Saturday September 23, 2017
Jul-10-2012 17:10TweetFollow @OregonNews
Mary Rizzo: I Don't Believe YouSiraj Davis Special to Salem-News.com
A Collective Consciousness and TJP production:
(EAST JERUSALEM, Occupied Palestine) - First and Foremost, I wanted to express a future, a future which if we allow such conflicts to continue or to believe those whose jobs seem to etched on creating such conflict, we will have failed our posterity and left the burden for them to resolve such a tragedy as Palestine.
A voice from one of my special students, Huda. The future of Palestine:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The following is a response to Mary Rizzo's amateur blog post located here: http://wewritewhatwelike.com/
(Warning: Mary Rizzo, Kimberly Amatullah, and team have a nasty habit of taken down screenshots of my evidence so please ask me for it if you desire. All of the screenshots below and more have already been sent to various sources so they have access to all of them. More have not been released in an effort to allow Mary and Kim and team to "put their foot in their mouths" They have done a good job so far ;)
"Here we go again, just when one thinks that the insanity of the personalization of the PALESTINIAN CAUSE is finally running its course, long, long overdue, I add… I find that a blog called Shoah.org that purports to be very popular and pro-Palestinian, though featuring almost no Palestinians at all among those it publishes, has decided that acceptable content is bizarre personal vendettas becoming “our business and thus THEIR business”. The blog looks actually scarily similar to the National Inquirer. I have not had much opportunity to see the site in the past, but having seen the recent “popular” post I do worry about the state of activism and mostly, for what concerns this site, wonder if it is competing in the stakes of activism tabloids.
Happily being able to ignore the big flame wars between activists has been a wonderful luxury. I feel that most of these activists and campaigners are strictly relevant to themselves and basically just bringing grist to their own publicity mills, since they turn out to be little more than a few men glorifying their egos and repeating ad nauseam in public articles and posts their own self-worth and assuming the baton will be carried by others repeating the mantra that “if you are not with this (or that) “known” activist, you are a Zionist! You are a proven AGENT!” But it’s easy and desirable to disengage with this lot, since when asked over and over to prove the claims made against those who dare criticize them, they never do provide any proof of it besides comical ones that they invent themselves. Agents certainly DO exist, but to call anyone an agent is dangerous and no intelligent person will accept that without evidence. It certainly does speak volumes that this claim is made so very often and at the flip of a hat, but rarely is there anything to support it, thus it is empty of meaning. It is quite clear by now that it’s more productive to ignore this lot, because it serves no purpose to engage in time-wasting battles that no one but the men involved and their “followers” (yes, their own way of referring to those who engage in battles on behalf of them or even anyone who they are “friends” with) care about."
I would like to first state that I am ecstatic that you have chosen to engage in this debate publicly :) Unlike you and your team, I will not e-mail websites where your screenshots are contained and ask them to take them down. I have no fear of the truth unlike others Mary. I have nothing to hide!
So let us begin what I have so desperately been waiting for with anticipation.
You speak in disgust as if "personalization" is a bad thing or something to be shunned. Why? Do you realize that there are many, many people who have no choice but to take this conflict personal? Do you think the victims of the conflict do not take it personal? I have no idea what is inherently wrong with the personalization of a conflict. I think anyone with a ticking heart would take the tragedy of Palestine very personal. What is it that you feel we should think and feel master? As if your thoughts are as important to the audience as you may be led to believe at first. Despite your article, the hits on my name on Google brings your article to the last page Mary :) I would expect at least the first hit of a Google search to be the result of the National Enquirer. I have more respect for those activists that write letter campaigns than the trash I see before me now. At least the former has something positive to contribute. I would like to know what have your words resulted in other than hurt eyes, hate, civil war, and a grumbling noise in the back of people's throats. But who would expect anything more from you. I apologize for thinking too highly prematurely. It will not happen again, I promise.
I think SHOAH , the REAL Palestinian website, that is willing to take a chance in order to stop the abuse that you and your wannabe-gangster activists (or whatever you may think of yourselves), is an exceptional website which has demonstrated more character and courage then your whole activist career. I think very small thoughts when I see that the URL of this website is "wewritewhatwethink" :)
Here is Mary's site with 1 like :)
Here is SHOAH's with 522 likes.
Here is Salem-News with 334 recommendations:
Which is a tabloid?
In addition, why did you complain and report screenshots on the internet my colleagues had posted? Are you afraid of the truth? You do realize you have set yourself up to have credibility snatched away from whatever parade and fiddle you are leading here, don't you? If Kimberly is not such an associate of yours, why write this article immediately after there was a post by a responsible website of the observed activities by me about one of your zombies? What? Did the leader have to display to her trench men that she deserves to be a leader? Everyone knows the truth Mary. It has not escaped anyone. Your emphasis on the word "bizarre" was a feeble and vain attempt to separate yourself from the words and actions of which you should be held accountable for in creating all of this conflict. It did not work!! In case you have forgotten your role in all of this, let me remind you please:
You see, Kim and many others attribute the campaign of hate against Ken O Keefe to you Mary!
You see, this is how Kim called Mary into the conflict. Like she always calls everyone into a conflict:
Was guilt the reason you wrote this article? It wasn't over Kim, was it? I do not think so but prove me wrong. I am asking you as many questions and hope you will give me the answers. You do not want to be guilty of that which you accuse Ken of , do you? Evading questions :)
In regards to avoiding flaming wars, I would like to do the same Mary. However, the truth is in case you have not noticed, when you and others began a public campaign of childish antics against each other, it brought others into the foray of bushes. They take delight in beating the bushes and getting things stirred. As the originator of such conflict, of course it is natural for those bush beaters to return to you and state someone said this or that and so on. Did you expect responsibility to be any different to you than it was to all of us when were in the recess yards of elementary school during a school fight? I can swear that I have documented the fact that your colleague and friend, Kimberly Amatullah, began to slander Ken O Keefe and attributed her conviction in that guilt based on YOU!! I have more screenshots to prove it. Perhaps you may request Kim to hand over all of her screenshots and I will do the same and comparison will show you wrote too soon without enough knowledge. That is a big mistake, but considering your situation Mary, I guess credibility is not such a priority especially when you can write what you like :) Before you begin standing up for people Mary, it would be wise to do a small and at least perfunctory background check on those you stand with. I want to know if you claim to be the daughter of the prophets and relative of Eleanor of Aquitaine like Kim:
Apparently Kim's behavior of attacking and harassing and threatening people has an old history. She has been doing all of this while claiming to be the victim and reporting people to authorities for a while before she victimized me on behalf of you. She does this when she feels her friends do not back her up. Here are messages she sent me in regards to an argument with a Facebook profile "Parents". Notice the same vitriolic and aggressive tactics she uses now against me as she did with "Parents".
Therefore I would like to state that Kim, brought you into the conflict by using your name to justify her attacks on Ken O Keefe. It is not unknown knowledge the antipathy between you and Ken AND nothing was said further than you were the culprit or at least had a huge contribution to the mess we all are experiencing now. How could you? Do you not have responsibility with the words you write or the lies you spread Mary? Have you no shame? Have you no sorrow for the problems you have caused everyone!? Have you no conscience? I think your use of the word "luxury" is an inaccurate word to use to describe your situation. I feel irresponsibility is more accurate!! If you wanted to stay out of situations like this one and I am sure, many others in your past, it may be wise to bite your tongue or put your fingers to better use than just write with emotion. There is nothing wrong with being "personal" or passionate about what you write. However, you should be more careful of how your words affect others and what results those words of hate may cause. In this case, nothing but heartache and harm to what we all wish and pray for, a better Palestine. I always believe the words of my Southern Professor, Bill Steirer, when he said those with power have more responsibility to use it with more restraint than the weaker. Therein is your failure and I am affronted by your plethora of actions to display contrary to this wisdom. Do not be concerned though, this is not as "personal" as you may feel :)
In regards to your comments about the mantra pertaining to anyone who disagrees with another being labeled as a Zionist, as a weak and despicable defense. I actually agree with you on that. You are absolutely right! An argument is an argument and it is running a foul in most debates to go to the extremity of calling someone an outright Zionist or extremist as you have done above. Good job!! However, I want to make something clearer or more apparent here in your case. There are many people on both sides, whose motives cannot be exactly pin pointed, yet are antagonizing the open wound. I suggest both you and Ken seal this wound like adults so that I may not have some psychopathic woman use others to harass and threaten my life or send people to confront me personally or to have people libel my name in public or discreetly. There are many victims like me Mary. I am your conscience and if you choose to ignore me, then it says a lot about your character, not mine. SEAL THE WOUND!! Be more responsible and mature!! It does not matter what you or Ken think of each other. Isn't a more unified team with less division a plus for Palestine!? Then if your love for Palestine is as deep as you may say, you have no other choice. I am warning you that both sides of this disagreement have soldiers or players that are wreaking havoc not only on innocent bystanders' peace of mind and self esteem, but also in our credibility. I can think of no other weapon more deadly which could be used against us Palestinian activists than this tragedy which is claiming innocent and guilty alike. The lengths of tactics of which I have seen BOTH sides resort to have been unconscionable for any human rights activist, but I have seen the worse from your friend, Kimberly Amatullah, a million times worse. Thus, with the many people involved in this argument than should be allowed, it has deteriorated to the nadir that we ourselves are becoming more dangerous and untrustworthy to each other than the very opposition responsible for the inhumanity we see in Palestine. How could it be any worse to accuse each other of being a Zionist!? At least Zionists will honestly claim their goal and work for it. We, on the other hand, are working in secret behind each others' backs!!
May I also remind you, and this I swear on my soul before God almighty! I had neither idea who Ken O Keefe was nor you Mary. You had one of your colleagues post a link with the filth of hate against Ken O Keefe on my university student organization facebook page. A university account! When I asked your colleague and you about this post, I was met with hostility and belligerence I only witnessed from drug dealers on the corner of the street in the low income housing I grew up in. When I could not get a straight answer without insults from you or Kim or your other colleagues, when I could not get evidence which could prove without a reasonable doubt your accusations, when I read your hateful and nasty comments about Ken using fallacious and immature logic; I then decided to ask Ken about it. His sincere and honest responses is what drove me to begin a friendship with him. In other words Mary, you proved true the axiom in COIN or Low Intensity Conflict doctrine!! When you punish innocent and guilty alike, you win more recruits for the opposition! That is what you exactly did. However, it did not begin there Mary. I enjoyed a working yet "impersonal" relationship with Ken. When Kim began attacking and blackmailing me, this "impersonal" relationship become a slight bit more personal when I emailed him all of the screenshots of her words. Although Ken probably knew what was occurring in the past, I got my own glimpse into the behavior of how you were fighting, discreet and slanderous words that cannot be seen rather than visible physical blows!! I on the other hand am too honest Mary. I am not a coward so I do not pretend to hide anything sister. I am who I am. How about you?
Now what shall call the people who fight for you Mary? I feel "followers" has already been reserved by you, correct? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist?
In regards to challenging people's credentials. Your friend, Kimberly Amatullah, who you wrote this letter tacitly in defense of, has engaged in a campaign of libel and slander AND death threats against anyone associated with Ken O Keefe. I have evidence of that! Furthermore, it was the intention of the article which you speak of to ask others to be weary of her friendship and to ASK those credentials from her. She failed to provide them. She wins friendship from many by her claims to be a pure Muslim, daughter of the prophets, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and a Palestinian activist. She refuses to provide the credentials or witnesses to attest to that while simultaneously using those new relationships to spread your hate against Ken O Keefe. I find your attention to those people with shaky human rights records, more deserving of her attention that anyone you may be writing about :) Don't you?
"Yet, again, I find my name brought up in one of these smear campaigns, and despite my reticence to waste more time on issues that do not interest me because they are so far removed from Palestine, this time I will respond, because the level of smearing (not only of me, but of a plethora of people, in fact ANYONE who points out a criticism of the “author” of a piece vying for the most insane bit of using the Palestinian cause to settle a personal vendetta to date) simply calls for it being exposed for what it is. The rhetoric used in these endless smear campaigns waged by a specific faction most definitely falls into what has been defined by as “Extremist Traits” by an analyst of the rhetoric and propaganda of several hundred militant “fringe” political and social groups across the political spectrum. Militant and “fringe” are not derogatory terms, they present the positioning of a cause as to how it fits into the mainstream or dominant framework of political or social opinion. As such, I will address the issue and in those very terms. Extremist, however, is the style of the behavior, and it certainly can be considered as being derogatory as it depends upon manipulation."
If you did not expect such a length of time to be spent protecting the very words and accusations which spurred so much dissension amongst many innocent people, accusations which were proven false, why did you make them in the first place? It would not take a Native American snake tracker to follow the venomous pools you left after hissing so loudly. Why complain when some have found your nest? In fact, marginalizing the mess you have created with labeling it as "extremist" is the same tactic as calling someone a Zionist Mary. Have you noticed that hypocritical conundrum you just placed yourself into. We Palestinian activists work with and respect Jewish people who do not support the oppressive policies of Israel. What is the definition of Zionist Mary? My recollection from readings of Theodore Herzl and witnessing the norm of how most Palestinian activists define the term, is someone who believes that ALL of the lands considered to be Israel and occupied Palestine to be the possession of Israel, a Jewish state. Then there are other Jewish people, people who are not Zionists, who believe that Palestinians and Jewish Israelis can live in peace together or beside each other in different states. Furthermore, there also other Jewish people who oppose the entire State of Israel and wish the land to be returned to Palestinians. The extremity "Zionist" is an extreme of the aforementioned choices nevertheless. Therefore, your attempts to marginalize the efforts to expose the sanity of one of your own camp (and your letter here implies she is one of your camp), by using the accusation of "extremist", is just as awful a tactic or mantra as that which you accuse Ken O Keefe. Have you noticed that Mary? It is skewed thinking which illuminates a huge contradiction in your own logic. Zionists are "extremists" of the State of Israel, unless you are fully prepared to state that ALL Jews living within the world are Zionists.
Palestine is mentioned in the post you are referring to because your FALSE accusations which you swore by was the truth, caused so much damage that it created splinter groups within the Palestine movement. Instead of taking responsibility and admitting it, instead of being more mature and responsible and repair it, you Copt to using terms such as "factions" and "fringe" to dismiss that which you have caused!! What better instruments of rhetoric for one to use than the very words that demonstrate the psychological phenomenon of the assailant projecting their own guilt and faults upon the victim. Good job!! You are the only one who has caused factions Mary, you alone, and you have yet to ante up to your false accusations. No need to ask you further if you have shame anymore, this paragraph answered my sincere question. If anyone is using the name of Palestine to further their own agenda, it is you Mary. If you are even the middle echelons of Palestinian writers, then we sadly see one of the reasons Palestine has been atrophied in its development toward an answer. I am sorry to say this, but candor is sometimes necessary under duress. Thanks for providing the stimuli for that duress Mary. I am sure many can testify to the same feeling. Are we all allowed to write what we like? Or will you get those words and screenshots pull down from the internet again?
Anyone who may take the chance to visit the post on SHOAH will see that you and your cronies ignored had all of the evidence of screenshots pulled down of the internet and bragged about it!! Worse, you ignored all of the facts and premises and instead typed what you only thought. How honorable! I call that cowardly! Let the truth be seen Mary!! Let it all hang out! Why threaten lawsuits and resort to unorthodox tactics in a debate? Are you afraid of something Mary? I am not!! I am placing my credibility against yours, let’s do this!!
In regards to people on the board attacking anyone who criticizes the author, poppycock!! People on the board were attacked by you and your colleagues for defending me. The numerous posts by the SAME people, over and over, without addressing the premises proves my assertion clearly to anyone with a dinosaur sized brain!! I was defending myself from one of your own camp, Kimberly Amatullah. And I did it very well. Let's not be a sore loser now. You have every right to reply and you did here :) I am glad. You allowed me the door I wanted to address you in a public forum like I desired. Thank you. Since your cronies like to harass me on Facebook, I thought I blow past them and take this fight to you directly. The post you see here is a man who has been threatened , harassed, stalked, and more by the hate you created. Instead of turning my back and fleeing, I brought the fight to you Mary. I preferred a more "personal" debate like a lecture where you and I exchange opportunities on a microphone in front of a crowd but this will suffice.
Furthermore, who is the "expert" you are referring to? I would like his name and phone number so I may call him please. Or are you like Kim? A ghost! It is very disingenuous to use the words "extremist" and "militant" yet claim they are not derogatory terms. The words themselves are already etched into the framework of the social psyche in which even your terse comment with such brevity that it represented a mouse squeaking does not detract nor fool your intentions Mary. You mentioned those words to concoct a horrible image of me and others yet attempted to sound mature and rational with your thinking by stating these words are "not derogatory". Please Mary!!! Just be honest and stop playing naive, you labeled us extremists and militants. Your intent was that the socially accepted conceptual images of "militant" and "extremist" may stigmatize me and others. Let me ask you something Mary, did you know I had 6 lectures in South Carolina at the 6 major universities with Muslims, Christians, and Jewish people speaking about peace. If that is "militant" or "extremist", I dread what your other neologisms entail.
"I am being referred to in comments on the “popular” post, which is very little else but a character assassination based on the personal feud someone has with the subject, I have seen probably the worst displays by “activists” available, even vying with some of the most absurd smear posts on Facebook, attempting to create a sort of mobbing and consensus as to the character of a person who shares one thing in common with me, and that is that she does not think Ken O’Keefe is such hot shit as he claims, but who actually has a big difference with me in that she once actually supported him and then changed her mind, without any solicitation from me, but independently and of her own freewill (and this shared view regarding Ken O’Keefe creates in the minds of the Ken O’Keefe Fans the automatism that this person and I are affiliated.) Besides the point being that this entire thing is nonsensical, especially as Siraj Davis (the author of the piece) is a legend in his mind alone, having claimed that I was posting things to him, totally debunked and with MY screenshots to demonstrate it, the issue of Ken O’Keefe being the pillar of activism is entirely outdated and misleading. (At the bottom of this post, 4 screenshots concerning Siraj Davis, his unsolicited harassment of me and my response to it, as well as evidence of some bizarre stalking-like behavior in my regards and his own uncontrollable addiction to pornography, which he also has used the Shoah org blog to promote these screenshots he himself made showing his particular tastes in that regard)."
I seriously doubt there was no solicitation by you Mary. I provided two screenshots of people who claimed you were the origin of this whole muck!! There are much more floating around the internet of your solicitation!! You not only solicit yourself, but you include a crew of low self esteem Facebook trolls who desperately seek approval from anyone who can make them feel important. They are your frontline Mary and I do not appreciate it!! MY screenshots and others, kind of places doubt on your claims here doesn't it big sis? I am confident that when it is all said and done via a thorough investigation, your claim of non-solicitation would be as credible as Obama’s promises for change! In addition, your sincerity about your objectivity is shattered with the reputation that precedes you on the internet AND with the use of erudite adjectives in describing Ken O Keefe :) Who in the world would believe you!? Here is some advice Mary in case you have not learned from human rights movements in the past. One cannot condemn what one does him or herself. This post you have made has made this abundantly clear. What are you doing now by posting screenshots and placing my name in your website!? You have no moral high ground in which to make blogs or posts from. You shoveled enough dirt from that hill you stand on upon others that its height is shortened to a hole in which the walls block out your horrid calls and screams for recruits to join you in your hilarious and rambunctious campaign. At least you could have got me "on the wire!" You had to post my name on this board!! You have wasted my time! Next time , shoot for the National Enquirer please. Ten times more the quality of research than you have placed in this perfunctory piece of amateur failure.
In regards to your hyperboles about mine and Ken’s importance which lack any real evidence other than your rich imagination and lies, I did not claim to be a legend. However, a big thank you from Ken and me for the compliment J I did not know you thought of us like this. Unless you can provide specific proof to display either of us claimed this, I will dismiss your comments as an unintentional result of subconscious thought. However, I would like to say that I know I have done more than you and Kim put together in regards to helping my fellow human-being. Beatnik wanna-be writer doesn't cut it Mary. You should get off your high horse of “if I can not be as important as them, then I am riding off into my own sunset,” and instead join the Palestine team. It does not matter what I or others have done. What matters is that you stop attacking those who do more than you and Kim. Therein lies another impetus behind people suspecting your motives. Why attack those who are credited with doing more than you? Certainly jealousy cannot be that conniving and insidious!? Or can it Mary? Furthermore, whether Ken is the pillar of the Palestine movement or not is not the topic or subject of what you have addressed. It has no relevance to the post you are discussing. Why did you bring it up? Moreover, I challenge your credibility as well Mary since you like jumping into a debate on the side of an assailant and “follower” of yours. Let us list and compare what we have done right here and right now. I could bring in my help to SOA Watch, the Falun Gong, the inner city youth of South Carolina, my help in garnishing three Congressmen’s support for US Campaign for Burma, and then we can go to my efforts on Palestine. I would be more than ecstatic and willing to give names and contacts if you desire. Be warned though, if you happen to get the WRONG person angry during your investigation with your confrontational attitude, it may be a worse repercussion than THIS person posting on your web blog. So do not go around claiming I had any conspiracy against you because you angered some of my contacts during your investigation. I have seen the manner in which you hold conversations with people who are cordial with you. And you have posted examples of this behavior on your own site here. However, I feel that this risk is worth it because if it will compel you to finally go out and do some real research, I scream al hamdulila!! Moreover, I have heard from many and see quiet well how you participate in the very type of conspiracies that you condemn. In the end, just remember, I did more than you with far more positive effects and with less resources provided to me because I have no funders J.
As my screenshots point out, people affiliated with you vexed and alienated me Mary. Then it rolled downhill from there with Kim. If this type of conflict is what you wish to avoid, why did you make a post defending her? Would it not be in your best interests as a reluctant victim to agree that a warning about this same woman should be made? Would it not be in the best interests of Palestine to ostracize such a person that breeds conflict? Would you like me to show you the many screenshots of her embarking on this conflict in such a passion and commitment, it would make a hungry wolf in front of a defenseless lamb pale in comparison. Or is this whole situation about catching fleas? It was Kim's feelings that TRUTH is not important in the attacks against Ken AND that public condemnation is the best tactic for her and others to use against Ken.
There you go!! Two leaves that fell of the branch of your tree of hate!
In regards to your objective and informative commentary about the screenshots of our conversation, there is more to tell than you reveal. It is clear the bias and unfair evaluation of the commentary. A dilettante of high school playground arguments can see transparently without any aid for your fledgling judgment. As you see in the commentary, I asked you to focus on "positive" ways to promote unity within the movement other than having people post on my student organization facebook page and then attack me when I ask for an explanation. As you see, Mary's response to a very clear and sincere statement by me is to be very confrontational and biting in her remarks. It is called being defensive or guilty.
Let's show the whole conversation without omission from Mary Rizzo.
Here goes a simple request not to post on my student organization's facebook page.
The remainder of the message:
Here goes Mary's pleasant reply:
Then more of replies:
And then my reply:
Notice Mary's demeanor here where she demonstrates the reason why she was so defensive in the first place. She states that I am on the team of Sara Swati:
Interestingly enough, as we proceed with this note, we will see that here in these messages, the very same accusation of Manichean views that she accuses her detractors can be seen with her defensive stance toward my honest and sincere reply with the accusation of being a team member of Sara Swati. We can also glimpse into the bipolar disorder type mentality on she speaks on Facebook and how she speaks on her blog posts.
This is just my opinion as I cannot know what people think or determine their motives but it is clear she could have handled in a much mature manner.
