 |
 |
HCIG2
Ground Zero
War on terror fuels small arms trade
Charities say 500,000 people are killed each year by the real weapons of
mass destruction
Owen Bowcott and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday October 10, 2003
The Guardian
The "war on terror" has weakened national arms controls and fuelled the proliferation of
conventional weapons, a coalition of leading human rights charities warned yesterday.
Launching a global campaign to regulate the arms trade, Amnesty International, Oxfam,
and the International Network on Small Arms said that on average 500,000 people were
killed each year by armed violence - roughly one victim a minute.
Existing arms control laws, including those in Britain, are riddled with loopholes, the
agencies claim, and what is needed is a common approach similar to the initiative that
produced the 1997 Ottawa treaty banning landmines.
The charities' proposed international arms trade treaty would outlaw weapons sales
involving exportation for use entailing "violations of international human rights or
humanitarian law". The plan will be presented to a United Nations conference on small
arms in 2006.
"A new urgency has been created by the so-called war on terror," said Irene Khan,
secretary general of Amnesty. "This is fuelling the proliferation of weapons rather than
combating it. Many countries, including the US, have relaxed controls on sales of arms to
allies known to have appalling human rights records.
"In the past two years, the US has increased arms sales to [such states] and Britain has
followed suit. British arms sales to Indonesia [the second highest recipient of UK overseas
aid] rose from £2m in 2000 to £40m in 2002."
Shipments of arms had been delivered on the basis that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend", despite knowing that allies could become future dangers, said the charities. In June
2003, there were thought to be 24m guns in Iraq - enough to arm every man, woman and
child. The charities term small arms the true "weapons of mass destruction", which claim
hundreds of thousands of lives, destabilising countries and prolonging conflicts.
Britain, the second largest exporter of arms, is urged, in a 100-page report entitled
Shattered Lives, to sign up to the arms trade treaty. It is criticised for military aid and arms
sales to Pakistan and Uzbekistan, which soared after the September 11 attacks on the
US.
Shipments of weapons to Saudi Arabia, where thousands of people are detained arbitrarily,
and Jamaica, where the police have killed more than 600 people in the past four years, are
also highlighted.
Britain's recently introduced arms control legislation is blamed for failing to outlaw the
activity of British arms brokers who work outside the UK, despite an earlier manifesto
commitment.
The report notes that in 2002 the G8 group of industrialised countries allocated $20bn
(£12.5bn) to a programme designed to prevent terrorists acquiring nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. But "the G8 failed to address the proliferation of conventional weapons,
including small arms, to states and armed groups that they know will abuse such weapons
to terrorise [civilians]".
Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, has said the death toll from small arms "dwarfs that of
all other weapons systems, and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki atomic bombs. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms could well
be described as weapons of mass destruction - yet there is still no global non-proliferation
regime to limit their spread".
The small arms trade has widespread repercussions, especially in poor countries,
Amnesty and Oxfam say. Weapons in the wrong hands prevent access to hospitals,
markets, schools, and productive land. Poverty fuels conflict and vice versa, and the
problem is compounded by corrupt, and often scarce, official security forces. Weapons
have permeated daily life to such an extent that in northern Uganda AK-47s are replacing
spears; in Somalia some children are now named AK.
Most of the estimated 639m small arms in the world are in private hands. And the
problems facing countries after an armed conflict often overwhelm them. "Half of newly
pacified countries revert to war within a decade," adds the report.
The campaign follows concern also about Britain, where use of firearms in violent crime
grew by 35% last year.
Yesterday, the campaign also launched a petition to gather a million signatures supporting
the draft arms treaty. Showing the cost in human lives, 300 model gravestones were
erected in Trafalgar Square, London, each with the slogan "One person every minute killed
by arms".
Mike O'Brien, the Foreign Office minister, yesterday welcomed the report, but added:
"Britain has been in the forefront of efforts to improve arms controls and we have one of the
toughest export control systems in the world."
