Staged coverage in Syria?

Belhadj CNN media team skewing news from Syria

The same CNN team that staged the Tripoli hospital massacre and the Abu Salim prison break, hiding the al-Quaeda identity of the rebel commander they were interviewing, editing out the atrocities they were committing in front of the camera, and totally reversing the viewpoint of the explanation to these images from reality, that exact same team is now in Syria.

Hala Goran is seen instructing the rebel fighters how to present themselves to the world media as not being affiliated with al-Quaeda. Arwa Damon is seen in faked fire attacks, being presented as real war footage. A long discussion with the Syrian rebel leadership can be heard on youtube, explaining how to deceive the west.

And Abdul Hakim Belhadj shows up a week or two after Arwa.

What more is needed to understand that this whole scene is being faked. The atrocities are most likely being wedged against the Druze and Alawi  people, then shown as Assad atrocites. The "civilians" are 90% militia men...  - the Belhadj media team don't even bother to cover up the images, they just give a title and everybody bites.

But the question is: Why is the whole west, and even the Israeli media allowing this team of terrorists and killers to lead it by the nose?

CNN Coverage or cover up?

CNN war crimes cover-up in Libya?

Are we being shown cold blooded murder but told otherwise while watching it?

It seems that at least two of the CNN reporters, Dan Rivers, Alex Thompson and perhaps also Syrian-Turkish Arwa Damon may be in on a war crime cover up that they were witnessing and recording! 

It is obvious that they are trying to cover up who the rebels really are, by interviewing only people that look western - either with long hair, or having a shaved face, wearing T shirts and jeans, while all the fighters around them are with uniforms, and narrating the scenes blurring out what is really being said, using sleeveless woman reporters (obviously Muslims would not allow for that...), 

But you wouldn't expect them to cover up when they are watching cold blooded murder committed in front of their own eyes. You wouldn't expect them to show it to the viewers around the world, stopping short before the execution itself, and continuing with banal narrations, would you?

Or maybe there's something else? Perhaps, like in the Agatha Christie stories, they are trying to hint something to us, because they are in grave danger, and we just don't get it? Following the rest of their narrative, it definitely does not seem so. 

Libya coverage (or cover up?)

Nobody thinks Qaddafi was OK, but a video with reporter Dan Rivers on "Bodies abandoned in Tripoli hospital" are not willing to uncover what the horrifying images are about. Giving some hints Rivers concludes: "Its not clear how these people died or who they are... These are mysteries that will go to the grave with them." Why? Can't he explain it? Can't he speculate?

Then, further down the video survivors are found believed to be Qaddafi loyalists. Hmm. Ends with a father crying over his living son who looks at him with wonder, while he says: "Why should Muslims kill Muslims?". Rivers narrates: ...child with a bullet in his chest, shot outside Ghadaffi's compound.

In the next video with Alex Thomson "Grim face of war in Libya", some of the same images and sounds are shown. But this time in perhaps two context's one as the last (all dark skinned central African) survivors are taken by the red cross, the other, as rebels break into closed parts of the hospital. Then you see an edited picture that stops short without showing the conclusion. Are we witnessing a war crime cover-up? 


Thomson's narration reads: "Prisoners emerging from this chaotic fighting". The image shows a beaten dark skinned Qaddafi soldier bleeding and crying and having money taken from him. Then an Islamic looking warrior is seen in a car yelling into a prisoner's face to repeat "Libyin Kul Lahoud". The prisoner repeats the phrase. The warrior then yells while waving his fist: "Umarabush Il Ghadafi... the sound is cut off for the narration but the prisoner is seen and faintly heard repeating the 2nd phrase. With the background images of dark skinned people with raised hands facing a wall some turning around in terror (obviously Qaddafi soldiers) then some footage of man squatting, turning in horror, then forced a backwards faced helmet on his head and tied. 


The viewer gets the impression of watching an execution. Thomson's narration reads: But some such soldiers were killed before getting a chance to be treated properly.

This narration is read, just as an arm holding some sharp objects is seen moving towards the prisoners face, the image and sound are cut, and merged immediately into a completely different scene with the sounds of an angry mob chanting and the image of a military truck. The narration now reads: "We spoke exclusively to the rebel commander who's lead much of the fighting in Tripoly...

Anybody wish to comment?

