Bomb, bomb Iran? US in same build-up to war as to Iraq invasion -...
The U.S. is apparently shipping large quantities of bunker-busting bombs to a British territory. A Scottish newspaper claims the ordinance, which...
The U.S. is apparently shipping large quantities of bunker-busting bombs to a British territory. A Scottish newspaper claims the ordinance, which was widely used in the Iraq invasion, is being sent to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. And it's raising fears American forces could be preparing an attack on Iran. Let's talk more on this now with nuclear disarmament activist Alan Mackinnon.
4m:35s
6847
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
9337
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
7929
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
7658
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
7674
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
7826
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
7906
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
7375
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
7559
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
7611
The Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein -...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
5m:23s
15622
The Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein -...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
5m:33s
9102
[6 July 2012] CIA directing arms flow to gangs in Syria - English
Switzerland has decided to suspend arms shipments to the United Arab Emirates following a report that Swiss-made hand grenades are being used by...
Switzerland has decided to suspend arms shipments to the United Arab Emirates following a report that Swiss-made hand grenades are being used by armed gangs in Syria.
The measure was taken on Wednesday after the Sonntagszeitung newspaper published a photograph taken of one such device in possession of anti-Damascus forces in the town of Marea, north of Aleppo, at the end of June, AFP reported.
Preliminary inquiries into the photo showed the grenade in question was made by the Bern-based arms manufacturer RUAG, and was part of a shipment made by the company to the UAE in 2003.
The Federal Department of Economic Affairs (FDEA) says 225,162 hand grenades were exported to the UAE, who signed an agreement not to re-export the munitions.
"As far as the FDEA is aware, the hand grenade ... originates from a RUAG shipment to the United Arab Emirates in 2003. At present there is no evidence that Swiss hand grenades have found their way to Syria; inquiries are ongoing, however," the government statement said.
The FDEA statement also said arms shipments from Switzerland to Syria stopped in April 1998, and raised doubt whether the photograph was taken in Syria after all.
Antje Baertschi, a spokeswoman for the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) said as a “provisional" measure, Switzerland immediately moved to "freeze all arms export permits to the UAE."
Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, author & historian, to hear his opinion on this issue. The following is a transcription of the interview.
Press TV: The Swiss claim that they are surprised about this entire issue because they have a “neutral stance” when it comes to issues like Syria. Are they as innocent as they claim considering they have been providing weapons in the first place to repressive states such as the UAE?
Tarpley: I think everybody in the world with an effective intelligence service and that would emphatically include Switzerland through their banking system; they are as well informed really as anybody in the world, they know very well that the [Persian] Gulf states, these reactionary feudal absolute monarchies like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait but above all Saudi Arabia, all of them have been massively shipping weapons to the death squads that are working for NATO in Syria and this has been known now for months.
There is really no news except that Switzerland, to cover themselves, to cover themselves maybe on liability suits, have decided to cut off the air shipments to these feudal monarchies in the [Persian] Gulf.
But other than that, we have known, even the New York Times always the last to know, has confirmed that there were CIA officers who are directing traffic in southern Turkey sending these weapons to the groups that they want to receive them. I think that we could see a larger context; tomorrow there would be another one of these Orwellian ‘Friends of Syria’ conferences in Turkey, I believe, tomorrow, or is it Paris?
Anyway, the Russians and the Chinese have said that they will not go. I think Hilary Clinton, however, will be there. I believe it is in Paris. So that entire exercise will continue.
One of the things that NATO is doing is simply lying. Whenever they have a diplomatic meeting with Russia, in particular, then they come out and lie about it and the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was asked today, are you going to call Assad and offer him asylum in Russia? And Lavrov said that is a bad joke; why don’t you ask the same question to the German Foreign Minister [Guido] Westerwelle we were standing with? Why don’t you see if Assad is going to go to Germany?
It is all really absurd. The big development of today though that I would urgently point to is NATO is now rolling up its heavy artillery and that means WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
Sophisticated knowledgeable observers all over the world have long known since the very beginning in 2010 that WikiLeaks is a NATO-CIA conduit for various kinds of fake or real documents that are released with political aims in mind and Assange in that sense is a tool of NATO.
We are now told that there are 2.4 million cables; 400 thousand in Arabic, 70 thousand in Russia that are all embarrassing to Syria, embarrassing to the Syrian government but also embarrassing to companies that are still selling various things to Syria.
The example given is Finmeccanica, an Italian firm that has been selling radios to Assad. Also notable is that Assange and WikiLeaks have got a consortium of international press organs; they have got the Associate Press of the United States, the biggest indeed.
