For all you fellow techies and geeks out there

I wanted to write a long article for a while already, but I just don't have the time.  So I will pass on a few things I want to share with you, in no particular order, bullet-style presentation.

Ubuntu is undergoing a serious crisis from which it is unlikely to recover.  Without going into many details, let's just say that Mark Shuttleworth has openly stated that the Unity, the default desktop manager for Ubuntu, is inspired by - I am not kidding you! - "smartphones, Windows and Mac OSX".  The result from that kind of "inspiration" is the worst piece of over-designed bloatware I have ever come across: Unity.  To say that the latter is horrible is an understatement.

Even more depressing is Shuttleworth's openly stated belief that Canonical's "desktop experts" are the best qualified to know what we, the community, want/need on our computers.  He also wants contributors to Ubuntu to hand over their copyrights to Ubuntu, he attempted to pressure Banshee not to contribute directly to GNOME, and he is pushing various proprietary solutions like the Ubuntu One store.  Basically, Mark Shuttleworth is gradually turning into a wannabe Steve Jobs and Ubuntu is going down the "corporate Linux for the masses" road.  I don't want to go into all the details here, but let's just say that many people, including myself, are running away from Ubuntu.  The question is, where can we go?

After doing some research, I have identified the following excellent options:

1) Linux Mint.  This distribution is either Debian based or Ubuntu based (depending on its variant) and it has a rather immodest (unofficial) motto: "Ubuntu done right".  However, it also happens to be true.  Linux Mint is an extremely stable and user-friendly GNU/Linux distribution, but it is not dumbed down, it avoids the pitfall which I call "Linux for idiots" - which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing now.  I cannot write a full review of Linux Mint here, but I will say that its "main" edition is absolutely beautiful, very elegant, stable and well configured.  Linux Mint also has an extremely interesting update system which provides another layer of testing before software is updated.  Most importantly, Linux Mint is 100% community run and one of its main developers has already stated in a forum in reply to a question about the adoption or not of Unity that:

No, not Unity. We’re going for Gnome 3 using a traditional desktop layout (no Gnome Shell). Of course you’ll be able to add Unity or Gnome Shell yourself, but by default the desktop will look similar to the one we’re using at the moment.

This is wonderful news indeed.  It means that "Ubuntu done right" will continue in Linux Mint even if Ubuntu itself will from now become "Ubuntu done totally wrong".

2) Xubuntu.  Many people now that Xubuntu is a variant of Ubuntu which uses the XFCE desktop, which is true, but it is more than that.  Xubuntu is a 100% community run Ubuntu variant which does not depend on the whims of Mr. Shuttleworth or Canonical.  Furthermore, a great deal of effort has been put by the developers of Xubuntu to make it into a full-fledged, well integrated, distro, not just Ubuntu with XFCE instead of GNOME or Unity (which, technically, is a GNOME plugin).  I would say that Xubuntu is a tad more oriented to the non-newbie than Mint, and, in my experience, its also somehow more buggy. Still, it is extremely fast, very elegant, and XFCE is really turning into a powerful desktop, comparable to GNOME.

3) Debian.  Debian is the "Mother of all distros".  No distro comes even close to being in the same league as Debian.  Here are a few numbers just to illustrate this point:

• 1000+ volunteer developers
• 30'000+ applications (5 DVDs or 30 CDs)
• security and stability matched only by BSD
• runs on 9+2 (BSD) different architectures
• translated into 65 languages
• The cost of developing all the packages included in Debian 5.0 Lenny (323 million lines of code), using the COCOMO model, has been estimated to be about US$ 8 billion
• Unique bug-tracking system

But this is not the full story yet.  Debian is also a Social Contract, Free Software Guidelines, a even Debian Constitution.  Debian really is the "Universal Operating System", the GNU/Linux distribution "par excellence".  It does, however, have one feature which is an issue for many users: its "stable" branch tends to have software versions which are somewhat older than other distros.  This is due to the extremely high quality control Debian imposes on its "stable" release.  The other particularity of Debian is that while you do not need a Ph.D in computer sciences to run it, it is designed by folks who love computers for folks who love computers.  If you want to know as little as possible about how computer work and if all you need is a machine to run office software and browse the net, then Debian is probably not the best choice for you.  But if you love computers, then Debian is really a dream come true.

There is also a "bleeding edge" version of Debian called "Debian testing".  I personally love it, but it is really for hardcore techies who actually enjoy "hunting" and "squashing" "bugs" and who want to contribute to the development of Debian.  "Testing" is my personal favorite, but you need to be ready to do a lot of reading to enjoy using it.

One more thing about Debian.  There is a huge list of Debian-derivatives, beginning by Ubuntu itself and, therefore, all Ubuntu derivatives.  Some of these Debian derivatives are excellent distros in their own right, like for example Crunchbang or the excellent Debian-based live-CDs like Knoppix and Damn Small Linux.

So the disaster of Ubuntu is not the end of the world, far from it.  The current exodus of users from Ubuntu (not to mention all the distros currently moving away from Ubuntu repos to Debian repos!) is actually a good thing for the free software community because it re-centers our community around corporate-free GNU/Linux distributions, and that is most definitely a good thing.

One more item I wanted to share with you the very interesting interview with Dan and Fab recently did with Christian Heilmann, Mozilla's "Principal Evangelist" which you can download here (in mp3 and ogg formats).  Browsers are extraordinarily important applications and Mozilla's FireFox is arguably the flagship of all free and open source browsers, so listening to a Mozilla representative is always very interesting.

Okay, that's it for now.  

Cheers,

The Saker

What is really happening in Europe?

Londres flambe, Londres flambe,

Quelle affaire, quelle affaire,

Au feu ! Au feu !

Pas d'eau, rien à faire.

French children's song

First, there were the riots in France.  Then the riots spread to other countries, Spain, Greece, and now the Britain.  As I sit and watch the various news reports I am amazed to see to what degree they are all missing the point and misreading the nature of what is going on.

London's burning!

As some of you might now, when I was still living in Europe I was a military analyst doing strategic intelligence analysis for a European country.  Among other things, I had access to a lot of the brainstorming about potential social unrest which might happen not only in my country, but also in the rest of Europe (we were primarily interested in that because of potential refugee movements).  I can tell you that all of what is going on today has long been foreseen by the security services.  The problem, the dilemma, really, is that there is nothing which they could really do about it.  Let me explain.

