Post by Congenital KanoThe Saudis didn't get their "asses whipped", Saddam did. The Saudi
military consists of four guys with sidearms in a Mercedes ML 500.
Lol. Sipping on Frappuchinos even.
*Ice cold* Frappuchinos...
Post by Congenital KanoHere is the PLO charter: http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm Note that it
calls for the "liquidation of the Zionist presence", and claims all of
Israel for the "Palestinians".
The HAMAS charter includes the following: ""Israel will exist and will
continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated
others before it." http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Both domain names were registered by Americans.
Ah, yes. Folks like MEMRI are also 'Muricans, but provide the greatest
insights into Arab culture through translated documents. But, for that
matter, CAIR is also a 'Murican site. That doesn't tell you much.
These are historical documents, KJ. They aren't forgeries, they aren't
propaganda. Sometimes the radical charters have been ammended over time to
change the offensive wording to appeal to polictical allies, but many times
they have not (I believe the PLO has changed some wording, while HAMAS has
not).
OK, how about the official PLO website, www.fateh.net. Read their
constitution. Note well Article 12:
Article (5) Liberating Palestine is a national obligation which necessities
the materialistic and human support of the Arab Nation.
Article (6) UN projects, accords and reso, or those of any individual
cowhich undermine the Palestinian people's right in their homeland are
illegal and rejected.
Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in
ideology, goals, organisation and method.
Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a
colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and
international imperialism.
Article (9) Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab,
religious and human obligation.
Article (10) Palestinian National Liberation Movement, "FATEH", is an
independent national revolutionary movement representing the revolutionary
vanguard of the Palestinian people.
Article (11) The crowds which participate in the revolution and liberation
are the proprietors of the Palestinian land.
Goals
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist
economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete
sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and
protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or
religious discrimination
Explain how this is compatible with any "roadmap to peace". The PLO
("Fateh") rejects UN accords (i.e, the partitioning of the British mandate
into Israel and Jordan, specifically rejecting the right to existence of
Israel) and calls for the military "eradication" of Israel ("economic,
political, military and cultural").
Post by Congenital KanoJeez, KJ, do you *really* believe that these are fakes? That
generations
of
Post by Congenital Kanoscholars have been duped? These documents came out *before* the web, and
were widely circulated because these fanatics were *proud* of what they
I'm saying that when other American G.I.s told me to beware of the evil
Germans, I told them how nice they were to me, and my family wherever we
walked in downtown Bremen. I had to experience the thieving Turkish for
myself.
Ooookay. Not sure what that means in relation to the position papers of
terrorist organizations, but... whatever...
Post by Congenital Kanostood for. In the ME, they aren't considered radical. *You* think they
are
Post by Congenital Kanoradical, and so whack that no one would possibly publish them, but these
are
Post by Congenital Kanopeople who have *kids' cartoons* training their children to be suicide
bombers, and maps that *to this day* don't show Israel in their schools.
These are parents who are treated as heros when their children blow
themselves up. These are people the Saudis did a *telethon* for, and
Saddam
I wonder how many of those parents were the actual parents of those kids?
I'd be willing to bet that some, if not most of the young kids that get
involved with Terrorism, and the military were orphaned.
KJ, you just don't pay attention to the news. The media *always* focusses
on the families of the "martyrs" (as the British press refers to suicide
bombers). These are not orphans, they are children with parents who collect
money for their children's suicide.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200107/For20010723d.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/2978906.htm
http://www.aipac.org/shahidmemo040802.pdf
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/Articles/teenage_suiciders_bombers.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/06/brooks.htm
http://www.theprismgroup.org/ChildrenofMiddleEast.htm
Post by Congenital Kano*publicly rewarded* for killing Jews (the more Jews a suicide bomber
killed, the more money they would get from Iraq).
You say we have the same sources, so why has all of this passed you by?
This isn't fringe stuff, or conspiracy stuff, this is standard ME
knowledge. It's not put forward by the elite media because the media is
biased against Israel and wants to portray the "poor Palestinians" in
the .
How can you say our media is biased against Israel, when their motivation
is
to get the news, any news, and get paid?
Hello? Where have you been over the last few years when the charges of
media bias have been argued back and forth? The bias was so bad in the LA
Times that there were organized boycotts where Jews canceled their
subscriptions (http://www.geocities.com/truthmasters/mar2003.html), ditto
the NY Times (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/5/1/133522).
Others merely pointed out the bias
(http://www.jewishsf.com/bk021101/us52.shtml).
I have noted the bias for quite some time in the Chronicle. Last year there
was a headline about "bold" Palestinian gunmen going into a settlement and
shooting an infant and woman in their beds. Somehow, I don't see even the
Chronicle describing the 9-11 hijackers as "bold." "Bold" has positive
spin; Websters defines it as "fearless before danger : INTREPID : showing or
requiring a fearless daring spirit". Is this a journalistically neutral way
of describing terrorists who dress as Israeli soldiers to kill women and
infants in their sleep?
You also have the editorial policy of the Chronicle not to discuss the ages
of Israeli minors killed by terrorists (going so far as to cut them from
wire story copy that is, with that exception, the same word-for-word) while
giving the ages of Palestinian children killed or wounded. There was the
instant condemnation of the "massacre at Jenin" by the press, which turned
out to be a hoax.