She cannot even appreciate my request that "unity" be focused on rather than negative things which may rip asunder the pillars of the Palestine movement in ALL of us. NO those pillars are not me and Ken!! You see , I like words like "unity" while Mary regresses to use words like "factions" and "fringe". I say a person's choice of words is an unspoken yet telling tale of the type of mentality within people's minds. As you can see, my query was totally within the realm of a mature, cordial, and sincere query. Why Mary has consternation from this request boggles the normal mind. Her last example that she provides shows more about her personality than mine or anyone's.
Look at it!! Look at the response by her. Entirely confrontational and without tact, especially when some of her hate material reaches my organization's facebook page. Worse, she has no concern about being caught spreading this propaganda. Look at her asking me to read the article that was sent to me about Ken at the end of the message. She has no shame!!!
WOW!!! Is the audience of this website so tainted with the stupidity of mind control techniques that one cannot see how an honest and sincere request led to not only Mary acting in a confrontational way AFTER her hate propaganda met me, but she has no shame when she asks for me to read it again!! FUBAR!!!
Furthermore, I feel that you not revealing ALL of the correspondence between me and you as unfair. Why not post it all? Is there something you are trying to hide in addition to the screenshots my colleagues posted in which you have taken down repeatedly? Why not embrace the truth? Isn’t it unbecoming even for a dilettante of journalism to engage in the preceding tactics!? I also would like to add that many of your posts which demonstrate your vicious, uncompassionate, and unruly attitude have already saturated the internet. Here I am being myself while you play the facade that is entirely diametric to your behavior on the internet when bashing Ken O Keefe. Is someone living a double life? I think so!!
In regards to your posts about pornography on a screenshot. Only you would use this as a premise to claim that someone like Ken O Keefe is a thief.
Is your recollection coming back to you Mary? You mention that you caught me watching porn but you did not assert explicitly what you are in fact trying to aver about people who do watch porn. Are these people who practice abstinence worse than those who embark on that quest in reality?
Or are you saying that if a person watches porn, then they are “evil”? Perhaps you would like to tie porn addiction with other criminal acts as if one leads to another in your domino theory of human behavior. So what if you saw pornography on my screenshot!! Get a life and stop using every tiny example to augment your skewed and overly critical observations. You make leaping assumptions from a modicum of facts.
A seven foot ladder is not going to help you scale the Eiffel Tower of truth there Mary. We call that Yellow Journalism Mary!! It is like trying to squeeze an apple through a water faucet. Good luck with convincing rational minds of your assertions with over generalized and misleading facts!!
Here is the conversation Mary and I had on her Facebook Hate group "No One in Gaza Wants Ken O'Keefe."
It begins here as I respond on the site of the people who posted on my student organization's site:
Here Mary Rizzo goes on one of her attempted tirades against me expecting me to from her bullying tactics:
Here, the site administrator attempts to intimidate me by posting my picture on the site for all to see:
Now here comes my response:
Here her friend Nihaya Qawasmi enters the argument to help Mary:
Here Mary Rizzo says "I do not have time to respond to your posts."
Has anyone seen her posts about Ken? She complains of the same tactic she uses against Ken. Now here, at this point, after admitting capitulation to my arguments, I am suddenly blocked:
Here she states she never met anyone with such passion. She should ask my former professor Peter Cohen and others if it stops there :)
Here Mary Rizzo states she did not have anything to do with blocking me so I could not post on the site. However , what is shocking and telling is that the administrator below the comments engages in comments WITH Mary Rizzo about me. This says a lot not only about Mary's own influence in silencing free speech like she condemns Ken O Keefe for but her level of involvement or influence on the whole site. She could take down the site if she wanted or maybe she was the one who created it.
Here the administrator of the sites states this fact clearly:
Here the administrator and Mary engage in more "personal" conversations:
Here more conversation between the site administrator and Mary yet notice Mary's paranoia by automatically dismissing my comments as being motivated by Ken O Keefe's friendship.
Here Mary Rizzo claims that she will not go to Palestine to DO human rights and help because she wants to feel like Palestinians who cannot go to Palestine in order to feel the pain they feel:
Here, another Facebook user notices the same thing I did when I visited the site. Things were not adding up and it seemed more like a hate group than an informational site. Here he states this and also requests for me to give him evidence of Mary's and her group's contact to me.
As Mary tries to use charm to smooth this Facebook user to her side, surprisingly this user refuses to be coaxed into immorality by her guerilla type guile and charm:
In the end this unknown user is so disgusted at what seems to be Mary's cherry-picking of information, her censorship of me, and her unsupported accusations that he asks Mary to BLOCK HIM!!
To be absolutely clear, if you do want evidence to comfort your “professional” interest of why there were porn tabs on the screenshot, I would be more than glad to supply you with the name and number of my roommate who used my laptop. The only mistake I have was asking him to allow me to use MY LAPTOP for 5 minutes when I took screenshots and uploaded them instead of denying him the privilege initially. You have the deep and rich imagination to interpret facts in a negative manner against a target in order to demolish them, yet lack that same equitable approach in giving people the benefit of the doubt. That type of subjectivity allows the world to label your posts of no more qualification than Yellow Journalism.
I have no clue what you were trying to imply with your statements of pornography but it is clear that it was purposely posted on your blog in order to create sensationalism and as we see with the numbers of visitors and likes, it failed miserably. Perhaps, you could ask your target or victim about their side of the story before just posting things Mary. I heard you are quiet the detective!! I am sure others will place as much confidence in your research on me as you did with Ken O Keefe.
And I am also sure that once again, they will come out of it looking foolish with their credibility tainted if not destroyed! In defense of my roommate, watching porn does not make him any less of a Christian nor me any less of a Muslim if it was in fact me!! It may be wrong in the books of monotheism, so are many more things that societies around the world, including yours, participate in or aggrandize. A person’s character, entire character and its value for humanity, cannot be explained or dismissed in the negative because of your own affliction against porn. Perhaps we should strip the merits of Dr. King Jr. or President Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy because of their infidelities and extra marital affairs, which is worse than watching porn. Unless you would like to claim it is better to do the act then think about it!? My roommates are great people, I feel their character would run several laps over yours if we were to transform this comparison to a marathon. If you choose to do so, I am sure we all will find my roommate to be an Olympic athlete competing against a recreational runner. I would bet money on him!!! Get a life Mary and I apologize for the screenshot.
I know your heart was racing because to see an internet tab with a porn site beside another tab with your name on it in a screenshot, was probably more action than you have received your whole life. I am sorry to crush your aspirations of it being more “personal” than you originally thought or aspired to think. Allow me to assuage your consternation though, trust me, if I had a lead pole and you asked me to engage in the acts of which circulate in your sexually oriented mind, I would refuse to do so regardless if foreknowledge would grant me the understanding that by committing such an act, it would lead to you having lead poisoning!!
I suggest you buy a toy for that Mary!! Use your HUGE imagination to interpret that comment sister. No one is stalking or harassing you Mary.
Nice try. People are just responding to you when you make the first remark or post their names on the internet or if you have swarms of thugs on the internet, trying to destroy the name and reputation of an individual who has scorned you while simultaneously accumulating a body count of innocent people on your destructive path. I have to remind you Mary, harassment is unwarranted or unwanted communication that is verbally expressed to the assailant or in public.
In your own posts, I made clear to you that posting on my student organization’s facebook page and communication with me was unwanted. I was glad you acknowledged such a request until now. So let me help you with the laws of harassment Mary. I am asking you to stop all postings about me and further correspondence unless you desire a public and supervised argument where a third party can be an arbitrator so that Yellow Journalism cannot hold its arms high in victory prematurely and with an emotional appeal based on exaggerated lies and facts to produce a sought after response by an audience. I would prefer the real deal Mary J Don’t flatter yourself with thinking anyone feels you are important enough to stalk!! I sincerely think of you as a fly in which I am using a Dell fly-swatter to make keyboard swats in order to deter you and your other buddies from invading my “personal” life!!!
“It is clear and acceptable that there are many, particularly from the ranks of O’Keefe’s former “most dedicated followers” who no longer see him as relevant enough to form the dividing line between supporters of the struggle and its opponents. Indeed, the moment they so much as voice a criticism of him, they are accused of being paid agents or somesuch (some such is two words). His former “spokesperson” who had publicly stated that he had hijacked a vessel, despite having claimed the opposite a few months earlier, also quite publicly, was accused by him of being an MI6 agent, and those who had most vocally defended him (by attacking those who criticize him) have been dragged over the coals, one by one and there are dozens of such examples, should anyone care to look.”
I have to say, welcome to the human rights world Mary. I am starting to believe that tribulations and dissension between former colleagues and organizations is something normal because I see it everywhere. Ken O Keefe is NOT an anomaly as you purport. Instead, because of his highly critical stance of US and Western policies toward Israel at the expense of the largest refugee population in the world, the Palestinians, I would expect anyone with a true and accurate knowledge of government tactics against grassroots movements throughout history to accept Ken’s statements as GENERALLY possible. Whether those specific individuals he has mentioned are guilty or not, I cannot comment. Unlike you, I refuse to comment on anything unless I have at least a sufficient amount of proof to back up my claims. I would not gamble my credibility away so grievously. If what you say about Ken’s criticism is true in regards to his response to criticism, I have been the luckiest of his critics so far and so have others. I do not have those problems you have mentioned.
Perhaps you should provide a little more context within those claims you are using Mary. Each individual situation must be treated separately before placing them in a chronological timeline. This is called academic research, not art painting!!
I would also not make this statement in comparison to your situation.
You have not criticized Ken, Mary. On the contrary, you have engaged in a campaign of atrocious slander with the intent to destroy his character.
Your actions warrant far worse than ostracizing someone according to some. A few feel your actions are not only irresponsible, but criminal.
I will only go as far as to say this, in respect for your heartfelt well wishes to Palestine (although those credentials to support this assumption cannot be supplied by you or Kim). Instead, I am inclined to state that you are having a lot of stress dealing with the turmoil which has resulted from the accusations about Ken and the consequent civil war that resulted. That would explain your initial defensive stance during my original requests for you and your colleagues to stop spreading hateful propaganda against Ken O Keefe. It would also explain your inability or lack of desire to investigate and use credible facts for your assertions.
I detest and passionately disagree with your use of past perfidy against Ken as a premise to claim YOUR accusations against him as a thief and bad person to be valid. Ridiculous is my response!!! Again Mary, you cherry-pick tiny amounts of information while using them to augment claims in outright false hyperboles about the entire character of a person. If a person watches porn, they are what? If a person has friends who have turned their back on them or have had a disagreement, then what?
I have heard others state that YOU in fact create this single line of a Manichaeism divide in your own reality whereas those who challenge you in the tiniest bit, are evil and must be destroyed. I have heard this is your type of behavior Mary. Is this true and you are projecting your own flaws upon others? You do know this is a psychologically proven phenomenon? Perfidy is not a premise to over-generalize on the whole character of a person. I am sure many of the audience themselves are thinking about past disagreements with family, friends, and strangers!!
Does that mean they are “militants”, “extremists”, thieves, evil, or anything you claim to b fair judgment of a person’s character oh omnipotent one. Your hubris is not inspiring, it is flat out disgusting!! What shall anyone say to the infallible Mary Rizzo!?
Do you yourself have any former colleagues that have become estranged from you!? What does that say about YOUR character Mary!? Perfidy occurs in life!! When a person is struggling against a very controversial issue in opposition to governments which have the full resources at their hands to oppose or disrupt this movement, what other way would that or those governments act? Are we to claim that COINTELPRO never existed despite the fact that my own government admits to it!? The perfidy of friends in the past is not only a failing heuristic to use in judging a person’s overall character, it is also unfair to use this heuristic against a person who is involved in such controversial and overwhelming odds in order to produce change in his or her own way. My point, I think we should ALL be a bit more careful and understanding and logical when holding people up to norms of conduct that clearly are extenuated by that person’s or individual’s own involvement with severe tribulations. Again, no context provided in the premises you use Mary. It is starting to become habit, or is it already? According to your own logic, Judas’ actions was an example in a detrimental manner, of Jesus’ character.
Care to comment? Moreover, aren’t you, by your own admission, defending someone who you said also committed perfidy against Ken O Keefe? We all see through my colleagues many screenshots just how credible she is J There goes your use of those who betray others as a heuristic to judge people’s characters.
In regards to your claim that followers of Ken are refusing to divide themselves more and more along the lines of division of supporters of Palestine and another abstract category not mentioned, I believe you are projecting your own Manichean view of everything occurring around you. You bunch Ken and his "followers" together as if they were some monolithic force which cannot be compromised with. Furthermore, your confrontational attitude toward my request for you to stop posting on my student organization website indicated such a viewpoint. Moreover the logic stated in your statement is indicative of this type of "evil" versus "good" view. Look at your own post!! Those who have supposedly seen the light and have become a Benedict Arnold against Ken (like your close friend Kimberly Amatullah) , are refusing to cause division between real proponents of Palestine and their opposition.
Who are the real proponents of Palestine Mary? It sure isn't you!? Who is the opposition Mary? It sure is you!!! Your logic naturally flows that anyone associated with Ken are interested in this conflict which is the same type of mentality which has caused others to turn the wheels of civil conflict into the very symptom we see on your and my posts. Have you no analytical ability or common sense to see this? I refused to allow your cronies to post your hateful slander on my student organization webpage and I refused to help Kim, then I become a target because anyone with Ken is seeking to break the movement up as you yourself stated above. We can see this type of thinking in Kim's own logic which I credit you with being the source or seed of that thought. We can see it here with Kim's line of thinking:
For a site to facilitate this and allow the use of a space ostensibly for the Palestinian struggle to attack someone to settle a personal issue he has with someone – and without a real argument or substantial proof to boot – is the blog’s own business, but it has damaged any reputation the blog might have had as being about the Palestinian issue. Again the Palestinians are caught in the middle of some activists who are NOT Palestinian to settle their own disputes. They are used as an excuse to create a consensus surrounding someone that is not natural. Actually, Palestinians stay out of the discourse for the most part, seeing it as a distraction and an abuse of their cause. But then again, what a blog puts up is its own business. I really don’t care that much what these blogs and sites say when they are either hagiography or smears. They truly cease to hold any interest for me, and I would not be surprised if I were not alone in this assessment. Yet, again I am dragged into the smear campaigns because I have not bent to the mobbing. It would not be appropriate for me to feed this campaign, and yet, since I will be accused of not being able to support my point of view, I for the last time will refer those interested to the factual events, and they can be their own best judge of the righteousness of certain persons and of the wrongfulness of the smear campaigns, especially when they are jumping the back of the Palestinian cause to justify their wrongdoing.
I praise SHOAH for taking a stand against you and Kim. You both deserved it!! To question the purpose of SHOAH to its readers because of one miniscule article in comparison to the majority of its articles, is as much an exaggeration of the facts as claiming you are a novice at writing!! I think ostensible is the garbage you portend to be of objective and accurate information found on this unpopular web blog.
Again, I ask, aren't you as guilty of those charges you are leveling at others with this article? Isn't your site facilitating the augmentation of this conflict?
Aren't you damaging your own reputation, if there was some in the beginning. The evidence keeps getting erased by you and your friends AND you emphasize the internet tabs on screenshots rather than refute the information contained within those screenshots. Typical weak argumentive behavior to over-emphasize the methodology of conveying a message in the hopes the inherit message contained therein will be disqualified of its merit and consideration. I do not feel this is truth seeking Mary. I consider it avoiding or fleeing the truth.
I thought incorrectly that you were above such miscreant and cowardly behavior, I was wrong. Your claim that there is no proof is a either a blatant lie or true investigative incompetence. Pick which one is your determinant Mary. I wouldn't be surprised if it were both! The article which you dismiss as ostensible in relation to the Palestinian cause was warning other Palestinian activists of a certain people's abscondment from acts which have caused unnecessary and unpleasant disregard to others. You are the cause of all this yet want to claim immunity from the tail which lashes back at you after having made so many strikes at guilty and innocent alike, if there were anyone guilty other than you. The article by SHOAH was a warning to not trust those who bottom feed on negativity, conflict, and jealousy. It was a warning to those who may fall prey to a certain people's laudatory and bi-polar motivated kind words only to later feel the blunt force of narcissism when circumstance allows a change of heart on some people's part. It was a warning to all activists that NOTHING positive or good can come from association with the likes of these certain people. It was a warning that certain people use false identities to gain the trust and relationships with Palestinian activists only to occupy their time away from real work toward the Palestinian cause or to pin one activist against another.
It was a warning that some who claim to be a true Muslim and Palestinian activist has relationships with hardcore Zionists which are too comfortable for anyone to trust. It was a warning that some who may have an interest in slowing down the cause may be doing so with a purpose. I would reasonable state that these facts should concern ANYONE who is sincerely, not ostensibly, concerned about Palestine and its movement! What would you call it Mary? Perhaps you have no concern about people who are culpable of all of the above. Perhaps there is an explanation on your part as to why you would defend such a person on this web blog. Perhaps, like you accuse Ken, you have no answer to reply with. What is it Mary? Anyone who would read your articles will find themselves going the exact contrary path of what is needed for a better solution in the Palestinian conflict.
What you breed in your tiny incubator of a Web Blog is not positive steps toward the future. On the contrary, you breed apathy, division, and slavery!! It is my earnest opinion that whatever accomplishments or influences you had on the past on the Palestinian movement is over!!
You had your turn. You have not changed anything. Worse, you have caused a rift in the Palestinian movement which seems irreparable. Worse, after this rift, your accusations were proven false and yet you still hold on to your slanderous words and nefarious tactics of mob action by your cronies. Palestine doesn't need you anymore Mary. You and others of your camp , failed her. Move out of the way, the new generation is ready to take the reins from you!! You have failed!!!
While you may claim SHOAH has tarnished its reputation as a credible source of information for posting information supported by undeniable screenshots of your friend in action, its numbers and figures are rising past yours Mary. How many likes are on its website in comparison to yours? Where is the Google hit of your web blog on Google when someone searches for my name? Nobody is caught in the middle of anything. The only players active are those which are arguing. I would like to believe that we provide entertainment with these blog posts as opposed to such hardship or stress as you claim. The Palestinians are hurt more by any association with you than becoming enraged at you defending someone without credentials who is causing so much torment amongst all of us activists that we are fed up!!
I also would like to ask, what does the fact that both activists are not Palestinian have to do with the merits of the argument or the Palestine movement? Please comment further on this. Grant me pardon for saying my honest feelings but your intentional marginalization and refusal to acknowledge clear evidence to demonstrate that your friend, Kim, is mentally disturbed and creating hostilities in your name is furthered justified by you by claiming that because the authors of this debacle are not Palestinian in ethnicity, the argument has no merit. Is this the logic that you intended to dispel to your audience? it is without doubt that your hand more of a part to play in this than you claim Mary.
It is not only with screenshots, but also in the behavior in defending Kim while simultaneously condemning me and using racism in order to augment that condemnation. Accordingly, your logical flow has the coherent assumption that if you are not Palestinian by race, an argument has no importance or value. Let's go further with your logic and ask, does a person need to be Palestinian to be a Palestinian activist? I reiterate my appeal for an answer Mary. What does the fact of the constituent's ethnicity have to do with an argument which definitely affects the Palestine movement since those targeted have demonstrate more than you and others, the will to take the Palestinian movement further than the state you and others abandoned it in? Your pity is self-disguised racism and an attempt to assuage your culpability and hand in the matter which you comment on. Nice try :) Not going to work!!
The only consensus which CAN BE PROVEN is the many screenshots of individuals purposely targeting Ken O Keefe and me and citing YOU as the source in which they rally under the banner of hate that you sowed and etched yourself. You Mary, are the fundamental flaw or weakness in the Palestine movement because you have caused so much trouble with an equitable amount of impunity AND a dearth of responsibility. The Palestinian movement's fullest potential may never be the same thanks to the shenanigans and hatred and jealousy of one charlatan who has authored this ostensibly credible web blog!
Please do not accuse anyone of using the Palestinian movement for their own vendettas Mary. You take the crown when we go into that direction Mary and I am more than confident EVERYONE knows it!! You have caused enough damage to Palestine Mary and I sound a bugle call to all who love Palestine to turn their backs upon you if they desire anything POSITIVE to become of this issue. You are NOT part of the answer, just someone who hangs on the curtails of those who have tried to help in their own way without the negativity and hell that surrounds your every foot step. This is a formal declaration that you have no purpose in the Palestinian movement other than to cripple it into a paraplegic in a wheel chair. Enough is enough young lady!! You have already ruined your own credibility and yet your thirst for more has not been sufficed. Shame on you because you do not want to own up to the fact that you are witnessing blowback from something YOU began!!!
If you are truly concerned with not being involved in this conflict between me and one of your own, stop posting on SHOAH's website. If you are truly concerned with not being involved in ANY conflict, stop posting hate propaganda against Ken O Keefe. If you are truly concerned about not being involved in any conflict, take down that horrible website you were involved in making called "No One In Gaza Wants Ken O'Keefe." If you are truly concerned about not being involved in conflict, than why did you make this post? Incredulous!!!
Oh how farcical it is to see that the title of this web blog states its topic is about Smear campaigns and your beginning paragraphs are about the dirty underhanded tactics you complain about. However, you resort right back to reposting your supposedly solid evidence against Ken O'Keefe that fueled the accusations and hate campaign you released which has caused the impetus behind this very article. Guess what Mary, I don't believe you!!! You really want us to believe that you wrote in order to condemn tactics on an article and that you do not want to be involved in any smear campaign when you revert right back to the same evidence you used against Ken O Keefe which began all of this division within the Palestinian movement? PLEASE!!!!! Nice to see how you tried to slither that evidence in at the end of this post as if you were an innocent and naive person trying to protect her credibility. Your accusations were found to be NOT enough by the judicial system. Likewise, your credibility, deservingly, should be found wanting. This is "natural" Mary!! It is awkward for me to read your thoughts on nature Mary. I for one, strongly feel you as a journalist or writer or activist for Palestine is unnatural in itself. God and nature would not be so devastatingly cruel as to answer the cries and screams of the oppressed with the yells of a charging and galloping wig-wearing donkey.
I have coerced b you Mary, forced out of my respect for truth, justice, and peace to aver that you ARE alone in your assessment and that your claim to be an infallible and omnipotent bearer of truthiness void of wrong doing is the equivalent of a bull snorting loudly and swiping the ground in preparation of running full speed at a brick wall thinking there is nothing behind the flag.
"I am addressing something I would prefer to ignore given my lack of interest in the persons involved, as it is clear that I do not really care about the lies and the capacity to engage in such character assassination and abuse of the cause by these subjects whose ethics and integrity (as well as mere accountability) are filled with quite a large number of gaping holes. It is generally preferable to allow those engaging in these attacks to their own devices, since it will become clear over time that they are lacking in accountability and that they invent things as they see fitting, avoiding truthfulness when they feel it suits their ends. It is evident that I have taken my position based on facts and evidence, and it is likewise evident that people are free to judge as they see fit based on the available facts. I have not attempted to influence or win over anyone. Like all I have written, it stands on its own and people are free to judge with their own minds. I do not live on internet as many of the other activists seem to do, and I do not need to convince anyone at all of the logic of my argument. If people are convinced, they have reached this awareness not by my insistence, but upon their own judgment."
You have the audacity to accuse anyone of character assassination!?
Are you serious? The boundaries of reality and fiction are pushed to its extremes in that the friction of flirting back and forth have caused a high viscosity, making it impossible to swallow if one were to be able to raise their head in pride and clear conscience. However, you do have your own type of breed on this blog that would probably share those characteristics, so surprise would not be such a reserved reaction if I were proven to be wrong by a few. Nevertheless, impossible to swallow Mary!!
