|
Post by no name on May 1, 2004 16:31:49 GMT -5
Like the Iraquis ... especially the ones that were tortured. A small handful of soldiers out of 100,000+ in our military that are deployed there do something criminal, and you use this pitiful example to try to prove a point? (Which doesn't prove any supposed "point", by the way.) Torture and murder were an everyday occurrance under Saddam's reign -- were you as "outraged" about that? Oh, but of course not! -- It's SOOO much easier to take any misstep or misdeed on the action of a U.S. Military member and hold it up as some kind of "banner" for how "evil" the U.S. is -- por favor! "The Price of 'PEACE'" dissidentfrogman.8bit.co.uk/price_of_peace.htmlourworld.cs.com/ADVAMDV/iraqwmd.swfYou may have "followed the news", but it doesn't sound at all like you truly comprehend our electoral process, or you wouldn't be throwing out such tripe. Somehow, I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 1, 2004 17:23:44 GMT -5
Only they were photographed. What about the others that do not let «unfriendly journalists» around.
I was outraged of course. I never supported the Saddam reign. But Saddam is to be judged as a dictator. The US, a «democracy» lied about the WMD to invade Iraq and get hold of the oil there. Would you like some Russians or Indians to come invade the US pretending you own WMD (which by the way you do and were the only ones to use them on civilians)? By which right did the US invaded Iraq, without proper UN clearance and on the basis of a full lie? In the name of which democracy and which freedom and which human rights?
But OK lets say that the US could invade a country run by a dictator (an unfriendly dictator that is - who some years ago was shaking hands with members of the Bush administration). What about Guandanamo Bay - which has been condemned by every human rights organisation in the world. Is this too «the result of a handfull of soldiers»?
And can you please let Dennis speak for himself. Is this how you homeschool your children - «you can have any opinion you want provided that you agree with me» ?
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 1, 2004 17:27:16 GMT -5
Sorry lady - evry body exept you knows how your president was elected. But maybe you do not see TV nor hear the radio - the 2x2s usually forbid following the «world» ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 1, 2004 18:50:20 GMT -5
Only they were photographed. What about the others that do not let «unfriendly journalists» around. Your hint that this is a widespread mindset/behavior among our military isn't an accurrate one . . . . our military is as good as it is because of their excellent training and discipline. There are always some bad apples in any bunch. What an old, worn out, and false claim. The difference is that Saddam was a threat to others, supported terrorism, tortured and killed his own people -- to the tune of a few hundred thousand (Saddam and his regime alone were WMDs!!), invaded Kuwait (for their oil profits, btw) and killed and tortured many of its citizens, did have WMDs and used them, had plenty of time to get rid of them -- (even his own military had gas masks with them, so even they thought that WMDs would be used in the battle), had violated numerous U.N. resolutions, violated the terms of the original Gulf War cease-fire agreement, was definitely found to have been involved in illegal/underhanded activities with respect to biolegical weapons programs, intentions to restart his nuclear program, and other things, etc., etc., etc., We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.David Kay Some of the physical evidence still remains, despite what was clearly a deliberate, coordinated and thorough attempt to destroy evidence before during and after the war. Among the discoveries:
--A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
--A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
--Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
--New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
--Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
--A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
--Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
--Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
--Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.Violations of the original Gulf War cease-fire agreement Violations of multiple U.N. resolutions Threat to others, support of terrorism No lie about the WMD You think the Iraqi people had freedom and human rights under Saddam -- ?? Actually, there have been prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay who have stated that they were well-treated and not abused in any manner there. I've not seen that GB has been "condemned by every human rights organization", unless incarcerating prisoners is considered some kind of human rights violation . . . Sure, Dennis is free to speak for himself. I already stated that I hoped he would respond to you. I've every right to challenge fallacious comments.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 1, 2004 18:50:34 GMT -5
Sorry lady - evry body exept you knows how your president was elected. But maybe you do not see TV nor hear the radio - the 2x2s usually forbid following the «world» ... Boy, have you really been batting yourself out on this thread! By the above comments, you seem to prove very clearly that you've no idea what you're talking about -- not only with respect to how Bush was legally elected, but also about me! This is getting even more and more humorous! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 20:26:03 GMT -5
Dennis, you said a lot but nothing on the question at hand : Should we support Israel or not? End This/these question(s) raise(s) some vague references for me that need clarification. The first one being who is the "WE?" If the meaning is the entire world, that is far beyond the scope of my individual belief, as I cannot address the anti-semitism still carred over by some from decades of propaganda. If the meaning is the entire US population, when even during the world wars, there was dissent, why should it be any different in the present regarding Israel?
