| To: Yaacov who wrote (3950) | 5/2/2005 3:00:36 PM | | From: pie-faced-mutt | | | | Friend of yours?
When a Jew goes bad, (and becomes a Zionist), the revealing words fall from his mouth
Jack Abramoff, Zionist:
"Nearly as shocking as the sums was the coarseness of the e-mail messages, especially given that Abramoff was a devout Orthodox Jew who presented himself publicly as a man of conservative values. About one tribal client Abramoff had written to Scanlon, ''These mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure.'' In another e-mail message he wrote, ''we need to get some $ from those monkeys!!!!"
"Abramoff also seems to see himself as an innocent victim. ''Of course, I have made mistakes,'' he told me. Yet it's not quite clear what he thinks those mistakes are. Abramoff insisted that his hunger for riches was driven by charitable impulses. ''I have spent years giving away virtually everything I made,'' he said. ''Frankly, I didn't need to have a kosher delicatessen. That was money I could have bought a yacht with. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. I felt that the resources coming into my hands were the consequence of God putting them there.'' And he has a ready explanation for much of his behavior. When asked, for instance, how a religious man who reportedly loathed Hollywood profanity could send e-mail messages playfully calling Scanlon a ''big time faggot'' or declaring, apropos one intransigent tribal client, ''We need a beautiful girl to send up there,'' Abramoff suggested that he dumbed down his words to motivate Scanlon. ''I didn't have a lot of time to articulate things,'' he said. ''Sometimes I would find myself speaking to people in the language that they speak.'' He likened himself to the Biblical character Jacob, who dressed in his brother Esau's clothes. Jacob did this, Abramoff told me, as ''a more effective means of communicating with Esau.'' (In fact, Jacob's goal is to deceive his father.)"
nytimes.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: pie-faced-mutt who wrote (3951) | 5/12/2005 5:43:08 AM | | From: GUSTAVE JAEGER | | | | "What is the Third Estate? -- Everything."
"What has it been hitherto in the political order? -- Nothing."
"What does it desire? -- To be something."
Abbé Sieyès, January 1789.
66.102.9.104
"What is the Third World? -- Everything."
"What has it been hitherto in the geopolitical order? -- Nothing."
"What does it desire? -- To be something."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, May 2005, Brasilia.
From Baghdad to Brasilia
By Pepe Escobar
There could hardly be a more graphic instance of an emerging new world order than Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and the premiers of both Syria and Lebanon all flying for a get-together in Brasilia in Brazil, designed from scratch in the 1950s by modernist icon Oscar Niemeyer as the futuristic capital of the new world.
They were among the heads of state and ministers from 33 South American and Arab League states gathered in the Brazilian capital for the first-ever Arab-South American summit. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim has described the summit as an "alliance of civilizations" - a reference to 150 years of Syrian-Lebanese immigration to South America. More than 10 million people of Arab descent live in South America, most of them in Brazil, which holds the largest Arab diaspora in the world.
The "Declaration of Brasilia" to be endorsed this Wednesday calls for close political and economic ties between South America and the Arab world; demands that Israel disband its settlements in the West Bank, including "those in East Jerusalem", and retreat to its borders before 1967; criticizes US "unilateral economic sanctions against Syria", which violates principles of international law; and forcefully condemns terrorism. Israel is also implicitly criticized for holding an undeclared nuclear arsenal. The declaration also calls for a global conference to define the meaning of terrorism, and defends peoples' rights to "resist foreign occupation in accordance with the principle of international legality and in compliance with international humanitarian law".
It's unlikely that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will lose any sleep over what happened in Brasilia - despite all the inevitable hardline Israeli-American rumblings. Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa said, "It's their [Israel's] problem if they are concerned. If they don't want to be concerned anymore, they should change their policy in the occupied territories."
Washington was so concerned about the summit turning into a forum against President George W Bush's Greater Middle East and against Israel that it pressured the pliable, dependent leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Morocco not to attend. As much as Brazil counts on Arab support in its pledge for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat, the Arab League counts on South America to support an Egyptian bid.
