Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 24, 2017, 07:12:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101148 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
651  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbolla on: August 04, 2006, 02:36:59 PM
Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah

By Amos Harel and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents

A senior Iranian official admitted for the first time Friday that Tehran did indeed supply long-range Zelzal-2 missiles to Hezbollah.

Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the "Intifada conference," told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi'ite militia, adding that the organization has his country's blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon.

Pur's statements are thought to be unusual given that Tehran has thus far been reluctant to comment on the extent of its aid which it has extended to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned Thursday night in a televised broadcast that his organization would target Tel Aviv if Beirut was attacked by Israel.

"If our capital, Beirut, is attacked, we will attack your capital, Tel Aviv," Nasrallah threatened.

The Hezbollah leader issued his warning after Israel Air Force aircraft dropped leaflets over the Lebanese capital, calling on residents of three Shi'ite neighborhoods in southern Beirut to evacuate their homes.

Israeli security sources assessed that Nasrallah's threats are serious.

On Wednesday evening, the IAF attacked Beirut for the first time after a hiatus of nearly five days. The dropping of the leaflets yesterday is considered to be a precursor to new air strikes on the city.

Military Intelligence estimates that Nasrallah would like to end the war with a dramatic move, such as the firing of missiles against Tel Aviv.

The range of the Iranian-made Zelzal missiles is estimated to be 210 kilometers, enabling Hezbollah to target the northern suburbs of Tel Aviv and its environs. Last week, the IAF deployed Patriot anti-aircraft missiles near Netanya as part of the overall effort to foil a possible Zelzal attack.
652  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chavez breaks up with Israel on: August 04, 2006, 02:04:32 PM
Chavez breaks up with Israel

Dear Israeli friend who might happen to read this blog

The title of this post means exactly what it means: it is Chavez that is breaking up with Israel, not Venezuela. The people of Venezuela are much smarter than that. Or ignorant as the case might be. But Venezuelans of good faith, of good name, of good will, do not break relations either with Israel, or Lebanon, or Iran, or Palestine, or Egypt.

See, Venezuelan people of good will know that the Middle East is a very complicated situation, and we know that we have no business involving ourselves in there, except for trying to help in any way we can, without taking sides, in reaching peace one way or the other. Just as Israel has no business meddling in border problems between Venezuela and Colombia over FARC crossing over as they please.

See, Venezuela is a gorgeous mosaic of people. We have plenty immigrants form diverse areas of the Middle East. But we also gave refuge to many Jews fleeing the horrors of Nazism, or the horrors of Europe diverse forms of intolerance. We know that we all get along, blacks and whites, natives and mestizos, Jews and Muslims, Catholics and Evangelical, commies and democrats. That is, until Chavez was elected president in 1998 and started forcing upon us divisions that were alien to our gentle tropical culture.

Since his election race has become an issue. Useless social warfare has become an issue. Civil rights have become an issue. And none for the good. Now anti semitism is becoming an issue. This blog has reported whenever it could about the creeping anti semitism in Venezuela these days. But do not take only my word: read yesterday's column from Milagros Socorro in El Nacional where she picks up the same disgusting add that appeared in El Nacional last week. Her words on how our beautiful country is torn apart by the vices of a few are only too eloquent.

Now Chavez in his megalomania has turned his gaze to the Middle East where he wants to become a player. I can assure you, dear Israeli leader, or even dear any Middle East reader, that it is a decision of Chavez alone with his camarilla. We, as a people, have never been consulted on what should be Venezuela's policy in the Middle East. And I can assure you that we will never be consulted on that topic by Chavez. In fact, he has long stopped consulting with anyone on anything except perhaps the soon to be corpse of Castro.

I can also assure you one thing: Chavez does not know much about the Middle East and its very complicated history. Nor does he care much about you. See, the only thing he wants is to screw the US in any which way he can, even if it means a close association with the Iran regime of fanatic and intolerant Ayatollahs who have no problem in subjecting women to all sorts of second class citizenship, hanging gay teenagers, persecuting Baahist faith, financing any pro Shia terrorist organization and what ever else uncivilized that one can come up with. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a country as opposed to Venezuelan values of freedom and carefree lifestyle as Iran is. That is why it is so objectionable of Chavez not to even notice that the only thing that Ahmedinejad has not yet said is "a good Jew is a dead Jew". Never in our history we have had a president that openly supported a country whose aim is the elimination of another country.

If you can read Spanish I will recommend an article on how the news was reported in Venezuela. First, he used the commemoration of some local independence event of 1806 to announce the withdrawal of our ambassador to Israel. Funny, because already Venezuela had only a "chag? d'affaires". But Chavez always needs to be bombastic and the charg? became ambassador for a few seconds before he was removed anyway. Then on the same protocol act he decided to change one of our national holydays by moving it from March 12 to August 3. Just like that, because he has decided to rewrite Venezuelan history in a way that satisfies him better, regardless of what really happened in a given date. See, he is like that, changing names, dates, places, at will, like any fascist of commie dictator. All of course duly surrounded by many generals in full drag.

It is important for you to understand that Chavez has long stopped being considered as someone sane. Nobody so obsessed about his glory, his safety, nobody so blindeded by his US hatred can long remain sane. Venezuela is now a military controled regime with someone cetifiable at the helm. You of all people know about these type of guys. So please, do not harbor ill will against the Venezuelan people, keep in mind that any ill advised move of Venezuela in the Middle East comes from Chavez feverish brain alone. We are trying our best to control him but he has too much money and too many amoral cowards getting rich around him, at home as well as abroad. But this shall pass and we will become friends again as we have been friends with all countries in the world. That is what we really are, a friendly people, not the hateful crowd that Chavez would like you to beleive he represents.

--- --- --- --- --- ---
The news is spreading fast. Fausta has a complete summary of Chavez recent eccentricities, break up included. Plus a great photo montage of Chavez and any dictator around, courtesy of Miguel.
653  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: August 04, 2006, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: rogt
I've mentioned the Iranian Jews twice now and you've had no response.  How do you explain 25,000 Jews choosing to live in a country you claim wants their extermination?

I think it's irrelevant to the issue, and I doubt very much that, given a choice, today they would choose to live in Iran. My family chose to live in Venezuela and for many years it was a good choice until the advent of Hugo Chavez. Today, given the choice, I would not pick Venezuela. Things change. At one time Jews were captives in Persia. Later they were an important part of Persian society. Same in Germany. My father was a German soldier under Bismarck. But under Adolph Hitler he was considered a non-human. Things go around in circles. When we left Germany in 1939 we lost our German citizenship based on a NAZI law that stripped German Jews living outside Germany of their birthright German citizenship. For years this made no difference to me because we were more than welcome in Venezuela. Then with Chavez things changed. He preaches class warfare, not just against Jews but against America, against landholders, against the rich, against anyone or anything that he perceives as an opportunity to vent his venom. As a consequence, I have reacquired my German citizenship. I now have dual citizenship. Germans went from the most advanced and most civilized people on earth who gave us Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, to the scum of the earth under Hitler. Now they have made a comeback into the fold of civilized nations.

The 25,000 Jews is Iran is what is left over from a much larger Jewish community. They have to conform to Sharia law in public. They have one member of parliament who must have a picture of a Mullah in his office. They are not treated as people, they are pets in a zoo for exhibition purposes, for the world to see how civilized the zoo keepers are. Humans are funny that way: we love elephants so we put them in a cage. We love birds so we put them in a cage. We love flowers so we cut them to put in a vase. We love to exhibit Jews so we put them in a virtual cage. Jews wanted out of the Soviet Union, they were not allowed to leave. How is Iran different?
654  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: August 04, 2006, 11:10:43 AM
Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, radical Islam, it's all the same for me. They all have the same purpose vis a vis Israel so I need make no distinction among them. They attack, we strike back and, on occasion, we strike preemptively when the danger seems extraordinary.

There is nothing wrong with preemptively strikes. It's much the same as vaccinating babies so they don't get sick later. Radical Islam is a virus that needs to be combatted at every level before they can cause the mayhem they set out to cause.

What does that have to do with the exact meaning of "Exterminating Israel?" I don't worry about it. You do, so you explain it. Getting bogged down in hair splitting while people are dying is an absurdity. Stop the war and then we can split hairs.

Sorry, no apologies coming from me on this issue.
655  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iran's Strategy Is Crudely Obvious--Why Can't We Fight It? on: August 04, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
August 01, 2006

Iran's Strategy Is Crudely Obvious--So Why Can't We Fight It?

By Robert Tracinski

The new Lebanon War, like much of the War on Terrorism, has a strange character. It is a war in which everyone knows the enemy's strategy, in which it is child's play to see through all of his ruses and propaganda tricks--and yet our leaders, rather than devising their own counter-strategy, fall for every ruse and play along with the enemy's game.

You hear a lot of talk these days about the "clever" Iranians and what good "chess players" they are in the contest of international diplomacy. But the Iranian strategy is, in fact, crudely transparent and obviously morally bankrupt. Everyone can grasp this--yet our leaders keep falling into the Iranian traps.

Everyone knows that Iran is using Hezbollah's war in Lebanon to distract attention from its nuclear weapons program. The Iranians were given a July 5 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face "serious consequences." The contemptuous Iranians declared that they wouldn't reply for another six weeks, on August 22. Then Hezbollah--a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran's Revolutionary Guards--initiated their war in Lebanon, and no one has paid attention to the Iranian nuclear program for the past three weeks. Now, finally, we are sending a new resolution to the UN Security Council--giving Iran until August 31 to agree to talks or face another months-long debate about whether we will impose sanctions against them.

The Iranian strategy to buy time is utterly transparent and not especially clever. It is simple to defeat: declare that Hezbollah's aggression against Israel is proof of Iran's evil intentions and that we don't require any further diplomatic justification to bomb Iran's nuclear sites and bring down its regime.

Instead, Western leaders fell for the Iranian strategy, and the Iranians have pretty much gotten what they wanted.

Everyone knows that Syria is using Hezbollah's war as a way of propping up its security and influence after it was forced to retreat from Lebanon in disgrace last year. By initiating a new war against Israel, the Syrians hope to appeal to the venomous hatred of Israel on the "Arab street," regaining Arab support Syria had lost by assassinating pro-independence leaders in Lebanon. By initiating the war on Lebanese soil, Syria hoped to justify its former military presence there, "proving" that the Syrian withdrawal led only to anarchy and bloodshed--proving it, that is, by causing the bloodshed. Finally, Syria's Baathist regime is using its alliance with the Islamist fanatics of Hezbollah to replace its fading secular ideology with a new, religious foundation.

Again, this is all obvious, and the answer is obvious. By bringing the war home to its Syrian sponsor, we could make it clear that initiating this war will topple the Syrian regime, rather than propping it up.

Instead, American commentators and diplomats have fallen for the Syrian strategy, declaring that this conflict makes it necessary to re-establish negotiations with Syria, offer Syria territorial concessions, and even to compete with Iran for Syria's affections.

Everyone knows that Hezbollah initiated a war with Israel in order to justify its status as a military "state within a state," billing itself as a defender of Lebanon against Israel--even while, far from defending Lebanon, Hezbollah is causing Lebanon to be torn apart. And everyone knows that Hezbollah deliberately operates among Lebanon's civilian population, cynically exploiting the resulting civilian casualties as propaganda.

This has already been ruthlessly dissected by many American and Israeli commentators. See, for example, an excellent editorial in Monday's Washington Times on Hezbollah's use of "human shields," which includes a link to photos of Hezbollah guns and missile launchers positioned in residential apartment blocks. Even better, a hard-hitting column in an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, quotes an Israeli paratrooper who sums up Hezbollah's tactics: "They are a lousy army. They only win when they hide behind baby carriages."

Both of these articles identify the proper response: point out that Hezbollah is responsible for all civilian casualties in this war, and refuse to allow those casualties to hobble the war effort. Stop rewarding Hezbollah for using civilians as human shields.