Counting cost
· 500,000 people, one a minute, killed by conventional arms every year
· 639m small arms circulating in world today, produced by more than 1,135 companies in
98 countries
· In June there were 24m guns in Iraq, enough to arm every man, woman, and child. They
could be bought for $10
· Over 59% of small arms are privately owned, 38% are in hands of government forces, less
than 3% held by police
· Nearly 8m small arms made a year
· Up to 100m Kalashnikov rifles have been produced
· 300,000 children are fighting in conflicts around world As many as 70,000 boys serve in
Burma's national army.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Israel: The Alternative By Tony Judt,
New York Review of Books, 10/23/03
© 2003
The Middle East peace process is finished, It did not die: it was killed. Mahmoud Abbas was undermined by the President of the Palestinian Authority and humiliated by the Prime Minister of Israel. His successor awaits a similar fate. Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the “road map.” The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: “It's all Arafat's fault.” Israelis themselves grimly await the next bomber. Palestinian Arabs, corralled into shrinking Bantustans, subsist on EU handouts. On the corpse-strewn landscape of the Fertile Crescent, Arid Sharon, Yasser Arafat, and a handful of terrorists can all claim victory, and they do. Have we reached the end of the road? What is to be done?
At the dawn of the twentieth century, in the twilight of the continental empires, Europe's subject peoples dreamed of forming “nation-states,” territorial homelands where Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Armenians, and others might live free, masters of their own fate. When the Hapsburg and Roman empires collapsed after World War I, their leaders seized the opportunity. A flurry of new states emerged; and the first thing they did was set about privileging their national “ethnic” majority-defined by language, or religion, or antiquity, or all three-at the expense of inconvenient local minorities, who were consigned to second-class status: permanently resident strangers in their own home.
But one nationalist movement, Zionism, was frustrated in its ambitions. The dream of an appropriately sited Jewish national home in the middle of the defunct Turkish Enipire had to wait upon the retreat of imperial Britain: a process that took three more decades and a second world war. And thus it was only in 1948 that a Jewish nation-state was established in formerly Ottoman Palestine. But the founders of the Jewish state had been influenced by the same concepts and categories as their fin-dc-siècle contemporaries back in Warsaw, or Odessa, or Bucharest; not surprisingly, Israel's ethno-religious self-definition, and its discrimination against internal “foreigners,” has always had more in common with, say, the practices of post-Hapsburg Romania than either party might care to acknowledge.
The problem with Israel, in short, is not-as is sometimes suggested-that it is a European “enclave” in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived to late. It has inspired a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state-a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded- is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.
In one vital attribute, however, Israel is quite different from previous insecure, defensive microstates born of imperial collapse: it is a democracy. Hence its present dilemma. Thanks to its occupation of the lands conquered in 1967, Israel today faces three unattractive choices. It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the territories, return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class Arab citizens.
Alternatively, Israel can continue to occupy “Samaria,” “Judea,” and Gaza, whose Arab population-added to that of present-day Israel-wilt become the demographic majority within five to eight years: in which case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of unenfranchised non-Jews) or it will be a democracy. But logically it cannot be both.
Or else Israel can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain both Jewish and at least formally democratic: but at the cost of becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.
Anyone who supposes that this third option is unthinkable above all for a Jewish state has not been watching the steady accretion of settlements and land seizures in the West Bank over the past quarter-century, or listening to generals and politicians on the Israeli right, some of them currently in government. The middle ground of Israeli politics today is occupied by the Likud. Its major component is the late Menachem Begins's Herut Party. Herut is the successor to Vladimir Jabontinsky's interwar Revisionist Zionists, whose uncompromising indifference to legal and territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet "fascists." When territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet “fascist.” When one hears Israel's deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proudly insist that his country has not excluded the option of assassinating the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, it is clear that the label fits better than ever. Political murder is what fascists do.
The situation of Israel isn't desperate, but it may be close to hopeless. Suicide bombers will never bring down the Israeli state, and the Palestinians have no other weapons. There are indeed Arab radicals who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean, but they represent no strategic threat to Israel, and the Israeli military knows it. What sensible Israelis fear much more than Hamas or the al-Aqsa Brigade is the steady emergence of an Arab majority in “Greater Israel,” and above all the erosion of the political culture and civic morale of their society. As the prominent Labor politician Avrahamn Burg recently wrote, “After two thousand years of struggle for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality.” "Unless something changes, Israel its half a decade will be neither Jewish nor democratic.
This is where the US enters the picture. Israel's behavior has been a disaster for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to withdraw from land seized and occupied in war. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent states. Washington's unconditional support for Israel even in spite of (silent) misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith.
