Inside the middle-eastern trap

17 juillet 2006 — L’offensive israélienne au Liban va entrer dans sa deuxième semaine. On peut attendre qu’elle durera longtemps. Est-ce une offensive contre le Hezbollah ou une offensive contre le Liban , ou autre chose encore ? Il ne faut pas trop s’attacher à des précisions de circonstance qu’on aurait débusquées, car les circonstances vont vite dans cette région où la perception joue un rôle fondamental. Nous allons tenter de donner une analyse de la situation en tentant d’éviter le piège de la complication pour chercher à en dégager une image claire qui donnerait le sens profond de l’événement.

Dans l’abondance considérable des textes de reportage et d’analyse qui fleurissent partout, nous en retiendrons deux. Le texte de l’Observer de ce jour (« The Road to War — We could all be in deep, deep trouble ») est une longue analyse de la situation dans la région et une tentative de prospective. Le texte du Washington Post, également de ce jour (« Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy — U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants ») donne la vision américano-israélienne de l’affaire, et les buts supposés des Israéliens avec l’accord des Américains. Le premier est d’une tournure assez pessimiste, le second est plus nettement optimiste. Ces indications en disent long et suggèrent le fondement de notre analyse.

Un fait important qui s’impose ces dernières 48 heures est que le rôle du Hezbollah dans cette crise apparaît comme central et manipulateur. Par exemple, les Russes, qui avaient immédiatement condamné l’offensive israélienne, font désormais porter la responsabilité de la chose sur le Hezbollah. Robert Fisk, de The Independent, qu’on ne peut guère soupçonner d’être pro-israélien, affirme très nettement que le Hamas a longuement préparé son action actuelle ; le titre de son article de ce jour suffit à cet égard : « Hizbollah's response reveals months of planning. » La chose est bien résumée par cette citation de l’Observer : « “In 1982, I was anti-Israel,” presidential candidate Chibli Mallat told The Observer. “But this offensive has been provoked by a blatant violation of the demarcation line and the abduction of soldiers. I cannot put the blame on the Israelis. They did not start it.” »

L’article de l’Observer fait une analyse longue et détaillée qui insiste in fine sur les dangers de cette opération israélienne, même si elle apparaît justifiée selon certains, même si elle est présentée comme planifiée (c’est-à-dire “sous contrôle”) selon d’autres. Des diplomates la désignent comme « “a powder keg that could blow out all the lights”. And all this in just five days. » La perspective la plus inquiétante est effectivement une perte de contrôle entraînant un conflit généralisé, d’abord avec un engagement terrestre israélien, puis avec le reste :

« A key question is whether Israel will escalate its military response to Hizbollah's continued provocation - yesterday rockets fell deeper and deeper inside Israel. A spokesman refused to rule out a ground offensive, though casualties would be high and the political fall-out of a botched operation potentially devastating. However it may be that a negotiated settlement ¬— exchanging prisoners in Israeli jails as part of a more general agreement that would see the return of the captured Israeli troops and Hizbollah pulling back from the frontier — is possible. Though Israeli demands for the disarmament of Hizbollah may be unrealistic in the short term, they may not be in the long term.

» However, it may be that a fuse has been lit. “The nightmare scenario is war in Gaza, widespread war against the Israelis in Lebanon and between factions, Syria and Iran being dragged into the conflict and a steady escalation from there to who knows where, widespread conflict, oil prices through the ceiling, bombs going off all over the place” said the diplomat. “You don't usually see the nightmare scenario evolve in the Middle East but, if it does, we are all in deep, deep trouble.” »

L’article du Post est plus nettement optimiste, même s’il nuance cet optimisme de quelques avis extérieurs (indépendants).Une thèse israélo-américaniste est proposée, dont on jurerait qu’elle vient, du côté US, de l’équipe Cheney, plus neo-con que jamais à cet égard (à la lire, on comprend l’enthousiasme de William Kristoll).

Le plan est simple : détruisons le Hezbollah puisque l’occasion nous est donnée ; implicitement, il poursuit : la dynamique de la victoire nous entraînera vers la Syrie, peut-être vers l’Iran, et un “nouveau Grand Moyen-Orient” surgira de ces cendres. Du pur “neo-con”, avec toute sa place laissée à la dynamique de l’action militaire, cette “destruction créatrice” par excellence (« “They do have space to operate for a period of time,” the U.S. official said about Israel. “There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course.” »)

« For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat — or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

» For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

» Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants ¬— with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.

» “What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas,” said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. “Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant.”

» Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a “unique moment” with a “convergence of interests” among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.

» Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. “It seems like we will go to the end now,” said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. “We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill — Hezbollah neutralization.” »

Parmi quelques critiques modérées de l’action d’Israël, notons celle que rapporte le Post dans l’article mentionné :

« “Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve,” said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut. »

Notons également la critique de Henry Siegman qui se présente lui-même comme “un ami d’Israël” (Siegman est du Concil on Foreign Relations et professeur à la School of Oriental and African Studies de Londres ; et, surtout, c’est un ancien président de l’American Jewish Congress). Il écrit, dans le Guardian: « Israel will quickly lose what international support it had for opposing Hizbollah's terrorism if it continues its assaults in Lebanon without regard to the consequences not only for Lebanon and for the wider region, but for its own long-term security as well. Indeed, the point of Hizbollah's aggression is the expectation that Israel would act in ways that will only deepen its isolation. Nothing is likely to achieve the goal of Israel's enemies more effectively than disproportionate measures that even its friends cannot support. »

Le coup de poker

Ce à quoi nous assistons avec ces deux textes et leurs significations, exemplaires des commentaires généraux qu’on fait de l’expédition israélienne, c’est à une tentative de rétablissement de la raison comme principal outil d’explication de la crise. Soudain, les uns et les autres nous paraissent rationnels ; critiquables, ou bien compréhensibles, ou bien audacieux, mais rationnels. L’explication des “sources” US (c’est-à-dire les exaltés de l’équipe Cheney, répétons qu’il n’en faut pas douter), l’analyse de la manipulation du Hezbollah, la stratégie à l’apparence sérieuse quoique un peu risquée (comme à l’habitude) des Israéliens, tout cela nous restitue des schémas d’avant 9/11, lorsque le chroniqueur pouvait croire qu’il avait devant lui des comportements explicables selon les facteurs objectifs de la politique.

Ce n’est pas si simple ni si rassurant, jusqu’au point où l’on croirait qu’on a manigancé ce retour de la raison justement pour se rassurer. Il ne faut pas oublier que la thèse exposée par les “sources” au Washington Post est ce qui nourrit l’“exultation désespérée” d’un Kristoll. Nous voilà remis au goût du jour. L’expédition israélienne au Liban de 2006 n’a rien à voir avec celle de Sharon, en 1982.

D’abord, il y a l’option proclamée par les neo-cons. Plutôt que la simple expédition au Liban, les Israéliens n’ont-ils pas en tête la Syrie puis l’Iran ? On serait incliné à le croire, instruit par l’expérience. Si l’affaire libanaise tourne bien, pourquoi ne pas enchaîner ? C’est tentant. Comme dit l’autre, « There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course. » Si l’affaire tourne mal par contre… Pas question non plus de se retourner vers le schéma 1982-2000 (retrait israélien du Sud Liban) ; il est bien possible que ce soit le schéma irakien qui prévale.

Nous sommes dans des temps excessifs et irresponsables où plus rien ne nous freine vraiment, — où, justement, malgré l’apparence, la raison n’est plus créatrice de comportements rationnels mais utilisée pour construire des apparences de comportements rationnels (ici le Bien contre le Mal, là la rationalité retrouvée). Cela permet à l’extrémisme irrationnel de prendre ses aises. En 1982, Washington freinait Tel Aviv, en 2006 Cheney encourage Nétanhyaou à y aller.

Nous sommes inclinés à croire que la logique de l’intervention israélienne, qui débute par l’affirmation d’une supériorité technologique vite affirmée et un peu trop vite interprétée en justification morale et en réussite politique, va naturellement le céder à la tentation d’aller au-delà. Aujourd’hui, la tentation extrémiste est la plus forte, dans le système américaniste dont la direction israélienne n’est qu’un appendice. C’est un vertige et une ivresse. Très vite, la perspective de Damas, voire de Téhéran, va se faire jour, bien avant même que l’affaire Liban-Hezbollah soit contrôlée. Cela semblerait donner raison à ceux (Justin Raimundo) qui voient dans cette opération la première phase de l’attaque USA-Israël contre l’Iran, en même temps que l’application du plan néo-conservateur de 1996.

Voire… Non pas qu’on doute une seconde de sa tentation. On doute nécessairement de sa réalisation. Une marche victorieuse initiale de l’attaque israélienne, avec la perspective Damas-Téhéran dans les esprits des planificateurs apparemment rationnels, poussera à l’engagement confirmé au Liban même, y compris l’engagement terrestre. Dans le climat présent, plus rien n’interdit d’envisager un processus d’“irakisation” de l’opération israélienne, — et on dirait alors que le Hezbollah a réussi un piège parfait, à-la-Saddam : attirer Tsahal dans une souricière. On verra. Tsahal a bien changé depuis 1956 et 1967. C’est devenu une annexe de l’U.S. Army : croyance dans la technologie, mépris de l’adversaire, tactique transformée en stratégie avec la croyance que le choc initial (attaque aérienne type schock & awe”, qui eut son heure de gloire en mars-avril 2003 contre l’Irak) assure la victoire finale, — y compris les foules en liesse accueillant Tsahal dans les rues de Téhéran ?

Il y a chez les Israéliens, comme chez les américanistes du Pentagone, — et ceci explique cela, — une incroyance inconsciente dans la “guerre de 4ème génération”, passant par sa complète incompréhension. Il s’agit de l’idée qu’on peut retourner la formule. Puisqu’il y a guerre asymétrique, pourquoi ne pas la retourner en faveur de la technologie, du “haut de gamme”, au lieu de croire qu’elle tourne toujours en faveur du “bas de gamme” ? C’est bien une incompréhension. La guerre asymétrique n’est pas la description de l’affrontement de mentalités et de moyens complètement différents mais le constat que des mentalités et des moyens primitifs, dans des environnements adéquats, l’emportent sur l’isolement de l’armée postmoderne de haute technologie qui refuse d’abandonner ce caractère.

Ce constat des incompréhensions se fait dans un cadre nécessairement propice à tous les extrémismes, — et, là encore, ceci explique sans doute cela. La radicalisation du nouveau Premier ministre israélien répond à celle des Palestiniens et entraîne celle des adversaires d’Israël, tandis que veille la radicalisation constante de l’administration GW, qui prolifère dans l’impuissance et dans l’échec de ses propres actions comme dans un bouillon de culture. (A lire : le papier de Tom Engelhardt mis en ligne hier soir sur cette question.) Là aussi, dans ce domaine essentiel de la psychologie, 2006 n’a rien à voir avec 1982.

