Welcome to Anti

The Anti War Quotes Peace Page

Latest Anti War Quotes Peace News

Anti War Quotes Peace Questions asked

Open Question: What can I say back about Bush being a bad president?

My logic is sound about Bush, but I need a comeback to him. What can I say? Me: His advisors planned to start the war in Iraq years before he did. Other guy's responce: You have no real proof of that, there is the Conservative think tank that Liberals try to use as proof, but most of the Advisors are only signatories to the "Statement of Principles" of the organization and not actually active members of it. Mind you the Statement of Principles for this think tank are and I quote: * we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; * we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; * we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and] * we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Those four things are pretty much international beliefs for any Conservative. Me: They used the terrorist attack to justify it, yet the terrorist were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Instead of staying in Afghanistan, we went to Iraq, and never found binLaden who admitted to sending the terrorists to attack us. Other guy's responce: Do you honestly believe that we wouldn't be going into Iraq some time in the twenty years since Gulf War 1. I mean did you not forget how close Clinton came to invading. Iraq was the most misbehaving regime in the Middle East at that time. Yes 9/11 was a wake up call to the danger it posed. But it was Saddam's actions, not some stupid conspiracy that was driving the two countries onto a collision course. Me: When Bush was asked the next year why we didn't put more effort into finding binLaden, he said he "didn't care" about binLaden. So our president who is supposedly defending us from terrorists said he didn't care about finding the man who admitted to attacking us!!!! Other guy's responce: And he was right, he would be pathetically stupid if he focused on Bin Laden and only Bin Laden. The Middle East was a festering bed of Anti American hatred, radicals, and terrorism. Bin Laden had become minimized to the point he had become a figure head and has been one for several years. Bush could have devoted his entire war effort into finding Bin Laden and most likely would have came up empty. But you know what? After about 4 or 5 years of searching, he and everyone else would have raised up their head and realized that while searching for this man, we had made the same stupid mistakes that created 9/11. We had neglected to deal with the Middle East, we had neglected to deal with the Dictators, and we had neglected to deal with Al Qaeda as a whole. Bin Laden could have easily could have become Bush's White Whale. But you should remember, Captain Ahab was so focused on his obsession that in the end, it killed him. Me: Bush continues to send our troops to die in the Middle East at a horrible rate. Other guy's responce: And a much lower rate than many of the other wars. Me: Is it worth thousands of American lives to keep fighting in a country that doesn't even want democracy? They don't want it, so why are we getting killed over it? Other guy's responce: Umm yes, because if you don't secure that country, if you do not make sure that we treat it the right way. It becomes Afghanistan. Read a bit of history, read up on what happened when we took a hands off approach to Afghanistan once the Soviet Union was kicked out. Al Qaeda had repeatedly made their intentions clear, they wanted Iraq, they wanted it badly, they were willing to risk their entire organization for it. They wanted it to be their next base of operations. And you want to leave it because too many people died? Because you believe they don't want democracy when the people have fled to the polls to vote for their Government despite death? Well you know what, consider what would happen if Al Qaeda did have the whole country to work with. Me: If we wanted to help, we would have needed to go about it a different way. Either take so many troops in that we flooded the country and really could ensure peace (but then we would be viewed as occupiers and that would have made our image worse), or we could have killed Sadam quietly and efficiently, without tens of thousands of innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. Other guy's responce: We went in wrong, there is no denying that, but killing Saddam is absolutely stupid. His sons, one of them a known rapist who took pleasure in killing and mutilating people. Some say his sons were even worse than his father, and they would be in command if you killed Saddam. Me: Bush's own father, the former President Bush, warned him that fighting in Baghdad would be dangerous, and the troops would be ambushed. Bush says he does not take advice from his Dad, siYou retards, there was a topic called 'Did Bush do anything right as a president?' and I responded to that topic. Gosh, just answer the damn question >_> more

Resolved Question: Will Obama try and punish Israel, for rejecting his Peace Offering?

May 29, 2009 New peace setback as Binyamin Netanyahu rejects US settlement call Israel and America were locked in one of their most bitter disputes for decades last night after the Israeli Government flatly rejected a direct call from President Obama to halt the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The row threatened to set back President Obama’s already bleak prospects for brokering peace in the Middle East. It is likely to dominate his trip to the region next week, when he makes an address to the Muslim and Arab worlds in Cairo on Thursday MEANWHILE IRAN SAYS: Ahmadinejad Boasts of Enhanced Nuclear Capability, Says 'West Dare Not Threaten Us' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has boosted its capacity to enrich uranium, another sign of anti-Western defiance by the leader seeking re-election in a vote next month.-"Now we have more than 7,000 centrifuges and the West dare not threaten us," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on a small radio station late Wednesday. MEANWHILE: Netanyahu abruptly cancels Europe trip Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Israel Today Cancellation of trip just week in advance comes after France criticized Bibi for saying he will not surrender Jerusalem.... MEANWHILE THE BIBLE SAYS: "It will come about in that day that I will make JERUSALEM a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it Zechariah 12:3 Netanyahu: Jerusalem Will Not Be Divided If the US wants to intervene in other countries wars and ways then they need ... The last time Jerusalem was divided was between 1948 and 1967. .... society" because of the unique history of the Jewish people in EuropePLUS OBAMA LIED.. Check it out.. Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Obama Says It's Time To Divide Jerusalem --Apparently, in his speech to the muslim world from Cairo, Egypt June 4th, Obama intends to announce that it is time to divide Jerusalem, and make the holy city the capital of a Palestinian state. More confirmation of this comes from Globes Online, Israel's Business Arena, HOWEVER LAST JUNE HE SAID JERUSALEM SHOULD REMAIN UN-DIVIDED AND BELONGS TO ISRAEL more

Resolved Question: How do Americans react to the most recent Afghan massacre and Washington's decision to continue airstrikes?

On Monday, the British Guardian quoted an official with the United Nations mission in Kabul who called the reports from the scene “horrifying.” The UN official, who spoke anonymously to the paper, said that bombing was carried out hours after the fighting between the insurgents and US-backed troops had ended. “Local villagers went to the mosque to pray for peace,” he said. “Shortly after evening prayers the air strikes were called in, and they continued for a couple of hours whilst the villagers were frantically calling the local governor to get him to call off the air strikes.”The bombing of civilian homes by an occupying power, even if insurgents are in the vicinity, is forbidden by international law and constitutes a war crime. Moreover, Afghanistan’s principal human rights organization is investigating reports that US forces used white phosphorous shells in attacking the village as well as in previous strikes against civilian targets. These incendiary munitions can be used to create smokescreens or as flares. As an anti-personnel weapon, however, they inflict death and horrendous injuries, sticking to the skin and burning the flesh to the bone. The use of such weapons against civilian targets constitutes a war crime. The Guardian quoted Dr. Mohammad Aref Jalali, who heads a burn center in Herat, where victims were taken. “One of the women who came here told us that 22 members of her family were totally burned,” he said. “She said a bomb distributed white powder that caught fire and then set people's clothes alight.” These war crimes have been carried out by the Obama administration, which is now sending another 21,000 US troops into the Afghanistan war and planning to more than double the size of the US occupation force to 68,000 by 2010. The additional troops will mean more and greater such crimes. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/pers-m12.shtmlWhy Don't People Like Me? 2 The pentagon? You expect anyone to take that serious? The same people who knew where the Iraqi WMD were? Sorry totally unbelievable more

Resolved Question: This is kind of scaring me...?

On the evening of Barack Hussein Obama's election night, the Illinois Lottery was won. Illinois is Obama's home state. Winning number were, AND I QUOTE, Pick 3 - 6, 6, 6, Pick 4 - 7,7,7,9...As many of you know 666 means Anti Christ. and 7779 means God's complete judgment. Put them together and you get "The Antichrist, God's complete Judgment." I had also heard that he recently signed peace with the following countries: France, Germany, Venezuela, and is helping Cuba... All except for France had started HUGE wars, or is on a continues war (except France) *Germany, Venezuela, Cuba* Plz im rlly scared, and to the fact that Ive heard that the world will end on 2012, when Obama's Prez. more

Resolved Question: Was the USA founded as a Christian nation?

From what I understand, people declare the USA is a Christian nation despite all the history. Can anyone explain how it is possible, based on: US Paper money between 1776 -1955 (179 years) did not have the phrase "In God we trust" on it. This was added in 1955 by then Secretary of the Treasury, George W. Humphrey and approved by President Eisenhower. US Coins between 1776-1864 (88 years) did not have the phrase "In God we trust" on them. This was added in 1864 by then Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase and approved by Congress. The original pledge of Allegiance as written in 1892 and recited for 62 years did not contain the phrase "under God". In 1954 this phrase was added by the Knights of Columbus and approved by President Eisenhower. The entire US Constitution does not contain the word "God." The US Constitution does not define religion; not even in the First Amendment, which bars the Federal Government from interfering with religion in the United States. Article VI, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders. The oath taken by the President of the United States is Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. It does NOT contain "So help me God", which has been added verbally by most modern Presidents. The Declaration of Independence uses "God" only once. It is in a God of nature or "mother earth" sense. Quote: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The Declaration of Independence once uses the phrase "Divine Providence" without definition. A common definition is "The cooperation of nature with everything that happens." Every religion has its own interpretation of this phrase. Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. First President George Washington was a religious man and expressed this in his National Thanksgiving Proclamations. He enforced the separation between Church & State and made no impositions on Americans with regard to religion during his Presidency. A bill was proposed which would have the government impose a levy "towards the support of that which [religion] they profess." On October 3rd, 1785, Washington wrote a letter to George Mason concerning this bill. He stated that though he is not opposed to the concept of membership to a faith requiring payment, it is unwise to impose religious matters by law. (Library of Congress) Quote:"I think it will be productive of more quiet to the State, than by enacting it into a Law; which, in my opinion, would be impolitic…" During Washington's Presidency, US ships were falling victim to pirates off the coast of Tripoli (now Libya.) A twelve-article treaty with the Muslim nation was drafted to arrange payment in exchange for safe passage of US ships in their waters and peace. To help dispel basis for a religious war, this treaty included the wording: "Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously ratified by the Senate, then signed into law and proclaimed to the Nation by second President John Adams on June 10, 1797. It was published in US newspapers with no record of any objection. As early as 1802, religious groups began questioning the intent of the Separation of Church and State. The Danbury Baptists wrote to Founding Father and third President Thomas Jefferson when they feared that their minority could threaten their freedoms. Thomas Jefferson responded in a letter (Which is on record with the U.S. Library of Congress) Quote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." James Madison, fourth President and the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights wrote the following in the document: "Backgrounder on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" (Which is on file with the US State Department) Quote: "... no man shall be compelled to frequent more

Voting Question: How World War III Might Unfold -- The Conflict with Iran, and the Unforeseen Consequences?

There must always be an "eye" for an "eye" when it comes to wars and politics, but at what cost? In this case, the two "eyes" are really "I's", Israel and Iran. Both are key players in the Middle East, both are gathering up a storm, and both are preparing to do battle. If the rhetoric from 08 was any indication of what is to come, then a conflict between the two looms in the distance, but the consequences will be far greater than what people expect. In 2008 we saw Iran testing missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv, and we saw them warning that if anyone attacked Iran, Tel Aviv and the Persian Gulf would "light up in a fireball." The Israeli's are quite worried, they know that by 2010 Iran will have the bomb, and believe that by this year they will have the ability to enrich Uranium. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7538524.stm Even Ahmadinejad knows their is going to be a great change coming, he even said so during the summer of 2008. I think he expected the Israeli's to strike then. But no, 2009 is the year to watch, because Israeli intelligence predicts they will have the capability to begin work on the bomb this year, and by 2010 they should have a bomb. Even if they're not working on it, it doesn't change what Israel believes, which is that Iran is a threat working towards their destruction (even if Ahmadinejad quote about wiping Israel of the face of the map is really just a misquote by warmongers). And we all know what will happen if Israel goes in. The entire Middle East will unite against what it sees as an anti-arab militaristic power (and the war in Gaza isn't helping anyone see differently) which is bent on keeping the M East around it down. Syria has said any attack on Iran will be a big mistake, and it doesn't take a genius to realize why. Yet the window for striking is closing, and we all know what Israel does when that happens. They send fighters, and they fight it alone. The US can't get involved now, they have to many domestic issues and public support for a war in the M East is at an all time low (versus pre-Iraq, where over 50% of the pop. supported a war in Iran). And this is a war Israel can't win. Don't get me wrong, when the Israelis are close to being crushed by Syrian, Egyptian, and Iranian tanks America will enter the war, but it will be costly for all involved, and who knows if a Israeli state will even be around afterward. Not to mention the price of oil will sky rocket world wide, creating more money for the Iranians, Russians, and all the others who trade it for currency and weapons. Can America fight the world? Only time will tell, but the fact remains, any attack on Iran will be a BIG mistake, yet its almost inevitable. Especially with the hard line Israel has taken this year to Gaza, which is really starting to piss of the Middle East (with good reason). There is no need for all of us to lose an eye, over something so small and unimportant like nuclear energy. I'm sorry, but Iran has the same rights to it as all of us, and no offense but Iran has been one of the most peaceful countries in the M. East. How many wars have they started, compared to Israel or America? Think about it, before you bomb them. And think about all the unforeseen consequences. A huge Middle Eastern super power centered around Iran. Oil money for Russia. And the fact that any attack on Iran will piss of China, who already has a lot of economic and military deals with them. The enemy of my enemy is a friend, but who is really whose enemy. Can't we all just...get along? Or is war really in our nature? That's up to us to decide. Comments? Questions? Want to see how the next part of WW3 would play out? Go to there and have your say! Peace http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq1vXn0g.fw5q71xpcUTI0Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090130121143AAZkDuZ more

Resolved Question: When has any country in the arab world extended an olive branch to Israel?

yes, Egypt did, and lo and behold, no Egypt/Israeli war since Camp David. Of course, Egypt did so ONLY after huge and humiliating defeats. What other arab countries have done the same as Egypt. And yes, most if not all arab countries have that in common with Egypt; humiliating defeats by Israel. Israel and Egypt still not buddy buddy, but at the same time, Israel maintains the deal it made with Egypt. And this made after all the peace loving statements made by Nasser about Israel. I would LOVE for some anti-Israel people to tell me how much peace and love Egypt had for Israel, how about some nasser quotes on what he wanted to do to Israel? Those sure were peaceful comments, weren't they? more

Resolved Question: What's with this woman that she continues to bash President Obama?