All media is biased. They are not independent news organs simply seeking
the news -- each paper or news outlet has an editorial policy, has style
books which reflect that bias ("Here at the NY Times we say 'undocumented
workers', never 'illegal aliens'.") They have a target audience (which is
why the SF Chronicle has a picture on the front page or the Datebook section
of a gay person or couple almost every day) and pander to that audience.
Papers like the NY Times set the news agenda for the day; you will find most
major metro dailies echo the stories and perspective of the NY Times, as do
the network news programs.
Rarely does the anti-Jewish sentiment come across as boldly as a cartoon
that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 30, 2003, showing a hook-nosed
Sharon following a path of dollar bills being laid down by Bush leading to
Arafat. How many Jewish stereotypes can *you* spot in the picture?
(http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=480) The
implication, among others, is that it is Israel who must make the move to
peace, when year after year the peace process is shattered (as in the last
few days) by Arab terrorists intent on derailing it (peace doesn't fit with
their agenda of destroying Israel).
Post by Congenital KanoIsrael as we know it, and the conflict that rages today, dates effectively
to May 14, 1948.
Some of us know that the conflict that rages on in the middle east today
has
to do with land, and who owns/wants what.
Well, if you *know* that, then you are wrong. Why, then, when Rabin offered
97% of the occupied territories to Arafat did he walk out and unleash the
current intifada?
This has never been about land per se. This land has been ruled by a
variety of nations over the millenia, Arab and non-Arab. Before 1948 there
were about 500,000 people living in what is now Israel at a level of poverty
and squalor not seen outside... other Arab lands. The few oasis of
cultivation and civilization were what the Jews had carved out starting in
the late 1800s. Since 1948, the Israelis have created a miracle in the
desert far beyond what their oil-soaked neighbors have accomplished.
This is *not* about land. It is about the subjugation and eradication of
Israel. Although, in a way, it *is* about land -- denying one inch of it to
Jews. Why wasn't 97% of the land enough? 100% of the land would not have
been enough, so long as Israel existed. The land the Arabs want is
*Israel*, not the occupied territories. This is what is behind the "right
of return" Arabs demand. Some 400,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948; some 4-8
million demand to return. They would overwhelm the Jewish population and
take over the country. Israel wisely denies this.
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital KanoThe reason the American (and world) public do not "know" about
terrorism is
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital Kanothat we want to speak nicely about the barbarians, partly because we
want
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital Kanotheir oil and are too sophisticated to take it like we would have in
the
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital Kanopast. Instead of taking it, we let ignorant barbarians whose fathers
herded
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital Kanocamels lay about in lavish palaces and bribe officials around the
world.
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital KanoThey speak of frienship in English then publish attacks in Arabic
(which the
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJPost by Congenital Kanoferengi are, of course, too stupid to translate).
You can't speak on behalf of other Americans like that. It's
presumptious,
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJeven though we both may mutually think from time to time that there
are
more
Post by Congenital KanoPost by KJignorant people residing in California than anywhere else in the globe.
I am not speaking on behalf of Americans. I am describing their ignorance
or willful blindness to the facts of history. What do you think this
whole
You stated that it was, "The reason", why, and I'm saying that it's not a
common reason.
"Common reason" as "commonly believed by liberals in the Bay Area and
Jeanine Garafalo"? Or "common reason" as believed by people who study the
issues, who speak with Arabs from various ME nations, who read the fatwahs
and sermons and editorials from Arabic newspapers (thank you, MEMRI)?
There has been a great deal of research done into Islamist terrorism which
the public simply does not take the time to read. ME experts like Daniel
Pipes were warning of Islamist attacks in the US homeland long before 9-11,
and their analysis has proved spot on. You have to study this stuff,
because you won't get it in the media. They sugar coat things. You are
aware that in Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" it was Islamic
terrorists who detonated the nuke, not white neo-Nazis as in the movie? We
are so PC we cannot even face the realities in fiction, lest we "offend"
people.
Post by Congenital Kanobruhaha about 28 pages that Bush refuses to declassify in the 9-11
report
is
Post by Congenital Kanoall about? It's about the Saudis, who spend millions in the US trying to
mold public opinion (even running commercials last year in 14 major
markets
Post by Congenital Kanoto say "The Saudis are our friends." I'm talking about the people who say
Huh? What commericials?
I thought you said we had the same sources available. Oh, you don't "avail"
yourself of the sources...
http://www.statesman.com/nationworld/content/news/070103/0701saudi.html
Post by Congenital KanoIt goes way beyond the leaders. There is a cultural gap between Arab
Muslims and Westerners. Anyone who has dealt with them understands that
to
Post by Congenital Kanoassume they think like us is dead wrong. They assume you will cheat them,
Well, I don't know about that. I've known several half Arabian and half
Filipino families that spent half the year in Saudi, and the other half in
SF.
And how often did you discuss honesty and trust with them? Ever make a
contract with them? Ask Lololo Lee -- he used to negotiate contracts in the
ME. And a fun time was had by all. I deal with Arab Muslim shopkeepers
every day; some are still suspicious of me after doing business with me
every day for 15 years.