Les Américanistes, encalminés dans plusieurs “guerres de 4ème génération”, impuissants dans diverses crises qu’ils ont aggravées et auxquelles ils ne prêtent guère d’attention, brûlent leurs dernières cartouches. Ce sont celles d’Israël. Il y a toujours la même thèse : la croyance dans un “Big Bang“, dans un “tout ou rien”, dans un “Moment” qui est aussi une “fenêtre d’opportunité” ; la conviction qu’au bout d’une succession de défaites et d’avatars, le dernier coup de dés permettra de tout renverser ; bref, la croyance au miracle, bien dans la psychologie qui mène leur étrange raison. Nadim Shehadi, du RIIS (le vénérable think tank britannique de Chatham House) observe : « If you ignore state borders, you can see a broad anti-American and anti-Israeli front, with Iran leading it. They are playing a clever game. The Iranians are playing chess: their opponents are playing poker. »

Tandis que le joueur de poker s’exclame qu’avec cette main, Israël est enfin lancé dans ses conquêtes démocratiques et anti-terroristes pour le compte de la cause commune, le joueur d’échecs dirait que le Hezbollah a réussi à attirer Israël hors de ses frontières. La meilleure chose qu’on souhaite aux Israéliens, c’est de ne pas trop bien réussir leurs premières frappes contre le Hezbollah, pour avoir l’esprit de ne pas s’engouffrer trop complètement dans ce qui pourrait bien ressembler à un piège.

link here

Israeli "freedom" bombs

Here is a little israeli girl writing a message on the shell. This is how discipline of the youngsters is being taught in Israel. In philosophy there is always someone that has to dominate somebody else and that makes them feel better behind their dirty weapons. Why can't the human being be equal in rights? That's part of the french constitution. Of course the american constitution was flushed down to the toilets because they did not want the human being to be equal in rights! Tsk tsk.

For my lebanese friends.


Why can't we find peace to the solution? Because people are sure of their values, especially when they are getting attacked. FREEDOM!

What happened to UNSCR 425? And the right of sovereignity in Lebanon?
I will comment further tomorrow about the international role and the role of Syria inside Lebanon.

Bonne chance a toi cher ami euroarabe.

La duree de vie d'une batterie dans le desert americain?

Une batterie dure entre 2 et 3 ans ici. La duree de vie d'une batterie est reduite a cause de la chaleur: la temperature d'un moteur de voiture en ete monte dans les 300 degres fahrenheit (148 degres Celsius).

Bon c'est pas grave, ce n'est qu'une batterie; par contre les gens sans appartement ici, et ils sont nombreux, auraient besoin de fraicheur, au lieu d'etre jetes a la rue comme des chiens.

La justice commence d'abord chez soit, avant de la faire chez les autres.

President Bush caught on tape

link here

Words are important but they lead to irrationality, images are important by lead to hate, here we have words and image at the same time.

Enjoy :)

Transcript between Bush and Blair

A fascinating conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush has been caught by the microphones at the G8, when the two men didn’t think they were being overheard. It tells us a lot about the relationship between the two men, about the US-UK special relationship and the two men’s views on the Middle East. Here’s a transcript as best as we can make out.

Bush: Yo Blair How are you doing?
Blair: I’m just…
Bush: You’re leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy…[inaudible]
Bush: yeah I told that to the man
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to
Blair: Well, it’s just that if the discussion arises…
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: Yesterday we didn’t see much movement
Blair: No, no, it may be that it’s not, it maybe that it’s impossible
Bush: I am prepared to say it
Blair: But it’s just I think what we need to be an opposition
Bush: Who is introducing the trade
Blair: Angela
Bush: Tell her to call ‘em
Blair: Yes
Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot.Thanks for [inaudbible] it’s awfully thoughtful of you
Blair: It’s a pleasure
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself
Blair: Oh, absoultely, in fact [inaudble]
Bush: What about Kofi [inaudible] his attitude to ceasefire and everything else … happens
Blair: Yeah, no I think the [inaudible] is really difficult. We can’t stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah
Blair: I don’t know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon
Blair: But that’s that’s that’s all that matters. But if you, you see it will take some time to get that together
Bush: Yeah, yeah
Blair: But at least it gives people…
Bush: It’s a process, I agree. I told her your offer to…
Blair: Well…it’s only if I mean… you know. If she’s got a…, or if she needs the ground prepared as it were… Because obviously if she goes out, she’s got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk
Bush: You see, the … thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over
Blair: [inaudible]
Bush: [inadubile]
Blair: Syria
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way…
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey. And that’s what the whole thing is about. It’s the same with Iraq
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad](9a and make something happen
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [inaudible]
Blair:
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government
Blair: Is this…? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

link here

another link here

Israel Considers Conditional Cease Fire

But look at these conditions:

BEIRUT -- Israel for the first time today signaled its willingness to accept a cease-fire based on a pullback of Hezbollah guerrillas from Lebanon's frontier and the release of two captured soldiers, even as other countries, including the United States, began efforts to evacuate their war-trapped citizens.

link here

President Bush on Hezbollah

Unaware that his microphone was switched on President Bush was recorded telling Tony Blair that Syria should press Hizbullah to "stop doing this shit".

link here

Arab League: “Peace in Middle East Killed”

The Arab League held an emergency meeting on Saturday to discuss the crisis in the Middle East, along with the member countries’ foreign ministers in Cairo.

They called on the UN to perform an emergency intervention.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa said, “The peace process in the Middle East was killed. All mechanisms, including the Middle East Quartet (Russia, US, UN and EU) have canceled the peace process.”

The Arab League also denigrated the Israeli attacks in Lebanon by promising Lebanon “unconditional support,”

Musa said the only way to sustain the peace process was to bring the issue to the UN Security Council. Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Fevzi Salluh introduced a draft text condemning Israel and supporting Lebanon to resist the Israeli occupation and asking Israel to release Lebanese detainees.

The 22-member League, however, had disagreements about Hezbollah. Saudi Foreign Minister al-Faisal, who accused Hezbollah of behaving “inappropriate and irresponsible,” said, “Those attitudes might take the region to the old times.”

Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Palestine, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain delegates supported al-Faisal while Syrian representative Velid Muallim criticized Faisal.

link here

Is the middle-east a proxy war or an assymmetric war?

Definition of proxy war: A proxy war is a war where two powers use third parties as a supplement or a substitute for fighting each other directly.

Definition of assymemetric warfare: Asymmetric warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare.


By the way I am not sure we spell it assymmetric or assymetrical.

These are civilian victims in Lebanon

Look at the real face of the war. It is ugly. These pictures were taken from this blog.


I try not to hate anyone, I'm really trying not to.

Le prix de l'essence a Vegas au 07/16/06

Apres un leger repis bien merite, le prix de l'essence se retrouve a l'agonie a $2.91 le gallon, pour depasser en prevision cette semaine les 3 dollars le gallon. Le prix de l'essence aux USA est indexe sur "la guerre contre la terreur." C'est a croire que la situation explosive au Moyen-Orient risque de mettre en recession l'activite economique americaine.

Vivement que je reprenne le velo, et mon boycott contre l'essence, des qu'il fera un peu moins chaud. Il faisait dans les 43 degres lorsque j'ai pris cette photo :(

A moment of peace with myself

... Although I am TICKED off...

Allah akbar, LA ellah La ellah Allah.

Map of illegal transfers of the prisoners comitted under the Bush administration

click on the map.

Sartres vs Heidegger (Palestine against Israel)

I don't know if you heard about this story, Sartres was a french philosoph and Heidegger was german. Sartres and Heidegger were friends but they had different political destiny. During the 30s Heidegger was a member of the NAZI party, the offensive party, and Sartres was more like a member of the french resistance. None of them back then were able to see their own destiny, but any human being in wartime have to make their own mind to pursue their own happiness. Happiness, unlike we would like to think, although it is a universal value, only happen in time: some nations are happier than other ones and no nation can be equally happy (Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood) only if they share a moment of peace, but nations are pretentious and they always want more than a social balance. This exactly reminds me how the Bush administration sees itself opposed to other people. The Bush administration is arrogant, not only the Bush administration, but the whole western civilization. There was a reason when the Bush administration said "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". These words asked people to make up their mind, between good and evil, only in their own reality's perception. Frankly it is deeper than that, it has to do with coloration first. Anywhere at some point of History, we have nations that are convinced of their own values, and they use these values to invade other countries, because it is easier not to alert their conscious/wise citizens of their own crime, only if they talk about values. But have you ever seen values in an invaded country? And what would you do if you were in the shoes of these people? What would you do if your country was invaded and calls you a terrorist?

Wartime has always been a fight between the ones who are dominated and the ones who dominate other. One group is offensive, even repressive, while the others are defensive and resisting. At anytime there will be somebobody asking someone else to to redempt their sins for a full victory. The fight is not over. If we don't fight then we are nothing. That is the whole meaning of our life in wartime. We have to distinguish who we are from what we are. If we fail to do that, then we are nothing.

Philosophically I will mark the recent attacks on Lebanon, as an avalanche of future catastrophic events that are going to modify the middle-east and divide the West. The weakened US with 2 wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, although they would like to divide Europe, like they did during the coldwar, are just hoping to preserve the middle-east from obtaining the nuclear bomb, so that they can massacre more people under Israeli occupation. Personally I don't think they should fight this war inside proxies. Of course Al Qaeda and Israel are terrorists, one of them is a rogue-state (and I did choose the weight of my words) and the other one is done in the name of Allah. But terrorist activities from Israel are being financed by the US. Al Qaeda has never been financed by Iran, this non-governmental organization was financed by Saudi Arabia. During 911 the choice of attacking the US, against civilians, had been thought and rethought, more than 18 years ago, against terrorist attacks done by the CIA in the 80s in Lebanon. I don't think the US under the Bush administration is better than Al Qaeda. One of them acts in the name of freedom and the other one acts in the name of Allah. What's the difference? None. One of them knows Nietzsche while the other one did not open to the world of Nietzsche, yet... but it will come.

You know what? Financial expectations in Iraq to extract oilfields are at their best, this is why Lebanon was going to be attacked. That is my theory. It has nothing to do with people being kidnapped, they were just waiting for the right time to do that: an economic boom in the oilfields in the middle-east won't preserve peace, it will only add more wars inside the middle-east. Some people judge by the "what are we?" and others judge by the "who are we?". Usually oilfields burnt in Iraq have been considered geopolitically as the destabilization of Israel. This is the conjonction between the "who are we" and "what are we", between the direct and experienced image. This is what Assad tried to demonstrate us. This is what the US tried to demonstrate us as well not a long time ago. In other words it means "if you can't live what I experienced then you are not allowed to comment". It is half right and it is half true. It depends on if you prefer the half-empty glass or the full-empty glass. It is a way of self-expliciting if you are a body or if you are nobody. For Assad case I understand that his past reminds him the present time. It's been a long time that this war keeps happening in Lebanon. It is time to fight now.