A Tale Of Two Presidential Workout Fanatics By MICHELLE MALKIN | Posted Friday, December 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT Ah, the perks of media affection. On Christmas Day, the Washington Post delivered a front-page paean to Barack Obama's workout habits. The 1,233-word ode to O's physical fitness read more like a Harlequin romance novel than an A1 news article. Sighed smitten reporter Eli Zaslow, "The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games." Drool cup to the newsroom, stat. Bush's "(over)exercise of power" is Obama's "time to reflect." Zaslow imparted us with vital information about buff Bam's regimen: "Obama has gone to the gym for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row." The Post enlightened us with more gushing commentary from Obama friends and associates, who explain how, as the subtitle of Zaslow's opus put it, "Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position." For adoring journalists, you see, Obama's workout fanaticism demonstrates the discipline and balance in his life. Apparently, what's good for Obama's glistening pecs is good for the country. Zaslow quoted Obama's Chicago crony Marty Nesbitt, who offered this diagnosis: "He doesn't think of it as something he has to do — it's his time for himself, a chance for him to reflect. It's his break. He feels better and more revved up after he gets in his workout." And when Obama feels better, the skies will part, the sun will shine (in moderate, environmentally correct, non-global-warming-inducing amounts, of course), and peace will reign worldwide! Too bad the doughy, McDonald's-chomping, coffee-guzzling members of the White House press corps couldn't see the merits of White House exercise over the past eight years. After giggling about his out-of-shape colleagues in the media, Zaslow mentioned in passing that President Bush shares Obama's commitment to health. What he failed to acknowledge is that the same reporters who so greatly admire Obama's lithe figure derided Bush for his training schedule. Former Post writer Jonathan Chait famously attacked Bush three years ago in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times headlined "The (over)exercise of power." Recounting how President Bush ran 3.5 miles a day and preached more cross-training to a federal judge, Chait fumed: "Am I the only person who finds this disturbing? . . . What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy." Chait argued that Bush's passionate devotion to exercise was a dereliction of duty. "Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?" he jeered. "It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does." Can you imagine any member of the Obamedia mocking the incoming gym-rat-in-chief this way? Chait was not alone. Reuters journalist Caron Bohan weaved the same unhinged themes into a piece on Bush's two-hour, 17-mile bike ride with cycling champ Lance Armstrong in Crawford, Texas, in 2005. After noting his six-days-a-week workout schedule, Bohan steered the piece into an anti-war screed: "Bush says exercise helps sharpen his thinking. But some of his critics view his exercise obsession as an indulgence that takes time away from other priorities. Among them is Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville, Calif., mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who until late last week was camped out down the road from Bush's ranch seeking a meeting with him to discuss her opposition to the war. Sheehan, who left her vigil on Thursday to tend to her sick mother, has said she believes Bush should take fewer bike rides to have more time to focus on the 'the nation's work.' " Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist. Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model. The good news: In just a few short weeks, W. will be able to exercise in peace, free from the disapproving glares of journalists now rushing to mop the sweat — er, the glisten — from Barack Obama's hallowed brow. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=315188478171644 more

Resolved Question: Do you have any anti-drug/peace/love quotes?

Such as, "Crack is wack" "Condoms are cheaper than guns" "make love, not war" Thanks! more

Resolved Question: Should I turn my back on my religion?

Serious question. I always believed that, if you read the Bible, you would learn all about how Jesus was a kind and gentle man that preached love and tolerance. I also learned that He was the only way to get into Heaven. Now, I've heard from numerous sources that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ (seriously) and scripture is quoted and mangled in an attempt to validate this argument. How could they have read the same book as I did? I was drawn to Obama because he spoke of the same tolerance and kindness that they told me I should have since way back in Bible school. Have I misunderstood something, or is all that love and peace talk just b.s.? I mean, when we went to war with Iraq--a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was later proven had no WMD's--we did it in God's name. more

Resolved Question: anti-war project ideas??? creative people!!!!?

I'm doing an anti-war movement project on the Vietnam war ... and i wanted to make my poster original... some people who already presented did the same old peace sign poster with theyre info in there, or a hand peace sign, or an american flag with a peace sign, or a tye dye.. I want my poster to be original.. any ideas? i was thinking maybe of making it into a dove shape or something.. but maybe something more original would be better i know there has to be some creative people out there that can help and also if anyone knows any good anti-vietnam war : 1. songs 2. poems 3. quotes more

Resolved Question: Obama's Pastor Circulates Hamas Manifesto, What do you all think about this?

By Aaron Klein JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence. The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week. Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. The revelation follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group. In his July 22, 2007, church newsletter, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the publication as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the piece was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog, which first brought attention to it. The Hamas article was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism. According to senior Israeli security officials, Marzook, who resides in Syria alongside Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal, is considered the "brains" behind Hamas, designing much of the terror group's policies and ideology. Israel possesses what it says is a large volume of specific evidence that Marzook has been directly involved in calling for or planning scores of Hamas terrorist offensives, including deadly suicide bombings. He was also accused of attempting to set up a Hamas network in the U.S. Marzook's original piece was titled, "Hamas' stand" but was re-titled "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle" by Obama's church newsletter. The newsletter also referred to Hamas as the "Islamic Resistance Movement," and added in its introduction that Marzook was addressing Hamas' goals for "all of Palestine." In the manifesto, Marzook refers to Hamas' "resistance" – the group's perpetuation of anti-Israel terrorism targeting civilians – as "legal resistance," which, he argues, is "explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention." The Convention, which refers to the rights of people living under occupation, does not support suicide bombings or rocket attacks against civilian population centers, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America noted. Marzook refers to Hamas' official charter as "an essentially revolutionary document" and compares the violent creed to the Declaration of Independence, which, Marzook states, "simply did not countenance any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time." Hamas' charter calls for the murder of Jews. Among its platforms is a statement that the "[resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!'" In his piece, Marzook says Hamas only targets Israel and denies that Hamas' war is meant to be waged against the U.S., even though Hamas officials have threatened America, and Hamas' charter calls for Muslims to "pursue the cause of the Movement (Hamas), all over the globe." Trinity Church did not respond to a phone message requesting comment. Obama's campaign also did not reply to phone and e-mail requests today for comment. Obama aide wants talks with terrorists WND reported in January that Malley, an Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause. Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state. Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure. In February 2006, after Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and amid a U.S. and Israeli attempt to isolate the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, Malley wrote an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun advocating international aid to the terror group's newly formed government. "The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians' lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back," wrote Malley in a piece entitled, "Making the Best of Hamas' Victory." Malley contended the election of Hamas expressed Palestinian "anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat's imprisonment, Israel's incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cutoff in the event of an Islamist success." Malley said the U.S. should not "discourage third-party unofficial contacts with [Hamas] in an attempt to moderate it." In an op-ed in the Washington Post in January coauthored by Arafat adviser Hussein Agha, Malley – using what could be perceived as anti-Israel language – urged Israel's negotiating partner, Abbas, to reunite with Hamas. "A renewed national compact and the return of Hamas to the political fold would upset Israel's strategy of perpetuating Palestinian geographic and political division," wrote Malley. He further petitioned Israel to hold talks with Hamas. "An arrangement between Israel and Hamas could advance both sides' interests," Malley wrote. In numerous other op-eds, Malley advocated a policy of engagement with Hamas. more

Resolved Question: Any good quotes on peace or anti-war?

I am looking for short, sweet, anti-war or peace quotes. Like, 'make love not war'. That sort of thing. more

Resolved Question: Is it right that Our politicians will vote for Israeli needs while ignoring what the common american wants?

Old Yesterday, 06:10 PM #1 Cartman Remember the Intifada Cartman's Avatar Join Date: May 2007 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,394 Reputation: points: 4864 / Rep Power: 50 Cartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond repute Israeli Lobby In America:Corruption of The American Politician "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture." -- Michael Medved, well-known Jewish author and respected film critic. For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression. Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities. "The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [note 1] Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid. Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel? Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful." [note 2] Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence -- vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group. As Jewish author and political science professor, Benjamin Ginsberg, has pointed out: [note 3] "Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations." Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked. Jews are only two percent of the nation's population yet comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants. Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry." [note 4] Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [note 5] "During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series." The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [note 6] "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [note 7] One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish community weekly 'Forward.' In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [note 8] "In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation ... Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films." The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates. Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is impressed. "I am very angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering." [note 9] A Well-Entrenched Factor The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life. In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government. The shy 39-year-old -- known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing -- was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration. Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on: "For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction." In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [note 10] "How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles." As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American television, newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel. This is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal of Palestinian "terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control." One-Sided 'Holocaust' History The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well-entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [note 11] "Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating." Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives. The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational" campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy." [note 12] Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College), says in his book, 'The Holocaust Industry,' that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews."[note 13] "By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure. ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the history of mankind'." Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." [note 14] Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [note 15] "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." Today, the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish organizations, in collaboration with this country's pro-Zionist Christian fundamentalist "amen corner," are prodding the United States -- the world's foremost military and economic power -- into new wars against Israel's enemies. As the French ambassador in London recently acknowledged, Israel -- which he called (a quote which shocked millions -ed) "that ****ty little country" -- is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he said. [note 16] In summation: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict. As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish-Zionist distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace. Notes 1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11. 2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. 3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103. 4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies , Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back130... 5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27. 6. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 7. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37. 8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291. 9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks. 10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229. 11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306. 12. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine , Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79. 13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149. 14. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted." 15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161. 16. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador is Daniel Bernard.6/02 About the author Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review. www.ihr.org * 1 hour ago * - Edit * - Delete Source(s): the article was from this site http://www.rense.com/general27/jlobby.ht...strictly militant, exactly, are you a muslim brotherrz, being against the state of israel doesnt make one anti-jew, i can see the media has brainwashd you alreadymy point is not that israel is attacking the US militarily, but that why is it that israeli money is able to buy politicians votes and that takes precedence over the United States citizens more

Resolved Question: How does the media report the Israeli Palestinian Conflict?