Likely message board postings won't change what others believe politically, and just become a place for people to test their beliefs anonymously. I am not dong that. I am responding because of the objection to No Name speaking for me, and she wanted me to reply.
The question was not if I personally "support Israel," nor was it defined what "support Israel" means. However, I'll attempt to answer this question from my perspective of things, being in my sixties, and given to meditation.
To answer accurately (since demand of a Yes/No type answer creates for me the fallacy of logic of too few options) I deem it necessary to lay some foundation. The nation of Israel has not threatened Arab extinction. Arab and other affliated countries with the Arabs repeatedly threaten the very existence of the Nation of Israel. Do I think a better solution than presently exists could be found? Yes, I believe that.
Do I think Israel, or any country, including the USA is totally righteous? No, I surely do not. Sometimes it seems to me the Golden Rule is often as if "those who have the gold, rule" and will do most anything to preserve their power.
On the other hand, do I believe there should be a State of Israel? Yes, I do. Do I believe there should also be an independent Palestine State? Probably, although as long as they proclaim their intentions to destroy Israel, I can't believe they've reached the proper level of civilization to attain such yet.
Should we support Bush's war in Afganistan and Iraq or not? End Is this a question from an American citizen? Or one who benefits from the American way of life? If so, then I believe elected leaders should be given the opportunity to fill their oath of office. So again, what does "support" mean? Is the intent to try to polarize people or discover how others might think/believe? Are they given the freedom of belief and expression claimed for oneself?
In my entire lifetime, I've not been in favor of war. War as known by me in my lifetime is an unrighteous necessity. Whatever occurred in the past, war was thrust on the USA this time. When the USA responds, should everyone in our country then sympathize with or admire those who have shouted "DEATH TO THE USA, THE GREAT SATAN? Some do, I don't.
Nice quote «the land of the free because of the brave» but what happens when the brave serve the evil ones. End What country is led by only righteous people? Evil is often a matter of perspective. Some don't see the attacks on the USA as evil. I do. Unfortunately evil is often only overcome by a greater force. War is not righteous, yet, not once have I noticed this specific author's posts condeming the war declared upon the USA. Not once, only an expressed perception that the USA is the real source of Evil in the world.
Should anyone assume to police the world? Probably not. Yet as victors, the USA has left people with more freedoms, more opportunity, and eventually more wealth than any other victors in the History of the world. The UN often appears as if it is a farce. It surely is not any more righteous.
Nice quote «America is not a democracy» but what happens when this «non-democracy» tries to «export democracy» all over the planet. End Yes, America tries to export democratic forms of government, to other countries with supressed citizens. Should everyone perceive from such expression that dictatorships using WMD on their own citizens should be merely addressed by hand-wringing and constant jawboning?
Finally you mention that Bush was a HUGE majority winner. Michael Moore and many other Americans thing otherwise - that Bush became president because of his father's friends at the Supreme Court. End How dare amyone laugh at No Name for her supposed ignorance while apparently never once considering their own? For me, the comment in quotes reveals just how ignorant this poster really seems to be. Believing what someone says who misrepresents the actual politics of the USA with its electral college rather than one vote rule! How foolishly ignorant!
When I related what I have, it was accurate and truthful. I am neither a democrat nor republican, being an independent leaning most often towards fiscal conservativeness, believing there are limits to doing it all by taxes. At the same time, I do not believe in survival only of the fitest.
Have maps of the states that were in favor of Bush, as compared to the states that were not been consulted and studied? Of course not, else there would not have been such a rediculous challenge of what I posted. Some may respect Michael Moore, but I certainly don't, nor do I respect anyone for quoting him.
However, everyone is free to post whatever they wish that passes the built-in censor and administrator's guidelines. That is what "freedom" in the land of the free because of the brave actually means.
Others are just as free to believe such postings are the drivel of an I D I O T, are they not? Likely even as mine appear to some despite my highest possible grades in polysci. Even in class so long ago, top students were never in total agreement but I never felt the hostility I perceive contained in the foregoing posts to No Name.
