Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments

For more about Jewish and Israeli censorship, see here, here and here. Just for the record, I had my first account closed by Facebook. About three months later I opened another account but it only lasted a few weeks. CLOSED DOWN. AGAIN. What they hate the most is when you join local community groups and post articles about Zionism, classified technology, intelligence methods or techniques. What intelligence agencies do is smear you in the community. This is a part of their program. They do not want you posting blog posts or articles into community watch groups. 

================================================================================

December 30 2017, 6:15 a.m.

IN SEPTEMBER OF last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”

What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.

In the weeks following those Facebook-Israel meetings, reported The Independent, “the activist collective Palestinian Information Center reported that at least 10 of their administrators’ accounts for their Arabic and English Facebook pages — followed by more than 2 million people — have been suspended, seven of them permanently, which they say is a result of new measures put in place in the wake of Facebook’s meeting with Israel.” Last March, Facebook briefly shut down the Facebook page of the political party, Fatah, followed by millions, “because of an old photo posted of former leader Yasser Arafat holding a rifle.”

A 2016 report from the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms detailed how extensive the Facebook censorship was:

Pages and personal accounts that were filtered and blocked: Palestinian Dialogue Network (PALDF.net) Gaza now, Jerusalem News Network, Shihab agency, Radio Bethlehem 2000, Orient Radio Network, page Mesh Heck, Ramallah news, journalist Huzaifa Jamous from Abu Dis, activist Qassam Bedier, activist Mohammed Ghannam, journalist Kamel Jbeil, administrative accounts for Al Quds Page, administrative accounts Shihab agency, activist Abdel-Qader al-Titi, youth activist Hussein Shajaeih, Ramah Mubarak (account is activated), Ahmed Abdel Aal (account is activated), Mohammad Za’anin (still deleted), Amer Abu Arafa (still deleted), Abdulrahman al-Kahlout (still deleted).

Needless to say, Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook, and largely remain undisturbed.

As Al Jazeera reported last year, “Inflammatory speech posted in the Hebrew language … has attracted much less attention from the Israeli authorities and Facebook.” One study found that “122,000 users directly called for violence with words like ‘murder,’ ‘kill,’ or ‘burn.’ Arabs were the No. 1 recipients of hateful comments.” Yet there appears to be little effort by Facebook to censor any of that.

Though some of the most inflammatory and explicit calls for murder are sometimes removed, Facebook continues to allow the most extremist calls for incitement against Palestinians to flourish. Indeed, Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has often used social media to post what is clearly incitement to violence against Palestinians generally. In contrast to Facebook’s active suppression against Palestinians, the very idea that Facebook would ever use its censorship power against Netanyahu or other prominent Israelis calling for violence and inciting attacks is unthinkable. Indeed, as Al Jazeera concisely put it, “Facebook hasn’t met Palestinian leaders to discuss their concern.”

FACEBOOK NOW SEEMS to be explicitly admitting that it also intends to follow the censorship orders of the U.S. government. Earlier this week, the company deleted the Facebook and Instagram accounts of Ramzan Kadyrov, the repressive, brutal, and authoritarian leader of the Chechen Republic, who had a combined 4 million followers on those accounts. To put it mildly, Kadyrov — who is given free rein to rule the province in exchange for ultimate loyalty to Moscow — is the opposite of a sympathetic figure: He has been credibly accused of a wide range of horrific human rights violations, from the imprisonment and torture of LGBTs to the kidnapping and killing of dissidents.

But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook’s rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that “Mr. Kadyrov’s accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act.”

As the Times notes, this rationale appears dubious or at least inconsistently applied: Others who are on the same sanctions list, such as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, remain active on both Facebook and Instagram. But just consider the incredibly menacing implications of Facebook’s claims.