It is now tacitly conceded by those in a position so know that America's reasons for going to war in Iraq were not necessarily those advertised at the time. For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel. This story continues. We are now making belligerent noises toward Syria be cause Israeli intelligence has assured us that Iraqi weapons have been moved there-a claim for which there is no corroborating evidence from any other source. Syria backs Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad: sworn foes of Israel, to be sure, but hardly a significant international threat. However, Damascus has hitherto been providing the US with critical data on al-Qaeda. Like Iran, another long standing target of Israeli wrath whom we are actively alienating, Syria is more use to the United States as a friend than an enemy. Which war are we fighting?
On September 16, 2003, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution asking Israel to desist from its threat to deport Yasser Arafat. Even American officials themselves recognize, off the record, that the resolution was reasonable and prudent, and that the increasingly wild pronouncements of Israel's present leadership, by restoring Arafat's standing in the Arab world, are a major impediment to peace. But the US blocked the resolution all the same, further undermining our credibility as an honest broker in the region. America's friends and allies around the world are no longer surprised at such actions, but they are saddened and disappointed all the same.
Israeli politicians have been actively contributing to their own difficulties fur many years; why do we continue to aid and abet them in their mistakes? The US has tentatively sought in the past to pressure Israel by threatening to withhold from its annual aid package some of the money that goes to subsidizing West Bank settlers. But the last time this was attempted, during the Clinton administration, Jerusalem gut around it by taking the money as “security expenditure.” Washington went along with the subterfuge, and of $10 billion of American aid over four years, between 1993 and 1997, less than $775 million was kept back. The settlement program went ahead unimpeded. Now we don't even try to stop it.
This reluctance to speak or act does no one any favors. It has also corroded American domestic debate. Rather than think straight about the Middle East, American politicians and pundits slander our European allies when they dissent, speak glibly and irresponsibly of resurgent anti-Semitism when Israel is criticized, and censoriously rebuke any public figure at home who tries to break from the consensus.
But the crisis in the Middle East won't go away. President Bush will probably be conspicuous by his absence from the fray for the coming year, having said just enough about the “road map” in June to placate Tony Blair. But sooner or later an American statesman is going to have to tell the truth to an Israeli prime minister and find a way to make him listen. Israeli liberals and moderate Palestinians have for two decades been thanklessly insisting that the only hope was for Israel to dismantle nearly all the settlements and return to the 1967 borders, in exchange for real Arab recognition of those frontiers and a stable, terrorist-free Palestinian state underwritten (and constrained) by Western and international agencies. This is still the conventional consensus, and it was once a just and possible solution.
But I suspect that we are already too late for that. There are too many settlements, too many Jewish settlers, and too many Palestinians, and they all live together, albeit separated by barbed wire and pass laws. Whatever the “road map” says, the real map is the one on the ground, and that, as Israelis say, reflects facts. It maybe that over a quarter of a million heavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave Arab Palestine voluntarily; but no one I know believes it will happen. Many of those settlers will die-and kill-rather than move. The last Israeli politician to shoot Jews in pursuit of state policy was David Ben-Gurion, who forcibly disarmed Begin's illegal Irgun militia in 1948 and integrated it into the new Israel Defense Forces. Ariel Sharon is not Ben-Gurion.
The time has come to think the unthinkable. The two-state solution-the core of the Oslo process and the present “road map”-is probably already doomed. With every passing year we are postponing an inevitable, harder choice that only the far right and far left have so far acknowledged, each for its own reasons. The true alternative facing the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. That is indeed how the hard-liners in Sharon's cabinet see the choice; and that is why they anticipate the removal of the Arabs as the ineluctable condition for the survival of a Jewish state.
But what if there were no place in the world today for a “Jewish state”? What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural. “Christian Europe,” pace M. Valery Giseard d'Estaing, is a dead letter; Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others-as any visitor to London or Paris or Geneva will know.
Israel itself is a multicultural society in all but name; yet it remains distinctive among democratic slates in its resort to ethno-religious criteria with which to denominate and rank its citizens. It is an oddity among modern nations not-as its more paranoid supporters assert-because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state; but because it is a Jewish state in which one community-Jews-is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.