Here is what Assad said:


Don't start your day with the New York Times. It may be bad for your health. While I am suffering from jet-lag and a cold, I had to do my daily homework. I had to start with the reading the New York Times, which can only worsens your health condition. First, the very headline gets to you. "Clashes Spread to Lebanon as Hezbollah Raids Israel." Later, the internet edition changed the title from the print edition: it of course, refers to Israel "entering" Lebanon. I was expecting the New York Times to even say that Lebanon welcomes the Israeli savage invasion. But who is raiding whom? This is the question. Bring out all the liberals in the US. Ask them why even attacks on Israeli occupation troops are also considered terrorism? Ask them for their real intentions? They really don't want Arabs to ever resist, not even peacefully--have you actually read the text of the lousy Road Map?--Israeli occupation and colonization. But the front picture of the print edition shows Israeli occupation artillery firing on Lebanese civilian targets. Israel has already killed some 50 Lebanese all but one are civilians. Israeli record of violence against Arab civilians is quite comparable to that of Al-Qa`idah. I mean that. Both are equally reckless in their killing of civilians, and both use the same justifications for their murders. This is why we now should insist on referring to Israeli killings as old-fashioned, classical terrorism. Pure and simple, just as we refer to Al-Qa`idah's violence as terrorism. As if this was not enough, I read that Hassan Fattah was dispatched to Lebanon. I mean, has there been a more imbalanced and more inaccurate and ill-informed reporter on Lebanon, than this dude? I mean, really. Go back and read his dispatches on Lebanon after Hariri's assassination. He basically got excited thinking that Arab neo-conservatives will be coming to power in all Arab capitals with US tanks behind them. That was not meant to be, o Hassan Fattah. (Fattah once wondered to somebody I know why I have not been criticizing him as of late. Oh, don't worry o New Republic-trained correspondent. I will, I will). And then you read this "news analysis." How nice and insightful. Basically, the New York Times, following the clues of Israeli propaganda, reproduces the dogmas--always--of Israeli propaganda. It was all an Iranian conspiracy. Read this piece. I mean, do they believe this stuff? Do they believe that Arabs on their own have no problem with Israel, but that they are being manipulated by Iran? I mean, were Arabs friendly to Israeli brutality during the days of the Shah--how nostalgic US media are to the days of the Shah, it must have been the gifts that the Shah's ambassador in Washington, DC was giving to American journalists, including the liberal Tom Brokaw--read about that in James Bill's The Eagle and the Lion. But this conspiratorial "news analysis" is even more surprising for somebody with some historical, or contemporary, memory. When I came to the US, I was reading books articles by fanatic Zionists like Jilian Becker, Clair Sterling, Yonah Alexander, Michael Ledeen--ya, that one, among others, and all of them were maintaining that the Soviet Union was behind Palestinian hostility to Zionism, and that once the Soviet Union is contained, all will be well, and Arabs would then enjoy brutal Israeli occupation. That was the view then: so there is the conspiracy analysis, and you just have to replace the conspirator's identity. It was the Soviet Union then, and now it is Iran. The New York Times adjusted its coverage of Palestinian nationalism accordingly. And the New York Times then produced this editorial. It was classic New York Times. It basically justified, as it always does, Israeli killing of Arabs, but wants Israel to be careful in its killing, not out of concern for the civilian Arabs that Israel habitually kills, but out of concern for "the soul of Israel," as Michael Lerner would put it in his most uneloquent way. But if you look at the Arab-Israeli conflict from a historical perspective: there is no doubt that the premise of Zionism is flawed: that Arabs would submit to Zionist dictates with the continuous use of massive and indiscriminate violence by Israel. Even the New York Times realized that: "Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel." But look at this line: it is always about the "terrorists" who provoke Israel. Israel, as far as US media are concerned, is always provoked. This is a state that is never guilty, as far as the US media are concerned. But then again, maybe the Nation magazine will come out with an editorial calling on Palestinians to make concessions, and to accept less than 22% of historic Palestine. Fat chance. Fat chance, o outlets of the American Left. When I was growing up, Israel was also bombing South Lebanon quite regularly. Back then, Israel used to say that it had no problem with the Lebanese people, and that it only is hostile to Palestinian "terrorists". Well, the Palestinian "terrorists" were expelled from Lebanon. Israel is now facing a movement--say what you will about it--that has the overwhelming support of the residents of South Lebanon. Israel is now facing the people of South Lebanon, and it will not be able to drive a wedge between the people and the resistance movement in the region. This is the major problem that no scale of Israeli indiscriminate violence can solve. In other words, Israel's dilemma today is far worse than what it faced back in the 1970s. But all this confirms my premise: that there can't be, and there should not be, peace with Zionism in Palestine. NEVER.

From Israel with "love"

Translation: "You can dig up your own grave and hide in it, or we'll do it for you".
link here

Hezbollah

The army of God.

The Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah says it has captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes across the Lebanese-Israeli border.

The announcement was made on the group's television channel, al-Manar.

Rockets and mortar rounds were fired from Lebanon towards the Israeli town of Shlomi and at Israeli outposts in the disputed Shebaa Farms area.

Israel said its aircraft hit Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon after the rockets were fired and bombed a bridge.

The Israeli military has not confirmed the report regarding the capture of its soldiers, but has acknowledged that it has serious concerns about two of them.

"There is a strong possibility that two soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah," an army spokesman is quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

The cross-border shelling earlier on Wednesday was accompanied by automatic gunfire and at least four people were wounded, reports say.

Israeli tanks were also firing artillery rounds at so

link here

There is threat bigger than Israel and it is a bad timing between these negotiations in Iran. OF course the WEST is blindfolded as always. Zamel.

Enemy of State? WHAT?

Reid agrees British hacker can be deported for US trial

· American prosecutors say £375,000 damage caused
· Defence claims UFO 'nerd' may face Guantánamo jail internment

Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent
Friday July 7, 2006
The Guardian

A Briton accused of hacking into the Pentagon's computers is to be extradited to the US, the Home Office has confirmed. Gary McKinnon, from north London, stands accused of what American prosecutors call the "biggest military hack of all time", and potentially faces a sentence of 70 years if found guilty.

The decision over his future had been left to the discretion of the home secretary, John Reid, after a lengthy hearing at Bow Street magistrates court. Lawyers defending Mr McKinnon had claimed that the 40-year-old might even face the prospect of a military tribunal and potential internment in Guantánamo Bay as a so-called enemy of the state.

But Mr Reid decided that the extradition should go ahead. "On July 4, the secretary of state signed an order for Mr McKinnon's extradition ... for charges connected with computer hacking", a Home Office spokesman said. "Mr McKinnon had exercised his right to submit representation against his return, but the secretary of state did not consider the issues raised availed Mr McKinnon."

Defence lawyers had argued the self-confessed "computer nerd" might be stripped of the right to representation if tried under America's severe Military Order No 1, which can be enforced at the president's discretion. Such military tribunals were last week ruled illegal by the US supreme court, but it is not known whether this affected Mr Reid's decision.

The case dates back to 2001, when it is alleged Mr McKinnon logged on from his home in Wood Green, north London, and hacked into computers belonging to the Pentagon, US army, air force and Nasa. Under the codename Solo he is said during a period of 18 months to have accessed hundreds of military machines which had not been properly secured by US officials.

US prosecutors claim he caused $700,000 (£375,000) worth of damage. A lawyer for the US government said the hacking "was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion". But in an interview with the Guardian last year, Mr McKinnon claimed he had simply been searching for evidence of UFO activity.

The charges include one incident - shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 - which brought down a network of 300 computers at the Earle naval weapons station in New Jersey. Another raid allegedly knocked out 2,000 computers in Washington.

Mr McKinnon told the BBC last night that he was "very worried and feeling very let down by my own government", and would appeal against the outcome. Defence lawyers argue he should be tried in the UK under British law, rather than sent to face trial in the US. But a district judge labelled such claims "fanciful". Mr McKinnon now has 14 days to appeal the home secretary's decision.

link here

Now that is ridiculous. The Tony Blair government is willing to deport its own citizen for hacking by distance the DOD? WTF? Meanwhile in the US we can hear Republicans that say "hey if you do not wear condom and get AIDS then it's your fault!".

Is the english people aware that Tony B. Liar signed secret agreements with the US? IS the english people aware is it against international laws to deport somebody without conviction first? Wow, and nobody is reacting about that now??????? IT IS ILLEGAL TO DO THAT! If they do it, then fine, we have a nice case against Bush as well. Go ahead please... make my wish!



The English stats are okey though, i mean it reflects the percentage of the population in the UK, unlike in the US! link here

There is something bigger than the war on terror

I am sick of the decisions of SCOTUS. I am sick that SCOTUS is being politicized, and I am sick that lawyers under oath have to defend their "nation against enemies" while they are creating enemies. SCOTUS is a politicized nation, they think under what is right and what is wrong, they think either it is Republican or it is Democrat, but they can't even make their own mind for the whole american people without orienting their own choices, upon a free will, which is called "freedom" for all american people, and that makes me sick. It is exactly the same thing for the national security. Democrats and Republicans have a different agenda towards that, usually, Democrats are against Republicans, and vice-et-versa. When is the USA going to be a nation of one? When are Republicans going to stop hammering Democrats about sexual issues, and why Democrats are doing anything against Republicans to get more votes? When are they going to call the USA a Republic once for all? That is not a Republic, that's for sure, it is just about endorsing vote from the executive power, then the executive power does not even give a damn about its US citizens after being elected. Not only it is not a Republic but it is not even a Democracy. Most of american people are against this war. One day ago there was kind of Bush brainwashing on Larry King to make Bush like a sweet angel and a honest family's father. But who is Bush in Iraq? Bush is a murderer. Who is Bush in Palestine? Bush is an offender of the laws.

Enough is enough with SCOTUS. Enough with the unsane agenda coming from either Republicans or Democrats. Enough of the killing. I am sick of the war on terror and if you can't get rid of this, then we need to get a war on truth, then SCOTUS won't have a damn thing to say about CUBA and his detention camps :( The laws of SCOTUS should be reasonable laws, and I don't see anything behind that.

Who are the real terrorists?

There is not even a darn attorney in the US that is able to give a goddamn righteous definition about the US constitution. I heard so many things about the US constitution, unamerican things or pro-american or whatever, just to defend some illegal motivations. So in the meantime, you guys in the US, since you are not even able to get your shit together, like for example a Republican would defend the US constitution to go to war while a Democrat would have done it too if this Democrat would have been elected, all of you guys, and I mean it sincerely, are responsible for the US acts abroad in terms of warcrimes, even if this President, was elected rightfully or not, all of you guys are responsible for the mess caused outside the rest of the world. There is no more debate about that, whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans. Now some people are going to tell me "Oh, it is so unamerican!" or whatever. Sorry I would have done the same thing if it was France or a muslim country. I don't care about the West strategy, I don't give a fuck about western religion, I do give a fuck about what is wrong and what is right. You got arms and want to punish the weakest ones? Go ahead then... but stop accusing people who are terrorists. What a strange duplicity!

Whether it is Bush or Ben Laden, both of them ordered actions and both of them are eligible to crimes against humanity.



Here is a link:
Fear as a Weapon
How the Bush administration got away with its abuses of power

Glenn Greenwald
July 07 , 2006

[The following essay is exerpted from How Would a Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald (Working Assets Publishing). The book, a bona fide publishing phenomenon, was developed, written, edited, published, and distributed in three months, and made the New York Times bestseller list earlier this summer.]

In one sense, it is difficult to understand how the Bush administration has been able to embrace such radical theories of executive power, and to engage in such recognizably un-American conduct—first in the shadows and now quite openly—without prompting a far more intense backlash from the country than we have seen. It is true that the president’s approval ratings have sunk to new lows in 2004 and 2005. The broad and bipartisan support he commanded for the two years after the 9/11 attacks has vanished almost completely. And yet, despite all of the public opinion trends and the president’s steadily declining popularity, there has been no resounding public rejection of the administration’s claim to virtually limitless executive power and its systematic violations of the nation’s laws.

That is because the Bush administration has in its arsenal one very potent weapon—and one weapon only—which it has repeatedly used: fear. Ever since September 11, 2001, Americans have been bombarded with warnings, with color-coded “alerts,” with talk of mushroom clouds and nefarious plots to blow up bridges and tall buildings, with villains assigned cartoon names such as “dirty bomber,” “Dr.Germ,” and so on. And there has been a constant barrage from the White House of impending threats that generate fear—fear of terrorism, fear of more 9/11–style attacks, fear of nuclear annihilation, fear of our ports being attacked, fear of our water systems being poisoned—and, of course, fear of excessive civil liberties or cumbersome laws jeopardizing our “homeland security.”