What this means is obvious: that the U.S. government — meaning, at the moment, the Trump administration — has the unilateral and unchecked power to force the removal of anyone it wants from Facebook and Instagram by simply including them on a sanctions list. Does anyone think this is a good outcome? Does anyone trust the Trump administration — or any other government — to compel social media platforms to delete and block anyone it wants to be silenced? As the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick told the Times:

It’s not a law that appears to be written or designed to deal with the special situations where it’s lawful or appropriate to repress speech. … This sanctions law is being used to suppress speech with little consideration of the free expression values and the special risks of blocking speech, as opposed to blocking commerce or funds as the sanctions was designed to do. That’s really problematic.

Does Facebook’s policy of blocking people from its platform who are sanctioned apply to all governments? Obviously not. It goes without saying that if, say, Iran decided to impose sanctions on Chuck Schumer for his support of Trump’s policy of recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, Facebook would never delete the accounts of the Democratic Party Senate minority leader — just as Facebook would never delete the accounts of Israeli officials who incite violence against Palestinians or who are sanctioned by Palestinian officials. Just last month, Russia announced retaliatory sanctions against various Canadian officials and executives, but needless to say, Facebook took no action to censor them or block their accounts.

Similarly, would Facebook ever dare censor American politicians or journalists who use social media to call for violence against America’s enemies? To ask the question is to answer it.

As is always true of censorship, there is one, and only one, principle driving all of this: power. Facebook will submit to and obey the censorship demands of governments and officials who actually wield power over it, while ignoring those who do not. That’s why declared enemies of the U.S. and Israeli governments are vulnerable to censorship measures by Facebook, whereas U.S and Israeli officials (and their most tyrannical and repressive allies) are not:

All of this illustrates that the same severe dangers from state censorship are raised at least as much by the pleas for Silicon Valley giants to more actively censor “bad speech.” Calls for state censorship may often be well-intentioned — a desire to protect marginalized groups from damaging “hate speech” — yet, predictably, they are far more often used against marginalized groups: to censor them rather than protect them. One need merely look at how hate speech laws are used in Europe, or on U.S. college campuses, to see that the censorship victims are often critics of European wars, or activists against Israeli occupation, or advocates for minority rights.

One can create a fantasy world in one’s head, if one wishes, in which Silicon Valley executives use their power to protect marginalized peoples around the world by censoring those who wish to harm them. But in the real world, that is nothing but a sad pipe dream. Just as governments will, these companies will use their censorship power to serve, not to undermine, the world’s most powerful factions.

Just as one might cheer the censorship of someone one dislikes without contemplating the long-term consequences of the principle being validated, one can cheer the disappearance from Facebook and Instagram of a Chechen monster. But Facebook is explicitly telling you that the reason for its actions is that it was obeying the decrees of the U.S. government about who must be shunned.

It’s hard to believe that anyone’s ideal view of the internet entails vesting power in the U.S. government, the Israeli government, and other world powers to decide who may be heard on it and who must be suppressed. But increasingly, in the name of pleading with internet companies to protect us, that’s exactly what is happening.

MIT's "Mind Reading" Wearable Let's You Silently Interact With All Your Devices

 Also, see this Guadian article on the same topic. For past posts about classified technology go here and here. Read the article below the two videos. 

WHY THIS MATTERS IN BRIEF

As computing becomes ubiquitous and embedded in the devices around us, we won’t always want to talk out loud to use them, that’s one of the many use cases for this technology.

MIT researchers have developed a new form of computer interface called AlterEgo that lets users silently converse with a computing device and that can transcribe words that the user verbalizes internally but doesn’t actually speak aloud.

The system consists of a wearable technology device and an associated computing system. Electrodes in the device pick up neuromuscular signals in the user's jaw and face that is triggered by internal verbalization, in other words in the same way you say words just “in your head,” but that is undetectable to the human eye. Those signals are then fed to a machine learning system that has been trained to correlate particular signals with particular words which then lets the user “silently” converse and interact with, for example, Google as the clip below shows.

The device is thus part of a complete “silent computing system” that lets the user undetectably pose and receive answers to difficult computational problems. In one of the researchers’ experiments, for instance, subjects used the system to silently report opponents’ moves in a chess game and just as silently receive computer recommended responses.

“The motivation for this was to build an IA device, an ‘Intelligence Augmentation’ device,” says Arnav Kapur, a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab, who led the development of the new system.