When we criticise the Chinese occupation of Tibet, nobody criticises us of being anti-Chinese. HISTORY and ORIGIN Understanding the conflict requires the knowledge of two important aspects; the history and origin of the conflict. In 1948 when Israel was established on 78% of historical Palestine, large numbers of Palestinians were made refugees. Some 500 villages were erased. In 1967 Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. When the media reports the conflict, it rarely mentions the history and origin of the conflict. A study by Glasgow University Media Group which monitored TV news between Sept 28th and October 16th 2000 had found that out of 3500 lines of text in total, only 17 lines referred to the History of the conflict. (As detailed in the Glasgow Media Group Book “Bad News from Israel” 2004). It is worth noting that when facts are known people tend to change their views and some switch support. PERSPECTIVES: Israeli perspective: 1948 for Israelis was a war of independence “melhemet Haatzma’ut” but this resulted in the uprooting of more than 700,000 Palestinians who became refugees. The Palestinian perspective: 1948 for Palestinians was “The Nakba” The Catastrophe. Another Study by the Library of International Affairs (30th Oct 07) which Compared media articles over a period of months and reached some conclusions: From primarily Israeli perspective: Palestinians are terrorists From an Arab perspective: they are freedom fighters and the Israelis are illegal occupiers. From an Israeli perspective and indeed from the perspective of Israeli supporters: Ariel Sharon is a hero in the eyes of the Israelis. One New York Times columnist described him once as the feisty warrior, a kind of brave jolly stout fellow. But in Arab eyes he is a war criminal. Many Europeans and Arabs still consider Ariel Sharon as a devious and cunning politician and a murderer. Conclusion of this section: Different interpretations make it difficult to get the real picture. The interpretation is based on prejudices, experiences and interests of both sides. The Power of Headlines: The Glasgow University Media Group provided dozens of examples of misleading and inaccurate headline; however I mention below 2 or 3 examples: “Avenging their death, Israel hit back”. ITV March 3rd 02 “Israel had been dragged into a war on terror”. BBC December 6th 01 Here we can see that the emphasis is on portraying the Palestinian action and the Israeli retaliation. Palestinians are depicted as the trouble makers, the terrorists and Israel responds to teach them a lesson. The Illegal Settlers: In some Western and Israeli press the settlers are pioneers and defenders of biblical Israel. In 2003 B’tasleem an Israeli human rights group said: “the press often reports attacks by Palestinians but the facts are different. B’tasleem listed many examples of settlers setting up road blocks, shooting Palestinians at random burning of crops and cars etc etc. In Hebron 500 settlers make the life of 125000 Palestinians a misery, a hell On earth. 1994: Professor Israel Shahak described how “religious youths from Kiryat Arba were throwing stones on Palestinians. (Israel Shahak is known for his outspoken views about Jewish Religious Extremists). Collective punishment Curfews are imposed on Palestinians never on settlers. Ariel Sharon’s provocation: Violence sparked off 29th sept 2000 following a visit by Sharon to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. He was reported as saying “I came here with a message of peace”. To Arabs the visit was a provocation. President Bush described Sharon in 2002 as a man of peace But the rest of the world did not believe him. Samples from the BBC: BBC October 3rd 2000 “Ariel Sharon right wing enemy of the peace process” BBC November 1st 01 “Sharon used every opportunity he could to attack the Arabs as terrorists”. Guardian Newspaper UK October 3rd 2000 Amira Haas wrote “when the Intifida began 7 years after Oslo Accord all Palestinians feel betrayed”. Us duplicity: Two examples of US obvious bias: Bush uttered the following words in 2002: Sharon a man of peace. We learned later that the White House phone lines were jammed by Evangelical supporters of Israel demanding that President Bush says something nice about Ariel Sharon. President Bush and his Secretary of State Colin Powell: “Arafat must end terrorism.” This was despite the fact that both Bush and Powell knew that Arafat was under siege at the time. Global Issues Organization was more frank when it stated on July 30th 06 “Sharon a right wing and against peace who committed massacres”. Anti-Semitism and the stifling of debate: Jimmy Carter, former president and author of the book “Palestine, Peace not Apartheid” was attacked and accused of being Anti-Jewish and Anti-Semitic for writing about the pernicious impact of the Apartheid Wall. Professors Norman G Finkelstein and Mehrene Laurdee were denied tenure at De Paul University in Chicago for daring to criticise Israel. Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Watt, a Harvard Professor, were both criticised , slandered and boycotted for exposing the role of AIPAC and Jewish lobbies in Their book “The Israeli Lobby and the US foreign policy”. On the other hand Elaine Mcardle of the Boston Globe wrote recently “I was lobbied by Aipac. She exposed the tactics used by AIPAC to influence the opinion of journalists in Israel’s favour. Distortions on websites: Writing in a pro-Israel American internet website; Lorella, an American housewife who lived in Tel Aviv since 2001 wrote; “We sat in our living room in Tel Aviv and watched an interview with Saab Erekat, a Palestinian terrorist”. Saeb Erekat the chief Palestinian negotiator, a man who condemned violence and suicide bombers and was accused by Hamas and other extremists of being a friend of Israel because of his rejection of violence is a terrorist according to the Tel Aviv housewife. Another example on the same website: Headline: Terrorists prefer Hillary And they would rather see Rudy Giuliani dead than president. It transpired that a Palestinian in the West Bank said to a reporter “it would be good if Hilary follows her husband’s policy of promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians”. CNN Paula Zahn Now July 24th 2007 on her TV program holds a book and announces “what does the book of revelation tell us about what is happening in the Middle East”. Was she trying to explain the current Middle East situation with reference to an ancient text? Why and in whose interest? (mediamatters.org) Anti-Semitism and Anti-Jewish Syndrome: The China/Tibet analogy: (Counter Punch a US based internet website): when we criticise the Chinese occupation of Tibet, nobody criticises us of being anti-Chinese. When we criticise Kim Jong IL, do we hate the Korean people. We can safely add by saying: When we criticise the Burmese military junta, we are not accused of being anti-Burmese or anti Buddhism. We often criticise Robert Mugabe or Parvis Musharraf but we are not told you are anti the people of Zimbabwe or anti-Muslims of Pakistan. To criticise the Iranian leadership does not mean you are anti-Shiite or anti Farsi people. When we criticise Hugo Chavez are we being haters of Venezuelan people? Why is it then, when someone criticises Israel he is accused of being Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish. The reporting of the killing of Mohd Al Durra: Elliot Resnick Jewish press staff reporter October 10th 2007” wrote “evidence mounts inflammatory image was staged” (The image of young Mohammad al-durra dying in the lap of his father struck down by Israeli bullets on Sept 30th 2000 was fake according to Israeli apologists). Boston University Professor Richard Landes (a pro-Israeli academic) Concludes that the entire episode was staged, but he did not offer convincing evidence for his conclusion. (theaugeanstables.com) October 2nd 2007 Natan Sharansky chairman of the Adelson Institute of Strategic Studies at the Shalen Centre in Jerusalem cast doubt on the Al-Durra incident. He blamed a French journalist for inflaming passions against Israel. In the same piece, he denied the Jenin massacre. But failed to explain why journalists and foreign aid workers were barred from entering Jenin for several days. Israel also refused to receive a UN commission of enquiry. Natan Sharansky was concerned that American students he had met in New York were troubled by the Al-Durra incident. (theaugeanstables.com) Gideon Levy’s wrote an editorial article in Haaretz at the time “as far as we can remember, there has been no other case in which Palestinian fired at the IDF and hit a Palestinian child. He was savaged by the cover-up brigade. POLITICIDE a book by Baruch Kimmerling and George Wise, two distinguished Professors(University of Toronto, and the Hebrew University): “Sharon’s objectives in the 1970s were to kill as many civilians as possible. Emphasise civilians (page 62) Page 74: “intentional killing of civilians is a war crime”. Pages 162 and 163: targeted killings to provoke reaction. Haaretz Aug 30th 2002: Moshe Ya’alon Chief of Staff was quoted as saying: "Palestinians are a cancer and the war against them is chemotherapy". Page 194 examples of the violations of the 4th Geneva Conventions: “Israel prevented emergency food into Hebron during the curfew”. Preventing medical aids and ambulances reaching Jenin and Ramallah etc. Page 205: Israeli actions are designed to provoke and irritate Palestinians to make them hate Israel more and more and desire revenge. This can be exploited by Israel in two ways first to show that Palestinians are not real partners for peace and secondly to create more facts on the ground as way of punishment i.e. expanding of settlements and confiscation of land etc. http://english.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=news&action=article&id=1794 more

Resolved Question: RE: General Giap’s statement after Tet of 1968 about quiting.?

Giap’s stated after Tet of 1968 that North Vietnam was planning to stop the war because of the massive losses sustained. They continued only because the American media spun their total defeat into a victory - And because of the ‘peace” and anti-war demonstrations following. I have seen references to that statement, usually attributed to ‘General Giap’s Biography.” I have read many biographical accounts, but can’t find any that show the source. I need to know the name of the book or article containing his quote. Can anyone help? more

Resolved Question: Anti War Shirt Quote?

im doing an antiwar shirt for a protest coming up in august. pick a quote for the back of the shirt- 1.How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked to pieces than take part in such an abominable business. ~Albert Einstein 2.Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. ~Albert Einstein 3.Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians. ~Barry Goldwater 4.Respect for the rights of others means peace. ~Benito Juárez 5.Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man. ~Bertrand Russell 6.Peace is constructed, not fought for. ~Brent Davis 7.Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. ~Davy Crockett 8.War settles nothing. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower 9.No war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. ~Eugene Debs 10.How can you make a war on terror if war itself is terrorism? ~Howard Zinn11.It’s one thing to fight for what you believe in, another thing to fight for what others believe in. ~James Wolcott 12.We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children. ~Jimmy Carter 13.War doesn't make boys men, it makes men dead. ~Ken Gillespie 14.I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. ~Mahatma Gandhi 15.War comes from our being immature, fearful, and injured, and not being able to concieve of other ways of solving problems. ~Patricia Sun*if you dont agree with the "antiwar thing" dont bother answering.** as in dont bother yelling at me about how the US is doing such a great job & that i should be more patriotic. more

Resolved Question: If this "No Fly Zone" resolution was put in place in 2005, why was it still being discussed in the Dem. Debate

If this "No Fly Zone" resolution was put in place in 2005, why was it still being discussed in the Dem. Debates recently in 2007? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Boxer In March 2005 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed Boxer's amendment to the Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Bill strongly urging Saudi Arabia to permit women to run for office and vote in all future elections. Boxer is a cosponsor of S. 495, or the Darfur Accountability Act of 2005, which would impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Darfur. Sanctions under this legislation include imposition of a military no-fly zone in Darfur, a coordinated effort between the U.S. and Sudanese governments to track down and prosecute individuals in Sudan in any way involved with genocide or other war crimes in Darfur, a call for the Sudanese Government to take an active roll in combating Janjaweed forces within its borders, and a policy of sanctions against the Sudanese government, including sanctions that will affect the petroleum sector, and individual members of the Sudanese government whose actions support the crimes of violent militias in Darfur. Khartoum is also where the CIA hunted bin-laden according to the book "Hunting the Jackal" (militarybookclub.com). China's involvement in acquiring oil in areas where it is politically unsavory for the U.S. gives them a strategic advantage in every anti-U.S. country (like Venezuela) in the world. Energy Security (wikipedia.org) becomes of grave concerns as we are 5% of the worlds population, use 25% of the worlds energy and 40% of the worlds petrol products. tim trevathan <trevathantim@yahoo.com> wrote: http://www.gvnews.net/html/Corp/newsfeed.html HOME | ABOUT GVNN | OUR PHILOSOPHY | GVNN IN THE NEWS | REGISTER | CONTACT US HOME | ABOUT GVNN | OUR PHILOSOPHY | GVNN IN THE NEWS | REGISTER | CONTACT US October 25, 2005 Subscribe to GVNN Global News Feed A powerful, real-time news wire delivered directly to subscriber desktops. GVNN News Alerts Hourly or daily updates of select news stories from our editors. World Headlines Global Crisis News Global Op-Ed Global Business Alert Environment Alert Information Tech World Lifestyles Other News Alerts GVNN Impact Reports Daily or weekly news and information reviews moderated by our editors. Global Crisis Impact Global ICT Impact Environment Women's Issues Other Impact Reports Intelligence Reports Weekly or monthly news-based analysis of global trends. Global Crisis Report World Business Report Global Diversity Information Tech Other Intelligence Partnerships Join the fastest growing global network of independent news providers. MediaChannel Globalvision's media issues supersite. Globalvision Independent media production for the new millennium. Op-Ed In Khartoum's Oil Pipelines Flow Blood By Peter Wanbali The Nation KHARTOUM, May 21, 2002 -- Two documents on the Sudan released almost simultaneously last week expose the complexities and contradictions inherent in the search for peace in that country's conflict that has lasted two decades, killed two million people, displaced 4.5 million others and burnt hundreds of billions of dollars. And nowhere is this more dramatic than in the reports' treatment of the role of oil in the war between the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and its allies, and the Government of Sudan GOS. The first report, Depopulating Sudan's Oil Regions, is written by Diane deGuzman for the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan. It is a searing condemnation of the GOS strategy to strafe civilian populated regions in South Sudan for the express purpose of clearing the regions for oil drilling work to either start or continue. It documents atrocities against the civilians starting from October 2001, when the GOS launched an offensive in the southeast part of Ruweng County, in oil concession Block 2. Although no SPLA troops were on the ground, the report says that the villages between Jukabar and Bal were bombarded from the air, with ground troops moving in to mop up. Many were killed and those lucky to survive now huddle in swampland to the northeast and southeast of the county. Timing too fortuitous to be coincidental Within a month of the clearing up of the region, the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), comprising Talisman Energy, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas Carigali and Sudapet, moved a drilling rig into the area. The timing of the raid and the decision by GNPOC was too fortuitous to be coincidental. The report also documents another raid that by mid-February this year had depopulated the northern part of Block 5A, in Western Upper Nile. The two campaigns by the GOS have displaced an estimated 80,000 people from Ruweng County and another 50,000 from the Western Upper Nile, who are now forced to wander in search of food, safety and shelter. Harrowing quotes from men and women who lost loved ones during the raids make for very sober reading, very much in the vein of two earlier reports: The Scorched Earth by Christian Aid in 2000, and Report of an Investigation into Oil Development, Conflict and Displacement in Western Upper Nile, released mid-last year by Georgette Gagnon and John Ryle. The second report released this month was Sen John C. Danforth's memo to the US President. Mr Danforth was appointed Special Envoy for Peace in the Sudan in late 2000 and this is a report on his mission. Several observations stand out, not least his advice that there should be no more new US-led initiatives. Rather, the US should engage more actively bilaterally in the Sudan and that increased support should be offered to existing initiatives like the Kenya-led IGAD peace process and the Egyptian-led Joint Initiative (with Libya). Sen Danforth details four "tests" of will that he subjected the GOS and the SPLA to, whose results were the basis of his guarded optimism. One was demand for a cease-fire and setting up of a comprehensive relief and rehabilitation programme for the devastated Nuba Mountains region; the second was observing days of tranquillity to allow relief agencies work on programmes to eradicate polio, guinea worm and bovine rinderpest. The third was prevention of intentional, wanton attacks (often by government) against innocent civilians and fourth was a proposal to the GOS to strengthen the effectiveness of its own anti-slavery commission. He claims varying degrees of success in these tests. Although Sen Danforth acknowledges that any movement forward must grapple with the thorny issues of self-determination for South Sudan, governance, religion and oil, his analysis of how oil features in the cauldron is perverse. His suggestion that a formula should be worked out for sharing the oil revenue between the GOS and the SPLA is both bizarre and impracticable. Renewed confidence The oil revenue, about $2 million every day, has given GOS renewed confidence and apart from enabling it increase its fighting efficiency, will soon become a significant cause for the war. For the process of peace to move forward - even with renewed vigour from the US and a boost to the sub-regional initiatives - the oil booty must be made a non-issue in the process. Companies like the GNPOC consortium must be prevailed upon to exercise some moral influence on the government and stop pretending that they do not see or care about what their money is financing in the Sudan. Countries like Kenya should also rethink the ridiculous posturing they are involved in - on the one hand acting as concerned mediators and peace-makers while on the other hand they are key customers buying the oil and financing the war. Ultimately, UN sanctions would be considered against all parties involved even if such penalties have not been great successes in the past. This clearly, is a hard number to push when there is so little moral firepower left for the US to expend - see what it did with Nigeria and Angola even at the height of human rights atrocities in those countries. These two reports do not give cause for hope that south Sudan's long walk out of the swamps and depths of despair it has been forced into will be ending any time soon. © The Nation, 2002. Distributed in partnership with Globalvision News Network (www.gvnews.net). All rights reserved. Featured Stories: more

