The fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin shocked a nation, inspired tens of thousands to march for justice and even prompted the US President to declare, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon".

It took nearly six weeks for George Zimmerman, the Florida man accused of killing the teenager, to be arrested and charged with second-degree murder after enormous pressure from the public.

Zimmerman - the captain of a Neighbourhood Watch group - pursued Trayvon because he said that he thought he was acting "suspicious" and "up to no good". And that is exactly the same excuse used by President Barack Obama as he justifies ticking off names on a "kill list" for drone attacks.

While Obama called on federal, state and local authorities to work together as part of the investigation into the killing of Trayvon, just who is going to investigate the President for his extra-judicial killings? He is a man out of control, and while his predecessor justified his actions with a catch-all "God told me to do it", this president thinks he is God, making decisions about who should live and who should die.

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in headlines that the dead were "militants" - even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed "officials" claiming that the dead were "militants." It's the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it's true.

This practice continues even though key Obama officials have been caught lying, a term used advisedly, about how many civilians they're killing. I've written and said many times before that in American media discourse, the definition of "militant" is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates (that term was even used when Anwar Awlaki's 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen two weeks after a drone killed his father, even though nobody claims the teenager was anything but completely innocent: "Another U.S. Drone Strike Kills Militants in Yemen").

Obama's escalation of a war that's already caused thousands of deaths will only destabilise his own allies and bolster al-Qaida

More than a decade after George W Bush launched it, the "war on terror" was supposed to be winding down. US military occupation of Iraq has ended and Nato is looking for a way out of Afghanistan, even as the carnage continues. But another war - the undeclared drone war that has already killed thousands - is now being relentlessly escalated.

From Pakistan to Somalia, CIA-controlled pilotless aircraft rain down Hellfire missiles on an ever-expanding hit list of terrorist suspects - they have already killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process.

At least 15 drone strikes have been launched in Yemen this month, as many as in the whole of the past decade, killing dozens; while in Pakistan, a string of US attacks has been launched against supposed "militant" targets in the past week, incinerating up to 35 people and hitting a mosque and a bakery.

Rape and torture have become standard issue in the propaganda arsenal of Western media. Reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Council that claim to document the systematic use of rape and torture by the "enemies" of the West have become usual fair in the soft war against whomever the imperialists have chosen to attack. We have seen these claims used to legitimize aggression against Libya, Iraq, and now Syria.

In an article published in The Telegraph, the author cleverly uses a quote from a Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch making a general statement about the use of rape in detention facilities in order to humiliate, degrade and instill fear. However, he makes no direct reference to Syria, though the article clearly attempts to draw that abstract connection. In fact, as one reads further, the claims of rape and torture at the hands of Syrian security forces come from "activists" (the usual anonymous term applied to any quotable voice parroting the Western talking points regarding Assad and the regime) who have fled Syria. In fact, the so-called activists are, in many cases, wanted terrorists who have fled Syria not in fear of persecution but for fear of being brought to justice for their crimes.

The full text of the Press Conference in which the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Al-Ja'afari denounced "the tsunami of lies that were said a few minutes ago by some members of the Council". - Silvia Cattori

In the wake of the Houla massacre in Syria, and evidence exposing the West's initial narrative of Syrian troops "shelling to death" around 100 people to be categorically false, people are struggling to understand just what happened. The Guardian has chosen to post unverified witness accounts produced by the Free Syrian Army, seemingly custom tailored to refute evidence brought by Russia to the UN Security Council. The BBC has admitted that only "most" of the accounts they've received implicated what they "believe" were Syrian troops, or pro-government militias - and by doing so, imply that some did not and have told a different account.

As the window of opportunity closes for the West to exploit the bloodshed at Houla, the Western media is increasingly backpedaling, retracting, and being caught in a crossfire of their own lies and propagandizing. BBC was caught initially using years' old photos from Iraq for their Houla coverage, while papers and networks across the board have had to adjust their narratives entirely as each new piece of verified evidence emerges.

What is known is that Syrian troops were engaged with armed militants of the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) in and around Houla. Syrian troops, as they have been doing throughout the conflict, were using artillery and tanks to target heavily fortified rebel positions from a distance. During or shortly after this exchange, militants began entering homes and killing families with knives and small arms fire. The FSA and Syrian opposition claim the militants were pro-government militias while the government claims they were foreign-backed Al Qaeda terrorists, known to be operating throughout the country. What they weren't, by all accounts, were Syrian troops.

UN admits almost all of the 108 killed in Houla were killed at close range by militants, not Syrian soldiers firing artillery.