There are several, distinct, factors which are acting together in a positive feedback loop help to create this "perfect storm" of social unrest.  And even though the media did correctly identify many of them, it failed to understand their nature.  Let's take them one by one.

Immigration:

Yes, absolutely, beyond any shade of a doubt, immigration plays a role in these riots.  But its not a simple, straightforward "there are too many immigrants" kind of thing.  First, there are many different types of immigrations, not just one immigration.  It is one thing to have a large percentage of Italian or Portuguese immigrants in your neighborhood, and a totally different one when the immigrant are Albanians or Pakistani.  I will not go into a long discussion of why Albanian immigrants are so different from, say, Moroccans or Senegalese immigrants, suffice to say here that anybody who has had any experience in the security forces will tell you, off the record, of course, that the worst immigrants to deal with are first generation Albanians (2nd generation are just fine) and second generation Algerians (1st generation are just fine).  Weird, but true, and largely off-topic for this article.

Second, it is important to stress here that even in the worst types of immigrants, its only a rather small minority, say 10%, which causes all the troubles.  The vast majority only want a peaceful and decent life.  The problem here is simple: how do you deal with the former without alienating the latter (nevermind grievously violating the civil and human right!)

Third, some immigrants have kept close ties to their country of origin and in some cases that can make them ideal agents for all sorts of illegal activities (funding through narcotics trade is a big favorite here).  In the past, Kurdish immigrants used to be deeply infiltrated by the PKK, more recently we saw the Albanian immigrants providing a powerful lobby and source of support for the KLA.

The main problem with immigrants is that there is no government branch which can adequately deal with them.  Think about it.  Security services cannot simply single out or target a group solely based upon its ethnicity or religion.  Not only would that be wrong, it would also be illegal, and eventually counter-productive.  Keep in mind that many, if not most, immigrants are have a legal status, and often even citizenship.  They are entitled to being protected by the security services, not harassed or otherwise singled out. Besides, most security services are too small, and they are really trained to deal with gangsters, terrorists and spies, not 10-20% of any one country's population.  The police is no better.  First, let's be frank here, they are rarely the smartest folks around, and they have to deal mostly with much more mundane issues such as common crime or traffic.  In these times of economic crisis, the cops are also pretty much maxed out - they don't have the resources to allocate to such a big and complex phenomenon as immigration-linked problems.  The military?  Sure, its big, but it simply does not have the mandate to deal with internal threats, in particular not threat coming from its own legal residents and citizens.

So while the cops and even the military can make all sorts of shows of force, they are really useless.  And they know that. Let me just give you one example.

Say that in our country Albanian immigrants control 90% of the hard drugs market.  They have no problems shooting cops or any competitors.  They make huge money and the put at risk entire neighborhoods.  What do you do about it?

You can't just arrest all Albanians.  You need to find the bad ones.  How?  Well, monitor them, infiltrate them, at arrest all the bad guys in one big operation.  Sounds good, no?  Except.  Except that what judge is going to allow you to tap somebody's phone just because he is an Albanian and owns a bar?  And where are you going to find enough language specialists capable of translating and transcribing Albanian?  And how do you propose to infiltrate Albanian gangs when their social structure is quasi tribal and everybody knows everybody?

As for the European xenophobes daydreaming about some "Christian West" and about how they would "expel all these foreigners", they are simply out of touch with reality.  Their theories are utter nonsense.  These folks make good speeches about how they would solve the problem if they were in power, without even realizing that the state simply does not have a tool which could be used to implement their empty promises.  Finally, the xenophobes will not be voted into power simply most Europeans are educated enough to realize that immigration is simply a function of disparity and that if the West exploits and and terrorizes the rest of the planet, immigrants will always try to flee to a safer, better place.

The economic crisis:

Of course it plays are role here.  Somebody with a psychologically and financially rewarding job is highly unlikely to spend his free time going on a rampage or looting.  I am not saying that poverty is the cause of these riots, there are few really poor and destitute people in Europe and they don't riot at all.  It's the pointlessness of being unemployed or having a disgusting job which makes people angry enough to go out and fight the visible instruments of the "order": the cops.  So these riots are not hunger riots, they are hate riots, and that is very different.

The so-called "victory" of the West in the Cold War has resulted in a wave of unrestrained turbo-capitalism run amok and we now see the inevitable conclusion of the previously exported exploitation (in the form of imperialism - thanks Lenin, you were right here!) coming back home and doing what Marx had long predicted: a nasty class war.

As an aside, allow me this little digression here.  I was one in the hall of a UN conference where the representatives of the West were congratulating each other on "winning the Cold War".  And then, the Representative of Pakistan took the floor and with his unique Paki accent said: "has anybody here ever considered that the West did not win the Cold War, but that the internal contradictions of Communism did catch up with the Communist system before the internal contradictions of Capitalism will catch up with Capitalist nations?".  His statement was greeted in total silence, and then rapidly forgotten, of course.  But he was right, this is exactly what we are seeing today.  Class warfare not so much between the haves and have-nots, as between the rulers and their alienated subjects.

Political factors:

Let's put it bluntly.  Europe is a US colony.  Just as in the Middle-East or Latin America, the US Empire relies on a class of collaborators which is rewards with wealth and power for its subservience to the US Empire.  Everybody knows that Europeans did not want to go to war in Iraq of Afghanistan.  Everybody knows that Europeans did not want to start a war in Libya.  Heck, most Europeans did not even want the kind of EU which the elites did impose upon them.  The vast majority of Europeans are opposed to the IMF/WB "austerity measures" and the vast majority of Europeans know that the international bankers have screwed one European country after another.  Everybody also knows that there is no real "Left" in Europe (Tony Blair or Cohn-Bendit are not more leftists than a tiger is a vegetarian) and that the only non-co-opted political parties don' stand a chance in any real election.  And here is where the immigration factor also comes into place.

Most immigrants know all to well what role the West has played into turning their countries of origin into such a hell-hole that they had to emigrate to the very same West not because they love or admire it, but in spite of the fact that they hate it.

