Eliminate The Terrorists Lock, Stock & Barrel
Derrick
And Individuals.... Terrorist Acts Are Crimes Against Humanity & Terrorists
Are Criminals, Period.
The terrorist attacks upon the U.S. are reprehensible, uncalled for and true
acts of war. What we Americans should not do is blindly lash out at people
of Arabic nationality--instead we should focus our retribution upon those
truly responsible. Not all Muslims are violent and "anti" American just as
not all Arab people can be assumed to be violent terrorists. Such sweeping
generalities are a mistake and just as unjust as the terrorist attacks upon
innocent civilians.
However....
Below are just a few of the groups and individuals likely responsible. Keep
in mind that what America is faced with is an empire of violence... an
empire of terror... an empire of tyranny that is bent upon destroying
Western Civilization, including the United States. Our goal should be the
total and utter destruction of this empire--complete and total. If we do
any less, this evil will come back to "haunt" us & kill more Americans...
perhaps with some sort of nuclear, chemical or biological weapon rather than
an airplane or carbomb. This is not to be tolerated.
I have one caution for America. Do not allow your freedom and liberty to be
reduced or extinguished in exchange for the false promise of better
security. Such promises have been made before, but have yielded nothing but
less privacy, less freedom and less liberty. We are still vulnerable today
& we will be tomorrow as well, even if we give up all of our freedoms for
such false assurances of security and safety.
Needless to say....
We must act decisively to eradicate this blight upon humanity. If they
successfully develop nuclear capabilities (and they are working on this as
you read this), the world will pay the price for our ignornace and inability
to uproot these people and organizations from our midst. Remember, they
(radical fundamentalist violent Muslims) think our freedom, our liberties
and ideas are "satanic" and thus are to be wiped out forever--these people
are indeed "after us" and they will not stop until either they have been
eradicated or Western Civilization is destroyed. IF WE DO NOT WIPE THEM
OUT, THEY WILL COME BACK STRONGER & TRY TO WIPE US OUT IN RETALIATION. This
must not be allowed to happen.
Thus, our choice is clear--the following people and groups must be dealt
with conclusively and QUICKLY. These people and groups have the same
diabolical and evil plans for world domination that the Nazis had--do not
discount this as a fairy tale.
This is as real as it gets....
Targets:
Osama Bin Laden (Saudi)
Jihadi Islami (Egyptian)
Yasser Arafat (PLO)
Saddam Hussein (Iraqi President)
Mullah Mohammad Omar (Taliban Supreme Leader)
Various military & intelligence factions within Syrian, Palestinian,
Iraqi,
Iranian & Afghanistanian governments.
Hamas
Hezbollah
Taliban
The PLO
Violent fundamentalist Islamic peoples/groups the world over.
--
Johnson For President: 2004-2008
Fax: (208) 730-9997
Official Campaign URL
www.geocities.com/thepresidency/
C. Pangus
"Derrick" <o...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dmpo7.7148$lE3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Kirby Urner
Dick Eastman
"Derrick" <o...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dmpo7.7148$lE3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> And Individuals.... Terrorist Acts Are Crimes Against Humanity &
Terrorists
> Are Criminals, Period.
>
> The terrorist attacks upon the U.S. are reprehensible, uncalled for and
true
> acts of war. What we Americans should not do is blindly lash out at people
> of Arabic nationality--instead we should focus our retribution upon those
> truly responsible. Not all Muslims are violent and "anti" American just
as
> not all Arab people can be assumed to be violent terrorists. Such
sweeping
> generalities are a mistake and just as unjust as the terrorist attacks
upon
> innocent civilians.
>
> However....
> Osama Bin Laden (Saudi)
> Jihadi Islami (Egyptian)
> Yasser Arafat (PLO)
> Saddam Hussein (Iraqi President)
> Mullah Mohammad Omar (Taliban Supreme Leader)
> Various military & intelligence factions within Syrian, Palestinian,
> Iraqi,
> Iranian & Afghanistanian governments.
> Hamas
> Hezbollah
> Taliban
But if you want to be sure you get the World Trade
Center terrorists, don;t omit:
Ariel Sharon and the rogue faction of Mossad that
clandestinely does his bidding.
Consider:
The Towers get hit.
The US wants to, as usual, "kick ass,"
but whose ass?
Israel has plenty of suggestions and urges
quick unthinking action.
Still the US should solve the crime before
it decides to wage the war.
Because if you adopt the "war model"
before the "crime model" you go to
war without knowing if you have the right
man.
And I say that Ariel Sharon and a rogue faction
of Mossad have more facts pointing to them as
as the prime suspects, than does Bin Laden.
Consider:
"Gweilojake" <gweil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:idPp7.692$3d2....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Gee, DICK...
>
> What bias could a Lebanese Druze spokesperson possibly have in making such
> an assertion?
No, I am making the assertion, and using information in the public sphere,
and availaible to all discussants here. It seems obvious -- if you follow
the money, if you ask qui bono? if you look at Ariel Sharon's track
record and the position he had put himself in by over reacting against
innocent Palestinian civilians for the deeds of the suicide bombers.
As to your question, I tend to believe Lebanese and Jews and Eskimos until
they give me reason to disbelieve them.
I know you can't poermit yourself to agree with me -- and I don't
blame you. I also don't blame Israel for what Ariel Sharon, who
was given his automatic weapon at too tender an age to be a rational
leader today (and I suspect his faction murdered Yitzhak Rabin -- so
he has lied to you too, my friend).
You guys better murder me, before I present real national
security issues for you, right? (That is how Sharon, would
think, n'est pas?)
>
> It is no secret that the Mossad has performed intelligence gathering for
the
> US in the region! They had issued warnings (which were summarily
dismissed
> by US "Intelligence") prior to the Rhiyadi bombings. Israel also issues
> warnings before the Dharan, Saudi Arabia bombings in 1996. Israeli
military
> also told the ground crews of US 101 Airborne helicopters preparing for
> missions in the Middle East to place sand covers over the rotors.
Warnings
> ignored, several copters failed upon takeoff. The list of "we told you
> so..." incidents are many.
>
> Please refer to the list of missing persons in connection with the WTC
> strikes. There are several Jewish names, including fund managers for the
> MAS Fund, members of the NYME, Morgan Stanley/Dean Whitter and AIG! Who
was
> the idiot who thought that there may have been a secret "nudge, nudge,
wink,
> wink" between "card-carrying Jews"? If they wanted to spare the lives of
> Jews, they would have bombed TODAY...Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.
I thought of it when I didn't see Jewish names. Then I thought that if I
worked for the CIA and I know that the CIA was going to take out the
Columbia Center in Seattle -- I would certainly betray my secrecy and
urge (without explanation, perhaps) that friends be far away on delivery
day. It was not a suspicion based on Jewishness per se, wink or no wink.
(It must seem strange to you that I am trying to find the perpetrators
as if the WTC/Pentagon thing were a crime and not a Peral Harbor.
But I do believe that it should be figured as a crime. DOn't you?
And why not?
No hard feeling. We all paly the part we are
called to play. ANd I say Mossad did it.
Consider this:
I am afraid that Mr. Sharon had more time to plan how he
would exploit September 11th than most of the world realizes,
but the truth is coming out -- and it is very hard to accept, and
it will be still harder to deal with.
Consider:
Bin Laden swares he is innocent this time -- but now it
appears that Mossad (Israel's equivalent of the CIA)
may have engineered the crashing of the WTC Towers
and the Pentagon -- either using "useful idots" or else
Israeli "fanatics" (they have them too, you know);
I know this is hard to take in. But read this:
Only a sophisticated covert operations organization could have
arranged this frame up.
It is increasingly clear that the US is being stampeeded into Arab genocide
by a very bold and unspeakable evil frame-up. Read the following and see
if you can entertain any other possibility other than that the murderers of
Yhitzak Rabin pulled off the WTC frameup.
I say this mindful that Israel will need all of the
support of the United States to keep the world
from turning on this innocent people, for the
crimes of its hardened terrorist leader -- who has
betrayed his own people by -- not his Jewishness,
but by his Machiavellianism.
I blame no Israeli for what the Mossad has done,
as I accept no responsibility for what the CIA does.
Pray for Israel, Arabs and New Yorkers. But know that
Mossad did it. (See below.)
How is Bush and the Establishment going to turn
around now that it looks like the WTC crashing
was likely the work of Mossad agents trying to
bolster sympathy for Ariel Sharon's hard line
retaliations against Palestinians for the work of
tiny groups of suicide bombers.
Now that this is a distinct possibility, will Bush have
the courage and the politicla power to backpeddle
against the Israel propaganda machine -- no American
Jew was a part of it certainly, but equally certainly,
no American Jew is going to let Israel feel the worlds
wrath for this dirtiest of all dirty tricks of modern times.
Read this:
Apparently you heard that one of those alleged terrorists
who died in the plane is alive and well and knew nothing
about these accusations.
Who sold short?
Why was the building so near empty compared
to the original estimates for that time of morning?
Why are all the victims being reported in the
New York Times gentiles of every race, but
no Jews are mentioned -- check the lists and
obituaries of the Sept. 17 edition, for example.
Why are the Jewish radio talk-show
hosts going for blood, and ALL insisting that
"there is not need to investigate or to see what
was behind this terror, or to establish a definite
link to Bin Laden etc." I must say that I have
heard no one but Jewish media people advocating
this irrational course. But why? WHy would anyone
argue someting this absurd?????
Read this:
that is interesting. But on a more serious note,
Israel's Mossad now seems to have been responsible.
It was a frame-up of the Arabs and meant to
swing back approval for Israel after Ariel Sharon
burned up most of the world's good will in his
too-broad-a-brush retailiations against Palestinaian
bystanders for the work of lone suicide bombers.
Check this:
=======================================
LONDON (September 17) - Mossad officials traveled to Washington last
month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists
was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday
Telegraph here yesterday.
=======================================
Was it Mosad, the Israeli CIA, that crashed the World
Trade Center?-- to frame their enemies and restore relative
favor to world opinion turned sour by Ariel Sharons ruthless
callous extreme-overreaction counter-terror against innocent
Palestinian bystanders. (How many Jewish names to you see
on the casualty list -- when reading the New York Times
of yesterday I saw none out of the dozens named. Or was there
really the Jewish majority you would expect, but the NYT decided
to de-emphasize this ethnic aspect of the atrocity. You tell me.
Here is the whole article:
(1) The Jerusalem Post says Mossad warned the CIA of the plot:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/News.34954.html
Jerusalem Post, Monday September 17, 2001
Mossad warned CIA of attacks - report By Douglas Davis
LONDON (September 17) - Mossad officials traveled to Washington last
month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists
was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday
Telegraph here yesterday.
The paper said the Israeli officials specifically warned their
counterparts in Washington that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly
visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." They offered no
specific information about targets, but they did link the plot to
Afghanistan-based terrorist Osama bin Laden, and they told the Americans
there were "strong grounds" for suspecting Iraqi involvement.
(2) The UsaJewish site repeats the story, but adds that Lebanon's Druze
leader Walid Jumblatt believes that Mossad itself is behind the attack
... "to provoke a new war and impoverish and occupy the Middle East,"
Jumblatt was quoted as saying.
http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=1291
(3) I checked the Jerusalem Post, and UsaJewish, for reports on American
Jews killed in the NY attack, but could find no mention of this topic.
Strange?
(4) Mossad's inside information suggests either (1) it is right that Bin
Laden is behind the attack, OR (2) that Mossad itself may be quilty.
After all, Israel had no qualms about sinking the USS Liberty, and
Israel gains greatly if it can get America to destroy Islam for it.
(5) Thus the importance of thoroughly investigating the unusual share
transactions before the attack. They offer the best way of tracking down
those responsible.
"Ken1411159" <ken14...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010916003241...@mb-ci.aol.com...
>
> http://www.honestreporting.com/critiques/2001/celebrate.jpg
>
> Israel has been facing horrendous violence and terrorism against its
> civilians in restaurants and malls and train stations and while driving on
> the roads with children having both their parents murdered and in one case
> in
> a Jerusalem restauant both parents and 3 little children were blown apart
> and
> burnt to death!!!We must not ask them to have 'RESTRAINT' when fighting
> those
> that send and fund and harbor these terrorists and today these evil wicked
> men hijacked 4 passenger planes with hundreds of civilian Americans and
used
> them as battering rams into office buildings where thousands of American
> civilians were earning their incomes for their families and themselves and
> murdered THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CIVILIANS!!!! and many in the Arab world
> actually CELEBRATED these deaths of men, women and children for 'political
> reasons'!!!!(because they want to destroy Israel and its friends)This is
not
> for a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza - Israel offered to
> withdraw from 100% of Gaza and 95% of the WQest Baqnk and part of
Jerusalem
> and a financial package for refugees and even a parcel of pre-1967 Israeli
> land for an internationally recognised Palestinian state and PEACE! and
> Arafat chose WAR FOR A YEAR NOW OVER THIS!! Its about destroying the one
> democracy in that dictatoirial region and one tiny Jewish state!!It is
> unsettling the lack of regard for human life - of their own who they
> encourage to kill themselves and of course of anyone else - including
> American civilians on passsneger plances and offices!!!!There must be NO
> RESTRAINT in eliminating the terrorists and those that harbor them and
those
> that fund and support them (by the way this would include ARAFAT)We MUST
> give
> our all in eliminating all those that together make this possible and we
owe
> it to every one of us and our families - we are all human beings!!!!We
must
> stand together against this great EVIL and then we will win!
And it was exactly that kind of desperate thinking that led
Ariel Sharon and a rogue faction of Mossad to cause the
terror bombing and disinformation operation to frame
the Arabs and Moslems so that we would take out
lots of clean-hands Iraqis, Palestines and Talibans.
Consider this:
"Gweilojake" <gweil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:idPp7.692$3d2....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Gee, DICK...
>
> What bias could a Lebanese Druze spokesperson possibly have in making such
> an assertion?
No, I am making the assertion, and using information in the public sphere,
and availaible to all discussants here. It seems obvious -- if you follow
the money, if you ask qui bono? if you look at Ariel Sharon's track
record and the position he had put himself in by over reacting against
innocent Palestinian civilians for the deeds of the suicide bombers.
As to your question, I tend to believe Lebanese and Jews and Eskimos until
they give me reason to disbelieve them.
I know you can't poermit yourself to agree with me -- and I don't
blame you. I also don't blame Israel for what Ariel Sharon, who
was given his automatic weapon at too tender an age to be a rational
leader today (and I suspect his faction murdered Yitzhak Rabin -- so
he has lied to you too, my friend).
You guys better murder me, before I present real national
security issues for you, right? (That is how Sharon, would
think, n'est pas?)
>
> It is no secret that the Mossad has performed intelligence gathering for
the
> US in the region! They had issued warnings (which were summarily
dismissed
> by US "Intelligence") prior to the Rhiyadi bombings. Israel also issues
> warnings before the Dharan, Saudi Arabia bombings in 1996. Israeli
military
> also told the ground crews of US 101 Airborne helicopters preparing for
> missions in the Middle East to place sand covers over the rotors.
Warnings
> ignored, several copters failed upon takeoff. The list of "we told you
> so..." incidents are many.
>
> Please refer to the list of missing persons in connection with the WTC
> strikes. There are several Jewish names, including fund managers for the
> MAS Fund, members of the NYME, Morgan Stanley/Dean Whitter and AIG! Who
was
> the idiot who thought that there may have been a secret "nudge, nudge,
wink,
> wink" between "card-carrying Jews"? If they wanted to spare the lives of
> Jews, they would have bombed TODAY...Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.
I thought of it when I didn't see Jewish names. Then I thought that if I
worked for the CIA and I know that the CIA was going to take out the
Columbia Center in Seattle -- I would certainly betray my secrecy and
urge (without explanation, perhaps) that friends be far away on delivery
day. It was not a suspicion based on Jewishness per se, wink or no wink.
(It must seem strange to you that I am trying to find the perpetrators
as if the WTC/Pentagon thing were a crime and not a Peral Harbor.
But I do believe that it should be figured as a crime. DOn't you?
And why not?
No hard feeling. We all paly the part we are
called to play. ANd I say Mossad did it.
Consider this:
I am afraid that Mr. Sharon had more time to plan how he
would exploit September 11th than most of the world realizes,
but the truth is coming out -- and it is very hard to accept, and
it will be still harder to deal with.
Consider:
Bin Laden swares he is innocent this time -- but now it
appears that Mossad (Israel's equivalent of the CIA)
may have engineered the crashing of the WTC Towers
and the Pentagon -- either using "useful idots" or else
Israeli "fanatics" (they have them too, you know);
I know this is hard to take in. But read this:
Only a sophisticated covert operations organization could have
arranged this frame up.
It is increasingly clear that the US is being stampeeded into Arab genocide
by a very bold and unspeakable evil frame-up. Read the following and see
if you can entertain any other possibility other than that the murderers of
Yhitzak Rabin pulled off the WTC frameup.
I say this mindful that Israel will need all of the
support of the United States to keep the world
from turning on this innocent people, for the
crimes of its hardened terrorist leader -- who has
betrayed his own people by -- not his Jewishness,
but by his Machiavellianism.
I blame no Israeli for what the Mossad has done,
as I accept no responsibility for what the CIA does.
Pray for Israel, Arabs and New Yorkers. But know that
Mossad did it. (See below.)
How is Bush and the Establishment going to turn
around now that it looks like the WTC crashing
was likely the work of Mossad agents trying to
bolster sympathy for Ariel Sharon's hard line
retaliations against Palestinians for the work of
tiny groups of suicide bombers.
Now that this is a distinct possibility, will Bush have
the courage and the politicla power to backpeddle
against the Israel propaganda machine -- no American
Jew was a part of it certainly, but equally certainly,
no American Jew is going to let Israel feel the worlds
wrath for this dirtiest of all dirty tricks of modern times.
Read this:
Apparently you heard that one of those alleged terrorists
who died in the plane is alive and well and knew nothing
about these accusations.
Who sold short?
Why was the building so near empty compared
to the original estimates for that time of morning?
Why are all the victims being reported in the
New York Times gentiles of every race, but
no Jews are mentioned -- check the lists and
obituaries of the Sept. 17 edition, for example.
Why are the Jewish radio talk-show
hosts going for blood, and ALL insisting that
"there is not need to investigate or to see what
was behind this terror, or to establish a definite
link to Bin Laden etc." I must say that I have
heard no one but Jewish media people advocating
this irrational course. But why? WHy would anyone
argue someting this absurd?????
Read this:
that is interesting. But on a more serious note,
Israel's Mossad now seems to have been responsible.
It was a frame-up of the Arabs and meant to
swing back approval for Israel after Ariel Sharon
burned up most of the world's good will in his
too-broad-a-brush retailiations against Palestinaian
bystanders for the work of lone suicide bombers.
Check this:
=======================================
LONDON (September 17) - Mossad officials traveled to Washington last
month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists
was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday
Telegraph here yesterday.
=======================================
Was it Mosad, the Israeli CIA, that crashed the World
Trade Center?-- to frame their enemies and restore relative
favor to world opinion turned sour by Ariel Sharons ruthless
callous extreme-overreaction counter-terror against innocent
Palestinian bystanders. (How many Jewish names to you see
on the casualty list -- when reading the New York Times
of yesterday I saw none out of the dozens named. Or was there
really the Jewish majority you would expect, but the NYT decided
to de-emphasize this ethnic aspect of the atrocity. You tell me.
Here is the whole article:
(1) The Jerusalem Post says Mossad warned the CIA of the plot:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/News.34954.html
Jerusalem Post, Monday September 17, 2001
Mossad warned CIA of attacks - report By Douglas Davis
LONDON (September 17) - Mossad officials traveled to Washington last
month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists
was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday
Telegraph here yesterday.