3m:49s
9560
[13 July 2012] Pakistanis angry at reopening US supply routes1 - English
[13 July 2012] Pakistanis angry at reopening US supply routes1 - English
Anti-US and anti-government sentiment runs high in Pakistan following the...
[13 July 2012] Pakistanis angry at reopening US supply routes1 - English
Anti-US and anti-government sentiment runs high in Pakistan following the government's decision to allow the US and its allied to resume shipping troop supplies to Afghanistan
2m:41s
5684
[18 July 2012] Should Africans support Iran in the face of western...
[18 July 2012] Should Africans support Iran in the face of western economic imperialism - English
Kenya, Tanzania, Sierra Leone and a host of...
[18 July 2012] Should Africans support Iran in the face of western economic imperialism - English
Kenya, Tanzania, Sierra Leone and a host of African nations have been threatened with sanctions if the import oil from Iran. Some of them rely on Iranian oil because of the flexibility in payment.
In Tanzania, Iranian embassy and a shipping agent in Dubai had to assure the country that no Iranian ships have been re-flagged to dodge sanctions to import oil to the East African nation.
Kenya has cancelled plans to import crude oil from Iran following threats of sanctions, an official at the Kenyan energy ministry has said.
The outline deal signed last month was to import about 4 Million tonnes of oil from the Iranian National Oil Company.
But the US embassy in Nairobi had warned it was important to cut revenue to the Iranian government.
24m:21s
5468
[18 July 13] Panama seizes North Korean ship carrying weapons - English
A week from today there will be massive celebrations in the Democratic People\'s Republic of Korea to mark the 60th anniversary of a cease-fire tat...
A week from today there will be massive celebrations in the Democratic People\'s Republic of Korea to mark the 60th anniversary of a cease-fire tat halted the Korean War. Some three million Koreans were killed in the conflict, mainly as a result of the US bombing campaign. However, as North Korea prepares for a celebration of peace, tension is mounting once again.
On July 12th, the Chong Chun Gang, a Korean vessel heading from Cuba to the DPRK was seized by Panamanian authorities. The vessel was searched and on July 16th the Panamanians declared that the ship contained \"undeclared military cargo.\" United Nations sanctions prohibit the shipping of arms to North Korea.
2m:4s
5634
[05 Dec 2013] Thai immigration officials sold Rohingyas to human...
A new investigation indicates that immigration officials in Thailand have sold hundreds of Rohingya Muslims to human traffickers. The report says...
A new investigation indicates that immigration officials in Thailand have sold hundreds of Rohingya Muslims to human traffickers. The report says Myanmar\'s Rohingyas who fled oppression in their home country, have been secretly transported across southern Thailand. They were held hostage for ransom in a series of heavily-guarded camps near Thailand\'s border with Malaysia. Detainees who couldn\'t pay ransom have been sold to some shipping companies and farms. Some survivors who were interviewed by reporters said a number of detainees were killed by traffickers or died from dehydration or diseases. Thailand\'s second-highest-ranking policeman has also admitted that Thai officials might have profited from the smuggling because that meant removing the refugees from detention centers in Thailand.
4m:37s
5759
[30 Jan 2014] US criticizes Syria for slow pace in removing chemical...
The United States has criticized the Syrian government for what it calls the slow pace in removing and destroying its chemical agents....
The United States has criticized the Syrian government for what it calls the slow pace in removing and destroying its chemical agents.
Meanwhile, the U-S representative to the international chemical weapons watchdog has accused Damascus of delaying efforts to remove chemical agents from Syria. Robert Mikulak has told the Organization of Prohibition of Chemical Weapons\' executive council that one month after the deadline, only 4 percent of the most toxic chemicals has been removed. The Syrian government had no immediate comment but Damascus has insisted on the need to receive additional security equipment for shipping containers and high-tech electronics, to secure the convoys.
1m:18s
5296
[26 Feb 2014] An Egyptian court has sentenced 26 people to death for...
An Egyptian court has sentenced 26 people to death for plotting attacks on ships in the Suez Canal.
The men, who were tried in their absence,...
An Egyptian court has sentenced 26 people to death for plotting attacks on ships in the Suez Canal.
The men, who were tried in their absence, were charged while in custody. The court accuses the defendents of founding and leading a terrorist cell, which wanted to disrupt the major shipping route. It also referred the verdict to the Grand Mufti of Cairo, who now has to validate the sentences. The recent spate of violence has rocked Egypt, after former president Mohamed Morsi was ousted by the military in July, and placed under arrest. The latest ruling comes as another court in the country sentenced over 2-hundred Morsi supporters to prison over a variety of charges on Tuesday.
2m:55s
6464