[1] Fatal Distraction - 10 Aug 2012 - English
[1] Fatal Distraction - 10 Aug 2012 - English
Yvonne Ridley investigates the US bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and its connection...
[1] Fatal Distraction - 10 Aug 2012 - English
Yvonne Ridley investigates the US bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and its connection with the Lewinsky scandal during the Bill Clinton administration.
24m:49s
5115
The Suez Crisis 1 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Gamal Nasser and Prime Minister Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the...
This documentary tells the story of Gamal Nasser and Prime Minister Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim world in this crisis. ---------- FROM WIKIPEDIA SUEZ CRISIS THE PROTOCOL OF SEVRES Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state. - Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. --
6m:27s
9346
The Suez Crisis 2 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
6m:51s
7936
The Suez Crisis 3 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
8m:45s
7667
The Suez Crisis 4 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
8m:6s
7682
The Suez Crisis 5 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
8m:11s
7838
The Suez Crisis 6 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
5m:36s
7913
The Suez Crisis 7 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
6m:53s
7381
The Suez Crisis 9 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
3m:20s
7566
The Suez Crisis 8 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
4m:45s
7619
Freedom Flotilla VS Israel Army Overview - 31 May 2010 - English
Death toll from Gaza aid attack hits 20
Mon, 31 May 2010 05:27:14 GMT
Font size :
The death toll from the Israeli navy's takeover of a...
Death toll from Gaza aid attack hits 20
Mon, 31 May 2010 05:27:14 GMT
Font size :
The death toll from the Israeli navy's takeover of a Gaza aid convoy has risen to 20 while Israel carefully censors reports on the casualties from the attack.
Gaza Freedom Flotilla came under fire early on Monday by Israeli navy forces in international waters more than 150km (90 miles) off the coast of Gaza.
The six-ship aid fleet was soon stormed by commandos descending from helicopters.
At least 20 people were killed in the takeover of the Gaza aid convoy, al-Aqsa TV channel reported, saying that more than 50 people, including leader of the Palestinian Islamic Movement Sheikh Raed Salah, were wounded in the attack.
The news trickled through the Israeli military censorship which has sought to block the reporting of any information about the casualties.
A report on the Israeli radio said the censorship was aimed at covering up the number of casualties brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment.
Meanwhile, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer expressed regret for the deaths aboard the Gaza aid ships.
"The images are certainly not pleasant. I can only voice regret at all the fatalities," he told Israel's Army Radio.
The comments come as the first official acknowledgement by Tel Aviv that the attack had turned fatal.
Israel had initially declined to comment on the reports of casualties from the takeover of the aid ships.
4m:54s
11763
Documentary on Freedom Flotilla - Press TV - English
Documentary on Freedom Flotilla - Press TV - English
The death toll from the Israeli navy's takeover of a Gaza aid convoy has risen to 20 while...
Documentary on Freedom Flotilla - Press TV - English
The death toll from the Israeli navy's takeover of a Gaza aid convoy has risen to 20 while Israel carefully censors reports on the casualties from the attack.
Gaza Freedom Flotilla came under fire early on Monday by Israeli navy forces in international waters more than 150km (90 miles) off the coast of Gaza.
The six-ship aid fleet was soon stormed by commandos descending from helicopters.
At least 20 people were killed in the takeover of the Gaza aid convoy, al-Aqsa TV channel reported, saying that more than 50 people, including leader of the Palestinian Islamic Movement Sheikh Raed Salah, were wounded in the attack.
The news trickled through the Israeli military censorship which has sought to block the reporting of any information about the casualties.
A report on the Israeli radio said the censorship was aimed at covering up the number of casualties brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment.
Meanwhile, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer expressed regret for the deaths aboard the Gaza aid ships.
"The images are certainly not pleasant. I can only voice regret at all the fatalities," he told Israel's Army Radio.
The comments come as the first official acknowledgement by Tel Aviv that the attack had turned fatal.
Israel had initially declined to comment on the reports of casualties from the takeover of the aid ships.
26m:29s
8666
Court shown fatal US police beating video - 10May12 - All Languages
Two US police officers have been ordered to stand trial in the death of a mentally ill homeless man following a violent arrest last summer....
Two US police officers have been ordered to stand trial in the death of a mentally ill homeless man following a violent arrest last summer.
California's Orange County Superior Court Judge Walter Schwarm made the ruling after a hearing that included surveillance video of the confrontation between the officers and 37-year-old Kelly Thomas in the city of Fullerton.
Officer Manuel Ramos is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Jay Cicinelli is charged with involuntary manslaughter and assault or battery by a public officer. Both have pleaded not guilty.
The officers confronted Thomas while responding to reports that a homeless man was looking into parked cars at a transit center.
"This is another victory, on another battle," said Thomas' father, Ron. "We're going to start a new one with the trial."
John Barnett, Ramos' attorney, said he would seek another court's review of Schwarm's ruling and did not expect his client would end up facing a jury trial.
"We're disappointed that they were held to answer but we will seek review in an appropriate manner," he told reporters after the ruling. "He believes, and he is innocent."
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said during the hearing that Ramos bullied a shirtless Thomas with his menacing remarks and aggressive stance — actions that would have led anyone to fear they were about to get beaten by police.
"Any person, any creature on this earth would have fear at that point," Rackauckas told the court during the preliminary hearing.
"You're going to fight or flee because this is an imminent threat of a serious beating by a police officer who is there with a baton and a gun and other police officers.... This is going to be a very bad deal," the prosecutor said.