I must admit you have talent when it comes to character assassination Mary. We all can testify to that :) You claim to not abuse the cause when you justified your vitriolic attacks against Ken O Keefe with the lie that you wanted to tell the truth to save the cause from him. PLEASE!! Perhaps it was large gaping and vacuous holes on your part that were not filled and your spite of Ken's denial to fill them spurned this action. I don't blame him. Who knows!! I have never seen so much rage, hatred, and disgusting tactics by those who claim to be on the side of human rights than I have seen of you and your cohorts. Disgusting Mary!!!
Let me help you out Mary. Integrity is not filing false charges on a human-being because of a "personal" vendetta. Integrity is to hold one's own tongue before slandering and accusing other human rights activists without irrefutable evidence!! Obviously, your facts you claim to be truthiness do not hold up as much as you expect. Those accusations which turned into charges, prove flimsy enough to be dropped. Good job!! Must be proud of yourself lady. Integrity is apologizing to the victim or target of those such false claims after they have been proven untrue. Integrity is not continuing a campaign of slander against a person AFTER they have been arrested and those charges dropped!! integrity is not attacking victims of your thugs by posting a sorry web blog!!
Now on to ethics. Ethics is not telling others to target any individual when as we see with the screenshots I have posted, one cannot be in full comprehension that the people you influence to target Ken are not playing with a full deck as we have seen with Kim. You have no clue what each person you have had piggy back on your childish antic of group lynching is capable of or not capable of!! Do you? Ethics is not making accusations without absolute proof of what you charge an individual with so as to avoid stigmatizing that person. Ethics is not to dismiss the truth or try to get it erased off the internet despite its source or if runs counter to your twisted and contorted viewpoint of the situation. I hold you personally responsible for being threatened with death threats! I hold you personally responsible for the annoyance we call Kimberly Amatullah. I hold you personally responsible for causing so much harm to the Palestinian unity and cause!!! I hold you personally responsible for time I have wasted on such small minds!! I hold you personally responsible for this whole mess!!! How do you handle responsibility or do you run from it Mary!? What are your ethics?
I loved your last post Mary. Real smooth. You attempted to claim objectivity when your previous comments, your dismissal of and persistent cowardice in erasing that credible evidence from the internet, your ad hominem against Ken above, your ambiguous commentary of the screenshots you posted, the fact you show no remorse or shame in the hell you drug Ken and consequently me through on false charges, the harm you have caused on the Palestinian movement while simultaneously using the cause to marginalize evidence to silence you in a racist way, and more dismiss your claims of objectivity. The facts are diametric to your claims.
"As I have written, The Truth Sunk during the Road to Hope Fiasco (http://wewritewhatwelike.com/
Analysis of Mary's Piece
It is necessary now to comment on Mary's work she is so proud of. I found the piece to begin with a naiveté notion of all struggles in history being successful from this notion that organized protest and civil disobedience produces these results alone. Although history records it as the truth, it is not entirely accurate. What about William Lloyd Garrison who against the norm demanded immediate emancipation and tore the Constitution of the Us into pieces declaring it evil or screaming that slavery was an evil while he was tied to the end of a carriage dragged through the streets? What about David Walker and Nat Turner who pressured the southern governments to pass laws that not only angered the southern black population but alienated the North against the South? The list goes on Mary. The unorthodox and orthodox approach is a minaret dance and any dilettante who has studied and researched struggles throughout history would not deny this. You have a Disney World impractical interpretation of struggles and movement. You blatantly dismiss the roles of the Black Panther Part, Malcolm X, and others that pressured the apathetic population into believing compromise was a necessary action. This unrealistic belief that struggle should only be orthodox or reserved tot eh very rules in which the establishment lays down is too trustworthy of the very establishment that allows the hypocrisy of Palestine to mimic the results of Native American genocide.
I agree that in the face of an opposition that has a monopoly on power, on must employ non-violence and regulated organized protest. However, you entirely ignore, and disrespect unintentionally, the real mechanisms that turn the wheels of Revolution and change Mary. Were all of the riots in the Arab Spring non-violent? You should look at the present history and it can also allow you to glimpse into the reality of historical struggles and vice versa.
Scrutinizing Ken for not following regulations is not a valid tactic. I appreciate you given him credit for trying, but simultaneously you are not given him credit for playing another side of a role in the struggle, one of unorthodox and media grasping tactics.
It sounds to me that you are criticizing Ken for not being professional, but in all reality Mary, some of the most accomplished of activists are really not they. Your conceptual image of what an activist it or is not bothers me considerably because it forms a dividing line between people not on the merits of their contributions and effects of them, but instead on the manner in which they behave, the clothing they wear, and who they make angry or not.
That is the gravest concern to me Mary. I think you should be more practical, fair, and more knowledgeable in the history of activism. Your conceptual image of an activist does not match reality. Activists are humans, with flaws, and some of those flaws are overlooked for the good, if that good deserves such. The US and other western countries can overlook the massive land grabs and the largest refugee population in the world to see their own version of what good Israel can be to their interests, why can’t you overlook a few mistakes or imperfections of Ken?
Although I agree that accountability is correct just like making false accusations, I think the over-emphasis on the lack of effective results on dictatorships is too over emphasized. Is you work or employment a dictatorship Mary? Are most forms of employment dictatorships? Wasn’t Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, one in which most Americans remember, a dictatorship when many members of Congress, Senate, and the US Supreme Court were dismissed as a result of being his opposition for the longest term a president has ever held, 16 years?
Although it is the mantra of foolish middle class logic to credit all change and great things to the Middle class and Democracy, it is not always this case and I think scrutinizing Ken's leadership for not employing mechanisms in which suits a government better than a working relationship is not entirely fair. Although I agree that an organization is best supported and run with Democratic means, but when that organization may be weak or incompetent, sometimes strong leadership is necessary to bring it out of the mess it is in, just as Franklin Roosevelt brought Americans out of the Depression. I do not agree with you criticism of his actions under the circumstances that arose at the time Ken made this decision. Unfair Mary.
I also take notice that you omit pertinent facts such as the interview format of those you desire to question. I think it is incorrect to claim that you provided equal opportunity and fairness to all parties but omit the fact that a Ken and his team did not agree on that format. Just because your format of interviewing was FAIR, it does not disqualify the discretion of Ken and his associates to ask for this format to change or be reformatted. By omitting the latter details and mentioning the fact that Ken and his team did not cooperate, it implies guilt Mary. Even journalists and other news agencies state publicly that a person or entity was not cooperative without mentioning the FAIRNESS of a format and then state that certain persons were not cooperative. Just say that people were not cooperative rather than beat around the bushes trying to concoct an image or imply the refusal of an interview as an indication of guilt in your accusations. I take offense to that.
In regards to your claim that crossing a border is not an act of Civil Disobedience but instead violation of international law. WTH!? And young blacks with whites entering whites’ only restaurants and other public places protected under civil law was an act of Civil disobedience!? WOAH!! Where is your logic coming from? As I am trying to take this piece seriously and address it, I find this and some other logic skewed beyond belief here Mary. Hugh? Was Gandhi’s stroll to a body of water to collect salt NOT Civil Disobedience? I can't be reading this right! What is Civil Disobedience Mary? What movement in history has been without the cringe of confrontation. It is called change Mary and it does not come as easily as your naiveté claims.
Your use of the note involving the claim that there will be blood circulated on Facebook is a joke. Who wrote it and how can you attribute that to Ken? In addition, could the note be construed as blood on the part of those participating in Civil Disobedience? Why bring this up? Where are you taking us with this?
You mention visa requirements to enter Egypt. As they say in Egypt, it is easy to get in but getting out is the harder issue. Everyone knows it is easy to get into Egypt, so I cannot imagine what visa problems anyone had. Could you expound on it in your article please?
Your denial of the possibility of a Greek captain destroying the mission and abandoning ship is met with circumstantial evidence which matches your curiosity,
Your lack of imagination in the tactics of intelligence agencies is disgusting. It is almost as if you are a paid apologist yourself and now I can see why people accuse you of such. We have a situation where Palestinians are being treated like Native Americans despite world condemnation, a situation where this situation continues to go unstopped despite the most anti-American of figures in the Middle east using this issue as a recruiting tool, and the worst human tragedy in this modern century, and you ignore those forces which use orthodox and unorthodox means to maintain that unpopular status quo?
Have you forgotten the COINTELPRO of the 60s and 70s? Have you forgotten the plans to kill Patrice Lumumba with tooth paste? Have you forgotten Operation Mongoose? Have you forgotten Operation PB SUCCESS and Calligeris? Are you freaking kidding me Mary? It is no doubt why people suspect your loyalties. Despite Ken being one of the most vocal and biggest critics of Israel, despite him participating and leading actions which no one else is willing to in which tests and challenges the horror we see in the West Bank and Gaza, despite the fact that injustice has continued to be the stigma of all Palestinians throughout the world; you seemingly dismiss and ignore the possibility that ANY of those creative Intel ops could be repeated? Are you freaking kidding me!? What is wrong with you Mary?
You come off as an apologist for Israel and America. Do not misunderstand me Mary. I am not accusing you of such but , I am admitting sincerely, you come off as such in your criticism of Ken without the benefit of the doubt AT ALL as to the proven and admitted dirty tactics of intelligence agencies around the world. Especially Mossad and the CIA. You are reading the words of someone whose family, the majority of them, for a long time, consists of government and military employees. Even they would look at your posts and call you naive!! WTH?
I notice your claim as to accuracy of facts as the driving force behind your investigation , claiming that these facts MUST be investigated and spoken about in order to avoid the enemy the opportunity to exploit them later. I seriously doubt that Mary. Have you looked at your own writing?
You have engaged in such a diatribe against Ken with no evidence, many questions of doubt and accusations, and then ambiguous interpretation that it is clear that you do more harm to the Palestinian movement by giving more information or ideas to the enemy than providing a strong defense for all of us. If I were an investigative journalist biased in favor of Israel and writing a piece on Ken O Keefe, I would immediately look at your article for ideas of where to begin. PERIOD.
I agree that truth and accuracy is important, but not to the detriment of the whole cause’s reputation or unity. The former and latter you have struck a dagger into. Your whole article is not about truth and accuracy Mary, the length of it, the lack of proof, ambiguous interpretations, red herrings, and more make it a personal attack against Ken O Keefe. This has nothing to do with commitment to media accuracy. If you were that concerned about media accuracy, spend your time on the western media, not Ken. You talk about transparency of Palestinian activists toward the media, are you blind!? What about media transparency on the whole issue of Palestine!? WOW!! Incredulous a specimen you are Mary.
You claim that activists require money, I never did solicit money nor needed. Do you see my blog posts asking for money? Why don't you ask your friend in Amman, Jordan how much she would have to pay me if I charged her the rate I was paid for teaching English. I gave it to her for free!! I am an activist that does not require money and funding. I did everything I did without funding so there goes your assertion of activists needing funding Mary. You have no clue what activism is Mary. Where are your accolades of activism!?
You complain about the plague of problems that arose during Ken's convoy and you mention that the group involved on the convoy did not have the same leadership as it began with. Perhaps , therein lays the culprit of all the problems you scrutinize. Perhaps the leadership purposely neglected to mention important details, help in certain pertinent ways, or basically make everything harder for Ken out of spite.
Have you ever thought about this? Your mention of the change of leadership of the convoy is used to bring suspicion and condemnation upon Ken as a poor and inept leader with your imagination. Why did you not use the same imagination to consider how much harder it was for Ken to assume leadership unexpectedly and still continue the plans out? In fact, all of your complaints seem to be the result of what Ken actually complained about, an unexpected change of leadership and a determination to carry out the mission despite the odds against it. Way to cheer character Mary!!
Bash it so that others may heap the lessons learned from your derisive words. I call Ken's actions determination, not what you insinuate Mary. Your post is another example of Yellow Journalism where you use your imagination to exaggerate facts but refuse to do so in testing your own HYPOTHESIS. Under the circumstances which unfortunately touched the convoy, you should be more understanding and hesitant with your tongue than lash out the manner which you have used.
I see that you claim that leaders should claim responsibility for their actions. Likewise, why don't you take your own advice. Own up to the division in the Palestinian Movement and the false accusations you charged Ken with that have been proven insufficient. Where is your accountability?
You claim that Ken's wounds from the Marvi Marmara could be demonstrated as fake from his appearance on Al Jazeera along with his claim of not being able to speak before. Are you a doctor? Where is your evidence to prove it is medically impossible? You also rattle around the suspicion like a rattlesnake waiting to strike, that Ken did not have access to legal defense but there were still advice from the lawyer being seen in a post or message. Legal advice is different from legal representation Mary. Anyone can get legal advice on behalf of anyone else with just a phone call. Alexander Bell was not born yesterday in case you were led to believe the contrary.
In regards to your comments specifically about the Marvi Marmara, you ask why Ken wasn’t called to testify on a special commission if his role was that important on the ship. Was there a special commission of investigation for any of the participants on this ship? You also reprehend Ken for saying that the deaths on the Marvi Marmara were "worth it". Would you think that those who died would want to be remembered in any other way than their lives were not in vain? You again use racism in your arguments, claiming that it is unbecoming or atrocious for Ken to benefit from a 3 BR office and more when he is not even Gazan. What does being Gazan have to do with helping Gaza? Shall we dismiss the efforts of the AAPER or Amnesty or any other organization because they are not run by Gazans? What is your logic with mentioning that your targets are not Gazan or Palestinian? Are you saying that the role of westerners acting on behalf of Palestine and Gaza has no other purpose in this movement? Please explain yourself because your logic is not only closet racism but it is also ahistorical to the struggles of history.
You mention that you have Turkish friends who refer to themselves as "passengers" as opposed to survivors like Ken. What relevance their perspective and reality has to do with Ken's, in have no earthly clue. In addition, where are their comments on Ken O Keefe if you had such access to so close of a resource to the incident in question involving Ken?
In regards to his passport, in think an attempt to renounce one's citizenship is not the equivalent of renouncing it. I agree with you on that. however, his attempt has come closer to many people's attempts. Who else do you know who has tried because of the US and the West's influence on the human rights disaster? In addition, in do not think you are well versed into the immigration policies upon Americans here in the Middle East Mary. You assume that an American passport grants you automatic entry into a country. That is not true. For Egypt, it is. however, for Iraq, it is not. Try calling the Iraqi Embassies and ask. Ken offered his explanation f why he requested his passport back, it is enough to warrant no suspicion. I can understand why he did request it back. What's the problem?
I also find it despicable that you had no restraint to support an insignificant claim of yours by mentioning Ken's mother in your article. The claim you were trying to pass as fact was not important enough to use his own mother as a source. Foul there Mary.
In regards to your criticism of Ken's Freedom Charter, I think his line of thinking runs similar to mine and the Jordan Peace Treaty with Israel. That there is a psychological aspect of the conflict not being addressed and it is pertinent to address it. In addition, a two state solution will not remedy this affliction. I am in opposition to Professor Noam Chomsky, respectfully, with his support of a two state solution. I do not see anywhere in his charter where he sells out Palestinians!! I see reason and logic, not the hyperbole and incorrect depiction you have leveled at him Mary. Is this your interpretation of facts? Exaggerating them with explosive and bombastic language in order to make believers out of the less literate.
In regards to your claim that a Navy cannot stop commercial vessels, only the Coast Guard:
I have not heard of an international crisis to these events. I saw them reported, but not an international crisis.
In regards of your attempt to discredit the kidnapping of the convoy by using the claim that the victims had telephones. Here is the legal definition of kidnapping Mary:
"to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."
I have yet to see the inclusion of the necessity for a telephone to be confiscated. This indigence of yours would provide aid to every future kidnapper who would allow their victims to use their telephone despite using force to hold someone against their will if your logic precludes them from prosecution. I do not trust in your assumption of what kidnapping is Mary. It seems too scary a precedent to admit or include into reality. Nice try though.
In regards to this Mrs. Baseos, there was a reported kidnapping. I would want her pessimism and negative comments to be silenced and I would censor her if she persisted in making what would be construed as seditious and unhelpful comments in a repeated manner. I am supposing that she was repeatedly making these comments since she was attacked as you said by many and inevitably blocked. Your lone victim martyr scenario isn't bought by anyone. It would be such more convincing a tale if she had just made a post and left. It is obvious she made more than a few comments. Do you have the proof to assert otherwise?
If my loved one was on the boat when this occurred:
I would have travelled half-way across the world to sue if not strangle someone who would have eased my concern only to find my loved one dead from a shipping incident. Good job in blocking this person. Obviously, judging from this video, her appeals for calm did not match the reality of what was occurring. Nor does yours.
Freedom of speech? More like an abuse of privilege! Both can, under the circumstances, be abominable if practiced in the wrong manner and in the wrong way. According to the video above, it was the latter.
Mary, you mention that other's freedom of expression were violated. Please mention who. Furthermore, you claim that you were called not allowed an interview because you were classified as not "objective" and then admit to influencing others during a reported kidnapping to be more reluctant to report the claim AND slowing the process of exigent communications for those endangered in the ship above. Someone could have died Mary!!! How could you!? You have no idea what could have happened! You admit to styming the flow of relays between interested parties and to compel others to be lethargic in reporting or acting. how else could ANYONE react to this!? in a life and death situation, whether you feel it is real or not, you do not atrophy a proper response to this. Imagine that during an amber alert, you passed messages to certain patrol units that this particular amber alert was suspect and you urged restraint and a second look to reaffirm this claim. What would have happened to you in this specific case?
Would you expect law enforcement to welcome you in open arms as their voice for objectivity? What contorted viewpoint would assume otherwise!?
You were tainted as a journalist the moment you became involved in the whole incident Mary. Untrustworthy would be the proper response but since you went further with an investigation request AFTER THE FACT, you can only be considered either biased from the beginning or having the mind of a homo habillis in the hominoid sequence. Mind boggling, your audacity and lack of shame!! I repeat mind boggling!!! Your moment of hesitation could have cost lives Mary!!!!!! FUBAR!!!
In regards to your censure of Ken's refusal to interview you and your whining as if your interests or questions represent the will to protect the Palestinian's reputation and credibility, your very diatribe has done more damage than the ends which you have sought. Even if you were somehow, some way, in a Alfred Hitchcock's way, proven to be true in your accusations; your diatribe and the consequent division it has caused and the comedy you have given to the theater of our opposition and other critics and the animosity which resulted along with your effect on ALL of us activists who may be influenced in the future to be less inclined to sacrifice for Palestine, has done more damage than any charlatan you claim to be after.
This is the truth!! In your zealous quest to be better than someone else with your false accusations, you have stained the very thing I love, Palestine. Therein lays my antipathy and harsh rhetoric toward you Mary. You threaten my dreams, my dead child's dreams, and many others' dreams. I can only assume from your convolution of unsupported facts that you are callous and immature in character and wanting or morality and ethics.
Your own use of Ken's statements begins with him responding to what appears to be comments from you to him. It seems from his tone that you were sarcastic and scathing toward him and thus he responded by defending himself. What did you say to him before this post Mary? More ommitted facts like you did with me? Starting to see another pattern of the quality here that you yourself posted about Extremism with Laird Wilcox.
As you go on in your thick web of narrative with less than circumstantial evidence, we see that there are admissions to you dismissing information that counters your predisposition into the investigation. Another one of your traits that is listed in the latter part of this essay for those you label as "extremists".
What hypocrisy and a telling truth of how assailant projects their own traits on their targets. What happened to the girl you referred to in regards to a convoy member in Libya. Even she attacked you when you began your witch hunt against Ken!! Why? Oh no reason to ask Mary, let's just dismiss her as one of Ken's minions. There we go, now your storyline can continue. Good job!! Let's remind the audience here that your smoking gun testimony where all of your convictions and assurances rest are in a one, Christina Baseos. My hats off to her Mary. That is one powerful lady to circumvent the legal requirement of undeniable guilt with irrefutable proof!!
Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, would desire such influence as this woman you entrust such devotion to your time and energies as a result of. Great journalism Mary. Can I send you my screenshots so that I can make an accusation against someone. It seems Mary is a hit woman for hire these days especially when she has a huge chip on her shoulder in regards to the target.
In regards to the whole narrative of the ship arrangements which is IMPOSSIBLE for you to accurately dispel from just ONE witness and a contract, it seems all of what you CAN extrapolate, and I use a euphemism on this, is that the broker was a crook and that there was a huge lack of communication as a result of that broker. What's the problem?
Furthermore, you mean to tell me 7 law enforcement officers were able to get one van off the ship but could not get the other van off along with several unarmed human rights activists? That doesn't sound right. It sounds fishy to me.
Then you proceed to break away from explaining how 7 Libyan officers could not remove unarmed peace activists with stopping midpoint in your fictional account with begging the question (which is fallacious), was it kidnapping since the Captain left because he had a time schedule to meet? The answer is YES!! The Libyan police were supposedly demanding the crew to depart, the activists were claiming they had the right to be there, and the Captain responded by sailing with the crew on board without giving any notice of if the agreement that Ken and his crew believed they had would be honored or if he was taking them to another destination. Whatever that resting point might be, the lack of awareness of the Captain's destination and the erratic behavior of the Captain in bashing the ship against the docks and elsewhere clearly demonstrates the concern of ANYONE on that ship as to where their destination would land.
The correct procedure to avoid any accusation of kidnapping would be to NOT LEAVE PORT unless the accused stowaway crew was removed. It doesn't matter if the Captain had deadlines to meet. Was he high when he crashed the boat into the docks? He should have waited until he 7 law enforcement officers removed the unarmed activists. If I were in Ken's case, I would have considered it kidnapping too for a driver of a vehicle or ship to drive away in anger with me in his mode of transportation without clearly letting me know where we were going. The Captain DID NOT have to leave the port!! He chose to!! Let's imagine you are in a taxi and the driver takes a $20 bill from you. The meter says $10. He looks at you and asks you to leave his taxi. You refuse to disembark until he pays you what you deserve and even goes to such length as to state that you gave him a $10 bill, not a 20. You call the police and they arrive. While in the process of allowing law enforcement to discern the culprit and defendant in order to employ the laws to the best of their discretion, the taxi driver leaves with you in the Taxi. Let’s add more suspense to the story line since you are a master of this Mary. Let's suppose you are the one who made the mistake. Let's state that you mistakenly thought that you gave him a $20 bill but were unaware of this mistake while arguing with the Taxi driver. Although this case scenario or analogy is different by a few standards in comparison to Ken's case, is what the Taxi driver did kidnapping or not? I would have expected the Taxi driver to wait until law enforcement settled the issue regardless of how much time and money could be lost. The Taxi driver, just as the Captain, has every ample opportunity to sue in civil litigation, the lost costs associated with any fiasco. There is your answer Mary. YES!! It is kidnapping.
“Model Penal Code § 212.1 defines kidnapping as an occurrence “when any person is unlawfully and nonconsensually transported (moved) and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony, terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person and interfering with a governmental or political function.” A precise definition of kidnapping is difficult to pin down as the definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most state and federal kidnapping statues define the term vaguely and allow courts to fill in the details for their particular jurisdiction.”
“Kidnapping is the unlawful removal of another person a substantial distance from his or her original location, or the unlawful confinement of another in isolation. Unlawful in this sense refers to these actions accomplished by use of force, threat or deception, regarding someone who is incapacitated or under the age of 14. It is also illegal if it occurs without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for the individual. A kidnapping charge can apply even if you remove your own child when you do not have legal authority to do so, as in a case where the other parent has sole custody. It is critical you have a Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer fighting on your side if accused of kidnapping. A kidnapping charge can apply if these actions are part of the offense :
· For the purposes of ransom or reward, or to use the person as a shield or hostage
· To assist in the commission of a felony or in fleeing after such an act
· In order to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another person
· To interfere with the duties of public officials or any political or governmental functions”
Either precisely or imprecisely Mary, the Captain of the vessel was guilty of kidnapping.