Instead, faced with a gory new story about civilian casualties, our own Secretary of State panicked and pressured Israel to agree to a mini-cease-fire, suspending its air war for 48 hours (which Israel, thankfully, did not fully do). According to the New York Times when Condoleezza Rice heard about a new group of Lebanese civilians killed in an Israeli airstrike--with images of the corpses splashed across TV screens in Lebanon and across the Arab world--she "appeared shaken." She then immediately pushed for the Israeli cessation, while "American officials scrambled to try to counter the wrenching TV scenes of the devastation at Qana."

Secretary Rice has a reputation as an intelligent, hard-charging woman who doesn't scare easily. Over the past few months, she has blown that reputation, caving in to Iran and its European sympathizers--and now allowing herself to be panicked into appeasement by predictable images of Lebanese civilian casualties. The Iranians have not been playing a sophisticated diplomatic game--yet they have consistently outplayed Secretary Rice.

Just as obvious as the strategy of the Iranian Axis are the destructive consequences of America's diplomatic retreat in the face of Hezbollah's war.

The French government has taken advantage of Rice's abdication and stepped in to assert a leading role in the crisis--as a defender of Iran. The French foreign minister, speaking today in Beirut, hailed Iran as the potential savior of Lebanon, describing Iran as "a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region." If the French are to be part of a "multinational force" in Southern Lebanon, will they be there to disarm Hezbollah--or to protect it?

The joke going around all the blogs recently is that it's not a World War until France surrenders. But it's not really a World War until the French become collaborators.

Similarly, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who sat on the fence for the first few weeks of the war, complaining about Israel but also calling for Hezbollah to be disarmed, sensed the shift in the political winds and threw in with Hezbollah, thanking terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah for "all those who sacrifice their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon.''

And remember that every charge made against the Israelis in Lebanon can be applied equally to the Americans in Iraq--which means that Secretary Rice has just given a green light for Iranian-backed firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr to emulate Hezbollah and orchestrate another uprising against the US in Iraq.

The tirades of the Angry Left to the contrary, our leaders are not stupid or incompetent. If the rest of us can figure out the Iranian strategy and see through Iran's tricks, so can they. But something is neutralizing their knowledge. Something is preventing them from turning that knowledge into corresponding action.

Part of what is crippling Western leaders is the sacrifice-worship of the altruist morality, which programs them, in response to human suffering, to suspend thinking and react emotionally. Natan Sharansky recounts a discussion he had with former president Jimmy Carter about why the Palestinian-Israeli "peace process" kept failing. Carter responded, "You know, you are right, but don't try to be too rational about these things. The moment you see people suffering, you should feel solidarity with them and try to help them without thinking too much about the reasons."

But even more insidious is a kind of cognitive altruism that tells men to sacrifice, not just their interests, but their judgment, subordinating their knowledge to the opinions and prejudices of others. That is what seems to be operating here. Whatever Secretary Rice knows about the Iranians' strategy is discarded the moment lurid images of civilian casualties are splashed across the front pages of European newspapers and the broadcasts of Arab television stations. Just as, in this self-abnegating morality, you have to consider the interests of everyone except yourself--so, in this morality of cognitive self-abnegation, you have to consider everyone's opinion except your own. Thus, faced with the united force of "world opinion," the formerly "tough-minded" Secretary of State was flustered into an ignominious surrender of American interests.

This is a strange kind of war, in which we have more than enough military capability to crush the enemy's "lousy army." Nor do we lack the intellectual power to understand and counteract the enemy's strategy. But we lack the moral confidence to use both our power and our knowledge.

But in the life-and-death struggle with totalitarian Islam, there is no room for Western self-abnegation. On the contrary, what we need is a proud, righteous self-assertion, the unapologetic pursuit of America's and Israel's vital interests, unbowed by appeals to pity or to "world opinion."

In recent months, there has been a rebellion brewing on the right in protest against the Bush administration's appeasement of Iran. Secretary Rice's recent capitulation, if it goes uncorrected, ought to be the event that brings that rebellion to the boiling point, threatening President Bush with the defection of his remaining political "base." It will be a bruising political rebellion, and it should probably require the firing of Condoleezza Rice--a crushing concession for George Bush to make--to satisfy a justified fury against the administration's recent policies.

But if our leaders won't provide an assertive American national defense on their own power, we will have to demand it of them. If they won't lead the way against our enemies, we will have to lead and force them to follow.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and
656  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chavez withdraws Venezuelan envoy citing Israeli 'genocide on: August 03, 2006, 07:58:35 PM
Chavez withdraws Venezuelan envoy citing Israeli 'genocide'

By The Associated Press

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Thursday he has recalled his country's ambassador to Israel to show his "indignation" over the military offensive in Lebanon.

"We have ordered the withdrawal of our ambassador in Israel," Chavez said in a televised speech, calling Israeli attacks in Lebanon "genocide."

"It really causes indignation to see how the state of Israel continues bombing, killing ... with all of the power they have, with the support of the United States," Chavez said after a military parade in the northwestern state of Falcon.

The leftist Venezuelan leader has repeatedly criticized Israel's offensive aimed at Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, noting mounting civilian deaths and saying the United Nations should act to halt the violence.

"It's hard explain to oneself how nobody does anything to stop this horror," said Chavez, whose government has until recently said it had good relations with Israel.

Chavez, an outspoken critic of Washington, also criticized what he called a relentless "campaign" by the U.S. government to keep Venezuela from obtaining a seat on the UN Security Council. U.S. officials have backed Guatemala for the seat, saying Venezuela would be a disruptive influence on the council.

The Venezuelan leader, a close ally and protege of Cuban President Fidel Castro, spoke after returning from an international tour that took him to Argentina, Belarus, Russia, Qatar, Iran, Vietnam, Mali and Benin. While in Iran, Chavez called the Israeli offensive in Lebanon a "fascist outrage."

"The Israeli elite repeatedly criticize Hitler's actions against the Jews, and indeed Hitler's actions must be criticized, not just against the Jews but against the world," Chavez said during his visit to Iran, adding: "It's also fascism what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people ... terrorism and fascism."

Venezuela has both Arab immigrant and Jewish communities, and officials have insisted the government will continue to fully respect the Jewish community despite its strong opposition to Israel's war in Lebanon.

Some in Venezuela have protested against the fighting in Lebanon, including one group that burned an Israeli flag outside the Israeli embassy last month.

But we also support coexistence:
657  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: August 03, 2006, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: rogt
OK, "elimination of the Zionist regime" can mean a lot of things.  What I want to know is whether these Muslim leaders really mean "exterminate Jews" instead of just replacement of the current Israeli government.
Well, sum it up:

Suicide bombings
Rocket attacks
Calls for boycotting Israel
Flying into the Twin Towers
The London bombing
The Madrid bombing
The Beirut US Embassy bombing
The Bali bombing
The USS Cole bombing
The Buenos Aires bombing

Does this sound like a love fest of some sort?

Some people just don't want to see reality. What proof do you want? The extermination of Israel?
658  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: August 03, 2006, 03:36:55 PM
Quote from: rogt
We constantly hear about how Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. deny "Israel's right to exist", that they want to "destroy Israel", or "exterminate all Jews". The source is a statement (in Arabic or Farsi) supposedly from the Hamas charter. It would be interesting to see a US news agency interview an actual Hamas leader, tell him how this statement is being interpreted in the US, and ask him directly if this is what they really mean.


Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel draws French condemnation

By The Associated Press

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

659  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How to poison children's minds on: July 31, 2006, 08:31:57 PM
Does this remind you of Hitler youth?

Beirut march marks Qana bombing

Thursday 27 April 2006, 21:33 Makka Time, 18:33 GMT  

About 2,000 children have marched through the streets of Beirut armed with fake rockets in a rally organised by Hezbollah to mark the anniversary of a deadly Israeli bombardment 10 years ago.
660  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: July 31, 2006, 08:24:13 PM
I posted the link at a blog I frequent and someone posted two related links:

Note: If you are squeamish, don't go there, lots of dead bodies:

Who is this man?

If he had been a genuine rescue worker, he would deserve a medal. Mr "Green Helmet" is everywhere at Qana, rushing around pulling children out of the rubble, carting them to ambulances and even, on the front page of the Guardian, escorting "White Tee-shirt", who also performs his own cameo role, carting round the body of another unfortunate girl, emoting freely while he does so.

Milking it?

Certainly, the photographs are distressing, and indeed they are meant to be. As this piece tells us:
661  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Message from Brigitte Gabriel on: July 30, 2006, 01:29:15 AM
Message from the President and Founder
Brigitte Gabriel

Welcome and thank you for taking the time to visit our website, American Congress for Truth. Evil prevails when good people do nothing. With the spread of radical Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world, it is important for the people of the western world to know and understand what to expect and what to do about it.

We are faced with a war that has been declared on Christians and Jews in America and the world. Citizens of the most powerful country on earth watched in horror on 9/11, 2001 as a handful of men brought the United States of America to its knees. Wall Street froze, the stock market tumbled, and national air traffic ground to a halt. The West faces a threat more menacing today than the past goals of communist world domination.

We are facing an enemy that uses children as human bombs, mothers as suicide bombers, and men driven by the glory of death and the promise of eternal sexual bliss in heaven. We are fighting an enemy that loves death more than we love life. I am a victim of the Lebanese civil war, which was the first front in the worldwide Jihad of militant Islam against the only Christian country in the Middle East. My family?s home was shelled and destroyed leaving me wounded. I lived underground in a bomb shelter from age 10 to 17 without electricity and very little food. I had to crawl under sniper bullets to a spring to fetch water for my elderly parents. I was betrayed by my country, rescued by my enemy Israel, the Jewish State that is under attack for its existence today.

911 changed most American lives forever, but it struck an especially sensitive chord with me. It reminded me that the entire world is threatened by the same radical Islamic theology that succeeded in annihilating the ?infidels? in Lebanon. That?s why I created American Congress for Truth. ACT was formed in June 2002 to inform, inspire and motivate Jews and Christians throughout society in ways to act and fight for our western ways of life and the values we cherish. Our members include Jews, Arabs and Christians from all background both secular and religious, liberals and conservatives. People who have put their differences aside to combat both anti American and anti Israel propaganda masquerading as anti Imperialism and anti Zionism wherever it exists; in the western media, among the intellectual elite, and on American college Campuses.

So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. I urge you to become an ACT activist and join a growing network of Americans concerned about securing their nation from acts of terrorism. Through American Congress for Truth you can be a voice effecting the future of your community and your nation.

Thank you for your support. You are the heroes who make all our work possible. And I especially thank you for helping me protect the country that has blessed me so much, America, the dream that became my address.

Brigitte Gabriel
662  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Thank You Israel on: July 30, 2006, 01:13:01 AM
Thank You Israel
By Brigitte Gabriel

For the millions of Christian Lebanese, driven out of our homeland, "Thank you Israel," is the sentiment echoing from around the world. The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, an international group of Lebanese Christians, made the following statement in a press release to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concerning the latest Israeli attacks against Hezbollah:

"We urge you to hit them hard and destroy their terror infrastructure. It is not [only] Israel who is fed up with this situation, but the majority of the silent Lebanese in Lebanon who are fed up with Hezbollah and are powerless to do anything out of fear of terror retaliation."

Their statement continues, "On behalf of thousands of Lebanese, we ask you to open the doors of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport to thousands of volunteers in the Diaspora willing to bear arms and liberate their homeland from [Islamic] fundamentalism.

We ask you for support, facilitation and logistics in order to win this struggle and achieve together the same objectives: Peace and Security for Lebanon and Israel and our future generations to come."

The once dominate Lebanese Christians responsible for giving the world "the Paris of the Middle East" as Lebanon used to be known, have been killed, massacred, driven out of their homes and scattered around the world as radical Islam declared its holy war in the 70s and took hold of the country.

They voice an opinion that they and Israel have learned from personal experience, which is now belatedly being discovered by the rest of the world.

While the world protected the PLO withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 with Israel hot on their heals, another more volatile and religiously idealistic organization was being born: Hezbollah, "the Party of God," founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and financed by Iran. It was Hezbollah who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in October,1983 killing 241 Americans and 67 French paratroopers that same day. President Reagan ordered U.S. Multilateral Force units to withdraw and closed the books on the marine massacre and US involvement in Lebanon February 1984.