Resolved Question: Why do Jews and Freemasons lie to Christians and Gentiles?

The Uncensored Talmud of Babylonia states: Szaaloth-Utszabot The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim [non-Jew] asks if our books contain anything against them." Schabbouth Hag (6d): Jews may swear falsely by the use of subterfuge wording. Many researchers who check out Talmud quotes often run into Jews who make claims that the Talmud quotes are either misinterpreted or completely fake. Should we be surprised that Jews lie about the racist and anti-Christian statements in the Talmud in lieu of the above Talmud citation? Absolutely not. They are commanded to mislead and lie to Christians when a Christian asks if the Talmud contains anything against them. Further, the Jewish Kabbalah, the esoteric mystical side of Judaism that is the foundation for Freemasonry, states this: Zohar (1, 160a): Jews MUST ALWAYS try to deceive Christians. "The heirs of the Pharisees often deny the existence of the Talmud passages here cited, in order to brazenly claim that such passages are the 'fabrications of anti-semites.'" - Michael Hoffman II "Judaism's Strange gods," p.72 "In 1994, Rabbi Tzvi Marx, director of Applied Education at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, made a remarkable admission concerning how Jewish rabbis in the past have issued two sets of texts: the authentic Talmudic texts with which they instruct their own youth in the Talmud schools (yeshiviot) and "censured and amended" versions which they disseminate to gullible non-Jews for public consumption." Michael Hoffman II, "Judaism's Strange gods," pg.71 Freemasonry, a Jewish front created to seduce Christians and their leaders also orders the same command of lying for its members. "Grand Sovereign Freemason Commander," Albert Pike writes: "Masonry...conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead." Again, many well seeking researchers, have tried to find out prominent members of the Masonic lodge including, Jehovah's Witness founder, Charles Taze Russell, Evangelist Billy Graham, Evangelist Robert Schuller, and many others, only to be flately denied by the Masons who are ordered to lie to protect the identity of the composition of their membership. Many fail to realize that Freemasons take blood oaths and swear to uphold the secrets of the rites, rituals, and membership composition. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is, in fact, the Cabalistic elements in Freemasonry that act as the main driving force in the envenomed and aggressive opposition of the latter to Christianity, and its never-flagging efforts for the undermining and destruction of the Christian organization of society. (Mgr. Dillon, The War of Anti-Christ with the Church, p. 20). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "How often have I heard the Freemasons lament the dominance of the Jews...Ever since the Revolution the Jews have taken possession of the Masonic lodges more and more completely: and their dominance is now unquestioned. The Cabala rules as mistress in the inner lodges; and the Jewish spirit dominates the lower grades...In the mind of Satan the synagogue has an all important part to play...The great enemy counts on the Jews to govern Masonry as he counts on Masonry to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ (Christianity)." (L'Abbá Emmanuel Barbier, Infiltrations Maáoniques, quoted in Dictionaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, Gustave Gautherot; He was the Professor for the History of the Revolution in the Institute Catholique de Paris, and author of several works on different phases of the modern anti-Christian movement on which he is generally recognized as one of the best authorities). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This intimate connection between the two powers (Freemasonry and Cabalistic Judaism) (writes R. Lambelin) is becoming so evident that there is no longer any attempt made to deny it. The Jewish lodges of B'nai B'rith, which originated in the English-speaking countries, have swarmed all over Europe, and even into Asia; and they assume the leadership of control in the whole Masonic organization. Under cover of Theosophy a new religion, which is specifically Jewish, though enveloped in a nebulous mist that obscures its character, is bidding fair to take the place of the traditional Christian belief which it flatters, and insensibly destroys." (Les Victoires d'Israel, pp. 211-212; Freemasonry and The Anti-Christian Movement, Edward Cahill, p. 92). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There will burst forth one fine evening one of these formidable crises which will shake the earth and which occult societies have long prepared for Christian society, and then perhaps will suddenly appear in open day, throughout the entire world, all the militia, all the fraternal and unknown sects of the Cabala. The ignorance, the carelessness in which we live, of their sinister existence, their affinities, and their immense ramifications will in no way prevent them from recognizing each other, and under the banner of no matter what universal alliance, giving each other the kiss of Peace, they will hasten to gather together under one Chief..." (Le Juif, Le Judaisme et La Judaisation des Peuples ChrÇtiens, Gougenot des Mousseaux (1869); The Trail of the Serpent, Miss Stoddard, p. 318). "The real chiefs of this immense association of Freemasonry (the few within the innermost circles of initiation), who must not be confounded with the nominal leaders or figure-heads, are mostly Jews, and live in close and intimate alliance with the militant members of Judaism, those, namely, who are the leaders of the Cabalistic section. This älite of the Masonic association, these real chiefs, who are known to so few even of the initiated, and whom even these few know only under assumed names (noms de guerre) carry on their activities in secret dependence (which they find very lucrative for themselves) upon the Cabalistic Jews." (Le Juif, la Judaisme, et la Judaisation des Peuples ChrÇtiens (Paris, 1869), p. 340).How long are we as a society going to allow those who are associated with Freemasonry (including secret societies like skull and bones, etc) rule us?It has not been proven false. Proove it.and i am not anti-semetic. I am ati=being controlled by jews/freemasons/christians/muslims/anybody.i am not anti-semetic, i am anti-being controlled by jews / freemasons / muslims / bhuddists / christians / anybody.you know you can't call someone antisemetic the second they say the word jew. I wouldn't call you anti-Muslim if you said that they were lying to us and trying to kill us.yes, many christians are freemason, but they are not privy to the secrets of this secret society until they are initiated to a higher level. Each level you learn a little bit more. 33rd degree masons believe that lucifer is more powerful than god, and this is who they serve.just because something was learned a long time ago does not make it rubbish. it has NOT been disproven and it should be taken seriously until it is.Kadnil, i am not talking about all jews.i am only talking about orthodox jews, who follow the teachings of the kabbalah"MarkS", go read some books, then come back here and ask me again. "Mark S" Yes, i said "controlled by." The reason i say that is that about half of our presidents have been FREEMASONS, and most of the others that were not were related to Freemasonry one way or another, such as Bush, being a member of "Skull and bones," or "the Ordder of Death." Most of the Presidents since the 20th century have spent time at the Bohemian Club discussing policy in "riverside chats" and then participating in a mock human sacrifice ritual. These are the same people that control what i can own, where i can go, and what i can do.Call me a racist, and censor me. That is controlling language and controlling information. That in itself is controlling. more

Resolved Question: Jews of Iraq? What about them?

 more

Resolved Question: Anyone agree with me?

I sincerely apoligize for the hypocricy and foul language i used in my last question, "What the f is wrong with people" and ,"Why does it seem everyone in our society favors war and dstruction over peace nd understanding". I was really crying before, because i could not stand to see people acting so arrogant, and so cruel and uninformed. One of my answers that gave anti war quotes from famous people got two ratings as a bad answer. why? Because people are afraid of the truth i suspect, that alot of people do not give into there bloodthirst ways, and more people favor peace than war. you don't see anti peace protestorrs do you, you see anti war protestors. What has war ever done good for us, with the exception of when diplomacy is out of the question(such as when we are attacked first) or when commpromise fails, and then we move to war, such as in the american revolution. more

Resolved Question: do you think that yahoo is anti-islamic racist?!!?