For many years, Israel had a special meaning for the Jewish people. After 1948 it took in hundreds of thousands of helpless
|
survivors who had nowhere else to go; without Israel their condition would have been desperate in the extreme. Israel needed Jews, and Jews needed Israel. The circumstances of its birth have thus found Israel's identity inextricably to the Shoah the German project to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the memory of that project, something that Israel's American apologists are shamefully quick to exploit. To find fault with the Jewish state is to think ill of Jews; even to imagine an alternative configuration in the Middle East is to indulge the moral equivalent of genocide.
In the years after World War II, those many millions of Jews who did not live in Israel were often reassured by its very existence-whether they thought of it as an insurance policy against renascent anti-Semitism or simply a reminder to the world that Jews could and would fight back. Before there was a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders and keep a low profile; since 1948, they could walk tall. But in recent years, the situation has tragically reversed.
Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn't do. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions, Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by Israel's own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel. The depressing truth is that Israel's current behavior is not just bad for America, though it surely is. It is not even just bad for Israel itself, as many Israelis silently acknowledge. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.
In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today's “clash of cultures” between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.
To convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would not he easy, though not quite as impossible as it sounds: the process has already begun de facto. But it would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will clams. In any case, no one I know of has a better idea: any one who genuinely supposes that the controversial electronic fence now being built will resolve matters has missed the last fifty years of history. The fence-actually an armored zone of ditches, fences, sensors, dirt roads (for tracking footprints), and a wall up to twenty-eight feet tall in places-occupies, divides, and steals Arab farmland; it will destroy villages, livelihoods, and whatever remains of Arab-Jewish community. It costs approximately $1 million per mile and will bring nothing but humiliation and discomfort to both sides. Like the Berlin Wall, it confirms the moral and institutional bankruptcy of the regime it is intended to protect.
A binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force-though a legitimately constituted binational state would find it much easier policing militants of all kinds inside its borders than when they are free to infiltrate them from outside and can appeal to an angry, excluded constituency on both sides of the border. A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the alternatives are far, far worse. -September 25, 2003
|
Seccond is School of the Americas Watch
 November 21-23: Vigil and Nonviolent Civil Resistance Action
|
|||
Background: The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in
Fort Benning,Georgia, trains Latin American soldiers in combat,
counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. Graduates of the SOA
are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious
dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, JuanVelasco Alvarado of Peru,
Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses
that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the
El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.
 |
|||
Michael Parenti Political Archive
Michael Parenti is an internationally known author and lecturer. ...
Newly published in paperback July 2002.
Welcome to the Michael Parenti Political Archive. ...
http://www.michaelparenti.org/ - Oct 9, 2003 -
Biography of Michael Parenti
Biography. Michael Parenti received his Ph.D. in political science
from Yale University. ... Copyright © 1992 - 2003 Michael Parenti.
All rights reserved.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/biography.html - Oct 9, 2003 -
[ More results from www.michaelparenti.org ]
Michael Parenti page
Michael Parenti page. ... Michael Parenti. Books by Michael Parenti. Dirty Truths.
Against Empire. The Sword and the Dollar. Inventing Reality. Blackshirts and Reds. ...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/ Michael_Parenti.html -
Michael Parenti Archives
Michael Parenti Archives. THE DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA ...
What's To Be Done? - Feb-Mar 96 Parenti on Fascism Michael Parenti's book. ... http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/MP.html -
[ More results from www.sonic.net ]
Alternative Radio - Programs
... Delivery. LINKS. ABOUT AR. Who is AR? David Barsamian.
David's Schedule. Links about AR. Support Us. Contact Us.
Michael Parenti. ... Featured Programs. Michael Parenti. ...
Michael Parenti - "Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy"
Public meeting in Vancouver hears from Dr. Michael Parenti
on the U. S. drive for war against Iraq. ... Dr. Michael Parenti:
"Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy". ...
Michael Parenti - WOLFMAN PRODUCTIONS
... Click to read a sample of his writing, To Kill Iraq (May 2003).
Michael Parenti received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale
University. ... http://www.wolfmanproductions.com/parenti.htm -
TUC Radio: Catalog/Michael Parenti, Democrocray,
what went wrong ...
