Friday, July 30, 2010
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist is the forthcoming documentary by The Corbett Report. It interrogates the theory that Al Qaeda is a centrally-operated terrorist organization run by Osama Bin Laden that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. The documentary looks at Al Qaeda's roots, its ties to western intelligence agencies and the fictions that have been created to enhance its myth in the corporate-controlled media.
Who Owns you? The Rothschild philosophy
By Jack Blood
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, TOP GLOBALISTS, HEADS OF NEW WORLD ORDER.
In order of importance:
Rothschild family
Warburg family
Schiff family
Oppenheimer family
Royal Family of England
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family
Rockefellar family
Morgan family
Harriman family
Carnegie family
Rothschild is by far the most influential, holding approximately half of all the worlds wealth. That family is directly responsible for founding most of the other families or helping them get up off their feet.
The Rothschild philosophy:
1) Law is force in disguise. Right lies in force (“Might makes Right”) The right to rule lies in force.
2) Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. In order to usurp political power, all that is necessary is to preach ‘liberalism,’ and the electorates will give up more and more power to the conspirators.
3) Money is all powerful. Governments are insignificant compared to money. Since governments control the money, that control must be removed from governments, and put in the hands of the conspirators.
4) Any and all means to achieve the goal of world domination by the conspirators is justified.
5) The size, scope, and power of the conspirators’ resources must remain hidden.
6) Alcohol, drugs, and moral corruption shall be used to weaken the will of the people.
7) Wars should be instigated and orchestrated so that both sides would be in their debt (in other words, the conspirators would gain profit and power, no matter who “won” the wars!).
8 Propaganda and control of information should be used to influence opinion.
9) Pre-planned and artificially manipulated financial panics and depression should be used to tame the people, and weaken governments, so as to ultimately form a one-world government, with the conspirators as the rulers.
The “Rothschild Formula” for NWO as Edward Griffin, author of Creature From Jekyll Island, puts it:
1) War is the ultimate discipline to any government. Survival from war becomes primary – everything else is secondary.
2) All that is necessary to insure government indebtedness (to the international banking conspiracy) is war – or the threat of war.
3) To create such a situation, it is necessary to pit two countries (or segments of one country) of equal force against one another – or to create them (the two opposing countries or segments of one country) if they do not already exist. (“Pit one side against the other, and finance both sides – so that the bankers win, no matter which side actually “wins.”).
4) The ultimate obstacle to this formula is a country that is not willing to finance war through debt. When this occurs, it becomes necessary to encourage internal political conflict and/or infiltrate the government.
5) No one nation can be permitted to gain military dominance, because this would lead to a lack of conflict for power, and may lead to peace!
Owners of the Federal Reserve:
1) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
2) Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
3) Israel Moses Sieff Bank of Italy
4) Warburg Batiks of Hamburg and Amsterdam
5) Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
6) Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
7) Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (controlled by the Rockefellers)
8 Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
Deadline LIVE
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, TOP GLOBALISTS, HEADS OF NEW WORLD ORDER.
In order of importance:
Rothschild family
Warburg family
Schiff family
Oppenheimer family
Royal Family of England
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family
Rockefellar family
Morgan family
Harriman family
Carnegie family
Rothschild is by far the most influential, holding approximately half of all the worlds wealth. That family is directly responsible for founding most of the other families or helping them get up off their feet.
The Rothschild philosophy:
1) Law is force in disguise. Right lies in force (“Might makes Right”) The right to rule lies in force.
2) Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. In order to usurp political power, all that is necessary is to preach ‘liberalism,’ and the electorates will give up more and more power to the conspirators.
3) Money is all powerful. Governments are insignificant compared to money. Since governments control the money, that control must be removed from governments, and put in the hands of the conspirators.
4) Any and all means to achieve the goal of world domination by the conspirators is justified.
5) The size, scope, and power of the conspirators’ resources must remain hidden.
6) Alcohol, drugs, and moral corruption shall be used to weaken the will of the people.
