Hezbollah said on Friday that there is no truth to reports it assured Russia there would be no military response to the alleged Israeli strikes on its forces in Syria on Wednesday, according to a Hezbollah statement read out on its Al-Manar TV station.
The terror organization said the reports were an "invention."
The terror organization said the reports were an "invention."
Despite the strong denials, Hezbollah did not explicitly promise an attack, leaving doubt as to whether one will be forthcoming.
The Syrian regime accused Israel of firing surface-to-surface missiles targeting the Mezzeh Air Base near Damascus on Wednesday, causing damage but no casualties.
Hezbollah’s Al-Maydeen television channel said the group “was almost certain” that the Israel Air Force carried out the strikes from Lebanese airspace.
If Hezbollah does strike at Israel, it would not be for the first time since the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
The Syrian regime accused Israel of firing surface-to-surface missiles targeting the Mezzeh Air Base near Damascus on Wednesday, causing damage but no casualties.
Hezbollah’s Al-Maydeen television channel said the group “was almost certain” that the Israel Air Force carried out the strikes from Lebanese airspace.
If Hezbollah does strike at Israel, it would not be for the first time since the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
In January 2015, following a reported Israeli air strike on a convoy of Hezbollah and Iranian operatives who were constructing a terrorist base in the Syrian Golan, Hezbollah retaliated, firing a volley of Kornet guided missiles an IDF convoy, killing a soldier and commander in their D-Max vehicle. The attack was launched from five kilometers away on the Lebanese side of the border with Israel.
A memorandum by United States President Barack Obama to lift restrictions related to providing military assistance to foreign forces in Syria is de facto aimed at supporting terrorists in the war-ravaged country and other regions, said Alexander Perendzhiev, a political and military analyst and lecturer at the Plekhanov Russia University of Economics.
On Thursday, Obama lifted formal restrictions on arms supplies to US allies in the fight against terrorism in Syria, considered by Washington as one of the state-sponsors of terrorism.
The president waived prohibitions outlined in the US Arms Export Control Act, which forbids providing defense-related supplies or services to countries that are not cooperating fully with US anti-terrorism efforts.
"The situation is that the Syrian Army will receive none of those weapons. The fact that at the end of his term Obama made such a move shows that the war on terrorism is a disguise for arming terrorists. I think the decision aims at fighting the Syrian government," Perendzhiev told RIA Novosti.
In turn, the Kremlin expressed concerns that US-supplied MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists in Syria.
"We'll need to pay close attention and understand the main goal, the intentions and the details of this decision. Without doubt, the worst outcome of such decision would be if different weapons, including MANPADS, would fall into terrorists' hands, which, of course, goes against international conventions on this issue and poses a great danger not only to the region, but also to all countries," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday.
The Investigatory Powers Bill forces internet providers to keep a full record of every site visited by each of its customers for over a year. Of course, government accounts are exempt from this Orwellian law.
This bill is not simply about notifying the government if a specific site has been visited, it is about listing every single site that has been visited by each citizen and when. This information will be made available to a very large range of government bodies. Of course, there’s the police, the military and the secret service but also others entities such as the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Here’s a full list of the agencies allowed to search the browsing history of UK citizens.
- Metropolitan Police Service
- City of London Police
- Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
- Police Service of Scotland
- Police Service of Northern Ireland
- British Transport Police
- Ministry of Defence Police
- Royal Navy Police
- Royal Military Police
- Royal Air Force Police
- Security Service
- Secret Intelligence Service
- GCHQ
- Ministry of Defence
- Department of Health
- Home Office
- Ministry of Justice
- National Crime Agency
- HM Revenue & Customs
- Department for Transport
- Department for Work and Pensions
- NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
- Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
- Competition and Markets Authority
- Criminal Cases Review Commission
- Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
- Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
- Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
- Financial Conduct Authority
- Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
- Food Standards Agency
- Food Standards Scotland
- Gambling Commission
- Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
- Health and Safety Executive
- Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
- Information Commissioner
- NHS Business Services Authority
- Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
- Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
- Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
- Office of Communications
- Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
- Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
- Scottish Ambulance Service Board
- Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
- Serious Fraud Office
- Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
Let’s face it, this law is custom made to create a climate of fear and paranoia in the UK. Studies have shown that government surveillance stops people from sharing controversial opinions online as it has a ‘chilling effect on democratic discourse’. Also, since people sometimes visit explicit websites and tend to google their most personal issues, they could easily be subjected to blackmail or other nefarious actions.
Will government officials be subjected to the same transparency? Nope. In fact, the only amendment politicians have submitted to the controversial bill is to stop MPs from being spied on.
Dutch anti-EU politician Geert Wilders has been convicted by a Dutch court on Friday (9 December) for insulting a group and inciting discrimination, for remarks he made about Moroccans in 2014.
The court said it was “legally and convincingly proven” that Wilders had insulted Moroccans as a group when he rhetorically asked a crowd if there should be “fewer Moroccans” in the country.
However, the court did not impose a fine or jail sentence.
Wilders was acquitted from the charge of inciting to hatred.
“This is not a political trial,” the judge said, adding that the personal opinions of the members of the court played no role in the verdict.
He noted that a democratic society should have room for remarks that “shock”, but that freedom of speech is not unlimited.
Mere minutes after the verdict was announced, Wilders' defence lawyer announced he would appeal.
Wilders was not present during the ruling. In a tweet, Wilders called the verdict "completely crazy", said the judges "hated" his political party and that "half the Netherlands" had been convicted with him.
The judge also said statements Wilders made via his Twitter account, denouncing the court as biased, were “unworthy of an elected politician”.
Several political analysts had pointed out, ahead of Friday's ruling, that both outcomes would be a political win for Wilders.
Having lost the case, he can now play the role of the victim who is being silenced by the establishment. Wilders, throughout the case had dubbed it a “political trial” and said the judges were biased against him.
Had he won the case, he would be able to prove he was right all along.
In any case, Wilders is expected to do well in the upcoming national elections in the Netherlands, on 15 March 2017.
Having disappeared from the public scene for almost a month (with the occasional backwood spotting thrown in for dramatic effect), today Hillary Clinton reemerged from a self-imposed social quarantine, and in a exquisitely choreographed Podesta special, addressed the nation from Capitol Hill. What was first and foremost on the mind of person who the "impartial" media declared had a 90% chance of being America's next president: was it some intense introspection; perhaps it was some idea of how to reform and fix the imploding Democratic party; or maybe it was her finally accepting responsibility for her actions and her loss?
None of the above.
"This is not about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities," Clinton said. "It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
Confirming what the next step in Washington's crack down against the First Amendment and Free Speech will be, Clinton backed the previously noted "bipartisan legislation" that seeks to give Congress more power to respond to "foreign propaganda" coming from Russia.
"It is imperative that leaders in both the private and pubic sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives," Clinton said.
And just like that, we know that according to Hillary Clinton, the biggest threat to "American democracy and innocent lives" are a few websites that refuse to be PR tools for whatever the establishment at any given moment is.One can almost see why Hillary is not a fan of the "fake news.
0 comments:
Post a Comment