Another digression, if I may.  I often hear Americans saying that "if our society is so bad why do people from all over the world emigrate to the USA".  Guys, let me break you the bad news: these immigrants *hate* you and *hate* your society.  And this is why they are so willing to rob you, whether at gunpoint or otherwise: they are robbing the robber.  I personally live in Florida and I am fluent in Spanish and I can assure you that most Hispanics *despise* the Anglos and will say so quite openly to any Spanish speaker.  I have heard that many times.  First, I approach some Hispanic and ask him - in English - for something and he basically tells me to get lost.  I switch into Spanish.  The guy immediately makes a 180 and not only helps me, but goes out of his way to accommodate me.  Once I was even told that "we need to help each other against these assholes" (meaning the Anglos).  Its exactly the same in Europe, I have seen that many times there too.  And, please, don't simply get offended at that - if you are European or Anglo-American - but understand this is only a case of karma, of chicken coming to roost, of "he who sows the winds, reaps the tempest" as the French expression goes.

So the combination of thoroughly alienated European youths with angry and resentful immigrants makes for an explosive mix.  I would even say that many European youths who oppose the imperialist and capitalist systems identify themselves far more with the brown-skinned immigrants and their hatred of the "system" than with their parents, teachers or politicians.

Of course, not all immigrants hate their host-country.  But enough do.  That is the point.

Secularism/atheism/agnosticism:

Now a lot of you will get really mad at mine.  Fine.  I will tell you what I know and what I think, and you can shoot or dismiss the messenger.  I don't care, really.

The sentence "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" (often attributed to Dostoevsky) might anger secularists/atheists/agnostics (further called "SAAs") but, guys, its indisputable.  The very concepts of "right" and "wrong" have absolutely no basis in logic, even if most SAAs don't realize it, or choose not to act on it.  But that is more of a philosophical point and, thus, off-topic again.  More relevant to my topic is this: religious communities are never involved in the type of riots and civil disturbances we see in Europe.  I lived right next to a mosque and I can tell you that when most "proper and law abiding citizens" were informed that a large mosque would be built in our neighborhood they were horrified.  They thought that this would result in an influx of rapists, muggers or even terrorists.  Within one year of the opening of the mosque the "proper and law abiding citizens" realized that the kind of immigrants who show up for prayers at the mosque were far more "proper and law abiding" then the locals!  This is also why a vice-cop once told me in Toulon "we never have any problems with first-generation Algerian emigrants, they are all Muslims and have a traditional education; it's the second generation Algerians (who often become SAAs) which are the cause of all our problems".

And no, I am not dismissing religious riots in India or Egypt, and no, I am not saying that Muslims or Christians are "better" than SAAs.  In fact I will even admit that a 'negative' religion like the atheistic Communism or the pagan National-Socialism can yield an ethos, if not quite a real morality.  But Europe is a post-Christian society in which the very concepts or right and wrong have been ridiculed beyond any hope of redemption and in which the majority of the ignorant, alienated and angered youth believes in absolutely nothing.

Consider this: there is an entire generation (several, I would argue) that has been raised in a society in which lies and hypocrisy are the norm, in which violence, in particular, but not only, against dark-skinned people is an integral part of the social order, in which the rich get richer, the poor poorer and in which democracy is an empty word meaning little more than submission to authority.  How could anybody seriously expect that kind of generation not to explode, sooner or later?

Not only do most European youth believe that Christianity, Islam and all other religions are a lie, they also believe that Socialism, Communism, Democracy or free-market Capitalism and globalization are also lies.  And, frankly, they are right: the kinds if Christianity, Islam, Communism, Democracy, free-market Capitalism or globalization which they have been exposed to are, really, all lies.

And this is why to simply call them "thugs" and "criminals" not false, but also not quite correct.  Yes, their actions are criminal, and their excuses about "racism" and "poverty" are just that - excuses, cop-outs.  But on a deeper level, what these riots show are the signs of the agony of a system built on one and only "value": greed.  Because this is what capitalism, the putative victor of the Cold War, truly is. It is an ideology whose fundamental dogma is that the ideal society is the product of the sums of everybody's greeds.  As a direct by-product of this is the truism that "growth is always and by definition, good" (the mere fact that infinite grow in a finite environment is exactly the reason why tumors kill their hosts is simply not considered).

So this is what, I believe, these riots are really about: a comprehensive failure of the Capitalist system.  An economic failure of course, but also a political and moral failure. Capitalism is a fundamentally anti-human system which cannot be sustained without killing its host.  The riots in Europe are only one - amongst many other - symptom of the fact.

The Saker

Guys - please help Gilad fight the Zionists who are trying to intimidate him

Dear friends,

I just got this email from Gilad. I ask you to do what I just did myself: pre-order his book. That is the best way to make sure that the Zionist will fail in their attempt to prevent its publication. This is really the least we can do (its only 10 bucks!)

Many thanks,

The Saker

-------

Hello everybody,

My new book, “The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics”, is scheduled for release in six weeks time and it seems that the usual suspects -- Zionists and their collaborators within the marginal 'left' -- are already in a state of panic. In the last few days, my publishing house, my editors and I have been subjected to immense and intense pressure that included harassment, intimidation, and even anonymous threats, as the demands mounted on my publisher to pull the book.

Leading the harassment campaign were the openly pro-war Zionist Islamophobes from “Harry’s Place”, who wrote “more now than ever, strong opposition to Atzmon and his politics is needed.”

Within minutes of the “Harry’s Place” post, Andy Newman joined in with their futile attempt at an intimidation campaign, writing on Socialist Unity “I am concerned to learn that the anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, is writing a book on Jews for the Zero Press.”(Andy Newman is the “Socialist” who for years appeared to spend much of his energy engaged mainly in gate-keeping anti-Israeli discourse within the British 'left'.)

Predictably enough, staunch Iraq war advocate and Israeli Hasbara author David Aaronovitch was also very quick to join in the campaign on the notorious Jewish Chronicle’s pages.

The question must be asked: why are these people so afraid of Gilad Atzmon? Why are they afraid of Atzmon’s writing and ideas? Why are they so desperate to stop the book, even going so far as to attempt to intimidate the author, the editor and the publishing company?

Be assured that I have collected all the relevant information about the individuals who have attempted to launch an intimidation campaign against me and my publisher, and I will publish it all in due time -- but the most important factor to observe here is -- how is it that the openly Islamophobic “Harry’s Place” and pro-war David Aaronovitch are caught together with the armchair ‘progressive’ “Socialist Unity”, united in the same cause of trying to stop my work from being published ?