But wait. Looking at a Fox news video titled Could Al Qaeda Obtain Qaddafi Regime's Weapons? it reveals that the exclusively given interview with the rebel commander was in fact an interview with Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the ('Emir') leader of the Al Quaida affiliated LIFG terrorist organization set to create an Islamic state in Libya! It is also made clear in that video, that black skin is the sign of Qaddafi's mercenaries from central Africa (shown ID cards of the dead soldiers lying around them, rebels angrily prove that these are non local mercenaries). So now it is clear what has been shown on the first video. The "freed prisoners" are actually beaten Qaddafi mercenaries apparently being executed! And the next pictures show them after the execution, Or possibly after not being treated in the hospital. 

CNN does not have direct links to their videos, so I just gave the description without the links.

So who are the rebels?
Less appalling but no less destructive is the CNN's apparent cover up of the rebel movement's identity. Skewed reporting and perhaps "baking the images" can be seen when comparing two videos both shown on CNN, about the liberated 'Abu Salim' Libyan prison. 

The first video is apparently staged, showing a group of Islamic fighters holding up the Koran and chanting 'Allahu Akbar', entering the jail and "freeing it" (kicking on doors and entering empty rooms with guns ready) concluding with the CNN studio's news anchor saying: "We have no idea who these guys are". The images of this video are shown repeatedly on other news clips as a background for narration, especially about Matthew VanDyke, an american adventurer or activist who was freed, but decided to currently stay in Libya. It seems they were created at the same location and time as the second video, perhaps in preparation for the two interviews following.

The second video shows two interviews with former Abu Salim prison inmates. First Mohammed Gadamaizi, a young man with no beard or mustache, waring a short sleeved T shirt, shows scars on his back and the wire he was beaten with. Then Matthew VanDyke is shown in his solitary confinement cell. Although he was not beaten he would have preferred to have been, he says. The video concludes with the hope that the 'rest of Libya is set free'. 

But by who? 




IMPORTANT UPDATE
Apparently these images are being shown by all news outlets. The Daily Telegraph in an article about the UN giving immunity of war-crimes to the mercenaries, show an image with the caption reading Libyan militia members from the forces against Gadhafi escort a man who they suspect to be a mercenary. So, he's suspected to be a mercenary? The Libyans are holding a pistol. Where are they escorting him to?  Is he alive?


Reminder: The 'Me' in 'The Land is for Me' is the Abrahmic God, and not any of the people...

Bet Shemesh re-occupied Jewish Land

Response to a post on Wikimaps where "LionAlquds" wrote on Bet Shemesh: Occupied Palestinian Land.

No: Not occupied Palestinian land. 

Just a side note: Bet Shemesh has prominent Arab citizens, living in it, see later in details.

Bet Shemesh is not occupied palestinian land: All the following can be seen clearly on aerial images published in the book: A second look at the land of Israel - a comparison of Aerial images from world war I, by Prof. Ben Zion Kedar. (Many of these images can be seen on his documented speech on youtube.)
And he is definitely NOT a white-washer of the local Arab history

From Hartuv and southward (up to the railway) was Jewish owned land, bought with full money - formerly called the Samuel Plantation, bought by the first owner of Haaretz.

The train station was Turkish, funded by Jewish money, and later, during World War I, became British
property. It is now a national service, serving Jews and Arabs, of Muslim Christian or Jewish faith alike.

The houses of Beit Natiff - a town evacuated from its Arab residents by Arab forces in 1948 are a national park near Ramat Bet Shemesh, NOT part of the city of Bet Shemesh.

The houses of the newer Givat Sharet and Nofei Aviv where purchased from the owners: the Greek Orthodox church, owners of Beit Gamal (or Jamal) monestery.
The last time houses where on that site was during the Jewish second temple period, and until 300 ce there where still Jews living there! - It then became uninhabited, and was left so. It was a A Cohen priestly town with ritual baths near each home as uncovered by recent diggings.

The "old" Bet Shemesh was founded on the British military camp, itself founded in 1917 on no mans land on the hill south of the railway.

The Bet Shemesh police station is a "Tagart" outpost built by the British on Jewish owned land, confiscated, and documented as such.

The village of Deir Abban is the Yishii village and not Bet Shemesh. We could discuss that too, but if we concentrate, it's outside our issue.