“Our idea was: Could we have a computing platform that’s more internal, that melds human and machine in some ways and that feels like an internal extension of our own cognition?”

“We basically can’t live without our cellphones, our digital devices,” says Pattie Maes, a professor of media arts and sciences and Kapur’s thesis advisor. “But at the moment, the use of those devices is very disruptive. If I want to look something up that’s relevant to a conversation I’m having, I have to find my phone and type in the passcode and open an app and type in some search keyword, and the whole thing requires that I completely shift attention from my environment and the people that I’m with to the phone itself. So, my students and I have for a very long time been experimenting with new form factors and new types of experience that enable people to still benefit from all the wonderful knowledge and services that these devices give us, but do it in a way that lets them remain in the present.”

The researchers described their device in a paper they presented at the Association for Computing Machinery’s ACM Intelligent User Interface conference. Kapur is first author on the paper, Maes is the senior author, and they’re joined by Shreyas Kapur, an undergraduate major in electrical engineering and computer science.

The idea that internal verbalizations have physical correlations has been around since the 19th century, and it was seriously investigated in the 1950s. One of the goals of the speed-reading movement of the 1960s was to eliminate internal verbalization, or “subvocalization,” as it’s known. But subvocalization as a computer interface is largely unexplored.

The researchers’ first step was to determine which locations on the face are the sources of the most reliable neuromuscular signals. So they conducted experiments in which the same subjects were asked to subvocalize the same series of words four times, with an array of 16 electrodes at different facial locations each time.

The researchers wrote code to analyze the resulting data and found that signals from seven particular electrode locations were consistently able to distinguish subvocalized words. In the conference paper, the researchers report a prototype of a wearable silent-speech interface, which wraps around the back of the neck like a telephone headset and has tentacle-like curved appendages that touch the face at seven locations on either side of the mouth and along the jaws. But in more recent experiments, the researchers are now getting comparable results using only four electrodes along one jaw, which should lead to a less obtrusive wearable device.

Once they had selected the electrode locations the researchers began collecting data on a few computational tasks with limited vocabularies which comprised of about 20 words each. One was arithmetic, in which the user would subvocalize large addition or multiplication problems; another was the chess application, in which the user would report moves using the standard chess numbering system.

Then, for each application, they used a neural network to find correlations between particular neuromuscular signals and particular words. Like most neural networks, the one the researchers used is arranged into layers of simple processing nodes, each of which is connected to several nodes in the layers above and below. Data are fed into the bottom layer, whose nodes process it and pass them to the next layer, whose nodes process it and pass them to the next layer, and so on. The output of the final layer yields is the result of some classification task.

The basic configuration of the researchers’ system includes a neural network trained to identify subvocalized words from neuromuscular signals, but it can be customized to a particular user through a process that retrains just the last two layers.

Using the prototype wearable interface, the researchers conducted a usability study in which 10 subjects spent about 15 minutes each customizing the arithmetic application to their own neurophysiology, then spent another 90 minutes using it to execute computations. In that study, the system had an average transcription accuracy of about 92 percent.

But, Kapur says, the system’s performance should improve with more training data, which could be collected during its ordinary use. Although he hasn’t crunched the numbers, he estimates that the better-trained system he uses for demonstrations has an accuracy rate higher than that reported in the usability study.

In ongoing work, the researchers are collecting a wealth of data on more elaborate conversations, in the hope of building applications with much more expansive vocabularies.

“We’re in the middle of collecting data, and the results look nice,” Kapur says. “I think we’ll achieve full conversation some day.”

“I think that they’re a little underselling what I think is a real potential for the work,” says Thad Starner, a professor in Georgia Tech’s College of Computing. “Like, say, controlling the airplanes on the tarmac at Hartsfield Airport here in Atlanta. You’ve got jet noise all around you, you’re wearing these big ear protection things — wouldn’t it be great to communicate with voice in an environment where you normally wouldn’t be able to? You can imagine all these situations where you have a high-noise environment, like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, or even places with a lot of machinery, like a power plant or a printing press. This is a system that would make sense, especially because oftentimes in these types of or situations people are already wearing protective gear. For instance, if you’re a fighter pilot, or if you’re a firefighter, you’re already wearing these masks.”