7) Wars should be instigated and orchestrated so that both sides would be in their debt (in other words, the conspirators would gain profit and power, no matter who “won” the wars!).
8 Propaganda and control of information should be used to influence opinion.
9) Pre-planned and artificially manipulated financial panics and depression should be used to tame the people, and weaken governments, so as to ultimately form a one-world government, with the conspirators as the rulers.
The “Rothschild Formula” for NWO as Edward Griffin, author of Creature From Jekyll Island, puts it:
1) War is the ultimate discipline to any government. Survival from war becomes primary – everything else is secondary.
2) All that is necessary to insure government indebtedness (to the international banking conspiracy) is war – or the threat of war.
3) To create such a situation, it is necessary to pit two countries (or segments of one country) of equal force against one another – or to create them (the two opposing countries or segments of one country) if they do not already exist. (“Pit one side against the other, and finance both sides – so that the bankers win, no matter which side actually “wins.”).
4) The ultimate obstacle to this formula is a country that is not willing to finance war through debt. When this occurs, it becomes necessary to encourage internal political conflict and/or infiltrate the government.
5) No one nation can be permitted to gain military dominance, because this would lead to a lack of conflict for power, and may lead to peace!
Owners of the Federal Reserve:
1) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
2) Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
3) Israel Moses Sieff Bank of Italy
4) Warburg Batiks of Hamburg and Amsterdam
5) Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
6) Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
7) Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (controlled by the Rockefellers)
8 Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
Deadline LIVE
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Prison Planet Forum Requires No Facts
Well, I thought I would venture into the well known Prison Planet forums this evening once I saw a poster saying Alex Jones' Y2K broadcast was a "War of the Worlds" type broadcast and of course, that Jones meant none of it. Here's the thread.
Now, it would seem asking for any kind of verification on this type of claim is not allowed on Alex Jones' Prison Planet forum. Nor would their slanderous claims of Bill Cooper being a drunk which can be found in the same thread. I advise everyone to hurry and click the link to thread as things over there seem to have a way of making their way down the memory hole so Jones&Co. can say it never happened. It's not like these so called truthseekers have not done this numerous times before. When is enough going to be enough?
This is the problem we face in the truth movement today. We are not allowed to question anything even on so called "truth" forums. We are not allowed to question Jones. We are not allowed to question the Hollowcost.. The list of things we are allowed to question in this movement grow shorter by the day without some sort of "label" being applied to you. Is this the reason this movement was started? For the free thinking to be shunned and "banned" from certain places? Or was it started to give us freedom and throw off the shackles of tyranny? This movement is becoming exactly what we are fighting. Wake up or you will be the sheep led to the slaughter by the Judas goat.
God Bless,
Deceived
Now, it would seem asking for any kind of verification on this type of claim is not allowed on Alex Jones' Prison Planet forum. Nor would their slanderous claims of Bill Cooper being a drunk which can be found in the same thread. I advise everyone to hurry and click the link to thread as things over there seem to have a way of making their way down the memory hole so Jones&Co. can say it never happened. It's not like these so called truthseekers have not done this numerous times before. When is enough going to be enough?
This is the problem we face in the truth movement today. We are not allowed to question anything even on so called "truth" forums. We are not allowed to question Jones. We are not allowed to question the Hollowcost.. The list of things we are allowed to question in this movement grow shorter by the day without some sort of "label" being applied to you. Is this the reason this movement was started? For the free thinking to be shunned and "banned" from certain places? Or was it started to give us freedom and throw off the shackles of tyranny? This movement is becoming exactly what we are fighting. Wake up or you will be the sheep led to the slaughter by the Judas goat.
God Bless,
Deceived
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.
In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?
Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:[3]
Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is "conspiracy" or "cover-up". Bob Graham doesn't hold back and mentions "withholding of (..) secrets", chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikileaks:[6]
[1] "9/11 tragedy pager intercepts" — http://911.wikileaks.org/
[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/
[4] We Are Change LA: "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[6] Wikileaks mission statement — http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About
[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497
[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4
Source
His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".
In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?
Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:[3]
Bob Graham: "I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn't something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:[4]
Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration."
