From found to damaged to lost: Lufthansa now says flight data recorder on Germanwings Flight 9525 'may never be found'


This is the first 'black box', the cockpit data recorder, from Germanwings Flight 9525. The second 'black box', the flight data recorder was earlier reported found but with its memory card missing... and now 'will probably never be found. Ever.'
Germany's national airline Lufthansa says that the flight data recorder which could provide key evidence about the causes of the Germanwings plane crash last Tuesday may never be found.

Speaking on Gunter Jauch, a popular Sunday night talk show, the Lufthansa manager Kay Kratky said "it could be that the damage was so serious that it [the flight data recorder] is sending no signal."

While the first black box, which contains audio recording from the cockpit was recovered soon after search and rescue teams arrived at the crash site, the second black box's whereabouts have remained elusive.

The plane is reckoned to have hit the crash site in the French Alps at a speed in the region of 800 kph, causing the plane to fragment and scatter over a wide area.

Comment: On March 25th, The New York Times reported that:
At the crash site, a senior official working on the investigation said, workers found the casing of the plane's other so-called black box, the flight data recorder, but the memory card containing data on the plane's altitude, speed, location and condition was not inside, apparently having been thrown loose or destroyed by the impact.
And yet, 5 days later, Lufthansa says it will never be found?

Germanwings crash: Not the full story?

Bad Guys

No one is free until we all are free

© AP / John Locher
A man takes a picture of a woman at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas in January.
This column is adapted from a talk Chris Hedges gave Friday night at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

The scourge of male violence against women will not end if we dismantle the forces of global capitalism. The scourge of male violence exists independently of capitalism, empire and colonialism. It is a separate evil. The fight to end male violence against women, part of a global struggle by women, must take primacy in our own struggle. Women and girls, especially those who are poor and of color, cannot take part in a liberation movement until they are liberated. They cannot offer to us their wisdom, their leadership and their passion until they are freed from physical coercion and violent domination. This is why the fight to end male violence across the globe is not only fundamental to our movement but will define its success or failure. We cannot stand up for some of the oppressed and ignore others who are oppressed. None of us is free until all of us are free.

On Friday night at Simon Fraser University—where my stance on prostitution, expressed in a March 8 Truthdig column titled "The Whoredom of the Left," had seen the organizers of a conference on resource extraction attempt to ban me from the gathering, an action they revoked after protests from radical feminists—I confronted the sickness of a predatory society. A meeting between me and students arranged by the university had been canceled. Protesters gathered outside the hall. Some people stormed out of the lecture room, slamming the doors after them, when I attacked the trafficking of prostituted women and girls. A male tribal leader named Toghestiy stood after the talk and called for the room to be "cleansed" of evil—this after Audrey Siegl, a Musqueam Nation woman, emotionally laid out what she and other women face at the hands of male predators—and one of the conference organizers, English professor Stephen Collis, seized the microphone at the end of the evening to denounce me as "vindictive." It was a commercial for the moral bankruptcy of academia.

Comment: This is what our world has become. When you give your power to psychopaths they exploit everything - women, children and the planet - in the worst and most unimaginable ways. If you'd like to learn more about how psychopaths can infect entire populations read: Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski.

Cowboy Hat

Hypocrisy hyperbole: Russian 'aggression' in Ukraine vs. Saudi 'defense' in Yemen

Saudi jets drop freedom bombs on Yemeni refugee camp. Gotta defend themselves from those darn refugees!
The military intervention in Yemen by a US-backed coalition of Arab states will undoubtedly inflame the conflict both in Yemen, and throughout the region. It is likely to be a protracted war involving many actors, each of which is interested in furthering its own political and geopolitical agenda.

However, it is the international reaction to this new regional war which is of particular interest; specifically, the way in which the United States has reacted to this undeniable aggression by its Gulf allies. While Washington has gone to great lengths to paint Russia's reunification with Crimea and its limited support for the anti-Kiev rebels of eastern Ukraine as "aggression," it has allowed that same loaded term to be completely left out of the narrative about the new war in Yemen.