“The other thing where this is extremely useful is special ops,” Starner adds. “There’s a lot of places where it’s not a noisy environment but a silent environment. A lot of time, special-ops folks have hand gestures, but you can’t always see those. Wouldn’t it be great to have silent-speech for communication between these folks? The last one is people who have disabilities where they can’t vocalize normally. For example, Roger Ebert did not have the ability to speak anymore because lost his jaw to cancer. Could he do this sort of silent speech and then have a synthesizer that would speak the words?”

As ever the potential for the technology could be as interesting as it is huge.

Watch Video- Nanotubes Self Assemble

See here for more about the inevitability of Smart Dust. Here is a good introduction post about Smart Dust and here is the Wikipedia entry on it. See here for more about the worlds smallest robots, nanotechnology. See here for 'Nanotechnology and the Brain.' See here for the 'Smart Dust' section of my blog. (Be sure to scroll through all of the articles.) 

See here for more about "Extreme Genetic Engineering: an Introduction to Synthetic Biology." See here for a documentary called "Playing God." See here for more about creating the Borg; molecular biology and nanotechnology. 

See here for weaponizing nanotechnology- creating viruses and bacteria with RNA. Go here to see what the FBI is saying about the dangers of this technology. See here for more articles located under the "Bio-terrorism" category of my blog, (be sure to scroll down and go through all of the articles there.)  

See here for more about Electronic Warfare on Wikipedia. See here for more about NASA talking about using nanotechnology and microwaves as weapons. See here for more about the DARPA Control Grid. See here for more about the "Five-Eyes Intelligence" and Echelon. See here for more about classified Scalar Waves.

See this video with Jose Delgado controlling a bull with a brain-computer-interface in the 60's. See this video from CNN from the 80's about mind control.

These 6 corporations control 90% of the media outlets in America. The illusion of choice and objectivity

 

Click Here for Article

"Hanukkah": An Anti-Greek Blood Libel

 

Click Here to Read the Article 

Malcolm X - Are you Anti-Semitic?

Question Posed to Some Israelis: Do You Believe That Gentiles (Non-Jews) Will Be Slaves For The Jews?

For previous posts on this topic, see here, The reality is, this contempt for non-Jews comes right out of the Talmud. See here for more articles about the Talmud, be sure to scroll through them all. Also, be sure to watch this short excellent video from an honest Israeli talking about Judaism. Jews are also the largest group involved with Transhumanism, (see here and here for more about this.) This is interesting to consider once you know Judaism's history with slavery and usury. This being so, that doesn't mean that all Jews have crazy beliefs like this. But, this mentality is the driving force behind militant Zionism and Homeland Security. For one example of this, see here for the former head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Chabad Lubavitch = Crazy Beliefs. Donald Trump's son in law Jared Kushner is a part of Chabad. 

More People Who Like To Gang Up On Truth-Tellers

Must-See Pictures Below, Remember 
These People. They Are Traitors To Canada! They Are Evil Organized Stalking Psychopaths, They All Know This Is Happening To Me

The scumbags below are all working with psychos like this, this, this, and this. They are working with community watch and the RCMP. See here and here for RCMP censorship, see here, here, here, here, here, and here for more about targeting political dissidents. See here for more about the Anti-Defamation League that works with the RCMP, (be sure to scroll down and go through all of the articles.)

See here for a neighborhood watch Stasi book. See here for slavery by satellite and here for satellite and microwave torture with Dr. John Hall. See here for a Canadian intelligence agency "recruiting" video featuring stalking and surveillance. 

This stalking, surveillance, and torture comes down from intelligence agencies in the United States and Canada. See here and here for the connections between Zionism and Homeland Security, see here for a lecture from a former employee from Homeland Security talking about some of the tactics used by the Stasi, See here for vigilante justice "Zionist" style.

See here for more about classified technology, see here for a list of links about microwave weapons, learn more about intelligence tactics here, see here for discrediting people with hi-technology.