~ Michael Parenti ~. ... Archive updated:
July 22/03. NEW! Michael Parenti:
How I Became an Activist Recorded in Berkeley,
CA June 6, 2003. ...
|
|||
While you're at it suck up to the real reason every mother son and doughter breathed as
sigh of reliefe when her shickelgrouber snuffed him selfe.“Hitler: History's Aryan Potty Mouth”
by Bob Armstrong http://www.xmag.com/archives/4-09-mar97/article2.html
|
|||
"This site offers scholarly information and thoughtful commentary, from a revisionist perspective, on a wide
range of historical issues, including the "Holocaust," Auschwitz, World War II, Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill,
Franklin Roosevelt, Hiroshima, Pearl Harbor, the Palestine/Israel conflict, Zionism, the "Jewish question," the
Bolshevik revolution, and much more. This material is provided by the IHR free of charge, as a public service.
It may be copied and printed, but please observe the copyright notice. The Institute for Historical Review is
non-ideological, non-political, and non-sectarian. It is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a
501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational and publishing enterprise. Donations to the IHR are completely tax-deductible. Version of: 7/1/03 http://www.ihr.org/index.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[ Yes it's one & the same not recommended for the kiddies home work. They have re worked
the meaning of more than a flew key words, basicly if you can't apply a standard of judgment in
a multiplicity of ways the standard is a false mesure. This one is a out front white supremacists
hack work, also worth refutation but that is the job of your church, what no ? Not my job either
but it if done right would be a best seller I bet, so all of you budding journalist and curiosity
seekers sharpen your pencils for this mental lotery. ED ]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Noontide Press ? Welcome!
The Noontide Press has been selling important hard-to-find and politically incorrect books for more than
three decades. As part of our offerings, we are proud to make available all titles from the Institute for Historical Review, the world's leading revisionist historical publisher, as well as the full catalog of titles
from Ralph Myles Publisher, long-time publisher of revisionist and libertarian books. The Noontide Press
also welcomes readers of The SPOTLIGHT, the Barnes Review, and American Free Press, who know us
better as Liberty Library libertyforum.org. The full Noontide Press catalog of books and audio and video tapes is online, and the print version of the new 2001 catalog is now available.
Noontide Press / Liberty Library -- Welcome!
Americana l Historical revisionism l Holocaust revisionism l Race, Culture, and Literature l Conspiracy, Communism and
Zionism l Military History l Third Reich Germany l Religion and Philosphy l Banking and Money l Audio Tapes lVideo Tapes
Revisionist videos m Feature videos m l IHR Leaflets l The Journal of Historical Review Bound volumes mIndividual issues m
Subscriptions m l Books available on-line l For the current Noontide Press catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio
and video tapes, send two dollars to: Noontide Press Post Office Box 2719 Newport Beach, California 92659 Send all questions
and comments to webmaster@noontidepress.com http://www.noontidepress.com/toc.html
[And so it goes & you thought Amerir Fair play 4 Cuba Baraka & Farikan was anti Semitic. Ed.]
|
 YES NO
This was the last straw! Comidifying nature sucks .
 IF YOU DON'T SEE THIS AS AN ABOMINATION ?
 YES NOSO IF YOU DON'T SEE THIS CHICKEN THING AS AN ABOMINATION ?
IT'S FREE WILL... Does not excuse, this is BS
"Reasons for the feather less chicken experiment: Overheating
of chickens, more meat, etc. See article attached to photo. "
Personal message:
Unfortunately, your overall, normal rhetoric seems biased agains
the Jewish people.
YOU DECIDE
BLACK HEBREW ISRAELITES
 "This remark is from a long time aquantiance I suppose he might think of himself as Liberal- Zionist"
I don't agree with the idea that there are degrees of humanity that entitle any one to more cake.ED.
"I guess you have a seed of hate (self hate?) planted so deep that in this
life time you will not be able to get past this serious problem. You always
manage to point to some "bad" thing about Jews."
[ Nobody is perfect is a perfect excuse. "They would do it to me if they could,
so according to this belief system it's ok if I do it to them first, This in my
opinion is Preemptive Strike is a still HitlarianBlitzkrieg type Shoot first ask
QuerstionsLater type of thinking resulting in REAL mass murder." So how
does it go?
First consider a group criminal, assume they are ALL guilty of some crime
done to you, and attack them for all your worth kill women and children first,
total genocide.
Take their stuff copy their ways eat their food steal there music call them
thieves and liars when their kids hate you call them Wet backs, Niggers,
Kikes, Gypsies, Bimboo's whatever.