Perhaps Ami English is not the native language of all parities which leads to misperceptions through lack of nuance awareness. Now, I've made an attempt to answer the questions and address issues put to me. Unless, however, the rhetoric tones down, this will be my last post in response to this thread.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 5:10:32 GMT -5
This is not correct. Isrel was created on Arab soil, taking away land from the Palestinians and creating a mass of refugees. The UN resolution creating the State of Israel set as a condition the parallel creation of a Palestinian State. This never happened because Israel launched war against the Arabs. We all believe it Dennis. Albeit in different ways. And the US has its own agenda in this. Supporting Istael unconditionally fuels its agressiveness and this then fuels the hatred of Palestinians and Arabs. Remember they still have to get through the Crusades. Fully agree on this which reinforces my position about the US. As for the State of Israel many religious Jews think otherwise (see www.nkusa.org/). As for the Palestinian State see above. Will continue my reply in a second post.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 2, 2004 7:41:08 GMT -5
Quote:The nation of Israel has not threatened Arab extinction. This is not correct. Isrel was created on Arab soil, taking away land from the Palestinians and creating a mass of refugees. The UN resolution creating the State of Israel set as a condition the parallel creation of a Palestinian State. This never happened because Israel launched war against the Arabs. Actually, since Israel became a nation, it has been under attack from its Arab neighbors; it is under attack even today by the evil of suicide bombers. Israel has not made a mandate to kill all the Arabs; this is what the Palestinians teach their children -- to kill the Jews. Nope. The Palestinians and Arabs fuel their own hatred against Israel. This hate is ingrained into their children from an early age. It would be the same, if not worse, even without U.S. support. Most likely anything will negatively "reinforce" your "position" about the U.S. -- no surprise there . . . Statehood doesn't seem to be what they really want -- rather, extermination of the Jewish people and their nation. If the PA would step up to the plate, and be aggressive about stopping the terror bombings, and if their schools would stop drilling into their children that there is glory in hating and killing Jews, then perhaps things would move more quickly with respect to Palestinian Statehood . . . . at this point, they condone the actions of the terror groups, and have generally not moved to stop them. They probably also enjoyed it that Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of terror bombers. Their Statehood won't be built on that mentality, which is a shame -- because in the end it is the Palestinian civilians who suffer as well. But I guess it's easier to blame Israel, or the U.S. for their own problems and failings, rather than looking inward. So much easier to blame someone or something else, than to realize that they have had a direct hand in their own problems . . . Golda Mier, former Prime Minister of Israel, once said: "There will never be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians learn to love their children more than they hate [the Jews]." So true.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 8:17:59 GMT -5
You foerget HOW it became a nation - I mean in 1947. If you want to deal with the antisemitism as a whole this is another issue. In 1947 Israel threw away the Palestinians from their land an seized by force the best of it. Palestinians became refugees in their own land. And I thnk that as Americans teach their children aboutthe bad Nazis and about Pearl Harbor so Palestinians teach their children not to forget the injustices thei suffered. I think this is logical. Even Native Americans teach their about the fact that their ancestors were exterminated by the English. See again at www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html. It is written by an Israeli for Israelis. And it says the oposite. Not really - I appreciated the more objective position of Dennis. Although his text has a tendency to keep the balance on everything by supporting every view and its opposite. I think that as long as Israel is notreturning the land to the Palestinians, palestinian men and women will fight in any way they can against Israel. I do not support terror attacks in any way. But I understant the deseperation of these people and their right to get back what was stollen from them in the first place. A final remark - I just got a book by Amy Chua entitled «World on fire, How exporting free-market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability». It was a NYTimes bestseller and I am going to read it carefully. You see I do not read the Palestinian propaganda to question American positions - American intellectuals still have the possibility to speak the truth and I hope that they continue this way.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 8:30:28 GMT -5
Reply to Dennis (continued):
Hitler was also elected in the first place ...
No country indeed. But there is absolute evil and banalised evil - see Hannah Arendt's work for this. And many intellectuals in the US and elsewhere believe that US government under Bush is much more evil than is normally accepted.
Maybe the book by Amy Chua I mentioned above shows why America should stop doing this.
I read «White stupid men» and «Dude give me back my country». I have seen the film «Bowling for Columbine» - which got an Oscar. They all made the best-sellers list. They all state facts that heve been not refuted. I also read articles by Noam Chomsky, an authority in these affairs. Maybe Dennis you are not aware of these positions. I can forward you a list of books and articles that support my position, if you so desire.