All of the people below live in Mission, British Columbia. They are all stupid enough to be involved in organized stalking and to have Facebook accounts.

1. Henry Tusi - here is his LinkedIn page. (The coward took down his Facebook account and his picture on LinkedIn, I will contact people at your school scumbag.) This piece of crap is at York University so look for him there. He should be kicked out of University. Hey Henry, you like science so much, tell us the truth, you lying psychopath. You like stalking and torturing people, don't you? You don't like people who tell the truth?  

2. Cameron Snow - lives in Mission, B.C. 

3. Cole Matt - lives in Mission B.C. 

4.  Colby Noa- Address- #20- 32705 Fraser Crescent, Mission B.C.  

5. Liam Noa and here- Address- #20- 32705 Fraser Crescent, Mission B.C.  

  

 Excerpt from Management of Savagery by Max Blumenthal

Israel’s ISIS Connection

While Washington’s Gulf-funded think tank experts spun out public relations for the allies of Al Qaeda, ISIS found defenders in Israel. At the Likud Party-linked Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, its director Efraim Inbar promoted the Islamic State in Syria as a boon to Israel’s strategic deterrence. In an op-ed entitled “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,” Inbar argued, “The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction.”

Instead, he insisted, it should exploit ISIS as a “useful tool” in the fight against Israel’s true enemy, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, which operates on Israeli frontiers from southern Lebanon. “A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS,” Inbar concluded. Inbar went on to argue for prolonging the conflict in Syria for as long as possible on the grounds that extended sectarian bloodshed would produce “positive change.”

As bracing as it might have been, Inbar’s argument provided a perfect distillation of the Israeli government’s position on the Syrian civil war. “In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State,” Israel’s former defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, bluntly stated in 2016. Eager to see an Iranian ally weakened from within and without, the Israeli army occasionally bombed in support of the rebels operating around the southern city of Quneitra and attacked Damascus several times.

The end goal of the Israelis was to establish a buffer zone between itself and Hezbollah, with Sunni Islamists, including Al Qaeda affiliates, acting as its proxies. A rebel commander revealed to the US news outlet Al-Monitor, “The battle to capture Quneitra on Sept. 27 [2014] was preceded by coordination and communications between Abu Dardaa, a leader of Jabhat al-Nusra [Al Qaeda], and the Israeli army to pave the way for the attack.”

Benjamin Netanyahu greeting injured Rebel Fighter

The Israeli military-intelligence apparatus even funded its own unit of the Free Syrian Army, the Golan Knights. “Israel stood by our side in a heroic way,” Moatasem al-Golani, a spokesman for the Golan Knights, told the Wall Street Journal,“We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s assistance.”

In 2016, Israel established a liaison unit to support the efforts of the rebels in southern Syria, according to journalist Nour Samaha, “facilitating cross-border travel for residents into Israel, regular deliveries of food, clothing, construction equipment and educational materials, airstrikes on pro-government positions and the establishment of an Israeli-backed opposition faction in rebel-held southern Syria.”

When journalist Bryan Bender visited top Israeli military officials in the occupied Golan Heights, he heard unapologetic arguments for supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government, Iran and Hezbollah. “If I can be frank, the radical axis headed by Iran is more risky than the global jihad one,” said Army Brigadier General Ram Yavne, the head of the IDF’s Strategic Division. “It is much more knowledgeable, stronger, with a bigger arsenal.” When Bender asked another Israeli official if the United States should allow ISIS to maintain its caliphate in eastern Syria, he replied, “Why not?”

While Israeli military honchos took satisfaction from the bloodshed of Syria’s civil war, ISIS commanders tiptoed around the Israeli military. During a public forum in Israel, the ever-candid former minister of defense, Ya’alon, revealed that an ISIS cell operating alongside the rebels in southern Syria had accidentally launched a mortar into Israeli-controlled territory. “On most occasions, firing comes from regions under the control of the regime,” Ya’alon commented. “But once the firing came from ISIS positions—and it immediately apologized.”