On the Captain’s part, the amount was $25,000. The motive was to place the opposing party in an extraneous circumstance or predicament as to coerce or punish those individuals for refusing to leave the ship until interested law enforcement parties settled the matter. The benefit was to intimidate or scare the convoy participants to leave their cargo on the ship and the $25,000 owed and abandon the ship or to be carried off to an undesired location of which the convoy knew not the route. It did not matter if the abductor mentioned to authorities where that location would be, it is the fact that the destination was undesirable. Would you consider it kidnapping if the same Taxi driver in the example above informed the police officers where he or she was taking you despite it being against your will? Kidnapping involves the forced movement of a physical presence or entity to an undesired location without the consent of that entity.
I agree with you that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff which is a reoccurring and massively overlooked theme in your accusations and narration of events. You ask questions and when they are not answered to your satisfaction or do not correlate to your twisted convolution of events and interpretations, you scream “Guilty” and “Fraud” like a vocal bully trying to shame or coerce others to cooperate with you. Your methods and strategy is not loss on any of us who may be proud to have half of a brain Mary.
Another issue I have with your novel is that you claim that the Master refused to go to the port of Benghazi to handle the situation in an "amicable" way without intervention of the Navy and instead called for a conventional vessel to pick the activists off the ship, yet you also state that the Master was willing to wait for the arrival of Navy warships to transport the activists off the ship in an "amicable" way. What is the "amicable" way Mary? If you are released to the supervision of a conventional vessel, it is "amicable" because it avoids the Navy and also it is "amicable" if you are released to a Navy vessel. Make up your mind!!
Worse, the ship decides not to wait for the Libyan Navy and sets a course for Greece. It seems your logic speaks wonders and is epitomized in this tragic labyrinth of taking us over the mountains, under the stars, and everywhere else conceivable to humankind except the truth. What a twisted maze of loss facts construed with no coherent commentary and logic to augment the interpretations of yours. I have no clue what type of fuel would be necessary in order to keep up with the imaginative twists and turns of your narrative Mary. Nature and God would be so kind as to leave a tiny portion of us in a state of confusion rather than suffer ALL to the pains of our eyes hurting and intelligence insulted by such a waste of time on nonsense. What in the world is "amicable" Mary? Nothing in your narrative says anything.
We also notice that you use precise markings of the exact time frames of the video in your notes. Great sourcing but again, the evidence just does not indicate anything of significant value you portray it as. SO what Libyan officers were trying to stop the convoy members from getting on the boat to retrieve their material and non-material possessions? That has already been established. What is the big deal? Was it your attention to sourcing your information that was supposed to convince the untrained eye of observation?
In regards to the lack of correlation between the messages sent by individual sources on the ship that differed Mary. As you yourself have said, messages and screenshots leave out a lot of the context and necessary information pertinent to make an accurate and just decision. The difference is that in my case, my screenshots who A LOT more continuity with the time stamps and dates along with the messages, a plethora of such contained therein, yet you still dismissed them. How could you be taken seriously when you expect others, an audience , to believe your palpitations of suspicion on so much considerably lesser information you have provided here? Compare my sources with yours after you complain to the website and take them down, no comparison. Furthermore, given the situation of fear and a life-threatening perception by convoy members at the specific moment in question, exaggerations and missing facts and incoherence is probably the most expected symptoms one may detect in any human’s story. It is called fear and concern Mary. You should try it sometimes and see how your recollection and documentation of facts remain steadfast in accuracy and interpretation. To go further, the convoy’s recollection of the incidents seem to be affected by fear and concern, well...what is your excuse in this post!? Perhaps when you write less and do more, you will learn how it feels and understand. Until then, I can only call an impractical demagogue more of a trusted and analytical source than you.
Your definition of a distress signal lacks mentioning the fact that one's interpretation of whether they were in distress or not, which is an ambiguous interpretation, is what matters in considering if one violated laws. It also worth noting that your claim LIFE always comes first before economic determinants but fail to use this very same admission by yourself to mention how the ship's captain placed the convoys' lives in danger via leaving while the convoy was still on board because of the economic motive of not being charged a fine for late arrival.
In regards to your insinuating that clips of Ken's video footage were missing intentionally by querying the question as to why he would cut out certain portions of the video which you claim, the unanimitous response is , to make the film short enough to upload on YouTube perhaps. What evidence do you have of his intentions Mary?
In regards to your comments about the NATO warship, I would like to reciprocate your journalistic approach by responding with my own conjectures and questions leading to unknown Red Herrings but leaving enough doubt as to make the audience oblivious and a normal courtroom jealous of the negative pregnant technique of yours. If the NATO warship was advised or informed that a ship had kidnapped a group of people, why would they trust only the word of a Captain? Would it be the same response if it were off the coast of Somalia? I cannot fathom why a NATO warship would not proceed to investigate the charge. If I were Captain and I received the report that there were kidnapping victims on board of a ship, even if I contacted the ship's Captain, I would still be uneasy about leaving the issue alone without any further investigation. Even if testimonies from the government of that Captain assured me of such. I am sorry. It augments my curiosity and conscience more to investigate given the fact that I am not getting through to the voices of the victims. How can I be sure it is only a hoax or misunderstanding? Furthermore, no thorough investigation can be done from the docks of any vessel so a boarding party would require such an investigation. If I am to guess here or extrapolate like you do Mary, I would say that the NATO ship HAD to have contacted an unbiased third party to either verify or refute these allegations or to be informed or reinformed or given an order in regards to the legal abilities and ramifications of investigating this charge. s there any evidence to indicate if this occurred or not? Here is an example of using imagination to ascertain the truth instead of using it to defame someone :) Hope it helps your investigation. I would bet that someone told the NATO ship not to intervene!!
I would also like to comment further on your castigation upon Ken bringing attention to himself during his interviews, spreading panic in the media, and diplomatic irritation between 6 countries. If his actions are for Palestine and get media attention, than WHO CARES IF THE SPOTLIGHT IS ON HIM!!? HE DESERVES IT!! Now stop worrying about who is famous or not, get out there and EARN your spot in the spotlight rather than kidnap or steal it through nefarious and weak means like a hater!! In addition, given the complicity of the media in being silent on the issue of Palestine and allowing this tragedy to continue unabated with further land grabbing and dispossessions of Palestinians, I have a smile on my face if it actually caused the media any urge to be afraid or emotion on the subject of Palestine. Just as Samuel Adams did the same as Ken with the very same purpose, I as a researcher of struggles and revolutions, concur that his tactics, under the existing norm of the Palestinian situation, applaud him and find his actions laudatory!! The media deserves it!!! As much as the media has ignored the plight of the Palestinians or sought to steer its proponents and advocates and enthusiasts in different paths to deter a coordinated effort for Palestine, the media deserves much more!! If 6 countries, whose fear of the west's power in the UN are irritated, I say bravo, bravo, bravo Ken O Keefe!!
In all movements, the actions of a few brave Sons of Liberty is all that is necessary for the wheels of revolution or change to occur. John Quincy Adams and other abolitionists would also apply the same tactics of coordinated and organized events of media attraction and provocation of the normal sets of rules to turn attention and world opinion either negatively or positively on their own tragedies they addressed. John Quincy Adams' tactics to upset the gag rule of the South on slavery was an unwritten account of his influence on the abolition movement. The Malcolm X's and Black Panthers and Stokley Carmichael's rhetoric are not forgotten upon the posterity of those who remember or recognize the danger and sense of urgency in those words, were convinced of the dedication and passion of the movement not to die, and realize that the compromise was the middle path of non-violent solution sought to dispel upon the world as the final resolution and message to posterity. As Herodotus said, we write history for the posterity. Whatever it took for the world to know the struggle will not die and the people maintaining the quo are hypocrites and monsters. I say this to you Mary, no one complained or whined or made defamatory accusations as much as you against any revolutionary group in history against tyranny and oppression, except the Tories of the American Revolution. You wonder why you are at question as to YOUR loyalties?
Moreover, what better way to close Mary's report but with the star witness in which the majority of Mary's conjectures and hyperboles begin (I use the word originate because it is without doubt that this style of Yellow Journalism by Mary has gained the small headway it has because of a few idiots who actually praise her by falling for it and because old habits die old and thus she will repeat this tactic again and again and again until someone for God's sake, puts her in her place or burns her for her lack of responsibility and immaturity. Therefore, in respect for the late Edward Saidd's precise definitions of the words origin and beginning with the former meaning a starting point with a definite end and the latter with continuous starting points and no end. Likewise, our torment is never ending with Rizzo's works!). It is a question as to whether Mary investigated the credentials of Christina Baseos as much as she did Ken and his followers? I doubt it!
You depend on one source, a Christina Baseos to make judgments giving her much , too much, importance as a source for your interpretations. I also find it repulsive that you rely heavily on not only your own personal interpretations of messages but also on Wikipedia sources. There was no evidence you claimed in this article. in have found you on Facebook taunting and toting this article around as if it were the panacea to all of the answers about Ken O Keefe. I can only say that mine and many more people's answers are still left in mystery. There is nothing of value to claim your report is any more worth than what would satisfy the necessity of cleaning the rectum of a truck driver in a bathroom stall. Very poor journalism with a huge amount of imagination against Ken and a dearth of the same for Ken. This is what makes this article suspicious, it is the twists and turns of ambiguous interpretations and hyperboles and weak and incomplete sources which make a novice at the game of Twister scream and ache in pain!!
All I see of your "facts" and words is a Yellow Journalistic paper wrapped with a bow tie of Red Herrings over a Mary Rizzo calumny.
What better words to end my observations of your report than to aver, I don't believe you!!
Analysis of Kimberly Amatullah and Siraj Davis Argument
At this point, I feel compelled to go further and explain my problem with Kim and her complicity with Mary's campaign against Ken O Keefe. This was the crux of how everything started and how Mary Rizzo again was dragged into an argument for her responsible role in it while simultaneously denying that responsibility and illogically blaming Ken for it. Kim and I were friends for a while. I even helped her repair an estranged relationship with the father of her child and I gave her a camera she claimed to use in order to take footage in Gaza of a march in which she never went to. As you can see from the screenshots below, she not only thanked and asked God to bless me for helping her, she also elicited private information about my organization and its intentions for the future by offering assistance. It was always a suspicion by many of us why she was so determined to travel with us to Palestine. Be careful, is my advice to others. My trust for her has brought anger amongst my own constituents for confiding in her and as we have all seen, it has deteriorated to the nadir of outright hostility and distrust of her and arguments within my own organization.
Here are the screenshots. They begin with Kimberly's offering of assistance along with asking me to allow Scott to join us to Palestine, her request for a camera, and then her correspondence with me about Faris:
I would like to challenge Kim to demonstrate she paid me back for that camera! I would like to challenge her even more to prove that I mentioned that camera or the help I gave her before this post even ONCE!!
Our relationship was of friendship to the point that I felt comfortable requesting aid in money. A meager amount of money when I travelled from Syria to Jordan. I did not have access to my bank account and the move was unexpected as I am sure that the management at Berlitz Syria in Baramke will verify that my visa could not be extended as others originally thought. Therein laid the impetus behind asking for some aid. The aid referred to by Kim was requested in September of 2010. As can be seen from the screenshots, Kim mentioned nothing of the money until I messaged her about the posts Mary Rizzo made on my Facebook student organization website and then consequentially asked Kim her opinion of it in November of 2011. I even asked for her phone number to call her about this money in August 2011. In this phone call, she told me the money was not a problem and that she and Scott gave such aid to demonstrate their appreciation of their friendship with me. However, as will be shown, when I asked about Mary RIzzo and all of this conflict with her and Ken O Keefe, it was then when the money would become an issue.
Here are the screenshots pertaining to the aid. As can be seen, nothing was mentioned of the aid until November 2011.
It was an aid that I thought beneath our friendship and not so significant as to warrant the termination of it. I have always lived by the rule of never giving money to anyone if it is something I cannot afford to live without and thus ruin a friendship. Furthermore, I view such aid as a means of the creditor having a good deed to present on judgment day and the debtor being flawed during that same time. It was a challenge to me, not a weapon in real life, to stitch this flaw before that calling. My assumption was correct that Kim felt the same way until Mary Rizzo added something into the formula which created this aid to become an instrument in which Kimberly would use as a crutch not only to claim herself a victim while simultaneously seeking vindication against me for refusing to help her in a defamation campaign, but something she could use to attack my reputation and credibility. I should have known better and it was a mistake to ask her because I have seen in the past, the numerous incidents of her emotional instability and Mary Rizzo played the fiddle as she watched Kimberly march to its tune. During the time I left the Middle East, I had witnessed Kim become embroiled into nasty arguments with so many people on the internet while she always asked me to help her or come to her aid without knowing the circumstances surrounding it. The screenshots I posted above of an argument between her and a Facebook name "Parents" that she sent me is only a microcosm of the plethora of entanglements Kim was involved in. Some of the others she has demanded a defamation campaign against were Pamela Hardyment and Sandra Nichols.
The latter was an unconscionable a request and it made me really take a step back and think of her stability because Sandra is a great person from my own experience!! This disturbed me heavily. I wanted to dearly ignore those signs but colleagues within my own organization were steadily criticizing such signs. The criticism went from momentary comments to sarcasm and jokes directed at me until it deteriorated to the nadir of demands of ostracizing her to finger pointing at the end when we all saw what lengths Kimberly was willing to go in order to attack Ken O Keefe and punish us for being friends with him and his associates. It is the longest diplomatic nightmare of protecting my leadership role and maintaining my credibility in which I was tormented under. I can only say that friendship with Kim has made my situation amongst my colleagues precarious as it is without doubt, they will have second thoughts the next time I claim a person is not a Zionist spy or crazy. And I blame Mary Rizzo's campaign for creating such dissension and division not only within my organization, but the whole Palestine movement.
That aid was not the only instrument of damage used against me and my colleagues. Kimberly also elicited information about our intentions and plans for the future over Facebook and in person through telephone calls. This trust was established by her extreme enthusiasm to help us in our efforts as if we could trust her loyalties. Initially, we were ecstatic as an organization to build such help beyond the borders of SC!! However, over time, the excitement I and the others felt would gradually transform into doubt as we began to see more and more of her antics destroying the solid foundations of a much needed Palestine activist unity. Worse, it was brought to our attention that our travel to Palestine needed to be done with more discreetness because our destination along with our intentions were leaked to the opposing side of this tragic conflict. While many fingers pointed at Kim and some fingers pointed at others, I always defended her and demanded more time before we decided to stigmatize and outcast her amongst us. This final decision, unfortunately, was positively voted on after all of this mess. We admit, all of us, we do not know who Kimberly is nor will she provide those credentials to allow us more safety and trust. Therefore, as one of my own members stated, "her actions are suspicious and now her credentials. How much more circumstantial evidence do we need? Must we continue to be targeted by her and her idiots until they finally get through with a striking blow to injure us!?" At that, my fortitude and willingness to defend her crumbled. I admit this. Whether her intentions were good or malicious, she has caused more damage to mine and others efforts for Palestine than any David Duke could have with his own efforts and resources! We are recuperating now with the blessing of God and good people.
Mary Rizzo and others are without doubt making claims, using ambiguous evidence and hyperboles with the use of their imagination for their arguments and contrary to those they target yet here are the screenshots. I and Kim had no problems until one fateful day when I contacted her to get information about why Mary Rizzo and her friends were posting on my organization's Facebook page and then attacking me when I asked for evidence (I have already posted the screenshots above of Mary Rizzo and her team's conversation with me in private AND on the website "No One in Gaza Wants Ken O Keefe.") . This is when that aid mentioned above began to become an instrument for retribution by Kim. The culprit of the animosity between Kim and me is the fact that I refused to help Kim and Mary in a campaign of defamation against Ken O Keefe. I maintained my espousement for principles which I embrace deeply within my chest. I would not defame or convict someone where there was no irrefutable evidence to do so. If a normal court of law in ANY civilized society would require such evidence, well I would do the same. There was no evidence against Ken O Keefe, there still is none!!
Here is the narrative Mary Rizzo and Kimberly Amatullah so desperately want to hide from the public:
Notice Kimberly's response to my query of why people were posting on my student organization's website was to claim a Sara Swati, Daniel Mabsoot, and others were agents of a government:
Here Kim states Ken O Keefe is one of them and that all of the aforementioned were Iranian agents:
In this screenshot, Kim goes further on Ken and even states there is "factionalism" within the Palestine movement. I responded with her claims of having to pick sides that I was "not falling for that." Nevertheless, Kim stated I had to pick a side, it was unavoidable:
Here Kim states that a Palestinian activist killed Vitorrio Arigoni and implies one of the listed was the murderer. When I mention my problem is only with a Mary Rizzo, Kim says that Rizzo is correct:
Here Kim claims that the internet is being erased when I ask her for information to her claims that Ken is a fraud. Kim claims she knows of Ken's criminal record. Furthermore, she credits Mary Rizzo as being the source of her conviction:
Here is more evidence of Kim implying that Ken killed Vittorio and even using the tattoos of Ken's as evidence against him:
As I demonstrate concern for the whole Palestine movement, Kim declares public defamation is the best tactic to use against Ken:
Kim appealing to religion to convince me to defame Ken O Keefe:
Kim using paranoia stating "we are surrounded!"
When I try to demonstrate to Kim that this type of bitter feuding would only make us flagrant idiots to be laughed at by our opposition, she barefacedly without any hesitation claimed everyone needed to defame Ken. She goes further to claim Ken and his team are MOLES:
Kim claims she has overwhelming evidence to prove her claims:
Here Kim is attacking Ken's claim to have renounced his citizenship AND implying once again Ken had something to do with Vittorrio's murder:
Kim claims Catherine was fooled by Ken:
Kim again crediting Mary Rizzo:
Here Kim claims the hate group "No One in Gaza Wants Ken O Keefe" is run by Palestinians and that Ken and his associates are COINTELPRO:
Here Kim claims that Ken and his associates have been hunting Ken for two years:
Here Kim claims that Daniel and others associated with Ken have an antipathy toward Shia Muslims and that her and Catherine's argument with Ken and the others began because of this antipathy. It doesn't make sense because why would Kim or Catherine help Shia or Sunni Muslims for that matter? Kim is not Muslim and Catherine is Christian.
Kim claiming all information is public knowledge:
Kimberly attaching kidnappings in Palestine to Ken and his associates:
When I state that no one knows more than what public information has provided, Kim's reply is "So". She also goes further and says Ken will be in prison in April:
After stating I would not condemn an innocent man, the first ad hominem by Kim is thrown and she calls me lazy:
After doing my own investigation with others, we told her what we found to be the consensus amongst Palestinian activists. The consensus was that Ken at worst was negligent with money, at worst if it be true, but not a fraud. Kim replies with comments about Ken's house and more:
Kim claiming she has pictures of Ken's house:
Kim saying again Mary is the source of her conviction. When I call Mary a nut, she defends Mary Rizzo:
While talking to Kim, I already alerted members of Collective Consciousness to do some homework on the issue. Not only did we find no culpability on Ken's part, but we found that for some reason, Catherine Myles had a relationship with Sasha Crow in Amman, Jordan. The latter runs an organization named Collateral Repair Project. I volunteered for three months to teach English for three months for 3 to 5 times a week for 4 to 6 hours a day while simultaneously holding a full time job at Berlitz Shemeisani in Jordan. After hinting that Sasha was "exploiting me” to my students and mentioning that I observed money she received from donors being misused to purchase goods to CERTAIN Iraqi refugees that were close to her instead of giving such aid in an egalitarian way to ALL refugees to others ( those "others" cannot be mentioned now) in addition to turning away Iraqi refugees from her door when they were asking for aid which I witnessed and MORE I cannot mention now (as a result of an ongoing investigation) , Sasha Crow had begun a campaign of defamation against me by telling many lies about me behind my back instead of in public. Worse, further investigation by one member of Collective Consciousness claimed that Kim was in a relationship with Sasha. I later confirmed it with the help of some very good people who no doubt wanted no part in all of this. I did not believe this on how Kim, who I met in the US, could have a relationship with Catherine and Sasha who I met in the Middle East after I met Kim. It was suspicious at the least and disturbing because now it seemed all of my antagonists had a relationship with each other. Including Mary Rizzo.
Kim's reply to my comment about Sasha's spending habits is "there are a lot of profiteers in human rights."
Here is the screen shot where Kim claims Catherine Myles is not a "player" in the Palestine movement:
Here Kim uses another ad hominem be claiming "shame on you" for not believing her:
Here Kim claims "heroes suck" when I mention Ken's contributions to the movement. Then she proceeds to provide what she claims to be a smoking gun of financial records about Ken:
Here Kim continues to provide evidence that is just not evidence:
Kim claims Ken cooked the books:
Kim goes on to claim if someone forgets to file, they are guilty of fraud:
Here when I tell Kim the evidence is not convincing, she reaches out with an accusation that I am on Ken's fan club:
Here Kim calls me crazy:
I remind Kim of the unity needed in the Palestine movement:
I ask Kim to forgive whoever insulted her or attacked her according to her testimony. She responds that it must be sought or asked for first. I do not remember Jesus waiting for this request:
When I remind Kim that her words and actions are part of a strategic pathway to imprisoning a man, she responds Ken gave nothing to the cause:
Here Kim states a barefaced lack of logic ability when she says Ken gave nothing but videos. I reminded her that activists make videos to prove in the face of false accusations, their own accomplishments and accolades:
After more conversation with Kim, I make her very aware that her very accusations against Ken could also be levied at me because of the former loan she gave me and because she did not count videos as proof of one's good deeds in which I myself admit I make videos in order to protect myself from those willing to attack my credibility. I told Kim I could be her next victim. Her reply was "Apples and Oranges."
HERE is the beginning of the hostilities between Kim and me which eventually leads to her demanding the aid from me:
Here while Kim claims that no one accused me of anything, what is lost upon her rationality is the strong principle of do unto others as you would want done upon you:
Here Kim claims people are after her:
Here Kim begins to declare her love for Palestine stating she is done helping Palestine bc no one believes her:
Kim says she is aware of her "king" ?
Here Kim says Daniel is banned from Facebook. When I inform her this is not true, she immediately screams to report it:
Here Kim claims people are hacking her:
Kim demands I help her, uses the loan to influence my decision, and then threatens to delete me:
Here Kim says she wants nothing to do with me, only for me to pay her back the aid:
Here Kim uses vulgar language, threatens to target me, and then hopes I am targeted by a defamation campaign in the future:
Here Kim claims I stole from her over the loan:
Here Kim states I am part of the Daniel Mabsoot, Sara Swati, and Ken team:
Here Kim says I am nothing:
Here Kim calls me stupid:
In an attempt to get information from the other side, Kim displays her emotional instability by using all caps and vulgar language against me:
Here Kim demands the money for Scott and states she will not use the borrowed money as an instrument of shame. That's a joke!!
Kim compares me with Ken:
All of a sudden, Kim says she does not WANT the money back but she NEEDS it back:
We see the logic behind Kim's mind here. You did not help us, you used us for money:
Here I mention to Kim that I have witnessed all of the fights she caused with Palestinian activists:
Here Kim states I cannot prove anything:
Here Kim demands the money AND states it is an act of treason for me to refuse to help her in a counterproductive campaign of defamation against another Palestinian activist. As can be seen from the screenshot, nothing was mentioned about this money from November to February 4. What is not mentioned was that this message from Feb. 4 was received immediately after I posted on Catherine Myles wall that I would like her phone number in order to speak with her in person and consequentially, Kim posted pictures of me, my former wife, and a picture of a sonograph of my child within the womb of my wife that later ended up dying through miscarriage. Along with these photos were public defamatory comments about me, my former wife, and my dead child:
The following is my message to Catherine Myles about what Kim posted on her wall and her reply:
The fact that Kim posted attacks against not just me but a dead child and my former wife, I could not maintain any correspondence with her and waited until calmer heads would allow us to engage in the agreed upon transaction. In all honesty, I felt she did not deserve for me to return that money after what she did and I felt I could not avoid saying things to her I would regret after the inhumane and atrocious tactics this woman committed.