The civilized world, which erroneously vilified the Christians and Israel back then and continues to vilify Israel now, was not paying attention. While America and the rest of the world were concerned about the Israeli / PLO problem, terrorist regimes in Syria and Iran fanned Islamic radicalism in Lebanon and around the world.

Hezbollah's Shiite extremists began multiplying like proverbial rabbits out-producing moderate Sunnis and Christians. Twenty-five years later they have produced enough people to vote themselves into 24 seats in the Lebanese parliament. Since the Israeli pull out in 2000, Lebanon has become a terrorist base completely run and controlled by Syria with its puppet Lebanese President Lahood and the Hezbollah "state within a state."

The Lebanese army has less than 10,000 military troops. Hezbollah has over 4,000 trained militia forces and there are approximately 700 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. So why can't the army do the job? Because the majority of Lebanese Muslims making up the army will split and unite along religious lines with the Islamic forces just like what happened in 1976 at the start of the Lebanese civil war.

It all boils down to a war of Islamic Jihad ideology vs. Judeo Christian Westernism. Muslims who are now the majority of Lebanon's population, support Hezbollah because they are part of the Islamic Ummah-the nation. This is the taboo subject everyone is trying to avoid.

The latest attacks on Israel have been orchestrated by Iran and Syria driven by two different interests. Syria considers Lebanon a part of "greater" Syria. Young Syrian President Assad and his Ba'athist military intelligence henchmen in Damascus are using this latest eruption of violence to prove to the Lebanese that they need the Syrian presence to protect them from the Israeli aggression and to stabilize the country. Iran is conveniently using its Lebanese puppet army Hezbollah, to distract the attention of world leaders meeting at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Apocalyptic Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the ruling Mullah clerics in Tehran want to assert hegemony in the Islamic world under the banner of Shia Mahdist madness. Ahmadinejad wants to seal his place as top Jihadist for Allah by make good his promise to "wipe Israel off  the map.

No matter how much the west avoids facing the reality of Islamic extremism of the Middle East, the west cannot hide from the fact that the same Hamas and Hezbollah that Israel is fighting over there, are of the same radical Islamic ideology that has fomented carnage and death through terrorism that America and the world are fighting. This is the same Hezbollah that Iran is threatening to unleash in America with suicide bomb attacks if America tries to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon. They have cells in over 10 cities in the United States. Hamas, has the largest terrorist infrastructure on American soil. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to evil for decades, hoping it will go away.

Sheik Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, is an Iranian agent. He is not a free actor in this play. He has been involved in terrorism for over 25 years. Iran with its Islamic vision for a Shia Middle East now has its agents, troops and money in Gaza in the Palestinian territories,Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Behind this is this vision that drives the Iranian President Ahmadinejad who believes he is Allah's "tool and facilitator" bringing the end of the world as we know it and the ushering in of the era of the Mahdi. He has a blind messianic belief in the Shiite tradition of the 12th or "hidden" Islamic savior who will emerge from a well in the holy city of Qum in Iran after global chaos, catastrophes and mass deaths and establish the era of Islamic Justice and everlasting peace.

President Ahmadinejad has refused so far to respond to proposals from the U.S., EU, Russia and China on the UN Security Council to cease Iran's relentless quest for nuclear enrichment and weapons development program until August 22nd. Why August 22nd? Because August 22nd, coincides with the Islamic date of Rajab 28, the day the great Salah El-Din conquered Jerusalem.

Ahmadinejad's extremists ideology in triggering Armageddon gives great concerns to the intelligence community.

At this point the civilized world must unite in fighting the same enemies plaguing Israel and the world with terrorism. We need to stop analyzing the enemies' differences as Sunni-Hamas or Shiite-Hezbollah, and start understanding that their common bond in their fight against us is radical Islam.
663  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The roots of WWIII on: July 29, 2006, 01:34:55 PM
This video explains the roots of WWIII, it's a video that we all should watch. The film is supposed to be in theaters next month.
664  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Australian values, Muslim clerics, anti-Americanism on: July 29, 2006, 10:29:36 AM
Interview with Tony Jones - Lateline
Tuesday, 23 August 2005 - 10.40 pm

SUBJECTS: Australian values, Muslim clerics, anti-Americanism, Telstra

Peter Costello thanks for joining us.

Good to be with you, Tony.

Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?

What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?

No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.

But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?

Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.

I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?

Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.

But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.

No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?

I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.

But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?

The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.

Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.

Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?

Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.

You mean to force them to leave?

Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.

But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?

Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.


Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

Let's move on. You made a speech at the weekend in which you warned that Australia could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism or Australia's interests at least could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism in the world. How could that happen?

Well, I think there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Australia. It's not just in Australia. It there's anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world and to some degree it may be less in Australia than in countries like France or in parts of the Arab world. But I don't believe we can be complacent about it. It is a real strand of public opinion and I think we ought to engage it and discuss it. The point I'm trying to make is we in Australia have no reason to be anti-American; that where American power has been exercised, such as in the World War II, it was exercised in the defence of Australia, not the attack of Australia. By and large, American power, which is exercised in defence of democracy and in individual liberty, is supportive of Australia in its interests and not a threat to it.

You said to Laurie Oakes on Sunday that anti-Americanism can easily morph into anti-Westernism and effectively that could threaten our interests. How could that happen?

Well, we've seen with some terrorist attacks already that Western places are targets. Not necessarily because there are Australians present, but because in the terrorist mind there are Westerners present, whether they be Americans or Britons or Australians.

This is to do with anti-Americanism?

Well, as I said, anti-Westernism, and terrorists don't particularly distinguish when they're setting off bombs, can hit Australians as much as it can hit Americans or it can hit Britons.

But this is anti-Americanism morphing into a broader anti-Western feeling which could affect Australian interests. Is that what you are saying?

Well, there have been occasions when Australians have been hit by terrorist incidents where people haven't distinguished between whether it's Americans or Britons or Australians. There is a strand of terrorist thinking that says that anybody who is a Westerner is a legitimate target.

But the core of it is anti-American from what you are saying? The logic of what you are saying is pretty clear.

In some terrorist minds, if you're hitting a Westerner, you're hitting a legitimate target. The point I want to make is that because we're Westerners, in the minds of some terrorists we can be targets. So it's in our interests to defend the values of the West and it's in our interests to explain our policy. It's in America's interests to defend its own image and I would urge it to do so and I would also say to Australia's security -

You seem to be suggesting that anti-Americanism is in fact a dangerous thing for Australians.

Well, it is in a security sense because the US is Australia's principal defence partner. When I say there is a danger of anti-Americanism in Australia amongst Australians, what I'm saying is, particularly amongst younger Australians, if they don't understand the events of 1942 when the US was the principal ally defending Australia and without which we wouldn't have been able to defend the islands to our near north, if they don't understand that, they may not understand what the importance of the American alliance is to the defence of Australia and our strategic interests.

I don't want to keep coming back to this necessarily, but you've made the point quite clearly that anti-Americanism can morph into anti-Westernism and that threatens our interests. It threatens our interest, does it, because we could, like Americans, as a result of anti-Americanism become terrorist targets?

We have become terrorist targets because we are perceived to be Western. We've become terrorist targets because we are perceived to stand for a whole lot of values, which in the terrorist mind they oppose. Australians became terrorists in Bali not because of anything Australia did, but because in Bali they were perceived to be Westerners and in a sick terrorist mind that makes you a target.

Right. Given that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably the leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, does that make us, as an ally of the Americans, a greater target for terrorists?

I don't think it's the principle cause at all. I think if you want to look for perceived areas of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it was around a lot before Iraq. It's been around for a very long time, Tony, and most of it, I believe -

I'm talking about what's happening right now. We're seeing it even in the lead-up to the Islamic summit we've been having in Canberra. What we are hearing is young Australian Muslims are particularly angry with the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

No, I couldn't disagree with you more profoundly. There was substantial hostility to the US in the Arab world long before Iraq. Whether it's over perceived injustices to Islam, whether it's over the Palestinian issue, whether it's over support for Israel. Most of these things, and I don't believe justify hostility at all, but it's been there long before Iraq. Let me tell you this, Tony - you are profoundly wrong if you thought hostility to the United States started in 2003. It was around a long before that.

I don't believe I said or even suggested that, but let's move on if we can.

No, no, no. You said the primary cause...

At the present moment.

..of anti-Americanism...

At the present moment.

TREASURER: the Arab world was the war in Iraq...

At the present moment.

..and I explained to you, long before the war in Iraq, the attack on the US on the World Trade Centre showed there were great causes of disaffection to America long before Iraq, Tony.

That's completely understood, but I did say "at the present moment". Can we move on from foreign affairs and onto your own portfolio. How much revenue did the Government get from its dividends on the Telstra shares last year?

[snip]They talk about Telstra[/snip]

Peter Costello, we'll have to leave it there. We thank you very much once again for taking the time to come and talk to us tonight.

Thanks, Tony.
665  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / An 'e-mail from Nasrallah' on: July 28, 2006, 06:02:39 PM
An 'e-mail from Nasrallah'

By Tom Segev

A man named Nasrallah whom I don't know sent me an e-mail this week. I thought that he was from Beirut. So I asked, naturally, and with no little hope, if there were a connection. As often happens in dialogues with our neighbors - this was the wrong question to ask. He has no connection to that Nasrallah, he replied, probably in a slightly reproachful tone.

The man in question is Yousry Nasrallah, the Egyptian film director. Recently he had directed the film "Bab al-Shams" ("The Gate of the Sun"), based on the book by Elias Khoury. Nasrallah forwarded to me a public appeal from Beirut, composed by Lebanese theater director Roger Assaf. He's one of the best there is in that country, Nasrallah wrote.

Along with the pope, the French president, the German chancellor and, of course, Israel, Assaf denounced the alliance between Syria and Iran, which has nothing at all to do with the true interest of Lebanon and has brought disaster upon it. His language is poetic. He writes about his dreams of a better world - one in which the children of Israel won't grow up amid the spirit of hatred and nationalist-militarist hysteria, one in which Palestinian and Lebanese children won't grow up amid the spirit of vengeance. He and his friends live in the spirit of Plato and Gandhi and Albert Camus and other humanist philosophers and intellectuals, he said.

Yousry Nasrallah sent me a second e-mail in which he explained the background to Assaf"s letter: "In July 2006, there are people (maybe I should use the past tense) who are neither with Iran, nor with Syria, nor with Hezbollah, nor with Israel. People who do not want to be used by either of these powers as human shields or targets. People who have tried these past few years to build a new Lebanon that is free from all this."

He sounds like a few people I know in Haifa.

The news of the deterioration this week in Ariel Sharon's condition caught many Israelis by surprise: Oh, yeah, Ariel Sharon. His illness spared him what would have been a terribly embarrassing confrontation with his failures: the growing power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, right under his nose; and the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and the firing of Qassams at the south. The man who in his last days earned the admiration of the entire world, as if he were a great statesman and architect of peace, now appears to have been one of the worst prime ministers Israel ever had, maybe even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.

If it weren't for the current war in Lebanon, this week everyone would almost certainly have been talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, on its first anniversary, and the summary isn't very positive: Instead of the areas of the settlements evacuated by Israel being put to use for the welfare of the Palestinians, they were taken over by the Qassam gangs. The Israel Defense Forces intensified the means of oppression and Gaza is on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. A further withdrawal in the West Bank, in an effort to make good on the promises made by Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz, doesn't appear possible right now.

Did all this have to happen? Maybe not. In this sense, the withdrawal from Gaza is similar to the Oslo Accords: a missed opportunity. Had the withdrawal been carried out in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians, rather than as a unilateral "disengagement," or had free passage been allowed meanwhile between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - perhaps everything would have been different. In any event, the Gush Katif settlements were a reckless adventure and their dismantling has not caused a national trauma. But after almost a year of Qassam fire, a giant "We told you so" is hanging over the public discourse.

The forced evacuation of thousands of Israelis, which was executed without too much difficulty, threatens to lay the groundwork for an eventual expulsion of masses of Palestinians, too. The bombardment of Beirut and the instigation of mass flight by inhabitants of south Lebanon are turning the harming of civilians into a matter of routine. This is the legacy of Ariel Sharon: The fate of human beings always interested him less than military considerations.