The paper said the Israeli officials specifically warned their
counterparts in Washington that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly
visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." They offered no
specific information about targets, but they did link the plot to
Afghanistan-based terrorist Osama bin Laden, and they told the Americans
there were "strong grounds" for suspecting Iraqi involvement.
(2) The UsaJewish site repeats the story, but adds that Lebanon's Druze
leader Walid Jumblatt believes that Mossad itself is behind the attack
... "to provoke a new war and impoverish and occupy the Middle East,"
Jumblatt was quoted as saying.
http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=1291
(3) I checked the Jerusalem Post, and UsaJewish, for reports on American
Jews killed in the NY attack, but could find no mention of this topic.
Strange?
(4) Mossad's inside information suggests either (1) it is right that Bin
Laden is behind the attack, OR (2) that Mossad itself may be quilty.
After all, Israel had no qualms about sinking the USS Liberty, and
Israel gains greatly if it can get America to destroy Islam for it.
(5) Thus the importance of thoroughly investigating the unusual share
transactions before the attack. They offer the best way of tracking down
those responsible.
working
AlbertR
reflect the words of a number of participants.
One moron wrote the following:
> But if you want to be sure you get the World Trade
> Center terrorists, don;t omit:
>
> Ariel Sharon and the rogue faction of Mossad that
> clandestinely does his bidding.
Now then, I've seen far out crap on this board before, but that one stands
out. Sharon would have to be completely out of his cotton picking mind to
do that.
Tell me (whoever posted that junk), exactly what on earth have you been
smoking or taking? Did you forget your meds today? Even an Arab would know
better than that.
Al
Mike Conrad
wrote:
>
>Now then, I've seen far out crap on this board before, but that one stands
>out. Sharon would have to be completely out of his cotton picking mind to
>do that.
I know little about Sharon's involvment in recent terrorism.
However, his involvement in previous terrorism, and that of the
Mossad, is beyond dispute. You might also profit by learning about
the "Samson Option" before jumping to conclusions. There's a book by
Seymour Hersh with that title. Also, let us know if you know what
secrets Pollard was passing on. These matters are all relevant to
your assertions.
Mike
Mike Conrad
4 November 2001
(London) Independent Front-Page Story:
Israeli missiles destroy three Palestinian factories
N.Y. Times Front-Page Story:
Palestinian Kills 2 and Injures 12 in Jerusalem Ambush
--------------------------
Stupidity, alas, is seldom accompanied by humility.
History shows but one alternative to nationalism: tribalism.
Paminifarm
Donot feel too bad; America isnot doing too well under Talmud rule
either.
Iran TV says at least 40 Americans killed in helicopter incident
3 November 2001
[Presenter] My colleagues inform me that we have a direct link with
our correspondent in Afghanistan Ja'farinia. Greetings Mr Ja'farinia,
we are ready for your report. Please tell us about the latest Afghan
developments.
[Correspondent] I also offer my greetings to you, Mr Baban, and the
dear viewers. The reason I contacted you is because I wanted to give
you the latest information about the two helicopters which crashed in
the Naghur [as heard] area in north of Ghazni [Province], southwest of
Kabul. First of all one American helicopter, which was bringing
personnel inside the Afghan territory, develops a technical fault and
crashes and receives a great deal of damage. Then the people and the
forces which were in the area arrive on the scene and a second
American helicopter gunship enters the area firing on the people
there. Following anti-aircraft fire that helicopter is hit. The
helicopter then crashes and is destroyed. After that American jets
arrive in the area, bomb the area and destroy the remains of the two
helicopters and the rest of the people. The current assessments are
that at least 40 to 50 Americans have been killed during the
incidents. Taleban officials have a few seconds ago confirmed what I
have just told you.
BBC Monitoring
Mike Conrad
wrote:
>
>Iran TV says at least 40 Americans killed in helicopter incident
>3 November 2001
Congratulations: you actually got the point of my post.
Share any information you have, if it's reputable.
That's what usenet is for.
Mike
SteveL
>
>4 November 2001
>
>
>(London) Independent Front-Page Story:
>
>Israeli missiles destroy three Palestinian factories
>
>
>
>N.Y. Times Front-Page Story:
>
>Palestinian Kills 2 and Injures 12 in Jerusalem Ambush
>
Ha Ha. Nice one.
It doesn't stop there. The UK Channel 4 News interviewed Bill Gates
about the deal with the Justice Dept. They really grilled him ,
hassling him about the licencing of XP, and whether including DVD
players and other freebies in XP was another example of
anti-competitiveness. I swear Gates blushed.
CNN had an interview with Bill Gates the same night. The gist of it
was "You must be really pleased to no longer have this action hanging
over your head, Mr Gates". Then they gave him free airtime to make his
case, followed by "That was Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. We'll be
back after these messages!" (Smiley face fades to black).
Mike Conrad
"You are convinced that the threat of retaliation has a deterrent
effect. I am convinced that it is more of an incitement to individual
members of the Arab forces than even what has been said by their own
governments. You are convinced that acts of retaliation will stop
further incidents. You believe that this way of creating respect for
Israel will pave the way for sound coexistence with the Arab peoples.
I believe that the policy may postpone indefinitely the time for such
coexistence ...I think the discussion of this question can be
considered closed since you, in spite of previous discouraging
experiences, have taken the responsibility for large-scale tests of
the correctness of your belief."
United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold,
Letter to David Ben-Gurion, 1956.
Quoted in Brian Urquhart, "Hammarskjold" (New York, 1972), p.157.
--------------------------
Stupidity, alas, is seldom accompanied by humility.
History shows but one alternative to tribalism: nationalism.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to pause and reflect." --Mark Twain
"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch
what they say, watch what they do" --White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
Mika
By Azmi Bishara
The Israeli army continues to pursue the objectives delineated by the
Israeli prime minister and his chief-of- staff. These include not only
the restoration of Sharon's damaged prestige but also breaking the
back of the nationalist movement embodied in the youths of the camps
and the armed bodies from all Palestinian organisations that have
resisted the occupation, without taking into consideration the
differences between the PA and the opposition. These are the
organisations of the Oslo generation, their members men and women who
grew up and came to awareness under the interim accords, under the
persistent expansion of Israeli settlements, under the Israeli army
barricades that have governed every detail of their lives and their
prospects for the future since the establishment of the PA.
This is the generation that has been deprived of that most fundamental
of freedoms, the freedom of movement. There are members of this
generation who have been unable to leave their camps or cities for a
decade; others who have never left Gaza in their lives. These are the
people targeted by the soldiers of the Israeli army, soldiers who,
after their compulsory military service are then destined for a full
year's rest and recuperation in the forests of far-off Latin America,
India and East Asia before returning to Israel to take up study in
university.
The wholesale detention of the adults and youths who generated the
resistance movement is not, then, just an attempt to save face but
aims at stifling the development of that movement -- after which the
Israeli army will withdraw, leaving in its wake yet more degradation,
rancour, hatred.
In the midst of this offensive Sharon has declared he is open to
negotiations. As long as his great retaliatory campaign is pursued at
full force, with tanks rumbling from one camp to another and from one
town to another, he is "ready to talk with the Palestinians." On
closer inspection, though, we find that his idea of talks is confined
to "negotiations for a ceasefire while a ceasefire is in progress," a
remarkable example of verbal acrobatics. Ceasefire negotiations take
place when hostilities are still in progress. Sharon's "seven days of
calm," we should remember, were never a precondition for ceasefire
talks but for entering into political negotiations. Yet Sharon took
evident pride in the fact that Peres's talks with Palestinian leaders
focused solely on a ceasefire.
So, what is new? It is difficult to say. Is Sharon manoeuvering to
gain time for his brutal campaign of repression? Or has he changed his
attitude towards negotiations? Perhaps the safest assumption is that
Sharon intends to shift his position on negotiating with the PA
gradually, all the time continuing his attempts to sap the strength of
the national Palestinian movement. In other words, he will sustain his
assault against Palestinian society and its political forces while
reassuring the world that he will get to the negotiating table in the
end.
Sharon clearly does not favour a return to the negotiating table. But
if he has to negotiate, what are his conditions and what does he want
to negotiate over? These, he hopes, are things his recent military
offences will determine. But they are also what Palestinian
steadfastness and resistance will also determine.
Under present circumstances, which underline the necessity of
sustaining the resistance, it is reasonable not to respond to Sharon's
tactic of encouraging meetings between the PA and Peres for such
meetings will lead to neither negotiations nor a ceasefire. Their
intent is to gain time. It is not, after all, just a few
misunderstandings at stake that can be cleared up in a meeting with
Peres, not one of those hurdles that can be passed via one of Peres's
formulas for circumvention. Such formulaic circumventions have, in any
case, become unpalatable.
The current conflict in Palestine is not a matter of a
misunderstandings or a lack of mutual comprehension. It is not the
result of some inexplicable slide of two sides into a spiral of
tit-for-tat violence -- such verbal constructs are contrived solely to
convey the impression of impartiality on the part of the observer. The
conflict exists because of occupation, an occupation that has entered
one of its virulent phases.
The end of the night is the blackest part, as Farid Ghanem wrote. Yet
even at this bleak hour there is no sign of any Israeli resolve to
dismantle the occupation so that it can begin to negotiate over the
conditions and time frame for ending it. Israel cannot even take the
recent Saudi Arabian peace initiative seriously. Meanwhile, the world
watches as Israel moves the lines of confrontation into every
Palestinian home the Israeli army storms. And the Palestinians' goal,
finally, is not to negotiate for the sake of negotiations but to end
the occupation. They have no objection to negotiations if negotiations
lead to that end. But they have every objection if negotiations are
turned into yet another Israeli manoeuvre to prolong the occupation.
In spite of the all-encompassing spirit of Palestinian resistance,
which has effaced the barriers between Palestinian factions, it
remains possible to delineate two general Palestinian-Arab moods. The
one that prevails views resistance as a viable, indeed the necessary,
route to ending the occupation. The second watches the spiral of
Israeli violence and Palestinian counter-violence with despair and can
imagine no other way of breaking this cycle of violence except
negotiations. Those who espouse this second view saw Sharon's recent
statement as a radical turn around and awaited Zinni's visit with
impatience.
From the perspective of the first view, the resistance is no longer
merely a reaction to brutality, and even if a change has occurred in
Sharon's position it is only due to the Palestinians' perseverance in
their resistance. Sharon's recent declarations are not, it would
follow, an indication of any practical change in his position, but
rather a signal that the Israeli army will step up its detaining of
Palestinian youths in the squares of Palestinian camps and cities.
This group also has its eyes on Zinni; but more importantly on Dick
Cheney, who refuses to meet with Arafat and who is testing the Arab
pulse preparatory to an attack on Iraq. This group suspects that
Zinni's visit is little more than window dressing while Cheney pursues
Washington's real agenda.
Sharon's recent move to use EU mediation to invite PA leaders to meet
with Peres and his recent announcement that he has dropped his
condition of seven days of calm are no more than political ruses, an
attempt to obfuscate what Sharon has set his mind upon. This is to
crush the Palestinian resistance by tormenting the entire Palestinian
populace and combing through an entire generation of Palestinians to
root out any who might harbour the flame of resistance.
This is not a policing plan intended to detain suspects on the Israeli
wanted list, as Sharon claims. He, and his chief-of-staff, know full
well that anyone they might be looking for has long gone into hiding.
And what he has unleashed is not a flash commando operation, but a
full-fledged military offensive using heavy tanks and artillery. This
is an operation intended to let the Israeli army display its mastery
of the streets by firing missiles at anyone so bold as to look out his
window to see what's going on and by blindfolding, kicking and
manhandling the Palestinian youths it has rounded up.
The Palestinians who met with Peres during this offensive should not
have done so. I also believe that the Arabs should not receive Zinni,
or only do so under certain conditions. Zinni knows as well as anyone
what is really going on. Israel is "making war on terrorists" with
whom there can be no negotiations; the Arabs want to negotiate as
though the Israeli army has not ransacked Palestinian bedrooms, blown
up ambulances and killed detainees.
Under such circumstances the question of whether or not Arafat will be
"permitted" to take part in the Arab summit is purely secondary. It is
secondary because it has no bearing on what is happening on the ground
in Palestine, just as the fact that Israel's incursion into Ramallah,
with the exception of the area around Arafat's offices, is secondary
to the fact that the leader of the occupying power has granted Arafat
freedom to move in the territories still under occupation. So even if
Israel were to allow the Palestinian president to attend the summit it
would be a cosmetic move, though one that would give the "moderate
forces" in the Arab summit a victory that spares them having to seek
anything else to boast of at the forthcoming summit, or to explore
ways of supporting the option of resistance.
Sharon's statements regarding the Palestinian president's freedom of
movement at a time when only the occupation forces are free to move
epitomise Israel's attempt to remove the Palestinian leadership from
any contexts of time and place. It is Israel's way of clarifying the
significance of the PA and Palestinian leadership under the current
circumstances. However, the Palestinian leadership has the tools at
its disposal to convey the opposite message, which is that it does not
need a licence from a brutal occupying power to move freely on its own
land.
When Israel has finished ploughing through Palestinian territories and
forcing the Palestinian resistance to its knees it will welcome
ceasefire negotiations. Then it will let Arafat travel to the summit,
where some Arabs are bound to praise the move as a "breakthrough."
That is how they will market the results of the Israeli military
campaign -- as though it were a victory.
There is, though, only one answer to Sharon's desperate bid to break
the spirit of resistance and that is to support the resistance. This
is the only means to defeat Sharon and his chief-of-staff. If the
Arabs agree to Sharon's conditions for returning to the negotiating
table in the wake of this appalling offensive, Europe will cheer and
the US will congratulate Sharon on his success. But if the Arabs
rallied behind the resistance and stood against the onslaught of
Israel's tanks, Europe would have to reaffirm the need to explore a
just political solution and the US would have to blame Israel for the
impasse, counsel it again against recourse to the option of war and
tell it to shorten its occupation of Palestinian cities.
Azmi Bishara is a Palestinian activist and a member of the Knesset.
Mika
By Norman Solomon
Cameras have recorded countless defining moments. And six months after
Sept. 11, some nightmarish televised glimpses of that day's horrors
still resonate deeply. Visual images are powerful. Yet there's no
substitute for words that sum up what might otherwise seem too
ambiguous, upsetting or baffling. Words attach meaning to events.
Since last fall, the biggest media buzz-phrase has been "the war on
terrorism." By now, journalists are in the habit of shortening it to
"the war on terror" -- perhaps the most demagogic term in recent
memory.
Present-day reporting is locked into a zone that excludes unauthorized
ironies. It simply accepts that the U.S. government can keep making
war on "terror" by using high-tech weapons that inevitably terrorize
large numbers of people. According to routine news accounts, just
about any measures deemed appropriate by top officials in Washington
fit snugly under the rubric of an ongoing war that may never end.
Irony, while hardly dead, is mainly confined to solitary reflection.
If insights run counter to the prevailing dogma, then access to
mainstream media is fleeting or nonexistent. The need for independent
thought has never been greater.
At this point, facile phrases about war on "terrorism" or "terror" are
written in invisible ink on a blank check for militarism. They can be
roughly translated as "pay to the order of the president" -- to be
cashed with a lot of human blood.
The grand media outlets are so entangled in the current newspeak that
they rarely seem capable of presenting any fundamental challenge to
the White House. At the same time, a smattering of news outlets --
far from the centers of journalistic power -- refuse to dodge the task
of raising key questions.
A daily paper in Florida made a profound statement on March 2. "The
nation's loyalty is turning into groupthink," the Daytona Beach
News-Journal editorialized. "How else explain a president who, playing
on the war's most visceral slogan, gets away with justifying an
obscene corporate tax cut as 'economic security,' a build-up of
defense industry stock as 'homeland security,' and an exploitative
assault on the nation's most pristine lands as 'energy security'? How
else explain his contempt for Congress, his Nixonian fixation on
secrecy, his administration's junta-like demeanor in Washington since
September?"
The notably forthright editorial pointed out that "without robust
dissent, democracy might as well pack up and head for the hills." And
it accurately described the status quo of March 2002 in the USA: "This
is not unity. It's not patriotism. It's stupor."
At once foggy and focused, the media lexicon of self-justification
rolls on. By implicit definition, Washington's actions against
"terrorism" can only be righteous -- and a penumbra of virtue extends
to Uncle Sam's allies. That helps to explain why, in the daily
drumbeat of reporting from the Middle East, the Israelis who shoot are
engaged in "security" operations while the Palestinians who shoot are
"gunmen."
Almost without exception, in U.S. news reports about the
back-and-forth violence, exculpatory words like "retaliation" are
reserved for deadly Israeli actions, not deadly Palestinian actions.
It's a typical element of style for American journalism: Israelis
"retaliate." Palestinians don't.
The media spin is exceedingly kind to the occupiers. When Israeli
onslaughts take civilian lives, that's not "terrorism." When Israel
sends tanks and aircraft to attack Palestinian neighborhoods or
refugee camps in the West Bank or Gaza, that's merely an "incursion."
Meanwhile, American taxpayers are financing massive new Pentagon
ventures, with troops and weaponry deploying overseas from Afghanistan
to Georgia to the Philippines. To boast about waging war against
"terror" by terrorizing is a no-brainer only in the sense that our
brains must be on automatic pilot in order to nod approval.
A little more than a year ago, at the first World Social Forum in
Porto Alegre, Brazil, the Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano
commented that our societies suffer from "fear of solitude ... fear of
dying, fear of living." The dominant trends encourage passivity.
"Quietism is based on fear." And: "The system presents itself as
eternal. The power system tells us that tomorrow is another word for
today."
Currently, that's more true than ever. Promised a perpetual "war
against terror," we face a parallel media war without end. It's a
propaganda siege that must be resisted -- because truly open debate is
essential to democracy. As Galeano observed: "There is no greater
truth than search for truth."
That search, positively endless and necessarily difficult, stumbles
over manipulative language. Words are pivotal for keeping us in this
mess. And words may be crucial for getting us out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive
Media."
-------------------------------
Despite occasional legal contention about the propriety of Israeli
agents torturing defenseless Palestinian prisoners, the practice never
ends. Let's face it: israelis and their partisans *enjoy* these
crimes. 9-11 was a tiny bit of recompense for the people who finance these
offenses against humanity: the American taxpayer.
"American taxpayers, who continue to fund the occupation despite the
reprehensible deeds carried out to keep it in place, are witting
accomplices of the interrogators who torment bound prisoners and the
Israeli government that permits it" -- Stephen J. Sosebee
Huggy Bear
news:3ca3e719....@news.starpower.net...
>the Arabs want to negotiate as
> though the Israeli army has not ransacked Palestinian bedrooms, blown
> up ambulances and killed detainees.
And the Palestinians expect the world to accept their terrorist attacks on
innocent civilians as justified, but no one is buying that.
> When Israel has finished ploughing through Palestinian territories and
> forcing the Palestinian resistance to its knees it will welcome
> ceasefire negotiations. Then it will let Arafat travel to the summit,
> where some Arabs are bound to praise the move as a "breakthrough."
> That is how they will market the results of the Israeli military
> campaign -- as though it were a victory.
It will be a victory. The Palestinians and specifically Arafat have brought
this on themselves. I agree with what Sharon is doing, but I would go even
further and kill Arafat and all of his henchmen this time, along with
rounding up everyone else who associates with them.
Let the Arab countries make their threats. They won't do shit because the
only use they have for the Palestinians is to use them as pawns to do their
dirty work.
--
Huggy Bear
No, I'm not Jewish but I've seen enough to convince me that the Palestinians
deserve a serious ass-kicking.