Please forgive my occasional roughness - but I have the tendency to be agressive when people have not taken the time to consult all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 2, 2004 8:37:52 GMT -5
. . . . Palestinians became refugees in their own land. . . . .. First of all, the term "Palestinians" is a misrepresentation created by the news media. There have never been any such people unless you include the Jewish people, decendents and residents of the area, among them. Second, you ignore the fact that the Jews were given that land by God many centuries prior, unless you do not believe the Bible. Third, in the early 1940's those you refer to as "Palestinians" were already "refugees in their own land", subject to constant abuse by their own people, who had neither democratic nor God-given nor moral right to claim the power they exerted. Finally, I have worked with both Jews and Arabs in Israel, and it really is true that the Arab people who lived and worked in Israel were treated much better by the Jewish society and government than they ever were or could be in any of the surrounding nations ruled by other Arabs. Most of them did not support what their "rulers" are trying to force on them, and they recognized the advantages they had, at least prior to the recent conflicts. What is happening now reminds me of union workers going on strike for higher benefits and in the process losing their jobs permanently. I have been to Israel several times. It is not a particularly enjoyable place to visit, but it is tremendously educational. You will never get an accurate picture of the circumstances there by reading any book or news account in this country. inatent
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 8:55:43 GMT -5
From www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=1336How 10 Dead Killed 180 LivingUri Misgav of the Tel-Aviv weekly Ha'Ir (25.9.2003) conducted a survey into 10 cases of "targeted assassination" and Palestinian attacks launched in retaliation for them. All these assassinations followed periods of relative quiet. Synopsis: 31.7.2001: 2 Hamas activists assassinated in Nablus. "Collateral damage": 4 Palestinian adults and 2 children killed. 5.8 – 9.8.2001: 18 Israelis killed in four terror attacks. 27.8.2001: Popular Front leader assassinated in Ramallah. 29.8 – 9.9.2001: 7 Israelis killed in four terror attacks. 17.10.2001: Popular Front combatants assassinate an Israeli cabinet minister. 23.11.2001: Hamas activist assassinated north of Nablus. "Collateral damage": 2 Palestinian adults killed. 24.11 – 2.12.2001: 35 Israelis killed in eight terror attacks. 10.12.2001: Islamic Jihad activist assassinated in Hebron. "Collateral damage": 2 Palestinian children killed. 12.12.2001: 10 Israelis killed in revenge in Immanuel. 14.1.2002: Tanzim commander assassinated in Tul Karm. 14.1 – 22.1.2002: 11 Israelis killed in five retaliation attacks. 22.7.2002: Hamas senior killed by a one-ton-bomb on his house in Gaza. "Collateral damage": 5 Palestinian adults and 9 children killed. 26.7 – 4.8.2002: 27 Israelis killed in seven counter-attacks. 9.11.2002: Islamic Jihad activist killed in Jenin. 16.11.2002: 14 Israelis killed in revenge in Hebron. 10.6.2003: Hamas political leader Rantissi slightly injured in Gaza. "Collateral damage": 4 Palestinian adults and a child killed. 11.6.2003: 17 Israelis killed in retaliation in Jerusalem. 9.8.2003, 15.8.2003: 3 Hamas combatants killed in Nablus and Hebron. An Israeli soldier was killed in action. 12.8 – 20.8.2003: 25 Israelis killed in two revenge attacks. 6.9.2003: Israel bombs a meeting of the leadership of Hamas in Gaza, but fails. 9.9.2003: 15 Israelis killed in two counter-attacks. Sum total: 10 wanted Palestinians assassinated; 30 innocent Palestinian killed; 180 innocent Israelis killed in retaliation directly following the assassinations. As the Israeli Chief-of-Staff so often boasts, "the 'targeted prevention' policy is working perfectly."
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 9:10:58 GMT -5
Philistines - Palestinians. The native people of Palestine since antiquity (even before the arrival of the Jews).
The Bible is a (propaganda) book written by the Jews so it cannot count as evidence. And God HIMSELF never wrote something - everything was written by humans (with clear and enormous vested interests). However, if the land was given why did Abraham insisted to pay for the piece of land he bought to bury his wife?
I thought that Palestine was under British rule until 1947. And all the refugees that lost their lands because of the 1947 war and moved to Lebanon? All is clearly described in the book «From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium» by William Dalrymple
If this is true how come they die in suicide attacks against their benefactors ?? What about the voting rights of these people? Their basic political rights? According to well known sources these people are considered «second class citizens» in Israel.
I fully agree - but to go there you have to be examined thoroughly by the Israeli security (and I do not like being investigated as were some of my friends who visited Israel) and risk being bombed (by Palestinians or Israelis alike).
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 9:20:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 2, 2004 9:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 2, 2004 21:37:36 GMT -5
You foerget HOW it became a nation - I mean in 1947. If you want to deal with the antisemitism as a whole this is another issue. In 1947 Israel threw away the Palestinians from their land an seized by force the best of it. Palestinians became refugees in their own land. First of all, there are many “myths” in the above comments. Number one being that there is actually a separate race of people called “Palestinians”. I’m also guilty of referring to them as “Palestinians”, but as Inatent indicated, this is a misrepresentation. MYTH 1: A separate Palestinian people existed with historic roots in PalestineNot true There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.Joseph Farah (Arab-American journalist) WorldNetDaily.com In all of the history of the region, there never was a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs are not a distinct people. With very few exceptions, they are a highly mixed group of immigrants from all over the Middle East and even further regions: Assyrians, Persians and Romans from ancient times, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, and Italians, Afghans, Kurds, other Europeans including Germans, Bosnians, Circassians as well as Egyptians, Bedouins, Algerians, Sudanese and many others who have been identified in the population. Most of today's inhabitants can trace their history in the Palestine area no further than the early 20th century when many came to Palestine attracted by the Zionist prosperity and, after World War I, the political stability of the British administration of the Mandate.PalestineFacts.org palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_prezionist_people.phpDid you know that there was never any country called Palestine? Did you know that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people?
