when you have a right wing media channel as racist and "conservative" as foxnews , who is better to face them than america's most "liberal" family
yes,THE SIMPSONS
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
get the troops home now
whenever faced with pleads to withdraw its troops from occupied iraq, the bush adminstration raises the famous banner "support the troops" to silence any call of that kind.
but what if all the "support" that the troops really want is to get them out of iraq ? to get them back home to their families and loved ones?
what if they are already cheering for a call like that?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18258.htm
p.s: the soldiers want to come back home "alive", not in coffins.
but what if all the "support" that the troops really want is to get them out of iraq ? to get them back home to their families and loved ones?
what if they are already cheering for a call like that?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18258.htm
p.s: the soldiers want to come back home "alive", not in coffins.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
the iraqis dont deserve us, so we betray them
..By Robert Fisk
08/23/07 "The Independent"
Always, we have betrayed them. We backed "Flossy" in Yemen. The French backed their local "harkis" in Algeria; then the FLN victory forced them to swallow their own French military medals before dispatching them into mass graves. In Vietnam, the Americans demanded democracy and, one by one - after praising the Vietnamese for voting under fire in so many cities, towns and villages - they destroyed the elected prime ministers because they were not abiding by American orders. Now we are at work in Iraq. Those pesky Iraqis don't deserve our sacrifice, it seems, because their elected leaders are not doing what we want them to do.Does that remind you of a Palestinian organisation called Hamas? First, the Americans loved Ahmed Chalabi, the man who fabricated for Washington the"'weapons of mass destruction" (with a hefty bank fraud charge on his back). Then, they loved Ayad Allawi, a Vietnam-style spook who admitted working for 26 intelligence organisations, including the CIA and MI6. Then came Ibrahim al-Jaafari, symbol of electoral law, whom the Americans loved, supported, loved again and destroyed. Couldn't get his act together. It was up to the Iraqis, of course, but the Americans wanted him out. And the seat of the Iraqi government - a never-never land in the humidity of Baghdad's green zone - lay next to the largest US embassy in the world. So goodbye, Ibrahim.Then there was Nouri al-Maliki, a man with whom Bush could "do business"; loved, supported and loved again until Carl Levin and the rest of the US Senate Armed Forces Committee - and, be sure, George W Bush - decided he couldn't fulfil America's wishes. He couldn't get the army together, couldn't pull the police into shape, an odd demand when US military forces were funding and arming some of the most brutal Sunni militias in Baghdad, and was too close to Tehran.There you have it. We overthrew Saddam's Sunni minority and the Iraqis elected the Shias into power, and all those old Iranian acolytes who had grown up under the Islamic Revolution in exile from the Iraq-Iran war - Jaafari was a senior member of the Islamic Dawaa party which was enthusiastically seizing Western hostages in Beirut in the 1980s and trying to blow up our friend the Emir of Kuwait - were voted into power. So blame the Iranians for their "interference" in Iraq when Iran's own creatures had been voted into power.And now, get rid of Maliki. Chap doesn't know how to unify his own people, for God's sake. No interference, of course. It's up to the Iraqis, or at least, it's up to the Iraqis who live under American protection in the green zone. The word in the Middle East - where the "plot" (al-moammarer) has the power of reality - is that Maliki's cosy trips to Tehran and Damascus these past two weeks have been the final straw for the fantasists in Washington. Because Iran and Syria are part of the axis of evil or the cradle of evil or whatever nonsense Bush and his cohorts and the Israelis dream up, take a look at the $30bn in arms heading to Israel in the next decade in the cause of "peace".Maliki's state visits to the crazed Ahmedinejad and the much more serious Bashar al-Assad appear to be, in Henry VIII's words, "treachery, treachery, treachery". But Maliki is showing loyalty to his former Iranian masters and their Syrian Alawite allies (the Alawites being an interesting satellite of the Shias).These creatures - let us use the right word - belong to us and thus we can step on them when we wish. We will not learn - we will never learn, it seems - the key to Iraq. The majority of the people are Muslim Shias. The majority of their leaders, including the "fiery" Muqtada al-Sadr were trained, nurtured, weaned, loved, taught in Iran. And now, suddenly, we hate them. The Iraqis do not deserve us. This is to be the grit on the sand that will give our tanks traction to leave Iraq. Bring on the clowns! Maybe they can help us too.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
the war on democracy
iam a big fan of the works of award winning journalist and film maker john pilger, throughout his career he made about 55 documentaries , he is one of few journalist in this world who try to dig hard for the truth and unfold realities no matter how ugly they may be.
in his latest film and his first major film for the cinema "the war on democracy", pilger who reported from palestine, vietnam,south africa and else where,returns to a part of the world that has long been called "the backyard of the united states", now it is called by leftist british writer tariq ali "the axis of hope".