If he could still speak today, one wonders whether Sharon would admit that he erred. Maybe not. So few politicians are capable of that. I would like to show Sharon Errol Morris' film, "The Fog of War" (2003), about Robert S. McNamara and tape his reaction. It's a movie that is well worth watching again, especially this week.

One night, during World War II, the Americans bombarded Tokyo, causing about 100,000 residents to be burned alive in their homes. Countless civilians were killed in other Japanese cities, all before the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, this wasn't proportional to the war objectives of the United States, says McNamara, the former U.S. secretary of defense.

A graduate of Harvard, McNamara was the president of the Ford Motor Company where, among other things, he introduced seatbelts in cars. He joined the Kennedy administration as secretary of defense and stayed on in the Johnson administration. Toward the end of 1967, McNamara realized that the war in Vietnam was lost and he proposed to Johnson that the United States stop its bombardments of cities in North Vietnam. Johnson reacted angrily and McNamara ended up leaving to take charge of the World Bank. Four years and about 60,000 dead later, he gazes into Errol Morris' camera and, with the wisdom of hindsight, says simply: We made a mistake. He bears part of the blame for this terrible failure and is doing his best to impart to the world the lessons that he learned. He came up with 11 lessons in all, including the importance of intelligence, before and during the course of the war, and the need to get into the mind of the enemy and to understand him.

McNamara says the United States didn't understand the motivations of North Vietnam and that the latter did not understand those of the United States: North Vietnam was not a pawn in the hands of the Communist Bloc, as the Americans believed - and America did not aspire to rule Vietnam as a colonial power, as the Vietnamese believed. McNamara warns of the tendency to assume that rational thinking will halt acts of madness: The three protagonists in the Cuban missile crisis - Nikita Krushchev, Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy - were all rational people. A review of the historic documentation shows that all three were prepared to go all the way - to nuclear war, that is.

The seventh lesson that McNamara offers to history is the most important of all: Very often, heads of states and armies do not really see what they think they see. They see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what's convenient for them to see. McNamara suggests that leaders take a second look at their assumptions at the moment of reckoning: Not only can intelligence be faulty, the basic conceptions guiding them may also be flawed. The communist threat that stood at the center of the Western world's thinking turned out years later to be an optical illusion. Today the Western world believes in the Islamic threat. The rhetoric accompanying the war in Lebanon sounds in part like it was borrowed from the Vietnam War.

What will happen to small nations if we abandon Vietnam to communism? - that was the question frequently posed by President Johnson. And McNamara spoke of the "domino effect": If South Vietnam falls to the communists, all of East Asia will follow suit. He wasn't lying. He sincerely believed that. Looking back, he offers his own definition of the phrase "the fog of war": an unclear vision of reality.

Politicians like to pat themselves on the back for the inner conviction that guides them, and for their determination to do what they deem to be right. McNamara advocates a more important quality: skepticism. The skepticism that eventually saved America from itself was born in the media there.

The film "The Fog of War," which earned an Oscar for its creator, is available for rental at local video libraries.

A diplomatic dispute erupted a little while ago between the State of Israel and the kingdom of Great Britain, and this week it was resolved before the IDF would have, very regretfully, been compelled to bombard London. Interior Minister Roni Bar-On told the tale in the Knesset.

Her Majesty's ambassador had protested a sign put up by the Jerusalem Municipality marking the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The British wanted the sign removed. Negotiations began. The sign that veterans of the Irgun underground had wanted to erect said that the British were warned ahead of time but, "despite this, for reasons known only to them, the British did not evacuate the hotel." In other words - the British are to blame. The original sign listed the identity of the 92 victims, who included Jews and Arabs and others. The new sign that was put up this week says only: "The hotel was not evacuated." According to the sign, the losses caused were "very regrettable," i.e., the intention was to carry out an attack without casualties.

In the English version that was on the original sign, the stronger term "dismay" was added. Dismay that the British didn't evacuate the hotel. On the new sign - that additional word is gone.

There are other differences. Here is a good topic for a study of Israelis' attitudes to terror attacks. A bit of this came up in the Knesset discussion, too.

Reuven Rivlin (Likud) complained that Israel had given into the Brits' demands: "In wake of this letter, will they be able to come with other letters? For example, that the daughter of one of the Irgun leaders can't serve as foreign minister? Or will the appointment or election of Menachem Begin as prime minister of Israel for two terms in a row be retroactively nullified? Will (Israel) Eldad's son be unable to serve as a Knesset member? These are questions that just need to be asked. After all, we're talking about the blowing up of the command center that was the symbol of the British Mandate in Palestine that prevented the immigration of the uprooted from the fields of the burning of our people in Europe."

Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism), on the other hand, protested the whole idea of honoring the attack on the hotel: "I really don't understand what this celebration is all about ... We're acting like the goyim [gentiles]. Blood was spilled. Dozens of people were killed. What's to celebrate?"

The interior minister brought the discussion to a close with these timely words from the Passover Haggadah: "In every generation there are those who rise up against us and seek to destroy us. But the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hands."
666  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Canadian soldier's report from South Lebanon on: July 28, 2006, 02:58:36 AM

I found a Canadian site with the full text of the email:

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

A Canadian soldier's report from South Lebanon
Updated Wed. Jul. 26 2006 5:19 PM ET

After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, and the subsequent bombing campaign began against Lebanon, received an email from Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, a Canadian Forces soldier serving with the UN in South Lebanon.

"If you are interested in a Canadian perspective on the events of yesterday and what is happening here in the area I am serving in, I can provide some concise info for you about the current situation," he wrote.

Major Hess-von Kruedener in South Lebanon in March, meeting with one of the Mouktars of a Druze village called Bourhoz.
With the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Major Hess-von Kruedener was the only Canadian serving as a United Nations Military Observer in Lebanon.  He was stationed at the UN base about 10 kilometres from where the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli borders meet. The UN's mission there is to report ceasefire violations.
On July 25, that base came under fire from Israeli artillery and was struck by a precision-guided aerial bomb. Four UN observers died. On July 26, the federal government said Hess-von Kruedener was missing and presumed dead.

Here is his full email, written July 18, with background on the mission and the current situation:

We have had a brief "tactical pause" in the action here, so I am taking this opportunity to provide you some information on the situation here in south Lebanon. At the outset, I will provide you with a brief background on who I am, What the Org and Mission is here and then answer some of the bank of questions you provided.


My name is Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, and I am an Infantry Officer with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, of the Canadian Forces. I was sent to this Mission (United Nations Truce and Supervision Organization -UNTSO) last October 05, and am currently serving as an unarmed Military Observer. I have now been stationed here in south Lebanon for Approximately nine months.

I am currently writing to you from the UN Patrol Base Khiam, which is situated approximately 10 km from the nexus of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian Borders. I am serving with Observer Group Lebanon, or OGL, and I am on Team Sierra. The Patrol Base is named after the village it is situated in, El Khiam, which sits on one of four ridges which dominates both the Hasbani River valley, which then changes to the Houla Valley when it crosses the Lebanon-Israel border 10 km to our south.

A Canadian soldier mans a guard tower at Camp Ziouani, Golan Heights, in 2002. Thousands of Canadians have served in this border region since 1958. (Photo: MCpl Frank Hudec, Canadian Forces Combat Camera
The patrol base was initially an observation post and was built in 1972, but was later destroyed in 1976 during the fighting between the PLO and the South Lebanese Army (SLA). In 1978 it was rebuilt again and manned by elements of the Norwegian Battalion serving with UNIFIL. In 1980, Observer Group Lebanon (OGL) assumed responsibility for it. Historically, the area of the El Khiam and Hasbani valleys to the north and the Houla valley to the south have been the main axis for invasion in to Lebanon and Palestinian Territories.


The mission of Team Sierra and OGL within the greater context of UNTSO is to maintain the integrity of theWithdrawal Line (Blue Line), and report on any and all violations or activities that threaten the cease-fire and international peace and security here along the Lebanese/Israeli border, and Israeli Occupied Lebanon, and to support the UNSC resolution 1559, within our mission mandate.

Information Requested

(1) Currently, there are several nationalities that are here on the patrol base with me. I am serving with an Australian, Chinese, Finnish, Austrian, and Irish Officers. They come from various different backgrounds, levels of experience and services (Army, Navy and Air Force) from within their militaries.

(2) I have been here for nine months of a one-year tour of duty. Since I have arrived here in Lebanon, this current incident is the fourth I have seen and by far the most spectacular and intensive.
  • The first was 21 Nov 05, when the Hezbollah tried to capture IDF soldiers from an IDF observation position overlooking the Wazzani river near the town of Ghajjar on the Blue Line. This action was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths of the Hezbollah raiding force.
  • On 01 Feb 06, a young shepherd boy was Killed by an IDF patrol near an abandon goat farm called Bastarra. Hassan Nasrallah (note: Hezbollah's leader) vowed that there would be consequences to this action. Team Sierra was tasked on 2 Feb 06, to assist in the investigation of the incident, and we sent one team to do so while the other team conducted its normal mobile patrolling activities.
  • On 03 Feb 06, a limited engagement took place initiated by the Hezbollah on several of the IDF defensive positions located in occupied Lebanon.
  • Then on 28 May, the Islamic Jihad (PLO) fired rockets from South Lebanon, into Israel, which elicited an immediate aerial bombardment of positions near our patrol base and in the Bekka valley.[/list:u]
    (3) Our Team's normal operational activities are to plan, and execute daily vehicle and foot patrols of the Blue Line area within our area of responsibility. Unfortunately, with the current artillery and aerial bombing campaign being carried out by the IDF/IAF, it is not safe or prudent for us to conduct normal patrol activities. Currently, we are observing and reporting on all activities in our area of responsibility, with specific attention to activities along the Blue Line, which is clearly visible from our hilltop position.

    (4) Team Sierra is currently observing both IDF/IAF and Hezbollah military clashes from our vantage point which has a commanding view of the IDF positions on the Golan mountains to our east and the IDF positions along the Blue Line to our south, as well as, most of the Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base. It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area. On the night of 16 July, at 2125 hrs, a large firefight broke out between the Hezbollah and the IDF near a village called Majidyye and lasted for one hour and 40 minutes.

    (5) Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.

    This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

    What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

    I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some information from the front lines here in south Lebanon.

    Maj Hess-von Kruedener
667  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / E-Mail Casts Doubt on Claims of Israel Targeting U.N. Peacek on: July 27, 2006, 11:21:42 PM
E-Mail Casts Doubt on Claims of Israel Targeting U.N. Peacekeepers
Thursday, July 27, 2006

UNITED NATIONS ? An e-mail sent by a Canadian U.N. observer and obtained by FOX News casts doubt on claims by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the Israeli attack on a U.N. peacekeeper observation post along the Lebanese border was intentional.

The email from Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener warned that the post had come under "unintentional" artillery fire and aerial bombing several times in the previous weeks, and that several Hezbollah positions were in the area of the patrol base.

"It is not safe or prudent for us to conduct normal patrol activities," wrote Kruedener in the July 18th e-mail. "(The artillery and aerial bombing) has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

Kruedener was one of four unarmed U.N. military observers killed in Tuesday's bombing.

"I think that e-mail is very important, because unfortunately these are practically the last words of somebody who eventually paid with his life,? said Israel's U.N. ambassador Daniel Gillerman. ?He's telling his commander that Israel was not targeting them and that there is Hezbollah activity around there."

This comes as the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a statement on Thursday expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of the U.N. post, but fell short of condemnation.

After a day and night of wrangling over a response to Tuesday's attack, all 15 council members agreed on the watered-down statement, which was the first by the Security Council since fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas began on July 12.

In the only reference to the wider conflict, the council expressed its "deep concern for Lebanese and Israeli civilian casualties and sufferings, the destruction of civil infrastructures and the rising number of internally displaced people."

The statement was read at a formal meeting by the current council president, France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere. Unlike press statements, presidential statements become part of the council's official record.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, insisted on dropping any condemnation or allusion to the possibility that Israel deliberately targeted the post in the town of Khiam near the eastern end of the border with Israel.

The initial draft proposed by China would have had the council express shock and distress at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of the U.N. base and condemn "this coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post."