Mika
<hugg...@NOzeroSPAM.xx> wrote:
>No, I'm not Jewish but I've seen enough to convince me that the Palestinians
>deserve a serious ass-kicking.
You're not a bear. You're a sheep. And you're stupid enough to
believe everything spoon-fed to you by your (jewish) media.
Bob Rogers
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:13:34 -0800, "Huggy Bear"
><hugg...@NOzeroSPAM.xx> wrote:
>
>>No, I'm not Jewish but I've seen enough to convince me that the Palestinians
>>deserve a serious ass-kicking.
>
>You're not a bear. You're a sheep. And you're stupid enough to
>believe everything spoon-fed to you by your (jewish) media.
Surely you jest, Mika. Everyone know our media are paragons of honesty
and completely unbiased...
The best yet on the media is this little tidbit, written by someone
else, but right on the button; "A simple test. Name all the major
media outlets in America which are controlled by Arabs. Then name the
major media outlets in America which are *not* controlled by Jews.
Shouldn't take too long."
Huggy Bear
news:3ca503e1...@news.cet.com...
> The best yet on the media is this little tidbit, written by someone
> else, but right on the button; "A simple test. Name all the major
> media outlets in America which are controlled by Arabs. Then name the
> major media outlets in America which are *not* controlled by Jews.
> Shouldn't take too long."
If you refer to them as the "liberal elite" then I'll agree with you, but
anyone who whines about the American media being run by Jews is either an
Arab or a fucking Nazi.
--
Huggy Bear
Bob Rogers
are you trying to say 'whiners' are Arab's or Nazi, or that Jews don't
control nearly all the major media ? If the latter I'd be glad to give
you a run down, chapter and verse of who controls what.
>
>--
>Huggy Bear
>
>
>
>
>
Huggy Bear
> are you trying to say 'whiners' are Arab's or Nazi, or that Jews don't
> control nearly all the major media ?
Both
>If the latter I'd be glad to give
> you a run down, chapter and verse of who controls what.
Spare me. I'm well aware of who owns what. I don't agree with the control
part. The major media are owned by huge international corporations and they
only have one god -- MONEY.
When you say the media are controlled by Jews, the implication is that they
are somehow acting in concert because they are Jews. That's racist bullshit.
--
Huggy Bear
Dharmadeva
What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixed
Traditionally economics is the study of how scarce resources are or should
be allocated. In particular, it has involved themes such as choices,
trade-offs, markets, prices, information, needs, behaviour, satisfaction,
business, government, growth and poverty, and more recently the environment
and sustainability. Conventional economics focuses mostly on the following
themes:
· Choices and opportunity costs
· Power of the market
· Making decisions at the margin
· Distribution of income and wealth
· Private choices vs public choices
· Risk and uncertainty
This demonstrates that most economists today only understand something of
the principles of general economy and something of commercial economy. The
inequitable distribution of wealth and resources seen in the world today
must demonstrate that even these parts are still in an undeveloped state.
The study of people's economy and psycho-economy are totally unknown to
modern economists, and as such find no place in the present mode of economic
thinking.
A brief outline of what conventional economists focus on is given below.
The potential scope of what could be considered under these heading is also
discussed, should economists seek to broaden their worldview. Immediately
one can see that the scope of what is presently considered in economics is
very limited, although it certainly is fundamental to economics. However,
the application of a narrow outlook has had diabolical impacts on many
cultures and people of the world. To remedy this shortcoming economics
needs to find a set of foundation principles that are universal in character
and allow economics to be applied for the happiness and all-round welfare of
all of society's members.
· Choices and opportunity costs
In conventional economics, choices and trade-offs are thrust to the centre
of analysis. Associated with all choices are trade-offs. It is true that
trade-offs involve considering and choosing between alternatives in
producing goods and services, in marketing, in investment and savings, in
economic management and in the consumption of goods and services.
However, it is not the case that people have a real option to consider
between alternatives. Where there is no economic democracy, the potential
opportunities (or opportunity cost of what is forgone by a limited choice)
cannot bear fruition and cannot be known or ascertained. Generally, in
economics, the opportunity cost of any option is the amount of other goods
and services which could have been obtained instead of any particular good
or service. Practically, it is the benefits foregone from an alternative.
Capitalism, being materialistically oriented, prevents and creates
hindrances for people understanding subtle aspects of life. As capitalism
focuses only on material increases in living as determined by how much
individuals can accumulate (given that capitalism is concerned with private
property and private enterprise), society will miss out on, or forego,
maximum utilization of metaphysical and spiritual potentialities or these
will take on a degraded meaning for further material accumulation and
exploitation. In this regard there will also be loss of physical
potentialities. Many choices are being made unavailable to the people as a
result.
· Power of the market
A market is supposed to help coordinate decisions and act to allocate goods
and services amongst buyers. Efficient markets are supposed to convey
information and send signals to producers, traders and consumers. Today,
markets pervade every person's life on this planet. Historically, many
markets were established through colonial exploitation in which exploiters
first captured a new market area and then gained control of all the raw
materials available in that area through monopoly rights. They then exported
raw materials and produced finished goods out of the raw materials in their
own factories at home within their own region, only to sell the finished
goods back to the people in the occupied market. Accordingly, this
exploitation results in getting double opportunities to misappropriate
wealth - the exploiters deceive the local population while procuring their
raw materials at cheap rates, and then they sell their finished products in
the same markets at exorbitant prices.
The affects of such colonialism has never been properly or fully addressed
for indigenous cultures around the world and in those countries where
attempts at recompense, rectification or reconciliation have been made, it
has largely resulted in thrusting the indigenous cultures into the
capitalist market place in which limited social and cultural choices are
available. By capturing the local market, colonial exploiters succeeded in
totally destroying the local industrial system. This legacy persists today
and as a consequence many local economies have not been able to develop
wholistically or self-sufficiently. The only development open to them is to
export their raw materials and, in any case, this is all controlled, managed
and owned by multinational corporations who, in essence, adopt the same
approach as the colonial exploiters. Often, these raw materials will be
exported to other countries in which indigenous cultures have also suffered
and as a result of which there are cheap and easily exploited labour forces.
Essentially, today the players in market places are powerful corporations.
Such markets lack proper equipoise and equilibrium with the social and
cultural needs of the people, let alone people's needs in many areas of the
world for basic minimum necessities (eg, food, clothing, medical treatment,
housing and education). To obtain equipoise and equilibrium at the physical
level requires that markets be incorporated as part of local or block level
or regional planning in a decentralized economic democracy.
Demand and supply are important factors in the functioning of markets.
Proper planning requires that the physical demand of the day and physical
demands of the foreseeable future are to be assessed and organised. As well,
the physical supply of the day and the physical supply of the foreseeable
future are to be organised and ensured. The demand function relates to
people's purchasing power (or consumer income), price level and prices of
other goods, family circumstances and natural conditions such as weather
conditions. The supply function or factors which determine level of supply
relates to price of goods, cost of labour, prices of other services and
intermediate products required for production of goods, the number of firms
engaged in producing a product, and levels of capital equipment or
technology.
Where outside controllers such as multinational corporations are in charge
of making assessments of demand and supply in a local economy, the local
economy will always becomes uncertain in such circumstances. Many factors
intrinsic to, or human aspects of, that economy will be ignored. Further,
the foreseeable future of the local economy and community remains doubtful
of consideration and, as stated above, it is both the immediate and
foreseeable future demand and supply which must be assessed, organised or
ensured. The best judge of that is the local community provided it does not
have resources, knowledge or decision-making denied to it. Equity for
future generations of that community will not then fail and the society will
be able to build its culture, rather than be at the whims of economic
decision makers in far away corporate offices.
Capitalism, does not allow for the local community to make the required
assessments of demand, to organise the demand and supply or to ensure the
supply of goods and services to the local community. Democracy is lost in
such circumstances. To grant economic democracy, supply has to be through
local/regional consumer cooperatives and other cooperative structures for
commodities or factors of production. It is essential that money be
circulated within the local markets and that local capital is not extracted
at the whims of global financiers who have no regard to local needs but only
to profiteering for themselves or wealthy clients. For the demand function
to operate properly in the local economy people's income will have an upward
trend for the local people and not be stifled by income going to outside
multinational corporations to lift their global profits. Purchasing power
is only capable of continuously increase for all people under a system of
economic democracy involving local decision-making, local planning and local
cooperative structures and ownership through which to carry out commercial
activity. No economic system in the world has been able to continuously
increase the purchasing power of the people, because economic power is
concentrated in the hands of a few.
· Making decisions at the margin
Economics often is concerned with making decisions at the margin. This
involves considering incremental change and assessing strategies accordingly
that is, reformist change. In macroeconomic management, generally, the
questions for policy makers are when and how to tinker with various policies
and instruments at the margin. Capitalism has not allowed for fundamental
revolutions to occur in economic thinking and in economic management.
Generally, decisions are based on incremental change or marginal analysis.
The reformist approach is to go slowly but in reality it is intended to
allow the process of exploitation to continue. The welfare of the society is
not what counts. What matters to these reformists is that they only want to
perpetuate the capitalist system and to temporarily satisfy people's
frustrations by bringing about incremental patchwork improvements.
While marginal analysis remains relevant to both micro and macro economics,
there should first be a fundamental rethink about what economics is about.
The economy and its principles should first be founded on a solid base.
Essentially, this means that the minimum requirements of an age should be
guaranteed to all through adequate purchasing capacity. One way that
marginal analysis then becomes important is in determining how that
purchasing capacity can be ever increasing and then how surplus wealth
should be distributed amongst meritorious persons according to the degree of
their merit as assessed by their social contributions, and their needs so as
to allow them to further contribute to society. Identical distribution to
each person can never be achieved. However, guaranteeing the minimum
necessities to all can be achieved. From there, increasing the minimum
standard of living of people must be and is an indication of the vitality of
society. Increasing wealth disparity for the many and accumulation and
hoarding by a few indicates the dysfunction of society and the mental
disease of the accumulators.
· Distribution of income and wealth
The social and economic objective should be to put an end to hoarding excess
wealth. This cannot be accomplished through reformist means. Rather,
society requires a mechanism by which local economies and people, or the
collective body, has a say in wealth accumulations and approvals of
distribution of wealth and income. This can only come about through a
cooperative decentralized economy. Economic activity and control is
currently centralized in the hands of powerful multinationals and their
controllers (which are certainly not the ordinary shareholders).
The wealth of individuals affects their choices in all areas of life.
Inequity (the opposite of equity) strips people of control, decision-making
and input into their community. A dynamic economy should operate so as to
lead people from a base or crude everyday existence to one which is subtle,
expansive and elevating. Then will the aspirations of people be satisfied.
For that to occur there must be: psycho-spiritual education and
understanding (otherwise society will be balkanised or divided and
antagonistic); rule by moralists (ethical leadership based on universal
outlook); a balanced socio-economic structure (integration of economic,
social and cultural aspirations through decentralized economic democracy);
and ever-increasing purchasing power (so as to guarantee minimum
requirements of life and ensure equity in wealth distribution)..
The truth of the matter today, is that the world can be divided into two
groups: the `haves' and the `have nots'. To say that 80 percent of the
people of the world have only 20 percent of the resources is a reasonable
approximation to reality. Indeed it is probably the case that closer to 10
percent of the world owns 90 percent of the resources and earns 90 percent
of the income. If you are in the group of `haves' you tend not to worry
about the other 90 percent. This situation actually results in
underproduction and unemployment, eg, 80 percent of production may only be
for 20 percent of the people so that the capacity to satisfy the needs of
the other 80 percent of people remains idle as does labour, human capital
and other inputs.
It is the crude attributes or propensities of humans that leaves people
destitute. Accordingly, it is vital that in an omni-dynamic social
philosophy and socio-economic movement there be utilization of
psycho-spiritual potentialities and understanding supported by an integral
moral outlook and ethical leadership. However, economics as it is known
today has not dealt with social, moral and ethical questions. Economics
today lacks the concept of people's economy and psycho-economy which would
deal with social, moral and ethical issues. The sub-discipline of people's
economy which is directly concerned (amongst other things) with the
guaranteed provision of minimum requirements like food, clothes, housing,
medical care, education, transportation, energy supply and water needs to be
developed by economists as does the sub-discipline of psycho-economy which
deals with tendencies of mind which affect economic activity and behaviour
such as greed, insecurity, tastes, compassion and subtle values, as well as
consciousness raising. Once the level of consciousness and awareness, in
not only the socio-economic and ethical affairs of society, is raised but
also spiritual awareness is increased this will have a profound effect on
foreseeable future production and demand and supply of types of goods and
services.
Simply guaranteeing freedom in the socio-economic sphere does not
necessarily mean that there will be liberty in the psycho-economic sphere.
The intellectual ability of the people and awakening of conscience has to be
attained through the liberation of their intellect which is fundamentally a
psycho-spiritual pursuit moving from the crude to the subtle and elevating
aspects of life. If the hunger of the human mind does not seek mental and
spiritual elevation it becomes engaged in accumulating more wealth than what
it requires in the mundane world, thereby depriving others of their share of
wealth. Those who exploit human beings to serve their own self-interests do
not want socio-economic freedom to be granted to people, let alone
psycho-economic freedom. Not only do they exploit people in the social and
economic spheres but also in the psycho-economic sphere so that people are
totally unaware of it, and members of society are unable to develop their
constructive efforts to raise their consciousness. Manipulation of the mass
media such as the radio, television and newspapers is a typical example.
For there to be full utilization of every resource in this universe,
economics must develop universal principles and practices to enable maximum
utilization and rational distribution of all mundane, supramundane and
spiritual potentialities of the universe and maximum utilization of
physical, metaphysical and spiritual potentialities of the unit/individual
and collective bodies of human society.
· Private choices vs public choices
An integral economic outlook leads to the understanding that the wealth of
the universe is the common property or patrimony of all, though no two
things can ever be absolutely equal. The question then turns to the
appropriate usufructuary rights to be granted to members of society or to be
approved by the collective decision making bodies of society. A theme that
runs through conventional economics is that there is a distinction between
private choices and public choices or the private sector and the public
sector. Much of this is an artificial divide.
If you are deciding how best to spend your weekly income, then that is a
private choice. If the government is deciding how best to raise taxes and
to support the management of national parks, then that is a public choice.
However, we know that individual businesses and private operators may do
things which spill over and hurt the public at large. When colonisers of
last century and early this century hunted wildlife to extinction, they were
making private choices which affected all the people or the public of the
area or country, and the opportunity of placing value on seeing rare
wildlife in its natural habitat or retaining wildlife, even if only for its
existential value was lost, and this affected the public interest. For this
reason governments had to intervene. This is just one example, but there
are many instances where it is necessary to have some government
intervention so that externalities (eg external social costs or diseconomies
that damage other people or the environment and which are not paid for or
remedied by those carrying on the activity) do not arise or are properly
dealt with.
Much of what goes on now in terms of policy and law to solve this tends to
be reactive. No proper system has been put in place to inherently thwart
private choices taking precedence over public or collective good. Rather
society is demarcated into the private sector and public sector and in some
instances the two are at odds with each other, or business and capitalist
interests feels it has to contend with, or out manoeuvre, public regulators.
Furthermore, even the private sector is demarcated into the owners of
capital or enterprise and the workers (whether manual or intellectual) who
have little say in their workplace roles (particularly when it comes to
economic, social and cultural matters).
A new paradigm in terms of industry and business structures is called for.
What is needed is a three-tiered economic structure which is integrated and
involves small scale privately owned businesses, medium to significant scale
cooperative enterprises and large scale key industries managed by the
immediate or local government. In such a structure key industries remain in
public control and small scale businesses are allowed to exist for
efficiency gains, while everything else is carried out through cooperative
enterprises in which workers feel part of their working environment with a
shareholding interest. Such an economic structure should be based on the
principles of self-reliance, maximum utilization, rational distribution,
decentralization, and progressive increases in the standard of living of all
people.
Key industries comprise vital resources which every member of the public has
right of access to and utilization of. These must never be put in the hands
of capitalists. However, if the time comes or parts can be operated on a
cooperative basis, the cooperatization of such industries or aspects of them
may be possible. The management of key industries is the direct
responsibility of the local or most immediately relevant government and
appointees are basically stewards or trustees of society's resources. Key
industries should run on a no-profit and no-loss basis (after taking into
account costs such as research and development, depreciation, repair,
maintenance and any other costs which may be amortised or involve
replacement expenditure or provision for contingencies such as disasters).
The supply of water is a good example as is the national electrical grid and
main cables for telephone networks.
If the key industry enterprise does make a profit this can always be given
back as a rebate or discount to consumers. Through proper accounting and
insurance arrangement (eg for disasters) it would be unlikely that the key
industry should have to radically raise prices in case of unforeseen events.
The type of electricity outages and shortfalls as seen in California
recently should not arise in a publicly managed enterprise as everyone has a
public interest in the enterprise, so that there is greatly accountability
and vigilance. It is only when capitalists treat these enterprises as their
own for profit's sake, and create artificial shortages, that decisions
against that public interest are likely to arise.
In this sort of structure, the cooperative enterprises are also better
serviced. The dichotomy of worker vs owner, which is an unnecessary
inefficiency in business structuring is removed through the cooperative
model. The owner-worker polarity is divisive and imposes significant costs
on the community and consumers. If an objective of economic activity is to
create effective and efficient production, distribution chains and markets,
then any divisive or fissiparous tendencies should be removed as these only
add to costs at the end of the day.
Costs will be reduced, and effectiveness and efficiency will increase,
through the spirit of coordinated cooperation, for only that can ensure the
healthy, integrated progress of humanity. The cooperative system is
essential to establish such unity. Commodities which are essential
collective requirements, such as food (the most important commodity),
clothing, housing, education and medical care, should be cooperatively
produced. In this regard, a sharp distinction must be drawn between
cooperatives and communes. Communes involve centralized control of the
economy and without a sense of worker ownership. Cooperatives, on the other
hand, will be enterprises with worker ownership and bonuses. A variety of
participative forms can be envisaged, depending on the nature of the
cooperative, eg consumer cooperatives may function differently to producer's
cooperatives or banking cooperatives or superannuation and pension funds.
Whatever, the participative form may take the sense of involvement and
economic rights currently snatched away in the capitalist system must take
predominance. Generally, this will be through allocation of shares in the
cooperative.
Some commercial activities are too small to be run as a cooperative. In
such a case, small private business holdings are the preferred means of
production of goods and services. Of course, if businesses expand involving
more than the closest relatives or associates, for the sake of ensuring the
curbing of capitalist tendencies cooperatization is to be followed.
Under this three-tiered structure, the notion of private ownership assumes
no real predominance or importance. Today, private ownership is generally a
myth as many small businesses are struggling and in debt and the say in
other economic enterprises is non-existent, even with shareholdings. Often
shareholdings are merely to allow for input of funds to be controlled by
others who have no association with the immediate community, region or
country and so place the livelihood of the community at risk. The
three-tiered structure instead allows people to resume cooperative ownership
which also gives them a sense of personal ownership as they can prosper from
dividend distributions and/or returns from their labour. The cooperative
can also assume responsibility for their well-being at times of illness or
retirement by proper integration with other cooperatives specialising in
these functions. The key industries will also allow access by cooperatives
to relevant resources at appropriate prices rather than over-inflated prices
which is an immoral practice for something that is basically a public
resource or infrastructure.
Many antagonistic dichotomies or divisions can be removed by this
three-tiered structure, in particular that of private vs public and owners
vs workers, as well as the elimination of the haves and have-nots.
· Risk and uncertainty
Risk and uncertainty will always be an element in life, both individual and
social and some element of risk arises from any choices, markets, and the
economy. Ordinarily risk is seen as a hazard or a chance of a loss.