It is latin america and its people who are engagged now in a struggle for the oldest human purpose :to be free
you can watch it on line here
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
modou: music that unites the world
Modou Le Joueur de Hang
Add to My Profile More Videos
a few days ago, i was invited by modou gay, a musician from sengal and a personal friend of mine to watch a documentray about his journay made by a french director , the film focused on the kind of music modou is trying to make : a rare mix of traditional "sufi" music with modern jazz, to do so , modou travels to countries like :egypt,switzerland and france.
his musical instrument "the hang" fits to almost evey musical style we see in the film , wether traditional oriental music , nubian or jazz.
after watching the film and talking to modou about his journy , i remembered what i was told in my childhood about music "it is the only language all humans can understand"
it is probabley people like modou who can run a "dialogue" between different cultures far better than any politican
Add to My Profile More Videos
a few days ago, i was invited by modou gay, a musician from sengal and a personal friend of mine to watch a documentray about his journay made by a french director , the film focused on the kind of music modou is trying to make : a rare mix of traditional "sufi" music with modern jazz, to do so , modou travels to countries like :egypt,switzerland and france.
his musical instrument "the hang" fits to almost evey musical style we see in the film , wether traditional oriental music , nubian or jazz.
after watching the film and talking to modou about his journy , i remembered what i was told in my childhood about music "it is the only language all humans can understand"
it is probabley people like modou who can run a "dialogue" between different cultures far better than any politican
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
american facism
You really have to excuse Mr. Bush for describing his so called "war on terror" as a "crusade" because that's really how he sees it and how he divides the world: us "the good guys" against them "the bad guys"
But what I really don't get is that phrase he uses so often "islamo-facism"!
Whenever Mr. bush or any member of the newcon gang uses this term I really have to laugh.
what does Islam has to do with fascism ? a western made ideology whose very first victims were Muslims ?
probably Mr. bush doesn’t know this because he missed his history class back at school , but thousands of Muslims in Libya were killed and maimed by the fascist occupation of their country.
General Graziani, the fascist governor of Libya and one of Mussolini favorite generals used to kill the Libyans in very "unique" style, by tying them up and throwing them out of Italian airplanes while shouting at them:" let Muhammad save you now"!
And probably Mr. Bush doesn’t know this either but it was Muslims who fought against this racist ideology.
During World War II, France deployed more than 200,000 soldiers from its colonies in North Africa into the "free French forces" led by general de Gaulle, and most of those soldiers were Muslims, and thanks to them, France achieved it s first victory in World War II since its defeat in 1940.
So, to conclude, for the people of the world today in general and the American people in particular, there's only one fascist that they should really fear and work hand in hand to red the world of.
The one who resides in the white house.
But what I really don't get is that phrase he uses so often "islamo-facism"!
Whenever Mr. bush or any member of the newcon gang uses this term I really have to laugh.
what does Islam has to do with fascism ? a western made ideology whose very first victims were Muslims ?
probably Mr. bush doesn’t know this because he missed his history class back at school , but thousands of Muslims in Libya were killed and maimed by the fascist occupation of their country.
General Graziani, the fascist governor of Libya and one of Mussolini favorite generals used to kill the Libyans in very "unique" style, by tying them up and throwing them out of Italian airplanes while shouting at them:" let Muhammad save you now"!
And probably Mr. Bush doesn’t know this either but it was Muslims who fought against this racist ideology.
During World War II, France deployed more than 200,000 soldiers from its colonies in North Africa into the "free French forces" led by general de Gaulle, and most of those soldiers were Muslims, and thanks to them, France achieved it s first victory in World War II since its defeat in 1940.
So, to conclude, for the people of the world today in general and the American people in particular, there's only one fascist that they should really fear and work hand in hand to red the world of.
The one who resides in the white house.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
george galloway on hizbollah
a year after israel's savage and barbaric attack on lebanon and the defeat of that attack on the hands of the lebanese resistance, let's take a look back at what british mp george galloway had to say about that war
Boycotting Israel, both necessary and justified.
George Bisharat
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
When does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?