Our very survival is at risk, we are told. We face an enemy unlike any we have seen before, more powerful than anything we have previously encountered. President Bush is devoted to protecting us from the terrorists. We have to invade and occupy Iraq because the terrorists will kill us all if we do not. We must allow the president to incarcerate American citizens without due process, employ torture as a state-sanctioned weapon, eavesdrop on our private conversations, and even violate the law, because the terrorists are so evil and so dangerous that we cannot have any limits on the power of the president if we want him to protect us from the dangers in the world.

That terrorism is a real and serious threat cannot be denied. But America has never been a nation characterized by fear. Yet, for the last five years, we have had a government that has worked overtime to keep fear levels high because doing so served its interests. More than four years after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration continues to keep up the relentless drumbeat of fear. Here is Dick Cheney in early January 2006, proudly defending the administration’s illegal eavesdropping program by invoking the specter of terrorism fears:

As we get farther away from September 11th, some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country, and to back away from the business at hand.... The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured, yet it is still lethal and trying to hit us again. Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not. And as long as George W. Bush is President of the United States, we are serious—and we will not let down our guard.

Cheney never once addresses the fact that the administration had full leeway to eavesdrop on terrorists without breaking the law. He ignores that fact because he is not making a rational argument. He is attempting to play on the fears of Americans to justify their violations of law.

President Bush has also been fueling the fires offear in almost every speech he has given since September 11, 2001. Here he is in a typical speech, delivered on October 6, 2005, transparently attempting to whip up as much fear as possible in order to try to prop up Americans’ diminishing support for the country’s ongoing occupation of Iraq:

The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, “We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.” And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history.... With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers.

Islamic terrorists, here as always,are depicted as omnipotent villains with quite attainable dreams of world domination, genocide, and the obliteration of the United States. They are trying to take over the world and murder us all. And this is not merely a threat we face. It is much more than that.It is the predominant issue facing the United States—more important than all others. Everything pales in comparison to fighting off this danger. We face not merely a danger, but “unprecedented dangers.”

For four years, this is what Americans have heard over and over and over from our government—that we face a mortal and incomparably powerful enemy, and only the most extreme measures taken by our government can save us. We are a nation engaged in a War of Civilizations, a nation whose very existence is in peril. All of our plans for the future, dreams for our children, career aspirations, life goals—these are all subordinate, all for naught, unless, first and foremost, we stand loyally behind George Bush as he takes the extreme and unprecedented measures necessary to protect us from these extreme and unprecedented threats.

It is that deeply irrational, fear-driven view of the world that has been used to convince Americans to acquiesce to the administration’s excesses and abuses of power. And it is not difficult to understand why it works. After all, if it really were the case that terrorism constituted the sort of imminent, civilization-ending threat the administration has spent the last four years drumming into everyone’s head, then it might be extremely difficult to gin up much outrage over an eavesdropping program—war- rants or not—or over a few American citizens being rounded up and put in military prisons without any charges. When our very survival is in imminent danger, all else pales in importance, and we may feel extreme gratitude toward those who seek to save us, even if hey break a few laws to do it.

In fact, it has become unacceptable in polite company to even raise the prospect that the threat of terrorism may be exaggerated. During the 2004 election, John Kerry stumbled in his clumsy way towards challenging this fear-mongering when he was quoted in The New York Times Magazine as saying, “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.” This provoked the predictable outrage from the Bush camp that Kerry, along with Bush’s other opponents, was not serious about fighting terrorists and was too weak to protect our children from this unparalleled menace, and the issue was never spoken of again.

It has become an inviolable piety that there is no such thing as over- stating the terrorism risk. One is compelled to genuflect to, and tremble before, the supremacy of this ultimate threat, upon pain of being cast aside as some sort of anti-American, terrorist-loving radical.

That we are a strong enough nation to defeat terrorism without fundamentally changing our nation is a message that Americans are clearly ready to hear. We are more than four years away from September 11, 2001, and despite the dire warnings of the Bush administration, people in rural Kansas and suburban Georgia and everywhere else are beginning to realize that on the list of problems and threats that endanger their children and impede their dreams, the potential of a terrorist attack does not predominate. In a rational world, risk is equal to impact multiplied by probability. As the Linguasphere Dictionary puts it: “In professional risk assessment, risk combines the probability of a negative event occurring with how harmful that event would be.” But the administration has spent four years urging Americans to ignore that way of thinking and instead assent to any government measure,no matter the costs of comparative harms, as long as it is pursued in the name of fighting this ultimate evil.

But one can protect against the threat of terrorism with courage, calm, and resolve—the attributes that have always defined our nation as it has confronted other threats, including many at least as significant. Hys- teria and fear-mongering are the opposite of strength. The strong remain rational and unafraid.

Most people know individuals in their lives who live in this type of irrational, all-consuming fear—people who are scared, pathologically risk-averse, always hiding and exerting excess caution lest something go wrong. In its more extreme version, that sort of fear manifests as a life- destroying mental disorder. It is a pitiful image, and such people typically achieve very little. They cannot, because their fear is paralyzing. The Bush administration has been trying for four years to reduce this country to a collective version of that affliction. And it is hard to imagine what a nation fueled by such fear can accomplish.

The administration has managed to get away with the Orwellian idea that fear is the hallmark of courage, and a rational and calm approach is a mark of cowardice. They have been aided in this effort by a frightened national media and political elite that lives in Washington and New York—two “target-rich” cities—and that has been so petrified of further attacks that they were easily pushed into a state of passive, uncritical compliance in exchange for promises of protection. But we now have some emotional distance from the shock of September 11, and the power of that fear weapon is diminishing.

We must now see that fear is a by-product of weakness and cowardice. A strong nation does not give up its freedoms or sacrifice its national character in the face of manufactured fear and panic. But that is what George Bush has spent the last four years urging the country to do, and it is what he is counting on—that this NSA lawbreaking scandal will soon join the litany of other scandals that have inconsequentially receded in the public consciousness.

Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney, and author of the political blog, "Unclaimed Territory."

Six hundred and sixty six (666)

"Woe to you, Oh Earth and Sea, for the Devil sends the

beast with wrath, because he knows the time is short...

Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the

beast for it is a human number, its number is Six hundred and

sixty six."

I left alone my mind was blank

I needed time to think to get the memories from my mind

What did I see can I believe that what I saw

that night was real and not just fantasy

Just what I saw in my old dreams were they

reflections of my warped mind staring back at me

'Cos in my dream it's always there the evil face that twists my mind

and brings me to despair

The night was black was no use holding back

'Cos I just had to see was someone watching me

In the mist dark figures move and twist

Was this all for real or some kind of hell

666 the number of the beast

Hell and fire was spawned to be released



Torches blazed and sacred chants were praised

As they start to cry hands held to the sky

In the night the fires burning bright

The ritual has begun Satan's work is done

666 the number of the beast

Sacrifice is going on tonight



This can't go on I must inform the law

Can this still be real or just some crazy dream

But I feel drawn towards the evil chanting hordes

They seem to mesmerise me ... can't avoid their eyes

666 the number of the beast

666 the one for you and me



I'm coming back I will return

And I'll possess your body and I'll make you burn

I have the fire I have the force

I have the power to make my evil take it's course

Les chauffards de Las Vegas

Las Vegas n'est pas une ville pour pietons. je viens juste de voir une personne qui s'est fait renverser par une voiture sur un passage cloute. J'etais tellement en colere de voir cette scene que j'ai klaxonne dans ma voiture et j'ai tendu un doigt du milieu, tres ferme, en dehors de la vitre, pour leur faire savoir ce que je pensais de leur conduite. Bande d'encules! Il n'y a pas d'autre mot pour decrire une telle situation. Les Americains seront d'accord sur ce point; par contre il n'y a pas 1 mot sur l'Irak lorsque les Irakiens se font bomber par des avions americains.

What goes around, comes around. I disowned any airplanes throwing bombs against civilians. Don't you hate that?

SCOTUS is a criminal.

Here we are in this tragic situation. I followed carefully the events in Gitmo, and people are killing themselves. SCOTUS did not rest its case but I am resting my case.
It took too long for SCOTUS that agrees or disagrees with POTUS about the life of these people in Gitmo.

It did not take that long, less than 2 weeks, to decide whether the US had to invade Iraq. So what is wrong with this picture? Supreme authority of what? Where does SCOTUS get off about the life of people that are in CUBA? WHAT IS WRONG WITH SCOTUS?

SCOTUS DESERVES A BIG PUNCH IN ITS NOSE AND I MEAN IT.

Enough is enough with that bullshit. SCOTUS is too slow to decide about the life of other people, and that's where the problem is. WHERE DOES SCOTUS GET OFF? SCOTUS DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIFE and we have the proof. SCOTUS as a matter of fact needs to go to the international criminal court, because they are suspected criminals. SCOTUS does not represent JUSTICE in this world and they should know about it.

Wow I am so mad right now at the

What riled Zidane?

An Italian lip-reader, who claimed to have deciphered Materazzi's words, told the BBC that Materazzi had said: "I wish an ugly death to you and all your family", and then added, "Go f--- yourself."

Britain's top forensic lip-reader, Jessica Rees - whose skill has led her to be summoned as an expert witness at criminal trials - believed Materazzi called Zidane a "son of a terrorist whore" before he added, "So just f--- off".

The Daily Mail said it, too, engaged a lip-reader who reached the same conclusion as Rees.

Brazil's Globo television also employed lip-reading experts, who concluded Materazzi had twice told Zidane his sister was a "whore", before directing "a coarse word" at him.

The French anti-racism group SOS Racisme issued a statement alleging that "several very well informed sources from the world of football" were convinced Materazzi called Zidane a "dirty terrorist".

Other reports suggested the taunt was directed at Zidane's mother, who is believed to be unwell, or his French-Spanish wife. Italia Telecom's Alice sports website reported that Materazzi had derided Zidane with the words: "Yeah, yeah, you're the phenomenon."

link here

*shrug*

2nd anniversary of ICJ ruling and Israeli High Court

Ramallah, July. 9 (BNA) On the second anniversary of the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Sunday July 9, 2006, the Israeli High Court in Jerusalem will hear two petitions from the West Bank village of Bil'in, said International Solidarity Movement (ISM). This ruling, from 2004 declared that the Israeli Annexation Wall is illegal under international law." The petitions that will be discussed in the Israeli High Court tomorrow concern the illegal construction of the Matityahu East colony on the lands of Bil'in, west of the Annexation Wall (HCJ 143/06), the second petition demands an annulment of the declaration which claims that the lands of Bil'in, in Matityahu East, are government property (HCJ 3998/06), acoording to an ISM press release. The route of the Wall in Bil'in was designed to accommodate an unapproved plan for the expansion of the Matityahu East colony. The building of the colony, according to the above-mentioned plan, was carried out illegally. The Bil'in petition challenges the legality of the colony due to a suspicious transfer of land ownership from the Palestinian village to the Israeli realtors, a sale which involved the Israeli state declaring the territory state land only to later transfer it to private developers. During the hearing of the petition challenging the route of the Wall through Bil'in (HCJ 8414/05), the Israeli state revealed its involvement. An Israeli lawyer signed the sale papers instead of the head of Bil'in village. This was done without the village's knowledge, and based on the false claim that any Israeli who entered Bil'in would be killed. In addition, it was falsely argued that it was illegal for Israelis to enter Bil'in.

link here

Why american liberalism is impossible

It is a text from John Chuckman, an American that lives in Canada; an American that does embrace universal values as well, whether he lives in Canada or in the USA. John Chuckman thinks that american liberal values, as new redemption of the face of the USA as we would like to be in our own existential innocent world, does not exist at all. He is absolutely right! On the other side, I would say that republican values in the US do not exist at all either, these are only values to oppose other people before anything else. I have nothing against values at all, I bow to them, honestly, but I do not like anybody who employs values to invade other countries, and I do not think that american people are that blind to see what is going on, unless they care only about their wallets, because they are convinced about their values in the "name of freedom", then it would be a whole different story.