Post by Congenital Kanobecause that's what they'd do to you if they had a chance. Compromise
is
Post by Congenital Kanoa sign of weakness, compassion means you are either gullible or weak or
both.
Nah. I don't believe that.
So I exist to educate:
" Moving to our region of the world, we find many people, even educated
?people, associating the word compromise with such negative terms as ??
'submission', 'retreat', 'capitulation', 'weakness' and 'defeat'. "
http://www.mideastweb.org/compromise.htm
Post by Congenital KanoEven the "charitable" elements of the culture grow out of the inherent
treachery -- to have any social stability, you need to set aside homicidal
and thieving impulses when someone is in your home. Even the practice of
hajib, or veiling women, comes not as a modesty provision but to protect
women and their men from kidnap and murder. Because of the early practice
of infanticide for girls (a man needs strong sons, not weak women!) there
was an imbalance of the sexes. Women were kidnapped and their husbands or
brothers who tried to protect them were killed. Beautiful women were more
desireable and thus a bigger threat. The veil and bulky clothing was to
keep temptation to a minimum.
These are people who *think* differently than we do. Failing to
understand
Post by Congenital Kanothat in today's world can be fatal.
Dood. To me, that's totally absurd. Failing to understand that there are
armed sickos out there *is* what's fatal. Not cultural differences.
If you assume your enemy is just like you only dressed funny you will not be
prepared for their attacks. Would you force your pregnant wife to strap
dynamite to her body and blow herself up on the hopes of killing one or more
enemies? Do we place weapons in schools and hospitals? Do we crowd
civilians around military targets to either protect them or provide PR
against the "heartless enemy?" Do we behead the wives and children of
suspected traitors to keep them in line? Do we surgically remove women's
clitori so they feel less sexual stimulation and are less likely to stray?
Do we consider it honorable for a brother or father to kill their sister or
daughter because she "shames" the family by dating a non-Muslim? Do we
believe that women should remain uneducated and sequestered in the home,
only to go out with a male relative? Do we stone a women who has been raped
because she has shamed her husband or family?
I think you recognize cultural differences between the Pinas and the States.
Why would you not believe there would be greater differences between
cultures that do not share a common language, religion and history?
Post by Congenital KanoTwo things. Look at the major hot spots in the world today, and you
generally find Muslims involved. It isn't just a Muslim-Jew thang, or
Muslim-Christian thang. You have Muslims sowing terror and genocide in
the
Post by Congenital KanoBalkans, the Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, the
Philippines --
Post by Congenital Kanowhere ever you find them. This "religion of peace" brings bloodshed
wherever it grows powerful... and other Muslims do not condemn or seek to
stop it. Could it be because their holy writings say that this is a good
thing?
Dood. It's not the religion that causes death. It's the men that possesses
the sick mind, the greed, and the lust for power.
Why is the common denominator Islam? When you look at trouble spot after
trouble spot, and in each case there are Islamic radicals involved in
diverse parts of the world who don't have ethnic ties, you have to look for
the common denominator.
Post by Congenital KanoWhere are the "peaceable" Muslims in today's world? What are they doing
to
Post by Congenital Kanocontrol their radical brethren?
This is like saying, "What was Kj doing to prevent Joeker from going
madcow
on Renowl". Dood! Are you getting enough food? I need to bring you to
Peppermill again. Nah. Let's do Black Angus.
If a Catholic flew a plane into the Dome of the Rock claiming to do it in
the name of Jesus and the Church, the Pope and Catholic leaders from every
nation would stand up and denounce the act; Catholics and Christians from
around the world would contribute generously to rebuilding the shrine, and
dedicate themselves to finding any others in the plot. After 9-11 there was
virtual *silence* from the Muslim clergy, in the US and abroad. What weak
statements that were made (and never by the main leaders) said they
regretted the loss of life "but you should think about your actions that
have brought this on you." Arabs in the US were more concerned about how
*they* might be targeted. The Arab-American groups like CAIR spent more
time denouncing racial profiling and potential abuse than stating that these
terrorists did not represent Islam. Tony Blair and Dubya were more
apologetic than the Muslims were, saying that this was not "true Islam."
Sorry, look at the history of Islam. Mohammed was a warrior who recorded
many battles to subjugate people to his beliefs by the sword in the Qu'ran,
and the history of Islam has been one of bloody conquest and subjugation
ever since. In the last 60 years, almost every armed invasion of another
country has been by Muslims.
Nah. It's my way of getting a vibe for people, places, and things. Don't
take offense, but if I thought like the responses you typed, there's no
way
I would've shared a table with you, a strange white guy at Peppermill in
Daly city. I don't know Randy, but it shore feels like you're testing me
to
see if I really am racist. Which, I'm not!...ya damn honkey.
Don't confuse racism with appreciation of cultural differences. Muslims are
not of a particular race, but they share certain cultural traits based upon
their belief system.
So, uh...when we gonna do Black Angus?
*I'm* still waiting on nachos...
Maria *loves* it when I eat them...
Bastos Pig