I believe that my new book provides the answers. I disclose the horrifying continuum between Zionists and so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists. I also explore the deep Islamophabia within the left. Without referring to ethnicity or race, I unveil some fundamental issues at the core of Jewish Identity politics.

I can assure you that none of my detractors have read my book yet, but they know what to expect. They know what I am capable of. And indeed, I promise to provide. The book is short but I believe it says it all, and it has already been endorsed and supported by some of the most important thinkers and academics within the anti Zionist movement.

Dear friends, I have a big war ahead of me, and I predict that I may need your support from time to time.

Surprisingly perhaps, I would like to end this post by quoting from the racist “Harry’s Place” mission statement -- stamped boldly on their webpage is the terse aphorism, “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

I actually go along with the “Harry’s place” mantra -- and I hope that my detractors will be brave enough to deal with my text. At least for them reflection is long overdue.

Gilad Atzmon

You can now pre-order the book on

Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Pakistan TV Report Contradicts US Claim of Bin Laden’s Death

(thanks to L. for pointing out this article to me! The Saker)

By Paul Craig Roberts

In my recent article, "Creating Evidence Where There Is None," about the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden by a commando team of US Seals in Abbottabad, Pakistan, I provided a link to a Pakistani National TV interview with Muhammad Bashir, who lives next door to the alleged "compound" of Osama bin Laden. I described the story that Bashir gave of the "attack" and its enormous difference from the one told by the US government. In Bashir’s account, every member of the landing party and anyone brought from the house died when the helicopter exploded on lift-off. I wrote that a qualified person could easily provide a translation of the interview, but that no American print or TV news organization had investigated Bashir’s account.

An attorney with a British Master of Laws degree in international law and diplomacy, who was born in Pakistan, provided the translation below. He writes: "I have no problem with being identified as the translator, but would prefer to remain anonymous. "

The translator provides these definitions and clarifications:

"Gulley" is generally referred (in Urdu) to a sidewalk or pavement. Also for the space between two houses.

"kanal" is a traditional unit of land area, so that one kanal equals exactly 605 square yards or 1/8 Acre; this is equivalent to about 505. 857 square meters.

Muhammad Bashir refers to himself as "We". This is common respectable language for the self; to use the plural term instead of singular. The English language equivalent would be the "Royal, We".

Urdu is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan.

The translator:

I have translated the entire text of this video:

I have tried my best to keep words in a chronological order, but in some cases this is not possible, as in translation words must be replaced in reverse order to make sense! However, I have had to put a few words in brackets to clarify meaning. If you want to ask about any section—please supply time stamp and I will supply a contextual text.

Video Transcript:

Welcome back!—Muhammad Bashir, Abotabad Area, Bilal Town resident, Looks like an ordinary person, but he is no ordinary person! Muhammad Bashir, lives in Abotabad's, Bilal Town Opposite Bin Laden's House.

Night of 2nd May Muhammad Bashir was on the roof of his house, whereupon, the entire OBL, American operation was seen with his own eyes.

Last night, when our team was in Abotabad, Bilal Town, near OBL house, Muhammad Bashir approached me and said that:

"Sister, I want to tell you something that is a great burden on my heart and conscience"—Listen to what he said:

00: 59 Muhammad Bashir: I. . today. . . would like to comment about todays Abotabad operation events, until now, what I am about to say, no person has said.

01: 08: Reporter: But, Muhammad Bashir sahib appeared frightened. While speaking to me, Muhammad Bashir sahib phoned his relative; leader, M. E. A. of Jamaat-e-islami, Abotabad, Abdul Razaq Abaasi on the phone.

01: 21: reporter: Tell me your name and where do you live?

Muhammad Bashir: —One minute, first I need to speak to him. . . I am going to give an interview, a complete interview. Shall I give a complete interview or half?

Reporter: Complete!—complete!

Muhammad Bashir: I first need to phone him, I need to speak to him

Reporter: I could of. . .

01: 39: Reporter: Muhammad Bashir sahib, on that night's events of the American operation, that took place, he expressed such comments about circumstances that have never been expressed before, therefore, we checked his ID card, his place of residence and we can confirm that he definitely lives there and we also approached senior politicians and asked about him, after hearing his comments, we were amazed—now you watch what he said.

01: 57: Muhammad Bashir: The events that happened are thus; we were awake, we were not asleep.

02: 00: Muhammad Bashir: a Helicopter came, and circled and dropped some people there.

02: 07: Muhammad Bashir: in that house. . . where they are saying; Osama lives here, on that house's roof, they dropped people, after that, the helicopter returned and went back.

02: 16: Reporter: How many people were they?

02: 18: Muhammad Bashir: They were ten, twelve people

02: 20: Muhammad Bashir: After that it left and for approximately 20 minutes, there behind us, on those mountains, it kept going around, the top of the mountains.

02: 27: After 20 minutes, it returned. When it returned, at that time there were TWO more helicopters arrived. One came from the West and one came from the North. When it approached for landing, after that. . .

At this point; Video cut and resumed:

02: 41: Muhammad Bashir: that helicopter, there was an explosion within it and there was fire within it, immediately, we

came out and arrived there. When we arrived, the helicopter was on fire, it was burning. After that, about twenty minutes later the Army arrived, the police arrived. They moved all of us back. . .

03: 04: Muhammad Bashir: . . . and all the people inside it, all of them. . . we think; if Osama was inside it, or inside this house—then who took him to the Americans?

03: 16: Muhammad Bashir: Because America. . . the helicopters that America is saying; IT carried out the operation. If America did this operation and it's army came and it's helicopter came, then that helicopter that came from the American's, within that, all the people that came, those people with the explosion were finished, got destroyed!

03: 35: Muhammad Bashir: Within it, there was fire, those people, all of them died!

03: 39: and if Osama was there, they would have put him in the helicopter. Obviously, if the helicopter caught fire, Osama could have died there. If their own people were gone, (dead) so could have Osama. After that, the fallen helicopter was destroyed after this, how can Osama be, with them in America? this is a strange thing!