please check this site http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=allah&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 a picture with god name on a pig?!! what on earth is this picture supposed 2 mean/??! ISLAM’S ANSWER TO THE RACIAL PROBLEM BY A GERMAN DIPLOMAT THE HAJJ This annual pilgrimage, or Hajj as it is called in the Arabic language, is one of the five pillars, one of the five fundamental religious duties to be performed by Muslims. Without going further into the details of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to be able to proceed on this pilgrimage, or of the rites and rituals to be observed in its course, let me describe in a few words the most striking and unforgettable sight that will be present itself to your eye upon reaching the sacred territory: You will see a multitude of men, women and also children, close perhaps to two million, from every corner of the world, black and brown of complexion, Yellow and white, Arabs and Iranians, Turks and Malays, Chinese and Africans, black and white Americans, blond and blue-eyed Europeans- in short to quote one of our great Germanic Poets, Frederick Schiller : " Who knows the nations, who the names of all who here together came?" NO DISTINCTION And there is still more that fills us with wonder: Whether black or brown, yellow or white, rich or poor, young or old, every male that our eye beholds is dressed alike, wearing two white seamless sheets of simple material, thus eliminating completely all marks and signs of distinction of dress between the African and American, the Asian, Australian and European, the mighty and wealthy and the poor and lowly. Here they have come, brother unto brother, sister unto sister, bearing witness to the brotherhood of mankind, to the equality of all human beings before their creator, for it is to worship Him and to extol His glory that has brought them here. They have heard and heeded His call, and their reply uttered, nay cried out by all and sundry, echoing and re-echoing from the surrounding mountains is: "LABBAIK, ALLAHUMMA LABBAIK" HERE AM I, O ALLAH, HERE AM I, THERE IS NONE WHO IS THE PARTNER, ALL PRAISE AND BLESSING BELONG TO THEE ALONE, FOR THOU ART THE SOVEREIGN, AND THOU HAST NO PARTNER." The pilgrimage to Mecca, the huge assembly of believers from all five continents, the gathering together of the multitude of worshippers of all races on the plain of Arafat is perhaps the most spectacular expression, symbol and proof of unity and brotherhood of man as enunciated and upheld by the religion of Islam, and it is equally a symbol and proof of the equality of man before Allah, the Supreme Being, as taught by this religion. The concept and idea of the oneness of humanity is Islam's unique contribution to human civilization, and it came as a natural sequel to its cardinal doctrine, the doctrine of " TAUHID" or the unity of God. The doctrine which runs through all teachings of the Holly Quran like a red thread, has found its most concise and terse expression in the 112th chapter of the Holly book, called "AL-IKHLAS," or purity of Faith: "Say He is God, the One and Only; God the Eternal, Absolute; He begotten not, nor is He begotten; And there is None like unto Him." Holly Quran 112: 1-4 (Read these verses and the verses following in conjunction with their commentary by A. Yusuf Ali.) THE RABB He, Allah, the One and Only, is the author of all existence; He is our creator, to Him we belong and to Him is our return. And He is more than mere author and creator: He is also the "RABB" of his creation and His creatures: and "RABB" according to the great authority on the Holly Quran , Imam Raghib, in Arabic it signifies 'THE CHERISHER, SUSTAINER AND FOSTERER OF A THING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAKE IT ATTAIN ONE CONDITION AFTER ANOTHE RUNTIL IT REACHES ITS GOAL OF COMPLETION AND PERFECTION." "Thus Allah being the "Rabb ul-Alamin," the "Rabb of the worlds," as He is called in the opening chapter, of the Holly Quran and of all of us, whom He created. "HE DEALS WITH ALL OF US ALIKE, NO MATTER TO WHICH RACE, NATION, TRIBE OR PARENTAGE WE MAY BELONG, for He created us all alike, as the Holly Quran further elucidates in numerous verses and words, such as: "AND MANKIND IS NAUGHT BUT A SINGLE NATION." Holy Quran 2:213 We are all the children of Adam, and Adam was made of dust. Here Dawned the idea for the first time in human history that all men have a common origin and that, because of their common origin, because we belong to Allah, all and sundry, to whom is our ultimate return, the whole of humanity is but one family, one nation and should, ideally, form one fraternity, the universal brotherhood of man. The differences of color and languages, of build and of features are not regarded as differences of quality, or as marks or degrees of excellence, but as an expression of the diversity in nature: Says the Holy Quran: "AMONG HIS SIGNS IS THIS,THAT HE CREATED YOU FROM DUST: AND THEN, BEHOLD, YE ARE MEN SCATTERED( FAR AND WIDE)" "AND AMONG HIS SIGNS IS THE CREATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, AND THE VARIATIONS AND DIVERSITY OF YOUR TONGUES AND OF YOUR COLOR; VERILY IN THAT ARE SIGNS FOR THOSE WHO KNOW." Holy Qur'an 30:22 Allama Yousuf Ali, commenting on this verse, remarks: "All mankind were created of a single pair of parents; yet they had spread to different climates and developed different languages and different shades of complexions. And yet, their basic unity remains unaltered. They feel in the same way, and are equally under God's care". Whatever a country in which a people lives, whatever the language they speak, whatever the color of their skin, they are recognized as one family, living under one roof- the canopy of heaven scattered, but of common origin: Says the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND! REVERENCE YOUR GURDIAN LORD, WHO CREATED YOU FROM A SINGLE PERSON, CREATED OF LIKE NATURE, HIS MATE, AND FROM THEM TWAIN SCATTERED (LIKE SEEDS) COUNTLESS MEN AND WOMAN." Holy Qur'an4:1 UNITY OF MANKIND There is one verse in the Holy Qur'an, however, which not only re-states the common origin of man, explains the division of humanity into nations, or race and tribes, tells us that the object and purpose of this division was also the ultimate unification of humanity, but goes a step further: It points out to us the one and only criterion, the only standard by which man is judged by god, and thus by which we should also judge our fellow-man. As you will presently see, THIS CRITERION IS NOT HIS COLOR, NOR HIS RACE, NOT HIS SOCIAL STANDING OR CASTE, NOT EVEN HIS SKILL AND THE DEGREE OF HIS INTELLIGENCE. It is something which to achieve lies within reach of every human being, black or brown, white or yellow, rich or poor, if only he made an effort to cultivate it within himself. Says the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND WE CREATED YOU FROM A SINGLE (PAIR) OF A MALE AND A FEMALE, AND MADE YOU INTO NATIONS AND TRIBES, THAT YE MAY KNOW EACH OTHER. VERILY THE MOST HONORED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD IS (HE WHO IS) THE MOST RIGHTIOUS OF YOU AND GOD HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE AND IS WELL AQUAINTED (WITH ALL THINGS)." Holy Qur'an 49:13 "The principle of the brotherhood of man laid down here", observe an author of an English translation of the Holy Qur'an, "is based on the broadest foundation. The address here is not the believers: but to men in general, who are told that they are all, as it were, members of one family, and their divisions into nations, races, tribes and families should not lead to estrangement from, but to a better knowledge of each other. Superiority of one over another in this vast brotherhood does not depend on race, nationality, wealth or rank but on righteousness, on the careful observance of duty towards God and fellow-man, on moral greatness", to which I maybe permitted to add: and on the strength of one's "IMAN", of faith in the one and only God because it is through faith and through submission unto the will of God only through which we can attain to moral greatness. This verse of the Holy Qur'an is the answer of Islam to racism, an answer which, as far as the Muslim community is concerned, did not remain a pious exhortation but sounded the death knell of racial discrimination in the world of Islam as borne out not only by the example set by the Prophet Mohammed (P.B.O.H.); but also subsequent events in the history of all Muslim nations and by the general attitude of the Muslims until the present day. I am inclined by personal experiences gathered during travels in almost all Muslim countries in the course of the last 25 years, to insist that, in consequence of these teachings of Islam and their translation into practice by the Prophet (P.B.U.H.); such a complete change was brought in the minds and hearts of all who embraced Islam, in the minds and hearts of all Muslims that is, that to them racial differences present no problems at all, nay, that they are largely almost totally unaware of, and most certainly little disturbed or embarrassed by, such differences. A BEAUTIFUL PATTERN OF CONDUCT There are instances galore in the life of the Prophet Mohammed, upon whom be peace and blessings of God, which show us that, as is the case with regard to all injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, he was the perfect exemplar, the beautiful pattern of conduct also with regard to the application and actualization of the principle of the brotherhood of man in his own dealings with his followers as well as in his personal relations with adherents of other faiths. But we can only appreciate fully how formidable a task it was to establish this principle among his followers, if we look at the social conditions which prevailed in Arabia before the advent of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) .Let me in order to illustrate this point, quote from a book of a non-Muslim author, namely from "The social structure of Islam" by reuben levy: " The population of Arabia , outside of a few settled communities embedded in it, has throughout historical times been so constituted as to form a number of groups or tribes, very loosely held together either by loyalty to a particular leader or by the assumption of descent from a common ancestor, whether real or legendary. Within each of such groups or tribes, the independence of individual units- the tents or families- has always been taken as a matter of course, and the head of each unit has been regarded as being in status the equal of every other. In the heads of the families lies the power to elect the "SHAYKH" or tribal chief, of whom in theory, no special qualification is required. In actual practice, however there is normally a strong prejudice in favor of choosing the "SHAYKH" from amongst the number of particular families. At the time of the rise of Mohammed such families held a position of great influence within the community, so that in any claim to authority the factor of birth was considered of a paramount importance. Noble ancestry was the supreme test of nobility, and no person whose genealogy was not entirely free of hereditary taint for example ancestors of servile or Negro origin could be regarded as conforming to the requisite standard. Such person were relegated to the humbler ranks of society and were thus compelled to undertake careers that inevitably marked them as inferior beings ... In the same way that the old nobility resisted the assumption of equality by other Arabs, so the inhabitants of Arabia as a whole refused to consider foreigners as being their peers." The Arabs regarded themselves as a superior race. And as regards the Negroes they did not recognize them except as slaves. It is to this situation to which the Holy Qur'an refers in the following verse: "AND HOLD FAST ALL TOGETHER , BY THE ROPE WHICH GOD (STRETCHES OUT FOR YOU), AND BE NOT DIVIDED AMONG YOURSELVES; AND REMEMBER WITH GRATITUDE GOD'S FAVOURON YOU; FOR YE WERE ENEMIES, AND HE JOINED YOUR HEARTS IN LOVE, SO THAT BY HIS GRACEYE BECAME BRETHREN; AND YE WERE ON THE BRINK OF THE PIT OF FIRE, AND HE SAVED YOU FROM IT. THUS DOTH GOD MAKE HIS SIGNS CLEAR TO YOU: THAT YE MAY BE GUIDED." Holy Qur'an 3:103 Among the measures introduced by the Prophet of Islam to level the differences of rank and of race among his steadily growing community perhaps prayer ought to be mentioned in particular. Five times a day the Muslims meet together for prayer. Among the first Muslims were members of the noblest Arab families as well as a good number of Negro slaves. At prayers they all stood shoulder to shoulder before the Almighty, and when, in the further course of prayer, they prostrated before their Lord, it might well have been that the head of a noble Arab praying in a row behind a Negro slave rested at the latter's feet. In prayer and in the company of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) no differences of status was recognized between the two. UNITY IN PRAYER From standing side by side in the ranks of prayer, the next step was a mere corollary; they mingled freely on terms of perfect equality on all other occasions. Service to God was thus the door through which the fraternization of humanity was effected... The negro slaves and the noble Arab were made to meet together on terms of equality in prayer and in religious gatherings. It was thus impressed on their minds, that they were all equal before God, and life once molded on these lines led to the natural consequence that the negro slaves and the Arab nobility enjoyed equal status in society. In the first Muslim community a negro slave, Bilal, was chosen by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself to deliver the "ADHAN", the call to prayer, while the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself was the "IMAM" or leader of congregation. Thus, of the two office-bearers of the Mosque, the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) himself of noble blood and birth, was one, the other being Bilal, a negro. In his famous oration, which he delivered on the occasion of his "Farewell Pilgrimage", his last pilgrimage before he closed his eyes forever, the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) re-affirmed re-stated the principle of equality and brotherhood of man in Islam, thus bequeathing it as a sacred legacy to generation after generation of Muslims after him until the present day. Let me quote from the oration: "YE PEOPLE! LISTEN TO MY WORDS, FOR I KNOW NOT WHTHER ANOTHER YEAR WILL BE VOUCH SAFED TO ME AFTER THIS YEAR TO FIND MYSELF AMONGST YOU AT THIS PLACE." "YOUR LIVES AND PROPERTY ARE SACRED AND INVIOLABLE AMONGST ONE ANOTHER UNTIL YE APPEAR BEFORE THE LORD... AND REMEMBER, YE SHALL HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOUR LORD WHO SHALL DEMAND FROM YOU AN ACCOUNT OF ALL YOUR ACTIONS... YE PEOPLE, YE HAVE RIGHTS OVER YOUR WIVES, AND YOUR WIVES HAVE RIGHTS OVER YOU. TREAT THEM WITH KINDNESS AND LOVE... KEEP ALWAYS FAITHFULL TO THE TRUST REPOSED IN YOU." "YE PEOPLE LISTEN TO MY WORDSAND UNDERSTAND THEM. KNOE YE THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BROTHERS UNTO ONE ANOTHER. YE ARE ONE BROTHERHOOD." "ALL MEN ARE EQUAL IN ISLAM. THE ARAB HAS NO SUPERIORITY OVER THE NON-ARAB,NOR DOES THE NON-ARAB HAVE SUPERIORITY OVER THE ARAB, SAVE IN THE FEAR OF GOD." That the Prophet's bequest was heeded and the example set by him was followed by subsequent generations of Muslims through out the ages and history. It is impossible for me within the limits of the time allotted to me for this talk to render a detailed, much less a comprehensive account of all such facts and incidents which afford proof of my assertion. I can only quote some of them, and I maybe permitted to do so at random: One of the acid tests of unrestrained and unrestnoted inter-racial relations are inter-racial marriages. That such marriages were never frowned upon by Muslims in borne out by the fact that many a Ruler of the Umayad and Abasside as well as of later dynasties, had Turkish, Greek or even Negro mothers. On the other hand, social rank or high office did not bestow upon the bearer special privileges before the law and certainly did not entitle him to ill-treat a brother Muslim with impunity. The following incident which is reported to have occurred during the reign of Omar, the second Caliph after the death of the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) is an example of absolute equality of all men in Islam. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW Jabbala, king of the Ghassanides, having embraced Islam, set out on a pilgrimage to Mecca. While performing the circumambulation of the Ka'aba, a humble pilgrim engaged in the same sacred duties, accidentally dropped a piece of his pilgrim's dress over the royal shoulders. Jabbala turned round furiously and struck him a blow. The poor man went to the caliph and prayed for justice. Omar sent for Jabbala and asked him why he has so ill-treated a brother Muslim. He answered that the man had insulted him, and had it not been for the sanctity of the place, he would have killed him on the spot. Omar replied that his words added to the gravity of his offense, and that, unless he obtained the pardon of the injured man he would have to submit to the penalty of the law. When Jabbala refused to do as he was bidden because- as he returned- he was a king and the other only a common man, Omar replied " king or no king, both of you are Muslims and both of you are equal in the eye of law." But perhaps one of the most instructive examples of the policy of Islam towards different races is furnished by Spain. Permit me to quote from Syed Amir Ali's fundamental work "The spirit of Islam": "Immediately by their arrival on the soll of Spain, the Muslims or Saracens publish an edict assuring to the subject races, without any difference, the most ample liberty. Suevl, Goth, Vandal, Roman and Jew, were all placed on an equal footing. Their woman were invited to intermarry with the conquerors. ...THE FIDELITY OF THE ARABS IN MAINTAINING THEIR PROMISES, THE EQUAL-HEADED JUSTICE WHICH THEY ADMINISTERED TO ALLRACES AND CLASSES, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF ANY KIND, SECURED THEM THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE... The Jews profited most by the change of government ", and when many centuries later Spain was re- conquered by ferdinand and Isabelle, innumerable Jews left the country for Muslims lands, preferring a life in their home-country under the new rulers of whose racial and religious tolerance they were not convinced. RELIGIOUS OF TOLERANCE And this is another aspect of the principle of the brotherhood of mankind as envisaged and enunciated by Islam: namely religious tolerance. The essence of the attitude of Islam towards adherents of other faiths is to be found in the charter which was granted to the Jews by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) after his arrival in Madina, and in the massage which he sent to the Christians of Najran, a town in Southern Arabia, then largely inhabited by Christians, after Islam had fully established itself in the Arab Peninsula. "IN THE NAME OF THE MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE GOD," says this first charter of freedom of conscience, "GIVEN BY MOHAMMED, THE PROPHET(P.B.U.H.), TO THE BELIEVERS, WHETHER OF THE QURESH OR OF YATHRIB(AS MADINA WAS THEN CALLED) -AND TO ALL INDIVIDUALS, OF WHATEVER ORIGIN, WHO HAVE MADE COMMON CAUSE WITH THEM: ALL THESE SHALLCONSTITUDE ONE NATION... THE JEWS WHO ATTACH THEMSELVES TO OUR COMMONWEALTH SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL INSULTS AND VEXATIONS:THEY SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT. WITH OUR PEOPLE TO OUR ASSISTANCE AND GOOD OFFICES. THE JEWS OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES-(and here follows the names of the various Jewish tribes of Medina and the surrounding territories)- AND ALL OTHER SDOMICILED IN YATHRIB, SHALL FORM WITH THE MUSLIMS ONE COMPOSITE NATION; THEY SHALL PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION AS FREELY AS THE MUSLIMS;THE CLIENTS- MENING THE PROTECTED, AND THE ALLIES OF THE JEWS SHALL ENJOY THE SAME SECURITY AND FREEDOM." This was a paraphrase of the charter granted by the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) to the Jews after he had arrived in Yathrib, a town which because of him became known as MEDINAT-UN-NABI -THE CITY OF THE PROPHET, or in short Madina, while the massage to the Christians of Najran , sent to them almost at the end of the Prophet's mission, runs as follows: MASSAGE TO CHRISTIANS "TO THE CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN AND THE NEIGHBOURING TERRITORIES,THE SECURITY OF GOD AND THE PLEDGE OF HIS PROPHET ARE EXTENDED FOR THEIR LIVES, THEIR RELIGION AND THEIR PROPERTY- TO THE PRESENT AS WELL AS THE ABSENT AND OTHERS BESIDES; THERE SHALL BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRACTICE OF THEIR FAITH OR THEIR OBSERVANCES; NOR ANY CHANGE IN THEIR RIGHTS OR PRIVILEDGES; NO BISHOP SHALL BE REMOVED FROM HIS BISHORPIC NOR ANY MONK FROM HIS MONASTERY, NOR ANY PRIEST FROMHIS PRIESTHOOD, AND THEY SHALL CONTINUE TO ENJOY EVERYTHING GREAT AND SMALL AS HERETOFORE; NO IMAGE OR CROSS SHALL BE DESTROYED; THEYSHALL NOT OPPRESS OR BE OPPRESSED; THEY SHALL NOT PRACTICE THE RIGHTS OF BLOOD VENGEANCE AS IN THE DAYS OF IGNORANCE- (the era before the advent of Islam)-; NO TITLE SHALL BELEVIED FROM THEM NOR SHALL THEY BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH PROVISIONS FOR THE TROOPS." "This document," observes Sayed Amir Ali in his book quoted before " has furnished the guiding principle to all Muslim rulers in their mode of dealing with their non-Muslim subjects, and if they have departed from it in any instance the cause is to be found in the character of the particular king. If we separate the political necessity which has often spoken and acted in the name of religion, no faith is more tolerant than Islam to the followers of other creeds. "Reasons of State" may have led a sovereign here and there to display a certain degree of intolerance, or to insist upon a certain uniformity of faith; BUT THE SYSTEM ITSELF HAS EVER MAINTAINED THE MOST COMPLETE TOLERANCE. Christians and Jews, as a rule, have never been molested in the exercise of their religion, or force to change their faith. If they are required to pay a special tax, it is in lieu of military service, and it is but right that those who enjoy the protection of the State should also contribute in some shape to the public burdens. Towards the idolaters there was greater strictness in theory, but in practice the law was equally liberal. If at any time they were treated with harshness, the cause is to be found in the passions of the ruler of the population. The religious element was used only as pretext." If there have been instances of religious intolerance in the history of the Muslims nations, these instances- and that should be very clearly understood- did not happen because of Islam but in spite of Islam and they only betray back of knowledge of the teachings of Islam, and of understanding of the spirit and principles of that religion. You might like to interpose here that the idea of racial equality and of the brotherhood of mankind is not the exclusive property of Islam, nay that these ideas have been proclaimed by different individuals and ideologies in different places of our globe and at different times. You might like to quote to me- as I did to you- from various sacred and profane works of the most dissimilar authors, and you will certainly insist that in the west- in Europe and America- this idea has been accepted and adopted as a principle or policy, of organized society, since the 18th century at the latest when the Age of Enlightenment had dawned and the French Revolution had sounded the clarion call of "Liberate, Egalite, Fraternite!" EQUALITY IN ACTION I certainly can not and shall not claim that the idea of racial equality and of human brotherhood is the invention of Islam and has only been proclaimed by that religion and by nobody else. BUT I CLAIM AND INSIST THAT ONLY IN AND AMONG THROUGH ISLAM HAS THIS IDEA EVER BEEN REALIZED IN ACTION OVER CENTURIES AND AMONG THE MOST DIFFERENT AND DISSIMILAR NATIONS AND RACES. In spite of the lofty ideals of enlightenment and of the French Revolution the West did not and has still not solved the racial problem, nor has the West been able until today to establish racial equality everywhere in its hemisphere. It is barely thirty years ago racism raised to the position of State Philosophy- the most brutal and barbaric racism that can be imagined- the one I referred to at the very beginning of my talk, was crushed in my own country. Racism in the shape of "Apartheid" is still allowed to raise its ugly head in South Africa, and racism is certainly not eradicated in the United States in spite of the abolition of slavery that took place some time ago and in spite of legislation introduced after the Second World War, aiming at the leveling of differences between the various racial groups and at the doing away with racial discrimination. In the Socialist World, Marxism Leninism or Communism has introduced its own brand and type of racism - namely what I maybe permitted to call "IDEOLOGICAL RACISM" WHICH IS AS HATEFUL AND ABHORRENT AS BIOLOGICAL RACISM. So, wherever we look we find that neither the ideals of Age of Enlightenment and of the French Revolution, nor the UN charter of Human Rights, the latest exercise in bringing about racial equality and in abolishing racial discrimination have been able to achieve their goal, while Islam has most certainly done so. I maybe forgiven if at this place I narrate some of my own personal experiences as a Muslim: I mentioned before as in the course of the last 25 years or so I have visited almost every Muslim country and I have been posted for longer or shorter periods in about half a dozen of them. Wherever I went I was immediately accepted by the local Muslims as one of theirs, and my religious affiliation proved to have an incomparably stronger and deeper effect on them than my nationality or the color of my skin. As a matter of fact the latter were of absolutely no consequence at all in their attitude towards me. And when I married to a young Muslim lady from Pakistan, more than 22 years ago, it did not create the slightest embarrassment to the family of my wife nor to us, the young couple. The marriage was accepted with the same naturalness as any marriage of two Pakistanis, and no one of my Muslim relative or friends ever considered or treated our children as half-caste in the ugly meaning of that word, nor were my children ever made to feel any different from full-blooded Pakistani, or full-blooded German children. They, who grew up among Muslims never knew of racial differences between men until- yes, until in the wake of one of our numerous transfers from one post to another we perforce had to make a brief sojourn in South Africa. There they saw for the first time in their life those ugly signs "For Whites Only" And it was there that they were made to realize that in a country where racism reigns, Ahmed can not play football in the street with John, and Leila cannot just drop in at Linda's to admire her new doll. And what a shock they got when they saw that their father and their mother, in order to do such a simple transaction as to buy postage stamps, had to enter the post office through different doors. - But then they stood in front of a beautiful church, and their perturbed minds were set at rest when,- for it was Christmas time - they read the invitation written in bold letters above the door: "ALL ARE WELCOME ," MUCH SMALLER LETTERS, ONCE AGAIN THE UGLY SIGN "FOR WHITES ONLY!" So even here, in the House of God, and during Christmas, the Festival of Joy and of Love, there was no bridge to cross the deep, deep gap between fellow human-beings who have everything else in common- except the color of their skin. THE SUCCESS OF ISLAM Why, then, has Islam succeeded where other systems and ideologies seem to have failed? What is the secret of its success, and in what way can the religion of Islam contribute to the solution of the racial problem under which millions and millions of our fellow human-beings are still reeling? In my humble opinion Islam has succeeded where other systems and ideologies have failed because of two decisive factors: NAMELY THE UNIVERSALITY OF ITS TEACHINGS AND THE DIVINE SANCTION ON WHICH THE ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF MANKIND IS BASED. A Muslim believes that Islam is not only the last of the world's great religions but also an all-inclusive religion which contains within itself all religions which went before it. It is one of its most striking characteristics that is requires its followers to believe that all great religions of the world that preceded it have been revealed by God, and it is a fundamental principle of Islam that a Muslim must also believe in all prophets who were raised up before the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.). Prophets according to the express teachings of the Holy Qur'an were sent by God to all nations: Says the Holy Qur'an: "AND THERE IS NOT A NATION BUT A WARNER HAS GONE AMONG THEM." Holy Qur'an 13:7 But whereas all previous Prophets were sent with SPECIFIC MISSIONSTO THEIR OWN PEOPLE ONLY, Prophet Mohammed(P.B.U.H.) was SENT TO ALL NATIONS OF THE EARTH, as the Holy Qur'an teaches us: "O MANKIND! I AM THE APOSTLE THAT HATH COME TO YOU IN TRUTH FROM GOD: Holy Quran 4:170 and elsewhere: WE SENT THEE NOT BUT AS A MERCY FOR ALL NATIONS." Holy Qur'an 21:107 "There is no question now," say Allama Yusuf Ali in his commentary to this chosen verse, of race or nation, of a "CHOSEN PEOPLE" or "THE SEED OF ABRAHAM' or 'the seed of David' or of Hindu Arya-Varta, of Jew or Gentile, Arab or Ajam, Turk or Tajik, European or Asiatic, White or colored; Aryan, Semitic, Mongolian, or African; or American, Australian or Polynesian." The Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H.) was sent to them all- and that distinguishes him from all other Prophets, and that also distinguishes Islam from all other religions. The massage that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.) from On High was a massage addressed to all nations on earth, and the principles set forth in that message applied universally to the whole mankind. He was the last of the Prophets, and Islam, based on the revelation which the Prophet(P.B.U.H.) received is the final and perfect expression of the Divine will. Says the Holy Qur'an: "THIS DAY HAVE I PERFECTED YOUR RELIGION FOR YOU, COMPLETED MY FAVOUR UPON YOU, AND HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOU ISLAM AS YOUR RELIGION" Holy Qur'an 5:4 It is the self-same God, the Supreme Being, the Ultimate Cause, the One and Only, our Lord and Creator Who has also spoken to us, through the mouth of the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H.), the words which I have already quoted earlier and which I should like to call back into our memory: "AND MANKIND IS NAUGHT BUT A SINGLE NATION." Holy Qur'an 2:213 "VERILY, O MANKIND, WE CRWEATED YOU FROM A SINGLE (PAIR) OF A MALE AND A FEMALE AND MADE YOU INTO NATIONS AND TRIBES, THAT YE MAY KNOW EACH OTHER, (NOT THAT YE MAY DESPISE EACH OTHER). VERILY THE MOST HONOURED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD IS HE WHO IS THE MOST RIGHTEOUS (AND GOD FEARING DUTIFUL) OF YOU." Holy Qur'an 49:13 In Islam and to every single one of its followers the equality of man and the brotherhood of mankind are not the figment of the human brain and mind. They are guiding principles decreed by God. Equality and Fraternity, as well as liberty, according to the teachings of Islam, are religious categories, and only where they are conceived as such can these lofty ideals become reality. There is no road to the unification of humanity, no road to a brotherhood of man which knows no boundaries of color, race, country, language and rank except through God, the Creator and "Rabb" of all that is in the heavens and on earth. Without absolute and unreserved faith in Him, and in the truth and universality of His revelation- without the will to serve Him, which is the purpose of our creation, and to follow His commandments and guidance this goal can never be achieved as history tells us. ABSOLUTE VALUES Only God, the Absolute, has established absolute values by which we can access our and our fellow- "VERILY, THE MOST HONOURED OF YOU IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, O MEN, IS HE WHO IS THE MOST RIGHTIOUS, THE MOST GOD-FEARING, OF YOU." Holy Qur'an 49:13 This is the yard stick by which in Islam man is measured, and not his race, caste, or rank. Peace and mutual trust among individuals and nations alike can only be brought about if we base our inter-human relations on the recognition of, and strict adherence to, ABSOLUTE VALUES. Materialism, humanity's ideal in modern times, lacks all prerequisites because its VALUE CONCEPTS HCANGE FROM TIME TO TIME AND FROM PLACE TO PLACE. Islam is the only force which provides man with the spiritual and ,oral foundation on which lasting peace and mutual trust and respect among the nations of the world can be built. Islam is, first and foremost, an international religion, and it is before the grand international ideal of Islam, the ideal of equality of all races and of the unity of the human kind, an ideal founded on the belief in the Oneness of God, that the curse of racism and narrow minded nationalism, which have been and still are responsible for many of the troubles of the ancient and the modern world, can be swept away. The Muslim community, past and present, has not only established true and lasting brotherhood among its members, a brotherhood that encompasses everyone who belongs to it, irrespective of racial or social differences, it has also shown us by its example the road to this goal. THE STARTING POINT IS FAITH, UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN GOD, THE "RABB" OF THE WORLD. From there it leads us to submission unto His will-the stage at which we willingly and cheerfully obey His commandments and actualize the principles laid down by Him for our actions and conduct- until we reach the stage of supererogatory service to God and men. The road leads us, to use Arabic terms, from IMAN, FAITH to ISLAM, SUBMISSION and ULTIMATLY to IHSAN. And this the road we have to tread if we want to bring about mutual respect and trust among men, the road to the abolition of all racial and social discriminations, the road to the unification of mankind, to the universal brotherhood to which the assembly of Muslims of all races and from every nook and corner of the world at Mecca during the day of Hajj of pilgrimage bears witness. But this assembly also shows us that our unity lies in God, and God only. May we be inspired by their faith and example; may we follow their road, A'ameen! (This is a paper read at the international Islamic Conference in London on April4th by brother Muhammad Amen Hobohm, who is a diplomat now in the West German embassy in Sri Lanka). more