Unscrupulous people will also place society's well being at risk through
selfish activity.
Economics catering for the welfare of all reduces the risk of insecurity
considerably.
Lack of security in society leads to the disintegration of society itself.
Economics bears a responsibility for minimizing or eliminating the risk of
social disintegration. If security in society is to be maintained there
must be no economic injustice. Economic injustice is usually the result of
lack of appreciation of the dignity of labour. This is solved through the
implementation of a cooperative system. Occupational distinctions in
society also lead to economic injustice where one occupation is used to set
itself against others, eg management dictated by corporate ideologues
inconsiderate of the financial situations of its workers. Again the
cooperative system can remedy this by allowing for election of managers by
those having shares in the cooperative. It will solve the principal-agent
problem which involves how management can be motivated to act for the
benefit of the cooperative or firm (and therefore cooperative members)
rather than for management's own interests.
Economic injustices also come about because of the hording instincts of
human beings. People want property only for themselves and confine their
mental proclivities and horizons in such a way that it is detrimental to
their spiritual elevation. The cooperative system ensures appropriate
sharing and equitable wealth distribution. In all countries where democracy
is in vogue people have been deceived into believing that capitalism is an
efficient and effective allocator of resources, while in reality the right
of economic and social equality has been snatched away. Consequently, there
is gross economic disparity between the rich and the poor, irrational
distribution of wealth, immense inequality in the purchasing power of the
people, unemployment, chronic food shortages, poverty and insecurity in
society.
A progressive approach to economics will seek to minimize the risk of social
disintegration, instead of merely looking at risk taking in terms of profit
outcomes or the pursuit of accumulation of wealth. Through a proper focus,
an understanding of the consequences of social risk must be gained by
economists.
Naturally, ongoing adjustments are necessary in any economy and society and
in use of resources at all levels, and the method of utilization will vary
as per changes in circumstances. What is important is that these be
progressive in nature. By progressive is meant that universal principles
can adjust and establish parallelism in accordance with the changes in time,
space and person. This is to be judged by whether changes and adjustments
achieve a positive psychic flow in the collective psychology. For example,
has there been a progressive availability of the maximum amenities of life
and minimum necessities to all to satisfy physical needs, so that the
satisfied physical needs lessen the physical obstacles which inhibit human
progress and so that human beings can experience all-round development,
especially in the intellectual stratum, as well as the spiritual.
Conventional economics may attempt to answer questions such as how changing
transport and communications technologies alter the optimal location of
homes, work and optimal routes for commuters in a neighbourhood (where
optimal is considered as providing the best results relative to costs), but
does not have the tools to consider all round social welfare. This is
because of a lack of a sound foundation or intuitive principles and an
appreciation of what is happiness.
Intuitive economic principles for the good and happiness of all
Corruption has by no means ceased in free markets. Instead in many
instances it has become legitimised. Examples abound of large business
interests receiving the corporate dole through subsidies and relocation
incentives while unwilling to act by their own stamina. Or of chief
executive officers receiving tens of millions of dollars in salary each year
as a reward completely disproportionate to effort and at the same time the
corporation, that the CEO is responsible for, seeks the lowest wages it can
pay to workers in third world countries. Economists do not agree amongst
themselves about the foundations of their discipline. There are those
economists in the 'Chicago school of thought' who believe that the
unfettered market place is the best means of resolving important private and
public choices. An opposite view is that of the 'neo-Keynesians' who
believe that considerable intervention in markets by government is required
to counter the power of large corporations and to provide appropriate safety
nets in society because without the preservation of a base the private
sector will fail to appreciate the broader needs of society and will only be
profit-oriented.
Most countries in the world - whether capitalist or communist - have adopted
the policy of economic centralization. The economies of the capitalist
countries are centralized in the hands of a few capitalists or a few
capitalist institutions. The economies of the communist countries are
centralized in the hands of the party. To assess the standard of living of
a country, the main issue is whether or not economic exploitation has been
eradicated and the common people have been guaranteed ever-increasing
purchasing capacity. The fact is that in a centralized economy there is no
possibility that economic exploitation can ever be eradicated or that the
economic problems of the common people can ever be permanently solved.
Furthermore, history reveals that in the past economies have declined
because of environmental damage, eg rivers drying up or changing course,
deforestation and desertification. Also, the decline in small-scale, rural
or local industries has destroyed the balance of economies of many regions.
In addition, a defective educational and social system can destroy economic
equilibrium by giving free scope to capitalists.
A developed economy should consist of four parts: people's economy,
psycho-economy, commercial economy and general economy. This quadro-division
of economics is a vast expansion on contemporary conceptions of economic
activity. This involves planning on a devolved basis starting at the block
or local level. Such an economy aims to achieve all-round development and
welfare of the human society in a progressive manner. In a balanced economy
there is a close relationship between the economic prosperity of people and
their psychic and cultural development. Improving individual and collective
life depends upon the all-round welfare of people. In capitalist economies
local people do not develop a sense of self-confidence in their economic
activities, and through this mental weakness the community becomes an easy
victim of economic and psycho-economic exploitation by vested interests.
Capitalists also degrade themselves by their materialistic orientation and
mental obsession with objects that are finite and which can never provide
them with an inner sense of happiness and psychic well-being
The overall well-being of society is to be achieved by a decentralized
economy which will bring about economic prosperity as well as ensure greater
opportunities for the psycho-spiritual elevation of all members of society.
In centralized economies there is no possibility for the economic liberation
of the people. To make democracy successful, economic power must be vested
in the hands of the local people and the minimum requirements of life must
be guaranteed to all through adequate purchasing capacity.
For this, fundamental socio-economic principles must be adopted that are
immediately appealable to the human psyche and which satisfy the aspirations
of all people while elevating society so that the human consciousness is
capable of evolving to a higher level. This does not mean that what
economists currently focus on needs to be abandoned. What is does mean is
that a deep intuitive understanding is required which is developed through a
deeper knowledge of the human mind and spirit. The PROgressive Utilization
Theory or PROUT as propounded by P R Sarkar is such a theory and part of it
formulates socio-economic principles upon which policies and practices may
be developed in a progressive way so that the all-round welfare of all
people is attained and fortified in any age or era.
The relevant socio-economic principles of PROUT that must be adhered to in
this regard (and which have formed the basis of the above discussion) are as
follows:
· Diversity, not identity, is the law of nature.
· The minimum requirements of an age should be guaranteed to all.
· The surplus wealth should be distributed among meritorious people
according to the degree of their merit.
· Increasing the minimum standard of living of the people is the
indication of the vitality of society.
· No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth
without the clear permission or approval of the collective body.
· There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of all
mundane, supramundane and spiritual potentialities of the universe.
· There should be maximum utilization of the physical, metaphysical
and spiritual potentialities of unit and collective bodies of human society.
· There should be a proper adjustment amongst these physical,
metaphysical, mundane, supramundane and spiritual utilizations.
· The method of utilization should vary in accordance with changes in
time, space and person, and the utilization should be of progressive nature.
Progressive thinkers and activists need to consider the practical
implications of these principles. Good people of the world cannot fail to
ignore them. Any step, no matter how small, towards their implementation in
the short, medium or long run can surely cause no harm to any person or
society, but will only elevate the human condition.
--
'The main characteristic of PROUT-based socioeconomic movements
is that they aim to guarantee the comprehensive, multifarious
liberation of humanity.' P R Sarkar
PROUT - PROgressive Utilisation Theory
http://www.proutworld.org http://www.prout.org
New Renaissance: A Journal for Social and Spiritual Awakening:
http://www.ru.org
Bob Rogers
There's nothing racist about it. Its political, and its called
Zionism. The Zionist movement in this country is unbelievably powerful
and effective, and few Jews, anywhere, are capable of withstanding its
pressure. You yourself admit to who owns what, a large percentage of
which are Jewish, and the social, political, and religious pressure
applied on them by the Israeli/Zionist lobby can be tremendous. I take
it you have few if any Jewish friends willing to go into it.
Tempest
Are you sure you have the time?
It's a pretty extensive list.
And don't forget the pornography, they have their hands deep in that
too.
> >
> >--
> >Huggy Bear
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
"If the Lord can see his way clear to bless the Republican Party the way
it's been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even
asking" - Will Rogers, 1928
Tempest
Huggy Bear wrote:
>
> "Bob Rogers" <bro...@cet.com> wrote in message
> news:3ca62fd6...@news.cet.com...
> > are you trying to say 'whiners' are Arab's or Nazi, or that Jews don't
> > control nearly all the major media ?
>
> Both
>
> >If the latter I'd be glad to give
> > you a run down, chapter and verse of who controls what.
>
> Spare me. I'm well aware of who owns what. I don't agree with the control
> part. The major media are owned by huge international corporations and they
> only have one god -- MONEY.
And the international corporations are run by MEN.
And they have TWO Gods, money and power. And you do understand that
power equates to control, don't you?
> When you say the media are controlled by Jews, the implication is that they
> are somehow acting in concert because they are Jews. That's racist bullshit.
Sure, play the race card. The last refuge of a scoundrel.
You do know why Hitler made the Jews into the enemy of the German
people, don't you?
If not, I recommend you read up on German history from 1925 to 1934.
Huggy Bear
news:3CA65E23...@hotmail.com...
> Sure, play the race card. The last refuge of a scoundrel.
That's a good one. I'm not the one accusing the Jews of controlling the
media.
> You do know why Hitler made the Jews into the enemy of the German
> people, don't you?
Oh boy, here we go...
> If not, I recommend you read up on German history from 1925 to 1934.
Please, tell me more. I love this Nazi talk.
--
Huggy Bear
Huggy Bear
> There's nothing racist about it. Its political, and its called
> Zionism. The Zionist movement in this country is unbelievably powerful
> and effective, and few Jews, anywhere, are capable of withstanding its
> pressure. You yourself admit to who owns what, a large percentage of
> which are Jewish, and the social, political, and religious pressure
> applied on them by the Israeli/Zionist lobby can be tremendous. I take
> it you have few if any Jewish friends willing to go into it.
The Jews are a powerful lobby but so are the religious right, organized
labor, gun owners, gun control, pro-life, pro-choice, oil companies,
farmers, defense contractors, alcohol industry, law enforcement, etc. etc.
etc.
I have a few Jewish friends. They range from liberal to conservative. They
support Israel in much the same way that the Hispanics I know tend to
support policies favorable to Latin America. Big deal.
--
Huggy Bear
Bob Rogers
>Please, tell me more. I love this Nazi talk.
>
You might want to be a little careful in referring to 'Nazi talk'.
This is from the Israeli daily newspaper Ma'ariv, quoting an Israeli
general; "If our job is to seize a densely packed refugee camp or take
over the Nablus casbah, and if this job is given to an officer to
carry out.... he must before all else analyze and bring together the
lessons of past battles, even - shocking though this might appear - to
analyze how the German army operated in the Warsaw ghetto."
I think we all know what he's saying; the Palestinians should be
treated as the Jews were in Warsaw in 1944. Butcher them all.
Stupendous Man
Peace would have broken out long ago.
Stupendous Man—Enemy of Terrorism
A real, confirmed danger for the White House:
Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning. "A
person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified
themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to
protect the White House at all costs.' "--New York Times 2001-10-16
Mika
<hugg...@NOzeroSPAM.xx> wrote:
>
>The Jews are a powerful lobby but so are the religious right, organized
>labor, gun owners, gun control, pro-life, pro-choice, oil companies,
>farmers, defense contractors, alcohol industry, law enforcement, etc. etc.
>etc.
Note on all these issues save one, you will find legitimate debate in
the American media. That should tell you something.
>
>I have a few Jewish friends. They range from liberal to conservative. They
>support Israel in much the same way that the Hispanics I know tend to
>support policies favorable to Latin America. Big deal.
And indeed, the U.S. has sponsored a tremendous amount of state
terrorism in Latin America, and some of it may come back to haunt us
one day as on 9-11.
Mika
>You do know why Hitler made the Jews into the enemy of the German
>people, don't you?
Hmm. Maybe because they declared war on the Reich?
Mika
Indeed. Was a courageous genius who wrote those words :)
Meanwhile, no one has managed to address them much less refute them.
Huggy Bear
> I think we all know what he's saying; the Palestinians should be
> treated as the Jews were in Warsaw in 1944. Butcher them all.
He's not saying "butcher them all". That's your biased interpretation of
what he said.
But I'll say butcher them all. They intentionally target and kill innocent
civilians in a pathetic effort to achieve political goals. They are raising
their next generation to carry on in that tradition, and so they must be
exterminated.
If they want to survive, they better stop teaching their children that it's
OK to kill innocent civilians. If they want respect and have their
grievances addressed by the West, then they should face their enemies like
men and not cowards.
--
Huggy Bear
Tempest
Mika wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:29:13 -0800, "Huggy Bear"
> <hugg...@NOzeroSPAM.xx> wrote:
> >
> >The Jews are a powerful lobby but so are the religious right, organized
> >labor, gun owners, gun control, pro-life, pro-choice, oil companies,
> >farmers, defense contractors, alcohol industry, law enforcement, etc. etc.
> >etc.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the second largest lobbying group in
the U.S. (next to the Jewish lobby), AARP.
>
> Note on all these issues save one, you will find legitimate debate in
> the American media. That should tell you something.
>
> >
> >I have a few Jewish friends. They range from liberal to conservative. They
> >support Israel in much the same way that the Hispanics I know tend to
> >support policies favorable to Latin America. Big deal.
>
> And indeed, the U.S. has sponsored a tremendous amount of state
> terrorism in Latin America, and some of it may come back to haunt us
> one day as on 9-11.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Despite occasional legal contention about the propriety of Israeli
> agents torturing defenseless Palestinian prisoners, the practice never
> ends. Let's face it: israelis and their partisans *enjoy* these
> crimes. 9-11 was a tiny bit of recompense for the people who finance these
> offenses against humanity: the American taxpayer.
>
> "American taxpayers, who continue to fund the occupation despite the
> reprehensible deeds carried out to keep it in place, are witting
> accomplices of the interrogators who torment bound prisoners and the
> Israeli government that permits it" -- Stephen J. Sosebee
--
Tempest
Don't you suppose if they were treated as equals, and not second class
people to be exploited, that they would be less inclined to turn to
terrorism?
Just think of what would happen if the U.S. gave some of the $3 billion+
that goes to Israel to the Palestinians. I bet they would be a lot more
grateful and tolerant.
The Palestinians have no control over travel, water, housing or work in
their own areas. Israel, for the most part, controls all of it.
I wouldn't be happy about it either.
Bob Rogers
"biased interpretation".... ? what in god's name do you think went on
in that Warsaw ghetto back in 1944...? or do you even know HOW to
think.
And what in god's name do you think the Israelis have been doing to
Palestinian civilians, if not killing them ? and by far greater
numbers than those killed by the Paleatinians ! good Christ... even
Israeli army personnel have testified to the deliberate shooting, by
snipers, of children as young as seven years old.
Mika
<hugg...@NOzeroSPAM.xx> wrote:
>
>He's not saying "butcher them all". That's your biased interpretation of
>what he said.
>
>But I'll say butcher them all.
Then you can blame yourself for the next terrorist attack on your
country.
Mika
>
>"biased interpretation".... ? what in god's name do you think went on
>in that Warsaw ghetto back in 1944...? or do you even know HOW to
>think.
>
>And what in god's name do you think the Israelis have been doing to
>Palestinian civilians, if not killing them ? and by far greater
>numbers than those killed by the Paleatinians ! good Christ... even
>Israeli army personnel have testified to the deliberate shooting, by
>snipers, of children as young as seven years old.
And not to mention the endless torture deaths of Palestinians...
Eric Salmassy
wrote:
>Let's pretend for a moment that the Arabs had made as many concessions as
>the Israelis.
>
>Peace would have broken out long ago.
Nice fiction.
The view from the other side:
Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just
not prepared to compromise?
The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the
Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic
Palestine (23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN
partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able
to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22%. The overwhelming
majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely
generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians
were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions
in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make
compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental
rights or the viability of their state.
Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that
Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?
Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and
re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in
1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has
yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist.
The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in
1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant
policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in
occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian
Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the
signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including
those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do
indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be
a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a
weaker party.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/faq.htm
Mika
wrote:
> The Palestinians do
>indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be
>a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a
>weaker party.
This is precisely why the policies of the United States are the root
of the problem. A jewish-controlled media and a bought-and-paid-for
political class are the enemies of world peace at the moment. What
should be done about them?
>
>http://www.wrmea.com/html/faq.htm
Huggy Bear
> Don't you suppose if they were treated as equals, and not second class
> people to be exploited, that they would be less inclined to turn to
> terrorism?
>
> Just think of what would happen if the U.S. gave some of the $3 billion+
> that goes to Israel to the Palestinians. I bet they would be a lot more
> grateful and tolerant.
>
> The Palestinians have no control over travel, water, housing or work in
> their own areas. Israel, for the most part, controls all of it.
>
> I wouldn't be happy about it either.
I know they have legitimate grievances, but because they use terror no one
in the West is listening. They don't deserve any consideration until they
stop the targeting of innocent civilians. If they would confine their
attacks to military targets they might get the rest of the world to pay
attention instead of just dismissing them as terrorists.
Likewise, anyone who condemns Israel without also condemning the Palestinian
suicide bombings shouldn't expect others to give their viewpoint any
consideration.
If you negotiate with terrorists you legitimize the use of terror as a
tactic. Then there will be more terrorism around the world, not less.
--
Huggy Bear
Huggy Bear
> "biased interpretation".... ? what in god's name do you think went on
> in that Warsaw ghetto back in 1944...? or do you even know HOW to
> think.
The statement you posted referred to specific tactics and was not an
endorsement of everything the Germans did in Warsaw. Just because you've
read what you want into it doesn't make your assessment correct. I'd say
you're the one who can't think clearly.
> And what in god's name do you think the Israelis have been doing to
> Palestinian civilians, if not killing them ? and by far greater
> numbers than those killed by the Paleatinians ! good Christ... even
> Israeli army personnel have testified to the deliberate shooting, by
> snipers, of children as young as seven years old.
Israelis don't target innocent civilians. That's not to say it hasn't
happened in some isolated cases, but it is not their state policy. That's in
sharp contrast to the Palestinians who INTENTIONALLY target civilians as a
matter of policy. That policy is expressed from the top of their leadership
on down and is constantly repeated in all their media and taught to their
children.
I have to laugh every time I hear people whining about the mistreatment of
Palestinians as if it were happening in a vacuum. I don't give a shit if the
Israelis torture prisoners or if their snipers pick off a few kids throwing
rocks and I won't give a shit till the Palestinians stop the terror
campaign.
Same thing when we have terror attacks in the US. I don't care what the
motivation is or whether the US is right or wrong. All I'm going to care
about is killing all terrorists as efficiently as possible. I don't want
innocent Americans killed, but if that's the price we have to pay to put an
end to terrorism then so be it. The terrorists think we won't take many
causalities before crying "uncle" but they are very wrong about that. They
will only enrage us and we will kill them all.
--
Huggy Bear
00:00:00Hg
<Tem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don't you suppose if they were treated as equals, and not second class
> people to be exploited, that they would be less inclined to turn to
> terrorism?
Equals? After 10,000 years if they have not made the grade
is this not a failure of evolotion?
I have a question. How many things has "Allah" done in the name of man?
How many things has "God" done in the name of man.
You see, we all need to schedule a fight between God and Allah and
let the bastards duke it out while we, man, sits back and watch, make
side bets, and enjoy the show.
We can get Jesus Christ for a ring side announcer.
Budda can peddle hot dogs and cokes to the fans.
