My Dearest

My Dearest

I am more than happy to read your urgent response to my mail. How was
your day?mine was cool over here in Burkina-Faso.

I know this mail will come to you as a surprise since we haven't known
or come across each other before considering the fact that I sourced
your profile at dating through the Internet in search of trusted
person who can assist me.

I am Stacy Ibrahim Coulibaly 24 years old female from Ivory Coast in
West Africa, the Daughter of Late Chief Sergeant, warlord Ibrahim
Coulibaly . My late father was an Ivory Coast's best-known militia
leaders . He died on the Thursday 28 April 2011 following a fight with
the FRCI," Republican Forces of Ivory Coast. You can read more about my
father in the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/28/ivory-coast-renegade-warlord-ibrahim-coulibaly

I am constrained to contact you because of the maltreatment which I am
receiving from my step mother. She planned to take away all my late
father's treasury and properties from me since the unexpected death of
my beloved Father. Meanwhile I wanted to travel to Europe, but she hide
away my international passport and other valuable documents. Luckily
she did not discover where I kept my father's File which contained
important documents. Now I am presently staying in the Mission in
Burkina Faso. I am seeking for long term relationship and investment
assistance. My father of blessed memory deposited the sum of US$ 9.7
Million in a leading bank in Europe with my name as the next of kin. I
had contacted the Bank to clear the deposit but the Branch Manager told
me that being a refugee, my status according to the local law does not
authorize me to carry out the operation. However, he advised me to
provide a trustee who will stand on my behalf. I had wanted to
inform my stepmother about this deposit but I am afraid that she will
not offer me anything after the release of the money.

Therefore, I decide to seek for your help in transferring the money
into your bank account while I will relocate to your country and settle
down with you. As you indicated your interest to help me I will give
you the account number and the contact of the bank where my late
beloved father deposited the money with my name as the next of kin. It
is my intention to compensate you with 20% of the total money for your
assistance and the balance shall be my investment in any profitable
venture which you will recommend to me as have no any idea about
foreign investment. Please all communications should be through this
email address only for confidential purposes.HERE IS MY CONTACT
ADDRESS( stacyibrahim24@yahoo.com )

Thanking you a lot in anticipation of your quick response. I will give
you details in my next mail after receiving your acceptance mail to
help me.Attached here is my photo

Yours sincerely
Stacy Ibrahim

CBC`s Poor Excuse for "Analysis"

After a week of over-reporting on Harper`s visit to Israel, with only a tiny bit of criticism in it, CBC chose to cap it off with this article that it described as an "analysis":

ANALYSIS

Stephen Harper survives Mideast minefield, tough talk and all

Staying clear of gaffes and disasters counts as victory on a Mideast tour

By Terry Milewski, CBC News  ET Last Updated: Jan 24, 2014 5:18 AM ET

Harper`s totally unbalanced approach to Israel/Palestine was an embarrassment to Canada, and his visit was full of statements and claims that were not only wrong; many of them were disgraceful. Many of them were "gaffes". Certainly if CBC was interested in an analysis of this visit, it could do better than this article which basically claimed the trip was a success because no one lost their luggage.

Here are some passages from the article, followed by some of the basic points that should have been made in any so-called analysis. The author chose to raise these points, so it was his obligation to deal with them intelligently which he totally failed to do:

1)  Stephen Harper received a courteous welcome from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, in the West Bank city of Ramallah Monday, where he announced $66 million in new aid from Canada. (Darren Whiteside/Reuters)

But, in some respects, he did better than that — not least, by evading some of the expected Palestinian hostility to Harper's sharp tilt toward Israel.

Harper, of course, pledged that Canada would stand with Israel, "through fire and water." But the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, meekly said that he hoped Canada's policy would change.

Of course, when you are standing next to a visitor holding a cheque for $66 million to help build a future state, it's rude to complain. In fact, under both Liberals and Conservatives, Canada has played a quiet but effective role in creating a security force and a justice system, without which no Palestinian state will ever function. So Abbas was polite.