The ideas that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian land, and that the Palestinian people are fighting for their land, have been accepted by most of the governments of the world and by most of the media in the world. But if you read on, you will see that these two claims are the biggest lies ever deliberately perpetrated on humanity.
Check out any map of the Middle East and see for yourself. You will find Palestine listed as a region as it always has been, but definitely not a country. We can locate the Mojave Desert on the map, but we still do not recognize it as our 51st state, let alone a country. Similarly, the region of Siberia is a region not a state. The Sahara is a region not a state, etc., etc. Neither is Palestine a state. It never was a country, just a region.
Importantly, the Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic, Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the State of Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area he wrote he found nothing but a wasteland.
During the 19 years that the territories, including Jerusalem and Gaza, were occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, no one talked about a Palestinian state; not the Arab countries, not the United Nations. Nobody asked Jordan or Egypt to abdicate their ownership and give it to the Palestinians. Not even the Palestinians themselves said anything about a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people, because nobody heard of a Palestinian people. It never existed. The fact simply is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people.Sharon Nader Sloan and Beth Kennedy IsraelInsider.com MYTH 2: The Jews stole the land from Palestinian ArabsNot true. christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/septoct99/factmyth.htmlwww.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#aToo many myths and facts in the above links to list here. Additionally: Palestinian Arabs have been offered the opportunity to create a state many times, starting with plans advanced during the British Mandate which the Arabs rejected. Then the United Nation partition plan of 1947, which brought Israel into existence, included a nation for the Palestinians, but the Arabs rejected it. Over the decades since there has been plan after plan that would bring peace to the region and a state for the Palestinians: all they had to do was let Israel live in peace. Arabs rejected all these plans, up to and including at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, and kept the armed struggle going.PalestineFacts.org MYTH 3: Israel is responsible for the plight of the Arab refugees[/b][/i] Not true. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.US-Israel.org Israel could not simply agree to allow all Palestinians to return, but consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. Israel's position was expressed by David Ben-Gurion (August 1, 1948):
"When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter-claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return."
The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property "to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops...."
The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees.
The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.
Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million. In addition, through 1975, the Israeli government paid to more than 11,000 claimants more than 23 million Israeli pounds in cash and granted more than 20,000 acres as alternative holdings. Payments were made by land value between 1948 and 1953, plus 6 percent for every year following the claim submission. UJC.org * Arab and Jewish Refugees - In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
* The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
* The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
* Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.israel-arab_conflict.tripod.com MYTH 4: If the West, particularly the US, would be fair and evenhanded, Israel would be neutralized and Palestinian Arab problems would cease.[/u][/i] The above info is enough to prove this is NOT TRUE.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 2, 2004 21:38:32 GMT -5
The difference is that the group of people in the above examples don’t make it a mandate[/i] to go and kill innocents[/i] because of a particular "history" -- real or imagined. The “Palestinian” Arabs teach their kids that it is a glory to kill Jews – they don’t teach “history”, they actively encourage and perpetuate violence. BIG, BIG difference. Even Americans publish and express Anti-American sentiments . . . . no biggie there . . . I appreciate the way Dennis expresses himself as well. This above misconception has already been refuted. More myths (with regard to land being “stolen” from the Palestinians). In any event, perhaps I am wrong, but it does appear that you try to excuse the tactics of the suicide/terror bombers, and by this, it seems that you view them as a “supportable” actions. Soak it all up – this is what you already seem to believe . . . . Anti-Americanism is all over the place, not just in Palestinian propaganda. Nothing new . . . Do you say the same about “American intellectuals” who would disagree with your comments on this discussion?? Reply to Dennis (continued): Hitler was also elected in the first place ... The ridiculous comparison of Bush/America to Hitler is disgusting and tired; try comparing Saddam – he is a true modern-day Hitler. Just because someone (in the U.S. or elsewhere) disagrees with U.S. actions to protect itself does not automatically qualify them as an “intellectual”. That’s nice that you seem to give so much credence to Michael Moore -- someone who created a spectacle of himself on national TV (to loud boos, by the way). He may have “won” an Oscar, but he won it in the wrong category – his work was ultimately that of fiction/misrepresentation. “Documentary or Fiction?”www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Michael Moore - Exposed www.mooreexposed.com/Not just “roughness”, but personal attacks, insults, and totally untrue accusations. You incorrectly assume that because I see contrary to you, fellowship in home meetings, and homeschool my children, this must mean I'm an ignoramus. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible is a (propaganda) book written by the Jews so it cannot count as evidence. And God HIMSELF never wrote something - everything was written by humans (with clear and enormous vested interests). And there you have it – now we know what we are dealing with here More myths refuted in the earlier info and links. Ingrained hate – taught to them from youth, and other ways. Actually, what Inatent expressed in his post is the same that I’ve heard from multiple sources as well. Racism?A constant charge —— most recently and repugnantly made by a freed Mr. Arafat —— is that the Israelis bear a racial grudge against the Palestinians. He has alleged that, like Nazis, Israelis seek to cleanse non-Jews from the West Bank. The U.N. itself for years tried to pass resolutions equating Zionism with racism. Yet by any fair measure the Israeli government is light-years ahead of the Arab world in terms of racial and religious tolerance. Privately, Arabs would concede that they are treated far better in Tel Aviv than any Jew would be now in Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, or Amman. We do not read in the Jerusalem Post, as we do in the Arab dailies, that Palestinians are "monkeys" and "vampires". Nor is there a sizable literature in Israel —— as there is in the Arab world —— devoted to proving their enemies are subhuman. Real racism and hatred exist in this present conflict, but they are expressed almost entirely by Arabs, not Jews. Had a paper in Tel Aviv alleged that Arabs drink blood and are related to primates, the world's outrage would be second only to the moral indignation in Israel itself.[/i] Victor Davis Hanson - “On Hating Israel – What we know but can’t say out loud.”www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson050702.aspCan you honestly blame the Israeli security for taking such measures? Thanks to the suicide/terror bombers . . . Some bad apples or a bad apple tree ?? Some bad apples. Your continued attempts (like many other people with Anti-American sentiments) to berate the entire military as such is fallacious. That’s right – and an excellent military at that; the best in the world. I hope those who engaged in this despicable behavior will be punished severely; I believe they will pay the consequences for what they did, as well they should! Too bad there wasn’t as much “outrage” against the evils that Saddam and his sons perpetuated against their own people. But once again – the anger and outrage of those who already despise the U.S. is very unbalanced and very often misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 3, 2004 3:27:48 GMT -5
No name - you can stay with your myths as I will stay with mine. It is no use trying to discuss seriously when your sources are religious/fundamentalist-oriented, Israeli-sponsored sites. As for Michael Moore, I still have not read a documented refutal of the hard facts included in his books.
You have not suffered because of American intervention and arrogance - I have. You have not felt diminished because of American propaganda - I have. You have not seen your country run by ignorant un-cultured Americans - I have. So it is a pity that my children will fight at the end your children - but this will come naturally because of believing in different/oposite myths - only that I have felt yours in my flesh already.
«If you have been a fool by being proud or plotting evil, don't brag about it--cover your mouth with your hand in shame. As the beating of cream yields butter, and a blow to the nose causes bleeding, so anger causes quarrels».
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 3, 2004 11:03:05 GMT -5
No name - you can stay with your myths as I will stay with mine. What – “You can’t handle the truth!”? Col. Nathan R. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) A Few Good Men – 1992 That's okay -- many people have been misled by those myths/misunderstandings/misconceptions you expressed about what's really going on in the Middle East. Emotion doesn’t usually stand up to the facts. Actually, I also consulted numerous Encyclopedias yesterday afternoon, in which I found much of the same substantiated info. It’s no use trying to discuss seriously when your sources are leftist, Anti-American, and Anti-Israeli people and organizations . . . What, proof of his distortions on film and his own personal inconsistencies weren’t enough? Well, here you go then – just a few “documented” rebuttals of his “work”. “Moore's myriad mistakes”www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html“Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?”www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html“Moore, Humbug”www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html“Not So Stupid White Men Fight Back” On the LondonTimes.com website – unfortunately, unable to access this b/c a paid subscription is needed. “One Moore Stupid White Man”www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.htmlIn case you haven’t noticed, Michael Moore is not widely viewed as a credible source of information. Do you ever wonder whether the suffering you mention may be contributed to by the outlook you seem to have? At any rate, nothing you’ve described to me will ever justify your (and others’) wayward belief that because someone has suffered, it is therefore okay, justifiable, excusable (or whatever else you want to call it!) to then walk into a crowd of innocent people and blow them to pieces, simply because of who they are, and because they are innocent people. But then again, it’s always so much easier to lay blame for one’s problems in life at the feet of someone or something else, instead of looking inwardly, isn’t it? Very human tendency.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 3, 2004 11:51:29 GMT -5
Before quoting please see the film my dear no name. Col. Nathan R. Jessup goes to prison at the end - as he deserves it by being a fascist !