All the other Gods can have various concessions.
Yep. We mankind need to reverse things and get these half assed
Allah's and I Am's off their lazy butts and put the bastards to
work for our entertainment, now we for theirs.
Your God is a piece of shit and coulden't fight his way out of
a wet paper bag. My God on the other hand can kick your
God's ass all over heaven and hell and back again.
Care to try and sick your God on my God?
No, of course not, you are too fucking stupid to do that.
You must defend your God from me, a simple man.
You must protect him from me. I am a threat to your
God and he is defenseless aganst me so the big pussy
needs you to do his fighting for him.
Speaking of Tanks, anyone remember Tiniman Square?
One man standing in front of a great big tank. I submit
that, that man's balls were bigger than all the Arabs and
Jews balls put together.
Tempest
Without mercy: Israelis execute Arafat's elite guards
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Ramallah
Sunday March 31, 2002
The Observer
The ambulancemen were carrying the first body out of the Cairo-Amman
bank in the centre of Ramallah when I came across them. His knees were
doubled up in rigor mortis. One of the legs of his green parachute
jumpsuit had been burned through to the skin by a round fired at such
close quarters that the muzzle flash had ignited the fabric. A gaping
wound was visible in his chest - also apparently from a burst of fire
from close range. What killed him, however, was the gunshot to his
temple.
A few minutes later, the paramedics brought the second body, that of a
young man, also in Yasser Arafat's elite guard unit, Force 17. Someone
had taken off his boots, revealing his blue socks. The wounds that he
had obviously been clutching when he died were also to his upper body.
But what must have killed him, like his colleague, was a shot fired at
close range to his temple that had demolished the back of his head.
The third body was of an older man, in his forties, grey-haired with a
moustache. Someone had pulled his parachute suit above his head to hide
the wound. When the stretcher-bearers put him down, the covering was
pulled back. The wound was to the head.
What happened on the third floor of the Cairo-Amman bank at midnight on
Friday during Israel's occupation of the Palestinian city of Ramallah
can only be surmised. But in the few minutes after Israeli soldiers
stormed the Palestinian position, five men were wounded and five men
were put to death by the Israelis, each with a single coup de grace
administered to the head or throat.
Maher Shalabi, bureau chief of Abu Dhabi television in Ramallah, was in
his office in the same building when he heard several bursts of heavy
shooting on the floors below. 'I heard heavy shooting; maybe it was an
exchange of fire. But I believe this was an execution.'
Hassan Asfour, a senior Palestinian negotiator, added: 'They were
executed in cold blood. This is a clear example of the collective
execution policy adopted by the Israeli government against the
Palestinian people.'
According to local residents, the dead men were part of a large group of
Palestinian policemen who had taken shelter in the building, which also
houses the offices of the British council, when the Israeli army entered
Ramallah. The men had taken shelter in the foyer area on the third
floor next to a dentist's surgery. Yesterday bullet holes spattered the
walls and the floor was flecked with blood. On one wall were large
splashes of blood. Elsewhere several bloody trails had been marked along
the floor where someone had pulled the bodies towards the lift.
An Israeli army spokesman said soldiers entered the building after
Palestinians opened fire from inside and threw a grenade at the force
outside. The coups des graces administered for these five men are a
metaphor for what the Israeli incursion is hoping to achieve inside
Ramallah. By isolating Arafat within his headquarters, Sharon hopes to
decapitate the Palestinian Authority.
Yesterday, inside Arafat's compound, it was clear that, for all the
claims of Ariel Sharon, Arafat was neither under threat nor under
arrest. Arafat, simply, was surrounded by the Israelis. As we
approached the compound we could see the tanks and armoured personnel
carriers ringing his sprawl of offices and barracks. On every side were
soldiers taking positions and aiming their weapons.
Approaching closer the Israeli army tried to prevent us following a
delegation from the Palestinian solidarity movement into the compound,
led by José Bové, the French farmers leader and anti-globalisation
protester.
In a surreal touch Bové and his colleagues had marched through the ruins
of the town, even as fighting continued. With hands above their heads,
and carrying palm fronds as Easter symbols of peace, they approached
Arafat's compound with two columns of heavily armed Israeli infantry
jogging the last few hundred metres behind.
Seeing Bové, who had marched through the town with a small group of
fellow protesters bearing a tray of medicines for those still injured
inside Arafat's compound, the soldiers relented and let us enter with
him and approach the offices where Arafat was holed up.
Crossing a large car park we could see a three-storey block, its walls
splattered with tank fire, two windows blackened by fire with sheets
hanging where the occupants had tried to escape the flames. I followed
Bové to the entrance to the offices where Arafat was hiding but was
grabbed from behind by an Israeli soldier and pulled away. Arafat may
not be a prisoner but it is the Israelis who choose who goes to see the
Palestinian chairman.
On every corner yesterday stood Israeli tanks. The devastation that
these tanks have wrought inside the Palestinians' most attractive city
has to be seen to be believed. Roads have been dynamited or torn up by
tanks. Buildings are burned and shattered. Everywhere there is rubble,
spent ammunition and broken glass. A little later, I met Hossam
Sharkawi and Mohamed Awad, two senior officials in the Palestinian Red
Crescent who I had met before.
Sharkawi, a co-ordinator for emergency services, told me the Israelis
had arrested five of his drivers. 'They have them blindfolded and
handcuffed. I cannot understand what the Israelis are thinking. They
also used one of our ambulances today as a human shield. They sandwiched
it inside a convoy.'
Sharkawi was able to reveal something of life inside Arafat's compound.
'We know there are injured inside,' he said. 'But they have been
blocking ambulances entering to give treatment.' How many injured he
could not say.
'All that we hear is that there may be between 50 and 100 people trapped
with Arafat inside the building, without food, or water or any
electricity and no telephone communication.' He shook his head and
walked away.
Bob Rogers
I don't give a shit if the
>Israelis torture prisoners or if their snipers pick off a few kids throwing
>rocks and I won't give a shit till the Palestinians stop the terror
>campaign.
You know, given enough time and effort, you have the potential of
becoming merely an inhuman idiot instead of what you are now.
Huggy Bear
> You know, given enough time and effort, you have the potential of
> becoming merely an inhuman idiot instead of what you are now.
At least I don't condone or try to justify the INTENTIONAL killing of
innocent civilians. What does that make you? Are you even aware of the fact
that Arafat always talks peace in English and then calls for more terror
attacks in Arabic, or do you excuse that as well?
If the world ever plunges into the abyss of constant terror attacks, you and
the other folks like you will be responsible. That's because you are willing
to reward terrorists by giving them what they want.
Arafat should have taken the deal that was offered a while back. Even though
it wasn't everything he wanted, he could have taken that deal and continued
to negotiate for the rest. Over time the Palestinians could have proven to
everyone that they can have their own state and not be a threat to Israel.
That would have made it impossible for Israel to justify holding on to the
rest of the disputed areas.
Instead, as usual they do the wrong thing. They think they can force
concessions with a terror campaign, but all they've done is invite
retaliation which they then cite as justification for more terror attacks.
Israel sees that it has no choice but to destroy as much as it can of the
terror network. Meanwhile, lots of people will complain about the
"invasion", but no one is going to lift a finger to provide any real help to
the Palestinians.
If the Arab world is so upset about all this, let them put up or shut up.
Arafat is begging them for help and if they weren't so gutless they would
attack Israel with an army instead of just financing the terror. They have
more than enough money to buy all the military hardware they need to match
or beat any assistance the US provides to Israel. They won't though, because
they know they would get their asses kicked by Israel, and besides it's in
their interest to keep things the way they are.
--
Huggy Bear
Mika
wrote:
> Speaking of Tanks, anyone remember Tiniman Square?
> One man standing in front of a great big tank. I submit
> that, that man's balls were bigger than all the Arabs and
> Jews balls put together.
This person apparently has not seen any photos of Palestinian children
standing up to Israeli tanks. Why? Controlled media.
Mika
If Americans didn't have a media controlled by the Chosen People, and
a legislature bought and paid for, they'd stop supporting and
financing Israeli terror, and Israelis would have to learn to live
peaceably within their borders, and terrorism would not be a problem
for anyone.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:58:35 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Tanks, anyone remember Tiniman Square? One man standing
>> in front of a great big tank. I submit
>> that, that man's balls were bigger than all the Arabs and Jews
>> balls put together.
>
> This person apparently has not seen any photos of Palestinian children
> standing up to Israeli tanks. Why? Controlled media.
Yep. Controlled media. Like when children and women are gathered
to throw rocks while hidden behind them are snipers fireing at
Israelis thus drawing their fire so that children and women are
caught in a crossfire and hit. Yes, there are the cameras placed
by Palestinian "authorities" and what is in sight, the women and
children, are broadcast to the world... but the hidden Palestinian
snipers evade the eye of the camera. No different to die by gunfire
or by blowing oneself up. They get media attention. They see to that.
They are masters at it, the Palestinians.
Mika
wrote:
>In article <3ca7c799....@news.starpower.net>, "Mika" <Mi...@usa.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:58:35 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Tanks, anyone remember Tiniman Square? One man standing
>>> in front of a great big tank. I submit
>>> that, that man's balls were bigger than all the Arabs and Jews
>>> balls put together.
>>
>> This person apparently has not seen any photos of Palestinian children
>> standing up to Israeli tanks. Why? Controlled media.
>
> Yep. Controlled media. Like when children and women are gathered
> to throw rocks while hidden behind them are snipers fireing at
> Israelis thus drawing their fire so that children and women are
> caught in a crossfire and hit.
You've imbibed too much propaganda. Show me a single photo of a child
being chased by a tank in the controlled media.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> If Americans didn't have a media controlled by the Chosen People,
Coca Cola? Pepsi? McDonalds? Disney? Microsoft?
> and a
> legislature bought and paid for,
Damn straight! The bastards cost a fortune in upkeep.
> they'd stop supporting and financing
> Israeli terror,
You seem to forget one thing, little cricket, We Americans have
this thing called the IRS which extracts those taxes aganst our will.
We have no choice but to pay or face incarceration in prison.
> and Israelis would have to learn to live peaceably
> within their borders, and terrorism would not be a problem for anyone.
Has your momma failed to tuck you in lately? You seem
insecure and in need of the world to behave in a utopian
way so that your nightmares will go away.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
>> Yep. Controlled media. Like when children and women are gathered
>> to throw rocks while hidden behind them are snipers fireing at
>> Israelis thus drawing their fire so that children and women are
>> caught in a crossfire and hit.
>
> You've imbibed too much propaganda. Show me a single photo of a child
> being chased by a tank in the controlled media.
>
Huh? Is English your second language?
Mika
Palestinians
From Australia’s Sunday Mail
Sunday, March 31 2002 @ 12:47 AM GMT
RAMALLAH, West Bank: Porn movies and programs in Hebrew are being
broadcast by Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian
television stations of Ramallah, irate residents of the besieged West
Bank town have told AFP.
The offices of three local television and radio stations were occupied
by soldiers yesterday morning, a few hours after tanks and hundreds of
troops stormed the town in Israel's biggest offensive against the
Palestinian Authority and its leader Yasser Arafat.
The soldiers started broadcasting the porn clips -- considered
extremely offensive by most Palestinians -- intermittently this
afternoon from the Al-Watan, Ammwaj, and Al-Sharaq channels, the
residents said.
"The pornographic movies started on Al-Watan television at around 3:30
pm," one 34-year-old Palestinian mother named Reema told AFP.
"I have six children at home, they have nowhere to go with what is
going on here and can't even watch TV," she said angrily.
Anita, a 52-year-old mother of three children, complained about "the
deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts".
"I am furious, these are the people who are shooting at us that also
play this disgusting trick on us," she said.
"We are desperate for news and constantly flipping channels and get
these terrible pictures instead," adding that videos of the intifada
were also shown backwards with "ideal terrorism" written in red across
the screen.
"Luckily, there is no electricity in half of Ramallah," she said from
her house in east Jerusalem where the channels are also available.
A fourth local station, whose premises were not seized by the army,
ran a written message across its screen letting people know it was the
Israelis who were behind the graphic scenes.
"Anything currently shown on Al-Watan and other local TV channels has
nothing to do with Palestinian programs but is being broadcast by the
Israeli occupation forces, we urge parents to take precautions," the
message said.
From Australia’s Sunday Mail
Mika
Sunday, March 31 2002 @ 12:37 AM GMT (The Times of London)
By Melissa Kite
LONDON: The wife and daughter of Lord Levy, Tony Blair's Middle East
envoy, put their names yesterday to a statement by British Jews
accusing Israel of oppressing the Palestinians.
Lady Levy and Juliet Levy were among 300 prominent Jews who signed a
statement in the Jewish Chronicle calling on Israel to withdraw from
the occupied territories. Lady Levy said she had signed the statement
in a personal capacity.
"I happen to believe in what it says. My views on both Britain and
Israel are known to be on the Left. What is happening now is a
disaster," Lady Levy told the Chronicle.
The television personality Esther Rantzen and the actress Miriam
Margolyes are among the other signatories to the statement, which
declares: "The moral foundation of the Jewish state is being destroyed
by the occupation." It calls on Israeli Government to act unilaterally
to dismantle settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
While Lord Levy himself did not sign, the fact that his family have
endorsed it will not go unnoticed. The Levy family have a home in
Israel and close ties with the country.
Lord Levy, who has been the linchpin in Britain's efforts to revive
the Middle East peace process by representing Mr Blair in talks with
Israeli and Palestinian leaders, is often referred to as the minister
for the Middle East. The statement may act to boost Lord Levy's
standing in the region, where some senior Palestinians regard him as
too close to the Israeli Government.
(The Times of London)
Mika
"Lies Leaders Tell When They Want to Go to War"
By Robert Fisk (The Independent)
How much longer can Ariel Sharon pretend that he's fighting in the
"war against terror"? How much longer are we supposed to believe this
nonsense? How much longer can the Americans remain so gutlessly silent
in the face of a vicious conflict which is coming close to obscuring
the crimes against humanity of 11 September? Terror, terror, terror.
Like a punctuation mark, the word infects every Israeli speech, every
American speech, almost every newspaper article. When will someone
admit the truth: that the Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a
dirty colonial war which will leave both sides shamed and humiliated?
Just listen to what Sharon has been saying in the past 24 hours.
"Arafat is an enemy. He decided on a strategy of terror and formed a
coalition of terror." That's pretty much what President Bush said
about Osama bin Laden. But what on earth does it mean? That Arafat is
actually sending off the suicide bombers, choosing the target, the
amount of explosives? If he was, then surely Sharon would have sent
his death squads after the Palestinian leader months ago. After all,
his killers have managed to murder dozens of Palestinian gunmen
already, including occasional women and children who get in the way.
The real problem with Arafat is that he has a lot in common with
Sharon: old, ruthless and cynical; both men have come to despise each
other. Sharon believes that the Palestinians can be broken by military
power. He doesn't realise what the rest of the world learned during
Sharon's own 1982 siege of Beirut: that the Arabs are no longer
afraid. Once a people lose their fear, they cannot be re-inoculated
with fear. Once the suicide bomber is loose, the war cannot be won.
And Arafat knows this.
No, of course he doesn't send the bombers off on their wicked missions
to restaurants and supermarkets. But he does know that every suicide
bombing destroys Sharon's credibility and proves that the Israeli
leader's promises of security are false. Arafat is well aware that the
ferocious bombers are serving his purpose - however much he may
condemn them in public.
But he - like Sharon - also believes his enemies can be broken by
fire. He thinks that the Israelis can be frightened into withdrawing
from the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem. Ultimately, the
Israelis probably will have to give up their occupation. But the Jews
of Israel are not going to run or submit to an endless war of
attrition. Even if Sharon is voted out of power - a prospect for which
many Israelis pray - the next Israeli prime minister is not going to
negotiate out of fear of the suicide bomber.
Thus the rhetoric becomes ever more cruel, ever more revolting. Hamas
calls its Jewish enemies "the sons of pigs and monkeys", while Israeli
leaders have variously bestialised their enemies as "serpents",
"crocodiles", "beasts" and "cockroaches". Now we have an Israeli
officer - according to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv - advising his men to
study the tactics adopted by the Nazis in the Second World War. "If
our job is to seize a densely packed refugee camp or take over the
Nablus casbah, and if this job is given to an (Israeli) officer to
carry out without casualties on both sides, he must before all else
analyse and bring together the lessons of past battles, even -
shocking though this might appear - to analyse how the German army
operated in the Warsaw ghetto."
Pardon? What on earth does this mean? Does this account for the
numbers marked by the Israelis on the hands and foreheads of
Palestinian prisoners earlier this month? Does this mean that an
Israeli soldier is now to regard the Palestinians as sub-humans -
which is exactly how the Nazis regarded the trapped and desperate Jews
of the Warsaw ghetto in 1944?
Yet from Washington comes only silence. And silence, in law, gives
consent. Should we be surprised? After all, the US is now making the
rules as it goes along. Prisoners can be called "illegal combatants"
and brought to Guantanamo Bay with their mouths taped for semi-secret
trials. The Afghan war is declared a victory - and then suddenly
explodes again. Now we are told there will be other "fronts" in
Afghanistan, a spring offensive by "terrorists". Washington has also
said that its intelligence agencies - the heroes who failed to
discover the 11 September plot - have proof (undisclosed, of course)
that Arafat has "a new alliance" with Iran, which brings the
Palestinians into the "axis of evil."
Is there no one to challenge this stuff? Just over a week ago, CIA
director George Tenet announced that Iraq had links with al-Qa'ida.
"Contacts and linkages", have been established, he told us. And that's
what the headlines said. But then Tenet continued by saying that the
mutual antipathy of al-Qa'ida and Iraq towards America and Saudi
Arabia "suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible?"
"Suggests?" "Possible?" is that what Mr Tenet calls proof?
But now everyone is cashing in on the "war against terror". When
Macedonian cops gun down seven Arabs, they announce that they are
participating in the global "war on terror". When Russians massacre
Chechens, they are now prosecuting the "war on terror". When Israel
fires at Arafat's headquarters, it says it is participating in the
"war on terror". Must we all be hijacked into America's dangerous
self-absorption with the crimes of 11 September? Must this vile war
between Palestinians and Israelis be distorted in so dishonest a way?
stvfrmco
"Mika" <Mi...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3ca7f2f0....@news.starpower.net...
So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on in
Israel? We in the West have seen one pro-Western nation (or outpost) after
another go down in flames -- from Rhodesia to South Africa to Hong Kong to
Southwest Africa to the Canal Zone and on and on. At least the Israelis
believe in the nation state and are not giving up without a fight. Why is
it that we in the West get to decide and pick and choose which is the next
pro-Western country that gets sold out by those who live in Europe or the
U.S.? I see a lot in common between Israel fighting for its life and what
Europeans and Americans are going to face in the not-too-distant-future.
Israel facing the Palestinians is like California facing the Mexicans.
Already California is losing the demographic battle to remain a Western,
American state -- if we punish Israel and force the Israelis to give in to
terrorists then we may as well be prepared to give up the Southwestern
United States to Mexico. Are you prepared to do that?
SteveL
wrote:
>
>So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on in
>Israel?
That was as even-handed an article on the mid-east as I've seen.
Trouble with some in this group (not saying you) is that to even
suggest that there *are* two valid sides to this argument is to be a
Palestinian apologist, or even anti-semitic.
>We in the West have seen one pro-Western nation (or outpost) after
>another go down in flames -- from Rhodesia to South Africa to Hong Kong to
>Southwest Africa to the Canal Zone and on and on.
Err. Hong Kong was leased from the Chinese and the lease expired. The
Canal Zone was leased from Panama and the lease expired. Neither have
"gone down in flames", nor lost their "Pro-Western" status. Surely
your not suggesting the US or Britain should have just kept them
regardless of the law?