Defence attorneys countered that police — who are authorised and trained to use force when necessary — viewed the incident as an encounter with a man who refused to give his name and continued to resist arrest even as multiple officers rushed to assist.
The three-day hearing was marked by repeated showing of clips from surveillance video and audio recordings of the confrontation. The footage includes scenes of officers pummelling and pinning down Thomas as he screams that he can't breathe and moans for his father until he goes silent and is taken away by medics, leaving behind a pool of blood.
Barnett, Ramos' attorney, said during the hearing that the video — which was introduced by the prosecution — shows that his client made a conditional threat during his conversation with Thomas, stating he wanted the man to start listening and following police orders, such as sitting with his legs stretched out and providing his name to officers.
"All that Kelly Thomas had to do was simply comply," Barnett said. "Officer Ramos just lifts him up, he's going to arrest him. ... Not only can he do it, he must do it. He is bound to do it."
"Officer Ramos didn't do anything that should or could kill Kelly Thomas," Barnett said, pointing out that his client is often seen on the video at the man's feet.
Prosecutors have argued that Ramos punched Thomas in the ribs, tackled him and lay on him to hold him down while Cicinelli — who arrived later on the scene — used a Taser four times on Thomas as he hollered in pain and hit him in the face eight times with the Taser.
Thomas lost consciousness and was taken to a hospital. He was taken off life support and died five days later.
The coroner's office found that Thomas died from compression of his chest that made it difficult for him to breathe and deprived his brain of oxygen, and facial injuries stemming from his confrontation with law enforcement.
In court, Schwartz, Cicinelli's attorney, challenged those findings, noting that testimony by a paramedic who treated Thomas at the scene indicates that Thomas was breathing, although with difficulty, during the confrontation.
Schwartz also defended his client's use of the Taser on Thomas, who was still struggling and resisting officers' efforts to handcuff him, and said Cicinelli only swung the Taser at Thomas' hand when the man made an effort to grab the weapon.
"To call that a crime is to effectively handcuff our police officers out in the field from dealing with any combative suspect," Schwartz said.
The hearing in a Santa Ana courtroom was marked by lengthy testimony from medical experts and graphic photos of Thomas' injuries, including multiple bruises and a bloodied eye, while he was lying on the autopsy table.
Attorneys repeatedly played portions of the grainy surveillance video, which was paired with audio from digital recorders worn by some of the officers who were present and which brought some of Thomas' supporters to tears and prompted them to leave the courtroom.
The incident last July prompted an ongoing FBI investigation to determine if Thomas' civil rights were violated, an internal probe by the city, protests by residents and an effort to recall three Fullerton councilmembers that is slated for next month's ballot.
The recall was sparked after angry residents chastised the council members for failing to take significant action regarding the incident.
1m:59s
8483
[18 Feb 2014] Deadly bomb attacks kill dozens in Iraq capital Baghdad -...
There is a sad sentiment across Baghdad as several deadly car bombs claimed dozens of lives across the capital.The string of bomb blasts that...
There is a sad sentiment across Baghdad as several deadly car bombs claimed dozens of lives across the capital.The string of bomb blasts that killed dozens here in Baghdad targeted mostly shia areas. Even a shia mosque was targeted. No one has claimed responsibility for the killings but it is expected that they are attempts by Al Qaeda and its backers to ignite sectarian war in Iraq.
The blast left 11 people dead. Press TV took to the streets to see how Iraqis were handling the fatal incidents. They told us they have had enough.
1m:51s
6349
[7] Imam Ali's Advice to Salman Al-Farisi | Sheikh Azhar Nasser | English
Letter 68: To Salman al-Farisi before Amir al-mu\'minin\'s caliphate
ومن كتاب له (عليه السلام)
إلى سلمان...
Letter 68: To Salman al-Farisi before Amir al-mu\'minin\'s caliphate
ومن كتاب له (عليه السلام)
إلى سلمان الفارسي (رحمه الله) قبل أيام خلافته
Now, the example of the world is like that of a snake which is soft in touch but whose poison is fatal. Therefore, keep yourself aloof from whatever appears good to you because of its short stay with you. Do not worry for it because of your conviction that it will leave you and that its circumstances are vicissitudes. When you feel most attracted towards it, shun it most, because whenever someone is assured of happiness in it, it throws him into danger; or when he feels secure in it, the world alters his security into fear; and that is an end to the matter.
أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فإِنَّمَا مَثَلُ الدُّنْيَا مَثَلُ الْحَيَّةِ: لَيِّنٌ مَسُّهَا، قَاتِلٌ سُمُّهَا، فَأَعْرِضْ عَمَّا يُعْجِبُكَ فِيهَا، لِقِلَّةِ مَا يَصْحَبُكَ مِنْهَا، وَضَعْ عَنْكَ هُمُومَهَا، لِمَا أَيْقَنْتَ بِهِ مِنْ فِرَاقِهَا، وَكُنْ آنَسَ مَا تَكُونُ بِهَا، أَحْذَرَ مَا تَكُونَ مِنْهَا، فَإِنَّ صَاحِبَهَا كُلَّمَا اطْمأَنَّ فِيهَا إِلَى سُرُور أشْخْصَتْهُ عَنْهُ إِلىَ مَحْذُور، أوْ إِلَى إِينَاس أَزالَهُ عَنْهُ إِيحَاشٌ!
31m:8s
404