If your numerous Encyclopedias say that Palestinians do not exist I am sorry for the Encyclopedias ... My history books say differently - but why waste time on quoting them when you are not going to read them even if they are published by renowned American authors. Just read the Chaim Potok History of the Jews.
Moore refuted these accusations on his site. I tend to believe him rather than your sources.
Thanks for your nice Christian idea - I suffered because I did not agree with a US-sponsored junta and because I oppose the US; I do not suffer because the US is a quasi-fascist entity supporting unjust regimes and methods. It is really a pity that some - fortunatelly not all - Americans have such a distorted view of reality and threaten so easily all the people that dare critisize their way of thinking and acting.
I am sorry for you no name - and will not waste more energy on this dialogue.
Your leftist human ... who suffers because of his Anti-Americanism ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 3, 2004 14:01:58 GMT -5
Before quoting please see the film my dear no name. Col. Nathan R. Jessup goes to prison at the end - as he deserves it by being a fascist ! You seem to have a faulty habit of making very incorrect assumptions about me. An assumption that I haven't seen the film is yet another erroneous one. Please note that I used that one line (not the other diatribe he spouted in the film) -- that simple sentence which (despite the evil character played by Nicholson), holds too much reality for people who prefer to base their outlook only on emotion. But since you wanted to delve into that further -- you would hopefully remember that it was the U.S. Military itself that found him guilty, and held him accountable by throwing him into prison. The fact (which perhaps you don't want to notice) is that there is no Palestinian race of people. Moore tried to refute them; the fact is that his obvious knack for distortions/misleading tendencies has made its mark on his reputation. He is not viewed as credible by many people -- except those who already believe and buy into his rants. As I said, soak it all up. Well, I am a Christian, but my comment was also rooted in common sense. It's quite clear you "oppose" the U.S. Much of the world has a love/hate relationship with this country -- many countries/people continue to turn to the U.S. for help/support, while casting aspersions upon our nation at the same time. Typical. Oh good grief Yet another indication of misapplied emotions and definitions. It's fortunate that most Americans don't buy into such sentiment as what you've expressed in your posts. Criticism and debate is one thing; comparing America to such evils as Hitler, is quite another. That's not mere criticism -- it's the spewing of hate. You've a funny way of showing it -- please excuse my tendency to doubt this as a literal truth. I understand -- it must be pretty exhausting to find that emotional arguments don't always equal fact. Poor fellow.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 4, 2004 2:38:54 GMT -5
Ambassadors' letter to Blair Here is the letter sent by more than 50 former British ambassadors to Tony Blair, urging him either to influence US policy in the Middle East or to stop backing it: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment. The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a Road Map for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain. Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced. This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq. The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the Coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists in the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the United Nations to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess. The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total between 10,000 and 15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred, including many civilians, men, women and children. Phrases such as `We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice,' apparently referring only to those who have died on the Coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions those killings arouse. We share your view that the British Government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure." Signatories: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge; Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian Hitch; Archie Lamb and David Logan. Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir and Alan White. From news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3660837.stm
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 4, 2004 2:41:40 GMT -5
Letter to President Bush from Former U.S. DiplomatsT By Former U.S. Diplomats April 30, 2004 President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We former U.S. diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticizing his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States. As retired foreign service officers we care deeply about our nation's foreign policy and U.S. credibility in the world. We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank. This plan defies U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Israel's return of occupied territories. It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal. It flouts U.N. Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so. And it undermines the Road Map for peace drawn up by the Quartet, including the U.S. Finally, it reverses longstanding American policy in the Middle East. Your meeting with Sharon followed a series of intensive negotiating sessions between Israelis and Americans, but which left out Palestinians. In fact, you and Prime Minister Sharon consistently have excluded Palestinians from peace negotiations. Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo voiced the overwhelming reaction of people around the world when he said, "I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today." By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner. You have placed U.S. diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position. Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon’s unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East. Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker. A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East—even in Iraq. Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region—and the world—will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained. Sincerely, Andrew I. Killgore, Ambassador to Qatar, 1977-1980 Richard H. Curtiss, former chief inspector, U.S. Information Agency Colbert C. Held, Retired FSO and author Thomas J. Carolan, Counsel General Istanbul, '88-'92 C. Edward Bernier, Counselor of Embassy, Information and Culture, Islamabad, Pakistan Donald A. Kruse, American Consul in Jerusalem Ambassador Edward L. Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and Mauritania John Powell, Admin Counselor in Beirut, '75-'76 John Gunther Dean, last position held U.S. Ambassador to India Greg Thielmann, Director, Office for Strategic Proliferation Military Affairs, Bureau of Intelligence and Research James Akins, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Talcott Seeyle, Ambassador to Syria Eugene Bird, Counselor of Embassy in Saudi Arabia Richard H. Nolte, Ambassador to Egypt Ray Close, Chief of Station Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 1971-1979 Shirl McArthur, Commercial Attache, Bangkok From www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3639&CategoryId=18
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 4, 2004 2:58:22 GMT -5
The above are non-sentimental replies to no name.