Two points should have been made here. 

a) Abbas`s meekness was largely a function of the fact that he has no credibility as the leader of the Palestinians. He lost the election to Hamas; his term has expired, his party is noted for its corruption; and he is widely despised in Palestine. A legitimate Palestinian leader would have refused to met Harper, in spite of the money he carried. 

b) Canadian aid to the Palestinian Authority is really aid to Israel - it is used to finance the Palestinian police force which actually works for Israel to keep control over the Occupied Territory.

2) Of course, there's no doubt that, under Harper, Canada is taking sides, merely by insisting that Israel is entitled to exist as a Jewish state and to defend itself.

But Harper went further, first, by directly attacking Israel's critics in the harshest terms, and, second, by giving a scathing account of the prevailing dysfunction in Israel's turbulent neighbourhood.

His assault on Israel's detractors was merciless. Harper called it "sickening" that Israel is accused of practising "apartheid." And he made a virtue of his refusal to navigate the Mideast minefield by being nice to both sides.

Harper went to an unacceptable extreme in denouncing critics of Israel; including making the absurd claim that criticism of Israel was a new form of antisemitism. He was telling the Palestinians, among hundreds of thousands of other decent people around the world, that their legitimate concern for the rights of Palestinians was a vile form of racism. This is as ridiculous as saying criticism of the White Apartheid regime in South Africa was anti-White. This claim shames all Canadians. How could it be ignored in a so-called "analysis"?

Also the article fails to note the insult Harper rightly received from two Palestinian members of the Knesset who heckled him, and walked out on him. They left because Harper had effectively said they were antisemites for defending the rights of their own Palestinian people. They did the right thing to walk out on him, and Canadians should feel shame that decent, honest people cannot bear to be in the same room with our ignorant, prejudiced Prime Minister.

3)  Nor was Harper ambiguous about his disdain for Islamist forces around the region. He poured scorn on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for attempting, under the ousted president Mohamed Morsi, to establish "an authoritarian Islamic state."

And he came close to expressing some nostalgia for the old Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak.

"There was a lot of enthusiasm, unbridled enthusiasm in much of the West for the revolution in Egypt, and with very good reason. We were a little more cautious, and I think that caution has been borne out."

Harper declared that the Egyptian people should not have a democracy because they vote for people he does not like. He said the same thing when the Palestinians elected a Hamas Government. Certainly CBC should point out that Harper`s commitment to democracy is very questionable with these remarks, and that he is supporting the renewed Egyptian dictatorship. Also a word or two might be worthwhile about the fact that eurocentric, anti-Muslim, Christian fundamentalists like Harper and George W. Bush play a very negative role in the stability of the Middle East with their actions in support of dictators and against elected governments.

4)  And he accused Iran of planning not just to build nuclear weapons but to use them.

"This is a regime in Iran, an extremist fundamentalist regime with a violent and hateful ideology, and it wants to possess nuclear weapons. It tells the world it wants to possess nuclear weapons for the purpose of using nuclear weapons, which is truly frightening."

How in Heaven`s name does this claim by Harper warrant being repeated, without analysis. CBC has quoted Harper in the past when he has made this claim, and it is contemptible for CBC to echo it without analysis. It is essentially a kind of "blood libel" against Iranians. It has absolutely no basis in fact. It is entirely a figment of Harper`s imagination. The scary thing is that Harper looks into his own evil soul, filled with the desire to fight the battles of his God, and then projects his violent, blood lust onto his enemies. The fact is that NO IRANIAN LEADER HAS EVER EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO USE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Even the Americans never make this ridiculous claim. Iran may want to have a nuclear weapon, although they say they do not, but there is absolutely no reason or evidence to suggest they WANT to use one. Nor have they ever said they want to use one. Not only would it be suicidal to do so, but the mass killing of civilians would be immoral within their own system of morality. Indeed they have declared all nuclear weapons as "haram" - that is, forbidden by God.

