(heute)
Am Sonnabend erschien auf dem Portal »Indymedia« schließlich ein weiterer Text, in dem sich Unbekannte mit – offenbar nur der Polizei bekannten – Details zum ersten Brandanschlag 2011 auf eine Kabelbrücke am Ostkreuz als »Vulkangruppe – Das Grollen des Eyajfjallajökull« bezeichnen. Im Text werden vier seit dem 7. Januar erschienene »Vulkangruppen«-Texte als Fakes bezeichnet,
(April 23, 2014)
Modern political policing began in Britain in the 1880s, with the establishment of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch, the cocoon from which sprung the undercover policing operations decades later. The Branch originally aimed to combat Irish Fenians — armed fighters seeking independence from Britain — but soon expanded to keep tabs on foreign anarchists, suffragettes, and anticolonial Indians.
At the end of the 1800s, an undercover Branch officer infiltrated the Legitimation League — which campaigned to de-stigmatize bastard children — and orchestrated the League’s collapse. This operation set the tone for what was to come: intense, deeply personal infiltration of any political group that challenged the status quo.
(…)
From British Fascisti to the English Defence League, the UK’s security services have routinely refused to consider far-right groups subversive. Indeed, there is evidence, both here, in Europe, and across the Atlantic, of longstanding collaboration between elements of the security services and the far right.
Als total dubios empfinde ich die (angebliche) Täterschaft einer sich „links“ nennenden Terror-Gruppe. Dazu kommt die Übernahme dieser fragwürdigen Charakterisierung des Terrors gegen Bürger als „links“ durch Medien und Politik. Der total abzulehnende Anschlag gegen tausende einfache Bürger kann selbst nach den massiven Umdeutungen des Wortsinns von „Links“ und „Rechts“ in den letzten Jahren in keiner Weise als „Links“ bezeichnet werden. Dieses Urteil trifft auch auf vorherige, angeblich durch die dubiose „Vulkan Gruppe“ verübte Anschläge zu. Mehr zur Rechts-Links-Verwirrung findet sich hier oder hier oder hier oder hier oder hier.
Wer Handlungen wie den Strom-Terror dennoch als „Links“ qualifiziert (wie die Gruppe selber oder viele Journalisten und Politiker), der führt die Bürger in die Irre und möchte den Ruf tatsächlich linker Inhalte (etwa das Streiten für soziale Gerechtigkeit) schwer beschädigen.
“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Mr. Miller told Jake Tapper, the CNN host, after being asked repeatedly whether he would rule out using military force.
The remarks were part of a vocal push by Mr. Miller, long a powerful behind-the-scenes player in Trump administration policy, to justify American imperialism and a vision for a new world order in which the United States could freely overthrow national governments and take foreign territory and resources so long as it was in the national interest.
Vieira said that „the map posted by President Milei needs an urgent update“ and presented data favorable to Brazil without directly mentioning Argentina. The minister highlighted that under President Lula, the country „is modernizing and addressing its social problems,“ has a „growing economy, the lowest unemployment levels, international reserves of US$ 360 billion,“ and has exited the Hunger Map.
Vieira also noted that Brazil has had a „stable currency for 30 years“ and does not owe „a single cent to the IMF,“ while a government source pointed to Argentina’s financial difficulties.
In 2024, Milei’s first year in office, poverty in Argentina surged to 52.9%, later falling to 31.6% in the first half of the year—still higher than Brazil’s 23.1%. The IMF extended a US$ 20 billion loan to the country.
The last speech of prime minister and minister of defense Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by right-wing Israeli radical on November 4th 1995 in Tel Aviv.
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
(12. September 2014)
Bereits vor Jahrzehnten entwickelte das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika den Plan ein eigenes ziviles Passagierflugzeug in der Luft gegen eine unbemannte „Drone“ auszutauschen, um diese dann selbst zur Explosion zu bringen und einen Abschuss vorzutäuschen. Ebenso wurde der Plan einer „Terrorkampagne“ in der eigenen Hauptstadt Washington, sowie die Versenkung eines US-Kriegsschiffes autorisiert. Ziel war es, diese Vorfälle einer feindlichen Macht zu unterstellen, vor der Weltöffentlichkeit das Opfer zu spielen und nachfolgend eine Invasion starten zu können.
Jahr der Entwicklung des Plans: 1962. Zielobjekt: Kuba.
So, I was dragged out of the boat by my collar and chucked on the floor, cut my knee open. And the first thing I saw as we were dragged out, or I was dragged out, was 300 people kneeling with their hands behind their backs, facing straight down at the concrete, outside of the Port of Ashdod. They were forced to stay there, in some cases, for six hours. I was forced to stay there for about two-and-a-half hours on my knees with my hands behind my back, before I was processed in the Ashdod center and sent to the prison in the Negev Desert, which we can get onto the conditions of in a moment.