Here, after a while, I took the initiative on my own accord to contact Kim to finish this deal. I ask for that information to appease her request. In addition, as can be seen from the screenshot, I asked for NO comments or messages construed as UNNECESSARY other than what is needed to finish the transaction. This was obviously lost upon Kim:
This is how Kim obliges in typical Kim style. She wonders why so much antipathy is directed toward her direction:
Notice in the end of her message, the vulgar language in Arabic which translates into fu_k you:
And here is MY personal response to her:
It is interesting to note here that while Kim was harassing me, attacking my credibility, and insulting me; it was really Scott Tucker who had lent me the money. What was his opinion on all this? Let's see:
Here is his first message about the money:
Here is Scott requesting me to help Kimberly on November 11:
In this screenshot, we see I ask for the evidence of people abusing Kim. Scott posts a link. When I investigate, there is nothing there. He then responds the attacks were pulled down off the internet:
Here is Scott claiming "minions" of Ken followers are attacking him and his sister:
After refusing to join in Kim's campaign to defame Ken, Scott threatens to include me in a FBI list along with Ken's friends:
Here is the real reason why the money became an issue from the debtor. Scott says on November 12, a day after Kim and I argue, paraphrase "do what you want with the money. I don't ask favors for money...all I ask is that you help my sister and me."
When I refuse to become involved, here is his response. He threatens to include me on the list of Ken's supporters to the FBI:
Here Scott continues with his association of the loan to helping Kim:
Here in June 12, was the final communication between Scott and me until I had no choice but to block him after he sent me a message following another argument with Kim:
It appears that from both Scott and Kim, the loan was insignificant until they felt I would not aid them in reporting those associated with Ken, engaging in a campaign of defamation against them, and more. It seemed both were willing to go to such lengths to convince me and I fear that those unexpected and uninformed of the internet will fall victim to them as they tried with me. Some may ask why not block these jokers, I wish I could and I did. The fact remains that every time I blocked them, they continued to use the small amount of money I owed them to wreak havoc upon my character behind my back like a plague until people were informing me of it and until they built up enough courage to publicly use it as an instrument of propaganda. I am sure Ken and a few others of this audience may feel the truth in my words. Every time I unblocked them in hopes of finishing this transaction, they would begin hostilities. They purposely did not supply the information for me to return the money and when they did, they refused to allow me the opportunity to have enough communication to send the money and verify it was received and transmitted properly. I sometimes feel this was on purpose with as much hate they have vomited toward my life. I really feel for Ken who has to deal with not just these jokers, but worse. It is a challenge which I cannot contemplate as plausible for having a comfortable life. This I can testify to.
TO MAKE THE LONG STORY SHORT:
I know that Mary Rizzo will scrutinize the ending of screenshots of communication between me, Kim, and Scott. However, the amount of accuracy needs not be sacrificed for redundancy in repetition. Kim continues insulting me and demanding this aid back. She also continues to state that I and Ken are in the same camp. She goes to such length as to defame me by e-mail to others such as Angela Street. Angela and others informed me they received e-mails from Kimberly.
I replied by sending e-mails to all of my Facebook friends who were listed as a Scott Tucker's friend in order to vet her and Scott out of my life. In addition, while I posted a request for Catherine Myles' phone number in order to speak with her about this whole Ken O Keefe issue on February 4, immediately Kim posted vicious assaults to me on Catherine's wall going to such length as calling me a fraud like Ken in front of the public AND posting personal pictures of me along with the sonograph of my baby who miscarried in his mother's womb. However, Kim's harassment goes further in the past than this. Here is her OTHER well known screen name posting hate comments on my YouTube site of my student organization's site on January 1:
I at this time, after this act by Kim, was convinced it was unavoidable to stop our argument from reaching the public's eyes. Nevertheless, after calming down from becoming absolutely enraged from the nefarious tactics of bullying by Kim, I contacted her and arranged for information for me to send the money to her. Throughout this torturous exchange where a huge mistake to befriend Kimberly was more than obvious and the lesson repeatedly smashed into my head, However, it was beginning to become worse rather than better and my closeness to Ken O Keefe would be the culprit.
On June 6, Ken O Keefe released a video for my students at the Modern American School in Amman, Jordan.
He was replying to letters they sent him thanking him for his sacrifices for them. These were Palestinian and Iraqi students who felt a great sense of appreciation, pride, and hope to alleviate the stigmas their existence in this world would be riddled with by such issues as Ken addresses. I had the happiness of watching the smiles from these beautiful kids and their moments of shock over an American who would sacrifice and do so much for their own dreams and future aspirations for their people and lands. It was a beautiful moment which I have to say was special for not only me to witness, but the kids will never forget Ken O Keefe for the rest of their lives. Then, on June June 12, a video by me was published in support of Ken O Keefe and thanking him for not only the special gift he gave to the students, but also for everything he has done for Palestine.
These two events made worse the abuse I received by Kim and her colleagues.
In fact the abuse got so much worse that it included death threats and a physical confrontation with someone here in the Middle East.
On June 16, a Khadija El Fouzaoui Bamohamed , Julie Berger, and Kimberly Amatullah showed up on a chat message for one of my groups and began to assail me with various antics and charges. I closed the chat and resorted to ignore it though it seemed all three had seemed to be complicit in their participation in the group chat.
Here is a cryptic message from Kim that was unsolicited and made me squint my eyes as to wonder what she was talking about?
Here is an email on June 2 from an account with my name but it was not my account. It appears to be in words similar to Scott Tucker and Kimberly Amatullah's warnings to me.
These suspicions are augmented by a screenshot of Kimberly Amatullah's own Facebook wall. On her post, she claims that she caught me liking a post by some person on Facebook that yelled "shoot her" to the general audience, referring to Kim. As if anyone would just follow his words. She claims that because I liked the post, it meant my intentions coalesced with the literal statement when in fact 1) the person in question was making a general statement which expressed his dissatisfaction with Kim's bullying tactics (yes he could and should had placed it in better words) 2) I like all posts on my wall, ask anyone!
Anyways, the importance of this post is that it shows Kimberly using the same word found in the subject line of the previous screenshot of the forged e-mail, "Quf!":
In another incident a Facebook use by the name of Pat McDonald contacted me and directly through personal message mentioned Kimberly and stated "your very existence hangs by a thread."
Interestingly, the same Pat McDonald has been an associate of Kimberly Amatullah for a while. Here is a request by Kimberly on November 20, 2009 to contact one of her friends here. Notice the name of her friend is "Pat McD".
After getting a threat from a Pat McDonald, I received another one from a Facebook name Suzi Suzi Freeman. A source, undisclosed identified the Facebook name as a Daniel Drakko, former Israeli IDF and friend of Kimberly's. In Arabic he wishes I and others go to hell with Bashar Al Assad:
As I have shown before, I had warned Kim many times about only communicating with me in regards to the money without any unnecessary comments that would impede or stymie the continuation and final conclusion of the transaction to settle the debt. As always, she seemed to purposely use that opportunity to attack me and violated those warnings:
Here Kim violates the warning:
After being reminded that she broke the warning , Kim takes a two day break and returns with the same belligerent and harassing comments:
My final communication with her involves another warning in which Kim responds by blocking me:
These attempts to do so AND to tell the truth about what had occurred and the simultaneous release of a video urging my public support for Truth , Justice, and Peace and Ken O Keefe was met with a huge surge in her activities against me. A surge I could not sit idly by and not respond to. I and other constituents made the vote to respond and thanks to the help of a few good people, we did respond and with restraint as to make sure our reply was proportionate to the tactics that Kimberly has done to me and other victims. We also kept in mind the responsibility we have to our colleagues in this struggle for Palestine to forewarn them of behavior we have witnessed to be destructive for positive ends in this tragedy. Therefore, articles were posted with warnings to activists of Kimberly Amatullah on SHOAH and Salem News. We hope others will take heed to our warnings.
As we published public notice to warn the REAL heroes and heroines of this struggle, those who know and feel the sacrifices we make for this struggle, Kim and her so called brother Scott Tucker, began posting on the Salem News and SHOAH websites with their accomplices, claiming that all of this was about a loan they gave me a long time ago and had nothing to do with Ken O Keefe. Kim was posting demands on SHOAH for me to pay her back despite the fact that we agreed that I would have the money on a specific date. A week after this date, Kim and Scott were posting demands for this money and simultaneously attacking my character and Ken's on the SHOAH and Salem News website. I did not play much attention to those posts as much as I should had. My friends from the confines of my own apartment and internet cafe shops and their homes were doing their best to maintain the truth and defend my credibility which without doubt Kim and her colleagues were targeting. When I learned that Kim and Scott and their friends were STILL mentioning the loan in which I already paid them a week before, I finally was asked and followed through with requests from my own team to demonstrate to everyone their lies. I scanned and posted a copy of the Western Union transfer. Kim, Scott, and her colleagues immediately stopped posting on the SHOAH website. They were caught and many saw this!! After a period of time, it did not stop and began again as Kim, Scott, and her colleagues began denying the validity of this Western Union transfer and proceeded to again attack me and Ken O Keefe. This time, with less emphasis on the money as can be seen from their comments on SHOAH and Salem News.
Here Scott Tucker on June 20 makes a comment about the loan:
Here a character named "M" also mentions the money. An unidentified source indicates that this person is Mary Rizzo. This source who wishes to be unnamed, states that from her many years of correspondence with Rizzo, it was definitely her, especially with her dilettante asphyxiations of imposing psychological diagnosis on others as part of her argument style:
Here was the response by me on the board on June 23 8:02 pm:
And two hours later, Kimberly Amatullah, disguised (and confirmed, as to this user's identity) claims the Western Union copy was a fake:
What caused the momentary silence was these screenshots I posted which could warrant no other explanation as to why her and her colleagues continued to claim this conflict was about money:
Here is the message where I told her when I would send the money:
And here is the proof that money was transferred:
Collective Consciousness' trap was set and we ascertained what we wanted from the whole debacle. Confirmation and a defense of our characters. We thank those who could have walked away from this whole affair like cowards or fake human rights activists, but instead decided that truth, justice, and peace was more powerful of determinants to act rather than acquiesce and remain silent. We deeply thank Ken O Keefe and his TJP team for DOING human rights rather than TALKING about human rights and we see and know the list of heroes and heroines in this affair. Mary Rizzo participated in this campaign by making posts on these websites in Kim's defense AND Sasha Crow began making posts in Kimberly Amatullah's defense on her own Facebook wall. Here a message by Agron Belica demonstrated the complicity that Sasha and Kim were involved with each other in playing this sick game against my life:
Here are messages by Kim defaming me AND claiming that I stole from refugees. I am guessing that Sasha Crow told her this.
Here is a cryptic message from her which I do not understand. However, I feel future evidence will show this message had a lot to do with disinformation from Sasha Crow:
On several occasions , Sasha Crow made posts communicating back and forth between Kim and Scott. She even fueled the conflict making comments of a derogatory nature about me. This adds onto my unconfirmed, yet likely suspicion.
*(Those screenshots cannot be given in order to protect the identity of persons close to Sasha who have come forward with information)
Perhaps, and this is ONLY A CONJECTURE, this Kim is the same Kim, Sasha mentioned as being responsible for convincing a Lutheran church donate money to her organization:
It would not be a stretch given that Sasha is in desperate need of money and seems to be misappropriating funds herself for the benefit of her selected few sages of her royal court.
While Sasha may defame me for whatever friendship or donations Kim may give her, I ask you the audience to look at this video and ask yourselves why would her helpers go to such great lengths to express their appreciation of me?
I will tell you why. Sasha is a great person with a huge heart but as many who have worked with her before will testify, she allows the crap off the internet to not only affect her judgment to the detriment of others, but she has a problem with working with others. Hanine Lama, who I brought to Collateral Repair Project taught for her every Saturday to the kids and had to wait a while before getting a letter of thanks. Laura Kalb worked with me at Collateral Repair Project and just because she missed one day of volunteer work, Sasha told all of us that she abused the trust of the refugees and took advantage of the refugees so she was fired. Mary Shepard also worked with Sasha and because Mary wanted to visit Gaza, Sasha let her go. The similarity between Mary and me is that Sasha has told all of the refugees that WE quit as opposed to the truth, that she ostracized us after becoming close to the refugees. Her actions not only has broken people’s hearts who do become close to the refugees over such trivial matters to her, but sometimes she adds insult to injury with the negative remarks she makes about all of us behind our backs! Answer me if this, is a professional organization that shares personal information about its volunteers with any donor it can troll and pick up from the internet legitimate?
All of the recent events have confirmed ALL of the suspicions that connected the dots of who was involved in defaming Ken, thus me as a consequence of refusing to cower under their intimidation to participate in their effort. It began becoming apparent to all of us at Collective Consciousness. It was like leaving a wounded rabbit in the field, hiding behind a bush with binoculars, and watching EACH vulture come to take its portion of the rabbit's misfortune. We saw the Kim and Scott, we saw the Mary Rizzo, and we saw the Sasha Crow. One person who escaped our suspicions was Catherine Myles. She did not participate in this lynching against me and I hope that my honest admission upon her character will be reciprocated with her honest testimony as to Kim posting pictures and insulting me on her Facebook wall. I will leave that decision to her in order to measure her own character.
Mary Rizzo began posting on her website queries into Ken's finances along with participation in a hate bashing web blog by a AJ McDonald:
On Aj McDonald's blog, he uses Mary Rizzo as a source. What a surprise!
And here is Mary Rizzo's post on his blog post:
And interestingly, Kimberly Amatullah under the name of Hayet makes a comment about Ken on the same board as Mary Rizzo:
Amazing that Hayet uses the same cliché as Kim in our own past correspondence in describing Ken:
And of course, Catherine Myles must make her entrance:
Here is my response:
The editor AJ McDonald makes a reply:
The above commentary is as accurate and detailed as I can recollect. I have more screenshots to prove or buttress what I have stated if needed.
We hope that others will recognize that this was NOT an attempt to bully an innocent person nor was it about a year old $100 loan. That this whole affair was about forces within the Palestine human rights activist movement that many who love and have dearly sacrificed for Palestine will concur are more than detrimental to this Palestinian Movement. These forces are insidious, without conscience, and dangerous!! We hope NO ONE will fall prey to them and therein lay the impetus behind all of the nasty affair I regret many witnessed. I and others were trying our best to defend ourselves against forces that seem to act with impunity and consistently avoid the laws which are supposedly applied to everyone. We still are confounded as to what the aforementioned antagonists have done and gotten away with in this nasty conflict.
Carolyn Hamlet, Nadia Sindi, John Jones, Vixi Vexen, Michael Langston, Daniel Mabsout, Sandra Nichols, Pamela Hardyment, The Facebook name “Parents”, Azaam Yacoob, Jo Mcoll, Eileen Fleming, Angela Street, Mary Shepard, and so many others have been victims to this woman:
Worse, Kim called and threatened an innocent elderly lady by the name of Nadia Sindi. She called Nadia a total of 8 times! Kim also allowed that behavior to be expressed onto the internet. This women had done nothing wrong but was an innocent victim in all of Kim's menacing madness which to everyone's surprise continues to haunt us with no avail of our complaints.
We have also been watching the TOO close relationships that Kim has with hard line Zionist Israeli supporters and mouthpieces such as Reuben Kossover and others. These relationships have been documented and is an ongoing investigation as of now. In addition to the havoc Kimberly wreaks upon Palestinian activists, her relationships with such people are too close for our comfort and we hope you may beware of it yourselves. We are not talking about Jewish/ Muslim/ Christian cooperation here. This is great, in fact the key for a resolution of this issue. We are talking about Zionist Israeli supporters whose beliefs are aggressively against Palestinians, unfair and outrageous in their opinions of peace in disfavor of the Palestinians in this conflict, or have demonstrated that the Palestinians are not EQUAL in comparison to the Israelis. I have witnessed myself Reuven making comments such as demanding no Jewish American help any African American and that they key to peace in Palestine is a quarantine of Gaza to suffocate life from it. There is much more!! These are the types of people that make us balk and bend over in disgust as to our discovery of her relationships with this sort:
This is what her friend Reuben Kossover says about Gaza:
We now hope to focus on the future of the movement, not on these posers or agents perhaps as others claim. The latter, after what I experienced, am more of a believer after everything I experienced. I can testify to this along with many of my own members of my organization that did an outstanding job of holding these powerful forces at bay with the limited resources and time we have. Congratulations team!!!
Collective Consciousness for truth Justice and Peace :)
(These screenshots and more have been released to third party interests. Furthermore, some of the screenshots were requested to be copied and returned to us yet we are unfortunately unable to supply those screenshots at the time of writing this from those parties which possess them. They will be available soon , please ask for them and with pleasure we will supply them.)
Now onto a bigger amphibian.....
Mary's Comments Continued
As Ken had refused to even be interviewed once it was clear that the article was not going to become his personal Tazibao, but all parties were going to be interviewed and all of their statements both in a public domain and those they had made in interactions with me (as declared openly and correctly that I was going to examine the evidence and write up an assessment of it) and all documents were going to be taken into consideration, not only his personal testimony and the information given by those who got it from him. Upon learning that other parties, including those who both at the time and subsequently, would be listened to and that he would not be given a list of the questions prior to the agreement to be interviewed (a condition no other parties had placed before me, all of them willing to subject themselves to “the investigation” without demanding any particular benefits or any right to view the material during its assembly and prior to publication). Ken demanded special treatment, and he wanted to control an independent observer. If he was unable to control her, he changed his tactic that she was an enemy to the cause since he believes he alone represents the cause! When the outcome did not please him, he conveniently forgot that he had the same exact opportunity to reply to questions and to express himself as all the other involved parties. Instead, he decided that it was in his best interests to “ignore” what was written, advising his “followers” to not read the (admittedly) long article complete with photos, documents, communications between the authorities and others, direct quotes taken from press releases and from communications in the public domain. His “followers” were advised to engage instead in smear campaigns against me and to use almost all of the techniques that have been pointed out so well by Laird Wilcox in his seminal study of “Extremist Traits” http://wewritewhatwelike.com/
Your sources are from "wewritewhatwelike"? Are you serious? In regards to credibility, we all should take a look at the character of the person you hurriedly ran to protect in posting this web blog.
I agree with your observation about ascertaining the truth, but do you follow it? If you have no followers Mary, I sure received a lot of trouble for those who claim to be acting on your words alone. It is farcical at best to see you claim you are objective. Absolutely farcical!! Some of your words on this post AND the dismissal of any evidence by me, by focusing on internet tabs AND ignoring or bringing down screenshots that run contrary to your assertions prove this to me. I hope others will have the opportunity to see the same tactics you employed by me , applied to them Mary. We are all sick of it!! You do not engage in creating followers, ha!! You make every effort to abuse your privileges on the internet AND prey on people's weaknesses on a falsely claimed path of justice wherein your very premises used to support this quest displays the same Manichean view you condemn others for. Your premises also show the simple and timid minded Yellow Journalistic approach filled with a plethora of narrative and wanting of facts that disgusts REAL people who respect truth!! All of us on the Facebook ocean and others off see right through your swinging of your posts in the air as if you are some sort of leader of any movement. Now, you stand alone, posting to annoy people like myself who actually do more than your life can speak for itself. I do it because I love God for what he has given me, you do it because you want to be a journalist but lack in the faculties of the mind and integrity of the heart and the ethical style in which those journalists you envy have. It is no one's fault but your own Mary. Stop harming others Mary, go on with your life and find some kind of hobby where you can make a difference. I have no doubt many know just how much damage you have done to this movement. We ostracize you!! Now stop being bitter and find another sport to occupy your time.
I do not blame Ken for not accepting an interview with you Mary. After seeing your intentional dismissal of facts in exchange for a comfortable interpretation of cherry picked facts of your own to protect your own crowd and you, I would blame Ken for being so asinine if he were to be caught in your web, sitting across from you giving you the bullets to expel from your literary kalishinokov. Look at the response I posted, compare it with your own, then fimble your hands together in a desperate attempt to figure out how to blow enough smoke to an audience in order to influence them to disregard evidence for your own subjective interpretations. I say good job Ken!! You avoided that trap.
You also say that he claimed someone was an enemy to the cause. Can you prove this? I would like evidence of that. I don't believe you.
WOAH!!! Did you call this an investigation!? Did you tell Ken this? Did you label it an investigation or an interview? I would be reluctant to proceed with an "investigation" unless I was charged with crimes and needed to prove my innocence. Why would anyone agree to an investigation by anyone they did not trust!? Of course I would demand an independent observer. What is wrong with this? I call this normal behavior. Why is it used as suspicion!? Usually professional journalists tersely state that an agency or person refused to cooperate in an interview or investigation. They do no jump hurdles and hoops in order to make their own comments as to the derivatives of a interviewees' refusal for his or her words. Why are you doing this here? Are we supposed to see the objectivity in your words above now? You are making such sweeping generalizations that you would make a broomstick jealous.
I do not see a problem with asking for the questions to an interview before being interviewed. What's wrong with that!? I call that fair Mary. I don't believe you!!
And how dare you use Laird Wilcox as a source. He signed a protest to refuse to pay taxes in his desire to protest unjust US policies of the Vietnam conflict. He used his journalism to defend liberty. You on the other hand Mary have used your journalistic talents, if that is what you want to call it, to take away a man's liberty over insignificant charges and over-generalized evidence!! Worse, you have harmed the cause of Palestine and made us a laughing stock in the eyes of the opposition.
Thank you for stigmatizing all of us Palestinian activists with false charges and a false sense of twisted and perverted justice that ended up being thrown out of the books with discontent running amuck and embarrassment in the Palestinian movement. Thank you for your contribution to the Palestinian movement Mary. Congratulations!! The ends definitely justify the means, don't they? You were really right on the dot about Ken being a fraud, weren't you? Although I have respect for Wilcox for his stand during the Vietnam Conflict, there seems to be an irony in you using him as a source.
Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center told a reporter that Wilcox "had an ax to grind for a great many years," and engaged in name calling against others doing anti-racist work. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates told a reporter that "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter...He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."
Wow!! I concur with the adage the apple does not fall far from the tree :)
And here is Mary attacking another Palestinian activist, me :) Now ask some of my colleagues if I have the potential to make things happen or if I have contributed to the Palestine movement with actions. Ask them if I was not the first to stand when others refused or were inured to speak. Ask them if I ignored the warnings of endangerment to my own welfare when I did what many said was impossible in my conservative state. If helping to organize the first AAPER marches in SC or to organize lectures at six of the major universities or pressuring politicians to meet with me in lobbying efforts on the part of Palestine results in the distinguished treatment of receiving a diatribe of nonsensical words from Mary Rizzo, then I ask what shall other Palestinian activists feel about their own contributions? How will they be acknowledged? Can we rely on our Palestinian brothers and sisters to stand beside us when we fight for this movement? I ask can any of us be willing to sacrifice or take chances when we are hovered over, patrolled, and harassed by the likes of a woman whose words are the only show for her contribution instead of actions. After those responses from my colleagues, ask yourself if we are seeing a pattern of behavior by Mary which is disturbing. Take out the potential and leading voices of the Palestine movement!! Then ask yourself as to why she aligned herself behind a woman, Kimberly Amatullah, who many of us know to be fraudulent and toxic to the Palestine movement. Put the pieces together people. Do not be fooled by such intellectually atrophied and disingenuous arguments. Test her sincerity in the cause! Test her resolve in the cause!! Test her sacrifice for the cause!!! Then ask yourself, is she worth keeping around or are we holding too tight to a string which has given way its energy only to wrap itself around our necks for the enemy to tug? I have already made up my mind. Mary, I don't believe you!!!