Oh yeah 500 years ago 1,000 years ago "you say" somebody gave
you a god or a deal allowing you to do what ever you want you read
that every day and you will believe it and the real human history means
nothing to you You can make it up as you go along until some one with
more cake comes along and really does it to you for real while you
were busy blaming your victim.
you say it's 5,000 years ago some dude called Abraham of Babylonia
was the grate grandpa of all you guys he was the one from Iraq that
made a deal with god and boom the world owns you a living and you have special rights over all humans because you are the chosen well that was almost believable but what about every body else claming
there human rights the same as you more no more no less 2 billion humans from the part of the world called Asia which was on earth
before Abraham!
What about there rights Did the real estate deal includ the whole planit?
So when some one asks you why, you can say might makes right, It's
Manifest Destiny ]
"Hating and anger is bad and probably the reason why you have not
been accepted by your peers and the professionals who could make
a big difference in your life. Specifically, I mean, those that could give
you money.
No one person or group is responsible for the probelms in your life,
or those that trouble the inhabitants of this planet. Try forgiveness. "
Good points and true but the concept has little to do with fatherless chickens and appropriation of the truth or do you really believe the findings of scientist the science of Archaeology it self is
a anti Semitic plot to attack " Your People " Lucy a Black Conspiracy " & all of the clear proofs that this planet has a single history.
And the species a single origin?
Mitochondria DNA
Ditto:
OK ! You too?
I am not a Zionist. I see what is happening and am disappointed that things
are so bad. But I am specifically concerned about the American part in the things that kills instead of heals.
We are poring gasoline on the fire.
50 years x 4$ Billion $ = $22,000 $ US $ Per Israeli citizen per year .
Add it up, and "You accuse Blacks of welfare cheating " talk about entitlements...Or Special Interest Groups .
For that kind of money ( you could have sent the hole country to Harvard
& Yale) I will say what I think is happening is wrongs, so much money
from US & for no good to come from it will be a travesty.
[ Meanwhile 30 to 75 million in Africa human will die in
another Holocaust "WE Will Ignore " While we make the
world safe for Republicanism!
Not bombing poppy fields but the dopes that live in Iraq.]
We have purchased a nation & again Germany is some how deep
into it behind the scene giving ( selling as we do ) 1/2 of all
the weapons to Israel too.
Even so there is trouble in paradise Germany has a 15% unemployment
rate an it is growing !
Isrial is blaming the over whelming facts of there land grab on there victim
and has become a Ghetto for the worlds Jews as some will say a colony
of German & US Power a refuge camp for an increasingly anti Semitic
planet that is little more than a killing ground what would you expect any
people to do. Sterilize them selves walk willingly in to ovens.
Or murder there children like god told Abraham to do??
Yes A global Ghetto origonally to keep the Holocaust victim from returning
to Europe and getting real reparations & reinstatment as a victime of EUROP
, some how there is no "law of return for Holocaust Jews to return to Europe
or "emigrate " to the USA & yet English & Americans can decree one and
say there is one that is 5,000 years old for a state Israel but none for the
native Humans that were forced to relinquish 75% of the best land & water
they occupied in the name of the holy god , on a planet that has at least 200,000 years of human history .
 "In a widely publicized letter to Israel's ambassador to Germany, Norbert
Bluem, a former labor minister under Chancellor Helmut Kohl, described
the Israeli offensive as a "war of annihilation" - the very term employed by
Adolf Hitler to describe the1941 invasion of the Soviet Union."
My god is not a landlord or a pimp.
© 1998-2000 Mingus Designs
Slowly but surely ( that is the way most pedophiles work there prey too) we are becoming
true Nazis psychologically by connecting virility to courage and national pride we will forget
the very human qualities we pledged to defend and become totally pre occupied with how we
look rather than what we are doing this I believe is the case of the hidden violent acts we
condone THE VIOLENT act we do nothing to see We stop looking at the details and give
THEM the green light to kill IN OUR NAME.
Arafat or any body they want in the name of national defense. As we justify the ultimate
goal that of the erasing the complete removal and extinction. We allow others to conger
up the same tried and true images of our enemies as Vermin and less than human
Just like Hitler & Georbles did it in the 1930' s we are preparing to do the ultimate evil.