This feeling deep inside your guts is called RESISTANCE, and it is a normal behavior. Would you Americans like to be invaded and be asked to be punished for your sins? I don't think so... but the story of Iraq, if ever it may be plausible to give Democracy, will change for ever the blood of the US within a few decades. Then how will you guys feel about it?


That is called Democracy.... after all, and I encourage people to see longer than the nose of the Bush administration.


Anyway here is the text of John Chuckman:

I heard an interview the other day with Peter Beinart who has a new book called The Good Fight: Why Liberals – and Only Liberals – Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. Apart from a slight nausea induced by a toothy Richard Beymer smile offering reassuring platitudes, there was a sense of both déjà vu and ennui, and the interview only succeeded in reinforcing my gloomy conviction that there are virtually no liberals left in America.

You cannot be a liberal in any meaningful sense of the word and talk about winning a war on terror. It is a ridiculous inconsistency and a revealing one. When someone representing himself as a liberal feels he must appeal to Americans in these terms, it tells us a lot about the state of that nation’s values, just as it did when Michael Moore announced he supported that arrogant, perfumed generalissimo, Wesley Clark, for president.

How can you have a war against a technique? Terror is not an army, not an idea, not a philosophy. It is what people with serious grievances of many kinds resort to when they have no other means of redress. The rational approach would be sorting out the grievances, but the rational approach doesn’t achieve the true objectives of a War on Terror.

If you define the noun liberal carefully, I think you come up with something along the lines of one who supports the little guy or the underdog while embracing the values of democracy, human rights, and a relatively free economy. A true liberal also has an open mind to new ways of doing things.

Liberalism is impossible in America because most of the elements of this definition are missing.

First, there’s the elephant in the living room nobody wants to discuss: the simple fact is that the current President of the United States was not elected to either of his two terms. He was court-appointed to his first term with a minority of the popular vote, and the evidence is now striking that vote fraud in several major states purchased his second term.

Of course, that is only part of the story. George Bush entered the arena for his party’s nomination in 2000, his pockets stuffed with $77 million. He had no national stature, he had no business or professional success behind him, and the record of his tenure as Governor of Texas was undistinguished. He went through the first bundles of cash quickly, but they were replaced again and again. The donations would prove astute investments since Bush’s literally society-distorting tax cuts plus malignant war profits would pay record returns to investors within a few years.

The implications of these circumstances go far beyond American blog-stuff about “when Bush goes, we’ll have our democracy back.” The fraud and legal manipulation involved in both the 2000 and 2004 elections do not magically disappear when the current office-holder retires. Neither will the horribly corrupting role of private money in American elections. American democracy is a sick old man, and the country is simply missing the sine qua non condition for liberalism.

Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legislation, morally right as it was after centuries of repression, itself contributed to a fundamental realignment in American politics during the 1970s. An entire chunk of the Democratic Party, the Southern Democrats, simply left the party as southerners moved to suburbs and started new private schools to avoid integration. While Southern Democrats never were truly liberal, they nevertheless created the critical mass required for political compromises which sometimes made real progress, the Civil Rights Acts itself being perhaps the greatest example.

Another fundamental change affecting American national politics has been the shift for decades of American population away from old centers like New York or Illinois – places where unionism and political machines gave the Democratic Party its spine - to sun-belt, high-growth places like Arizona or Texas – places were the prevailing values might be described as super-suburban.

Suburban values are in many respects inherently anti-liberal. It’s as though American society were being run through a centrifuge with the cream of income and potential floating to the top and the rest sinking to the bottom. With the de-centralized nature of much of American government, interaction between various groups becomes almost non-existent. An acre of land, five bedrooms, two SUVs, no sidewalks, no meaningful town center beyond a private mall, and schools supported by per capita grants unimaginable in most cities assure the permanence of the arrangement. More than a few such places are gated just to make sure.

The Democrats have responded to this changing environment with their own strong shift to the Right, so much so that many Democrats even in the North are sometimes indistinguishable from Republicans. Al Gore started his 2000 campaign with a pathetic speech on family values. John Kerry started his campaign at a time of illegal war posed in front of an aircraft carrier. Joe Lieberman cannot be distinguished – either by attitudes or effective intelligence - from George Bush. Poor Bill Clinton achieved almost nothing of significance to liberals during eight years in office.

There are other developments reinforcing American conservatism. First, is militarism. Eisenhower was right when he warned of the military-industrial complex, but the subject of his warning is no longer a fear or a possibility, it is reality.

America has actually spent the last half century fighting liberalism through war. War sets up a powerful divide in any society: you are, in Bush’s remarkably articulate words, either “with or against us,” you support “the boyz” or you don’t, and you either give “the enemy” comfort or you don’t. War reduces things to absolutes, erasing all the complexities of reality. The real enemy through the Cold War was liberalism inside America. The War on Terror is more of the same.

War and militarism create many mechanisms to reinforce conservatism. First, there’s the training of millions of young men (and now women) receive. The values of this training are opposed to liberalism: they are about authority, obedience, flags and drums, and heavily colored with contempt for those with differing points of view. Dissidence and democracy are impossible by definition within the military, and the greater the number of young people immersed in this culture, the weaker the liberal values of any society. Because of the secular religious overtones of military service and extreme patriotism, the values imbued in the young are highly charged and quite powerful.

War and militarism richly reward those who make them possible, and this is true for all the talented individuals making careers as it is for the great corporations who hire them. In America, such companies are associated with much above-average incomes but also advantages such as good health insurance and suitably suburban locations. There is no prospect for a decline in military spending and all the loyalties engendered by it.

Another important conservative influence on America is the country’s uncritical support for Israel. Uncritical support by a great power of any state can be dangerous because it extends a form of absolute power inviting a form of absolute corruption. Israel in the early twenty-first century has become a center of pure power representing no ethical, statesmanship, or human rights principle.

Yes, Israel is nominally a democracy, but it is one with no written rights, it is one which defines itself in narrow theocratic terms, and it is one with many parallels to the apartheid government of South Africa. More importantly, it is a country like 1984’s Oceania engaged in a perpetual state of war. No matter what the original motives for this were, the ultimate effect after many decades is morally debilitating. The great values of historic Judaism are nowhere apparent in Israel’s behavior today.

Israel’s influence strongly reinforces conservative values in many parts of American society, from its cozy relationship with America’s Religious Right to its ceaseless advocacy of new wars to its own benefit. Dreams of Greater Israel linger still, and war and the threat of war serve the same purpose in Israel they do in the United States, even more intensely so because Israel’s armed forces are its greatest national industry and the country is virtually a garrison state.

America has become a very conservative country since the era of the New Deal, but that is only what was to be expected. Except for a brief time during the New Deal, liberalism has almost no place in America’s history. That history is one of ruthless expansion and conquest. America is an inherently conservative country, and I don’t mean the kind of reflective conservative we sometimes get in Canada or the British produce in a man like Edward Heath, the kind of people that are sometimes called Red Tories because of their generous social views.

Just consider that America uses as its constitution a document from the 18th century, a document that is strongly anti-democratic in a number of its provisions and many of whose assumptions are simply out-dated. You can’t demonstrate the fundamental embrace of conservatism more clearly than that.

Mr. Beinart refers to Harry Truman and John Kennedy as liberal figures, but that is simply a misinterpretation of history. Truman was a hack local politician elevated to high office through America’s bizarre office of Vice-president, a narrow man who used the word “nigger” to his dying day. He decided to use the atomic bomb on two cities full of civilians, the most savage decision in American history, claiming he never lost a night’s sleep for making it. John Kennedy had grace and style, but he was a jingo, secretly trying to murder Castro, sending more advisors to Vietnam, and creating the night-crawler Green Berets who distinguished themselves not long after their creation by cutting thousands of villagers’ throats. Kennedy took money from the Mafia for his election, and he was only elected through vote fraud in Illinois and Texas.

I don’t believe Beinart’s words have any more validity than some of the blowhard speeches of Bill Clinton. Or perhaps I should say Zell Miller who not many years ago gave one of the most moving speeches ever given at a Democratic convention but went on to support George Bush and become a contributor to Fox News.

I did not find the original link except here. Sorry John!

La verite encore cachee par les medias

Dernierement, il y a 1 semaine precisement, j'ai recu une video venue d'Irak. Je n'ai jamais voulu parler de cette histoire, mais en bonne conscience, je dois degobiller ces quelques lignes pour soulager ma conscience qui me hante depuis quelques jours, le malheur d'avoir visionne cette video et l'impossibilite de la faire paraitre dans les medias par represaille.

Dans la video, la scene se passe en Irak a Tikrit. C'est une video au format MOV qui dure juste quelques secondes. La scene se passe dans une helicoptere, arme jusqu'aux dents, et on voit dessus un soldat americain qui hausse les epaules face au canons armes de l'helicoptere. Le soldat hausse ses epaules en fait, car il se faisait tirer dessus par des Irakiens, et donc l'helicoptere riposta en massacrant la foule sur son passage.

C'est pas trop genial la sensation de voir cela en Iraq car je n'aime pas les guerres. Mais le pire c'est qu'apres avoir fait des recherches sur cet acte a Tikrit, il n'y a aucun mot des medias dessus. Pire il y a tout un tas de propagande qui nous raconte comme les soldats americains interagissent avec les gens de Tikrit ou bien comme ils maitrisent la situation la-bas (exemple ici).

Je suis degoute.

Premierement, l'armee americaine est toujours en phase offensive en Irak. C'est indeniable et ca saute aux yeux. Deuxiemement je m'interroge vraiment sur le nombre de morts en Irak. A ce jour il n'y a aucune source vraiment fiable pour connaitre le nombre exact. On a juste une fourchette approximative entre 30,000 (Chiffre de Bush lors de son discours de l'Union cette annee) et plus de 100,00 victimes civiliennes, chiffre avance de Dahr Jamal il y a 2 ans maintenant. Ces chiffres comportent uniquement les pertes civiliennes. On ne connait toujours pas officiellement les pertes des resistants du cote Sunnit.

Nietzsche and the Muslim world

Inside the frame of experimental anthropology there is indeed a difference between the West and Islam. These differences are absolutely legitimate at first sight because one cannot convert the beliefs of one people to another one, and these are the foundations between western philosophy and islamic philosophy: they share the same values, they are universal but with somehow distinct differences and a choice of perception. Unfortunately the Human Being loves opposing his own values against someone else because he is convinced of his own values, and most of the time, these are these values that push him to act.

What should be called human anthropological recognition between these differences of thinking, in the name of universal values, only brings people to war, instead of mutual respect because they cannot trust each other. These beliefs, whether they may be wrong, whether these beliefs may be right, they should logically cloister the human being in a phase of inertia or apathy, and it is not the case. Is the human being able to investigate his choices in order to rethink them? A thinker is before anything else someone who wants to rethinks what was thought in the past had never been thought enough. It is the dimensionnal domain of the Human Being of establishing conscious choices from what was thought in the past and how it will turn out in the future. That is being wise, but it does not mean the Human Being is peaceful in reality.