Rhodesia and South Africa did not succumb to anti-western forces. They
finally succumbed to the will of the *majority* of their own people.
And again, they remain pro-western. Mugabe's despotism doesn't take
away from that fact.
> At least the Israelis believe in the nation state
They sure do. So much so they keep trying to grow it.
>and are not giving up without a fight. Why is
>it that we in the West get to decide and pick and choose which is the next
>pro-Western country that gets sold out by those who live in Europe or the
>U.S.? I see a lot in common between Israel fighting for its life and what
>Europeans and Americans are going to face in the not-too-distant-future.
>Israel facing the Palestinians is like California facing the Mexicans.
>Already California is losing the demographic battle to remain a Western,
>American state -- if we punish Israel and force the Israelis to give in to
>terrorists then we may as well be prepared to give up the Southwestern
>United States to Mexico. Are you prepared to do that?
>
The Palestinians are hardly the demographic issue. They are indigenous
to the region at least. The people in power in Israel, by and large,
are immigrants or are first or second generation Israelis. If you're
fond of seeing demographic analogies to California, then see the
Israelis as the *Mexicans*.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> March 30, 2002
>
> "Lies Leaders Tell When They Want to Go to War" By Robert Fisk (The
> Independent)
>
> How much longer can Ariel Sharon pretend that he's fighting in the "war
> against terror"?
For as long as George Bush pretends 'he' is fighting terror.
>How much longer are we supposed to believe this
> nonsense?
Ho much longer will you not believe it?
> How much longer can the Americans remain so gutlessly silent
> in the face of a vicious conflict which is coming close to obscuring the
> crimes against humanity of 11 September?
We are not silent. We have spoken loudly.
>Terror, terror, terror. Like a
> punctuation mark, the word infects every Israeli speech, every American
> speech, almost every newspaper article.
You know mr reporter, you are a dumbfuck.
> When will someone admit the
> truth: that the Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a dirty
> colonial war which will leave both sides shamed and humiliated?
>
May the flies on shit fill your nostrils.
> Just listen to what Sharon has been saying in the past 24 hours. "Arafat
> is an enemy.
Fucking A! That lying ragheaded sand nigger sack of camel shit
is the enemy of the entire world. But mostly, he is the Satan of
Islam. Islam owes it's demise to him.
>He decided on a strategy of terror and formed a coalition
> of terror."
Yes, Arafat did just that.
>That's pretty much what President Bush said about Osama bin
> Laden.
Osama Bin Islam fucker. A little fly buzzin in the shit of Allah.
> But what on earth does it mean?
It means you are a stupid dupe trying to influence minds
to follow your lead. If you were not headed to hell in heat
like a bitch whore with PMS, a few, very few psycopaths
might follow you.
>That Arafat is actually sending
> off the suicide bombers, choosing the target, the amount of explosives?
Of course he did, does, will do. In fact he may even fuck the
little tenage girls personally so his seed will be spread over
the target as the little girl's flesh is dispersed when she
detonates herself.
> If he was, then surely Sharon would have sent his death squads after the
> Palestinian leader months ago.
You really are a stupid manapulative fucker born of the bile of satan
> After all, his killers have managed to
> murder dozens of Palestinian gunmen already, including occasional women
> and children who get in the way.
Yeah, you let slip the truth you ignorant pig rectum.
"murder dozens of _Palestinian_gunmen_"
What do they need the guns for? Defense? Yeah, right.
:
>
> The real problem with Arafat is that he has a lot in common with Sharon:
Death.
> old, ruthless and cynical; both men have come to despise each other.
> Sharon believes that the Palestinians can be broken by military power.
> He doesn't realise what the rest of the world learned during Sharon's
> own 1982 siege of Beirut: that the Arabs are no longer afraid.
Arabs are most puke ridden sorry assed backward inbread
excuses for human beings on the entire planet.
>Once a
> people lose their fear, they cannot be re-inoculated with fear. Once the
> suicide bomber is loose, the war cannot be won. And Arafat knows this.
Arabs are nothing but concentrated fear. They hide like rats,
fight like little girls, and pay hommage to camel piss.
> No, of course he doesn't send the bombers off on their wicked missions
> to restaurants and supermarkets. But he does know that every suicide
> bombing destroys Sharon's credibility
There, you have admitted it for the whole world to see. No he dosent
send them but he sure as the sun shines condone, support, finance,
and provide everything they need to die for "HIM" HE, the great
Arafat, God of self imposed diety.
> and proves that the Israeli
> leader's promises of security are false. Arafat is well aware that the
> ferocious bombers are serving his purpose - however much he may condemn
> them in public.
Founds like some sort of God complex to me.
Arafat, the Rev Jim Jones of Arabia.
>
> But he - like Sharon - also believes his enemies can be broken by fire.
> He thinks that the Israelis can be frightened into withdrawing from the
> West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem. Ultimately, the Israelis probably
> will have to give up their occupation. But the Jews of Israel are not
> going to run or submit to an endless war of attrition. Even if Sharon is
> voted out of power - a prospect for which many Israelis pray - the next
> Israeli prime minister is not going to negotiate out of fear of the
> suicide bomber.
>
> Thus the rhetoric becomes ever more cruel, ever more revolting. Hamas
> calls its Jewish enemies "the sons of pigs and monkeys", while Israeli
> leaders have variously bestialised their enemies as "serpents",
> "crocodiles", "beasts" and "cockroaches". Now we have an Israeli officer
> - according to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv - advising his men to study the
> tactics adopted by the Nazis in the Second World War. "If our job is to
> seize a densely packed refugee camp or take over the Nablus casbah, and
> if this job is given to an (Israeli) officer to carry out without
> casualties on both sides, he must before all else analyse and bring
> together the lessons of past battles, even - shocking though this might
> appear - to analyse how the German army operated in the Warsaw ghetto."
And what was the fate of Germany.
> Pardon? What on earth does this mean? Does this account for the numbers
> marked by the Israelis on the hands and foreheads of Palestinian
> prisoners earlier this month?
Who gives a number to numberless people.
> Does this mean that an Israeli soldier is
> now to regard the Palestinians as sub-humans - which is exactly how the
> Nazis regarded the trapped and desperate Jews of the Warsaw ghetto in
> 1944?
Get ready to die by the millions, Islam.
> Yet from Washington comes only silence. And silence, in law, gives
> consent.
Not silence, you idiot. Resolve.
> Should we be surprised? After all, the US is now making the
> rules as it goes along.
No, you fucking ignorant Arabs are the ones leading this
new war which you brought on yourselves because you
were too busy bowing to mecca to have time to grow
a great civilization out of the ashes of your own folly.
You will not rest until the last Jew on the face of the earth
is dead. Won't happen. America is about to destroy you
in a series of flashes in the pan of your makeing.
> Prisoners can be called "illegal combatants" and
> brought to Guantanamo Bay with their mouths taped for semi-secret
> trials. The Afghan war is declared a victory - and then suddenly
> explodes again. Now we are told there will be other "fronts" in
> Afghanistan, a spring offensive by "terrorists". Washington has also
> said that its intelligence agencies - the heroes who failed to discover
> the 11 September plot - have proof (undisclosed, of course) that Arafat
> has "a new alliance" with Iran, which brings the Palestinians into the
> "axis of evil."
The axis of evil runs from the north pole to the south pole in my
view. All of mankind is evil.
>
> Is there no one to challenge this stuff?
You bet.
> Just over a week ago, CIA
> director George Tenet announced that Iraq had links with al-Qa'ida.
> "Contacts and linkages", have been established, he told us. And that's
> what the headlines said. But then Tenet continued by saying that the
> mutual antipathy of al-Qa'ida and Iraq towards America and Saudi Arabia
> "suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible?"
> "Suggests?" "Possible?" is that what Mr Tenet calls proof?
The Saudi Govenment failed to know their own, now they suffer.
Actually I believe that had the Saudi Govenment known that
Osama was out to destroy them, they would have destroyed him.
Too late now.
> But now everyone is cashing in on the "war against terror". When
> Macedonian cops gun down seven Arabs, they announce that they are
> participating in the global "war on terror". When Russians massacre
> Chechens, they are now prosecuting the "war on terror". When Israel
> fires at Arafat's headquarters, it says it is participating in the "war
> on terror". Must we all be hijacked into America's dangerous
> self-absorption with the crimes of 11 September?
America is the defacto leader of the free world. If you want
freedom, side with it, if you want death, oppose it.
> Must this vile war
> between Palestinians and Israelis be distorted in so dishonest a way?
Detonations are not distortions.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Despite occasional legal contention about the propriety of Israeli
> agents torturing defenseless Palestinian prisoners, the practice never
> ends. Let's face it: israelis and their partisans *enjoy* these crimes.
> 9-11 was a tiny bit of recompense for the people who finance these
> offenses against humanity: the American taxpayer.
Yeah. Right. Get ready to no longer be a problem for America
and it's taxpayers.
> "American taxpayers, who continue to fund the occupation despite the
> reprehensible deeds carried out to keep it in place, are witting
> accomplices of the interrogators who torment bound prisoners and the
> Israeli government that permits it" -- Stephen J. Sosebee
Stephen J. Sosebee, you are a dickweed.
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:37:00 -0700, "stvfrmco" <stvf...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on in
>>Israel?
>
> That was as even-handed an article on the mid-east as I've seen.
Even handed? :-D
Hahahahahahahahaaahhahahhahahhahaaaaaaa....
>Trouble
> with some in this group (not saying you) is that to even suggest that
> there *are* two valid sides to this argument is to be a Palestinian
> apologist, or even anti-semitic.
Ah, you are practicing your propaganda spin tactics, I see.
I'll just sit back now and watch you struggle your ass off
and get many a laugh at the expense of your stupidity.
>>
> The Palestinians are hardly the demographic issue. They are indigenous
> to the region at least. The people in power in Israel, by and large, are
> immigrants or are first or second generation Israelis. If you're fond of
> seeing demographic analogies to California, then see the Israelis as the
> *Mexicans*.
Archeology out the window. Arabs don't believe proof, just the Quran
and the lies of "Allah" the non existant.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> "The pornographic movies started on Al-Watan television at around 3:30
> pm," one 34-year-old Palestinian mother named Reema told AFP.
>
> "I have six children at home, they have nowhere to go with what is going
> on here and can't even watch TV," she said angrily.
>
> Anita, a 52-year-old mother of three children, complained about "the
> deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts".
I see. Wrapping a child in C5 and sending it to blow itself up
with as many Jews as possible in the name of "Allah" is not
porn.
It seems these women have priorities akin to love.
SteveL
wrote:
>In article <kUWp8.151537$7b.14...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
>"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:37:00 -0700, "stvfrmco" <stvf...@uswest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on in
>>>Israel?
>>
>> That was as even-handed an article on the mid-east as I've seen.
>
> Even handed? :-D
> Hahahahahahahahaaahhahahhahahhahaaaaaaa....
Yes. Even handed. If you'd actually read the fucker you'd see Fisk
having a go at both sides and providing reasons.
Say it in black and white then. Say you think the Palestinians have no
grievance at all.
>
>
>>Trouble
>> with some in this group (not saying you) is that to even suggest that
>> there *are* two valid sides to this argument is to be a Palestinian
>> apologist, or even anti-semitic.
>
> Ah, you are practicing your propaganda spin tactics, I see.
Propaganda spin tactics are about portraying one side of the argument
only.
>
> I'll just sit back now and watch you struggle your ass off
> and get many a laugh at the expense of your stupidity.
Say it in black and white then. Say you think the Palestinians have no
grievance at all. Then any sensible person will laugh at *your*
stupidity. But that's already been demonstrated by your thinking
dismissive insults win arguments.
>
>>>
>> The Palestinians are hardly the demographic issue. They are indigenous
>> to the region at least. The people in power in Israel, by and large, are
>> immigrants or are first or second generation Israelis. If you're fond of
>> seeing demographic analogies to California, then see the Israelis as the
>> *Mexicans*.
>
> Archeology out the window. Arabs don't believe proof, just the Quran
> and the lies of "Allah" the non existant.
After ad hominems out come the non-sequiturs. You're on a roll.
SteveL
wrote:
>
>>Terror, terror, terror. Like a
>> punctuation mark, the word infects every Israeli speech, every American
>> speech, almost every newspaper article.
>
> You know mr reporter, you are a dumbfuck.
Nice start. Hey I'm convinced.
>
>> When will someone admit the
>> truth: that the Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a dirty
>> colonial war which will leave both sides shamed and humiliated?
>>
>
> May the flies on shit fill your nostrils.
Devasating wit.
>
>> Just listen to what Sharon has been saying in the past 24 hours. "Arafat
>> is an enemy.
>
> Fucking A! That lying ragheaded sand nigger sack of camel shit
> is the enemy of the entire world. But mostly, he is the Satan of
> Islam. Islam owes it's demise to him.
Bzzt. Racist scumbag alert. But we knew that already.
>
>>He decided on a strategy of terror and formed a coalition
>> of terror."
>
> Yes, Arafat did just that.
Show it.
>
>>That's pretty much what President Bush said about Osama bin
>> Laden.
>
> Osama Bin Islam fucker. A little fly buzzin in the shit of Allah.
>
>> But what on earth does it mean?
>
> It means you are a stupid dupe trying to influence minds
> to follow your lead. If you were not headed to hell in heat
> like a bitch whore with PMS, a few, very few psycopaths
> might follow you.
Insults don't win arguments. You broke about three logical fallacies
there. Proves you're stupid as well as a racist. But the two go
together anyway.
>
>>That Arafat is actually sending
>> off the suicide bombers, choosing the target, the amount of explosives?
>
> Of course he did, does, will do. In fact he may even fuck the
> little tenage girls personally so his seed will be spread over
> the target as the little girl's flesh is dispersed when she
> detonates herself.
Liar.
>
>> If he was, then surely Sharon would have sent his death squads after the
>> Palestinian leader months ago.
>
> You really are a stupid manapulative fucker born of the bile of satan
Define manipulative. Check a dictionary. It describes your post
nicely. But you suck at it.
>
>> After all, his killers have managed to
>> murder dozens of Palestinian gunmen already, including occasional women
>> and children who get in the way.
>
> Yeah, you let slip the truth you ignorant pig rectum.
> "murder dozens of _Palestinian_gunmen_"
> What do they need the guns for? Defense? Yeah, right.
> :
This gets better.
>>
>> The real problem with Arafat is that he has a lot in common with Sharon:
>
> Death.
>
>> old, ruthless and cynical; both men have come to despise each other.
>> Sharon believes that the Palestinians can be broken by military power.
>> He doesn't realise what the rest of the world learned during Sharon's
>> own 1982 siege of Beirut: that the Arabs are no longer afraid.
>
> Arabs are most puke ridden sorry assed backward inbread
> excuses for human beings on the entire planet.
Yawn. Show some variety, man.
>
>>Once a
>> people lose their fear, they cannot be re-inoculated with fear. Once the
>> suicide bomber is loose, the war cannot be won. And Arafat knows this.
>
> Arabs are nothing but concentrated fear. They hide like rats,
> fight like little girls, and pay hommage to camel piss.
>
>> No, of course he doesn't send the bombers off on their wicked missions
>> to restaurants and supermarkets. But he does know that every suicide
>> bombing destroys Sharon's credibility
>
> There, you have admitted it for the whole world to see. No he dosent
> send them but he sure as the sun shines condone, support, finance,
> and provide everything they need to die for "HIM" HE, the great
> Arafat, God of self imposed diety.
>
>> and proves that the Israeli
>> leader's promises of security are false. Arafat is well aware that the
>> ferocious bombers are serving his purpose - however much he may condemn
>> them in public.
>
> Founds like some sort of God complex to me.
>
Yes but you are stupid, as you've already proved.
What resolve? Just sitting on their asses, and letting innocent Jews
get killed as well as Arabs. Fuckwit.
>
>> Should we be surprised? After all, the US is now making the
>> rules as it goes along.
>
> No, you fucking ignorant Arabs are the ones leading this
> new war which you brought on yourselves because you
> were too busy bowing to mecca to have time to grow
> a great civilization out of the ashes of your own folly.
>
> You will not rest until the last Jew on the face of the earth
> is dead. Won't happen. America is about to destroy you
> in a series of flashes in the pan of your makeing.
>
>> Prisoners can be called "illegal combatants" and
>> brought to Guantanamo Bay with their mouths taped for semi-secret
>> trials. The Afghan war is declared a victory - and then suddenly
>> explodes again. Now we are told there will be other "fronts" in
>> Afghanistan, a spring offensive by "terrorists". Washington has also
>> said that its intelligence agencies - the heroes who failed to discover
>> the 11 September plot - have proof (undisclosed, of course) that Arafat
>> has "a new alliance" with Iran, which brings the Palestinians into the
>> "axis of evil."
>
> The axis of evil runs from the north pole to the south pole in my
> view. All of mankind is evil.
Then kill yourself.
>
>>
>> Is there no one to challenge this stuff?
>
> You bet.
Then fucking do it, dimwit.
>
>> Just over a week ago, CIA
>> director George Tenet announced that Iraq had links with al-Qa'ida.
>> "Contacts and linkages", have been established, he told us. And that's
>> what the headlines said. But then Tenet continued by saying that the
>> mutual antipathy of al-Qa'ida and Iraq towards America and Saudi Arabia
>> "suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible?"
>> "Suggests?" "Possible?" is that what Mr Tenet calls proof?
>
> The Saudi Govenment failed to know their own, now they suffer.
> Actually I believe that had the Saudi Govenment known that
> Osama was out to destroy them, they would have destroyed him.
> Too late now.
>
>> But now everyone is cashing in on the "war against terror". When
>> Macedonian cops gun down seven Arabs, they announce that they are
>> participating in the global "war on terror". When Russians massacre
>> Chechens, they are now prosecuting the "war on terror". When Israel
>> fires at Arafat's headquarters, it says it is participating in the "war
>> on terror". Must we all be hijacked into America's dangerous
>> self-absorption with the crimes of 11 September?
>
> America is the defacto leader of the free world. If you want
> freedom, side with it, if you want death, oppose it.
There's freedom for you.
>
>> Must this vile war
>> between Palestinians and Israelis be distorted in so dishonest a way?
>
> Detonations are not distortions.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Despite occasional legal contention about the propriety of Israeli
>> agents torturing defenseless Palestinian prisoners, the practice never
>> ends. Let's face it: israelis and their partisans *enjoy* these crimes.
>> 9-11 was a tiny bit of recompense for the people who finance these
>> offenses against humanity: the American taxpayer.
>
> Yeah. Right. Get ready to no longer be a problem for America
> and it's taxpayers.
>
>> "American taxpayers, who continue to fund the occupation despite the
>> reprehensible deeds carried out to keep it in place, are witting
>> accomplices of the interrogators who torment bound prisoners and the
>> Israeli government that permits it" -- Stephen J. Sosebee
>
> Stephen J. Sosebee, you are a dickweed.
Get beat up a lot at school?
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:32:06 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <kUWp8.151537$7b.14...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
>>"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:37:00 -0700, "stvfrmco" <stvf...@uswest.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on
>>>>in Israel?
>>>
>>> That was as even-handed an article on the mid-east as I've seen.
>>
>> Even handed? :-D
>> Hahahahahahahahaaahhahahhahahhahaaaaaaa....
>
> Yes. Even handed. If you'd actually read the fucker you'd see Fisk
> having a go at both sides and providing reasons.
>
> Say it in black and white then. Say you think the Palestinians have no
> grievance at all.
It's the Union Stewarts that they send to Management. Loaded.
Palestinians are now getting plenty of bang for their bucks.