Where is your proof of Ken accusing you of being a agent of a government? I don't believe you!!
Look at how her words are double edged swords where her claims of Ken thinking in a Manichean type thinking of a fight between good and evil is expressed in her own words. She describes Ken's followers as "minions" not only to poke fun at him with her objectivity, but also to label ALL OF KEN'S FOLLOWERS AS AN ABSTRACT AND MONOLITHIC TERM!! Preposterous!! She, by her collective punishment of guilty and innocent, is guilty of the same tactic that fails in Low Intensity Conflict. She creates enemies out of the innocent bystanders by targeting innocent and guilty alike!!
Therein lays the crux of OUR problem Mary. This I swear on my soul before God and I challenge you to make the same declaration upon your soul!!
However, the one thing lacking was even ONE serious attempt to provide evidence to confute the thesis of the failed Road To Hope convoy, that it was managed in a bizarre way at least from the “leadership change” and the outcome of this were false claims of being kidnapped in order to attempt to create confusion, consensus and mostly to elicit donations and support from those who were already fully determined to support Palestine – allowing the cause to morph into Supporting Ken O’Keefe.
Whether people contributed to Ken's campaign to help Ken or to help Palestine is THEIR prerogative Mary. You have no right to comment to such length with nasty interpretations of NO FACTS!!! You have no facts Mary. Where are they!? There are none!! The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and supposition of innocence on the defendant. Did we forget that? Or did that get lost in the pages of Yellow Journalism.
Where is your proof of the claims of the convoy not being hijacked? How do you know the intentions of anyone on that convoy? Where is your proof? Let me guess, investigative ethicacy? The only morphing I am witnessing with this post is the transposition of your claim of the failure of the Road to Hope Convoy with your personal inhibitions against Ken O Keefe. This is just crap!! Where are your sources? I don't believe you!!
Oddly, you state the word "confutes". You do know the word means to argue against. I am not sure you used the word correctly according to the paragraph above. The manner in which you use it states that no one argued against the fact that the Road to Hope Convoy was a false claim to elicit donations and support for Ken. Its logic is skewed like your fact finding and writing sister. My advice, be careful how you employ commas because they can change the meaning of a paragraph completely!!
All of us who sincerely support Palestine will do so in our own discretion and we will pick our own heroes. We do not need you making decisions on our part publicly Mary!! Those who sincerely care about Palestine, will not engage in your fantasy plots of conspiracy and red herrings found in the pages of detective stories. Fictional at best is my categorization of your writing Mary. I strongly believe those who are your main audience are nitwits who have allowed age and hopelessness to allow them to believe the narrative of your rubbish over hard facts. Men who suffering from life's last pangs of a coming death are desperately looking to see if their life can be fulfilled by investigating or furthering your cause and refusing to allow any facts to convince them otherwise that they have been hoodwinked by you. Elderly women who have nothing more to gossip about but are satisfied with the calls of a false justice you embrace and espouse which is artificially created. Ken's guilt lies only in the sections of your small brain Mary and only those who have themselves failed in accomplishing much in life yet are searching for a chance to allow them this opportunity are the constituents of your audience. And for that, I barely flinch at the web blog you posted with my name. I only smiled because it allowed me the right to respond to you in public as I desired. Thank you!
From all of us who believe in making the dreams and aspirations of Palestine better, we ask you write about something else because we need not your venomous and sensationalistic Yellow Journalism using racism to banish all those who are willing to sacrifice and DO things to further her cause. Palestine is better, deserves better than me and Ken and Vittorio. She deserves more and with much better quality!! The aforementioned and more do all we can but yet wish for far better to grasp and embrace her hands. However, we do know and are strongly confident that she does not need the insult of having you claim to be by her side!! Her reputation and hard work cannot be augmented with your presence. We all can testify to that!! I banish you as a heroine that you claim implicitly in your articles not because of racism like you attempted with Ken and others, but from your words and actions which have threatened to harm her own family, blood and distant!! We need nor more disunity, stop it!! And sincerely from me Mary, I don't believe you!!
None of them were able to confute, and Ken in primis, the lack of a contract, which was the crucial circumstance upon which all else depends in that most bizarre of events! In fact, what is most clear throughout the entire debacle is that Ken was indeed somehow convinced of the veracity of a fact that was patently false, so convinced that he himself sent me what he labeled as “The Contract”, when it was clear as the light of day that this was not a contract at all, and it was merely a pre-Contract negotiation, which by its very nature is non-binding until the stipulation of what instead IS a contract! When I pointed out that I was aware it was not a contract, it dawned upon him that he had to turn me into the adversary since his entire story had no backbone to sustain it.
I have never seen a pre-contract in my life!! What does it look like and is there such a thing? I also do not believe that Ken had such an alacrity as to turn against you so suddenly. Smells fishy to me. I would rather see this story and its comments dropped at the bottom of the sea with the rest of the red herrings swimming all over this page. How did you present your awareness of the claimed fact that it was not a contract? Did you use the same tactful and pleasurable approach you did with me when we conversed over a few minutes?
Before you begin confuting anything Mary, try finding the defects in your own logic and rationale. I can find NOTHING of what you have posted that is factual and sources. You want to talk about tabloids! That is indeed what my observations of this article is. I do observe a behavior by you, to look at evidence and interpret and dismiss it by a pre-determined or selfish cause or truth you have espoused. How interesting you post screenshots of my words to scrutinize me where as you fail to post any that uplift me. I call that cherry-picking. Big time!! The screenshots I have attached to this message will be ignored and ommitted from your bizarre commentary and probably taken off the internet at your own request. I see more reason to believe a former convict than you Mary. I would not think for a second or give you the benefit of the doubt the next time someone says anything about you. If you are capable of the above style of journalistic writing, you are capable of much more, including running a smear campaign against Ken while simultaneously removing yourself from it as an author. You cannot place but so many walls in front of you while communicating with your legions of trolls before some of that communication is released to others. You do realize this, don't you? I would be more careful of claiming this and that in regards to your role in this whole mess you have authored and have played the role of stimuli. I don't believe you!!
A pre-contract does have some value as a source. Granted, it does not hold the weight of a contract Mary, but dismissing its value entirely is a tactic that I consider "extreme" in itself. Everything has a value as information, whether that information demonstrates what it is purported to or not IS a legitimate criticism by you. however, I do not see anywhere in your posts or blogs as to the positive or the benefit of that pre-contract Ken gave you. What was the intention expressed in the pre-contract Mary? Can you be decent and fair enough to comment on that please?
Are you still not done screaming out of that huge hole you dug Mary? Are the walls caving in now that your brilliant masterpiece of writing entails a plethora of writing style and a dearth of logic and valid premises. All we have to rely on is your word Mary. It amounts to nothing. I cannot even surmise as to the response a normal thinking person would fluctuate within their brain waves to this narrative that has no other value than to be found in a fictional novel. you know , something like a detective story!! Please. You are arguing tiny little details about a contract, some smoking gun "contract" that proves what? You did not even mention the importance in which you claim of this contract Mary. I think people turn on you because you have no common sense nor ethics nor integrity. You just waste ink from the printing machines of the internet to waste time on conspiracies about "contracts" and stipulations as if this was the bomb dropped on everyone's parade. If this is your way of raining on someone's parade, it was not even a drizzle. I did not think Ken needed an umbrella, let alone a raincoat for this tirade. Stipulations and "contracts", where are you taking us with this? Are we to follow your thoughts like a labyrinth of insanity allowed off its leash to bite every unexpected victim? If I had ever listened to you speak, I would have turned on you without even knowing you!! Wait.......isn't that what happened between us anyways? Yes!! It is, isn't it? I asked for real answers to the hate propaganda that you and your cronies posted around Facebook. You play a might high and fine role there Mary when no one knows you in person. Your response to my sincere and polite inquiries were avoidance, terse and dry replies, and a lack of tact. Which of these hegemonic qualities of investigative research inspired Ken to turn his back on you. It would have only taken me one!!
That a contract was broken and the counter-party scooted off with the loot to his Israeli masters is the first of the bizarre stretching of truth, this accessory big fish story of the captain being really on the Mossad payroll and jumping off his own ship with the wad of money itself was quite hilarious and indeed worrying when spread as if it were fact the same way old gossips do, when the facts are brought to the fore instead of just one extremely false claim. I was already watching the playing out of the events, called as I was by other concerned activists to ensure the safe passage of the chartered convoy when trouble first started, in an ad hoc group I was invited to, and kicked out of when I asked that we seek confirmation of any claim being made prior to disseminating what could later be demonstrated as dangerous false rumours and nothing more.
Where are your sources for Ken's statements about the driver being Mossad and running off with the money? Were you there Mary? No of course not, you prefer to think your words mean more than action!! You were not even there to witness anything! You are more than overtly critical in this piece Mary and as always, your lack of context demonstrates your cherry-picking with a formation of non-linear and tangential narrative. Who is the captain Mary? What was his name? Could you also be more specific as to why you find humor in a captain stealing funds for the benefit of Palestine? Was it because you found the story unbelievably comical or you thought it was funny for Palestinian money to be stolen?
In addition, what group were you kicked out of Mary? Who were the activists that warned you of the Road to Hope? Was it Kimberly? What did those activists tell you Mary? Let me get things right here Mary, so you showed up on a group that was in the process or journey to demonstrate an act of humanity to the world and you posted negative and vitriolic comments on a group page on Facebook or the internet? Or you posted comments defaming the constituents of this act? Or you were demanding proof of this hijacking? What did you say? These people were doing something that clearly placed their own lives in danger and you did what!? Judging from your pessimistic stance (which seems to be the norm for you) and your comments above, I would have kicked you off myself :) Good job Ken!! I hope such clear sense and bravery may be repeated to separate those with conscience from those without!!! I pray it be so.
Could you ALSO tell me how the claim of the convoy being hijacked is a dangerous claim Mary? What makes it so dangerous!? I find more danger in your words than anyone else's!! Please explain the danger. Waiting.......
You write such a fictional account one cannot be but lost with the labyrinth of opinions on your part and no hard facts!!! Where are they Mary? I am challenging your credibility and reputation. I don't believe you!!!!!
It was when I was invited by persons whose loved ones were on the convoy and who found them stranded in Libya without any more resources that I began collecting evidence in earnest from all parties involved, deciding to not further participate in the public debate, but to merely collect the evidence. Why did these people ask me? Because for a long time I have been involved in the activism for Palestine camp and it was and still is clear that my only loyalties are to Palestinians. I am not, nor have I ever been beholden to anyone. I have been and remain thoroughly independent and am influenced merely by facts. It was this objectivity that was considered as being the best guarantee of a faithful assessment of the reality, as there was all of a sudden a complete shift from the convoy being about the entire convoy and instead being about Ken O’Keefe and those who were most loyal to him. It was indeed logical that others who had different priorities, and for this reason did they agree to sacrifice their own time, money and effort in order to participate in a long and trouble-ridden land convoy, would seek to know the truth and would be asking that a third party that had nothing but a solid record of support of the Palestinian cause to attempt to clarify all the hazy and contradictory points.
What victims are you speaking of Mary? I do not see a list of names. It seems no one on the convoy has substantiated your claims Mary. Where in Libya were they stranded? The East, West, South, North...where!? That is a telling refutation of all of your words!! Where are these people Mary? Pass some of their comments our way so as we might be able to remove the role of fictional writer you are stigmatized with. Your comment above where you state witnesses came to you because of your REPUTATION as one who is loyal to the Palestine camp is a chimera!! What seeps through this apparition's pores is the call or scream by you, "I am more credible and important than Ken!!" It behooves no one lady!! It is so implausible that you claim here that your investigations into claims against Ken had no determinant involving the desire to engage in the public debate. Flatulations!! I guess the irony that you ARE involved in a smear campaign against Ken is lost on all of us. Your claim is implausible Mary. you claim in the beginning you were not intent on debating with Ken, but you ask for an unsupervised interview without granting the questions and format of that interview beforehand as if you were trying to set Ken up. Then, you are now the main antagonist of this debate about Ken!! Where in the pages of history can one be found culpable of being so outlandish as to ignore one's own omitted facts and status in arguments of recent!?
You claim to be "beholden" to no one as if to imply Ken is. Who is Ken "beholden" to? Let us see the insurmountable range of facts you have which inspire such courage and integrity on your part to make this and many other statements. For a person to claim to be independent and influenced only by facts, you have none in your posts. That is the burlesque of all this! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!? I was raised to never condemn a human being without irrefutable facts. Hunches are immoral little thoughts that enter our heads tempting us to commit the gravest of sins as the story of Jesus/Eisa entails. You have not only placed your credibility on the line Mary, your soul is on the plate. I ask you of something simple, something easy, just give is SOME proof as to believe you made such accusations against Ken and me responsibly, not as a journalist, but as a human being and human rights activist!! We are waiting......
I also find your claim of how the convoy "suddenly" became a part of an effort to aggrandize Ken's fame in comparison to the convoy's purpose as baffling. What is wrong with this!? What does this fact prove? I think it proves more of your jealousy over Ken than anything else. Who cares about who gets more fame or not in an effort to help a people!? Only you it seems. The purpose should have never shifted to one person in your opinion, my stance, the purpose of the convoy should never be forgotten because of the personal convictions of a jealous whining elderly woman bent on proving her own reputation and augment her own fame by attacking one person. This Road to Hope convoy should be remembered for what it is, a inspirational story of how a people, despite overwhelming odds in an unfamiliar environment, DID human rights rather than just Facebook post, talk, or WRITE about it!! Where were you on this convoy Ms. Rizzo!? What have you done to warrant so much of a reputation as a loyal Palestinian activist? I have never heard of you!!? Who are you? I see the many posts on the internet, do not agree nor like the quality of your writing, and I am still asking many people who respond with a blank face and shrugged shoulders as to the question I ask everywhere I go, "who is Mary Rizzo?" I do not take your words to truth , I ASK about you EVERYWHERE I go. I have been here in the Middle East for more than two years, I have yet to still to solve the mystery and the million dollar question, "who is Mary Rizzo?" No one outside of the internet knows you Mary? Worse, no one believes you!!
I think your description of yourself as "independent" is euphemism for UNKNOWN!
Allow me to forward my hypothesis of events Mary. Excuse me for my candor.
When Mary Rizzo, who was enraged with the name of Ken O Keefe coming from the lips and mouths of Palestine fans and enthusiasts, heard of problems on the Road to Hope convoy, she made her fait accompli by rushing to those few disenchanted in order to gather whatever loose and refutable evidence she could exaggerate into facts. She knew deep inside of herself that because she was unknown that she could claim independence and objectivity in her words which would in effect add to the venomous poison she injected into the syringe of her electronic shot she was so anxiously waiting to release on Ken. She arrived on the scene and like her normal journalistic style, she asked questions of those witnesses but unlike other journalists. Instead, she asked questions with the intention of planting a seed of doubt into many things Ken claimed. In hopes of getting a response to use as verbal stones in her awaiting slingshot, she made Ken into a Goliath of a fraud not by explicit statements to witnesses and friends of Ken, but via statements and questions by her which would garnish her the cherry-picking journalistic approach she uses to augment her theory of Ken. A theory without enough research and hard evidence! What was the motive? Jealousy and the hope of a Yellow Journalistic sensationalism which would raise her name in the top echelons of journalism which she could not ascertain with orthodox means. She called associates of Ken, asked them questions, when they were not giving her what she wanted, she ignored the good things they said and instead threw her seemingly authoritative "I am a journalist" voice and tone through telephones and in person with questions that began such as "are you sure he did this, 100% sure?" "Do you know Ken and for how long?" " Did you see any signs of fraud?" And so on..... It is a tactic called in the legal arena, a negative pregnant. Your behavior and nuisances and brief comments to plant doubt and suspicion to those you interview may be stricken from the annals of history only to be recollected by those of us who re-interview your own sources to discover this tactic. You through your own efforts of investigation and writing , planted the seeds of doubt and shame you are so much bragging and throwing around like sewage to be taken with care as to not get any of it on one's self!! This is my hypothesis Mary. Please defend this supposition.
I find it far-fetched to believe in the unconscionable claim of yours that people's knowledge of your claims to objectivity is a guarantee of an accurate assessment of the situation. We would have to accept for fact those UNKNOWN people's faith in you of which to begin with, we do not even know who those people are, more less believe you. Your claims as to your credibility and people's knowledge of who you are also suspicious. Why? I think we ALL want this question answered, "who are you!?" I have never heard of you!!
I don't believe you!!
It was the research that convinced me of the correctness of the thesis that things were NOT as they were being presented to the activists, and that the conflicting reports coming from Libya were proof enough that there was indeed a serious conflict between “factions”. Why did Ken O’Keefe claim there was going to be a “confrontation on the Egyptian border” when there had not been any arrangements for a land transit anyway and this would be detrimental in the extremely precarious situation of those in Libya without the proper paperwork and without adequate economic support? Why would he claim that he and 9 others were being kidnapped and some people spread this without it being verified? Why would it be taken as fact that this vessel had taken people against their will off the coast of Libya? Why would Ken O’Keefe engage in actions with the intent of involving NATO and the Libyan armed forces as well? Would this not endanger any future convoys to Palestine and would it not cast a very dark shadow over the efforts made to break the siege which did not resort to such reckless measures? Would not the abuse of trust that ensued be disastrous for further (more well planned and feasible) interventions? Since I presented the evidence that Ken O’Keefe did not get “kidnapped” off the Libyan coast and instead had unlawfully boarded a vessel he had no right to board and analyzing as well the knee-jerk response to his “appeals” that were not backed up by facts and were instead abusing the trust of many sincerely caring individuals who were involved both in the convoy itself and those following it at a distance, I became the target of a huge smear campaign.
What thesis are your purporting there? A thesis or a hypothesis? A thesis has evidence, you fail by a marathon's distance in the former. I wish you choose your words more carefully Mary. You have a hypothesis, not a thesis!! Let us begin with this admission first!! in also would like to state that the only factionalism that arose was that of which you and Kim created with your negative pregnant!!
Now that it is all said and done with the charges against Ken, we see that you have no shame. You have already placed what credibility you had in the line in beginning an investigation of Ken, AND we have found that your sources, which in review over them now, show no hard evidence!! NONE!! A narrative perhaps, but only fiction.
In my time as a Palestinian activist, I must say that the ONLY factionalism I witnessed, which was worth mentioning, was the factionalism YOU began with your false accusations. This I swear on my soul before God!! You are tripe to claim the opposite but your whole writing is riddled with such hypocrisy and failed logic!! It is not a surprise. Why would Ken expect problems at the Egyptian border? Are you serious!!??? Everyone here and all over the world knows that Mubarak was criticized for his pro-Israeli stance and more knew how difficult it was to transit a ship or convoy across a border when the transit route within a country, run by a government, knows that you intend to violate the maritime laws of Israel, one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful countries in the Middle East. Why would ANYONE not expect problems at ANY of the borders to Israel!? It is the equivalent of assuming that if I and you were to see each other in real life, we would embrace each other as a members of a family reunion! Of course not!! I expect for you and I to exchange some harsh words and stares Mary. Especially if you ask anyone about me, I do not hold my tongue!! Why did Ken expect problems in Egypt? WTH?
I have answered your first question Mary. Here goes answers to your others:
You ask why people would report Ken and 9 other members were kidnapped without verifying the facts? People probably spread the news of the convoy being kidnapped because of concern. Concern of what was going on with the progress of the convoy and if anyone's welfare was endangered. What would you like to see, a Senate investigation of the facts and then a broadcast of this report several months after the event? Perhaps your vetting process of reality news is a book on the event like the one released on the 9-11 Commission before a report of events and proper action was taken. What do you prefer as an appropriate response Ms. Rizzo? I would like to know because I feel anything you suggest would be construed as non-normative and unrealistic behavior. Void of reality.
Whether the claim of kidnapping was true or not, it really doesn't matter, does it? What is relevant, is that action be taken to help the progress of this action and to secure the welfare of those involved. Another appropriate action would be an investigation but it is without doubt that the proper decorum of any human should and would be to pass this information along to what he or she decides is the right channels. Obviously, you were the wrong one.
I "personally" feel the most important question that needs to be answered Mary is, why do you feel compelled to doubt the claims by Ken? The burden of proof is on you, not him. You made the accusations. Why ask for many facts when you clearly have not only have none of them yourself, but have no respect for them as you have demonstrated to me and the rest of the world with your false accusations which have thank God been laid to rest.
Why would Ken want the help of NATO and the Libyan armed forces you ask. I ask you what did Ken specifically want of these forces? What kind of aid was he seeking? Can you inform us of that?
I also would like to state, I "personally" would accept ANY aid from many sources if I were a David standing against a Goliath of a nation such as Israel. One would be an idiot to expect one person could challenge such a powerful source without any aid. Are you to be categorized as such? For Ken to seek help from more powerful entities tells more than you give him credit for. He is not the naive and irresponsible man you credit him with. Instead, he knows that his odds are overwhelming, nevertheless, he did them because others like yourself would not. He was not the man who believed a single man with the help of others could break the laws and net of intelligence operations that Israel has. How can you place a lower value on character than that Mary? What kind of traits does a human possess to remove credit where it is due without facts and then demand some of that credit for oneself? All of us Palestinian activists that DO actions could use ALL of the help we can get, not the criticism by nobodies who have no REAL contribution to the movement but to risk their own credibility off of hunches in order to create factionalism in the movement, thus weakening its resources for the future.
There is NOTHING wrong with Ken asking for help from all and every resource he could grasp. I would do the same myself. Why? REALITY on the GROUND, that of which you report on and not live, demands such agreements and relationships in order to accomplish what others feel is impossible and is one of the most difficult challenges to the human rights arena. My applause to Ken for looking at all levels across the board in order to accomplish what others felt was impossible or were too inured to do themselves. You hate heroes and heroines Mary because you do not own up to such a role yourself and no one recognizes you as such. Not Ken's fault, not my fault, no one's fault but your own. Now contribute instead of ripping asunder any links to any resources that may be beneficial to Palestine in the future. Stop being a hater!! Spread love not hate!!
You question the calls for help by people when you did not nor are helping. Unconscionable!!
Doesn't every country have a relation with another that could be looked down upon for this and that for the most trivial of reasons? YES!! Absolutely!! You have unrealistic expectations Mary. This is reality and the world and sometimes the end result of stopping the most hideous of human tragedies in history requires a little help from those we may consider not to be so great. It is your unrealistic and lack of pragmatism in the world of reality and human rights activism that has prolonged rather than extinguish the tragedy in Palestine. Your Disney world view of heroes and heroines and nice guys and what they should entail in real life is incongruities with the challenges all of us activists face and your actions of condemnation as a response to not being given that Disney hero or heroine is now harmful!!
If a former Nazi party official were willing to donate millions of dollars to the AAPER or Amnesty international for the progress of Palestinian human rights, would we deny it!? Would we refuse because of their past actions? What would you do Mary? I respond by saying there is a time to show pride and there is a time to accept what we are given. And there is a time where an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whatever it takes to end this occupation we all are sick of. Your decorum or sense of professionalism by criticizing those who are willing to accept help from others to end something far worse is a fallacy. If it had any weight in it, then we would begin to close ranks amongst ourselves for trivial matters and minimize the aid all of us could grasp in trying to end this conflict. In other words Mary, your efforts and words compound or exacerbate the problem. Therein lays most of the suspicion as to your "UNKNOWN" status and your motives. Because the ends of which you are taking all of us is far worse than the means.