Geopolitically we live in a time where the West uses geopolitical goals to reward its God while on the other hand Islam uses its God for geopolitical goals. We are just puppets caught in the middle of it. Unlike we think, God did not create the Human Beings to its own image. Rather it's the Human Being that created its God because he was aware he was not God, because he was aware he was not that good. Actually the West can denounce it, but anthropologically Islam has not reached this phase yet.

I am not sure if the Muslim world will ever open to Nietzsche but Nietzsche would only teach them the choice of a decision. That is called freedom too for the agnostic mind like me.

Israel, Palestine and the war on terror

I've been outraged by the silence of the International Community over the israeli atrocities practiced in Palestine and the violation of international laws and treaties.

Question:

Why should and how could a “human rights” forum be “even-handed” between an occupying power and a people under occupation, a violator of human rights and those whose rights are violated, an overwhelmingly crushing military power and civilian population, an invading army and civilian defenders with their meagre, primitive and home-made arms, or between state and individual terrorism*?

Anti-americanism made in US.

* Please notice the difference of perception between State terrorism and Individual terrorism. It is true that the terrorism of the army is never denounced, and it is also true that political adversaries elected democratically are not acknowledged from the other party.

Answer:

This is exactly why the Hamas needs to be militarized. This solution from Putin, although it has been described as political suicide by western powers, may be the alternative to rebalance powers in Palestine and Israel for peace purposes and regional controls. Vetoed UN resolutions only kept shielding Israel from international criticism and lack in undermining the possible spread of rationnal terrorism over political democratic process.

What happened precisely?

There is something terribly wrong in this world since September 11th and it comes from this war on terror. It is not only an obvious sign in the US but it is a part in the rest of the world as well; and this war on terror has been rottening international treaties. Iraq for example was not a part of the war on terror at the beginning of the war: the US soldiers were ordinary "peacekeepers" but Iraqis and Jihadists saw them as an occupying power. Putin has his own war on terror in Chechenya, China practices slaughtering near the Pakistanese border to shape the genes of its chinese population, and so on and so on. This war on terror has been transforming the world with a very disgusting new face, the one against Human Rights, which is usually a passive mode, and the active mode to control geopolitical spheres in a first time, that will tend towards a multipolar world in a second time. The war on terror in a near future, if we cannot stop it, is a tool that will overpass international laws but its setback will sclerose in a multipolar world, not a world in 2 parts, like we've seen during the coldwar, but a world with many different international actors. For the case of Israel and Palestine, we have a government from Israel that practices state terrorism against other people in Palestine that practices individual terrorism. The new alternative would suggest under this case a militarization of the Hamas.

For the war on terror of Israel, I usually think it is only economic purposes for the control of the region near the caspian sea. Israel and Palestine belong to the oil corridor inside the Middle-East. Of course we can't deny territorial confrontations and religious tensions when we look at the controversial situation in the short term, but the long term really looks like the unification of Israel and Gaza to control the oilfields. It is a middle-term planning that has not been achieved and won't be achieved since new countries such as Iran and China and Russia have stepped up as international actors.

Behind the Bushes

Here is a very interesting conversation between the US Secr. State Condie Rice and the russian foreign minister Lavrov:

"Rice said she worried [Lavrov] was suggesting greater international involvement in Iraq's affairs.

"'I did not suggest this,' Lavrov said. ‘What I did say was not involvement in the political process but the involvement of the international community in support of the political process.'

"'What does that mean?' Rice asked.

"There was a long pause. ‘I think you understand,' he said.

"'No, I don't,' Rice said.

"Lavrov tried to explain, but Rice said she was disappointed. ‘I just want to register that I think it's a pity that we can't endorse something that's been endorsed by the Iraqis and the U.N.,' she said, adding tartly: ‘But if that's how Russia sees it, that's fine.'"

link here

Read the rest as well, it is a very interesting insight on what is going on in the Rest of the World and the international allergical reactions to the war of Iraq.

Iraq and Guantanamo fuelling terrorist threat, says report

Ah! Here is someone with me on this fight and it comes from the Hindu newspaper.

Hasan Suroor

LONDON: The way the "war'' on terror is being conducted has further fuelled extremism and increased the threat from Al-Qaeda, according to a high-level committee of British MPs.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has identified the invasion of Iraq and the continued existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre as among the major factors contributing to the terrorist threat.

It warned that Al-Qaeda posed "an extremely serious and brutal'' threat to Britain with extremist groups using the situation in Iraq to bolster their activities.

Iraq had become a crucial training ground for international terrorists, it said. The committee wanted the Government to set out its exit strategy from Iraq arguing that the continued presence of foreign troops was helping extremist groups.

Concept turns a threat

"It increases that sense that those terror groups have, that this is a war against Islam by the West, something not shared by pretty well every member of the Islamic faith in Great Britain and most of Europe.

"But that's the way they feel, that's the proposal they put forward and of course Iraq just makes that worse," said Fabian Hamilton, Labour MP and a member of the committee.

Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the committee, said that Al-Qaeda as a "concept'' posed a bigger threat now than before because the organisation had broken up into smaller groups which were more difficult to trace.

"We feel that there is a problem that, although there's been some successes, Al-Qaeda as a concept is actually more of a threat now than it was before," he said.

The committee said the continuance of the controversial U.S.-run detention centre in Guanatanamo Bay diminished America's moral authority.

The committee warned against any military action in Iran to deal with the stand-off on Teheran's nuclear programme.

link here

The committee said the continuance of the controversial U.S.-run detention centre in Guanatanamo Bay diminished America's moral authority.

It's not only immoral but they are all by themselves in this war on terror.

We are British, and you are a piece of shit, and screw Adam Smith

A Maori trust is threatening to take the UK Government to the International Court of Justice to get Maori the same rights as British citizens under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Bevan Wilkie, chairman of Northland-based Te Kati Mamoe Maori Trust Board, has written to British Prime Minister Tony Blair alleging his government breached the Treaty of Waitangi by denying Mr Wilkie a British passport.

Article Three of the treaty, which was signed in 1840, imparts to Maori "all the rights and privileges of British subjects" which, Mr Wilkie said, should include a British passport. If his claim was successful it would leave the way open for Maori to live and work in the United Kingdom or Europe without the need for a permit.

Mr Wilkie, who said his trust represented up to 34,000 Maori, first applied for a British passport in 2003 but was denied.

He has now taken the matter up with Mr Blair and his Government with several letters exchanged between the two sides. The last letter Mr Wilkie received from 10 Downing St, Mr Blair's residence, said his comments had been carefully noted.

Mr Wilkie is now writing to the Queen to lodge a formal complaint about the issue and urge her to ensure that the British Government honours the part of the treaty guaranteeing Maori those rights.

If that proves as fruitless as his earlier correspondence, he says he will take the matter up with the International Court of Justice - principal judicial organ of the United Nations - in The Hague, Holland.

"I applied for a British passport under Article Three of the treaty as a Maori who has those rights. Not giving me a passport is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi," Mr Wilkie said.

"I'm guaranteed, under the treaty, the rights and privileges of a British subject and that includes a British passport, which would give free access to work in the rest of Europe for Maori."

UK passport holders are entitled to live and work anywhere in the 25 countries of the European Union.

But the British Government doesn't hold up much hope of Mr Wilkie's actions succeeding, saying the Treaty of Waitangi was superseded by the British Nationality Act of 1948, which did away with Article Three rights.

"There's no way that should be allowed. If they want to make changes to the treaty they should talk to us," Mr Wilkie said.

"They are saying we are an independent country, but only one person signs off all New Zealand legislation and that's the Governor- General, the Queen's representative in New Zealand.

"I'm claiming my rights still exist. Maori have not negotiated away those rights and the treaty is a valid contract. Queen Elizabeth II has an obligation to protect those rights".


link here

Cheated elections in Mexico?

MEXICO CITY, July 3 (Reuters) - Mexico's conservative presidential candidate Felipe Calderon declared victory on Monday in a bitterly contested election, but his leftist rival vowed to legally challenge the result.

Calderon had a lead of around 400,000 votes over Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador with returns in from more than 98 percent of polling stations and a senior election official said it was unlikely to change with a recount ordered for later this week.

A Calderon victory would ensure Mexico sticks to the free-market policies of outgoing President Vicente Fox and hold steady as a U.S. ally, bucking a trend of Latin American nations that have turned to the left and away from Washington in recent years.

Lopez Obrador, who once contested a state election with street protests, told reporters late on Monday his team had found irregularities in the preliminary vote count and he planned to file a legal challenge.

"This preliminary result is full of errors, it does not show what we consider the reality and we cannot endorse it," he said at his campaign headquarters after huddling all day with advisors. "We are going to take this to the corresponding legal authorities. We will be responsible."

A drawn out battle could spark a political deadlock reminiscent of the U.S. 2000 election and strain Mexico's young democracy. The close outcome has also raised fears of unrest.

In television and radio interviews, a confident Calderon of the ruling National Action Party said his lead was irreversible and called on political rivals to put aside differences.

"Today all of Mexico, I dare say the whole world, knows who won," he said. "The election is behind us and now the time has come for reconciliation and unity among Mexicans."

Arturo Sanchez, one of the nine board members of Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE, said he expected a recount to make no difference to the result.

"What is going to happen with these results? The truth is they will be the same," he told Reuters.

MARKETS JUMP

Mexico's financial markets jumped on a wave of investor optimism as official returns seemed to ease the risk of a major political crisis. The stock market gained 4.8 percent on Monday and Mexico's peso currency rose about 1.8 percent, its biggest gain in two years.

The IFE's recount means it could be days before a final vote count is in, and a Lopez Obrador challenge could drag on for several weeks.

Critics have accused Lopez Obrador of spouting rash comments to mobilize militant supporters in the same manner that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez fires up anti-U.S. sentiment to strengthen his grip on power.

Some fear the delay and a combative Lopez Obrador could push Mexico toward political deadlock and lead to street protests and volatility in financial markets.

Unrest would also worry the United States, which relies on Mexican help in securing its borders and tackling immigration and violent drug smuggling gangs

Lopez Obrador supporters, remembering a 1988 presidential election widely believed to have been stolen from left-wing candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, claimed foul play.

"It's always the same. It happened in '88 when they robbed Cardenas. Hopefully there's no such repeat but if there's fraud the people will look for explanations on the street," said Francisco Grimaldo, 68, in Mexico City's vast main square.

The U.S. government took a cautious attitude, preferring to wait for the official final results.

"We along with the Mexican people look forward to the announcement of the results," said Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

(Additional reporting by Martha Alicia Villela and Alistair Bell)

link here

First this election in Mexico is as much disputed than in the US during the 1st and 2nd american presidential election.

Secondly a disputed election won't calm down the zapatist movement

Thirdly somebody is financing the zapatist movement as well but it has not been published by the US or Mexican medias.

There is a problem.

What is the number of terrorist attacks done by the US?

- 50% of terrorist attacks since WW2 have been comitted by the CIA (+500 sum terrorist attacks against sovereignity).
- less than 50% of the terrorist attacks have been comitted all over the world under the name of the CIA or the US, which is basically the same anyway.


Here is my question: Isn't there a problem somewhere?

The 4th of July

A friend told me for July 4th: "this is what we do in the US, we blow things up". That was f... f..... ... funny (?).

Happy 4th of July. I may mourn this day personally....