They reap what they sow.
I rather doubt swords will be beaten into plowshears anytime soon.
But if anyone does it, Israel will. They made the dessert bloom.
Arabs make nothing but noise to buy weapons with the oil money
handed to them on a silver platter by the West.
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Of course he did, does, will do. In fact he may even fuck the little
>> tenage girls personally so his seed will be spread over the target as
>> the little girl's flesh is dispersed when she detonates herself.
>
> Liar.
>
Ok, let me try to tell the truth.
Isralies kill little Arab children and drain their blood and
use it to make cookies.
Am I still a lier now?
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The axis of evil runs from the north pole to the south pole in my
>> view. All of mankind is evil.
>
> Then kill yourself.
>
No, I have to kill you first. It's a mandate from God.
Gheeze, don't you understand anything?
SteveL
wrote:
>In article <iZ_p8.182422$Gf.16...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
Yes.
That's no more truthful than what you believe about Arabs.
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Than we are all liers. You have no more truth to spout than I.
So, have you anything intelligent to offer the world in the
way of a solution that is not full of bias and hatred mixed
with verbal desperation?
SteveL
wrote:
> Than we are all liers. You have no more truth to spout than I.
I haven't "spouted" anything. Only criticized your doing so.
>
> So, have you anything intelligent to offer the world in the
> way of a solution that is not full of bias and hatred mixed
> with verbal desperation?
That sums up your position beautifully. You freely use the phrase
"ragheaded sand-niggers" and think anyone who opposes you is "biased
and full of hatred"? Hilarious. Don't ever try to argue from the moral
high-ground. Your in a pit so deep you can't even see it.
You're so biased it's off the scale. Even after it's pointed out to
you several times you still can't get past seeing even-handedness as
outright support for the side you disagree with.
I'd hate to see you umpire a baseball game. Mind you, you probably
think they deserve to die as well since they side with the opposition
with half their decisions.
The Palestinians have a case. Time to get your head around that.
00:00:00Hg
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:09:03 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Than we are all liers. You have no more truth to spout than I.
>
> I haven't "spouted" anything. Only criticized your doing so.
Hummm... you seem to have null nodes of thought. Self imposed?
>
>
>> So, have you anything intelligent to offer the world in the way of a
>> solution that is not full of bias and hatred mixed with verbal
>> desperation?
>
> That sums up your position beautifully. You freely use the phrase
> "ragheaded sand-niggers" and think anyone who opposes you is "biased and
> full of hatred"? Hilarious. Don't ever try to argue from the moral
> high-ground. Your in a pit so deep you can't even see it.
Actually, you don't know my position. But, as expected, there
you are full of bias and hatred mixed with verbal desperation.
I'm firmly on moral high ground whereas you keep slipping
back to below the foothills.
Can you not see you and Arafat argue destructive rather than
deductive?
> You're so biased it's off the scale. Even after it's pointed out to you
> several times you still can't get past seeing even-handedness as
> outright support for the side you disagree with.
:-D I have a hook firmly in your jaw, little fish, and the only
way out for you is to cease posting replys or drop the attack
mode and speak with your Intelligence, not your heart and
emotions.
> I'd hate to see you umpire a baseball game. Mind you, you probably think
> they deserve to die as well since they side with the opposition with
> half their decisions.
And that's your Intelligent contribution to the world.
"Never mind the message, attack the messenger."
-- your words in absencia
>
> The Palestinians have a case. Time to get your head around that.
>
They always have. Nothing here is new. History is always forgotten.
It's simple. Jews make the desset bloom and fruitfull, Arabs make
the dessert a waste land, barren and desolate. Why?
So, "Steve" Which are you, an Arab or a Jew, and if neither,
why are you speaking for either? I'm glad you do though.
You are a cut above the silent ones.
Are you the glowing halo wearing socialist that
that is always right because you know such words as
"Racist" and feel compelled to point out "Racist" for others
who have no brains so that you may protect them by showing
the world how "good" you are and how "evil" they are?
Seems to me the mote in your eye is a California Redwood in proportion.
SteveL
wrote:
>In article <tG1q8.371820$uv5.31...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
>"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:09:03 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Than we are all liers. You have no more truth to spout than I.
>>
>> I haven't "spouted" anything. Only criticized your doing so.
>
> Hummm... you seem to have null nodes of thought. Self imposed?
Brighter than you obviously. You think feeling is "thinking".
>
>>
>>
>>> So, have you anything intelligent to offer the world in the way of a
>>> solution that is not full of bias and hatred mixed with verbal
>>> desperation?
>>
>> That sums up your position beautifully. You freely use the phrase
>> "ragheaded sand-niggers" and think anyone who opposes you is "biased and
>> full of hatred"? Hilarious. Don't ever try to argue from the moral
>> high-ground. Your in a pit so deep you can't even see it.
>
> Actually, you don't know my position. But, as expected, there
> you are full of bias and hatred mixed with verbal desperation.
Either it is your position or you're trolling. Nothing to feel
superior about.
>
> I'm firmly on moral high ground whereas you keep slipping
> back to below the foothills.
>
> Can you not see you and Arafat argue destructive rather than
> deductive?
>
>> You're so biased it's off the scale. Even after it's pointed out to you
>> several times you still can't get past seeing even-handedness as
>> outright support for the side you disagree with.
>
> :-D I have a hook firmly in your jaw, little fish, and the only
> way out for you is to cease posting replys or drop the attack
> mode and speak with your Intelligence, not your heart and
> emotions.
Don't think so highly of yourself. You haven't "hooked" me at all. You
are the one speaking with your emotions. Or do you see "ragheaded
sand niggers", "Arafat 'fucks the little tenage girls personally'"
etc. etc. as intelligent argument?
You probably do.
>
>> I'd hate to see you umpire a baseball game. Mind you, you probably think
>> they deserve to die as well since they side with the opposition with
>> half their decisions.
>
> And that's your Intelligent contribution to the world.
>
> "Never mind the message, attack the messenger."
> -- your words in absencia
That does it.
Congrats. You're my second ever...
<PLONK>
00:00:00Hg
<Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'd hate to see you umpire a baseball game. Mind you, you probably
>>> think they deserve to die as well since they side with the opposition
>>> with half their decisions.
>>
>> And that's your Intelligent contribution to the world.
>>
>> "Never mind the message, attack the messenger."
>> -- your words in absencia
>
> That does it.
>
> Congrats. You're my second ever...
>
> <PLONK>
>
Hermit crab.
Kam Trz
> March 30, 2002
>
A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
every time.
Kam Trz
00:00:00Hg
<kam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mi...@usa.com (Mika) wrote in message
> news:<3ca7f2f0....@news.starpower.net>...
>> March 30, 2002
>>
> A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
> see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
> every time.
>
> Kam Trz
What kind of 'Typical' American are you refering to?
Is the fact the the article was written by an
Arab American make it more solid than if it
were written by a Jewish American?
Italian American? Afro American? Irish American?
Chinese American? Japanese American? Polish
American? South American? Mexican American?
Sweedish American? German American? Hindu American?
Eskimo American? Hopi American? Crox American?
Would you like to kill me so that I am a Silent American?
The below quoted is totally racist proraganda. It deserves like treatment.
stvfrmco
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kUWp8.151537$7b.14...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:37:00 -0700, "stvfrmco" <stvf...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >So what is your personal reason for taking sides in this war going on in
> >Israel?
>
> That was as even-handed an article on the mid-east as I've seen.
> Trouble with some in this group (not saying you) is that to even
> suggest that there *are* two valid sides to this argument is to be a
> Palestinian apologist, or even anti-semitic.
>
> >We in the West have seen one pro-Western nation (or outpost) after
> >another go down in flames -- from Rhodesia to South Africa to Hong Kong
to
> >Southwest Africa to the Canal Zone and on and on.
>
> Err. Hong Kong was leased from the Chinese and the lease expired. The
> Canal Zone was leased from Panama and the lease expired.
The Canal Zone was leased in "Perpetuity" under the original treaty with
Panama. Sellout Jimmy Carter changed the language of the treaty in order to
give the Canal Zone over to Panama -- in fact he managed to have us pay
Panama billions of dollars to take it from us. Beijing was prepared to
renew the 99 year lease on Hong Kong to Great Britain -- except Britain had
such a shitty intelligence gathering ability that they didn't realize it and
pushed China to come up with a timetable for the turnover. Now a
substantial percentage of Hong Kong's wealthy elite live in Vancouver, B.C.,
as a result.
> Neither have
> "gone down in flames", nor lost their "Pro-Western" status. Surely
> your not suggesting the US or Britain should have just kept them
> regardless of the law?
In my own opinion we had no business using economic sanctions to force South
Africa or Rhodesia to do our politically correct dance. Blacks flocked from
all over sub-Saharan Africa to find jobs in South Africa during apartheid --
voting with their feet as to which system of government was the best. Since
the ANC took power, over 2 million high-paying industrial jobs have been
lost in South Africa and unemployment runs at over 50 percent. I guess we
really improved the lives of South Africans by putting the ANC in power.
>
> Rhodesia and South Africa did not succumb to anti-western forces. They
> finally succumbed to the will of the *majority* of their own people.
> And again, they remain pro-western. Mugabe's despotism doesn't take
> away from that fact.
>
> > At least the Israelis believe in the nation state
>
> They sure do. So much so they keep trying to grow it.
Good for them! They should be a role model for the U.S. instead of our own
"leaders" who are turning over California, Texas, and Florida to boat people
and Mexican illegals.
>
> >and are not giving up without a fight. Why is
> >it that we in the West get to decide and pick and choose which is the
next
> >pro-Western country that gets sold out by those who live in Europe or the
> >U.S.? I see a lot in common between Israel fighting for its life and
what
> >Europeans and Americans are going to face in the not-too-distant-future.
> >Israel facing the Palestinians is like California facing the Mexicans.
> >Already California is losing the demographic battle to remain a Western,
> >American state -- if we punish Israel and force the Israelis to give in
to
> >terrorists then we may as well be prepared to give up the Southwestern
> >United States to Mexico. Are you prepared to do that?
> >
>
> The Palestinians are hardly the demographic issue. They are indigenous
> to the region at least. The people in power in Israel, by and large,
> are immigrants or are first or second generation Israelis. If you're
> fond of seeing demographic analogies to California, then see the
> Israelis as the *Mexicans*.
Your points are well taken, with one exception. If illegal aliens from
south of the border were smarter than us and made the deserts bloom and they
were creating high tech and aerospace jobs instead of exporting them (as our
own corporations are doing) then they would probably have absolutely no
problem in getting permission to enter this country legally. The Jews who
came to Israel from Europe and Russia were (and are) highly intelligent and
industrious individuals. Israel has more engineers and scientists per capita
than any other nation. There's a big difference between them and the people
who run leaf blowers and do menial jobs who come into our country from the
Third World.
I felt a great deal of empathy for the Palestinians until they started their
campaign of terror against innocent Israeli citizens with human bombs going
into shopping malls, weddings, pizza parlors and discos. When they started
blowing up babies and children they lost all moral credibiltiy. Mind you,
this is just my opinion and what I think will have absolutely no bearing on
the outcome over there. History is chock full of stories of various ethnic
groups or nationalities getting shafted and screwed by some other peoples
and the Palestinians are just one of them. I just see the Israelis as the
last of nations where they put their own people first and they are not
afraid to offend other people's sensibilities or sensitivities. I just wish
Western Europe and the U.S. would be as nationalistic and xenophobic as
Israel.
Stupendous Man
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:13:09 -0500, Stupendous Man <ro...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's pretend for a moment that the Arabs had made as many concessions as
>> the Israelis.
>>
>> Peace would have broken out long ago.
>
> Nice fiction.
It's the truth, you'd best learn to deal with it.
The Israeli's have given up the Sinai, Gaza, almost all of the West Bank (which used to be Jordan's, not the PLO's) and have withdrawn from Lebanon. The Israelis also refrained from wiping Iraq off the map during the Gulf War despite being the target of terror attacks from Iraq.
> The view from the other side:
>
> Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just
> not prepared to compromise?
>
> The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the
> Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic
> Palestine (23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN
> partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able
Wow, they're now willing to admit they got their butts kicked in the 1948 war. Some "concession".
> to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22%. The overwhelming
> majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely
> generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians
> were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions
> in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make
Which would be?
> compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental
> rights or the viability of their state.
The Palestinians have made no compromises and no concessions. Admitting reality is not a compromise and certainly not a concession!
> Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that
> Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?
Yes, it does prove that the Palestinians are bent on "finishing" what they tried to do in 1948.
> Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and
> re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in
> 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has
That means little if the militant groups under Palestinian control mock that statement and continue their terrorist activities.
> yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist.
And which state would that be?
> The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in
> 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant
> policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in
> occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian
> Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the
> signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including
> those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do
> indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be
> a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a
> weaker party.
Israel, like any other nation, is free to do with land they obtained by conquest. At least Arabs have learned to stop attacking Israel, and thus giving them more land!
I repeat: what have the Arabs given up?
Not one thing.
Stupendous Man—Slayer of weasels
Barbara Graham, the Washington Post reported Thursday, "was foundAnd just who is Barbara Graham? A leader of the ‘million’ mom march
guilty in D.C. Superior Court . of trying to avenge her son's
death by shooting a young man" last year that "she blamed for the
killing."
group of anti-gun nuts. She and an accomplice chased down an innocent
man and shot him repeatedly in cold blood—with an extended clip weapon.
Stupendous Man
>> indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be
>> a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a
>> weaker party.
> This is precisely why the policies of the United States are the root
> of the problem. A jewish-controlled media and a bought-and-paid-for
> political class are the enemies of world peace at the moment. What
> should be done about them?
First, we can hope that you get a clue and realize that being a bigot isn't helping the situation.
> Despite occasional legal contention about the propriety of Israeli
> agents torturing defenseless Palestinian prisoners, the practice never
> ends.
> Let's face it: israelis and their partisans *enjoy* these
> crimes. 9-11 was a tiny bit of recompense for the people who finance these
> offenses against humanity: the American taxpayer.
If the Palestinians want a war of extermination, let no one wail when they are exterminated.
Stupendous Man—The price of freedom is small compared to the alternative!
An E-2C Hawkeye prepares to land aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74):
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/stennis/sten-flyhome.jpg
Mika
<tsoh...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>In article <3e912cdc.02040...@posting.google.com>, "Kam Trz"
><kam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
>> see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
>> every time.
>>
>> Kam Trz
>
> What kind of 'Typical' American are you refering to?
The ignorant kind. See your nearest mirror.
> Is the fact the the article was written by an
> Arab American make it more solid than if it
> were written by a Jewish American?
The article was written by a British person.
SteveL
>>In article <3e912cdc.02040...@posting.google.com>, "Kam Trz"
>><kam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
>>> see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
>>> every time.
>>>
>>> Kam Trz
>>
>> What kind of 'Typical' American are you refering to?
>
>The ignorant kind. See your nearest mirror.
>
>> Is the fact the the article was written by an
>> Arab American make it more solid than if it
>> were written by a Jewish American?
>
>The article was written by a British person.
Nearly. Fisk is Irish. But he writes for a British newspaper, the
Independent.
Hell Britain, the Middle East, it's all over there somewhere...... :-)
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> As if on cue, on Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:10:56 -0600, "00:00:00Hg"
> <tsoh...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>In article <3e912cdc.02040...@posting.google.com>, "Kam Trz"
>><kam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
>>> see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
>>> every time.
>>>
>>> Kam Trz
>>
>> What kind of 'Typical' American are you refering to?
>
> The ignorant kind. See your nearest mirror.
Ah, I see. You use insult and insinuation.
Am I to learn by your example or is demonization
the norm I must accept in this conversation?
>
>> Is the fact the the article was written by an Arab American make it
>> more solid than if it were written by a Jewish American?
>
> The article was written by a British person.
It was written by a man with a bias and need to slant
but he had a point.
So, what is the real truth? What if we were to unzip
our bodies and respective 'nationalities', step out in
the open and converse as equals across the board,
and ask each other what possiblities await?
I'm sure you as well as I sense an ominious wave
of human folly resounding around the planet.
How can it be stopped?
I have some ideas and I'm sure many do. Getting those
up to the forefront past our personal prejudices and
bias can be done.
Eric Salmassy
wrote:
>On 2002-03-31 12:22 PM, in article
>2gheausgik92e0u2e...@4ax.com, "Eric Salmassy"
><eric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist.
>
>And which state would that be?
So Israel has a right to exist and the Palestinians in the occupied
territories are just shit out of luck?
>Israel, like any other nation, is free to do with land they obtained by
>conquest.
That would be why Germany is the 51st state?
OK, play king of the world for a minute. There are 3 million arab
inhabitants of the West Bank, what's the solution?
Mika
wrote:
>In article <3ca8eb8a....@news.starpower.net>, "Mika" <Mi...@usa.com>
>wrote:
>
>> As if on cue, on Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:10:56 -0600, "00:00:00Hg"
>> <tsoh...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3e912cdc.02040...@posting.google.com>, "Kam Trz"
>>><kam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> A Solid article. I read the other follow-ups. It's disheartening to
>>>> see the usual ignorance of the typical American citizen come through
>>>> every time.
>>>>
>>>> Kam Trz
>>>
>>> What kind of 'Typical' American are you refering to?
>>
>> The ignorant kind. See your nearest mirror.
>
> Ah, I see. You use insult and insinuation.
> Am I to learn by your example or is demonization
> the norm I must accept in this conversation?
Read what you wrote last night?
Mika
wrote: [...]
>>
>>The article was written by a British person.
>
>Nearly. Fisk is Irish. But he writes for a British newspaper, the
>Independent.
>
I appreciate the correction, however to pick nits Ireland is one of
the British Isles isn't it? The U.K. includes Great Britain and
Northern Ireland; Great Britain comprises England, Wales, and
Scotland; and the British Isles are all of it. no?
Since I wasn't sure which country Fisk hails from, I said "British".
Anyway, he's a hero, and no stranger to oppression I guess.
http://www.hostkingdom.net/gbrindex.html
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
Why does it matter? What of my other questions?
Let's talk peace.
>
Race is Real
"Stupendous Man" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:B8CE4817.6593F%ro...@127.0.0.1...
The Black War On White Americans
An Overview of U.S. Crime!
What image do you have of racial violence in the U.S.? What type of
person do you think commits interracial or "hate" crime? If you get your
information from the mass media (TV, radio, major newspapers, and
popular magazines), you probably have an image of a vicious, ignorant,
gun-loving, hate-filled, skinhead, Klansman, or militiaman - all white
of course, that is a completely false stereotype. The truth is exactly
the opposite!
The media, protected class minorities, and anti-white politicians expect
you to twist in anguish over black-on-black crime or the rare but
well-publicized white-on-black crime, but they never mention the much
greater amount of black-on-white crime? Yes, blacks commit more crime
against whites (1.58 million crimes per year) than they do against other
blacks (1.34 million crimes per year)! It's a virtual war of black
criminals and white victims!
You'll never read the facts in the national media! Why?
Paul Sheehan, an Australian reporter, dug out the following information
for an article in the Sydney Morning Herald , May 2, 1995. Sheehan based
his statistics on crime data compiled by the FBI and partially reported
each year in The FBI Uniform Crime Report . These reports can be
researched at the FBI's website, www.fbi.gov.
Since the FBI doesn't distinguish between Hispanics and whites,
Sheehan's statistics don't adequately reflect the black-white crime
situation. Only about 10-15% of Hispanics are white, with the rest being
Indian or a mixture of white, American Indian, and blacks. Hispanic
crime rates are almost as high as black crime rates. This means that the
data Sheehan compiled on inter-racial crime is probably grossly
understated since a considerable portion of the "white against black"
crime actually is Hispanic against black crime. (Information about this
aspect of inter-racial crime will be presented in a related article.)