Stephen Harper`s trip to Israel was a disaster for Canada`s reputation in the world. He accomplished nothing that would benefit Canadians. In fact, he probably harmed Canada. Perhaps some analysis might be warranted as to whether he has seriously overstepped the bounds of acceptable Prime Ministerial behaviour. Could his grossly unbalanced commitment to Israel, and promises of unflinching support no matter what the implications for Canada, be considered traitorous? How far can you go in promoting the interests of a foreign state and still be considered acceptable as a Canadian Prime Minister?

It is a crying shame, that CBC, with all its resources financed by Canadians, could not produce a better "analysis" of Harper`s visit to Israel and what it means for Canadian interests in the world. You have to wonder who CBC is working for.

Harper in Israel - For Shame

CBC coverage of Harper`s visit to Israel has been extensive. It has eclipsed much more significant events such as the demonstrations in Ukraine and in Thailand. Obviously CBC thinks Israel is an important country, that is of great interest to Canadians. I wonder whether this is truly the case.

Although there is a little bit of critical comment in CBC on Harper`s visit, it has not pointed out some of the most glaring, most embarrassingly-stupid statements made by Harper, especially in his Knesset speech. For example, Harper claimed that the BDS Campaign and much of the widespread criticism of Israel`s policies and actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians is anti-semitic. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim, especially insulting when made to Palestinians who launched the BDS Campaign as a non-violent means of trying to receive some justice to their cause.

How can a Canadian Prime Minister go to a foreign country and tell them that those who criticize their policies and actions are just racists or irrationally-biased people? Could he go to Venezuela and tell their parliament that critics of Venezuela must be anti-Hispanics? Or go to Uganda, and tell their parliament that critics of their policies are just anti-black? 

This ridiculous claim by Harper has brought shame on all Canadians, and CBC should have clearly pointed this out in the reporting on this visit.

Stephen Harper is a euro-centric, white supremacist, Christian fundamentalist, believer in the imminent Second Coming, with an 18th Century view of the world. He does not pay attention to the advice of his Foreign Affairs Department, but rather acts as if his ignorant, distorted, primitive worldview is superior to theirs. Harper is an embarrassment to Canada, and a danger to world peace. CBC ｈａｓ ａ responsibility to advise and warn Canadians about this rogue individual who is speaking on our behalf internationally.

CBC is failing in its responsibilities by not at least alluding to this fact and this danger.

Ariel Sharon is Dead. So What?

On January 12, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finally ended his coma of six years and died.

CBC online has made this the major news story of the day, as if this man somehow had significance for Canada and the world. In fact even when he was alive, he was an extremely negative presence on the global scene, and certainly had no special significance for Canada. Why this dramatic coverage as if a major world leader has been lost to the world? Is it some bias or special love of Israel that explains this? If so, where does this come from?

Israel ranks No. 96 in the world by population size. The population of Israel is only 0.11 percent of the world population. And even 20 percent of this population are Palestinians who are second-class citizens in Israel. Israel is about the same size as Papua New Guinea or Tajikistan. 

Zionists often complain that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign unfairly focuses on Israel, while ignoring human rights abuses elsewhere. They say this is an unfair double standard. But the fact is that tiny, little, belligerent Israel is covered positively in the news to a degree which is way out of proportion to its real merits. There really is a double standard here, and most of the time it is in Israel`s favour.

What other leader of a puny country like Israel, who had a very controversial history that probably included massive human rights abuses, racist ultra-nationalism, and military recklessness, would receive so much glowing coverage on his passing?

CBC - on January 12, 2014, there was violent suppression of citizen demonstrations in the Ukraine, and Bangkok is being devastated by anti-democracy riots. There are probably a thousand news stories of far, far greater significance than the death of this insignificant man from an insignificant little country. 

To what extent does an unbridled love of Israel influence your notions of what is significant to Canadians? Perhaps you should try to put your unreasonable bias aside, and put real Canadian interests first.