That question is raised by an expanding academic, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. The movement joins churches, unions, professional societies and other groups based in the United States, Canada, Europe and South Africa. It has elicited dramatic reactions from Israel's supporters. U.S. labor leaders have condemned British unions, representing millions of workers, for supporting the Israel boycott. American academics have been frantically gathering signatures against the boycott, and have mounted a prominent advertising campaign in American newspapers - unwittingly elevating the controversy further in the public eye.
Israel's defenders have protested that Israel is not the worst human-rights offender in the world, and singling it out is hypocrisy, or even anti-Semitism. Rhetorically, this shifts focus from Israel's human rights record to the imagined motives of its critics.
But "the worst first" has never been the rule for whom to boycott. Had it been, the Pol Pot regime, not apartheid South Africa, would have been targeted in the past. It was not - Cambodia's ties to the West were insufficient to make any embargo effective. Boycotting North Korea today would be similarly futile. Should every other quest for justice be put on hold as a result?
In contrast, the boycott of South Africa had grip. The opprobrium suffered by white South Africans unquestionably helped persuade them to yield to the just demands of the black majority. Israel, too, assiduously guards its public image. A dense web of economic and cultural relations also ties it to the West. That - and its irrefutably documented human-rights violations - render it ripe for boycott.
What state actions should trigger a boycott? Expelling or intimidating into flight a country's majority population, then denying them internationally recognized rights to return to their homes? Israel has done that.
Seizing, without compensation, the properties of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Israel has done that.
Systematically torturing detainees, many held without trial? Israel has done that.
Assassinating its opponents, including those living in territories it occupies? Israel has done that.
Demolishing thousands of homes belonging to one national group, and settling its own people in another nation's land? Israel has done that. No country with such a record, whether first or 50th worst in the world, can credibly protest a boycott.
Apartheid South Africa provides another useful standard. How does Israel's behavior toward Palestinians compare to former South Africa's treatment of blacks? It is similar or worse, say a number of South Africans, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in the occupied territories John Dugard, and African National Congress member and government minister Ronnie Kasrils. The latter observed recently that apartheid South Africa never used fighter jets to attack ANC activists, and judged Israel's violent control of Palestinians as "10 times worse." Dual laws for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, segregated roads and housing, and restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement strongly recall apartheid South Africa. If boycotting apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to boycott Israel on a similar record.
Israel has been singled out, but not as its defenders complain. Instead, Israel has been enveloped in a cocoon of impunity. Our government has vetoed 41 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions - half of the total U.S. vetoes since the birth of the United Nations - thus enabling Israel's continuing abuses. The Bush administration has announced an increase in military aid to Israel to $30 billion for the coming decade.
Other military occupations and human-rights abusers have faced considerably rougher treatment. Just recall Iraq's 1990 takeover of Kuwait. Perhaps the United Nations should have long ago issued Israel the ultimatum it gave Iraq - and enforced it. Israel's occupation of Arab lands has now exceeded 40 years.
Iran, Sudan and Syria have all been targeted for federal and state-level sanctions. Even the City of Beverly Hills is contemplating Iran divestment actions, following the lead of Los Angeles, which approved Iran divestment legislation in June. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked its neighbors nor occupied their territories. It is merely suspected of aspiring to the same nuclear weapons Israel already possesses.
Politicians worldwide, and American ones especially, have failed us. Our leaders, from the executive branch to Congress, have dithered, or cheered Israel on, as it devoured the land base for a Palestinian state. Their collective irresponsibility dooms both Palestinians and Israelis to a future of strife and insecurity, and undermines our global stature. If politicians cannot lead the way, then citizens must. That is why boycotting Israel has become both necessary and justified.
George Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.
This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
When does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?
That question is raised by an expanding academic, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. The movement joins churches, unions, professional societies and other groups based in the United States, Canada, Europe and South Africa. It has elicited dramatic reactions from Israel's supporters. U.S. labor leaders have condemned British unions, representing millions of workers, for supporting the Israel boycott. American academics have been frantically gathering signatures against the boycott, and have mounted a prominent advertising campaign in American newspapers - unwittingly elevating the controversy further in the public eye.
Israel's defenders have protested that Israel is not the worst human-rights offender in the world, and singling it out is hypocrisy, or even anti-Semitism. Rhetorically, this shifts focus from Israel's human rights record to the imagined motives of its critics.
But "the worst first" has never been the rule for whom to boycott. Had it been, the Pol Pot regime, not apartheid South Africa, would have been targeted in the past. It was not - Cambodia's ties to the West were insufficient to make any embargo effective. Boycotting North Korea today would be similarly futile. Should every other quest for justice be put on hold as a result?