In that draft, China was following Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement late Tuesday that Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately ? an accusation Israel vehemently denies.

Gillerman called the statement "very fair and balanced" and said it was right for the council to adopt it in memory of the four peacekeepers. He expressed "deep regret for the tragic accident," repeated Israel's dismay at Annan's statement, and stressed that "Israel would never, ever target U.N. personnel."

In a Security Council briefing on Wednesday, Assistant Secretary-General Jane Lute said the base came under close Israeli fire 21 times, including 12 hits within 100 meters (109 yards) and four direct hits. U.N. officials in New York and Lebanon repeatedly protested to Israel in the hours before a bomb leveled the building and killed the four observers, she said.

A revised draft dropped the reference to the "apparently deliberate targeting" but kept in the condemnation. It said "the Security Council condemns any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel and emphasizes that any such attacks are unacceptable."

That was still unacceptable to the Americans ? as was a call for a joint Israeli-U.N. investigation into the incident, which Annan called for.

The final text said "the Security Council is deeply shocked and distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon..."

The condemnation of Israel was eliminated, as was the call for a joint investigation.

In the final statement, the council called on Israel "to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this incident, taking into account any relevant material from U.N. authorities, and to make the results public as soon as possible."

The council expressed deep concern about the safety and security of U.N. personnel and stressed that Israel and all concerned parties must comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law which include protecting U.N. personnel. It underlined "the importance of ensuring that U.N. personnel are not the object of attack."

The Security Council also extended condolences to the families of the victims and the governments of Austria, Canada, China and Finland whose peacekeepers were killed in the attack.

The widow of Maj. Kruedner, whose body has still not been recovered from the rubble, demanded an explanation from Israel. Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener, told reporters in Kingston, Ontario, that she believes the attack, which involved precision guided missiles, was intentional. She said her husband told her the base had been fired on for weeks, despite its clear U.N. markings.

Earlier Thursday, when it was unclear whether the council would agree on any statement, China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya warned that the council's failure to act could have an impact on other issues, including its current efforts to agree on a resolution that would make mandatory Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment.

"If we got stuck on this particular issue for political considerations, definitely I think that people will feel frustrated, and definitely I think it will affect smooth cooperation on other important issues, because I think this organization cannot discuss issues on a selective basis," he said.

"We feel that if the Security Council cannot send a strong political message supporting our guys on the ground, it will be very difficult for people to understand," Wang said. "If we do not do anything, I think that the message will be interpreted very negatively."

The Associated Press contributed to this story.,2933,205978,00.html
668  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: July 27, 2006, 04:55:24 PM
Quote from: Winston Churchill
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
669  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cowardly Blending on: July 27, 2006, 12:02:03 AM
Cowardly Blending

Cox & Forkum editorial cartoons
670  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hezbollah: Party Of Cowards on: July 26, 2006, 11:56:24 PM
Hezbollah: Party Of Cowards
Posted 7/25/2006

Global War On Terror: After the standard condemnation of Israel for defending itself, the U.N. humanitarian chief rightly attacked Hezbollah for its "cowardly blending" among civilians. Where have we seen this before?
Speaking to reporters at Cyprus' Larnaca Airport on Monday after a visit to Lebanon to coordinate international relief efforts, Jan Egeland issued the standard denunciation of Israel for using "disproportionate" force and for violating "international humanitarian law."

But he said something else, something that indicates that even the East River elites are beginning to recognize the calling card of terrorists ? the use of civilians and even entire nations as human shields.

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending . . . among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians who bore the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

Members of Hezbollah, like the terrorist groups in Iraq, do not follow the rules of war. They do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. They routinely store their weapons in civilian homes and fire them from civilian neighborhoods. Then they scurry back to their hiding places.

Like the Nazi V-1 and V-2 rockets of World War II, Hezbollah's rockets and missiles are not aimed at military targets, but at the heart of cities and towns. They and their warheads are designed to indiscriminately kill and maim civilians.

As Middle East expert Kenneth Timmerman notes on, the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is raining down on northern Israeli towns, including the port city of Haifa, are different from the ones that the Soviets fired during World War II. Those carried standard explosive warheads.

Hezbollah's Syrian-made 220 mm version is stuffed with 40,000 ball bearings packed into a warhead containing 88 pounds of explosives. A longer-range version, the Chinese-made Raed, has also been supplied to Hezbollah by Iran.

The bearings are expelled at lethal velocity when the missile hits its target. Anyone within a 50-yard radius will be seriously wounded or maimed.

"This kind of rocket gives no one a chance," said Haifa's police chief, Nir Meriash. "I found a woman lying in the street with one of her legs beside her, detached from her body."

At least a half-dozen of the larger Iranian-made Fajr-3 rockets have hit the Haifa area, including the deadly July 16 strike that killed eight railway workers in a train maintenance depot. These carry a 100-pound warhead and, according to Meriash, "are meant to kill civilians."

Hezbollah is no different from the car bombers in Iraq, those who blew themselves up at weddings in Jordan, who bombed Bombay, Madrid and London, or who attacked us on 9-11. They just wreak their carnage at longer range.

Then again, they may be worse, for in addition to targeting civilians indiscriminately, they also use civilians, their homes and their neighborhoods to hide behind.

Civilians are casualties in every war, but arguably the Israelis are at least trying to hit military targets or the infrastructure that supports Hezbollah.
The problem is that Hezbollah has woven itself into the very fabric of Lebanon, masquerading as a political party much as the Nazis did in Germany. The terrorists have in fact converted an entire nation into a human shield.
671  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hezbollah: We Didn't Expect Such Strong Reaction From Israel on: July 25, 2006, 09:37:38 PM
This admission by Hezbollah proves that the only language they understand is force, disproportionate force, overwhelming force. If that is the only language they understand then Israel should use that language. Clear communications are very important. Over the last few years, including the Camp David talks and the Oslo accords as well as the evacuation from Southern Lebanon and Gaza, have been interpreted by Hezbollah as weakness and lack of resolve, things they scorn.

There are valid arguments supporting the evacuation from Southern Lebanon and Gaza: defensible borders and fewer enemies within. But somehow these evacuations were not explained properly to Hezbollah who took them as visible signs of weakness. Unfortunately, it is always civilians who pay the price in blood and suffering for the militarist adventures.

Hezbollah: We Didn't Expect Such Strong Reaction From Israel
Tuesday, July 25, 2006

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect Israel to react so strongly to its capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of the Hezbollah's political arm, also told The Associated Press that his group will not lay down arms.

His comments were the first time that a leader from the Shiite militant group has publicly suggested it miscalculated the consequences of the July 12 cross-border raid in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three were killed.

"The truth is -- let me say this clearly -- we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.

Komati said his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese held in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it has in past prisoner exchanges.

He said Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers from a military area, but charged that Israelis had taken Hezbollah leaders from their homes at night.

"The response is unjustified," Komati said. He added that the Israeli offensive was planned in advance, and Israel was only "waiting for the right time" to carry it out.

Asked about reports that Hezbollah has been firing Iranian-made missiles on Israel, Komati said: "We don't deny nor confirm. We believe where the weapons come from is irrelevant."

Hezbollah leaders previously have denied that Iran was supplying them with weapons.

Komati said Hezbollah has weapons made in various countries, including the United States, France, China and Russia.

"Some of our fighters carry M16s. So you think we buy them from America?" he asked.

Komati said Hezbollah demanded an immediate end to Israeli attacks before agreeing to negotiate and rejected a plan proposed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Beirut.

The plan calls for the deployment of international and Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel before a cease-fire.

"No one can talk about politics while the fire rages, and killings occur," Komati said.

He said he didn't want to talk about the issues to be negotiated ahead of a cease-fire, including the deployment of an international force.

But he was adamant about Hezbollah's refusal to disarm because of what he said was Israeli occupation of Lebanese land, the "threat of Israeli aggression" and the Lebanese held in Israeli jails.

672  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Only in America! on: July 24, 2006, 06:05:53 PM
Why don't they sue Hezbollah in Lebanon?  cheesy

Arab-American Group Sues U.S. For Slow Lebanon Evacuation rolleyes
Monday, July 24, 2006

WASHINGTON  ? A leading Arab-American advocacy group has sued the U.S. government, claiming that it failed to protect American citizens from the fighting in Lebanon.

The lawsuit, filed Monday on behalf of about 30 American citizens by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, alleges that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not take all possible steps to secure the safety and well being of U.S. citizens when fighting erupted between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas.

The committee is asking the U.S. District Court in Detroit to order the U.S. government to request a cease fire and to stop shipments of weapons or any other military support to Israel during the evacuation of U.S. citizens from Lebanon.

"We just feel the U.S. government has put its citizens at risk by supplying missiles when many U.S. citizens are still there," said Nabih Ayad, lead lawyer for the committee and the citizens who were all in Lebanon. Ayad said a few included in the lawsuit are still trying to leave the country.

"We're not trying to interfere with the war, we just want to protect our U.S. citizens and try to bring them back," Ayad said.

U.S. Consul William Gill said most Americans who wanted to leave Lebanon had done so by Sunday and U.S. evacuation efforts were nearly complete. He also urged anyone considering leaving to make up their minds quickly as fighting between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrillas showed no sign of waning.

About 12,000 Americans have been evacuated from Lebanon, officials said. Some 25,000 U.S. citizens were believed to be in Lebanon at the start of hostilities.,2933,205348,00.html
673  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hezbollah: 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees on: July 24, 2006, 05:54:20 PM
This is certainly refreshing to hear. That the UN recognizes that the Hezbollah is acting improperly by putting civilians in danger is a great step forward in the war against terrorism.

U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees
Monday, July 24, 2006

LARNACA, Cyprus ? The U.N. humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah on Monday of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.

The U.N. humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah on Monday of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.

The militant group has built bunkers and tunnels near the Israeli border to shelter weapons and fighters, and its members easily blend in among civilians.

Jan Egeland spoke with reporters at the Larnaca airport in Cyprus late Monday after a visit to Lebanon on his mission to coordinate an international aid effort. On Sunday he had toured the rubble of Beirut's southern suburbs, a once-teeming Shiite district where Hezbollah had its headquarters.

During that visit he condemned the killing and wounding of civilians by both sides, and called Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law."

On Monday he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, triggering fierce fighting from both sides.

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

"We need a cessation of hostilities because this is a war where civilians are paying the price," said Egeland, who was heading to Israel.

Hezbollah guerrillas crossed into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, triggering fierce fighting from both sides.

At least 384 people have been killed in Lebanon, including 20 soldiers and 11 Hezbollah fighters, according to security officials. At least 600,000 Lebanese have fled their homes, according to the World Health Organization. One estimate by Lebanon's finance minister putting the number at 750,000, nearly 20 percent of the population.

Israel's death toll stands at 36, with 17 people killed by Hezbollah rockets and 19 soldiers killed in the fighting.

During his visit to Lebanon, Egeland issued an urgent call for US$150 million (euro118.74 million) to help Lebanon through the next three months.

He said the first large U.N. convoy of humanitarian aid is expected to depart Beirut on Wednesday for the southern city of Tyre. Similar convoys will be scheduled every second day after that.,2933,205352,00.html
674  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: Bowser
Of course Israelis have the right to self defence, but not sure if Israel has the right to take war outside its territory

By this reasoning, the Allies should not have bombed and invaded Japan or Germany in WWII, they should have just stayed in their own territory until Japan and Germany got tired of invading. Does not sound practical to me. Sad

Quote from: Bowser
No fear makes terrorism impossible by definition !  

If I'm fearless, then no Katyusha rocket can fall on my house? Defies logic. huh
675  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 10:01:34 PM
Quote from: xtremekali
But when you bring up the treatment of how the Anglos treated the native tribes.  Then I will speak up.  When you talk about genocide and the stealing of land then the Anglos are experts.

Take it from Shis Inde.

Myke (Pastme-oma)

Yes, I see that you do speak up and you have every right to do so. What I don't understand is what it has to do with anything I said. I said that Cohen is mistaken about history and I used America an example. I could have used any other piece of land conquered by invaders. England, for example, invaded by just about everybody from Romans to Danes. I could have used Spain invaded by Moors, I could have used Mesopotamia invaded by Turks, I could have used Hungary invaded by Huns, I could have used Russia invaded by Vikings. But it just so happens that Mr. Cohen works in Washington for the Washington Post so it made sense to stick to close quarters.