Note the following:
1. The use of the term Palestinians and Palestinian State. (How come - no name believes they do not constitute a nation ...)
2. «To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.» (But no name is deeply entrenched in this position ...)
3. «Phrases such as `We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice,' apparently referring only to those who have died on the Coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions those killings arouse.» (Well according to no name passions are to be excluded ...)
4. «By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner. You have placed U.S. diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position.» (But the terrorists will attack the US in all cases because they hate the US in the first place ... Eh no name?)
5. «Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon’s unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. (How come - the land of the free because of the brave is not credible, nor prestigious ...)
It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East. Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker. A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East—even in Iraq. Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region—and the world—will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained.» (Return to fairness - well where does the US stand today ?? No name will ensure you that it is the fairest state on earth run by the most honest President of all times - and the bravest also ....)
Of course no name does not give a dime aboutthe opinion of more than 100 diplomats specialised in Middle East issues. She has thousands of sources proving the oposite - probably they are leftist, antiamerican idiots anyway ...
With love form your poor fellow ;D
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 4, 2004 19:47:09 GMT -5
Was the above line a truthful comment or not? I’m thinking – not . . . Sorry you didn’t appreciate the facts as previously presented to you. You assume that by posting the opinion letters that you did (coming from those who hold the same positions that you do) that this somehow changes the facts? For some people/politicians, they have to shy away from what needs to be acknowledged for what it is because of something called “political correctness” and long-standing misconceptions. * The Palestinian people [do] not exist. This fact even came from the mouth of a PLO executive member in a 1977 interview: Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." * Suicide bombers of innocent people (and those who direct them) are not “freedom fighters” – they are terrorists. Period. If you want to continue to buy into the hyped-up sympathy for those elements in a group of people who choose to intentionally murder innocents (and who don't appear to have made any real efforts to improve their own situation) -- please, go right ahead! But you can give up trying to convince me of your opinion – it will never fly.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 5, 2004 2:46:01 GMT -5
You are not the only one reading this thread anyway ... And, yes, I do know that you are not going to change your mind. 2x2s very seldom do. Their dogmatic dependence and stuborness are in fact due to their psychological profile.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 5, 2004 10:17:36 GMT -5
You are not the only one reading this thread anyway ... Of course many people can read this thread -- what does that have to do with anything? My position has nothing to do with the fact that I fellowship in home meetings, no matter how much you may wish that it does. My commentary on the situation in Israel is shared by many more people than just myself -- people who don't even know anything about the "2&2". Ah, yes, of course. Can't handle the facts -- so you resort to more personally degrading insinuations. Again -- typical.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 5, 2004 11:27:46 GMT -5
Who can't handle the facts? For each point you mentioned I provided a well documented counter-point - but you did not even discussed the issue. And why saying that somebody is stuborn is a degrading insinuation? It was never meant this way - but I do not know any other word describing somebody who never changes his/her mind and will not even try to understand the position of the other. By the way, the source you use for the anti-palestinian quotes cannot be a valid one (PalestineFacts.org) as it is run by anonymous Jewish writers - just a propaganda site. As for the spinsanity site it is evident that it is pro-Bush - no criticism there for the Big Brother. The christianactionforisrael.org site is evidently «fundagelist» (see thread God save America) while the site www.us-israel.org whose About page starts with a quote by Sharon cannot really be considered non-propaganda. I prefer the www.miftah.org site where you can find all Agreements, UN & other Resolutions, as well as other Historical Documents related to the Middle East conflict and vital documents that shaped the reality of the region today. I also heard in the news today that the latest film of Michael Moore (Farheneit 911 - about the links between the Bush and ben Laden families) will not be distributed in the US - as the book «House of Bush, house of Saud». This is called press control and censoring and constitutes the first stage of fascism - for the country of the (not so) free (especially if you disagree) because of the brave (who torture and degrade prisonners who cannot defend themselves). The film will probably receive a distinction at the Cannes festival in France. But of course according to no name the jury cannot be trusted because it is leftist, antiamerican, almost terrorist ... «If you have been a fool by being proud or plotting evil, don't brag about it--cover your mouth with your hand in shame. As the beating of cream yields butter, and a blow to the nose causes bleeding, so anger causes quarrels»
|
|