Resolved Question: Why gays become Buddhist?

It's a rhetorical question because I have the answer. Buddhism is the most tolerant religion in the world. Unlike other religions such as Christianity and Islam that breed hate and violence, Buddhism is staunchly anti-war and accepting of everyone. Here's a famous Buddhist quote about peace, "Victory begets enmity; the defeated dwell in pain. Happily the peaceful live, discarding both victory and defeat." Buddhism also denies the existence of god and the soul (the Buddha is not our equivalent to god by the way), and covers both the natural and the spiritual unlike other religions. Unfortunately, Buddhism is not very well known in the West, so I invite all of you in the gay community seeking Truth to come learn a little about Buddhism.A little bit more about the teachings of Buddhism: Life, besides surviving, is about finding true happiness. Buddhism teaches why suffering arises( people look for happiness in all the wrong places, for example) and how to eliminate it. The ultimate goal of every Buddhist is to realize Nirvana, or Absolute Truth. Two of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path or Middle Way (the path to putting and end to suffering and realizing Nirvana). "The First Noble Truth is Dhukka, the nature of life, its suffering, its sorrows and joys, its imperfection and unsatisfactoriness, its impermanence and insubstantiality. The Second Noble Truth is the Origin of Dukkha, which is desire, thirst, accompanied by all other passions, defilements and impurities. The Third Noble Truth is the Cessation Dukkha, Nirvana, the Absolute Truth, Unbinding. The Fourth Noble Truth is the Path leading to the realization of Nirvana." For anyone who wants to learFor anyone who wants to learn more I suggest you get the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. Its a *REALLY* excellent book and gives a very thorough introduction to Buddhism.The Four Noble Truths are "TRUTH" because they are undebatable facts of life, this is suffering, this is its origin, you can put an end to it, this is how." We don't preach "This alone is true and everything else is false." We are tolerant of other religions, no matter how misguided we believe them to be.I broke away from Christianity as well to become Buddhist and my family was accepting of it either. Don't let them lead you astray, work out your own salvation.It's a Buddhist teaching that we don't try and *force* people to follow Buddhism, we bring the subject up, and if someone isn't interested we let it go. Christianity tells homosexuals that they're doomed to fire and brimstone. They can choose to accept that if they wish. I'm appealing to those who don't accept it. That is how someone's sexuality can play a role in their religion. more

Resolved Question: Why do Democrat Tactics Work?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Ron in Houston, thanks for calling. You're next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello. CALLER: Mega dittos, mighty one. The reason I called, this has been a frustration for about the last three months right now. How long is everybody going to forget how many times the Democrats have tried to give away everything this country's done? I'm to the point now, I'll put up the money to basically put most of the Democratic Party on Ritalin because they're becoming an out-of-control reality program. In fact, they may be the basis for the original reality programs out there. Can you explain to me how they keep getting away with the junk they're putting out there and they do it over and over and over again. I watched it during Reagan, and when the huge threat of the Soviet Union was out there. The Soviet Union was kind of a rusty bucket ready to fall over, but until the day it happened, Reagan was looked at as a fool. I'm not particularly a big fan of George Bush, but George Bush can get the job done. Let him be president. I'm sorry. I want to just scream right now. RUSH: Wait. If I understood everything you're saying, and your call is a little distorted, you're wondering how in the world people keep falling for the same Democrat trick? CALLER: It's the same thing over and over and over again. I'm an ex-Navy officer. I spent a lot of time out on US aircraft carriers. I spent a lot of time watching situations and I'm sitting there watching what's going on and I'm watching what the media is spitting back out in the States, and there's no correlation. RUSH: Well, I explained this. Look, there's so many factors in this answer. In the first place, public education system. Young skulls full of mush have grown up not learning about history. They've grown up being told that Bill Clinton was a great president, and that Abe Lincoln is worth one paragraph. They've, in many cases, grown up and been told that the white settlers of this country, the original settlers were racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. They've been inculcated with conflict resolution that tells them that we're the problem and we have to cave and give up. We also have a bunch of people here in a nation of prosperity and vast affluence who don't have to pay attention to these uncomfortable thing if they don't want to. They don't have to, quote, "sacrifice," as such when the Democrats and the media in concert convince them there's no problem. It's something they'd like to hear, and so they believe it. BREAK TRANSCRIPT I just had a conversation with our official call screener today, Bo Snerdley, in his office. He says people on the phones are fit to be tied, particularly at Nancy Pelosi. They're throwing the word "traitor" around all over the place. It leads me to try to explain in a little bit more depth an answer to a question we got from a caller near the end of the last hour. He was beside himself, this former Navy man, and his perception is the American people buy everything the Democrats say, and he doesn't understand it. After they said Reagan was the biggest problem facing the free world, Reagan dispatched the Soviet Union. His point was that there are so many instances where you can look, historically, and find that liberal Democrats are wrong in what they claim, not just in foreign policy, but their whole social safety net program has been a disaster, and why people don't see this, and it's very frustrating thing to him. He wanted to know why I thought that was the case, and I had a minute and a half to give an answer. For a minute and a half, it was a brilliant answer. A better answer than anybody else could utter in a minute and a half. That's because I'm a highly trained broadcast specialist who understands the nature of brevity as the soul of wit. But let me expand on this, because it is a frustrating thing, and I feel it sometimes, too, even in the midst of my optimism. Remember, I have said that during all of this the Democrats are sowing their seeds for a massive landslide defeat. There is history for that, too. There is plenty of history that the American people don't buy what the Democrats sell. The reason so many of you think that most Americans are is because of the Drive-By Media. Now, the Drive-By Media no longer has its monopoly but it's still very powerful and it's a one-note samba. It is pro-Democrat. It is pro-liberal. It is anti-Bush. It is anti-Republican, and it is relentless, and I want to remind you of something else. Everybody knows that the three nightly newscasts on the major three networks are not as large, singularly, as they used to be in terms of audience. Combined, they still reach about 30 million people a night, whereas Cronkite used to do that all by himself. There is a new media, and there's an alternative, and it's growing. It's burgeoning, and it's creating problems for the liberal Democrats, although those problems are not often recounted in their house organs, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Drive-By television networks, the cable networks. So you're looking for validation that they are weakening, and you don't see it because what you watch on television, 90%, portrays the Democrats as omnipotent and powerful, all over the place, gaining strength, the American people love and support them, and that impression has to be considered somewhat valid, what with the election results of last November. At the same time, I don't think it's as pervasive as it used to be. But let's talk about the people that watch the nightly newscasts for one second. Many of you in this audience are multitaskers and you access a whole lot of different sources of media. You listen to this program, and you go on the Internet. You watch some cable news. You're all over the place. You read various different things. You would be surprised at the number of Americans whose only source of news is the nightly newscasts. Now, they're primarily elderly, upper middle-age and beyond. You can see that by looking at the commercials -- and I don't mean this to sound funny, even though it is. But you're watching a newscast and the commercials are burial plots here and Preparation H over there and heart medicine here and Lipitor over there. When basically 80% of the commercials are medicines to sustain your life for another five years, you know who the audience is, and that's habitual. They have not transformed into the new media. They are out there. These are people, too, that have landline telephones. These are people that have not moved into cell phones and the Internet, and guess who it is that pollsters call? Pollsters have a tough time getting hold of people with cell phones, and they're having a tougher and tougher time getting hold of people that use landline phones. But this crowd that we're talking about does; they still do. This generational shift has not been completed yet, and the people that produce these nightly newscasts are well aware of this, and they're always making efforts here to try to lower their demographics. But they've got a problem, because their newscasts happen at the end of the day when a lot of people already know what they're going to see when they turn on the nightly news. But those who watch it -- and there's 30 million of them every night, averaged, if you combine all three -- it's their first taste of the day, and they believe it. It's hook, line, and sinker. It's the Bible to them, and that's it. So there's a large chunk of it, and then you have, sadly, ladies and gentlemen, a lot of people who are just sponges, and they access the Drive-By Media, and they just believe it. It carries with it this note of authority. You know from your own experience growing up: If you read it in the paper, it was true. It's just like law enforcement never, ever falsely charges people. Law enforcement never screws up. If they say somebody did it, you think they did it. That's just human nature. I'm not even talking politics here. There's certain institutions in this country that have always enjoyed a tremendous amount of credibility and respect and very few people have ever questioned it, and the Drive-By Media is one of those. That's really the root of the question. How in the world can people continue to believe this stuff, not just the media, but how can they believe the Democrats when time and time again everything the Democrats say turns out to be not true? Here's a Navy man calling. "How can it be that people are not outraged over Pelosi? How can it be that they're not outraged over the fact that the Democrats are trying to secure the defeat and un-fund, de-fund the United States Military?" Why are there not massive protests in the street of anger and outrage over this? Well, there are answers to this, and they're traditional. Most of the people that would do those kind of protests don't ever protest. The protesters are the malcontent leftists who make it their job. They go out and they secure rent-a-mobs and they try to create chaos and tumult and this is what the media is doing, and the Democrats, they don't want you happy. They don't want you content, not with a Republican in the White House, and certainly not with a Republican they think is illegitimate, and certainly not when the Republicans run the House and Senate or ran the House and Senate. They don't want you happy. And then you've gotta factor in human nature. Sad to say, it's much easier to be a pessimist than it is to be an optimist. It's much easier to be doom and gloom. It's much easier to think the worst is going to happen than to believe the best will happen, and most people's experiences in their lives are that excrement happens, and good things are rare and they're unique, and that's why they're rare and unique, because they don't happen that much. So you factor all of these things together. You know, why is it is that Nancy Pelosi is not the equivalent of Jane Fonda, for crying out loud? She's trying to undermine her own country for her own self-interests and the interests of her party. I know it's frustrating to watch this stuff and think that most of your fellow citizens are just a bunch of blithering idiot sponges soaking it all up. I don't think it's as bad as you think, but it is a problem. There are a lot of people who are not thinkers. There are a lot of people who are not curious. There are a lot of people who want to be mired in misery or doom and gloom. It's a natural mind-set, and it's fed to them each and every day. But, as I say, if you go back and look at the number of things, historically, the Democrats don't win every election, and everything that you think is going to happen doesn't in regards to their prominence and victory. I'm telling you, I know some of you just think I'm whistling Dixie here, but far more people in this country than you might believe or you might be aware of, are watching what's happening and are just as outraged as you are, and when it comes time for them to express themselves, they will do so, and the Democrats are cruising for a major humiliation again. I don't know how soon. It may not be 2008, it may be 2010 or 2012. I'm talking about electorally, but it is going to happen. They're reconstructing the exact circumstances they created post-Vietnam going into Watergate and that they think led them to the Promised Land. Of course they lost in a 49-state landslide with George McGovern as their nominee. Guess who Democrats are talking to about advising them for their future? They're out there having conferences with George McGovern. They have a perverted sense of their own success. When it's defined and when it happens, or how it's defined and when it has happened, this is something that's just going to take time to play out. The tough thing for those of you who are affected by this, is you never, ever see this even when they do lose. Even when they're shellacked, you don't see humiliation or embarrassment in the Drive-By Media. The minute they lose, they ratchet it up again. "Okay, what are the Democrats going to have to do to win?" There is never credit for Reagan, never credit for Bush, never credit for victorious Republicans. They always slough it off to, "Well, again, the right-wing Christian hayseeds, you know? They came through. Democrats failed to," blah, blah, some other thing. Victory is never legitimate. It's because of some mistake Democrats made, and they start out trying to correct the mistakes and the media helps them out with this. It's a one-note samba for the first time in the Drive-By Media. But it's not as one sided and had as bad in terms of the perception of the majority of the American people as you believe, as you might think. Listen to the number of people who call here asking this question. You are not just lone voices appearing on this program. There are countless others, thousands, hundreds of thousands who are sitting out there and throwing things on the radio going, "Yeah! Yeah! Say it again! Say it louder!" They're just as irritated as you are. They don't have an outlet, and they're not interviewed by the Drive-By Media and so forth. News is a product like any other product that's marketed and packaged and put on the grocery shelves or any other store shelf, for sale. I don't care how lofty they think their position is because it's constitutionally protected. I don't care about any of that. These people put together an agenda. There are people (they're working right now) putting together these newscasts this afternoon and tonight, and don't believe that they're not putting these things together with their own agendas and their own desires and what they think will look good, what they think will get ratings in some cases. But for the first the most part, it's not about objectivity or reporting real news or anything of the sort. Their worldview is what it is, and things that don't fit in their worldview they don't even see. So it's buck-up time. (sigh) I hate to being an I told you so, but I warned everybody back in October, this was the kind of thing you're going to have to put up with if the Republicans lose the election. It's bad enough when they win, the Democrats are relentless -- and the Drive-Bys. But now they won, and, of course, they're puffing their chests out and they're beating their chests like King Kong, Tarzan, Mighty Joe Young, whatever you want, and they're just feeling their oats right now, and it's that pompous arrogance and condescension that's also offensive in the way they go about things. But you gotta have faith, folks. The Democrats have not totally triumphed, and they never will totally triumph. There are too many of you who care too much, who will stop it. One other factor -- and I've mentioned this before, too. Particularly when it comes to the war on terror, war in Iraq, the Drive-Bys have done one hell of a job of convincing enough Americans that there's no threat. In fact, not only is there no threat, there wouldn't be a threat at all if we weren't attacking Muslims, if Bush weren't in the White House. 9/11? Why, it was just a mere episode, and most people don't want to remember it. Most people don't want to be reminded of it. They don't want to think that they're going to be, their whole lives, constantly on a vigil protecting themselves and waiting for the next attack. That's not what being an American is. Being an American is to be insulated from the stuff that happens in the Middle East, insulated from the stuff that happens in the Third World, insulated from the stuff that happens in places like Afghanistan and what's going on in the Philippines now, and in some of Indonesia. That's not what being an American is. Being an American is about having as carefree a life as possible with the normal trials and tribulations, but it does not include getting up every day and worrying to death over whether another couple jets are going to go into another couple buildings and another 3,000 people be incinerated. If anybody comes along and convince the American people they don't have to worry about that, then they'll gladly take the bait -- and, voila! It is happening, and because of our affluence and prosperity, people are able to go live their lives however they choose and pay scant or no attention to this whatsoever, and then, some of these people, after deciding that they don't want to pay any attention to this and that they don't want to live their lives under constant fear, constant threat that this could happen again, they don't want to be vigilant about this, all it takes to add to that is everyday a pummeling of the president and the whole thing about the war on terror and how we're creating circumstances. Now the Iranians are doing what they're doing because of us. They were peace-loving people before we came along! The Iraqis had been better off with Saddam Hussein. So you couple all of that natural mind-set of what it is to be an American or what it has been to be an American, with a desire for that to continue, and then you portray the "threat" to being an American as living in the embodiment of George W. Bush. Well, you can see how some people would buy into that, because everybody wants to blame somebody other than themselves. You might say, "Well, why don't they blame the Democrats?" Because nowhere in the media are the Democrats being blamed, other than here. We're not insignificant. We're not small by any stretch. I'll tell you, Fox News is what it is, but it's a speck compared to the three networks, all the rest of the Drive-Bys and the magazines and the newspapers and so forth and so on. There are reasons for this. There are explanations for it. Solutions? Well, in my case I just rely on the ultimate judgment and decency of a majority of the American people, the vast amount of times, to prevail, and I still believe that. more