From the piece I deduce that Mr. Cohen is attacking Israel based on a flawed view of history or possibly by a willful misrepresentation of history and making that statement was my only objective.  Although, as I said earlier, you have very right to bash Anglos if that is your preference, I fail to see what it has to do with my post.

What is "Shis Inde?"

What is "Pastme-oma?"
676  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: xtremekali

I hope you are not suggesting that the Israeli's use genicide as a tactic against their Arab neighbors.  Like the Anglo's used against the native tribes of the America's.


I don't think the colonials "used genocide against the native tribes of the Americas" but I don't care to argue the point at this time. I just wanted to show that Cohen misunderstands or misrepresents history as a way to attack Israel. Israel is not a mistake.
677  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 07:07:57 PM
Quote from: ppulatie
I think that Captainccs was just trying to show the faulty thinking of Cohen.

Thank you for clearing that up for Myke "xtremekali."
678  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: Richard Cohen
[Israel] is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

By Cohen's measure, America was also a mistake, the native Americans took quite a toll on the colonials. The Washington Post would not exist if the American Founding Fathers had taken Cohen's advice and gone back where they came from. Where does that leave Cohen's view of history?
679  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 23, 2006, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: Bowser
Regarding the war on terror, I believe that the best way to fight it is quite simply by fearing nothing.

Been there, done that, didn't work.

Quote from: George Santayana
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

For almost 2000 years starting with the destruction of the temple Jews feared nothing. They took what the world had to dish out believing that god would protect and provide. But in the 1900s they got tired of this attitude because it was not producing visible beneficial results. The young rebelled against their elders in the Warsaw ghetto.  Against overwhelming odds they took on the NAZI army of extermination. That worked better, they now have a state to call their own and they are not going to roll over and die for some mythical appeasing "higher consciousness" that seems to exist only in the minds of their adversaries.

Quote from: George Santayana
There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval.

Katyusha rockets raining down from the heavens is not enjoyable therefore we have to stop it from happening.
680  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 22, 2006, 05:52:40 PM
What is a "mass market global military war" anyway?  smiley

Do you consider Israel's current defensive action a "mass market global military war?"

I don't think so, it is a legitimate self defense action.

For the record, I'm not a practitioner of martial arts.
681  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. rushes precision-guided bombs to Israel on: July 22, 2006, 03:38:07 PM
Report: U.S. rushes precision-guided bombs to Israel

By Reuters

The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing U.S. officials who spoke on Friday on condition of anonymity, the Times said the decision to ship the weapons quickly came after relatively little debate within the administration, and noted in its report that its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others who could perceive Washington as aiding Israel in the manner that Iran has armed Hezbollah.

The munitions are actually part of a multimillion-dollar arms-sale package approved last year which Israel is able to tap when it needs to, the officials told the Times. But some military officers said the request for expedited delivery was unusual and indicated that Israel has many targets it plans to hit in Lebanon.

The arms shipment has not been announced publicly. The officials who described the administration's decision to rush the munitions included employees of two government agencies, one of whom described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel, the Times said.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, the newspaper said, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But one U.S. official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an "emergency resupply" of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the Yom Kippur War, according to the Times report.

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington told the Times: "We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel's defense acquisitions."
682  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WW3 on: July 21, 2006, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (said)
"Arab and Islamic countries... do not even bother to condemn the fact that Muslims are being butchered by non-believers. This is a historic catastrophe," he fumed.

Right, only believers are allowed to butcher Muslims as is patently evident in what is happening now and in the past in Iraq and many other Muslin nations. And, of course, Muslims are allowed to butcher non-Muslims anywhere in the world as was evident in 9/11, USS Cole, Argentina, the US Embassy in Beirut, India, Indonesia, Russia, London, Madrid, and very specially in Israel.

The Sunni rejection of Hezbollah clearly shows how dangerous they think the Iranian backed militia is for them, not just for infidels. As often happens in politics, we are seeing strange bedfellows, Sunnis backing Israel against the Shia Heizbollah.
683  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Editorial: Self-defence is a universal right on: July 19, 2006, 02:21:06 PM
Editorial: Self-defence is a universal right
The Australian
July 20, 2006

Israel's critics are too often guilty of selective outrage

THE tyranny of distance still afflicts Australia, or at least certain segments of the Australian commentariat. For from a distance of nearly 15,000km, many local media outlets look at the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and see a decidedly one-sided affair. Last week, The Sydney Morning Herald headlined a front-page story declaring Lebanon "UNDER SIEGE" by what its correspondent called "Israeli attacks causing soaring civilian death tolls in Gaza and Lebanon", setting the tone for the paper's coverage of the conflict. Meanwhile, at the ABC on Tuesday night, Tony Jones badgered former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak over Israel's refusal to call a ceasefire, while the UK Independent's Robert Fisk regularly rants against Israel on the nation's broadcaster. Yet the closer one gets to the front lines, the less Israel cops the blame. In the Middle East, the normally anti-Israeli Saudi Arabian Government has said Hezbollah bears "full responsibility for . . . ending the crisis". In Lebanon, there is even more support for Israel's actions. On Tuesday night's 7:30 Report, of all places, several Lebanese officials placed blame for the current conflict on Hezbollah ? not Israel. The question that comes to mind, then, is whether those who effectively suggest Israel should meekly accept its neighbours' attacks actually support the Jewish state's right to exist?

It's a legitimate question. Certainly Israel should not be immune to criticism. But if Israel's right to exist is accepted, then the exercise of its corresponding right to protect itself should not be treated with such outrage. Since Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has become more powerful in southern Lebanon, thanks to its friends in Iran and Syria. During this time it has also subjected Israel to regular harassment ? even as Israel has, until the kidnapping of two of its soldiers last week, been restrained in retaliation. One wonders how those who criticise Israel's response to Hezbollah would urge the Howard Government to respond were a foreign enemy seizing cops and dropping artillery shells into Balmain in Sydney or Fitzroy in Melbourne. Those who condemn images of Israeli girls writing messages on artillery shells are rarely if ever heard denouncing the relentless propaganda that brainwashes Palestinian children to hate their Jewish neighbours and celebrate the deeds of suicide bombers. Meanwhile, the ancient idea of proportionate response has lately become a rhetorical cudgel for those who would hobble Israel. Yet in taking the possibility of overwhelming retaliation off the table, the doctrine encourages bad behaviour on the part of Israel's enemies who know they would never be called to account.

In retaliating against Lebanon and evicting that country's Shia interlopers, Israel is simply behaving as a rational actor. And in doing so it strikes a blow for the principle that all states should be treated similarly. This is the only way forward for Israel in dealing with the Palestinians: if Hamas wants to be recognised as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, then the world should go along with this and no longer accept "rogue state" claims that Qassam rockets and suicide terrorist missions launched from its territory are not its responsibility. Violent internal politics or historic grievances about dispossession and occupation do not excuse bad behaviour. The situation is still fluid in the Middle East. And any attack on Tel Aviv by Hezbollah would radically change the equation. But the quick defeat of Hezbollah ? and by extension its mad backers in Tehran ? would not just be a win for Israel but for Lebanon and the region as well.,20867,19847517-601,00.html
684  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Editorial: Israel's response is self-defence on: July 19, 2006, 01:14:25 PM
Editorial: Israel's response is self-defence
The Australian
July 17, 2006

Lebanon should help disarm Hezbollah guerillas

IF there was ever any doubt that Israel's response to Hezbollah's hail of rockets was proportionate to the threat they pose to Israeli security, it has been dispelled by attacks launched from southern Lebanon deep into Israel. With Hezbollah guerillas apparently well-armed thanks to money and material from Iran and Syria, Israel has been obliged to strike back in self-defence and to protect its civilian population in the north, including Haifa and Tiberias, a city hitherto thought to have been beyond the range of Hezbollah's rockets. Reports that Hezbollah has an armoury of thousands of rockets capable of reaching Israel's heartlands - and conceivably its capital, Tel Aviv - leave it no option because, it's worth repeating, Israel is facing an implacable enemy that denies its right to exist and wants to wipe it from the map.

Hezbollah appears to have little sympathy for its host country, Lebanon. By attacking Israel - no doubt taking the opportunity to strike by snatching two Israeli troopers while Israel was preoccupied with its mission to free a kidnapped soldier in Gaza to the south - Hezbollah has invited a red-blooded reaction. No nation can sit back watching missiles rain down on its territory. Retaliation with a purpose has been Israel's modus operandi. It has hit key highways and Beirut airport to make it difficult for Syria to resupply or reinforce Hezbollah, while also attacking the source of the rockets and those who are launching them. If that includes the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah - reported yesterday to have been wounded in an Israeli air raid, reports denied by Hezbollah - then that's the brutal reality of what Israel must do to survive.

Moreover, Israel is doing Lebanon a favour by containing Hezbollah, a parasitic organisation that has outstayed its welcome in the new but fragile democracy that is Lebanon. Better late than never, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora says there can be no sovereign Lebanese state without disarming Hezbollah. Sadly, the Lebanese Government has been unwilling to take the hard steps necessary to achieve this end. Lebanon's army of about 70,000 soldiers is far superior to Hezbollah's guerilla force, estimated at about 6000, but does not appear to have the will to tackle the task of ridding Lebanon of its unwelcome guests. And given that the Lebanese army could spilt along sectarian lines if ordered to disarm Hezbollah, Mr Siniora should thank Israel further: he gets to keep a relatively unified army intact, while also watching Hezbollah arms and missile sites being destroyed, and its influence on Lebanese politics collaterally reduced.

Of course, disarming Hezbollah from within would be no easy task. With 12 MPs and two cabinet ministers, Hezbollah is a strong political entity. Nevertheless, if Lebanon is going to make progress and be embraced by the international community as a responsible and independent nation, it must face up to the malign influence of Hezbollah and take away the group's weapons - or at least help Israel to do so. Otherwise Lebanon will remain a hostage to the guerillas and their principal backers, Iran and Syria.

Israel's defensible military response coincides with yesterday's meeting of world leaders in St Petersburg for the annual G8 summit. As might be expected, US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin have called for restraint, and the other six leaders will probably fall into line. Coupled with the European Union's routine condemnation of Israel's response to aggression from its enemies, the opinion of the G8 should not deflect Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Israeli Government, which has resolved to make it clear to Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups that there is a heavy price to pay for cross-border raids, rocket attacks and the taking of hostages.

Mr Bush's call for restraint - while making it clear Israel has the right to defend itself - is partly prompted by a desire to see Lebanon remain a friend of the West and his hopes the country can strengthen its democracy. But what Mr Bush and his G8 colleagues should be doing is calling for Lebanon to abide by UN Resolution 1559 to disarm Hezbollah. The G8 leaders could also reflect on comments from the most powerful Arab country, Saudi Arabia, which last week accused Hezbollah of "uncalculated adventures" that could bring destruction to Arab nations. Hezbollah elements should "shoulder the full responsibility for this irresponsible behaviour and that the burden of ending the crisis falls on them alone". Stern words, indeed, and a guide for the rest of the world's nations - especially those that jump at the opportunity to attack Israel's right to self-defence.,20867,19809776-7583,00.html
685  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / ?Puede haber libertad donde hay miedo? on: July 19, 2006, 01:12:33 AM
?Puede haber libertad donde hay miedo?
por Ana Julia Jatar

Thomas Jefferson dijo: "Cuando la gente le teme al gobierno hay tiran?a, cuando el gobierno le teme a la gente, hay libertad".

La calidad de un gobierno afecta de manera fundamental la calidad de nuestras vidas. Hoy muchos venezolanos se refugian en la "paz" de su quehacer diario con la errada esperanza de que el Gobierno no impacte su felicidad personal. Pero les tengo malas noticias: s? la impacta y de manera fundamental. No me voy a referir a la ineficacia gubernamental que nos ha condenado al deterioro constante de nuestra calidad de vida: el colapso del viaducto en la autopista Caracas-La Guaira como s?mbolo del resto de los colapsos. Hoy me voy a concentrar en el perverso impacto que tiene sobre nuestra realidad cotidiana el miedo que sentimos por la actitud del gobierno y la libertad que se lleva consigo.