Lambs are screaming

By Badrya Darwish


It's not new or surprising the way the Israeli government is behaving in Gaza. Israelis always act in a barbaric manner. Right now, the Israelis are once again slaughtering the Palestinians. Who's listening? Anyway, they are an outlaw country, blessed by the United Nations. But the silence of the international community is quite surprising. The US, as usual, always blames the Palestinians. US President George W Bush said the "key" to resolving the escalating crisis is the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit. I couldn't agree more with him this time. Why did Hamas kidnap this soldier? Israel has been in the West Bank since 1967. Why all of the sudden this kidnapping? At the end of the day, I'm sure Hamas will release him. But why provoke all this chaos? What will they gain?
The way I see it, they are going in the direction of surrendering at the end to the requests and demands of Israel, and power will be handed over to Abu Mazen. It's true the Palestinians chose Hamas in a fair and democratic election, but since Hamas took office, the whole world has stood against them and dried up their income. They cannot pay salaries and cannot spend on the people. So this was the last thing they needed, to kidnap this guy and give Israelis an excuse to pour more anger of the heads of the Palestinian people.
But the European Union could play a more balanced role in the Middle East. Lately, they are showing a tendency to lean towards the Israeli government. I'm afraid the Europeans have to be more careful at this critical point not to be influenced by Israeli propaganda. If, that is, they want peace in the Middle East.
For instance, the French government is extremely concerned about the release of this originally-French Israeli soldier. But Paris isn't worried about the appalling situation in Gaza and the collective punishment of the Palestinian nation. If this guy is originally French, by international laws, why is he fighting by the side of Israel? Is he a mercenary? If that's so, then he's not protected by any law. He should be judged the same way as the 'alleged' foreigners who are fighting in Iraq.
Fairly and squarely, I put the blame on the shoulders of the Arab nation. (At first I misspelled it and wrote - nations - but was blasted immediately by a colleague sitting near me, who said: "Excuse me, we are one nation. The Arab nation!) How funny!
Imagine for once in their lifetime the Arabs were to unite or take a stance on the Palestinian issue or any issue like Guantanamo or Iraq or the war on Islam in the West. I think the problem would have been solved a long time ago. We are used to Arab silence but this time it's a bit too much. All together we are nearly 300 million. I think if we sneezed, Europe would be affected. Especially as we are an 'importing' nation. We buy nearly everything from Europe and the West. We keep their economies afloat.
But we have no influence whatsoever on their politics. And a few million Zionists sitting in the heart of the Arab world - with no petrol and no nothing, taking aid from America - rule American and European foreign policy in the Middle East.
Have a good evening...

link here

'Bin Laden' warning to Iraq Shias

Osama Bin Laden, the fugitive leader of al-Qaeda, has apparently warned Iraqi Shias not to attack Sunnis, saying they could face retaliation.

In an internet audio message to militants in Somalia and Iraq, he calls Shia leaders traitors and renegades.

He also warns the world community against sending troops to Somalia, where Islamists have made major gains.

link here

HOW MUCH IS BEN LADEN PAID BY FOR THE CIA TO TELL SUCH BULLSHIT?

The 911 after effects

Brenda Stardom has an interesting story about people who are still dying after 911 terrorist attacks. Since the MSM have been very quiet about that and prefer to talk about the war on terror, it is important to know the truth. Link here.

Your business is important to us - please stay awake.

Here is a video of a comcast technician that fell asleep at a customer's house.

Your debit-card under the Patriot Act

Seen here in Las Vegas writen on a sign for any customer at Albertson's:


"Under the Patriot Act we are unable at this time to process your debit-card, we apologize for the inconvenience."

Could someone explain me what it really means PLEASE? I SMELL A RAT, A BIG RAT!

Bush katel

"Haram an aktola al achkhas".

It's an arabic expression that means basically: it is forbidden to kill in the name of liberty. It is a muslim point of view based on values prohibited inside the Q'ran. For example it has been clearly established that a Muslim shoult not kill another Muslim or even other people, but some Muslims kill people in the name of Allah because Allah said Muslims have to be good but do not have to listen to other people if they are forced to do things that they do not feel right.

Now on the other side, inside the West, we have also people killing other people in the name of Freedom. It is the same thing than the Q'ran but this time these are westerners that accept easier this point of view, they think that Democracy is the remedy against everything that is evil. It even became a messianic vocation to do that, whenever they feel other people are wrong.


First of all, killing people is bad, whether it is in the name of Allah or in the name of Freedom. Bush kills in the name of freedom because he thinks that freedom is above everything, even above UN/international laws, and Muslims kill people in the name of Allah because religion is above everything. Some people use their God for their own politics, and other use their own politics for their own God. This is the uncompatibility of our point of views based on values, and everybody thinks they reached wisdom because they accept killing people.

THAT IS WRONG.

The truth of the matter is: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. It is written in the Q'ran and in the Bible.

People who kill other people are called murderers. It is so easy to call somebody a terrorist and kill this person in the name of freedom or even torturing this person. On the other side it is so easy to kill this person because they don't share the values of Allah. It is all about revenge and nothing else and international laws cannot buy off revenge if people do not respect them. MAy I suggest it is time that international laws write a conventional code of conduct to prohibit killing in the name of something, not in another century but in this very same century.

Are we missing the big picture?

Are we missing the big picture?

The expression "missing the big picture" is a clarified point of view whenever somebody misses any contextual concept. It is also the concept of looking at a picture and the way of analyzing it, it belongs to the domain of interpretation and analysis, it is the connection between the brain and the eye; and it is also the way how societies may be taught to think this way instead another way. Although there are different ways of perceiving things, and disputable as well, it is a prevalent characteristic to define any cultural society based on values. At this point I don't know how intertwened are cultural societies and governments and which one in terms of major velocity impacts the other one. But for sure here is an example between western and chinese society:

"If people are literally looking at the world differently, we think it would be natural for them to explain the world in different ways," said Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Over the past decade reasearch by Nisbett and his colleagues has surprised the social sciences with numerous studies showing that Westerners and East Asians think differently.

Westerners tend to be analytical and pay more attention to the key, or focal, objects in a scene—for example, concentrating on the woman in the "Mona Lisa," as opposed to the rocks and sky behind her.

East Asians, by contrast, tend to look at the whole picture and rely on contextual information when making decisions and judgments about what they see, Nisbett said. (See sidebar at lower right.)

The new study was designed to determine if the difference in the thought processes of East Asians and Westerners affects how Westerners and East Asians physically look at the world.

To find out, the researchers measured eye movements of 45 U.S. and Chinese students as they looked at photographs that featured single focal objects against complex backgrounds.

For example, one image showed a tiger by a stream in a forest. Another image showed a fighter jet flying over a mountainous landscape.

When test subjects looked at the pictures, differences emerged between the U.S. and Chinese students within the first second of an average viewing, Nisbett said.

"Americans are looking at the focal object more quickly and spend more time looking at it," he said. "The Chinese have more saccades [jerky eye movements]. They move their eyes more, especially back and forth between the object and the [background] field."

The finding suggests that East Asians literally spend more time putting objects into context than Americans do. The differences are not just reflected in how individuals recall and report their memories but in how they physically see an image in the first place.

The study, which was led by Nisbett's graduate student Hannah-Faye Chua, is reported tomorrow in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Nisbett says that any explanation for the cultural differences is, at this point, speculation. However, he and his colleagues suggest that the differences may be rooted in social practices that stretch back thousands of years.

"Westerners are taught to pay attention to objects that are important to them, to have goals that they can follow," he said. "East Asians are more likely to pay attention to the social field. ..."

Nisbett traces the origins of the variation to at least 2,500 years ago. At that time collaborative, large-scale agriculture was the primary driver of the East Asian economy. For most workers, economic survival required paying attention to the person in charge as well as co-workers in the fields. Context was important.

By contrast, ancient Greek society—the prototypical Western society—was characterized by individualistic activities, such as hunting, fishing, and small-scale farming.

The difference, Nisbett said, still holds today. East Asian societies tend to be more socially complex than Western societies. Understanding context, therefore, has more value in East Asia than in the West.

Characterizing Differences

Anthropologist Alan Fiske said the researchers' data is "very sound." But he questions the complex social reasons that the study authors use to explain the differences.

"Social scientists have not been successful in characterizing in absolute general terms what the difference is between East Asian and European-American societies," said Fiske, the director of the Center for Culture, Brain, and Development at the University of California, Los Angeles. "We all agree there are huge differences, but [they're] difficult to characterize."

Nevertheless, Fiske said, the study shows "a statistically significant and scientifically interesting" difference in how Chinese and Americans view a scene. This difference, he added, strengthens the argument for multicultural teamwork in business and academe.

Fiske said the differences revealed by the study are not so great that people from Western and East Asian cultures can't understand each other when speaking the same language, he said. "But it suggests people have different strengths in remembering and noticing things, and that would be valuable."

Nisbett, the lead study author, said that the research also has implications for international relations. "Understanding there are differences and why these differences exist can be very helpful," he said.

link here

We are just a dust inside Humanity. What may be true today at a geopolitical level may turn out to be wrong at the historical scale. Human beings at the present time are able to look at the big picture not from the inside out but from the outside in. But today we live in a world where you have to agree with the MSM: they bring you the facts to their own way, only so that you can agree with them. Critical thinking has been marginalized especially in wars. Freedom is not about lying, it is first about telling the truth.

And let freedom reign

Thank you Robert for the picture :)

Egyptian editor jailed for defaming Mubarak

CAIRO (Reuters) - An Egyptian court sentenced a newspaper editor who has repeatedly criticised President Hosni Mubarak to one year in jail on Monday for defaming the head of state, court sources said.

They said Ibrahim Eissa, editor of the anti-government weekly al-Dustour newspaper, received a one year sentence for publishing an article in April detailing a lawsuit against the president and his family.

That lawsuit had accused Mubarak of selling off state enterprises too cheaply and squandering foreign aid. Eissa's frontpage columns have regularly attacked both Mubarak, president since 1981, and his family.

Two other defendants in Monday's defamation case, another al-Dustour journalist and the man who filed the original lawsuit against Mubarak, also received one year jail terms.

All three were to remain free on bail of 10,000 Egyptian pounds pending an appeal.

The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights expressed concern over the ruling, saying that giving jail terms to journalists would "shackle freedom of the press in Egypt".

Mubarak pledged two years ago to work to abolish imprisonment for publishing offences, but the government has never asked parliament to amend the law.

Egyptian journalists have staged several demonstrations asking the government to fulfil Mubarak's promise.

link here


Another "President" that does not respect what he pledged.

Chemical weapons found in Iraq ‘too old to be of use’

HUNDREDS of chemical weapons have been found in Iraq — but they were so old they were almost certainly useless.

Intelligence officials said the arms were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and are probably too old to be of use.

The officials were responding to a report circulated by two Republican politicians that says coalition forces had recovered about 500 weapons with mustard or sarin agents, and that more could be discovered around Iraq.


Senator Rick Santorum and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra issued a one-page summary of the intelligence report.

Their announcement included the claim, “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”.

But intelligence officials said last night that those weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then.

They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they could not now be used.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war, said David Kay, who headed the US weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq’s chemical weapons are in “almost 100% agreement” that sarin nerve agent produced in the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

“It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point,” Mr Kay said.

And any of Iraq’s 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, he added.

The newly declassified military intelligence report was released by National Intelligence director John Negroponte.

The US Government has long since given up hope of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, with an official concluding that any stocks which existed had been destroyed.

However some believe they could yet be found. Some, such as former Air Force General Thomas McInerney have claimed that the weapons were smuggled across the border to Syria.