South America is avidly cultivating much stronger ties with China, Russia and the Arab world - and there's little Washington can do about it. The US officially requested to be an observer at the summit. The Brazilians politely declined: "It's a public meeting, you can watch it on TV."
Not surprisingly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Abbas were welcomed in Brasilia as heroes. Brazilian President Luis Ignacio "Lula" da Silva diplomatically praised the Palestinians for their "patience" during the Middle East peace process. Al-Jazeera went live with the opening remarks by the co-hosts, Lula and Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, also the current president of the Arab League. Lula insisted once again that "poor countries [must] receive the benefits of globalization". The Algerians are excitedly talking about "a coalition on cultural, political and economic terms". Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a leading Arab paper, stressed how the summit could influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The London Arabic-language daily al-Hayat published a half-page photo of Talabani arriving in Brasilia.
South-South cooperation
The key point of all this is economic. Bilateral trade between South America and the Arab world stands only at US$10 billion a year, but growth possibilities are endless. The main success of the summit is the PetroSul agreement, which creates a continental oil major composed by Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela.
Arabs are delighted to find good products and competitive prices in South America and a business climate much more relaxed than in Europe, and especially post-September 11 US. For instance, Brazil will export even more sugar, beef and chicken to the Middle East. According to the Arab-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, exports may double within five years.
According to Georgetown University's Tarik Youssef, "From the Arabs' perspective, Latin America is probably the best case to benchmark the pace of progress in the Arab world," meaning in both the political and economic spheres. Arabs may learn one or two practical things in South America in terms of privatization and fiscal and political reforms. Brazil is forcefully engaged in a campaign for the elimination of rich countries' agricultural subsidies - a popular theme also in the Arab world. The summit is the first step toward a future free trade agreement between the Mercosur and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
No wonder Washington hawks are uneasy. There's an emerging geopolitical axis on the map - Arab-South American. It's non-aligned. And it's swimming in oil. Between them, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Qatar, Libya, Oman, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil pump about 27.2 million barrels of oil a day, about 32.5% of global production.
One of the key reasons for Talabani's presence at the summit is that Brazil will inevitably be back to oil-field development in Iraq. Brazil had very close commercial relations - in the oil service industry and in the military sector - with Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time. Brazilian technical expertise helped in the discovery of some of the largest Iraqi oilfields. Both Venezuela and Brazil hope to win plenty of service contracts in the Arab world. Venezuela, instead of just supplying about 13% of the daily US oil consumption, is avidly diversifying - striking new deals with Spain and China. The last thing Hugo Chavez wants is to be dependent on the US market.
The writing on the (global) wall is now inevitable: region-to-region economic deals, more exports, and increased distancing from the weak dollar. In this renewed South-South cooperation, trade and commerce prevail over invasion and regime change; respect to UN resolutions regarding military occupations prevail over alienated terrorism rhetoric. There's an alternative global agenda in town.
atimes.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (3338) | 6/3/2005 4:39:27 AM | | From: Maurice Winn | | | | <That's why Judeo-Protestant fanatics didn't flinch from blowing up a tropical resort in Bali, killing about 200 Australian tourists, just to get Australia to fall into line... >
You obviously missed a LOT of the information, not to mention the trial of the guilty.
Mqurice |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: pie-faced-mutt who wrote (3951) | 6/22/2005 5:33:17 AM | | From: GUSTAVE JAEGER | | | | At least the Japanese see through the US's cunning trick to foil Japan's bid to the UNSC:
US steps on Japan's toes
By J Sean Curtin
TOKYO - As the battle over United Nations reform intensifies, Japan's carefully crafted strategy for gaining a permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) seat has been thrown into disarray by new US proposals, making Tokyo suspicious of Washington's motives. Late last week, the George W Bush administration announced its vision for UNSC reform, which included a new permanent seat for Japan and another for an unspecified country.