Here is the information Sheehan uncovered in his analysis of the FBI's
crime reports:
Blacks murder more than 1,600 whites each year.
Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate whites murder blacks.
Blacks murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted about one million whites in
1992.
In the last 30 years, blacks committed 170 million violent and
non-violent crimes against whites.
Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for
murder than whites under 18.
About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white.
Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites,
although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1.
On a per capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crime than
whites.
Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.
Of the 27 million nonviolent robberies in 1992, 31% (8.4 million) were
committed by blacks against whites. Less than 2% were committed by
whites against blacks.
Of the 6.6 million violent crimes, 20% (1.3 million) were interracial.
Of the the 1.3 million interracial violent crimes, 90% (1.17 million)
are black against white.
In the past 20 years, violent crime increased four times faster than the
population.
In the last 30 years (1964-94), more than 45,000 people were killed in
interracial murders compared to 38,000 killed in Korea and 58,000 in
Vietnam.
Sheehan commented that the contents of his article could not possibly be
published or discussed in the U.S. mainstream media.
In the last 50 years, the white part of the American population has
declined from 90% to 72%. The U.S. now has about 33 million blacks and
25 million Hispanics (legal and illegal). By the year 2050, American
whites will be a minority, just 49%. By 2100, whites will be 25% of the
population. What will life for whites be like in the future?
The United States of America
A white country in 1776
A Third World country in 2076!
traveler
> >indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be
> >a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a
> >weaker party.
>
> of the problem. A jewish-controlled media and a bought-and-paid-for
> political class are the enemies of world peace at the moment. What
> should be done about them?
Is this the same "Jewish controlled media" that has been far more
supportive of Palestinian claims to autonomy than most of the American
people? If any other country had to endure what the Israelis have
from this violent Arab minority, the world would have expected
genocide against them long ago. Nobody has allowed the Jews to do
what they must, including the American media. Your simplistic ideas
about how the world works are evidence enough that your stupid website
is not worth seeing.
Sancho Panza
"Mika" <Mi...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3ca7f1ed....@news.starpower.net...
> From Australia's Sunday Mail
> RAMALLAH, West Bank: Porn movies and programs in Hebrew are being
broadcast by Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television
stations of Ramallah, irate residents of the besieged West Bank town have
told AFP.
<snip of alleged details to end of story as posted>
> "Anything currently shown on Al-Watan and other local TV channels has
nothing to do with Palestinian programs but is being broadcast by the
Israeli occupation forces, we urge parents to take precautions," the message
said.
For the less intellectually and morally bankrupt types, here is the rest of
the article as transmitted by AFP. But why include two sides of any story
when one can be an obtuse dolt? Gee, Palestinians and obscenity sure sounds
as if they go together.
"The Israeli military denied that it had anything to do with the
pornographic programming and instead blamed the Palestinian leaders.
"The Israeli security forces have no interest in putting pornographic and
racist movies on Palestinian television," an army spokesman told AFP.
"The only reason we are in these buildings and in this city is to fight
against terrorists and their infrastructure after giving the Palestinians
various chances to it themselves," he said.
Palestinian leader Yasser "Arafat is willing to go low in order to make
himself look better in this uncomfortable situation," he said.
Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon said any such
broadcasting was "shameful," but said he was not aware of the Israeli army's
involvement.
"I cannot believe that Israeli soldiers would engage in such despicable
behaviour," he said."
Mika
<otter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon said any such
>broadcasting was "shameful," but said he was not aware of the Israeli army's
>involvement.
>
>"I cannot believe that Israeli soldiers would engage in such despicable
>behaviour," he said."
ROFL!
Sancho Panza
> >"I cannot believe that Israeli soldiers would engage in such despicable
behaviour," he said."
> ROFL!
Happy to raise your spirits while you outfit your next teenage suicide
bomber. We eagerly await your own sacrifice to your cause.
Mika
The entire world has now condemned the murderous rampages by israeli
authorities. If it were not for the controlled media in the U.S., its
people too would demand that this religious war against an indigenous
people be stopped at once.
EU to Israel: Withdraw troops now
April 2, 2002 Posted: 9:06 AM EST (1406 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- The European Union on Tuesday told Israel that
it must immediately end its incursions into Palestinian territories,
withdraw its troops and end the confinement of Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/02/eu.israel/index.html
Mika
Tuesday, April 02 2002 @ 07:21 PM GMT
The following report includes excerpts from a telephone interview with
Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Al-Jazeera satellite news
station. When asked about Sharon’s threat to exile the President,
Arafat replied:
"This is my homeland, not Sharon’s homeland. We have been in this land
since even before the Prophet Abraham was here." He added, "We are
here defending Palestine and the people of Palestine. We are defending
the honor of the Arab nation, and the honorable people of the whole
world, the Christians and the Muslims of the Holy Land." He continued,
stating, "Today, they (Israeli forces) invaded Bethlehem, the land of
Jesus. Days ago, they tried to destroy the statue of Mary, (inside the
church of the Nativity in Bethlehem) and today, they are attacking and
burning churches and mosques. How could this be acceptable by Arabs,
Muslims, Christians and the whole world? This is the message we send
to the world… where are you?
I have said that before, and I will say it now, I would rather die a
martyr, a martyr, a martyr.
God willing, a girl or a boy from our land will raise the Palestinian
flag over the mosques and the churches of Jerusalem."
In response to a question regarding his condition in his besieged
headquarters, Arafat responded, "I lived in caves, while fighting
Israeli forces, this is a nation of strong people, I live with a
strong people, and I am one of them. I tell my brothers and sisters,
dear ones, and the Arab leaders, God willing, we will pray one day in
Jerusalem."
Fader.com
What about the Israelies that do not know what it is like to live and not
fear death by the hand of an Arab? What about the mothers and fathers that
ahve lost children because of a life long quest of Arabs to kill Jews?
Could it be said that the reason israel is so hard on the Palestinians is
because they have to take strong measures to protect themselves from a
deeply committed population of Arabs that will stop at nothing to kill
Jews?
I wish there was more empathy in the middle east. I wish leaders on both
sides would sit back and accept the evil they do to each other and
understand they ar eboth reacting to agendas that have long since grown
stale.
Fader
Fader.com
http://www.fader.com
Mi...@usa.com (Mika) wrote in news:3ca3e719....@news.starpower.net:
> Talking to Tanks
> By Azmi Bishara
>
> The Israeli army continues to pursue the objectives delineated by the
> Israeli prime minister and his chief-of- staff. These include not only
> the restoration of Sharon's damaged prestige but also breaking the
> back of the nationalist movement embodied in the youths of the camps
> and the armed bodies from all Palestinian organisations that have
> resisted the occupation, without taking into consideration the
> differences between the PA and the opposition. These are the
> organisations of the Oslo generation, their members men and women who
> grew up and came to awareness under the interim accords, under the
> persistent expansion of Israeli settlements, under the Israeli army
> barricades that have governed every detail of their lives and their
> prospects for the future since the establishment of the PA.
>
> This is the generation that has been deprived of that most fundamental
> of freedoms, the freedom of movement. There are members of this
> generation who have been unable to leave their camps or cities for a
> decade; others who have never left Gaza in their lives. These are the
> people targeted by the soldiers of the Israeli army, soldiers who,
> after their compulsory military service are then destined for a full
> year's rest and recuperation in the forests of far-off Latin America,
> India and East Asia before returning to Israel to take up study in
> university.
>
> The wholesale detention of the adults and youths who generated the
> resistance movement is not, then, just an attempt to save face but
> aims at stifling the development of that movement -- after which the
> Israeli army will withdraw, leaving in its wake yet more degradation,
> rancour, hatred.
>
> In the midst of this offensive Sharon has declared he is open to
> negotiations. As long as his great retaliatory campaign is pursued at
> full force, with tanks rumbling from one camp to another and from one
> town to another, he is "ready to talk with the Palestinians." On
> closer inspection, though, we find that his idea of talks is confined
> to "negotiations for a ceasefire while a ceasefire is in progress," a
> remarkable example of verbal acrobatics. Ceasefire negotiations take
> place when hostilities are still in progress. Sharon's "seven days of
> calm," we should remember, were never a precondition for ceasefire
> talks but for entering into political negotiations. Yet Sharon took
> evident pride in the fact that Peres's talks with Palestinian leaders
> focused solely on a ceasefire.
>
> So, what is new? It is difficult to say. Is Sharon manoeuvering to
> gain time for his brutal campaign of repression? Or has he changed his
> attitude towards negotiations? Perhaps the safest assumption is that
> Sharon intends to shift his position on negotiating with the PA
> gradually, all the time continuing his attempts to sap the strength of
> the national Palestinian movement. In other words, he will sustain his
> assault against Palestinian society and its political forces while
> reassuring the world that he will get to the negotiating table in the
> end.
>
> Sharon clearly does not favour a return to the negotiating table. But
> if he has to negotiate, what are his conditions and what does he want
> to negotiate over? These, he hopes, are things his recent military
> offences will determine. But they are also what Palestinian
> steadfastness and resistance will also determine.
>
> Under present circumstances, which underline the necessity of
> sustaining the resistance, it is reasonable not to respond to Sharon's
> tactic of encouraging meetings between the PA and Peres for such
> meetings will lead to neither negotiations nor a ceasefire. Their
> intent is to gain time. It is not, after all, just a few
> misunderstandings at stake that can be cleared up in a meeting with
> Peres, not one of those hurdles that can be passed via one of Peres's
> formulas for circumvention. Such formulaic circumventions have, in any
> case, become unpalatable.
>
> The current conflict in Palestine is not a matter of a
> misunderstandings or a lack of mutual comprehension. It is not the
> result of some inexplicable slide of two sides into a spiral of
> tit-for-tat violence -- such verbal constructs are contrived solely to
> convey the impression of impartiality on the part of the observer. The
> conflict exists because of occupation, an occupation that has entered
> one of its virulent phases.
>
> The end of the night is the blackest part, as Farid Ghanem wrote. Yet
> even at this bleak hour there is no sign of any Israeli resolve to
> dismantle the occupation so that it can begin to negotiate over the
> conditions and time frame for ending it. Israel cannot even take the
> recent Saudi Arabian peace initiative seriously. Meanwhile, the world
> watches as Israel moves the lines of confrontation into every
> Palestinian home the Israeli army storms. And the Palestinians' goal,
> finally, is not to negotiate for the sake of negotiations but to end
> the occupation. They have no objection to negotiations if negotiations
> lead to that end. But they have every objection if negotiations are
> turned into yet another Israeli manoeuvre to prolong the occupation.
>
> In spite of the all-encompassing spirit of Palestinian resistance,
> which has effaced the barriers between Palestinian factions, it
> remains possible to delineate two general Palestinian-Arab moods. The
> one that prevails views resistance as a viable, indeed the necessary,
> route to ending the occupation. The second watches the spiral of
> Israeli violence and Palestinian counter-violence with despair and can
> imagine no other way of breaking this cycle of violence except
> negotiations. Those who espouse this second view saw Sharon's recent
> statement as a radical turn around and awaited Zinni's visit with
> impatience.
>
> From the perspective of the first view, the resistance is no longer
> merely a reaction to brutality, and even if a change has occurred in
> Sharon's position it is only due to the Palestinians' perseverance in
> their resistance. Sharon's recent declarations are not, it would
> follow, an indication of any practical change in his position, but
> rather a signal that the Israeli army will step up its detaining of
> Palestinian youths in the squares of Palestinian camps and cities.
> This group also has its eyes on Zinni; but more importantly on Dick
> Cheney, who refuses to meet with Arafat and who is testing the Arab
> pulse preparatory to an attack on Iraq. This group suspects that
> Zinni's visit is little more than window dressing while Cheney pursues
> Washington's real agenda.
>
> Sharon's recent move to use EU mediation to invite PA leaders to meet
> with Peres and his recent announcement that he has dropped his
> condition of seven days of calm are no more than political ruses, an
> attempt to obfuscate what Sharon has set his mind upon. This is to
> crush the Palestinian resistance by tormenting the entire Palestinian
> populace and combing through an entire generation of Palestinians to
> root out any who might harbour the flame of resistance.
>
> This is not a policing plan intended to detain suspects on the Israeli
> wanted list, as Sharon claims. He, and his chief-of-staff, know full
> well that anyone they might be looking for has long gone into hiding.
> And what he has unleashed is not a flash commando operation, but a
> full-fledged military offensive using heavy tanks and artillery. This
> is an operation intended to let the Israeli army display its mastery
> of the streets by firing missiles at anyone so bold as to look out his
> window to see what's going on and by blindfolding, kicking and
> manhandling the Palestinian youths it has rounded up.
>
> The Palestinians who met with Peres during this offensive should not
> have done so. I also believe that the Arabs should not receive Zinni,
> or only do so under certain conditions. Zinni knows as well as anyone
> what is really going on. Israel is "making war on terrorists" with
> whom there can be no negotiations; the Arabs want to negotiate as
> though the Israeli army has not ransacked Palestinian bedrooms, blown
> up ambulances and killed detainees.
>
> Under such circumstances the question of whether or not Arafat will be
> "permitted" to take part in the Arab summit is purely secondary. It is
> secondary because it has no bearing on what is happening on the ground
> in Palestine, just as the fact that Israel's incursion into Ramallah,
> with the exception of the area around Arafat's offices, is secondary
> to the fact that the leader of the occupying power has granted Arafat
> freedom to move in the territories still under occupation. So even if
> Israel were to allow the Palestinian president to attend the summit it
> would be a cosmetic move, though one that would give the "moderate
> forces" in the Arab summit a victory that spares them having to seek
> anything else to boast of at the forthcoming summit, or to explore
> ways of supporting the option of resistance.
>
> Sharon's statements regarding the Palestinian president's freedom of
> movement at a time when only the occupation forces are free to move
> epitomise Israel's attempt to remove the Palestinian leadership from
> any contexts of time and place. It is Israel's way of clarifying the
> significance of the PA and Palestinian leadership under the current
> circumstances. However, the Palestinian leadership has the tools at
> its disposal to convey the opposite message, which is that it does not
> need a licence from a brutal occupying power to move freely on its own
> land.
>
> When Israel has finished ploughing through Palestinian territories and
> forcing the Palestinian resistance to its knees it will welcome
> ceasefire negotiations. Then it will let Arafat travel to the summit,
> where some Arabs are bound to praise the move as a "breakthrough."
> That is how they will market the results of the Israeli military
> campaign -- as though it were a victory.
>
> There is, though, only one answer to Sharon's desperate bid to break
> the spirit of resistance and that is to support the resistance. This
> is the only means to defeat Sharon and his chief-of-staff. If the
> Arabs agree to Sharon's conditions for returning to the negotiating
> table in the wake of this appalling offensive, Europe will cheer and
> the US will congratulate Sharon on his success. But if the Arabs
> rallied behind the resistance and stood against the onslaught of
> Israel's tanks, Europe would have to reaffirm the need to explore a
> just political solution and the US would have to blame Israel for the
> impasse, counsel it again against recourse to the option of war and
> tell it to shorten its occupation of Palestinian cities.
>
> Azmi Bishara is a Palestinian activist and a member of the Knesset.
>
>
>
Bob Rogers
killed by Jews back in '48? And why didn't Jews from other countries,
including the US, stay where they were instead of stealing land the
Palestinians had lived on for centuries. Could it be said that the
Palestinians fight and die because they are tired of being enslaved,
tired of living in concentration camps, and whatever the cost demand
justice?
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> The entire world has now condemned the murderous rampages by israeli
> authorities. If it were not for the controlled media in the U.S., its
> people too would demand that this religious war against an indigenous
> people be stopped at once.
>
Sorry about that. Bush has an 85% approval rating and riseing.
We have had enough and we are ready to face the world
in one hell of a fight if that is what it wishes. We gave birth
to the UN and it had better pay attention to the parent.
This is war and we are in all together, the entire world.
Like it or not, the New World Order is here.
I won't argue over a microdot of land but I will defend it.
Israel shall live. Period.
00:00:00Hg
wrote:
> God willing, a girl or a boy from our land will raise the Palestinian
> flag over the mosques and the churches of Jerusalem."
God is not willing.
Mika
wrote:
>In article <3caa4242....@news.starpower.net>, "Mika" <Mi...@usa.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The entire world has now condemned the murderous rampages by israeli
>> authorities. If it were not for the controlled media in the U.S., its
>> people too would demand that this religious war against an indigenous
>> people be stopped at once.
>>
>
> Sorry about that. Bush has an 85% approval rating and riseing.
Yes indeed. Ana about 85% of Americans are idiots too.
> We have had enough and we are ready to face the world
> in one hell of a fight if that is what it wishes.
We've bombed most of the world. Why on earth would they be irritated?
> Like it or not, the New World Order is here.
With people like you to promote it? ROFL!
Captain Compassion
>And what about all those Palestinians driven from their country and/or
>killed by Jews back in '48? And why didn't Jews from other countries,
>including the US, stay where they were instead of stealing land the
>Palestinians had lived on for centuries. Could it be said that the
>Palestinians fight and die because they are tired of being enslaved,
>tired of living in concentration camps, and whatever the cost demand
>justice?
>
As long as the Palestinian elders send out their children strapped to
bombs to kill women, children and old folks your cause will never be
rightous. And your plea will fall on many deaf ears.
>On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:27:58 GMT, "Fader.com" <fa...@fader.com> wrote:
>
>>What about the Israelies that do not know what it is like to live and not
>>fear death by the hand of an Arab? What about the mothers and fathers that
>>ahve lost children because of a life long quest of Arabs to kill Jews?
>>Could it be said that the reason israel is so hard on the Palestinians is
>>because they have to take strong measures to protect themselves from a
>>deeply committed population of Arabs that will stop at nothing to kill
>>Jews?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't eat their food, drink their liquor, fuck their
whores and take their money and STILL vote AGAINST them, you
don't belong in this business." -- Jess Unruh.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Bob Rogers
wrote:
> We have had enough and we are ready to face the world
> in one hell of a fight if that is what it wishes. We gave birth
> to the UN and it had better pay attention to the parent.
Some folks subscribe to the Bible, and some folks subscribe to the
Koran, but this guy obviously worships Mein Kampf.
Julian D.
wrote:
>In article <3caa43fd....@news.starpower.net>, "Mika" <Mi...@usa.com>
Simply said. True enough.
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering. To those . . .
who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is
this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity
and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain
silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals and upholding the
Constitution of the United States of America
traveler
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:01:25 -0600, "00:00:00Hg" <tsoh...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3caa4242....@news.starpower.net>, "Mika" <Mi...@usa.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The entire world has now condemned the murderous rampages by israeli
> >> authorities. If it were not for the controlled media in the U.S., its
> >> people too would demand that this religious war against an indigenous
> >> people be stopped at once.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry about that. Bush has an 85% approval rating and riseing.
>
> Yes indeed. Ana about 85% of Americans are idiots too.
>
>
> > We have had enough and we are ready to face the world
> > in one hell of a fight if that is what it wishes.
>
> We've bombed most of the world. Why on earth would they be irritated?
>
> > Like it or not, the New World Order is here.
>
> With people like you to promote it? ROFL!
Du bist ein sheiskopf.
(0) (0) I C U
00:00:00Hg
<bro...@cet.com> wrote:
No, I'd rip Hitlers head off and piss down his windpipe.
You are obviously an Palistinian Arab.
Your lack of reasonable Intelligence belies the fact.
As I am attending an Arab conference with high Jordainan
officals Sunday, I will remember your words and pass them
on for a good belly laugh before we begin serious talks.