In regards to Ken's actions endangering future interventions, I am waiting for those interventions now Mary. Where are they? It is easy to criticize a person's actions from the seat of your comfortable home but much more difficult to engage in the action and see how real life makes plans into challenges. I suggest you take that advice to heart. If I were to look upon the many mistake I made while organizing and lobbying, I would found many. However, I can only say that a lack of experience and not enough aid which could have remedied the problem was absent. Only criticism seems to be the applause by those who are jealous or overshadowed. However, passion and commitment proves to make those whom are criticized into much better and more powerful people in the future. You do not even allow Ken o others the chance of such. Worse, you criticize someone from the comfort of your own home while being unaccountable in the field. It is like looking at someone trying to do what others say is impossible and criticizing them for trying. Get a life!! Hater
Where are your facts Mary? I do not see any. I see narratives and false claims. I see the imagination and creativity of someone who watched too much Agatha Christy. I see a person who is jealous and spiteful. I see a person who projects their own flaws upon others. I see a person who posts or writes about human rights, and does nothing but write from the comfort of their own home. I see someone who is UNKNOWN on the ground here in the Middle East. I see someone who is a problem for all of us activists. A see danger in you and Kim and I refuse to be silent anymore along with the rest of us. We do not need to question your motives Mary, we just need to imagine what the results would be like if we were to follow your words. We also need to look closely at the validity and interpretation of the facts you present which are null and void. It is indeed a terrifying reality, a tragic one indeed that you assume for us to live in. You are not a target of a smear campaign Mary, we just wish you would drop off the face of the earth or actually start getting it in gear and make some positive contributions. Moreover, get off your tail end and DO something rather than attack people!!
Kimberly has been attacking others while claiming to being victimized and pregnant for TWO whole years. With me, the Facebook name Parents, and others. You seem to demonstrate the same traits Mary. Ironic.
I don't believe you!! None of us do!
But I was the first of many. It seems that instead of presenting a stitch of evidence to dispute the claims, the issue has become that I am an “irrational Ken Hater, fuelled by my jealousy of him”. I could not even bother to engage with this level of discourse, though the great number of comments on this blog (http://wewritewhatwelike.com/
Mary, there was no discussion of the facts because you had none. We checked them all out. There is no credibility behind them. We all are more than willing to castigate and outcast one of our own and if guilty to decide whether it is indeed the time to pursue legal recourse. However, we are just flabbergasted at your immoral willingness to not BACK UP the many claims you stated against Ken. That makes it slander. Those who slander without cause or evidence are not liked. Therein lays some of the antipathy you may have experienced in your past and now. It's reality, nothing "personal". Promise!!
If you are to scoop up ANY amount of dignity and credibility Mary, I suggest you do engage in the vernacular that has arisen about you being a Ken Hater and irrational. I suggest you also address the accusations by some of you being oriented toward the opposition of the Palestine cause. It is my testimony that your reputation is preceding you wherever on the internet or in real life you may hide because I heard this description of you myself from non-involved people. You claim to be the first who baked this manseff meal full of worms against Ken, I concur from what everyone has told me. I would like to comment that to be the progenitor of lies rather than something great causes a likewise response, don't you agree Mary? Your description of a smear campaign is that response.
Here I have asked for all of the evidence which has already be deemed INVALID by legal authorities, and you respond with the victimization complex as a response. Pretty and petty! You have no desire to debate as the progenitor of that debate, you rather sit at the comfort of your own home as with your contributions to the Palestinian cause, and watch more people like myself fall victim to the hate and factionalism YOU began, Ms. Progenitor!! What sense shall we make of this? You run from responsibility Mary. And replace it with conceptual images to your audience of victimization and words like smear campaign, minions of Ken's followers, haters, mysonogists, and extremists. Will you not run out of words or has your lexicon of excuses matched your lack of conscience?
I have challenged you to a debate, an academic one Mary. Because you have found someone who is willing and able. I want the world to see the hate you created Ms. Progenitor. I want them to see you have no shame nor conscience Ms. Progenitor. I want innocent people to be cleared of whatever stigma you forced upon them undeservingly Ms. Progenitor. I desire to clear you as being ANY semblance of the future for Palestine Ms. Progenitor. I want to discredit your rational , logic, and sincerity in front of others like you have done to innocent people Ms. Progenitor. Trust me or ask others, I can debate along the lines of proper decorum. Do not let this BLOG mislead you. Of course I expect you to dismiss this like everything else as a smear campaign, rather than face reality. I promise this on my soul in front of God, if your facts do hold up I will change my mind. If they have even a pinch of merit in it, I will gladly claim that you acted too soon but had some evidence to take the stance you did. How is this?
You claim to ignore people now, but you responded to your name being mentioned in a post about me AND addressed me in that response "personally". What happened? Seems like a contradiction to me :)
You claim to not debate others because no one knows how to debate. What a joke!! In this statement itself, it entails an omnipotence as if you are a god. No one knows how to debate!? What, were you the progenitor of the debating rules in academic institutions? What gives you the impression to make such a hyperbole that no one knows how to debate other than you? Where did that come from? Or is that another dismissal of any voice or evidence that contradicts your personal bias when interpreting facts? The facts are you DON'T have any credible or significant facts to support your assertions. The facts are that you claim to ignore people yet you still respond to them. The facts are you will not engage in a proper debate about the issue of your factionalism. The facts are you do not do anything for the cause of Palestine but create division within it. The facts are you are UNKNOWN here in the Middle East. Many facts run contrary to your claims Mary. You are suspicious and a relief of humor for all of us that cross your name and you. We have no choice but to laugh. Who is taking you seriously? Not me :)
I don't believe you!!!
It is very interesting that the way to address any human being who dares to have decided that Ken is not worth their support and they will not only not “follow” him, but they will avoid him, are subject to a more or less organised smear campaign. It is quite alarming that this has got to do with the issue of Palestine, because each and every one of these “tendencies” have been utilized in the “war” Ken has with anyone who does not think he is so “godlike”
1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.
Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant, but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.
Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!
I do not dislike you for your antipathy toward Ken. I dislike you because the factionalism you started ended up on my front door. Worse, you have decided that at this point and time in your career, you rather avoid this responsibility to fix it and instead choose to dismiss it.
You yourself admitted you were the progenitor of the accusations against Ken. Likewise, after your charges were proven false, you deserve a similar stigma you attempted to blandish Ken with. It is only fair and just. If you wish to construe any question of your accusations and demands of responsibility of them as character assassination, then why complain of that which you were a progenitor of yourself? Can't handle what you dish out?
I am challenging your credibility and reputation Mary. If you give me the evidence you claim to prove Ken's guilt , than I will concur with your hypothesis, not thesis. I reiterate, a thesis has facts, you have none!! If demanding you take responsibility for your campaign of slander against Ken and to provide irrefutable facts as to Ken's guilt is "extremism", then I must admit I have it branded on my rear end cheek. What can you admit?
You admitted to starting this war. Did you not? Please do not attach any more stigmas on innocent people please.
Interestingly, you fail to address the screenshots I have provided but instead focus on what the little tabs say. Wouldn't that be construed as your definition of "extremism"? I think so. You take the side of a woman who has vexed and threatened and angered many people. A woman who has claimed to be the direct relative of Jesus and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Who are you calling an extremist?
It is not lost on anyone that immediately after a post by me which happened to mention your name, you began making posts on your Facebook wall and other places your concern about money donated to Aloha Palestine , France. Were you seriously concerned about the money? Why choose to make such posts immediately after your name was brought up in other boards. Should we call this altruism? What about legitimate concern?
2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.
What do you mean "name calling? Do you mean like "Minions" or "extremists" or "smear campaign" or "sick" or "hot sh_t" or any other words and neologisms you have applied in your response toward certain individuals?
3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.
Sweeping generalizations is an understatement to all of the facts you have provided. You provide no hard facts in ANY of your accusations Mary. Worse, you already admitted to being the progenitor of all this mess. An innocent man was under investigation for your sweeping generalizations. He was later cleared. I think you have the broomstick in your hands on this one sister.
Your conjecture that by copying and pasting the criteria of another author can add weight to your claims in the character of your opposition and your avowal in representing all of this post to your own efforts is laughable.
Conjectures have circumstantial evidence Mary. You do not even have this!!
4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.
I think we have dealt with this already. The results of your accusations speaks for itself. Done!
I will wait for evidence from you. You have none. Just narrative as if this whole post was some kind of fictional novel.
Even Sherlock Holmes had more logical coherence than what you have posted!
5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.
We see this tendency saturated within your response. It is okay to label anyone who opposes you as a "cult" but those who attack Ken are not "cult". Those who support you are protected by you such as this web blog post in reference to Kim. However, anyone like me showing up and declaring that one of your own has been running amuck and causing havoc on behest of your name if a part of Ken's cult.
You dismiss any REAL and CREDIBLE claims not on its merits as the truth Mary. You dismiss them because in your reality, you have a sick and twisted vendetta against Ken and anyone associated with him.
That would be the reasoning behind you defending Kim despite her reputation on the internet. Your post alone has let all know of your double standard approach in journalism and life.
What more of a double standard can be ascertained than eliminating the screenshots of my evidence AND decrying my screenshots while simultaneously using screenshots of our conversations :)
How about decrying a blog post that you claim does no positive contribution to the Palestine movement yet making a blog post yourself?
How about claiming that Ken has had no positive influence on the Palestine Movement while simultaneously claiming you do. You investigate his claims but not your own :)
How about claiming no one has the ability or will to debate you?
How about me defending myself against people who are acting on behalf of your name and you calling insinuating I am one of the minions of Ken's supporters but anyone who attacks me is not only your minions. WOW!!
6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.
I do not think you are evil. I think you are foolish, illogical, and irresponsible.
You have just as a Manichean view as you accuse others of and I feel I proved it above.
Your biting and rude response at my non-threatening request for you and your cronies to stop posting on my student organization’s facebook page was met with non-compliance and a lack of cooperation on your part. As you can see from your own posts, I was quiet cordial and friendly. You on the other hand was quiet rude and the tone of your message seemed to be suspicious as if you were expecting ANYONE who does not want to read your Ken is a fraud bullS-it as a part of his "cult". You , yourself, create the enemies you claim to fight.
Seriously, any woman that accuses another person of stalking because they sent them a message requesting that one of their pack of hyenas stop posting on his organization's website or has mentioned them in a post because they are the PROGENITOR of the conflict which resulted is essentially looking at the world in this view.
7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.
Your view of two opposing forces, Ken against you, is telling enough. I have spoken to Ken and he wants nothing to do with you Mary. None of us do!! Why is it that you continue to be involved with many of the attacks against Ken and his supporters? I never heard of you nor would have known you had not one of your robots posted on my student organization's web page!! We all wish you could just disappear from our lives and begin to live your own. Trust me, we do. But somehow, some way, you always seem to make an entrance into an argument like an old snooping lady who has no other hobbies to occupy their time because they are neglected by spouse and family at home. It is not our faults, find a reason to live, not destroy other people's lives!!
8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.
Your consistent habit of condemning and playing accomplice in taking down my screenshots that others have posted is a telling example for you Mary.
I would like to state that I do not complain about taking down blog posts or screenshots. The hell with it!! POST THEM!! Let the public see!! in never say anything that I would not say in public or defend. This is my life and it is what it is as some say. I do not try to hide anything and play this childish game of censoring what others may read and feel inclined to use against me in the future. I am a proponent of Thomas Jefferson, is it is the truth people will cling to it and if not, they will walk away from it. How about you?
I wish I could say the same about you :)
9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY
HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.
How would a person go about defining themselves by their enemy? Hmm.....This makes no sense , as if the Palestinians do not themselves define their own identity as that of struggle against a powerful opposition.
We all are humans and we tend to take the tribulations we face in life and define who we are by them. This is natural. I do not see anything wrong with this criteria because it is a natural reaction by many who are oppressed. Did you bother looking at each of these criteria and realizing that? Or did you copy and paste like you usually do accepting that if it came off the internet and had a half-way decent and popular guy spreading this propaganda, then it must be useful in your own accusations?
I do not hate you Mary. On the contrary, I would like you to stop the meddling in others affairs, with false evidence in a continuous campaign of slander and mischievousness causing dissension upon others with your childish antics, and that you own up to what you have started.
I would like for you to engage in that debate I desire of you please.
10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.
I call making a post about Aloha Palestine France demanding for money donated to it be accounted for, immediately after becoming involved in an argument with Kim that didn't directly involve you but of which you chose on your own free will to address and defend her, intimidation. I call having others spread lies and harass those who are affiliated with Ken intimidation. I call those who ignore the wrongs done upon a person or marginalize them or to dismiss their complaints entirely because they are associated with Ken intimidation as a result of a twisted view of a good and evil battle where anyone associated with Ken is in the wrong.
Kim has claimed MANY victims Mary. Do you not know how you and others have placed your reputation and credibility by standing on her side? How is it that on SHOAH.org, Tim King's article, on Facebook post about Ken , and web blogs by other people attacking Ken, you find your name and Kimberly Amatullah right beside it? Like a group of children playing high school gang up on the new kid on the block. Disgusting if you ask me. Absolutely disgusting Mary and you fool no one! Your bi-polar disorder type journalism of presenting yourself in public as a monotone and objective person while engaging in others to participate in your antics are the dirty handed tactics that reward you the negative attention you received, deservingly.
Mary, part of the reason why I do not like you is because you are an uneducated bully. It has nothing to do with you claiming a reputation in the Palestine movement that does not exist.
11. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.
I have no idea how this could be construed as extreme unless one would posit that more than half of the American population is extreme. I cannot come to any real assumption as to how this is a valid heuristic for extremism in comparison to the normal human-being. Can you explain this? Slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés are all inseparable from the English language. According to this logic, the English language is extreme.
12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.
I am infallible and make mistakes which is more of an admission than you have in all of your comments Mary.
Nevertheless, let me ask you a question Mary. It is required in a court of law for the burden of proof to be on the plaintiff? From my recollection, in every civilized and objective court room across the world, a person cannot be convicted without irrefutable proof. If there is doubt, one must acquit. Then how is it that you are the one who continuously asks questions and then runs off like a child swinging her arms in the air laughing and taunting "ha ha ha he is lying, he cannot prove I am wrong!" over and over to the death pangs touch our ears either from you or your clique of thugs!? Then you seek others to praise you, play games with you and avoid the victim of your loose evidence and twisted interpretations, and so on...
Have you no morality to stop condemning others when you have no proof. Ken does not need to answer your questions nor does anyone else Mary. Stop throwing accusations of stone at people!! Therein lays without any doubt your lack of morality. I have witnessed it and I am here to aver to the world, this lady is NOT who she says she is and those who are riding her coat tail are in it for something more than truth. I promise you that!!
I have made mistakes in life and continue to do so , but Mary, you engage in activities which is unforgiveable. Attacking a member of our own family, Palestinian activists, for evidence you claim to exist that even a court of law refused to accept. Blasphemy!! We should never hold our own family under lesser heuristics than normal courts of any government would , and that is stigmatize and convict a person without irrefutable proof. That is what in fact you have done Mary. Unforgiveable!! Absolutely unforgiveable!!!
Don't speak to me about morality lady. You have none!
13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.
Ahh, I do not recollect anyone on any posts claiming that there is going to be a Doomsday. Did you include this to be accurate or did you just not read it because you copied and pasted?
14. BELIEF THAT IT’S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A “GOOD” CAUSE.
It depends, every situation merits its own decision as to whether this statement applies or not. I consider it extreme to state that a single flaw or mistake by a person should be considered more important of a factor than the total value or worth that person has to a community. Even courts of law in many governments consider this as well. Are we to hold someone under the same standards when he or she is clearly under far harsher duress for the contributions they make to a cause or society? I believe there are cases, cases that should be judged on their OWN individual merit and circumstances, that allow certain bad things to overshadow or to not be overshadowed by a person's total worth as a Samaritan for a cause or community.
This type of logic is appealing to you I guess which would explain your lack of pragmatism.
15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.
Mary, your posts are riddled with emotional language and sarcasm. The narrative is quiet beautiful but there are no facts other than your attempt to present facts displaced out of context with no solid inner trails for us to even say, "ok, I see where she might think this." NO!! I do not see any hard proof in ANY of your posts. It is just a poor job of journalism, deal with it!! Stop taking your anger out on everyone else because your attempt to create a name for yourself with controversy hoping that your name , attached to another person who felt pity for you and titled his book after you, would compel others in a hard position of a rock and a hard place , to decide what to do. You have a great way of sardonicism, but it cannot hold weight against those who deal with those unfriendly things we call facts. Sorry.
You ignore ANY evidence which may refute your HYPOTHESIS while simultaneously cherry picking any information which supports yours. That is called Yellow Journalism Mary!! The apogee of your career unfortunately is having a book named after you. Congratulations!!
16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.
The amount of time and effort you have expensed in this witch hunt against Ken speaks multitudes of testimonies to your own culpability in this field. Vigilance is an understatement to describe you Mary, a more accurate word would be insane!! Vigilant means to be keenly watchful to detect danger, you are screaming danger before you actually see anything worth complaining about!! I call that paranoid!!
Look at your responses to me when I asked you and your colleagues NOT to post on my student organization's website. Your stance and tone was more than sensitive, it was psychotic and defensive. Why? Why should a simple and legitimate request be of so much concern for you? What were your concerns?
17. USE OF SUPERNATURAL RATIONALE FOR BELIEFS AND ACTIONS.
I think the description "supernatural" should be "exceptional". Supernatural could be applied against Democracy. Democracy claims to be the panacea of many of the world's ills and because of such, we are in a zero-sum game of US against THEM which you so brilliantly play out to the point. This is a supernatural rationale, an exceptional rationale goes against the norm. I believe that is the word you and your author intended to use.
I think your fictional account is exceptional because not only has credible people and authorities turned away from it, but you still are content on shoveling it everywhere you go as if it was your last ounce of reputation.
Haters do many things, we all know that. When they lose, they respond in two ways. They either accept their losses and live their life or they become even more flagrant and impassioned refusing to believe in their own demise. I wish the time comes when the latter leaves your soul and you may find peace in this world on the former. I sincerely mean that from my heart Mary.
18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.
WWOOOAAAHHH!! Is it me, or is your whole case against Ken O Keefe one of such an assertion that screams, "it doesn't add up. Why won't he answer those questions which we find ambiguous!?" Here is a shocker for you Mary, ambiguous doesn't mean guilt!! I am sorry no professor or teacher or parent ever taught you this but there is always a time for a first in life. No doubt!!
Your whole case against Ken is this Mary. I swear everything you print on Ken is ambiguous!! It is subject to many different interpretations. It is not like my evidence where a man says on behalf of Kimberly (who he mentions in his post), "your very existence hangs by a thread." The previous proof has more weight because one does not need context to see that it is clear the man in question is speaking on behalf of Kimberly and that he feels that my life may be harmed or result in a detrimental end. Existence is a powerful world and it is synonymous with LIFE. This kind of evidence I would like to see Mary. Not screenshots of public information along with commentary to interpret that information. You are invoking the support of the naive of people who have no clue as to the functions of running an organization and what it entails.
Your whole despicable behavior of ganging up on innocent Ken supporters and spreading hate speech and propaganda is all a reaction to the world that has turned their back on your evidence because all of what you have provided yourself is ambiguous. You are scorned and we all are witnessing your reaction to it.
There was no conviction of Ken because there was reasonable doubt. It seems one small voice of reason appears to be an extremist according to your logic because it lingers on the fringes of the majority consensus, doesn't it? So what does you extremist philosophy say about that one REASONABLE DOUBT in a court room? Does that mean justice is not justice in a western court room? Are all of us human rights activists extremists because we stand on issues the majority do not?
19. INCLINATION TOWARD “GROUPTHINK.”
We have seen multiple posts by you, Kimberly, and others on the same boards Mary. Your posts run in much more amounts than mine Mary. I think the balance of scales for justice would return a verdict that unanimity would slap its truth in your ambiguous face. Afterwards, when the blood runs through your cheeks, we can at least say you have some appearance of humanity than the lifeless decrepit void which strikes sudden fear into all that view your Facebook profile. Based on your profile pics, one may assume you have Diogenes syndrome!
Your involvement in that God-awful hate group "No one in Gaza Wants Ken O Keefe" is testimony of your group think. Hypocrite!!
20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.
I can think of no other means of declaring an argument "personal" than printing it in public OR continuous and persistent threats and harassment over a period of time. Kim is guilty of the latter against me and MINIONS (as you like to use). You are guilty of the former.
You are the progenitor of all this, aren't you? This is what you said yourself, right? So the continuity of this tragic debacle and shameless story begins in your lap and I hope the weight gets heavier so ALL may see who you really are inside rather than what you purport or fake to be on the internet or in your dilettante works in your own tabloid section called "we write what we like".
You "personalize" all of this conflict. it is the nature of journalism Mary. All of the greats in history had antagonists and they debated in an even more hostile way when their arguments became public. It is the nature of debate!! If one were to suppose otherwise, it would be tantamount to refusing to accept one was human or denying this to their "followers".
Your claim of objectivity after involvement in the hate group "No One Wants Ken in Gaza", the many people who are attacking others on behalf of your name, your willingness to ignore justice and truth in your group think behavior of protecting what you perceive as loyal subjects such as Kimberly Amatullah, your use of adjectives which demonstrate the "personal" nature of your attacks, your coordinated effort of posting on boards at the same time as those who all of us suspect you are in league with, your lack of responsibility for being the progenitor of all this mess, your lack of shame to apologize or seal the wounds you made on Ken EVEN AFTER YOUR ACCUSATIONS WERE PROVEN FALSE, and your incoherent ability to use sardonicism and ambiguous arguments to Create facts rather than rely on them, and more has convince me and should convince any person of a normal intelligence without a psychological disorder that you have "personalized" this conflict TOO MUCH!!
Who in the world has ever seen an editor , after publishing a story on one of their targets for an investigation; make blog posts, a hate group on Facebook about this target, and speak to that target in person on blog posts about that target!? Only you Mary!!
21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.
I agree on this somewhat Mary. Now that Ken has been proven innocent by the system, what do your actions now say about that system? Vigilant justice?
I have noticed that you attempted to stigmatize and dismiss the premises of your opposition with a psychological ad hominem. As if you are a psychologist yourself. Last I checked, you speak mediocre French and have the imagination of an artist.
So here is mine perfunctory evaluation of you and Kimberly.
Mental retardation in young children is often missed by clinicians. The condition is present in 2 to 3 percent of the population, either as an isolated finding or as part of a syndrome or broader disorder. Causes of mental retardation are numerous and include genetic and environmental factors. In at least 30 to 50 percent of cases, physicians are unable to determine etiology despite thorough evaluation. Diagnosis is highly dependent on a comprehensive personal and family medical history, a complete physical examination and a careful developmental assessment of the child. These will guide appropriate evaluations and referrals to provide genetic counseling, resources for the family and early intervention programs for the child. The family physician is encouraged to continue regular follow-up visits with the child to facilitate a smooth transition to adolescence and young adulthood.
The diagnosis of mental retardation in young children is frequently missed. The three most common errors made by clinicians who overlook the possibility of mental retardation are (1) concluding that a child does not “look” retarded, (2) assuming that a child who is ambulatory is unlikely to be retarded and, (3) if retardation is actually considered, concluding that it is not possible to test young children.1
Mental retardation is present in about 2 to 3 percent of the population. It can be defined as cognitive ability that is markedly below average level and a decreased ability to adapt to one's environment. The onset of the condition occurs during the developmental period, i.e., gestation through age 18 years.
Mental retardation comprises five general categories: borderline, mild, moderate, severe and profound. Categories are based on scores obtained through use of age-standardized tests of cognitive ability (Table 1).2 Mental retardation may occur as part of a syndrome or broader disorder but is most commonly an isolated finding.