The UN according to Associated Press, has stated that, "most of the 108 victims of a massacre in [Houla] Syria last week were shot at close range, some of them women, children and entire families gunned down in their own homes." The UN has also stated that militants, not Syrian soldiers, were responsible for the massacre. The report cites "witness accounts" claiming the militants were "pro-government thugs known as shabiha," while the Syrian government has claimed the militants were foreign-backed armed terrorists.

This stands in stark contrast to the original narrative the US, UK, France and other NATO members have used to accuse the Syrian government for the atrocities, and even as the basis to expel Syrian diplomats. As stated by UK Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, (emphasis added) "We are appalled at what appears to be credible reports that the Syrian regime has been responsible for the deaths of 92 civilians in Houla, including 32 children. The UN Head of Mission has been able to confirm the numbers and also that artillery tank shells have been used. If this is the case then it's an act of pure, naked savagery and we condemn it in the most strongest possible terms."


Video: UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt peddling what is now a confirmed fabrication, told for days to the public as the West maneuvered to leverage it against the Syrian government. The UN has now confirmed that artillery fired by government troops were not responsible for the massacre, and instead carried out by unidentified militants. Despite this, the UK has failed to retract earlier accusations and has instead expelled Syrian diplomats in an increasingly dangerous, irrational, aggressive posture.

After taping John Stossel's show on March 16 in New York, the Mrs. and I took the 10 a.m. Acela back to Washington. Once we had boarded the train, who should come waddling up the aisle but Bill Kristol.

The Weekly Standard editor seemed cheerful, and we chatted about the surge in Mitt Romney's popularity and prospects.

I did not ask what he had been doing in New York, but thanks to the website Mondoweiss, I found out. Kristol was there for a March 16 "debate" with Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, the pro-Israel organization, at B'nai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side.

After listening to Kristol, writes Phil Weiss, "I am still reeling."

If you experienced this - then you knew a psychopath:

Invented Personas to Manipulate Others

Psychopaths are a different version of themselves for every person they interact with. They also have 'group personas' for family, organisational and workplace interaction.

Highly Unreliable/Broken Promises

Psychopaths will make the most incredibly ambitious plans including you as their right hand man or woman, then, on a whim, discard those plans and move on to some other crusade that excludes you. Targets often alter their own life plans to help the psychopath reach their imaginary goals, resulting in appalling emotional, psychological and financial chaos for the victims when the psychopath moves on.

Idealisation Followed by Cold Rejection

At the height of their idealisation of you, the psychopath will show you obsessive 'love,' care and attention. However, once they feel they have you where they want you - or the relationship has ended - if you collapsed in front of them on the street they would simply step over you as if they'd never met you and continue on their way. Outrageous smear campaigns against the discarded targets to falsely portray them as psychologically unstable, self-serving liars or abusers are often undertaken by psychopaths following the ending of a relationship.

The trauma of childhood sexual abuse is almost incomprehensible. Here, Michael Corry and Aine Tubridy explain some of the consequences

I've come to realise that sexual assault is an imposed death experience for the victim. That is, the victim experiences her life as having been taken by someone else. - Evangeline Kane

The emerging self, with its inherent potential, needs to be protected, and like a seedling, nurtured in fertile ground. Sexual abuse, like no other trauma, eclipses this natural unfolding with an impact of such magnitude that is rarely appreciated. Upwards of 150,000 adult women and men in Ireland have experienced statutory rape in childhood. Five times that figure experienced other forms of sexual abuse, ranging from inappropriate touching to the forced witnessing of exposure.

Picture an infant, whose window on the world is the rim of their cot, whose cry or smile elicits the unqualified unconditional attention of her mother and father, their watchful eyes holding her gaze completely, making her feel for those moments, the absolute centre of the world. In the infant's tiny mind an inner knowing is forming 'I am the reason this is happening'.

Now fast forward to a time when the same apparently loving father is gradually beginning to express his 'love' in a sexual manner, involving her in sex games which evolve over time into full sexual intimacy such as that shared by consenting adults. Her protestations are mollified, her cooperation validated and her secrecy rewarded. Variations of this premature sexualisation occur. Not for some fathers the process of seduction, but rather sadistic, brutal intercourse, instilling terror and pain, where every orifice is violated. She has no escape. Drunk or sober, day or night, he has access to her. Her reason for living has been reduced to being a sexual object, a sex slave. Once again, and in both examples of fathers, the belief holds 'I am the reason this is happening'. The same interpretation will be formed if the attentions are those of a grandfather, uncle, sibling, neighbour or babysitter.