Ramat Bet Shemesh Alef (A) is built on the mountains above the secondary neighborhood of Beit Natiff (today Kibutz Netiv HaLamed Heh). It was not lived on since the time of the temple 700 years before Mohamed, and was used as a Jewish burial site. Also ancient wine making facilities where found on what is
now Dalia road. I don't suppose they are Muslim? (Aside of the fact that they are from 2000 years ago, a bit before there WHERE Muslims or Arabs who claim they are "Palestinians")

Part of Ramat Bet Shemesh Bet (B) is occupied in part by anti-zionist ultra-orthodox Jews some from Neturei Karta others Satmar Hassidim. You may find a hearing ear by them with your claims. They are siting on lands bought from Zanoah village, founded near the remnants of a Canaanite city, captured according to the Bible by Joshua, and later re-inhabited by Jews at the beginning of the second temple as noted in the book of Nehemya. Are you claiming in the name of the Canaanites?

So, which part of Bet Shemesh exactly is occupied "Palestinian" land?

Or are you referring to the partition plan?  I thought the Arabs never have and still don't accept it?


More details:

The "old" center of Bet Shemesh was a British military outpost. No one lived there. During the 1948 war of Israel's independence, when 7 major Arab armies came to conquer (and leave in there own hands... as they in fact did: Gaza strip was Egypt, the west bank was 'Jordan' - no "Palestinians" mentioned till 1967), a truce was reached where half of the outpost was held by Jordanian soldiers, and half by Israeli ones. This situation continued almost until the closing of the war, when the border (and truce) where moved eastward.

The ancient Tel Bet Shemesh, was found to have never been re-established since the time of the FIRST TEMPLE (so all 400 years of the second it was left uninhabited). Remnants show that it was inhabited by Jewish believers from the time of antiquity, about 1300 years before Mohamed. In fact Tel Bet Shemesh is one of the major points of dispute with Bible Revisionist Historians who are claiming that there were no King David or Solomon, and at most, if there ware, they only lead a small and poor kingdom of Judea,
without the larger 'Kingdom of Israel' to the north.
So it is a Jewish town, never re-established by Arabs (or anyone else) since the Jews were expelled during the first temple.

Deir Raffat was land owned by Christians (the Latin Patriarch) and rented out to Muslim workers of the nearby monestary. Today it is a Jewish school, that pays rent to the Christian land owners.

It is true that the people of Deir Raffat were expelled from their homes in three waves. During WWI some were expelled for assisting the German (and Turkish) forces. Most of the men were required to leave with Kaukji's retreating army after his death. The last and total evacuation occured after the Israeli 1948 offensive for reopening the way to Jerusalem began. Jordanian (Leage) and Kaukji militiamen called for the retreat of civilians to refugee camps near Bethlehem. As far as I understood, Israeli forces where not involved in this, and in any case, the claims should to land usage should be to the Catholic church.

Hartuv (today Nacham) was bought with full money. So was the Samuel-Gardens plantation. The Turks spared the village because they were treated well by the civilians. At the beginning of the 1948 war a truce was set between the Jewish villagers and the nearby Arabs of Artuf to the north. But plans to massacre the Jews of Hartuv were received from various sources (among them neighboring Arabs of Artuf). The village was evacuated at night, lead by Aba Kovner a famous WWII partisan and later member of Kenesset (the Israeli parliament). Kaukji a Syrian Arab leader of local para-military fources laid siege on Jewish Jerusalem, effectively cutting it off from food and water. The newly founded Israeli forces opened an offensive to allow free movement to Jerusalem. They found the agricultural plantation and the village burnt to the ground. The Arab residents of Artuf had been moved out for Kaukji's para-military fighters. These fighters retreated to Jerusalem.

The houses of Bet Shemesh itself are on an area that was a military camp, and before that was last occupied by Jewish civil residents till about the year 250 ce, as proven by the findings especially burials.

Today, Beit Shemesh has prominent Arab citizens living in it. The chief city gardener, most of the town's
pharmacists, para-medical staff, and many of the Doctors. Arabs and Jews work and live together in this city, in the supermarkets and warehouses, at the factories and hi-tech companies. The town is predominantly Jewish, but there is no known discrimination. I live in Bet Shemesh and have several Arab neighbors.

You may want to discuss Ramat Bet Shemesh Gimel (C). There the only findings are of Kanaanites, and Egyptian outposts. Is that your claim for occupied Palestinian land?  BTW: Where do YOU live? What is the history of YOUR home?  And how come you cannot even pronounce the name of your supposed homeland? (In Arabic you wrote Falastin with an F).

Reminder: The 'Me' in 'The Land is for Me' is the Abrahmic God, and not any of the people...