Video cut & resumes

03: 59: Muhammad Bashir: They are saying we killed Osama here. After that, they picked him up and took him away.

04: 04: Muhammad Bashir: PICKED HIM UP AND TOOK HIM AWAY—how did they do this? This, what we are thinking!

04: 07: Muhammad Bashir: The Americans' helicopter that came, that fell here and got destroyed!

04: 09: Reporter: There was only ONE helicopter?

04: 11: Muhammad Bashir: ONE helicopter landed down here, the second helicopter came from above and went towards Mansera.

It did not land. No second helicopter landed!

04: 20: Only ONE helicopter, that first dropped it's passengers, the SAME returned to pick the people and there was an explosion within it.

04: 27: Reporter: People were inside it?

04: 29: Muhammad Bashir: People were inside it!

04: 30: Reporter: How do you know this?

04: 32: Muhammad Bashir: These people, we seen them all

04: 34: Reporter: In the helicopter. . . you saw dead people?

04: 36: Muhammad Bashir: We saw dead people!

04: 38: Reporter: How many people?

04: 39: Muhammad Bashir: This, we could not count, within the compound there was fire.

04: 43: Muhammad Bashir: and we. . . the gate was open, we entered the gate, at that time the Army had not arrived.

04: 48: Muhammad Bashir: Police had not arrived. Some people from the agencies, were present, but they did not prevent anybody, they kept entering, every person was looking , now, nobody is saying, but everyone from the mohalla (neighbourhood) and all the people present from the mohalla arrived first. We saw the gate open, we entered inside, saw the burning helicopter, the people inside were dead. After that everything was lifted. Now, there is nothing there!

05: 16: Reporter: How many dead bodies did you see?

05: 18: Muhammad Bashir: Look, you cannot count, the dead bodies were in pieces everything else was broken pieces, some here, some there, some broken, some half, some like this.

05: 27: Reporter: Tell me fully—what happened?

06: 30: Reporter: Tell me the full events

05: 31: Muhammad Bashir: I told you, this is. . .

05: 32: Reporter: You did not. . . I cannot believe this, that's why.

05: 36: Muhammad Bashir: Look, what I have said—that's it!

Video Cut!

05: 39: Reporter: When you saw the American craft, (Helicopter) what did you think, why they came here?

05: 42: Muhammad Bashir: We thought. . . this is it. . . why did they came? we thought why did they come? maybe. . we. . . did not

expect them to do anything, we thought maybe our Army is arriving at some centre and the army people were sleeping,

there was no explosions or events taking place, nothing was happening, everybody was sleeping, for 20 minutes or so. . .

06: 05: Reporter: The craft landed in front of your house, how did you feel about this?

06: 08: Muhammad Bashir: I thought. . just. . . understand. . . imagine. . we thought we're dead!

Video cut:

06: 13: Reporter: But, how did the Americans return?

06: 16: Muhammad Bashir: This is what I am saying; their Craft came and the helicopter was destroyed, HOW, could they return?

06: 22: Reporter: Tell me this; you say, that you saw the dead bodies yourself. . . .

06: 25: Muhammad Bashir: one more thing, Madam, may I tell you; The people who were dropped from the craft, That walkway . . . that . . where our gates are. . . they banged them hard. . . and shouted. . . don't come out. . . don't do this, don't do that, if you come

out you will be shot. . we will do this, we will do that, all the people who were dropped, all of them spoke Pashtu

(Afgahni Language)—Pakhtun!

06: 49: Reporter: Who were these people?

06: 49: Muhammad Bashir: This I do not know! Those who were dropped from the craft (helicopter), those people.

06: 54: Reporter: This, somebody else told me—that they spoke Pashtu.

06: 57: Muhammad Bashir: They WERE Pashtun! we do not know if they were working for the Americans, we do not know if they were working for Pakistan, we do not know if they were army people or civilian, what people, BUT they SPOKE PASHTU!

07: 07: Reporter: You said you heard they were asking for Osama?

07: 09: Muhammad Bashir: No, they didn't ask me about Osama, they just said, do not come out, if you come out from your house, we will shoot you!

07: 16: Reporter: Were these Pakistani people?

Muhammad Bashir: who?

07: 18: Reporter: The ones who were saying that if you come out, we will shoot you.

07: 20: Muhammad Bashir: They said that in Pashtu!

07: 22: Reporter: so did they. . were you coming out. . . exactly where were you, where was you standing when this happened?

07: 26: Muhammad Bashir: Inside the house, on top of the roof, I was not in the house, just on top of the (flat)roof

07: 29: Reporter: from Above the roof these people in the helicopter. . .

07: 30: Muhammad Bashir: I was on the roof, sitting, no, lying down, on the roof,lying and watching this and what was happening

07: 37: Reporter: Fear, was you not afraid? did you not think to phone someone?

07: 40: Muhammad Bashir: From the house, They were calling me from downstairs, the children were calling me, come down, come down, and I told them stop making noise! go into your rooms, I am watching what is happening. Afterwards, I found

out about this, that, Osama was killed here!

07: 53: Reporter: How did you get inside? (the compound)

Muhammad Bashir: where?

Reporter: when there was fire.

Muhammad Bashir: the gate was open, when there was fire, the gate was open.

08: 02: Reporter: The house gate was open?

08: 03: Muhammad Bashir: The outer gate, the big gate, was open.

08: 06: Reporter: You came from upstairs to downstairs?

08: 08: Muhammad Bashir: I came down, from my own house into the gulley, I didn't go alone inside the other house, 200 other people went inside! Everybody saw it!

08: 15: Reporter: All 200 saw the dead bodies?

08: 17: Muhammad Bashir: Everybody saw this. Whoever went inside they saw everything!

08: 20: Reporting: the events at that time that are in your mind, please express them.

08: 28: Muhammad Bashir: I have told you this and this, in my mind, this is what I have seen, when we were there, when we entered the gate, When the helicopter exploded, it scattered everywhere, one piece fell over there, one fell here, one here, a lot of pieces fell in the gulley outside, they reached up to the gulley and our house and also some pieces managed to reach onto my roof. so, the area of the open space there (in front of the house) is about four Kanal in size. It is a very large compound. You cannot see all of it from one location. Four Kanal is a big area, only in a small area you could possibly see everything. There I saw some people, in broken pieces, someone's leg, someone's arm, someone's torso, someone's head. Beside this, I did not see intensely, who are they, how are they, because I thought that one of our own craft had fallen and the people within it were our own people. Because they spoke Pashtu they could be pakistani.