So it seems that, according to Washington, aggression is not defined by any objective indicators: use of military hardware, initiation of hostilities, etc. Rather, the United States defines aggression by the relationship of a given conflict to its own strategic interests. In Crimea and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor because, in defending its own interests and those of Russian people, it has acted against the perceived geopolitical interests of the US. While in Yemen, the initiation by Saudi Arabia and other US-backed countries of an unprovoked war with the expressed goal of regime change, this is not aggression as it furthers Washington's interests.

Comment: Hasn't everyone gotten the memo? Peaceful, non-violent, democratic defense of a region against fascist terrorists = Russian aggression. Unilateral, illegal, violent, destructive 'defense' of a shill government = democratic.


Nobel-winning doctors' group: 1.3+ million people killed in U.S. 'war on terror'

Victims of the Narang night raid that killed at least 10 Afghan civilians, including eight schoolchildren.
A group of international physicians' organizations has published a study concluding US-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have killed more than 1.3 million people.

The Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, along with Physicians for Social Responsibility and Physicians for Global Survival have released a report titled "Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the 'War on Terror.'" The study examined direct and indirect deaths caused by more than a decade of US-led war in three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but did not include deaths in other countries attacked by American and allied military forces, including Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria.

The study noted that while the United States closely monitors casualty figures for allied troops—4,804 coalition deaths in Iraq; 3,485 in Afghanistan, the number of civilians and enemy combatants killed by US and allied forces is "officially ignored."

Comment: Even allied troop deaths are most likely highly sanitized.

The IPPNW investigation, which scoured the results of individual studies and data published by United Nations organizations, government agencies and non-governmental organizations, concluded the ongoing war "has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan."

Comment: Freedom. Democracy. This is what they look like.

See also: The US vampire: How US differs from conventional empire

Gold Seal

A Once and Future Revolution: The Legacy of Hugo Chávez

The rich and reactionary in Venezuela and their allies in Washington celebrated when Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez died two years ago on March 5, 2013. US President Barack Obama did not even make the customary and common courtesy of sending his condolences for the passing of a head of state.

Instead the US empire stepped up its demonization campaign against Chávez's legacy in order to bury his Bolivarian Revolution. In contrast to his treatment of Chávez, Obama was effusive in his praise of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who died in January 2015 and was the leader of a country which Amnesty International rightly labels one of the most tyrannical and repressive regimes in the world.

¡Yo Soy Chávez!

So why did poor and progressive people in Venezuela, throughout Latin America, and indeed all over the world mourn Chávez's passing and proclaim ¡Yo soy Chávez! ('I am Chávez')?

Lisa Sullivan, a School of the America Watch activist who has lived in the barrios of Venezuela where she brought up her three children, had this to say at the time of Chávez's passing: "Let there be no doubt: the Venezuelan people have come of age. Chávez is gone, but what resonates on every street and every plaza today: Yo soy Chávez. I am Chávez. I am the leader, the dreamer, the visionary, the teacher, the defender of justice, the weaver of another world that is possible."

Comment: In the end, as much as it pains us to say it, it's a sad indictment of socialism - at least as it was applied in Venezuela - that in the time period in which Chavez and Putin were given to transform their respective countries, the one who succeeded was the one who worked discretely within the given capitalist-financial order.

Perhaps, however, this is an unfair comparison. Russia had far more resources and a much bigger head-start over impoverished and perennially-enslaved Venezuela, which, in the face of sabotage, subversion, coup attempts and outright economic warfare, has been under relentless pressure from the 'owners' of the Americas to cave in and submit.

Hugo Chavez was a rare breed of leader: one with a conscience. From his conscience came his strength of character and his creative vision. The positive political transformation he effected in Venezuela was truly one of the most remarkable sociological events of our time, perhaps made all the more spectacular because of how improbable it seemed in the 1990s.

The reptiles in Washington absolutely HATED him for it. He mocked them in return, but he also forgave them because he understood that they were sick with greed.

You are sorely missed, Commandante.