El miedo se ha incrustado en la vida de los venezolanos.

Tenemos miedo a una muerte violenta en la calle, lo cual puede ser atribuido a la ineficiencia del Gobierno, por lo que no es el tema de este art?culo. Sin embargo, el miedo a perder un trabajo si decimos algo contra el r?gimen, s? es parte de mi argumento. Tambi?n lo es el que no nos den los d?lares en Cadivi porque nos consideran opositores al Gobierno, el p?nico que el Seniat nos cierre el negocio por alguna arbitraria regla, a que nos acusen de traidores a la patria porque un gobierno for?neo financie nuestra actividad disidente, a que nos secuestren unos bandidos con uniforme, a que nos quiten nuestras casas o tierras impunemente, a que nos boten de nuestros trabajos en sector p?blico porque firmamos la petici?n al refer?ndum presidencial, o a que tal como nos recuerda todos los d?as el Presidente, venga el "imperio del norte" y nos invada. Y es que este gobierno, a veces por ineficiencia o primordialmente por estrategia, maneja miedo como pol?tica de estado. ?Por qu? ser?? ?Para qu?? Puede haber varias interpretaciones pero se me ocurre que la cosa va por el camino siguiente.

Hay fil?sofos que han dicho ?Hobbes, en el siglo XVII, ha sido el m?s connotado de ellos? que la pol?tica est? basada en el deseo del poder y en el miedo. De acuerdo con este enfoque, el ser humano est? dominado por sus pasiones y de ?stas, la m?s fuerte es el miedo. Por ello, seg?n Hobbes, estar?amos dispuestos sacrificar parte de nuestra libertad ante una autoridad que pudiera, de alguna manera, ?liberarnos? de nuestros propios temores. Muchos tiranos han entendido esta faceta de la naturaleza humana y han azuzado el terror para eternizarse en el poder. Algo de esto se siente en Venezuela.

Bajo este esquema, la libertad se entiende en su sentido negativo: como el ?rea en la cual podemos actuar sin la interferencia de otros, sin sustanciales privaciones de libertad f?sica . As?, el tirano nos protege y podemos ser libres dentro del espacio que nos permita esa protecci?n. Llevado al extremo, soy libre si el gobierno no me encarcela. Es por esta debilidad filos?fica, que la concepci?n moderna de la libertad implica tambi?n la existencia de la libertad positiva. Es decir, la posibilidad de actuar de manera tal que podamos tomar control de nuestras vidas y lograr la realizaci?n de nuestros prop?sitos.

Veamos como esto nos afecta.

?Es libre una persona secuestrada? Obviamente que no, pero ?es libre si le dejan la puerta abierta? Pensemos...

ya no habr?a restricciones f?sicas a su movimiento seg?n establece el concepto de la libertad negativa... pero, ?puede esa persona a pesar del miedo , lograr la realizaci?n de sus prop?sitos? Posiblemente no. ?Es libre el medio de comunicaci?n que se autocensura?
En realidad no hay ninguna restricci?n expl?cita a su expresi?n, se le deja operar y salir con las noticias todos los d?as, pero... ?es libre para la realizaci?n de sus prop?sitos? ?Es libre la persona que va a una concentraci?n a favor del gobierno por miedo a que la boten de su trabajo? Nadie le coloc? unas esposas en las mu?ecas para obligarlo f?sicamente a asistir al acto pol?tico en cuesti?n, pero ?es libre? ?Es libre el empresario que pide anonimato al financiar un acto de la oposici?n? ?Es libre el que va a votar y lo hace por el candidato del gobierno porque teme represalias?
?Sobre todo si en su ser m?s ?ntimo, teme que el voto no sea secreto? En resumen, ?es libre aquel que deja de hacer lo que considera necesario para lograr un prop?sito propio, por miedo y no porque haya un impedimento f?sico o legal para hacerlo? Seg?n el concepto positivo de la libertad, no lo es.

Para tener idea de la magnitud del espacio de libertad que hemos perdido como sociedad, los invito a que hagamos un ejercicio. Imagin?monos c?mo cambiar?a nuestra conducta si se nos garantizara que al tocar un bot?n se nos librar?a de todos nuestros temores.

?Qui?nes y cu?ntos se acercar?an a tocarlo? ?C?mo cambiar?a su conducta luego de hacerlo? ?C?mo reaccionar?a el gobierno? Los dejo con esa imagen para la reflexi?n de comienzos de semana.
686  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / G8 Statement on the Middle East on: July 17, 2006, 01:44:36 AM
G8 Statement on the Middle East
July 16, 2006

Today, we the G8 Leaders express our deepening concern about the situation in the Middle East, in particular the rising civilian casualties on all sides and the damage to infrastructure. We are united in our determination to pursue efforts to restore peace. We offer our full support for the U.N. Secretary General's mission presently in the region.

The root cause of the problems in the region is the absence of a comprehensive Middle East peace.

The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. In Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, and undermining the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.

These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.

It is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government.

The most urgent priority is to create conditions for a cessation of violence that will be sustainable and lay the foundation for a more permanent solution. This, in our judgment, requires:
  • The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed;
  • An end to the shelling of Israeli territory;
  • An end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
  • The release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.
  • The framework for resolving these disputes is already established by international consensus.[/list:u]In Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1680 address the underlying conditions that gave rise to this crisis. We urge the U.N. Security Council to develop a plan for the full implementation of these resolutions.

    We extend to the Government of Lebanon our full support in asserting its sovereign authority over all its territory in fulfillment of UNSCR 1559. This includes the deployment of Lebanese Armed Forces to all parts of the country, in particular the South, and the disarming of militias. We would welcome an examination by the U.N. Security Council of the possibility of an international security/monitoring presence.

    We also support the initiation of a political dialogue between Lebanese and Israeli officials on all issues of concern to both parties. In addition, we will support the economic and humanitarian needs of the Lebanese people, including the convening at the right time of a donors conference.

    In Gaza, the disengagement of Israel provided an opportunity to move a further step toward a two state solution under the Road Map. All Palestinian parties should accept the existence of Israel, reject violence, and accept all previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map. For its part, Israel needs to refrain from unilateral acts that could prejudice a final settlement and agree to negotiate in good faith.

    Our goal is an immediate end to the current violence, a resumption of security cooperation and of a political engagement both among Palestinians and with Israel. This requires:
    • An end to terrorist attacks against Israel;
    • A resumption of the efforts of President Abbas to ensure that the Palestinian government complies with the Quartet principles;
    • Immediate expansion of the temporary international mechanism for donors established under the direction of the Quartet;
    • Israeli compliance with the Agreement on Movement and Access of November 2005 and action on other steps to ease the humanitarian plight of the people of Gaza and the West Bank;
    • Resumption of security cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis;
    • Action to ensure that the Palestinian security forces comply with Palestinian law and with the Road Map, so that they are unified and effective in providing security for the Palestinian people;
    • Resumption of dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli political officials.[/list:u]These proposals are our contribution to the international effort underway to restore calm to the Middle East and provide a basis for progress towards a sustainable peace, in accordance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Quartet will continue to play a central role. The G8 welcomes the positive efforts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as other responsible regional actors to return the region to peace. We look forward to the report of the Secretary General's mission to the Security Council later this week which we believe could provide a framework for achieving our common objectives.
687  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lebanon on: July 16, 2006, 05:55:38 PM
Since my friend Craft Dog likes to talk about politics I think it is appropriate to post these thoughts about Lebanon. The post was originally a comment I made at a Venezuela blog to a totally unrelated post that got to talk about the war in the Middle East. The post features a curious video titled: "The Extremely Abridged History of Venezuela."

My comments:

Lebanon is not the problem for Israel. Iran, Syria and their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah are the problem.

If you take a good look at what is being targeted in Lebanon you will realize that it is an effort to isolate and destroy Hezbollah. The targets besides Hezbollah proper are communications: airports, bridges, oil storage, gas stations, cell phone towers, radar and such. Israel is trying to prevent Iran and Syria from resupplying Hezbollah.

Unfortunately for the Lebanese, they have not had an independent country for decades. They have been occupied by Palestinians, Israel and Syria in turn. Until Lebanon can regain its full independence and that includes getting rid of Hezbollah, it will suffer from foreign intervention, it will continue to have to live with surrogate wars started by Iran and Syria.

Jordan and Egypt have learned to live in peace with Israel. Why can't Lebanon? Because Iran and Syria don't want it to and Lebanon is too weak to have its own way. If Jordan can control its Palestinian citizens, why can't Lebanon? Same answer, they are too weak.

You might have noticed that there has been no great international outcry for Israel to stop. This would be very strange indeed if it didn't have a realistic explanation. Not even the Arab summit in Cairo managed to call for a ceasefire and for a condemnation of Israel. The reason, at least for me, is clear: everyone except Iran and Syria would be very happy if Hamas and Hezbollah were destroyed because they, along with al Qaeda, are destabilizing the whole world.

Please be clear about my position. When it comes to the actual fighting, I'm on the side of Israel, no doubt about it. When it comes to the international scene, I would like nothing better than peace in the Middle East. Egypt and Jordan have managed to make peace with Israel. Turkey is most happy to trade with Israel. I guess we have to look at the motivation of Iran and Syria to keep the flames of war alive. How do they profit from it? Let's face it, Iran is trying to face down the Great Satan via its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. This is in part a distraction for the G8 meeting so they have something else to worry about besides Iran's nuclear ambitions. Clearly the Group of 8 is not buying it.

Coming back home (Venezuela), Chavez blames the Great Satan for all our ills and the Arabs blame Israel for all their ills. How is one different from the other? If Chavez is wrong then so are the Arabs. If the Arabs are right, then so is Chavez. We have to take responsibility for our actions and our destiny. We cannot blame others for everything and make progress at the same time. We make progress when we take responsibility for our lives and work to improve them.

Sorry about the long post but I had to get it off my chest. Thank you for listening.
688  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / ?A qui?n apunta con su rifle ruso? on: June 19, 2006, 06:07:32 PM
?A qui?n apunta con su rifle ruso?

escrito por Ana Julia Jatar | 19/06/2006 | 08:25:19 am | D?a a D?a
Publicado en el Diario El Nacional edici?n del d?a 19/6/06 p?g. A/8

Ver a un presidente vestido de militar con un rifle en las manos, le provoca escalofr?os en la espina dorsal a cualquiera. La semana pesada, el presidente Ch?vez, lo hizo y con sa?a. Como si el control absoluto que impone sobre todos lo poderes p?blicos no le fuera suficiente, con la destreza de qui?n fuera entrenado en las fuerzas armadas para matar, empu?? su reci?n adquirido rifle ruso y volvi? a amenazarnos.

Como siempre, las amenazas las dirigi? a otros supuestos aliados del imperialismo yanqui.

Esta vez le toc? a los medios de comunicaci?n.

Ya conocemos el juego, bajo la excusa de que vamos a ser invadidos por el enemigo del norte, este Presidente nos roba la libertad, se arma hasta los dientes y permite que la ineficiencia y la corrupci?n de su gobierno acaben con el pa?s.

Para entender hacia donde, de verdad, verdad, apunta el Presidente de Venezuela con su juguete ruso, nos basta recordar lo que dijera en Fuerte Tiuna en noviembre de 2004. En esa ocasi?n sentenci? al pueblo venezolano: "En esta nueva etapa el que est? conmigo, est? conmigo y el que no est? conmigo, est? contra m?". As? pues, su batalla no es contra el imperio del norte, su guerra es aqu? en la patria de Bol?var y sus armas nos apuntan a nosotros. Adem?s, eso de enca?onar a venezolanos no debe extra?arnos; lo viene haciendo desde 1992 cuando dio un golpe de Estado contra un gobierno democr?ticamente electo.

Por ello, se?or Presidente ?a qui?n cree usted que sigue enga?ando? ?Si ya usted se quit? la careta! Adem?s, cuando usted, rifle ruso en mano, amenaza con cerrar los medios de comunicaci?n ?cree que es original?
Ni lo piense, ya esa pel?cula la hemos visto en muchas dictaduras y lo del rifle por cierto...