09: 35: Muhammad Bashir: but language does not necessarily mean. . by speaking it. . . the American language could be spoken, the agents can speak all sorts of languages. It could be that it is the American army and they could speak Pashtu and the people would think that it is our own people.

09: 54: Reporter: Seeing the dead bodies—did you not feel fear?

09: 57: Muhammad Bashir: But we were thinking about ourselves at the time, but seeing the dead bodies who felt frightened?

10: 00: Reporter: When you went inside, what did you do after that, how did you come out?

10: 02: Muhammad Bashir: we came out, our Army reached there, when the army arrived, they moved all the people back. Move aside, move aside! So we moved aside. Then they closed the area down.

10: 13: Reporter: did Rais see this?

Muhammad Bashir: What?

Reporter: where was your cousin?

10: 18: Muhammad Bashir: My cousin was at that time in the house.

10: 20: Reporter: Did he go with you?

10: 21: Muhammad Bashir: He was with me, but I did not notice when he was picked up.

10: 28: Reporter: Has he returned yet?

10: 29: Muhammad Bashir: Yes, he has returned. They picked him up and took him away.

10: 32: Reporter: What is he saying?

10: 34: Muhammad Bashir: I have not met him yet, he is at home they will not let him come out, we are not allowed to visit him, they will not let him come out. We have not met.

10: 40: Reporter: You was not able find out, but since when have you been allowed out.

10: 45: Muhammad Bashir: I did not go home, by going home. . .

Reporter: You have seen the fire you have seen the bodies how long did you stay there?

Muhammad Bashir: approximately, after five or six minutes, I left and came out. . five, six minute. . what happened . . . . the reason we left, was that after we entered, there was another small explosion, I do not know if the engine fail and

there was another fire, it was a small explosion, after this explosion all the people ran out.

11: 06: Muhammad Bashir: when we went out, nobody let us go back in again.

11: 11: Reporter: Besides you, why is nobody else saying these things? why are you alone in this?

11: 16: Muhammad Bashir: Look, what we have seen, that is what we are saying and we are speaking for this reason that, we are sad that such humble and nice people of our town, that has never seen such events, no fighting, no arguments, no animosity, No murders, such nice people of ours in this town and they have been branded as terrorists.

11: 43: Reporter: Tell me; two helicopters came, lifted and took the rest of the people?

11: 46: Muhammad Bashir: No—they did not take the rest of the people, because they did not even land, One came from the West and it left towards the North, the one that came from the North, left towards the South. They did not land!

12: 00: Studio Reporter: these events that we showed you from Abotabad, there are many more things that we discovered about the compound where OBL was staying, there were vegetables planted there, what kind of vegetables, the person who grows the vegetables is the cousin of this person (Muhammad Bashir), whose interview we have shown. An extraordinary thing that he has said and he has sworn repeatedly on the veracity of his statement. this is from his own account and upon this account do view this. Yesterday we found out and it has been confirmed that there were two Ashfaq's who lived there (in the compound): Mr Arshad and Mr Tariq who went shopping locally and used to buy international brands, the items they found in the house, dry dates, dried meat and things like this, this person who you saw in the interview in his house there was food from OBL's house, he was given Kaabli Pillau (Rice) and such items were presented to him, There the view of local mosque people, what they think of OBL all these things we will present to you in an exclusive program an important newsbeat, todays time is finishing, do write to us at newsbeat@samaa. tv where you can get other information as well and you can join us at newsbeat with Fareeha Idrees thats my favourite bit, do write to us, the time is up now, By your permission to leave, take care of yourself, In Allah's care.

13: 20: Reporter: I am now at standing in front of Abdullah Bin Zubair Mosque, this is the same mosque that is within walking distance from OBL's house. Are you saying that if people found out that OBL was living here, would they be happy?

1st man: Possibly, people could be happy.

2nd man: He wasn't living here, but he was a Muslim, he believed in Allah.

End of translation

Anyone fluent in Urdu who wishes to dispute the translation should do so.

I asked the translator if he might contact the Pakistani news organization and inquire if the reporters had further investigated Bashir’s story. He replied that he could do so, but exactly 24 hours later "for some unknown reason" the news organization started to discredit Bashir by connecting "him to his cousin, who is accused of receiving foodstuffs from the household of OBL. "

Bashir’s cousin is the person who, according to the reporter (see 12: 00 time line) had a vegetable garden inside the wall of the alleged bin Laden compound. Is it likely that with a hunted and dangerous person hiding within, locals would be permitted to have vegetable gardens inside the compound? The cousin’s vegetable garden obviously had to be redefined as "receiving foodstuffs from OBL. "

The translator offers his view on the 13: 20 timeline:

"The final seconds of the video clip contain random people to generate and show some kind of sympathy with OBL in the district.

"It would be very difficult to find people in Pakistan who sympathise with OBL or the Taliban. The only people who do sympathise are the poor illiterate people who do not know about the religion and can easily be convinced of a distorted version of Islam.

Therefore, the closing part of the video contains, out of context expressions:

"1st man: Possibly, people could be happy. (Meaning it is possible that SOME people could be happy. )

2nd man: He wasn't living here, but he was a Muslim, he believed in Allah. (Meaning; he claimed to be Muslim, so he must have believed in Allah. )

"Therefore, it seems that although initially, the TV station was overjoyed with this interview, they changed their tune, twenty four hours later. (for some unknown reason.)"

Readers can arrive at their own conclusions. It seems clear to me that under intense pressure and serious threats from the US government, the Pakistani government fell in line with the US government’s claim that a commando raid had killed bin Laden, and that the TV news organization got the message to get in line also.

It is likely that the many witnesses who observed the dead from the helicopter crash have been warned to keep quiet. However, a news organization, should one be so inclined, could certainly interview Bashir and the 200 others who saw the dead bodies. A good reporter, perhaps accompanied by trained psychologists, would be able to tell if people were lying out of fear and encourage some to speak anonymously.