Bob Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: "Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened."
Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"
Bob Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House."
Interviewer: "So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?"
Bob Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."
Bob Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as 'blunders', 'failures', 'mistakes' and 'cock ups'. This angle is not new, in fact, it's part of a long BBC tradition of 'limited hangouts'. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these 'blunders' and 'gaffes' were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey's remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.[5]
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"
Bob Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about"
Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is "conspiracy" or "cover-up". Bob Graham doesn't hold back and mentions "withholding of (..) secrets", chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikileaks:[6]
"WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."I bet whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds[7] and certainly Daniel Ellsberg[8], who is mentioned several times in the mission statement, approve. Surely, a 9/11 cover-up that "led to the heart of the administration" is worthy of Wikileaks' attention. Or is it?
[1] "9/11 tragedy pager intercepts" — http://911.wikileaks.org/
[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/
[4] We Are Change LA: "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[6] Wikileaks mission statement — http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About
[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497
[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4
Source
"False conspiracies such as 9/11??" You just lost a supporter my friend. Can you say controlled opposition?
DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Source
** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Source
Gaza Children Shelled With Flechette Bombs
“She came in through the front door and it wasn’t clear she was injured. Suddenly a lot of blood came from her nose and she vomited, all of the family saw this — her little brothers were very scared. She had just been playing in the front of the house.”
That is how Nihed al-Massry describes what happened to her daughter, nine-year-old Samah Eid al-Massry, after the Israeli army reportedly shelled and fired four bombs into and around a residential area in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza Strip, on 21 July. Samah is now being hospitalized in serious condition, suffering from extensive blood loss and very low haemoglobin. She was hit by shrapnel and flechettes from a nail bomb that landed 100 meters away, causing internal bleeding to the chest and severe head trauma. Nails are now embedded throughout her body.
Shells containing flechettes are illegal under international law if fired into densely-populated civilian areas. Three other children were wounded in the attack.
Two young men were killed; Muhammad al-Kafarneh, 23, suffered severe shrapnel injuries to the back and chest and Kasim al-Shinbary, 19, was wounded by nails embedded in his skull and shrapnel his back. It was unclear earlier whether they were resistance fighters or if they were civilians.
Haitham Thaer Qasem, a four-year-old boy and an only child, was asleep on a hospital bed, occasionally gasping for breath through the apparatus around his nose. He had suffered deep nasal trauma, and flechette darts from the bomb were still embedded in his tiny body, through his back, right elbow and right leg. He was 200 meters from the impact of the bomb.
Haitham’s mother was standing off to the side, quietly crying while one of his aunts at his bedside explained what happened.
“We had asked Haitham to get shopping for [his mother] from the market, then we heard the bombings and somebody came to our home and told our family that he was in the hospital and was injured in the bombing. We came quickly to the hospital.”
Meanwhile, Samah’s doctor explained that the girl’s blood loss was a major concern. Her injuries are exacerbated by the fact that she, like three of her brothers, already suffers from the blood condition thalassemia and the drug to treat the condition, Exjade, is scarce because of the Israeli blockade. She was clearly in pain and confused, trying to remove the nasal tubes. Her mother showed us the bandages on her chest.
Her doctor, Muhammad Abu Hassan, described her situation as “semi-critical.”
“She was in very bad condition when she arrived — it’s difficult for children and very traumatic to insert a chest tube for small children — very painful. Blood was mainly coming from the chest. We will have to perform surgery and we will further explore her abdominal pain,” he explained.
The al-Massry family has been affected by Israeli attacks before. Samah’s four-year-old brother Ryad was injured during Israel’s three weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip during winter 2008-09 when more than 400 Palestinian children were killed.
“Our house was hit during the war, a neighbor was killed inside and our son suffered severe head injuries. He wasn’t cared for and because of this his sight is now permanently damaged.”
As we left Samah, she had begun to cry, moaning in serious discomfort and confusion. There were two more injured children in the hospital from the attack, also from the al-Massry family in Beit Hanoun: Azzam Muhammad al-Massry, 11, who suffered a severely fractured left elbow and Ibrahim Wasseem al-Massry, 4, with light injuries to his abdomen.