Saudi Arabia invades Yemen with US-UK backing

Saudi Arabia, in an unprecedented act of unprovoked unilateral military aggression against Yemen by the autocratic absolute monarchy, was allegedly triggered in a US-backed attempt to restore what Riyadh is calling the "legitimate government of Yemen."

What exactly constitutes a legitimate government is not clear for a despotic regime where elections are not held, women cannot drive, and enemies of the state are beheaded in medieval displays of public barbarism not entirely unlike their ideological ambassadors among the so-called "Islamic State" or ISIS.

The Yemeni Houthi militias are in fact the only viable force fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the Persian Gulf State located at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula. With their recent successes on the battlefield leaving US-backed proxies in shambles, including apparently Al Qaeda itself, the West has decided it must take whatever measures necessary to stop them and reassert US interests in the region.

Comment: The U.S. can't have some ragtag fighting force winning victories against its proxy "IS" goons. That's just embarrassing.

Comment: The stench of hypocrisy is all over the Saudi invasion and U.S./UK support. Can they be any more transparent? It doesn't look like it! The West (and its brain-damaged lackeys, like Saudi Arabia) invades countries on a whim, and kills thousands of people. Russia legally occupies Crimea, where democratic elections are held, people vote to return to Russia, and no one is killed. How on earth is the former legal and the latter an 'invasion'?


Former French president: Crimea's return to Russia is in accord with history

Valéry Marie René Georges Giscard d'Estaing
Valéry Marie René Georges Giscard d'Estaing, also known as Giscard or VGE, is a French centrist politician and a member of the Constitutional Council of France. He served as President of the French Republic from 1974 until 1981.

Extensive excerpt from Isabelle Laserre's interview:

Isabelle Lasserre: How do you view the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia?

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: Concerning the "return" of Crimea to Russia, very frankly, I judge it in conformity with history. I've re-read books describing Russian history of the 18th century. Crimea was conquered in the reign of Catherine II, with the predominant lead of prince Potemkin, when Russia went south toward Turkey with the idea of reconquering Constantinople. The conquest of Crimea was rather harsh, but it was not at the detriment of Ukraine, which did not exist, but at the expense of a local sovereign who depended on Turkey. Since then, it has not been populated by anyone but Russians. When Nikita Khrushchev wanted to increase the weight of the Soviet Union in the UN, which was then aborning, he invented Ukraine and Bielorussia to give two more votes to the Soviet Union, and he gave Ukraine authority over Crimea that it had never had before. At the time, already, I thought this dependance was artificial, and that it would not last. The recent events were predictable. Further, the return of Crimea to Russia has been largely approved by the population. It is only since the problems extended to the east of Ukraine that one gets worried.

IL: Numerous analysts and responsible politicians plead for a greater understanding regarding Vladimir Putin. Seeing that you've always been a supporter of detente vis-a-vis Moscow, during the Cold War as well as today, do you accept that one can thus violate international law and destabilize a country?

VGE: The conventional rules adopted at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 set the principle of respect for sovereignty and frontiers; in virtue of this principle, some suppose that Ukraine must absolutely keep the totality of territory that was theirs at the moment of Ukraine's independence in 1991. But let us not forget that the decomposition of the USSR happened in a stampede and provoked a crumbling of borders! But today, the question of Crimea ought be left aside. The matter of the east of Ukraine, though, is more difficult. Do not forget that Ukraine was long Russian; Kiev was the capital of Russia. Why, when I was finance minister, I went to the Soviet Union at the request of general De Gaulle, and Khrushchev received me in Kiev!

To see the matter clearly, you have to ask what really happened a year ago in the Ukrainian capital. What role did the CIA play in the Maidan revolution? What is the meaning of the systematic anti-Russian policy conducted by Barack Obama? Why did the US want to advance their pawns in Ukraine? Is there a potent Ukrainian lobby in the US? Do the Americans want to compensate for their impotence in the Middle East by conducting a harder policy against Russia on the European continent?