Resolved Question: Do you guy's find this interesting?

Jewish Racism Monday, March 19, 2007 Evidence of the Abuse of the United Nations for the Purpose of Waging Illegal Aggressive War Against Predominantly Moslem Nations Christopher Jon Bjerknes http://www.jewishracism.com The Charter of the United Nations prohibits aggressive war and prohibits threats of force against member nations. It states in the relevant part, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."—Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4. The United Nations, and other international bodies, have been corrupted by Zionists, who call for aggressive war, and/or threaten force, against predominantly Moslem countries, in direct violation of the United Nations Charter. The former American Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a friend of AIPAC, recently stated, "I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons[.]"—John Bolton, Former American Envoy to the United Nations, as quoted by Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner, "Bolton Says U.S. Should Seek 'Regime Change' in Iran", Bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.m.58sr9RqM&refer=home, (1 March 2007). Jacques Chirac, who made a point of condemning anti-Semitism when announcing that he would not run for reelection, allegedly called upon Israel to aggressively attack Syria, and allegedly offered to obstruct the UN and bodies of the EU, so as to favor such an illegal aggression. Ezra HaLevi wrote, "Chirac asked that Israel act to topple the Assad regime, and promised in return to block any moves against Israel within the United Nations or European Union."—Ezra HaLevi, "France Urged Israel to Invade Syria During War", Arutz Sheva www.IsraelNationalNews.com, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121878, (19 March 2007). Meyrav Wurmser stated, in December of 2006, "I know this will annoy many of your readers. . . But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."—Meyrav Wurmser, as quoted by Yitzhak Benhorin in, "Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria", http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340750,00.html, (16 December 2006). The UN stood silent for a very long time as Israel committed an illegal war of aggression on Lebanon, in 2006. The UN does not attack Israel, India or Pakistan for their nuclear weapons programs, but does attack Iran for exercising its lawful rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Pakistan President Perez Musharraf, who recently participated in a campaign to unite Moslem nations, and who opposes an aggressive Zionist attack on Iran, now faces political upheaval. The United Nations has taken no serious action to enforce its many resolutions against Israeli crimes against humanity. Clearly, the UN has been thoroughly corrupted by warmongering Zionists, and has repeatedly violated its Charter, selectively enforced its powers, and openly abused its authority in a highly prejudicial, and openly genocidal manner. Millions of Moslems have died at the hands of Zionists with the approval of, or passive consent of, the UN. The UN is an instrument of Zionist aggression against humanity. It grew out of the Zionist League of Nations, and its demonstrable purpose was and is to steal the land of Palestine for World Jewry, and to prepare the way for the Jewish Messianic Kingdom of Judaic prophecy. Like International Communism, the United Nations grew out of an open plan by Jewish bankers, and their agents, to foment world wars which would leave the Gentiles clamoring for peace, so as to create an atmosphere where the Goyim could be duped into accepting World Government on the false premise that the elimination of national sovereignties (other than Israel) would result in eternal peace. The Zionists are now exploiting the UN to create a Third World War, so that they can complete their "Jewish Utopia" and enforce the Noahide Laws, destroy all Gentile government, religion and culture, expand Israel to the borders of "Greater Israel", and begin the process of exterminating the hated Goyim once and for all, so that the godly Jews can restore divine order to the radioactive Earth. In the News: Prevent a Military Attack on Iran more

Resolved Question: How many of you can't read this?

 more

Resolved Question: Christians, Shiites and Sunni have joined hands in lebanon why don't you?

The Western media, which often downplays the size of public rallies and anti-war demonstrations, confirms that "hundreds of thousands" of people from all sectors of Lebanese society gathered in Beirut in anti-government demonstrations, demanding the resignation of the US-Israeli supported government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The Beirut government is taking orders directly from the US embassy. The Siniora government has allowed the deployment of NATO forces on Lebanese territory under the pretext of a UN sponsored peace-keeping operation. NATO warships under German command are stationed off the country's Eastern Mediterranean coastline. NATO has a military cooperation agreement with Israel. The banners read "Down with Feltman's government," in reference to US ambassador Jeffrey Feltman: "We want a national unity government," "We want a clean government" (quoted in The Hindu, 1 December 2006) Police source estimated the crowd at 800,000 people, almost half the population of the Beirut metropolitan area. Organizers said it was much larger. (Associated Press). The significance of the rally has been casually dismissed. According to the BBC, it was organized by Hezbollah and its so-called "pro-Syrian allies". The rally had little to do with Syria. It demanded the resignation of an illegal government, which supports the interests of US and Israel. Among the allegedly "pro-Syrian" protagonists of these mass demonstrations was Michel Aoun, a staunch opponent of Damascus who led the insurrection against Syrian military presence in the late 1980s and early 1990s. All sectors of Lebanese society are demanding the resignation of the government. A majority of the Christian Maronite community is firmly behind the protest movement: "I call on the prime minister and his ministers to resign" said Michel Aoun: "I wish that the prime minister and his ministers were among us today, not hiding behind barbed wire and army armored carriers. He who has his people behind him does not need barbed wire," Emile Lahoud, the country's president, has also confirmed in that the Siniora government has violated the country's constitution: "This government is no longer legal because it is not representative of all the country's religions,'' he said, following the resignation of five cabinet ministers from Hezbollah, Amal as well as one Christian loyal to President Emile Lahoud. "Hezbollah's deputy general security, Sheik Naim Kassim, made it clear the fight is against 'American tutelage' and said the protest action will continue until the government falls. 'We will not let you sell Lebanon, we will protect the constitution and people of Lebanon,' Kassim said on television Friday, addressing Saniora." (Daily Star, 1 December 2006) Meanwhile, President George W. Bush warned that "Iran and Syria were trying to destabilize Lebanon". US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton described the anti-government demonstrations as "part of the Iran-Syria inspired coup d'etat." Christians, Shiites and Sunni have joined hands. The Lebanese people are demanding the resignation of a government which is acting on behalf of the US and the Israeli invaders of their country. They are demanding the formation of a national unity government which will defend the Lebanese homeland against US-Israeli aggression. more

Resolved Question: Muslims SAY they are for peace ?

Watch this video - can anyone prove this is not the 'Muslim' way ? http://www.break.com/index/startswiththe... The Bible fortells the existence of the False Prophet- significant, since Islam is growing into the BIGGEST religion on the planet. Isn't killing non-Muslims the real way of the Koran ? If not, can you prove that, possibly with religious quotes from your Koran ? Qur’an:9:5“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” Qur’an:9:112“The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” ( - This is aimed at Muslims, mainly, atheists, etc. and their anti-everything opinion- don't bother, no one cares. ) Apparently people can't handle criticism, even when it's brought forward in a honest, factual way such as this. Is the video false, are all of the quotes false ? WAKE UP.Should it ALSO bother the entire world that Islam is the 2nd biggest religion in the world - and growing ! See this link : http://www.adherents.com/religions_by_ad... OR that Muslim population is increasing at an exponential rate around the world ? See this link : http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back902... Ok, What do you think ? After reading/ watching ALL of that, give me your informed answer. Thanks.there were some bad links - here are good ones, in order- http://www.break.com/index/startswiththekids.html http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back902.htmlThanks no_nickname: I'm getting lectured by an 8th GRADER - LOL ! I hope someone else on here has more brains than that ?mlaheji م ﻟﺤﺠﻲ - you're right- allah is merciful- essentially, kill anyone NOT Muslim, unless they become Muslim, then set them free ! What a wonderful religion based on terrorism. Thanks for answering my question, but FAILING TO DISPROVE ANYTHING. You only proved all of the threatening issues correct. WOW. more

Resolved Question: How many people believe that the anti-christ is among us today?

Do you believe he is walking the earth at this time? Do you think he is one of our world leaders of today and just hasn't been exposed yet? Do you think it's possible that he could even be our own president. Think about it. It says "his message will be peace, but he will wage war with the nations of the earth" that is not an exact quote! I can't remember the exact scripture, but it is something to that extent. Think about what are presidents message is, then think about what he's doing. Security and peace. But what is he doing? I think we are being led down a dark path and not too many people want to notice it. Especially christians because most of them are republican. I believe people in religion can be blinded by politics. more

Resolved Question: Bush a true orator?

 more

Top Anti War Quotes Peace Links

Menu

• Home
• Microsoft Corp
  Game The Rapper
  Anti Flag Good N Ready Mp3
  Pros And Cons School Uniforms
  Anti Discrimination In Nursing
  No Gba Link Cable
  Avg Free Download
  Shakugan No Shana Mp3
  Symantec Virus Definitions
  Anti Tobacco Ads
  Building Security
  
• Sitemap
• Privacy Policy

Offers

Anti War Quotes Peace Best Sites Sources For Anti War Quotes Peace bestsites101.com

Anti War Quotes Peace Is Here Compare All Anti War Quotes Peace Sites, Sources and SAVE $$$... Comparisonwiz.com

Free Tech, Product & Gadget Videos! Watch DLTV on Mevio.com mevio.com

Copyright
Anti Site is © 2008 | All Rights Reserved | All trademarks are the exclusive property of their respective owners.