this distinction with his doctrine of double effect, which is still used today to justify collateral damage. It is believed in the west that some innocent death is excusable in war, as long as the deaths are not intended, and even if those deaths are foreseeable.
But if civilian deaths are foreseeable in a course of action, and we take that action anyway, did we not intend them? (They were surely intended to die!) I doubt Afghans would feel much consolation knowing that their family members were not directly targeted, an unfortunate side-effect of war?
Yet, western audiences feel reassured knowing that most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan were not intended; and they only become outraged when marines and soldiers clearly target civilians and kill women and children, urinate on their bodies, and plunder their body parts as trophies.
From Abu Ghraib, to Fallujah, to Haditha, and now to Panjwai, US forces have committed massacres against civilians. These incidents stand out in the western mind, but to Afghans and Iraqis, they are no different from the daily slaughter of civilians by drones, air strikes, depleted uranium and stray bullets.
Tell a mother from Fallujah whose children have been horribly deformed by uranium weapons that her childrens’ suffering was unintended, even though the health effects of uranium-based weapons are well-known. (Are you aware of the effects of phosphorous bomb? Kids re-igniting after fire is supposedly put down?)
Tell the survivors of drone attacks that their dead family members were not targeted, and that their deaths were an unfortunate consequence of war. Is their pain any different from the father whose entire family was murdered in this most recent atrocity?
If collateral damage is foreseeable, if it is really a fact of war (do you believe it?), is it not a crime to engage in war when it will inevitably kill innocents?
Is there really a morally significant difference between murder and collateral damage?
The “consequentialist” will argue that the good results outweigh the bad, that democracy, freedom and the liberation of Afghan women will improve the lives of Afghans so much that the deaths of a few are justified.
This is an easy judgment for westerners to make from the comforts of their own homes; but it stinks of the same patriarchy and arrogance of the white man’s burden that justified colonialism for so many years.
Has anyone consulted Afghans and asked them if they think the good that the west has promised will come of this occupation is worth the lives of their family members?
The occupation of Afghanistan is an “atrocity-producing situation”, as was the occupation of Iraq, and we have signed Afghans and Iraqis up for this against their will.
The nature of these occupations fosters atrocity. The invented enemy, the lack of a battlefield void of civilians, the supposed moral superiority of the occupiers, the obscure goals of the mission, the methods of training that prepare soldiers for occupation, and the methods of warfare all make the murder of civilians unavoidable.
In modern warfare, 90% of the casualties are civilian, but this is a reality that the West civilization likes to ignore.
(Drone attacks reminds me of the saying of an officers: “Kill them all. God will knows who was the innocent…”)
Revisiting hilarious “acts of violence” in history: Divide all “facts” by a hundred
Posted on: March 9, 2012
Revisiting hilarious “acts of violence” in history: Divide all “facts” by a hundred
You read “facts” in history books about armies, one million strong, facing in battlefields. You read of warlords massacring 100,000 civilian inhabitants in cities. You read all kinds of fictitious “facts” that makes you feel disgusted of mankind specie…
You would rather watch armies of ants, each carrying a twig in his powerful mandible, and hitting another ant silly until death…
Fact One: In the middle of 1800, mankind was less than one billion. If you factor out China and India, maybe mankind was less than 300 million, barely surviving, committing genocides in colonies and at home, chopping hands in the Congo, about 5 million hands, for failing to produce the requisite quota of rubber, or harvesting thousands in India to “set examples”, or displacing entire race of “Red Indians” thousand of miles away to “settlements” so that the land can be developed…
How come thousand of years ago, any empire, however vast it was, however the power was absolute, could any empire regiment one million soldiers? It is not possible.
Fact Two: No battlefield could hold one million warriors. It is not a matter of logistics for feeding these hordes. It is not lack of enough parcels to sleep upon. It is how all that crowd find enough spots to shit! It is not feasible. Period.
It is recounted that the Arabic General Tarek bin Ziad burned all the ships after landing his troops in Spain and said: “Ahead of you is the enemy. Behind you is the vast sea. You deal with these facts…” There are not many imaginative army generals.