Cloud Lightning

Extreme weather, meteor fireballs, and Earth Changes in March 2015 (VIDEO)

© HawkkeyDavisChannel
Earth changes have taken place the past few weeks or so. Animals are listed among the dead.

I've been working 50+ hours a week, sorry if there's any mistakes. Thanks for watching and stay safe..

This series does not mean the world is ending! These are documentaries of series of extreme weather events which are leading to bigger earth changes. If you're following the series, then you're seeing the signs. It's much more than one video!

Follow me on Facebook for much more

Black Magic

The genocidal trojan horse: Gates' and Obama's dark secret


In 2014 there was the western Africa Ebola hoax where US President Barack Obama, the first black man to be President, announced his "War on Ebola" in September last year, ordering 3,000 US military troops to the region, though reportedly none had experience in public health and no one had produced rigorous laboratory proof of a single person dying from something called Ebola virus. Liberia was among the poorest and most war-torn regions in the world.

Comment: Nobel Prize "winner" Obama no doubt had ulterior motives for sending military troops to western Africa, but to say that the outbreak of Ebola itself is a hoax is incorrect.

Wars over blood diamonds and colonial genocidal tribal wars have left a devastated, mal-nourished population in its wake. Was Ebola simply a panic-maker? Further investigation uncovered the Pentagon was developing an Ebola vaccine with Monsanto and suspicion was that the 3,000 US troops were sent to force the population to become human guinea pigs for the untested substances.

Before that Obama, or more precisely then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in 2011 ordered Libya to be bombed back to the stone-age as what she called "responsibility to protect." Today, four years after, the country is anarchy pure with roving lawless bands killing and looting.

Now Obama and his Administration, the US Government, have teamed up with "Mr Vaccinate All Africans" Bill Gates, a eugenics protégé and intimate of David Rockefeller. Obama and Gates share a dark secret. They are colluding to contaminate the incredibly rich and productive soils of Africa with GMO, GMO from a company where Gates is a major stockholder, Monsanto.

Comment: Though it may be a shock to think about it in these terms, Engdahl is correct in what he sees. The fascistic U.S. government, in alliance with billionaire Bill Gates, destructive agricultural juggernaut Monsanto, and others, do not merely want to accrue money, power and influence in Africa, but would seek to quietly decimate the population through stealth; through food. But Africa and much of the rest of the world will not go quietly.

Foreign and domestic policy from the U.S. government has been so caustic and so detrimental to all but the very few (in the short run) in nearly every sphere, that it seems a "precautionary principle," such as the one provided in the Cartegena Protocol, should be applied to everything that comes out of their mouths with the response: "Prove it is safe, jackass!"

Bad Guys

Kiev's poison pill for Minsk 2.0

The Ukraine government's latest maneuver - undermining the Minsk-2 agreement with a requirement for a rebel surrender - is likely to drive the country back into a full-scale civil war and push the U.S. and Russia closer to a nuclear showdown, reports Robert Parry.

By adding a poison pill to legislation implementing the latest Minsk agreement, the Ukrainian government has effectively guaranteed a resumption of the civil war, which U.S. hardliners and the mainstream U.S. media will no doubt blame on ethnic Russian rebels and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The U.S. media has focused on the so-called Minsk-2 agreement's cease-fire component, first claiming it was being sabotaged by the rebels and Russia but now acknowledging that it is shaky but relatively successful. But the larger point of Minsk-2 was that it would provide for a political settlement of the civil war by arranging talks between Kiev and authorities in the east that would lead to giving those areas extensive self-rule by the end of 2015.

But the implementing law that emerged this week from the Ukrainian parliament in Kiev inserted a clause requiring the rebels to first surrender to the Ukrainian government and then letting Kiev organize elections before a federalized structure is determined.

Comment: It couldn't be clearer that it is Kiev that wants war. They will not negotiate. They will not cease fire. They will not remove all their heavy weaponry. They will not grant any reasonable level of self-government. They are the Israel of Eastern Europe. The fact that Western politicians and media continue to blame Russia and Putin is completely insane. How far the West has fallen...