• Anti-Muslim propaganda, even in multicultural London, by Muddassar Ahmed #st

    Recently, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron rightly characterised Donald Trump’s comments about Muslims as “divisive, unhelpful and wrong.” However, his current defence minister, Michael Fallon, accused London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan of “sharing platforms with extremists”.

    After the US Super Tuesday results, which make Trump the de facto Republican nominee, more and more Europeans will be convinced of Islamophobia as a viable campaign strategy. After all, other political parties such as France’s National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, have similarly gained from it. Why wouldn’t more people try it? via Le Monde diplomatique

  • 2014-04-25

    I was reading an article by Lorrie Cranor on the MIT technology Review on how it’s difficult even for her to protect her privacy online.

    I appreciate Lorrie Cranor’s work on privacy at Carnegie Mellon University. I have extensively cited her study of the length of privacy policies when I introduced ToS;DR.

    However in this article, I was disappointed to see Ghostery mentioned. Ghostery is an browser extension supposed to help users against tracking and surveillance on the web. The main problem is that Ghostery is not released as Free Software1

    Earlier on Twitter I quickly posted my frustration about this. People who promote web privacy should stop promoting Ghostery, as it’s proprietary. What’s their business model exactly?

    In my earlier tweet I wrongly stated that the source code was not (...)

  • Le Hamas, toujours admirable dans son sens des priorités : Welcome to Hamas’ Gaza : No Jobs for Mosque Outliers

    However, the director of the Center for Democracy and Workers’ Rights in Gaza, Nidal Ghubn, confirmed that the center has received many complaints about the employment policy of the Gaza government and Hamas-affiliated associations.

    Ghubn pointed out that Palestinian society in Gaza is “diverse because we are Muslim by nature, but there are a lot of people who refuse to pray at mosques due to the rampant political and partisan polarization.”

    Ghubn argued that the politicization of employment in Gaza is the highest form of corruption. He wondered how it is that mosque imams are allowed to exercise this level of control over people’s livelihoods.

  • As`ad AbuKhalil publie sur son blog (#Angry_Arab) la traduction en anglais de l’article qu’il a récemment écrit pour Al Akhbar au sujet de la minisérie “#Carlos”:
    Carlos the Movie: the Palestinian Cause through Zionist Eyes

    En voici quelques extraits, mais il faut lire l’article complet: il contient notamment de nombreux détails sur des erreurs factuelles et des analyses biaisées du mouvement palestinien.

    “However, the director’s intent was clear: to harm not only #Wadie_Haddad but the Palestinian struggle overall even when it didn’t involve ’foreign operations.’”

    “The best proof of the movie’s Zionism is the complete absence of #Israel from the plot. Israel is completely absent from criminal and terrorist operations in Europe although Israel had started terrorism in Europe by sending explosives to embassies in the forties (the otherwise serious Economist magazine erred in a recent article as it failed to mention Israel’s pioneering role in sending letter bombs). The movie showed no concern for victims among the Palestinian people and other Arab civilians in Europe or thousands of victims in the Arab world. But it wanted to emphasize for the viewer foreign victims of Arab violence (such as the scene of shooting a pregnant French woman in Beirut. One doesn’t know if this actually occurred or if it was one of the many lies the movie fabricated). During a seventies’ recording of Bassam Abu Sharif explaining the attack on the Zionist Marks and Spencer’s owner in London, the director should have informed the viewer, at least cursorily, that the reason behind burns and wounds on Abu Sharif’s face was the Zionist letter bomb from Israel, which is dear to Assayas and his crew. Haddad targeted the owner of Marks and Spencer for funding ’Herut’ party and Zionist causes.”

    “The movie wanted to depict the Arab revolutionary as hostile to Jews as Jews (only one German objected to hostility to Jews while in reality the matter was debated among the ranks of the leadership and membership, but the director deliberately mis-portrayed Palestinian organizations and characterized them as fascist and dictatorial. Not all leaders of Palestinian groups were like Yasir Arafat, and even he was questioned by his cohorts especially in the early years).”

    “However, there is another instance of racism in the movie: the Latin American revolutionaries appeared driven by political principles. The same was true for German elements (which the movie exaggerated perhaps due to German funding). But Arab revolutionaries were hooligans and cared only for money and executing Arab intelligence’s orders.”

    “Next is the question of assessing “Carlos’” work. No doubt, the revolution attracted meddlers, adventurers, criminals, opportunists and daredevils, as it also attracted true revolutionaries. “Carlos” last activity was a statement in which he saluted Bin Ladin and described him as a revolutionary. Who says that “Carlos” gets to decide the Arab revolution’s issues? We have no obligation to support those who support our causes when in fact they harm them.”

    #Palestine #Israël #Anis_Naqqash