The physician must have a high index of suspicion to consider the diagnosis of mental retardation in any child. Some helpful clues include delayed speech, dimorphic features (minor anomalies), hypotonic generally or of the extremities, general inability to do things for self and, not least, expressed concern by the parents.
The first and most important step in the diagnosis of mental retardation is to obtain a comprehensive patient and family history. Previous gynecologic and obstetric history may reveal infertility or fetal loss. Assessment of maternal health status during pregnancy with the involved child should include questions regarding use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs (prescribed and illicit); lifestyle or other risks for sexually transmitted diseases; weight gain or loss; signs of infection; serious illness or injury; and surgery or hospitalization.
To establish a knowledgeable baseline history of the child, the physician should obtain information regarding length of pregnancy, premature onset of labor or rupture of the membranes, duration and course of labor, type of delivery and any complications. Apgar scores at one and (especially) five minutes should be reviewed, and birth weight, length and head circumference measurements obtained and plotted on appropriate growth charts. The parents should be asked about any illnesses, feeding or sleeping difficulties in the newborn period and problems with sucking or swallowing, as well as the baby's general disposition. Extremes in infant temperament are often the first clue to an atypical course in child development.
The systems review of the child should be complete, with special attention to growth problems, history of seizures, lethargy and episodic vomiting. A developmental screen should be used at all well-child visits to obtain information about the timing of the child's developmental milestones, any concerns by parents or caregivers and comparison of the child's developmental rate and pattern with those of siblings. Specific questions about the child's current developmental abilities should be asked at each visit.
The Revised Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire10 is a useful screening tool that parents can readily complete to help determine the need for further evaluation with the time-honored Denver Developmental Screening Test.11,12 Another practical and reliable tool with which to monitor development in infants is the Kansas Infant Development Screen.13 The findings can be recorded and plotted just as with somatic growth charts and shared with parents. Other developmental screening tests are also available.
Delays in speech development are common and may become more obvious when contrasted with the speech development of a sibling. Inquiry should be made regarding concerns about hearing and vision. One cannot overemphasize the importance of addressing concerns voiced by a parent about a child's development, behavior and learning, because these expressed concerns accurately target the majority of children with developmental problems.
Information should be obtained about the family unit, parents' occupations and educational achievements, educational and developmental status of siblings, role of the patient in the family, discipline of the children and identity of the child's caregiver when the parents are not home. Family history of fetal loss, mental retardation, severe learning problems, congenital abnormalities and unexplained childhood deaths, as well as other serious illnesses in first- and second-degree family members, should be elicited.
A complete physical examination can begin with a review of growth curves since birth, if these are available. The head circumference should continue to be plotted. The examination should be thorough, with special attention to physical findings that are compatible with any risk factors obtained from the history.
The child should be examined closely for dimorphic features or minor abnormalities, such as unusual eyebrow pattern, eyes that are widely or closely spaced, low-set ears or abnormal palmar crease patterns. Minor abnormalities are defined as defects that have unusual morphologic features without serious medical implications or untoward cosmetic appearance.8 Most minor abnormalities involve the face, ears, hands or feet, and are readily recognized even on cursory examination.14 The presence of three or more minor abnormalities in newborns is correlated with a 90 percent frequency of coexistent major abnormalities,15 suggesting close association with morphogenesis in utero. Thus, minor abnormalities may provide clues to developmental problems of possible prenatal origin.
Evaluation of the head, face, eyes, ears and mouth must include general assessment of visual acuity and hearing. Examination of the chest, heart, spine, abdomen, genitalia, extremities, muscles and neurologic reflexes can reveal abnormalities that may be associated with retardation.
How is that for my response to your perfunctory analysis of mine and other's behaviors.
oops, I would like to add something else that describes you accurately:
Manic depression; Bipolar affective disorder
Last reviewed: March 25, 2012.
Bipolar disorder is a condition in which people go back and forth between periods of a very good or irritable mood and depression. The "mood swings" between mania and depression can be very quick.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Bipolar disorder affects men and women equally. It usually starts between ages 15 - 25. The exact cause is unknown, but it occurs more often in relatives of people with bipolar disorder.
Types of bipolar disorder:
*People with bipolar disorder type I have had at least one manic episode and periods of major depression. In the past, bipolar disorder type I was called manic depression.
Mary Rizzo and Kimberly Amatullah
*People with bipolar disorder type II have never had full mania. Instead they experience periods of high energy levels and impulsiveness that are not as extreme as mania (called hypomania). These periods alternate with episodes of depression.
Kimberly Amatullah and Mary Rizzo
*A mild form of bipolar disorder called cyclothymia involves less severe mood swings. People with this form alternate between hypomania and mild depression. People with bipolar disorder type II or cyclothymia may be wrongly diagnosed as having depression.
*In most people with bipolar disorder, there is no clear cause for the manic or depressive episodes. The following may trigger a manic episode in people with bipolar disorder:
A) Life changes such as childbirth
B) Medications such as antidepressants or steroids
C) Periods of sleeplessness
D) Recreational drug use
The manic phase may last from days to months. It can include the following symptoms:
Little need for sleep
Poor temper control
Kimberly Amatullah and Mary Rizzo with the latter being discreet about it better than Kim.
Reckless behavior and lack of self control
Binge eating, drinking, and/or drug use
Both. The size of the hips and jaw structure of both indicate such.
Sex with many partners (promiscuity)
Kimberly Amatullah. Mary doesn't get any as is evident from her over-reaction from having a internet porn site tab beside her name in a screenshot.
Very elevated mood
Excess activity (hyperactivity)
Talking a lot
Very high self-esteem (false beliefs about self or abilities)
Very involved in activities
Very upset (agitated or irritated)
These symptoms of mania occur with bipolar disorder I. In people with bipolar disorder II, the symptoms of mania are similar but less intense.
The depressed phase of both types of bipolar disorder includes the following symptoms:
Daily low mood or sadness
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Loss of appetite and weight loss
Non-applicable. Both are heavyset.
Overeating and weight gain
Fatigue or lack of energy
Feeling worthless, hopeless, or guilty
Loss of pleasure in activities once enjoyed
Loss of self-esteem
Thoughts of death and suicide
Trouble getting to sleep or sleeping too much
Pulling away from friends or activities that were once enjoyed
There is a high risk of suicide with bipolar disorder. Patients may abuse alcohol or other substances, which can make the symptoms and suicide risk worse.
Sometimes the two phases overlap. Manic and depressive symptoms may occur together or quickly one after the other in what is called a mixed state. Sorry if I left anything out Mary. I tried my best to be as honest and accurate of the behaviors I observed of you and Kim. Please feel free to let me know what I have left out. Thanks.
Mary's Comments Continued
Since my name has been brought up countless times by a specific group of persons who do very little else but engage in their facebook wars and online smearfests, rather than debate and discuss pertinent issues, I feel it is simply par for the course to consider the “source” of this new and most ridiculous round of the eternal war of Ken Supporters against the world as being a tabloid.
Your name was brought up Mary because the person I originally had a problem with, created that problem with me because I refused to participate in her juvenile and criminal antics against a Ken O Keefe. She, Kimberly Amatullah, credited YOU with being the course of her convictions. Likewise, watching you and her participate in the same boards posting vitriolic and untrue posts exaggerating your own facts, making leaping generalizations and conjectures without any facts, and dismissal of any evidence which may prove contrary to Kim's side in a group type mentality of taking care of one's own, your two-faced approach of speaking as a erudite and objectively off Facebook while simultaneously speaking like a thug ON Facebook, and your strategy of dismissing all of those who do not believe in your accusations as Ken Sympathists on all forms of communication against KEN is what brought your name into these posts. It is called responsibility, deal with it!! Furthermore, I would not have even known about this whole drama of charades that occupies and takes away from the Palestine Movement, had people, once again on your behest and mentioning your name, not posted on my student organization’s facebook page, hate propaganda against Ken O Keefe. It is also suspicious that AFTER a video was made by me by TJP Productions and aired on the internet, all of this animosity and dirty-handed tactics began on Kim's part and then yours. That is why your name was mentioned!
I wish we could discuss pertinent issues but the truth is you have none Mary. Poor journalism, thank God you were not acceptable as a journalist for a credible tabloids. The truth is that your friend, your close friend that you vouch for in numerous posts on her behalf on various board has demonstrated some of the weirdest and illegal behavior all of us Facebook users have seen. We are tired of it. She claims, seriously and by direct relation, to be the relative of the prophets and Eleanor of Aquitaine. She posts nude pics of herself on the internet. She harasses, stalks, and threatens Palestinian activists and causes a disruption and civil war by bringing everyone into the mess with her impulsive and psychopathic pleas of being a victim and appealing to the inner conscience of people when SHE was the one who provided the stimuli for the events which wrought havoc upon herself. Her relations with KNOWN HARDLINE Zionists are too much for any of us to be comfortable and in my case, I have found some of my own information I confided in her to be released to the wrong audience. I have received two death threats from your colleague, one of them directly mentioning Kim. I have also had an email sent to me with a forged address which is EASY to do I admit for any amateur of Computer Science but it sure adds on to the circumstances of events and the numerous testimonies that affirm your friend's behavior toward others in the past. What disturbs me the most about your sister, Kimberly, is that she makes friends with other Muslims and Palestinian activists, using the credentials of being one herself, taps them for information, and when she does not get any more information she waits until the right time to create a conflict or augment an already existing conflict between Muslims and Palestinian activists. If anyone does not respond to her bugle call of hate or expresses disagreement and displeasure at her bullying tactics and behavior, she attacks them like she did to me, Daniel Mabsoot, Nadia Sindi, Parents, Sara Swati, Carolyn, Mary Shephard, Sandra Nichols, Ken O Keefe, Michael Langston, Azaam Yacoob, Angela Street, Jo McColl, and the list goes on. Then after the bloody bodies are laying on the ground with their path of sacrificing for Palestine replaced with the blood of civil conflict against their own, others ask for the credentials of your sister to verify the stupidity that such horror was shed for one of our own. She responds with attacks and refusals to provide that evidence. It is enough!!!
You instead ignore this long list of victims, some of which are new names in your sick mentality of an "us" against "them" Manichaean viewpoint of you against Ken O Keefe. You call yourself a human rights activist!? Unbelievable!! You call yourself a journalist, repugnant!!
She is JUST AS MUCH A LIABILITY TO ALL OF US PALESTINIAN ACTIVISTS AS YOU ARE!!
I do not feel I need to be “bullied” into participating in this juvenile “debate”, as it is clear that the editor of said site uses zero responsibility in allowing the same author to participate using at least a dozen screen names in order to be abusive to any commenter that bothered to criticize both the form and the content of said article and further commentary by Siraj Davis, and while doing it is unable to even remotely respond to the major questions about the ethical qualities of the author, as evidenced in his own screenshots which are a catalogue of his weird porno fetishes in addition to being simply too ridiculous to take into consideration by any serious person that this issue of his private war with two persons (extended to include others not even related to them, myself included). I certainly do not need to “debate” about Ken O’Keefe, as all are free to read whatever is available for reading and make up their own minds regarding the issue.
I know what your problem really is Mary, since you have scavenged the deepest and darkest corners of the internet seeking low self esteem trolls to aid you, to admit your errors would bring devastating condemnation upon you. Your "Followers" would refuse that you admitted running their own names amuck on a witch hunt. They would crucify you out of Capgras delusion thinking Mossad has replaced you. It is your own fault sister, you chose to surround yourself with vicious wolves and if there is no prey to feed on, who will they turn on next? You do not want it to be you, do you Mary? This is the impetus behind your reluctance in admitting your own mistakes.
I also would like to address the fact of you condemn that which you yourself are guilty of. You posted my name and screenshots of me. I have no problem with this Mary. I want the whole truth to be told to the public and I never say anything I cannot defend or am ashamed of. Post all screenshots of me Mary. in just want the truth to be told...that is it. However, do not condemn someone for you doing the same thing. It is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Furthermore, to claim to be bullied into an argument, you sure are making posts of an increasing nature about me and Ken. how is that bullying. That subject was Kimberly Amatullah and everyone can see that the posts on SHOAH were solely on that topic with a modicum amount of your name being posted. That is farcical and unconscionable your implicit statement that you are only defending yourself and came into the argument to protect yourself because you felt you were being bullied just as delusional as it is for you to claim Anyone wants to stalk you because you viewed a screenshot with an internet tab of porn on it because my roommate was using my laptop. Ridiculous and disgusting that I cannot control the vomit tingling at the bottom of my throat in the fake posts by you claiming to be an objective and sane journalist. Poppy cock!! If I were to look less sane than you, it is because I am more honest rather than deceitful than you Mary. I do not pretend to be two people at one time.
You claim the site is abusive and that anyone responding on my behalf is ME. WOW! So all of those people posting are me. I feel sad and as if I have failed in my efforts Mary. I do have a conscience and feel remorse. It is pertinent, no exigent, that I admit my own faults and I say this while stating that at least I OWN up to my own faults and mistakes. YES!! You made me realize a mistake I have made and it bothers me now. I am sorry.
I regretfully admit like a man instead of a coward, that I failed in adding Fregoli Delusion to the list of suspected psychological disorders you suffer from. For that , I will focus on being more observant of ALL your posts on SHOAH, Salem News, and elsewhere.
It is interesting that your claims of your posts in defense of Kim, excusing her repeatedly criminal and atrocious behavior, are described by yourself as objective inquiry but those posts I may have or may have not made or others, are abusive. Double Standard to me and adds on to the list of symptoms of your own disease you attempted to stigmatize others who are your opposition or who just do not believe you Mary. An argument is comprised of constituents on all sides of it and all have the right to make statements. It is noticeable that YOU ignore and dismiss while attempting to remove screenshots that prove your own culpability in the mess of stirring conflict against Ken O Keefe and Kimberly's sick and repeated behaviors against many people. You did not post not because you are above the tactics Mary. That is unbelievable coming from someone who is involved with the website "No One Wants Ken In Gaza". Ha!! You did not post because you feel you are beneath scrutiny and reproach for your actions. You did not post because you are beneath the level of academic prowess and TRUTH that challenged you. PERIOD. The truth is your best premise for your argument against my character is the exaggerated claim that one screenshot of a porno tab included with others indicates the person is a porno freak and thus guilty of all stones you throw at that person. Wow!! Such logic and objectivity!!! My goodness what a protégé you are!! I have seen your logic Mary. It involves Ken being guilty of fraud because he has tattoos on his face, because you claim he was a former convicted criminal, because he does not answer the stupid questions which you pose that in fact need no address because they are ambiguous questions and interpretations attached to your sick quest, your attacks on his family claiming that he had a relationship with a woman out of wedlock, your claims that his appearances on television and his sincere efforts to TRY to make a change surmount to nothing in comparison to yours, your claims that you are somebody important when none of the Palestinians I speak with know of your name, your claims of him being a former racist mean guilt of fraud, and so on. RIDICULOUS!!! NO ONE BELIEVES YOU MARY!! GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE FOR GOD'S SAKE, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR BEFORE THINGS BEGIN TO GET UGLIER THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE!! We are sick of the turmoil and factionalism you have sprouted from your seeds of hate!! Your minions have caused a lethargic strain on all of the Palestine activists and we are tired of it. Peace be with you, now live on or find something more positive to do.
If you do not need to debate about Ken O Keefe, why further inquiries about him on blog posts off your own web blog site? Why don't you restrain such garbage to your own site "We write What we Lie" or whatever it is called? I consider my time too valuable to engage further with a group of persons , in a moment of generosity, consider to be nothing more than clowns and self-deluded extremists.
I ask you to not be generous Mary. Don't hold back a word or anything. Trust me, this time you have bitten off more than you can chew sister. I am not accustomed to backing down and holding my tongue.
It is a sad case indeed, to watch you jump on this chess board and not realize that those whom have become your victims have been given what we desired. You made public your words to me...and now I intend to act and continue to act until one of us collapses from exasperation and mental insanity. Trust me, don't be generous! Many who know what I have survived in life would pity you Mary. The first insult I ever heard in Syria in which I extend to you is "I lion, you donkey!"
It is necessary now to come to a conclusion. Sad as it may be as I enjoy this very much indeed. And I thank you for helping me to step on step further in the aspiration that I have in life. To mimic the accolade of Thomas Paine when he responded to Edmund Burke in hundreds of pages as his "The Rights of Man" demonstrates. Ironically, what fuels my passion and commitment toward this debate with you is the right of one man who has been wronged by you, Ken O Keefe. And make no mistake, I am fully prepared to defend him as if it were me because an injustice upon one is an injustice upon all. I am morally right in my heart to recognize and sacrifice for this. How about you?
I find your writing style full of sardonicism and ambiguous interpretations. None of which you have told me to view has convinced me of your accusations. The only idea that has been driven in my mind is that some people need to spend more time with their loved ones and off Facebook or need a hobby because they have too much time on their hands. You dismiss facts the run contrary to your own predispositions of the truth and over-generalize those facts that do augment your interpretation of events. I call that Yellow Journalism. Your narrative style of fictional writing is good and I like it but it is full of Red Herrings to replace cold hard facts, so much that Agatha Christi and Sherlock Holmes would scream foul and demand those facts. I think your writing is more suitable for the Harry Potter series where the circumstances can be concocted and ignored as a product of reality. You have a talent Mary, but keep it in the realm of fiction where it belongs. I would like for you to stop describing your diatribe against Ken as a thesis, a thesis has facts, yours is just a hypothesis.
You have demonstrated too much involvement in this campaign of slander and libel against Ken O Keefe to claim objectivity and separate yourself from it, Mary. Every statement by you claiming this only destroys what little credibility you have. Worse, your loyal soldiers are running around wreaking havoc on innocent and guilty alike, occupying too much time from many Palestinian activists.
You should also pick your friends with better judgment. Your alliance with Kim is a serious blow to your credibility because her reputation precedes her everywhere she goes. Furthermore, you should be careful of getting your information from another woman in Jordan who uses the kind hearts of people to help her only to become estranged from them when a tiny argument ensures. Has she the financial accuracy of her records because I could pull one of your own moves here and demand receipts from her with the help of the Federal government? I could tell everyone in this country an d elsewhere her ties to a woman you both are involved with that has proven relationships with hard line former Mossad and Zionists. I have those screenshots of those communications Mary. But I don't!! And that separates me from you Mary. My accusations and suspicions remain in my head and do not involve damaging anyone. Your hubris and omnipotent character caused you to act too quickly without a second look at your own evidence and consideration of the repercussion which would ensue. Now you wish to abscond form that responsibility. Now that the arrows is released from the bow, like Jordan communicated to Israel in the last war, "it cannot be retracted." Now you must stand by those false accusations before you are enveloped in the hate of which you began. Look at what you have dragged innocent people into and you remain steadfast in your repugnant and seditious antics. Forget the question, I aver no shame on your part!! There are many on Facebook who can testify that I had within me the power to shut a business down for illegal acts AND proof of that, but because of my fear of God and compassion, I decided to allow that business to repair their wrongs in which they half-way did. There are people on Facebook who can tell you they own me a lot of money and NEVER have I asked for it back. I live by the principle to never give or loan what you cannot afford or what you would destroy a relationship over. The most inspirational sheikh of my life, the inspiration that convinced me to revert to Islam always told me, "if it is about money, it is never a problem." Moreover, I proved on SHOAH through screenshots that Kim's demands for a year old loan came at the behest of my refusal to embark on a campaign of slander and libel you yourself is a progenitor of, by your own admission!! Furthermore, I demonstrated with screenshots that I warned Kim not to communicate with me in a hostile manner and that I would not block her until this loan was paid off so I could be rid of her. She violated that warning as I showed with my screenshots. I also provided many screenshots of her behavior against other targets. Death threats included. Your response, to marginalize and dismiss and take down those screenshots. Moreover, I also demonstrated that Kim used this loan to justify her attacks upon me in vindication for insultingly refusing to attacking Ken, because she continued to ask for this loan a whole week AFTER the money was already paid. FUBAR!! That is your friend Mary. That is your confidant!! That is your team!! And don't deny it, many have told me of this relationship between you and her before. I have those screenshots too. Then , you mean to tell me that you end up on EVERY board about Kim defending her. You proved our suspicions correct Mary. You walked right through the door and here we are after recording multitudes of communication shaking our heads in disbelief at what your own team has provided us with, ample and irrefutable proof of you complicity in this campaign against Ken!! Busted!!!!!!
Unlike you, my generosity does not extend toward enemies so generously, I am not revealing the other surprise in which you have walked yourself into. I see the future Mary. I shake my head in disbelief as to what you allowed your narcissism to walk right into. I feel pity for you but you deserve it from the harm you have caused all of my brothers and sisters in this movement.
I have not accused you of being a Zionists Mary. Have you realized that in your diatribe of a response? Nowhere in any of my comments did I say I was absolutely sure you were a Zionist. However. I do question your motives. Think of how people view you Mary. We do not need to know the details of communications between people to extrapolate or to form a suspicion of your interests. Your efforts are breaking asunder the potential resources the Palestine movement needs to accomplish what already others say is impossible. You need people like Ken, me, and others; who are willing to sacrifice and DO rather than blog or Facebook post about it. There are many who will meet you in a court room or on the internet who will testify to this. We ask ourselves, why does this woman not spend more time on surveilling Israeli actions? Why doesn't she focus on more positive contributions to the movement? Why is she taking a body count on Palestinian activists who have clearly done more than her and proof shows it? Why does she associate with people with mental disorders and clear attachments to the opposition of the Palestine tragedy!? We ask ourselves, what good can be made from following the likes of Mary Rizzo? We also ask if her position in the movement has exacerbated or prolonged something that CAN BE ANSWERED!?
I find with you Mary the habit of attacking everyone in a Manichean viewpoint of US against THEM mentality similar to the War on Terror and the former bush administration’s policies.
It is a dangerous precedent which should have NEVER been allowed to be published and now the damage is still running amuck. Be responsible Mary. Sow those ties up and go on. If your suspicions are correct, do not attack publicly and argue with the target of your investigation. What journalist does that!? If what you say is the truth, then God has a wonderful way of showing it, trust. I "personally" do not see it as the truth. At least not yet. I have looked, thought hard, questioned, and my conclusion is that your evidence is not convincing. Try again please. Try harder. Or remain quiet. Go on with your life and stop playing childish games.
I am sorry you have seen the worst of me and many would tell you these words are an anathema to my character and heart, but you created me with your Manichean view.
That is what I was trying to tell you when you were so defensive on the internet with me. If only you would begin to believe that from the bottom, or the grassroots level, there can be answers and lessons to learn. Good luck with trying to influence that grassroots level because as a constituent of that here in the Middle East, I say pathway to your direction or influence in this movement. Nor to anyone who has no conscience, morality, ethics, and common sense to separate themselves from what you represent.
Ken O Keefe is a great guy in my opinion. You and Kim were wrong to believe anyone is blindly following him. Thus you martyred him and now the truth is out and you all deserve whatever character assassination results. It is called responsibility.
Unlike you Mary, Ken and many of us are doing everything we can, willing and prepared and able, while simultaneously fighting off those who claim to be our own and that clearly are not. Character Mary, learn it!!
I have to admit I was victimized by the lunatic Kim, her accomplice in Jordan who is a burned out nut, and a Yellow journalist because I uttered the word I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU MARY RIZZO.
Now I ask the audience; despite the possibility of being ostracized, having Mary Rizzo putting your name in a blog post, people threatening your life and harassing you on the internet, being arrested on false charges, being classified as a Ken zombie, and more...who else has the courage, conscience, and intellectual fortitude to also say to the gymnophobic Mary "Fozzy" Rizzo,
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!
Try focusing on spreading love, not hate. Here is some help:
And here is a personal message to you from me. Embrace:
Articles for July 9, 2012 | Articles for July 10, 2012 | Articles for July 11, 2012