I am confident that no news organization believes that it could confront such an important US national myth in this way. The killing of bin Laden satisfies the emotional need for revenge and justice. In the least, a news organization that challenged the government’s story would be cut off from all government sources and be denounced by politicians and a large percentage of the US population as an anti-American terrorist-serving organization. OBL’s death will remain one of those many "truths" that rest on nothing but the government’s word.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Stock markets becoming bloodbath

Markets plunge again

The Israëli Awakening?!

The Dangerous Cult of 9/11

By Elias Davidsson for Truthjihad

A new religious movement was born September 11th, 2001. This movement was conceived by the American government and comprises many members of the American and European elite, politicians, editors of mass and so-called alternative media, publishers and academics. The movement's unifying faith is the legend of 9/11, namely that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew these airliners into the known landmarks in a suicide operation. The legend of 9/11 is composed of a number of distinct beliefs. Here are ten of the most tenacious beliefs that unite cult members:

1. They believe that 4 young pilots who love money, alcohol and sex, could be convinced to kill themselves for a religious purpose.

2. They believe that four teams of four to five rather smallish men could subdue 40 to 80 passengers without using firearms and without raising the suspicion of the pilots.

3. They believe it is possible to subdue a pilot and co-pilot in their flight cabin before either can transmit a hijacking code, a verbal Mayday message, or raise the suspicion of the crew.

4. They believe a person who could hardly control a one-engine Cessna can fly a Boeing passenger airliner on instruments alone for more than an hour in a foreign country and crash this airliner at 500 mph into the side of a building 20 feet above ground.

5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft.

6. They believe crashing aircraft can disintegrate, leaving no visible debris such as fuselage, wings, tail or engine.

7. They believe an airliner with 45 passengers can crash without leaving visible bodies and blood.

8. They believe debris from a crashing airplane can be found eight miles away.

9. They believe it is possible to induce a free-fall collapse of a skyscraper by hitting it with an airplane (even if the skycraper was designed to withstand such a strike) and then letting the resulting fire bring it down.

10. They believe that 19 Arab terrorists actually boarded the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11.

Religious movements are generally peaceful, but this is not the case with the 9/11 Cult. The cult's members control weapons of mass destruction and the information flow to the public. When such powers are concentrated in the hands of cult members who base their decisions on irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, rather than on facts, everyone is in danger.

Members of this cult, no matter their status, fame or power, must be designated as madmen. It is important to secure the removal of such madmen from positions of influence and power as soon as possible, in order to give international peace and security a chance.

(*) Thanks to Barrie Zwicker (Canada) and Prof. David Ray Griffin (USA) for critical observations

Why the West is Committed to the Murderous Rebels in Libya

By Patrick Cockburn for The Independent

In keeping with the British Government's well-established record of comical ineptitude in dealing with Libya, William Hague chose to recognise the rebel leaders in Benghazi as the legitimate government of the country at the very moment some of them may have been shooting or torturing to death their chief military commander.

The exact circumstances surrounding the killing of General Abdel Fattah Younes remain murky, but he appears to have been lured from his operational headquarters at the front and arrested. As Gaddafi's long-term defence and interior minister, who gave a crucial boost to the insurrection by defecting in February, he knew he was a target for assassination, but may have misjudged the likely identity of the assassins. Believing he was on his way to answer allegations of still being in touch with Muammar Gaddafi, he and two of his senior aides were murdered and their bodies burned. "You killed him," shouted some of his soldiers as they burst into the hotel where the Transitional National Council (TNC) had been meeting. Probably they are right and it is difficult to believe claims by the TNC that pro-Gaddafi gunmen had infiltrated Benghazi and assassinated the commander-in-chief.

Regardless of the circumstances of his death, the murder should begin to raise questions about who Britain and other foreign powers are backing as a replacement to Gaddafi in Libya. What regime will follow his long-delayed fall, when and if it happens? Will a new regime be able to control the country? Is there any reason to suppose that it will have general support, given the bitterness of the civil war? Will the rebels not be as reliant on foreign powers in peace as they have been in war?

Remember that neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were popular in Iraq or Afghanistan at they time they were driven from power. But what followed in both cases was prolonged and murderous anarchy because of the weakness of their Western-backed replacements. William Hague, once again displaying a striking ability to get Libya wrong, had praised the TNC leaders – as he recognised them as the Libyan government – as showing "increasing legitimacy, competence and success". Presumably, his information came from the same source that led him months ago to inform journalists that Gaddafi was already on his way to Venezuela.

The accusations of treason against General Younes and his subsequent murder illuminate divisions within the rebel leadership that they have so far been surprisingly successful in concealing. The last time I saw him was at a press conference in Benghazi where he exuded a confident sense that the rebels were on the road to Tripoli. Burly and commanding, he was the one rebel leader who looked as if he was on top of events.

As he described the military situation, it was difficult to keep in mind the real situation on the frontline. The chaotic forays and retreats of the brave but hysterical rebel militiamen that I had just seen south of Benghazi, were portrayed by Younes as if they were well planned military manoeuvres. Soon, the advance on Tripoli would begin again. There was one mystery: Younes had supposedly defected with 8,000 soldiers under his command but there was never any sign of them and no explanation as to what has happened to them.

The Libyan rebels are even weaker than those in Afghanistan and Iraq where the Western-backed opposition had a core of loyal and well-trained fighters. In Afghanistan, these were the mostly Tajik forces of the Northern Alliance and in Iraq the Kurds had a well organised and well led army in the north of the country. In Libya, rebel forces have always been more meagre, inexperienced and often appear to be one side in hitherto obscure tribal confrontations which have turned into mini civil wars.

The nature of the civil war in Libya has been persistently underplayed by foreign governments and media alike. The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognise the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.

These were the understandable motives which led Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and so many others to kow-tow humiliatingly to Gaddafi prior to the uprising, and to treat his bizarre personality cult with respect. A foreign no-fly zone and limited no-drive zone to defend Benghazi against Gaddafi's tanks could be justified in the early stage of the war, but this rapidly changed into a dubious decision to overthrow Gaddafi, relying on Nato air power and a few thousand rebel militiamen. The supposition was that Gaddafi would go down quickly, and when this did not happen it became a question of throwing good money after bad in the hope that his forces would cave in.

It has not happened yet and, with Ramadan beginning tomorrow, it is unlikely that fasting militiamen will be able to fight their way to Tripoli. Worse, the rebels' only strong card is Nato air power, so any cessation of the war in order to open the way for negotiations is against their interests.