The previous week in Gaza, Nema Abu Said, a 33-year-old mother of five, was killed by Israeli shelling as she went outside frantically looking for her youngest son after a previous round of shelling. Three more family members were injured by the flechette shells, many of the darts remaining permanently embedded in their bodies.
The above was written by Adie Mormech. Mormech is a human rights advocate based in the Gaza Strip who was previously abducted by the Israeli navy from the eighth Free Gaza Movement boat, the Spirit of Humanity. He volunteers with the International Solidarity Movement.
Source
That is how Nihed al-Massry describes what happened to her daughter, nine-year-old Samah Eid al-Massry, after the Israeli army reportedly shelled and fired four bombs into and around a residential area in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza Strip, on 21 July. Samah is now being hospitalized in serious condition, suffering from extensive blood loss and very low haemoglobin. She was hit by shrapnel and flechettes from a nail bomb that landed 100 meters away, causing internal bleeding to the chest and severe head trauma. Nails are now embedded throughout her body.
Shells containing flechettes are illegal under international law if fired into densely-populated civilian areas. Three other children were wounded in the attack.
Two young men were killed; Muhammad al-Kafarneh, 23, suffered severe shrapnel injuries to the back and chest and Kasim al-Shinbary, 19, was wounded by nails embedded in his skull and shrapnel his back. It was unclear earlier whether they were resistance fighters or if they were civilians.
Haitham Thaer Qasem, a four-year-old boy and an only child, was asleep on a hospital bed, occasionally gasping for breath through the apparatus around his nose. He had suffered deep nasal trauma, and flechette darts from the bomb were still embedded in his tiny body, through his back, right elbow and right leg. He was 200 meters from the impact of the bomb.
Haitham’s mother was standing off to the side, quietly crying while one of his aunts at his bedside explained what happened.
“We had asked Haitham to get shopping for [his mother] from the market, then we heard the bombings and somebody came to our home and told our family that he was in the hospital and was injured in the bombing. We came quickly to the hospital.”
Meanwhile, Samah’s doctor explained that the girl’s blood loss was a major concern. Her injuries are exacerbated by the fact that she, like three of her brothers, already suffers from the blood condition thalassemia and the drug to treat the condition, Exjade, is scarce because of the Israeli blockade. She was clearly in pain and confused, trying to remove the nasal tubes. Her mother showed us the bandages on her chest.
Her doctor, Muhammad Abu Hassan, described her situation as “semi-critical.”
“She was in very bad condition when she arrived — it’s difficult for children and very traumatic to insert a chest tube for small children — very painful. Blood was mainly coming from the chest. We will have to perform surgery and we will further explore her abdominal pain,” he explained.
The al-Massry family has been affected by Israeli attacks before. Samah’s four-year-old brother Ryad was injured during Israel’s three weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip during winter 2008-09 when more than 400 Palestinian children were killed.
“Our house was hit during the war, a neighbor was killed inside and our son suffered severe head injuries. He wasn’t cared for and because of this his sight is now permanently damaged.”
As we left Samah, she had begun to cry, moaning in serious discomfort and confusion. There were two more injured children in the hospital from the attack, also from the al-Massry family in Beit Hanoun: Azzam Muhammad al-Massry, 11, who suffered a severely fractured left elbow and Ibrahim Wasseem al-Massry, 4, with light injuries to his abdomen.
The previous week in Gaza, Nema Abu Said, a 33-year-old mother of five, was killed by Israeli shelling as she went outside frantically looking for her youngest son after a previous round of shelling. Three more family members were injured by the flechette shells, many of the darts remaining permanently embedded in their bodies.
The above was written by Adie Mormech. Mormech is a human rights advocate based in the Gaza Strip who was previously abducted by the Israeli navy from the eighth Free Gaza Movement boat, the Spirit of Humanity. He volunteers with the International Solidarity Movement.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)