The problem with this seemingly Tokyo-friendly proposal is that it may harm Japan's chances and directly conflicts with the country's own policy of obtaining a seat through mutual cooperation with Germany, India and Brazil in the so-called Group of Four (G-4)of other contenders.
Tokyo believes the G-4 offers it the only viable way to overcome increasingly strong Chinese opposition to its candidacy and sees little hope of US proposals actually being implemented. It calculates that only the combined efforts of the G-4 have any chance of gaining the support of more than 128 UN member states, the two-thirds of the organization necessary for a resolution to be adopted.
[...]
atimes.com
Ring a bell? The US administration used the same hypocrisy to wreck Turkey's EU bid:
Message 20285775 |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: pie-faced-mutt who wrote (3955) | 6/28/2005 5:16:27 AM | | From: GUSTAVE JAEGER | | | | Arabs will only begin to have faith in the US and the Bush White House when peace is brought to the Palestinians, security is maintained in Iraq, and American statesmen and women show more interest in real Arab domestic issues and democracy. To date, apart from promises to the masses, the US has not pressured Arab regimes for democracy. The Americans have also failed to portray themselves as honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the cornerstone of grievances to the Arab majority. The real problem that the Americans fail to understand is not Arafat, nor terrorism, nor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but land and freedom for the Palestinians. Once that is secured, a majority of Arabs will start to trust America.
The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. Mixed feelings exist in the Arab world toward Iraq. Some are in favor of the post-Saddam order and American schemes, while others are overwhelmingly opposed. On the issue of Palestine, there is more of a consensus among the 200 million Arabs. Since September 2000, more than 5,000 homes have been destroyed in the Palestinian territories, while about 35,000 people have been left homeless in Gaza alone. Since his election in March 2001, Israeli premier Ariel Sharon personally saw to it that settlements in Gaza increased by 51%. The Occupied Territories currently suffer from 30-40% unemployment, and in Gaza alone it is over 50%. When the intifada broke out in 2000, the poverty rate was 21%, and by December 2002 it had increased to 60%.
In Gaza, poverty today is estimated at 80%. Due to terrible conditions, food consumption in the Occupied Territories has dropped by 25%, and half of the population currently lives off United Nations aid. Malnutrition among infants is 22%, the highest in the region, matched only in the Sahara Desert.
The Israeli Defense Army has generated losses in Palestinian infrastructure estimated at US$1.7 billion in 2002 alone. And that number is likely to increase, given the US alliance with Israel and its generous donation of arms and money. When former secretary of state Collin Powell announced his plan for "democracy in the Middle East" in late 2003, he promised $29 million to promote a democratic culture to the Arabs. Whereas at the start of 2004, the White House gave Israel $300 million in donations to "help combat terrorism".
Excerpted from:
atimes.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (3956) | 6/28/2005 12:26:58 PM | | From: pie-faced-mutt | | | | I like what this chap had to say in the latest issue of the Economist:
Islam and democracy
"SIR – You seem surprised by the failure of militant Islam in South-East Asia (“Turning back the tide”, June 4th). The word “tide” itself suggests an inevitable movement that was quelled in the nick of time by liberal democracy. This is not so. If militant Islam doesn't appear to pose an immediate threat now it is because the threat was largely illusory. In the last 20 years, only Sudan and Afghanistan have had radical Islamic governments, with large swathes of their populations opposing such government (incidentally, in both cases the Islamists were funded and supported by the United States as anti-communist forces prior to taking office). You also suggest that America's recent actions have helped stem this tide with a new secular and democratic order. I fail to see how. Secularism is not going to be made popular in the Muslim world by continuing support for dictatorships such as Pervez Musharraf's Pakistan or Islam Karimov's Uzbekistan. Moreover, the implication that a positive, anti-Islamist order has been established partly by the toppling of Saddam Hussein is absurd. How have Islamists been hurt by the replacement of a stable secular regime with an impoverished, unstable, insecure democratic regime dominated by a non-secular Islamist party, with ties to Iran, and whose parliamentary politics are reminiscent of Weimar Germany?"
Craig Willy
Roquefort-les-Pins, France |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