Yesterday’s New York Times included an interview with former Air Force investigator Dave Gaubatz who said he knew of four sites where locals had claimed that chemical weapons were buried in concrete bunkers.



link here

Un nouvel avion au Pentagon

link here

Les USA construisent toutes ces armes pour faire quoi alors? Faudrait p-e se reveiller les Europeens.

What's going on in Ramadi?

Ramadi is not an "insurgent stronghold" as it is characterized in the media. Nor is it a "safe-haven" for foreign fighters and Al Qaida. This is merely the Pentagon’s fairy-tale to justify attacks on a civilian population. In fact, Ramadi is a city of 400,000, the capital of Anbar Province; a peaceful enclave that never experienced any widespread violence or turmoil before the illegal invasion by the United States armed forces.

Most of the city’s people do not support the occupation of their country and a considerable number of them have taken up arms against the invaders. They are fighting in defense of their country.

There were no WMD in Iraq. The reasons for going to war have all proved to be false. The war was a transparent act of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless people. This is no longer an arguable point.

There are 9 permanent bases being constructed in Iraq’s main oil fields. These bases provide absolute proof in "brick and mortar" of the war’s real objective.


link here

List of accusations in Iraq stuns experts

The recent flurry of accusations against U.S. servicemen has stunned military analysts and experts. Many see a critical new point in the war — though few agree whether it shows the toll of combat stress, commanders resolved to stamp out war crimes, or, as some claim, an overzealous second-guessing of the troops.

But the number and gravity of the latest allegations have drawn the greatest outcry against U.S. military actions since the Abu Ghraib prison abuses.

“All of a sudden there seem to be charges right and left,” said Loren Thompson at the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. “It clearly has happened in some cases. But it’s hard to tell whether this is a pattern of wrongdoing on our part or just a pattern of closer supervision.”

link here

Closer supervision is a faith-based language.

La canicule a Vegas

C'est vraiment l'enfer ici, la chaleur vient de s'installer comme dans un four a pains et cela va durer environ 2 mois. Les temperatures avoisinnent generalement les 46/47 degres et meme apres quelques annees sur Vegas, personne n'arrive a s'habituer a ces chaleurs pourtant c'est un climat tres sec qui deshydrate la peau.

Lorsque l'on sort en ville et que l'on ouvre la porte de voiture les temperatures s'elevent a 70 degres et on se brule les doigts sur le volant (bonjour les sieges en cuir si l'on porte des shorts) . Sur les passages cloutes on arrive meme a ressentir la temperature des pots d'echappement qui surchauffent l'atmosphere. Ici le gros probleme dans l'Ouest et le Sud des USA ce sont les gens qui laissent ou qui oublient leurs enfants dans les voitures et la perte enfantile est imminente apres quelques minutes seulement. Ca arrive trop souvent.

Las Vegas a la 2ieme ville la plus chaude des USA avec en tete a 2 heures de route la ville de Phoenix en Arizona ou les temperatures sont de l'ordre de 2 a 3 degres superieurs. Pour trouver des temperatures au-dessus de 50 degres, il faut aller dans la Vallee de la Mort (Death Valley), mais il faut vraiment etre fou pour aller se promener la-bas.


Et demain je prendrai quelques photos si je vais me promener a Vegas.

Mexico Leftist Ahead in Presidential Race: Poll

The poll in Milenio newspaper gave Lopez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City, 35 percent support, ahead of former energy minister Felipe Calderon on 30 percent. The leftist's lead was three points in the previous Milenio poll on June 13.

link here

Iran is not isolated

"The Americans are making a big push to isolate Iran. But they are making a big mistake. We are not Burma," said Vahid Karimi of the government-funded Institute for Political and International Studies. "We have plenty of friends."
Mr Ahmadinejad's latest success came at last weekend's meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a pan-Asian economic and security grouping dominated by China and Russia. Iran hopes to win full SCO membership soon.

link here

It's all about an oil pipeline that is going to be built from Iran to Pakistan, and the TSE (Teheran Stock Exchange) that did not open yet.

Freedom has NO cost

Have you ever noticed that "freedom" viewed by some people at the US government has not the same meaning inside and outside the US? The Land of Freedom is seen has Liberty and Freedom outside the US has always been seen as a political instrumentation. Doesn't the right to autodetermination and free-will belongs to Iraqis too?

Hard Power VS Soft Power in the Middle-East

Here is an example that Soft Power works but does not stop terrorism, at least not in the occupied Palestine, that's for sure.

link here

Petit rappel historique pour bien rafraichir la memoire des Republicains

Aux USA on a beaucoup debattu des resolutions de l'ONU pour justifier l'invasion en Irak, surtout des resolutions lorsque Saddam Hussein avait envahi le Kowait (avec approbation des USA) (Q8 pour les fanas de langue arabisantes). Je tiens a preciser qu'il n'avait jamais ete question d'envahir l'Irak au risque de voir une defaite, et ces recommandations avaient ete faites par John Scowcroft a l'epoque le National Security Adviser sous George Bush. Discuter des resolutions de l'ONU etait une strategie pour se couvrir sur les bonnes intentions de GW Bush et c'est aussi une demande d'aide eventuelle envers l'Europe lors des prochaines elections.

Si l'on veut ameliorer l'image de l'Amerique, ca ne passe pas dans l'ecriture d'abord (propagande), mais dans les faits, alors l'ecriture viendra apres et non l'inverse.

Etre gay dans l'armee americaine (being gay in the US army)

Sur le blog insidetheusa.net il y a un lecteur qui demandait si les psys traitaient du phenomene homosexuel comme maladie ou bien comme acquis. Franchement j'en ai aucune idee. En revanche aux USA dans le Pentagon, etre gay est considere comme un probleme mental entrant dans la meme categorie du retardement mental, alcoolisme et desordre de personnalite, d'autant plus que l'homosexualite il y a 30 ans auparavant avait ete reconnue scientifiquement et exclue de la categorie desordre mental.

Il y aurait 65.000 homo- et bisexuels dans les forces armees americaines.


un petit lien en anglais ici

Les USA sont ils un etat voyou?

Il y a plusieurs personnes aux USA qui contrairement a la majorite de la population, commencent a penser que les USA sont un etat voyou depuis la 2ieme guerre mondiale. En l'espace de 50 ans les USA ont quand meme renverse plus de 50 gouvernements, et le chiffre que l'on n'ose jamais parle sont les millions de morts, personnes tuees au nom de la "liberte" par les soldats americains.

Liberte et Democratie sont 2 mots futils pour rassembler les ideaux de l'Homme et de la societe constituee d'hommes; pourtant la Democratie generalement nee de la revolte de l'homme, non d'un pouvoir autoritaire qui pretend detenir l'autorite morale de la Democratie, qui plus est la liberte est suffisante a soi-meme; un pays peut partir dans les flammes de l'enfer mais l'homme aura toujours sa liberte. Pourquoi doit-on tuer des gens aux noms de la liberte et de la democratie? Pourquoi les medias americains ont celebre la mort de Al Zarkawi mais ne sont aucunement indignes de la mort d'un enfant de 5 ans? Et surtout ou est la part d'humilite de la politique etrangere des USA?

Un fois un Vietcong dit a un prisonnier americain: "avant la guerre vous etiez nos heros, on partageait les meme valeurs, on lisait vos livres, on regardait vos films, et une de nos phrases etaient "etre aussi riche et sage qu'un Americain". Que s'est il passe depuis?." Les choses ont bien change ici, peut-etre elles n'ont jamais change en fait. On vit dans ce carcan de valeurs, de liberte et de democratie; mais si vous enlevez les armes il n'existe plus rien dans ce coeur mis a nu. Dans les medias il y a toujours eu ce cote a une face, ou l'on montre ce que font les troupes US a l'etranger, mais on ne montrera jamais l'opposition que l'on appelle "resistants", "insurges", ou encore "terroristes". Le tabou est reel ici et l'on continue a se voir en tant qu'un pays grandiose meme si l'on pratique la torture a decouvert, envoie des prisonniers dans des goulags, falsifient des documents pour partir en guerre en Irak, et parle d'aide humanitaire en bombardant la Yougoslavie pendant 78 jours.

C'est ce que j'appelle l'holocauste de la pensee americaine. Il y a une distorsion absolue entre les faits et la realite et l'oeil humain ne peut pas se tromper. Il y a une volonte de coller aux traites internationaux certes mais uniquement lorsque cela arrange les USA d'ou son cote unilaterraliste et le jeu devient de plus en plus dangereux au fur et a mesure que les annees passent. Je suis revenu de la these ou les USA ont une autorite morale de proteger les pays des menaces exterieures. J'y ai cru, quand je vivais dans d'autres pays ou meme en France a l'epoque, j'y ai cru comme tout le monde, et je n'y crois plus. Les attaques terroristes ne devraient pas appartenir a une Democratie d'une part, et d'autre part on ne peut pas installer des monarques dans le Moyen-Orient ou un peu partout dans le monde en oprimant les peuples sans escompter des repercussions catastrophiques.

Les evenements recents en Amerique Centrale et du Sud (Chavez, Argentine, Bresil, Mexique, ...etc) , les transformations du Moyen-Orient, la Chine qui ne cesse de s'armer, tous ces evenements sont manifestement le similacre du rejet de la democratie americaine qui arrive a son stade final, qui n'arrive plus a s'importer dans le reste du monde. La democratie? Oui mais pas a la norme americaine. Les USA ont construit un empire base sur l'argent ou le dollar en tant que monnaie papier a remplace l'or.

Je vous propose 2 essais contradictoires:

- L'un de Noam Chomsky qui ecrit que les USA ne sont pas un etat voyou bien qu'ils pratiquent des attaques terroristes.
- L'autre de William Blum qui ecrit apres avoir travaille pour la CIA qu'effectivement les USA sont un etat voyou.

Ca fait vraiment mal au coeur de se trouver dans un pays grandiose, les Americains sont des gens comme tout le monde vous savez, mais j'encaisse tres mal la politique etrangere des USA.
Le pire c'est que les Americains doivent leur bonheur de vivre dans ce merveilleux pays justement a cause de la politique etrangere des USA; la encore c'est une contradiction. Je n'ai jamais eu peur d'une attaque terroriste aux USA, en revanche j'ai peur de me faire racketer dans les rues de Vegas, et j'ai peur de la violence des Americains. Je ne me sens plus du tout Americain depuis la guerre en Irak, j'ai trop honte.

La preparation de l'intelligence avant la guerre en Irak

Dick Cheney et Powell ont passe leur temps a amasser des informations sur l'Irak a la CIA. A un moment donne, face a tres peu d'information, Powell s'exclama: "mais que voulez-vous que je fasse de ces informations? Il n'y a rien dessus".

Les armes de destruction massive et ses repercussions

Les USA sont alles en guerre en Irak pour 2 raisons:

- Les liens terroristes qui n'existent pas
- Les ADM en Irak qui n'existent pas non plus


Je tenais a vous rappeler quand meme que les USA n'attaqueront jamais un pays qui ont des ADM, et encore moins une bombe nucleaire. Ca fait partie de leur doctrine et leur doctrine reste inchangee a ce jour.

Les ADM en Irak etait un mensonge d'Etat, Saddam Hussein n'avait jamais ete une menace a la securite nationale des USA. Quelques mois apres la guerre en Irak j'ai interpele un agent du Pentagon en lui posant la question suivante: "pourquoi avez-vous menti sur les ADM en Irak?" et le mec m'a juste donne cette reponse "I am sorry but we had to do it".