Pushed by Israeli media to clarify his statement about ISIS formally apologizing to Israel—an open admission of an Israeli backchannel to the jihadists—Ya’alon refused further comment.

In Washington, meanwhile, top officials in the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, kept their complaints about the channels of state support to ISIS and other jihadist rebel factions confined to private discussions. There was a lot to lose in venting their frustrations in public, including the massive donations their own political operations received from the very same sources.

When Hillary Clinton left the State Department in late 2013, she immediately joined the board of the Clinton Foundation. The New York-based nonprofit touted its charitable good works around the world, from making AIDS medication more affordable to “working toward a world where more girls and women can achieve full participation in all aspects of life.” At the same time, the Clinton Foundation raked in between $10 and $25 million from the government of Saudi Arabia, and as much as $5 million from a front group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia.” Tens of millions more flowed into the Clinton foundation coffers from Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

All along, Clinton knew that the major donors to her family’s vehicle for charity and influence peddling—a key platform for her forthcoming presidential campaign—were propping up ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria. In a 2014 email to her longtime political confidant John Podesta, Clinton singled out Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the principal benefactors of the Islamic State. “While this military/para-military operation is moving forward,” she wrote, citing Western and US intelligence sources, “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Vice President Joseph Biden was even more explicit. Discussing the challenges facing America in Syria, he stated, “Our biggest problem is our allies.” Singling out Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Biden complained at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in October 2014, “They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni–Shia war; what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

Biden’s candid comments were immediately labeled as a “gaffe” by the Washington Post’s Adam Taylor, who grumbled about the “worrying habit of lumping al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front in with Islamic State.” For daring to give credence to what was already widely known, Biden was forced to embark on the equivalent of an international apology tour the same month, issuing “a formal clarification” to Turkey’s Erdoğan and thanking Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister for his country’s supposed cooperation in the fight against ISIS. After Biden’s pathetic retreat, scarcely anyone in Washington, whether in government, the world of think tank experts, or in the press corps, dared to openly confront America’s core Middle Eastern allies for their backing of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Besides Saudi Arabia and Qatar, there was ample evidence that Turkey was taking a lead role in fueling Islamist militancy in Syria’s north. A leaked 2015 report from the Turkish Gendarmerie General Command found that lorries filled with heavy weapons had been sent by the Turkish intelligence services to resupply al-Nusra. “The trucks were carrying weapons and supplies to the al-Qaeda terror organization,” the report read. The government of Turkish president Erdoğan promptly banned all media coverage of the scandal and placed the soldiers who carried out the searches on trial for espionage.

A twenty-nine-year-old Lebanese American named Serena Shim had been reporting on these developments on the Turkish border for Press TV, the Iranian government’s English language channel. She was among the first correspondents to cover the transfer of arms from the Incirlik US air base in Turkey to insurgents in Syria. Her sister, Fatmeh, told local media in her hometown of Detroit, Michigan, that Shim “caught [Turkish intelligence] bringing ISIS high-ranked members into Syria from Turkey into camps, which are supposed to be Syrian refugee camps.” Shim began to fear for her life, complaining that Turkish intelligence considered her a spy. “I’m hoping that nothing is going to happen, that it’s going to blow over,” she told Press TV, the Iranian network, on October 18.

Turkey-backed FSA capture the city of Afrin in Syria.

One day later, Shim died in a car accident. The story of her death was buried, with no acknowledgement from Reporters Without Borders or the Committee to Protect Journalists. American media scarcely covered it at all. Press TV said the car that she died in and its driver had disappeared. Her family never accepted the official version of events and has pressed in vain for an investigation….

Learn More About the Talmud

For past videos on this topic, see here. (Be sure to scroll down and go through all of the videos and articles when you click through on that link.) For past books from Michael Hoffman on the topic of Judaism, see here. For a past article from him about the Talmud, see here. For a past video from him where he challenges a Rabbi to a debate about the Talmud, see here. Want to learn more about the Talmud? Go here. For more information from Minister Farrakhan regarding the Jewish slave trade, see here, here and here.

PUSH TO BAN ANTI-ZIONISM WORLDWIDE!!!