If I were a general, I would space-out my army half a yard away, order the soldiers to dig a small hole and pond their shit in. I would then harangue them: “Ahead of you is the enemy. Behind you is a mined-shit field. You deal with these facts, if you care to retreat…”
Fact Three: Why you see in movies Greek and Roman soldiers wearing skirts? It is not that they had no concept of pants or underwear. How can any dignified warrior engage in war, feeling less than half a man, having “dirtied” his pants before the battle even started? The soldier in skirts, legs and buttocks heavily ventilated from below, would simple spread their legs and do the little or the big ones where he stood.
It stand to reason that a couple thousand Greek or Roman soldiers would easily defeat a million-strong army of Parthians or Persians wearing pants, however loose the pants are. Ancient empires exaggerated their feats, and the sane person should divide by a hundred any number offered as “facts”
Fact Four: How long do you think any healthy and experienced soldier, fighting with swords, daggers, or something of somewhat sharp implement, body to body, at very close range, can hold his ground before taking a resting break from the “fight”?
These kind of close range fights with short hand weapons didn’t permit any experienced soldier to neutralize more than four enemies in an hour…Suppose the battle lasted 8 long hours with frequent breaks, before sundown…
I bet you most of the dead soldiers on the battlefield were slit while stooping, catching their breath, or sprawled, faking death…
I bet you most casualties slipt on their shit or the adversary shit, and the enemy also slipt and his weapon happened to be extended forward, or inward and committed suicide accidentally, collateral damage kinds…
I bet you most victims died of asphyxia, stampede style, one slipping and toppling on the other…This is not war. This is soccer game event. This is not even mass gladiators show-off ceremonies: The fighters were not that fit. Most soldiers lacked one sandal, the other sandal was lost, stuck somewhere, irremediably unretrievable…The remaing sandal was just glued, under a heap of something…
I bet you the smart General kept a sizeable reserve of soldiers to engage during “break time”…to slice the rotten, fallen tomatoes…
I bet there were countless gentleman agreement among the warriors. For example: “Hey man, I feel like going. How about you?” “Fine with me. The pressure is killing me. Let’s fake the fight. Our congested and red faces would suggest that we are archenemies…”
Fact Five: There is this story of warlord Tamelan butchering 60,000 men in the Iranian city of Isfahan. That was in 1400. How could any city at the time hold more than 100,000 men, women, and kids? Every soldier was assigned a quota to slaughter Asfahani men, every day, for an entire month… I have questions:
First: When a soldier sliced a victim and the blood drenched his military tunic…would he wipe his slippery hands on the ground and rub his sword with dirt, before moving to the next waiting victim?
Second: Did Tamerlane issued red butcher overhaul to his quota-engaged soldiers so that they save time on washing and shining their military outfit? Did they wear boots? That would be a much time-consuming endeavor to keep shining…
Three: Did the soldier have breakfast before or after the first round of slaughterhood? In any case, most breakfasts were vomited. What a waste.
It pains me to watch action movies of ancient wars, exhibiting tall, vigorous, ferocious warriors. Fact is, people were short, skinny, malnourished humanoids…They barely lived to be 30 of age. I am not talking of rotten death and eating on gums and suffering from hemorrhoids…
Those who survived the infantile phase, had already taken a severe beating before the age of twenty: They barely lived through small pox, malaria, dysentery, yellow fever…Wretched fighting wretched.
The noblemen warriors mounted horses, decked in metal outfits, holding a sword too heavy to manipulate, peacocks leading wretched men for the show in the killing fields…
Most dead were the result of infections from rusty and dented weapons: Dying the slow and painful death, abandoned on the field, devoured by vultures and wild dogs…Humanoids fighting humanoids.
This illusionist of modern man wants to invent glorious ancestors.
Who is the more violent? The archaic warrior or the modern soldier, sitting tight, thousand of miles away from the battle field, bored, playing with his balls, pressing a stupid button, launching a missile, from a drone?
Those were the good old times…
Adonis Diaries 