In one respect, the foreign media has been more culpable than governments in giving credibility to the TNC as an alternative to Gaddafi's regime. Official rebel statements and claims have been treated with respect, as if they were not geared to winning the propaganda war. Atrocity stories, such as the use of the mass rape of women as a weapon of war, were broadcast uncritically by CNN and others. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as a UN commission, found there was no evidence for the allegations, but there was no retraction by the media. How could it be that for month after month Gaddafi's forces were still fighting when he was meant to have no support? One answer was that he had hired mercenaries from black Africa. Frightened labourers with no documents were arrested and presented by the rebels at TV press conferences as mercenaries and later quietly released. In contrast to their limited military capabilities, the rebels have proved extremely effective in cultivating the foreign media.

Will the strange death of Abdel Fattah Younes, whoever killed him, puncture the myth that the rebel leadership is fully capable of replacing Gaddafi and ending the war in Libya? Unfortunately for Libyans, the answer is probably no because too many foreign governments are now committed to installing the rebels in power and too many foreign journalists have portrayed them as freedom fighters battling an evil despot.

A Case for Pseudonyms

Commentary by Jillian York  for the EFF

pseu·do·nym
[sood-n-im]
–noun a fictitious name used by an author to conceal his or her identity; pen name.

There are myriad reasons why individuals may wish to use a name other than the one they were born with. They may be concerned about threats to their lives or livelihoods, or they may risk political or economic retribution. They may wish to prevent discrimination or they may use a name that’s easier to pronounce or spell in a given culture.

Online, the reasons multiply. Internet culture has long encouraged the use of "handles" or "user names," pseudonyms that may or may not be tied to a person’s offline identity. Longtime online inhabitants may have handles that have spanned over twenty years.

Pseudonymous speech has played a critical role throughout history as well. From the literary efforts of George Eliot and Mark Twain to the explicitly political advocacy of Publius in the Federalist Papers or Junius' letters to the Public Advertiser in 18th century London, people have contributed strongly to public debate under pseudonyms and continue to do so to this day.

A new debate around pseudonymity on online platforms has arisen as a result of the identification policy of Google+, which requires users to identify by "the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you". This policy is similar to that of Facebook’s which requires users to "provide their real names and information." Google’s policy has in a few short weeks attracted significant attention both within the community and outside of it, sparking debate as to whether a social platform should place limits on identity. A considerable number of Google+ users have already experienced account deactivation as a result of the policy, which Kirrily "Skud" Robert, a former Google employee kicked off the service for identifying as "Skud," has closely documented.

Those in favor of the use of "real names" on social platforms have presented a number of arguments: that real names improve user behavior and create a more civil environment; that real names help prevent against stalking and harassment by making it easier to go after offenders; that a policy requiring real names prevents law enforcement agents from “sneaking in” to the service to spy on users; that real names make users accountable for their actions.

While these arguments are not entirely without merit, they misframe the problem. It is not incumbent upon strict real-name policy advocates to show that policies insisting on the use of real names have an upside. It is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that these benefits outweigh some very serious drawbacks.

Consider, for example, Wael Ghonim, the now-famous Egyptian whose Facebook page, We Are All Khaled Said, inspired thousands to join in the January uprising. Though the page was created in the summer of 2010, not long after the death of Khaled Said at the hands of policemen, it wasn’t until later that year that it began to truly gain momentum. And yet, its presence in the protests almost didn’t happen: In November 2010, the page went down after its administrator (now known to have been Ghonim) was reported for using a pseudonym. While Facebook was able to offer a solution, allowing an "identified" person to step in for Ghonim, this case was largely exceptional, owing to Ghonim’s ability to connect to Facebook staff and solve the problem. Not everyone has these types of connections, and there’s no way of knowing how many people have fallen through the cracks, so to speak, because they were unaware of how to appeal an account deactivation. In Ghonim’s case, using his real name would have placed him under considerable risk. And while pseudonymity provides no guarantees, it makes it considerably more difficult for authorities to identify activists.

There are myriad reasons why an individual may feel safer identifying under a name other than their birth name. Teenagers who identify as members of the LGBT community, for example, are regularly harassed online and may prefer to identify online using a pseudonym. Individuals whose spouses or partners work for the government or are well known often wish to conceal aspects of their own lifestyle and may feel more comfortable operating under a different name online. Survivors of domestic abuse who need not to be found by their abusers may wish to alter their name in whole or in part. And anyone with unpopular or dissenting political opinions may choose not to risk their livelihood by identifying with a pseudonym.

As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens put forth in deciding McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."

Just as using "real" names can have real consequences, mandating the use of "real" names can too, excluding from the conversation anyone who fears retribution for sharing their views. While one added value of requiring real names might be increased "civility" of the conversation, it is most certainly to the detriment of diversity.

The bloggers at Geek Feminism have compiled a wiki highlighting the people who are harmed by a real names policy, demonstrating the hundreds of potential reasons why an individual may use a name other than his or her own. Though many examples on the list demonstrate cases of at-risk individuals whose use of a pseudonym is for the purpose of safety, there are other important reasons that one may choose pseudonymity as well.

Take the example of Michael Anti, the Chinese journalist whose birth name is Jing Zhao. Anti was kicked off of Facebook in January of 2011, presumably after someone reported him for using a name other than the one with which he was born. Despite having used the pen name "Michael Anti" for almost a decade, in his writing for the New York Times and elsewhere, Facebook insisted on strict enforcement of its policy.

On Google+, similar examples have arisen, as have false positives, prompting Google+ to change some of its processes, including a shift from immediate account deactivation to offering users a warning and an opportunity to align their name with the policy.

Nevertheless, policies requiring "real" names are nearly impossible to enforce at scale, and as several examples have demonstrated, enforcement tends to be skewed against individuals who are well-known or have enemies, a result of community reporting mechanisms.

It is well within the rights of any company--Google, Facebook, or otherwise--to create policies as they see fit for their services. But it is shortsighted for these companies to suggest that "real name" policies create greater potential for civility, when they only do so at the expense of diversity and free expression. Indeed, a shift toward crafting policies requiring "real" names will have a chilling effect on online free expression.