At that point, Ben-Gvir, Itamar Ben-Gvir, was brought out so that he could parade in front of us. And I think the assumption — and I want to emphasize this — I think the assumption was that we would be cowed, that we would be fearful, that we would stay quiet. And actually, that’s not what happened. And what happened sets the tone for what then carried on in the prison, which is that everybody, as soon as we saw Ben-Gvir, 300 people on their knees — in fear, no doubt — started shouting, “Free Palestine! Free Palestine!” calling him a génocidaire and a baby killer and so on. And he was really shocked. You could see that Ben-Gvir was stunned by that. His people, the police, they were all stunned by it. They expected us to be cowed, and we weren’t.
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
(graphic)
Upon MK Odeh’s arrival, dozens of rioters attacked his car and shouted racist slogans such as “Death to Arabs.” When MK Odeh spoke at the protest, he was attacked again, together with the other demonstrators, as various objects were thrown at them. Following his speech, MK Odeh managed to reach his car, while rioters armed with stones and sticks tried to attack him. At one point, the rioters hurled a large stone that shattered the vehicle’s rear windshield. After these events, the police arrested only three people: one of whom was a demonstrator who had been attacked by the rioters; he was released shortly thereafter at the police station. The court later released the two other individuals who were arrested and detained.
Following these events, right-wing activists uploaded dozens of posts and videos on social media platforms praising, sympathizing and encouraging these assaults; some even explicitly called for repeating such acts in the future.
(June 20, 2025)
Polling shows Americans are ready to support independent populists running on economic platforms. But what they don’t want is anything associated with the Democratic Party’s brand.
(4 hours ago)
Commenting on the ceasefire proposal agreed to by Hamas, the former Egyptian Assistant Foreign Minister Hussein Haridy said Israel may not back a deal – even though the current proposal agreed to by the Palestinian group is “almost identical” to one Israel agreed to a few weeks ago.
Far-right Israeli ministers have called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ignore a proposal for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza accepted by Hamas on Monday.
Palestinian officials have condemned far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s taunting visit to the jail cell of long-imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti. Footage of the visit shared on social media on Thursday showed the minister making threatening remarks to the 66-year-old. France24 Noga Tarnopolsky reports the latest.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has been filmed visiting Marwan Barghouti, the most prominent Palestinian prisoner, and threatening him that Israel will „obliterate“ anyone who opposes it.
It is the first time that Barghouti has been seen publicly in years. Aged and gaunt, wearing a white undershirt, he is almost unrecognisable.
In the video, which circulated on social media on Thursday night, Ben Gvir is seen telling Barghouti: „Whoever messes with the people of Israel, whoever murders our children, whoever murders our women, we will obliterate them. You will not defeat us.“
Barghouti has been in prison since 2004. A senior figure in Fatah, the party that dominates the Palestinian Authority (PA), he was targeted by Israel due to his leading role in the 2000-2005 Second Intifada and popularity among the public.
Qassem Barghouti, Marwan‘s son, told Middle East Eye that his family feels a grave threat to his father‘s life, particularly after this latest footage.
On Wednesday‘s „Carl Higbie FRONTLINE,“ Carl interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu and talked in-depth about the Israel-Hamas war.
(today)
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel can bomb Gaza like the Allies bombed Dresden during World War II.
His remarks were made during an interview with right-wing US network Newsmax on Wednesday.
When asked why the Israeli military does not “wipe Hamas and the Gaza Strip” off the map, he replied, “We can bomb them like the Allies [in World War II] bombed Dresden, we could starve them if we followed the vilifications, these false lies that are delivered against Israel, and nobody would be alive already.
(January 18, 2025)
Biden said that Netanyahu responded to his concerns by saying “You killed thousands of innocent civilians because you had to in order to win the war.”
This was not the first time the massacres against civilians in the Second World War were used to justify Israeli atrocities in Palestine.
Back in December 2023, pro-Israel American Senator Lindsey Graham also responded to criticisms of Israel‘s killing of Palestinian civilians by saying “Did the American people worry about how many people were dying to destroy Tokyo or Berlin?”
The League considered these statements to be a violation of the sovereignty of Arab states and an attempt to undermine security and stability in the region.
In a statement released Tuesday, the League said these remarks represent a serious threat to collective Arab national security and a flagrant challenge to international law and the principles of international legitimacy. The statements also reflect expansionist and aggressive intentions that cannot be accepted or tolerated, and they reveal an extremist mindset steeped in colonial delusions.
The remarks come just two days after Luxon’s government announced it was considering formally recognizing the State of Palestine by September.
“Netanyahu has gone way too far. I think he’s lost his mind,” Luxon said, describing the situation in the Palestinian territories as “appalling.” He added that the Israeli prime minister “does not listen to the international community,” calling this stance “unacceptable.”
Similar views have been echoed by ministers within Netanyahu‘s government.
Last year, in a documentary, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was filmed advocating for the expansion of Israeli borders to include Damascus.
He suggested that Israel would gradually grow to encompass not only all Palestinian territories but also parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
(August 12, 2025)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells i24 he feels he is on a “historic and spiritual mission,” and that he is “very” attached to the vision of a Greater Israel, which includes areas slated for a future Palestinian state and possibly also areas that are part of present-day Jordan and Egypt.
The interviewer Sharon Gal, who was briefly a right-wing member of Knesset, gifts to Netanyahu what he says is an amulet of “a map of the Promised Land.”