In contrast, the boycott of South Africa had grip. The opprobrium suffered by white South Africans unquestionably helped persuade them to yield to the just demands of the black majority. Israel, too, assiduously guards its public image. A dense web of economic and cultural relations also ties it to the West. That - and its irrefutably documented human-rights violations - render it ripe for boycott.
What state actions should trigger a boycott? Expelling or intimidating into flight a country's majority population, then denying them internationally recognized rights to return to their homes? Israel has done that.
Seizing, without compensation, the properties of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Israel has done that.
Systematically torturing detainees, many held without trial? Israel has done that.
Assassinating its opponents, including those living in territories it occupies? Israel has done that.
Demolishing thousands of homes belonging to one national group, and settling its own people in another nation's land? Israel has done that. No country with such a record, whether first or 50th worst in the world, can credibly protest a boycott.
Apartheid South Africa provides another useful standard. How does Israel's behavior toward Palestinians compare to former South Africa's treatment of blacks? It is similar or worse, say a number of South Africans, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in the occupied territories John Dugard, and African National Congress member and government minister Ronnie Kasrils. The latter observed recently that apartheid South Africa never used fighter jets to attack ANC activists, and judged Israel's violent control of Palestinians as "10 times worse." Dual laws for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, segregated roads and housing, and restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement strongly recall apartheid South Africa. If boycotting apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to boycott Israel on a similar record.
Israel has been singled out, but not as its defenders complain. Instead, Israel has been enveloped in a cocoon of impunity. Our government has vetoed 41 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions - half of the total U.S. vetoes since the birth of the United Nations - thus enabling Israel's continuing abuses. The Bush administration has announced an increase in military aid to Israel to $30 billion for the coming decade.
Other military occupations and human-rights abusers have faced considerably rougher treatment. Just recall Iraq's 1990 takeover of Kuwait. Perhaps the United Nations should have long ago issued Israel the ultimatum it gave Iraq - and enforced it. Israel's occupation of Arab lands has now exceeded 40 years.
Iran, Sudan and Syria have all been targeted for federal and state-level sanctions. Even the City of Beverly Hills is contemplating Iran divestment actions, following the lead of Los Angeles, which approved Iran divestment legislation in June. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked its neighbors nor occupied their territories. It is merely suspected of aspiring to the same nuclear weapons Israel already possesses.
Politicians worldwide, and American ones especially, have failed us. Our leaders, from the executive branch to Congress, have dithered, or cheered Israel on, as it devoured the land base for a Palestinian state. Their collective irresponsibility dooms both Palestinians and Israelis to a future of strife and insecurity, and undermines our global stature. If politicians cannot lead the way, then citizens must. That is why boycotting Israel has become both necessary and justified.
George Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.
This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, August 18, 2007
barghouti :Israel turned Gaza into world''s largest prison
a palestinian mp describes the situation that israel and the us have imposed on gaza strip as a punishment to its people for supporting hamas as "far worse than the former apartheid in south africa"
Army suicides highest in 26 years
when you have a president who sends his troops to die for a bunch of lies
when the rich of the united states send away its poor to kill and get killed by the poor of the muslim world
when a defense minister tells his soliders that they will be showered with roses , and then they find out that they will be showered with everything and anything but roses
when an adminstration privatizes every single service in the army to please the giant corporations
this is probabley what the outcome would look like
Friday, August 17, 2007
Poll: Californians Want Troops Out of Iraq
mr.bush and the rest of the new -con gang has just received a new blow ,california which used to be a base for bush's supporters is now having a change of mind , according to a recent poll, most of the inhabitants of the state want a pull out of the us troops from iraq
bad news for you mr.bush , it seems california is no longer a "red state"
Thursday, August 16, 2007
who is the real terrorist?
"the term terrorism came into use at the end of the 18th century , primarily to refer to violent acts of governments designed to ensure popoular submission .That concept plainly is of little benefit to the practitioners of state terrorism who ,holding power, are in a position to control the system of thought and expression . The original sense has therefore been abandoned , and the term "terrorism" has come to be applied mainly to "retail terrorism" by individuals or groups"
NOAM CHOSMKY
PIRATES AND EMPERORS
NOAM CHOSMKY
PIRATES AND EMPERORS
our right
"we declare our right on this earth
to be a man
to be a human being
to be respected as a human being
to be given the rights of a human being
in this society
on this earth
in this day
which we intend to bring into existence
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY"
MALCOLM X
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)