That of passively doing nothing as this monstrosity begins again to take place ,in the
shadow of war even grater horrors AIDS death Famine avoidable but in the back of
our mind a NEEDED evil... ED
|
No misunderstanding. It's not a fence, it's a wall, twice as high as the Berlin wall,
it runs far to the east of the green line and in many cases cuts off Palestinians
from their own farmlands.
..This is important to read >http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul96/beresw.htm
There is one last point that would need to be emphasized by Israel's new Government. Contrary to widely disseminated but
wholly erroneous allegations, a Palestinian state did not exist before 1967 or 1948. A state of Palestine was not promised by
authoritative U.N. Security Council Resolution # 242. Indeed, a state of Palestine has never existed.
As a nonstate legal entity, Palestine ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate.
When, during the 1948-49 War of Independence, Judea/Samaria and Gaza came under illegal control of Jordan and Egypt
respectively, these aggressor states did not put an end to an already-existing state. Fromn the Biblical Period (ca.1350 BCE to
586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918-48), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines (a naming intended to
punish and demean the Jews) was controlled exclusively by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People."
Palestine, according to the treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including
Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Present-day Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza, comprises only twenty-two percent of
Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and illegally split off 78
percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the
non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April
1949, when it was renamed as Jordan.
From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British
promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations. On July 20, 1951, a
Palestinian assassinated King Abdullah because of his hostility to Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Several years prior to
Abdullah's killing, in 1947, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as
the Jewish National Homeland, enacted a second partition. Ironically, because this second fission again gave unfair advantage to the Arabs, Jewishleaders accepted the painful judgment while the Arab states rejected it.
On May 15, 1948, exactly one day after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab
League, declared to the tiny new nation founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a
momentous massacre../..../.." This genocidal declaration has been and remains to this day at the heart of all subsequent Arab
orientations toward Israel. In 1967, almost twenty years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish State - as
a result of its stunning military victory over Arab aggressor states - gained unintended control over Judea/Samaria and Gaza.
Although the idea of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is enshrined in the U.N. Charter, there existed no
authoritative sovereign to whom the territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer these
territories back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of
extermination in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self- determination" was only just beginning to emerge after the
Six-Day War, and was not even codified in U.N. Security Council Resolution #242, which was adopted on November 22,
1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding "No peace with Israel, no
recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it../..../ I think this guy qualifies as a Zionest ED
My god is not a landlord or a pimp.
© 1998-2000 Mingus Designs
|
|
This policy amounts to slow motion genocide and a violation of the Nuremberg Accords.
Nelson Mandela
NELSON MANDELA, AT THE OAU MEETING OF HEADS OF STATE AND
Tunis, 13-15 June 1994
|
A very good link http://www.inequality.org/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
NICELY THOUGHT OUT PRESENTATION ALSO IT'S SIMPLE & CLEAR.
|
 Politics
My radicalism isn't naive [1], but it is based on simple questions.
Why are people poor?
How come people starve when there's enough food
to feed the world?
Why has there never been a woman president in this country?
Why is the median income for Blacks and Latinos more than 30 times
lower than that of whites?
Why does the richest 1% of the U.S. population own more wealth than
the bottom 92% combined?
Why do schools where rich people live get so much more funding than
the schools where poor people live, and how is that "equal opportunity?"
My radicalism is a refusal to ignore or turn away from these questions.
Following them through to their conclusions means a commitment to working
for some serious changes in the way society is organized. (For more statistics
on how insane the distribution of wealth in the U.S. and the world is, see
"facts and figures" from www.inequality.org.)
The only general answer i've found to these questions is also fairly simple:
this system exists not because of some kind of silly mistake, but because
it benefits the rich, the white,men, North Americans, etc.
A whiteboy's notes on racism and antiracism
It's not "prejudice" that's the real problem today. It's an entrenched system
of white supremacy that governs U.S. society and most of the world that is
the problem.
Socialism
I'm a socialist.
The economic system we have now, capitalism, says democracy is fine for making political decisions, but it isn't fine when it comes to making economic
decisions, such as what work needs to be done and what aspects of that work should be prioritized (e.g.,research to develop Viagra, or to produce cheap
HIV/AIDs treatments?), who gets the rewards of that work and in what
proportions, etc. I think the economy, like every facet of social life,should
be democractic.
[more to follow]
|