S?lo en los militares y de derecha. Que lo vea el mundo de la izquierda intelectual al que usted quiere conquistar con sus mentiras: usted es un militar que se est? armando para reprimir al pueblo venezolano, no para defenderlo.

Usted llama "caballos de Troya del imperialismo" a los medios de comunicaci?n ?Por qu?? ?No ser? que le irrita que por ellos nos enteremos del diluvio de descontento que existe en el pa?s? Quiz?s ni usted mismo quiere que le recuerden un peque?o detalle; ese datico de la ecuaci?n que le sobra en sus delirios de grandeza: la realidad. Usted vive feliz en su mezquina farsa de salvador de un pueblo, pueblo del cual cada d?a se distancia m?s. Usted lo sabe.

Usted sabe que el pa?s est? encendido. Todos los d?as su gobierno revolucionario utiliza la fuerza para "reprimir" un promedio de tres protestas contra la ineficacia y la corrupci?n de su gesti?n. Perd?n, ?usted arma a sus militares para defendernos de qui?n, me dijo?
Se?or Presidente, por supuesto que usted tiene al pueblo venezolano que protesta y a los medios de comunicaci?n en la mira. Todo lo que no puede controlar a su antojo lo saca de quicio.

Los medios de comunicaci?n reportaron durante el ?ltimo mes decenas de protestas.

Por ejemplo, se reprimi? una protesta en el troncal 10 que conduce hacia Brasil porque la gente ped?a agua potable. Por all? por su tierra en Sabaneta protestaron por la detenci?n arbitraria por parte del ej?rcito de 30 campesinos. En Matur?n, intervino la polic?a para controlar las protestas por falta de energ?a el?ctrica. En el este de Caracas, en Petare y en el oeste, en el Para?so los transportistas trancaron varias veces el tr?nsito porque no se calan m?s que los maten como perros. Los estudiantes de la Universidad de los Andes tambi?n fueron reprimidos mientras el ministro Jesse Chac?n los acusaba de desestabilizadores. En Caracas, Polimiranda abort? otra protesta estudiantil.

En Carabobo el pueblo sali? a las calles frustrado por las incumplidas promesas de vivienda. En G?ig?e y en Caracas ante las oficinas de Conavi sucedi? lo mismo. Los reclusos de la c?rcel El Dorado hicieron huelga de hambre mientras que en la c?rcel de El Junquito mor?an tres reos. Por cierto, van 117 muertos presos muertos y 244 heridos en nuestras c?rceles en lo que va de a?o. Y la lista de los descontentos en los ?ltimos 30 d?as contin?a, pero se me acaba el espacio.

Recordemos para finalizar que debido a su constante pr?dica de guerra y confrontaci?n, esta patria de Bol?var se ha convertido en la m?s violenta del hemisferio, se mueren por razones violentas cuarenta y cuatro venezolanos todos los d?as y muchos de ellos son por enfrentamientos con la polic?a y la Guardia Nacional. Y se?or Presidente, disculpe, pero sigo sin entender ?Usted arma a sus militares para defendernos de qui?n?
689  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / El chavismo contra Ch?vez on: June 18, 2006, 07:21:24 PM
Marta Colomina // El chavismo contra Ch?vez

ULTIMAMENTE CHAVEZ luce tenso y malhumorado en sus intervenciones p?blicas, se?al inequ?voca de que las cosas andan mal por fuera y por dentro. Los traspi?s de su disparatada pol?tica internacional han diluido el efecto de los petrod?lares y desnudado su r?gimen intervencionista y totalitario. El resultado de las elecciones peruanas y el feliz reacomodo de la CAN sin tan disgregador influjo han constituido un mazazo a su enfermizo narcisismo.

Que el vicepresidente boliviano haya dicho que "Evo reactiv? la CAN" y que para colmo haya enviado una carta a Mr. Danger solicitando una extensi?n del r?gimen de aranceles para Bolivia, es una bofetada a la maltrecha vanidad de HCHF.

Ch?vez enfrenta un cisma en su avariciosa grey, m?s interesada en acelerar el crecimiento del bot?n que en construir una doctrina a trav?s de la cual pueda justificarse su naufragante revoluci?n. Por eso la furia contra dos canales de TV que muestran la corrupci?n galopante del r?gimen y las cientos de protestas diarias de un pueblo insatisfecho. En Fondafa (con morosidad superior al 30%) han detectado 402 casos de corrupci?n sin que ning?n pez gordo haya sido sancionado (ni el amigo ?ntimo de la hoy ministra que habr?a extorsionado a sus "cu?ados") y el millonario cr?dito a la tomatera de Barinas desapareci? entre la ineptitud y la corrupci?n. De corrupto, el destituido Albarr?n pas? a ser canonizable por orden de HCHF, a pesar de que desaparecieron miles de millones del Caaez. El descabezamiento de Vel?squez Alvaray o la imputaci?n de la abogada Bigott, solo son muestras de la guerra por el abundante bot?n y el nerviosismo de muchos ante la duda de si este r?gimen aguantar? el tiempo suficiente para terminar de vaciar las arcas p?blicas.

Por el control del poder y a la sombra de tanta riqueza pugnan soterradamente el "chavismo con Ch?vez" y el "chavismo sin Ch?vez". Es decir, el "qu?tate t? pa' ponerme yo" que Argenis advierte desde Barinas a su hermano Hugo. A falta de una teor?a revolucionaria que a estas alturas ni siquiera el "comandante" luce interesado en construir obsesionado como est? por conquistar el continente a los realazos los "revolucionarios" se han alineado de acuerdo a sus apetencias e intereses. As? el "chavismo sin Ch?vez" lo integran quienes quieren seguir con el r?gimen represivo y autoritario del teniente coronel, pero sin las entorpecedoras monsergas de que "ser rico es malo" y, peor a?n, ese af?n por regresar al trueque y abandonar los d?lares de Mr. Danger. El "chavismo sin Ch?vez" est? integrado por militares y civiles, hoy milmillonarios en bienes internos y externos y en cuentas bancarias regadas por todo el mundo, incluida China, por si acaso. En realidad constituyen un chavismo contra Ch?vez, previendo que a partir del 2007 al hombre de Sabaneta se le ocurra confiscar todo lo que no pertenezca a su peque?o c?rculo de amigos y a la familia real barinesa hoy due?a de tierras y con evidentes signos de riqueza, como hizo Fidel en Cuba.

El m?s genuino "chavismo contra Ch?vez" est? bastante m?s oculto y explotar? masivamente, harto de tanta miseria y enga?o. Est? integrado por los cientos de miles que atemorizados por la represi?n del r?gimen que le dicen al encuestador que a su barrio no llega la polic?a, que le han asesinado ya a dos hijos; que est? sin trabajo, que hace seis a?os le prometieron una casita y a?n no se la han dado y aqu? a?ade lo que le dicta su temor, a sabiendas de que miente: "porque Ch?vez no lo sabe". Es el prototipo con franela roja que tranca la v?a de Conavi en Las Mercedes o el paso por la Regional del Centro, o rodea Miraflores con pancartas o va a los medios privados a gritar su protesta. A este "chavismo" se unen los miles de campesinos estafados, los desempleados y hasta los c?rculos bolivarianos que esta semana le dieron un ultim?tum a HCHF para que solucione el grav?simo problema de la inseguridad personal y de la criminalidad desatada. Los mismos que le gritaron con valiente irreverencia: "Ya basta de whisky y aire acondi cionado".

Obsesionado por una imaginaria invasi?n yanqui, de cada 80 bol?vares que dilapida en equipos militares apenas dedica un bol?var para luchar contra la inseguridad, como demostr? el perseguido pol?tico Leopoldo L?pez, mientras "los guerrilleros de las FARC esconden en Venezuela a los secuestrados, y las autoridades de Venezuela lo saben", seg?n denuncia el gobernador del Norte de Santander de Colombia. De los 1.810 secuestros que se han registrado en el campo venezolano en los ?ltimos 47 a?os, 1.505 casos han ocurrido durante el gobierno de Ch?vez, lo que significa un aumento del m?s del mil por ciento. Los sicarios colombianos que asesinaron a la se?ora Di Luca, hija del jefe del Core 5, tienen c?dula venezolana y en las redadas para su captura, los cuerpos de seguridad se han encontrado con cientos de haitianos, colombianos, ecuatorianos, etc., con antecedentes penales en su pa?s, todos con c?dula venezolana e inscritos en el RE.

Sin embargo, de nada le servi r?n las Smartmatic denunciadas en EEUU, ni el RE envenenado, ni las sentencias del TSJ, porque cerrada como ha sido por ?l la salida electoral, HCHF saldr? de Miraflores por la acci?n pol?tica del descontento popular instigada por el numeroso batall?n del "chavismo contra Ch?vez".
690  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / L?deres iberoamericanos critican populismo de Ch?vez on: June 18, 2006, 07:05:37 PM
L?deres iberoamericanos critican populismo de Ch?vez
El Universal , 18 de Junio de 2006
Tampa.- La batalla por preservar en Am?rica Latina los ''valores y las instituciones democr?ticas'' reclama ''evitar a toda costa'' el modelo fallido del populismo, seg?n l?deres iberoamericanos reunidos en un foro pol?tico en Tampa (Florida).

''Hay que evitar a toda costa en Am?rica Latina el populismo y mantener la defensa de la democracia, que es la gran conquista de nuestra regi?n'', dijo a Efe el ex presidente de Colombia, Andr?s Pastrana, actual embajador de su pa?s en Estados Unidos.

Pastrana fue uno de los ponentes en el debate titulado ''Di?logos sobre Latinoam?rica'', que tuvo lugar el fin de semana dentro del foro del Consejo Espa?a-EEUU, que concluy? el s?bado en esta ciudad del suroeste de Florida.

Se trata de un foro anual que busca intensificar las relaciones bilaterales e intercambiar puntos de vista sobre Am?rica Latina y en el que tambi?n participaron, entre otros, el secretario de Comercio de EEUU, Carlos Gutierrez, el ministro espa?ol de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel ?ngel Moratinos, el senador republicano, Mel Mart?nez, y directivos de empresas de ambas naciones.

''No s?lo los candidatos populistas est?n ganando las elecciones'', sino que tambi?n lo hacen ''los partidos de centro, de moderaci?n y madurez pol?tica'', asegur? Pastrana en relaci?n a las ?ltimos comicios celebrados en la regi?n.

Hay un movimiento, insisti?, ''hacia el centro y la moderaci?n'', que rechaza ''el mensaje de ruptura'' del presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Ch?vez, y su pretensi?n de ''dividir el hemisferio entre el norte y el sur''. ''No lo vamos a aceptar'', subray?.

Para Gustavo de Ar?stegui, portavoz del Partido Popular (PP, oposici?n) en la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores del Congreso espa?ol, el populismo va a tener ''un efecto devastador''.

A su juicio, ese efecto se refleja ya en Venezuela en ''la incapacidad total de gesti?n del gobierno populista''.

''Bajo el r?gimen de Ch?vez, Venezuela ha pasado de niveles cercanos al 30 por ciento de pobreza a otros del 60 por ciento, en estad?sticas oficiales'', se?al?.

Ar?stegui calific? el populismo de movimiento ''cimentado sobre sentimientos y no sobre ideas'', lo que lo convierte en ''explosivo, pero tambi?n fr?gil''.

Seg?n Ar?stegui, se trata de una renuncia a la racionalidad que entronca directamente con la ''alianza antisistema'' de estrategia ''filofascista, antioccidental, anticapitalista, antiliberal, antiamericana, mercadof?bica y mesi?nica''.

Retrat? a Ch?vez como ''un hombre que se ha apuntado al carro de Cuba porque carece de ideolog?a''. El presidente cubano, Fidel Castro, dijo a Efe el diputado espa?ol, cree que ''el sucesor del castrismo no est? en Cuba, sino en Venezuela'' y que a trav?s de Venezuela ''el germen de sus ideas van a acabar penetrando en Am?rica Latina''.

El punto de vista empresarial lo dio el consejero delegado del BBVA, Jos? Ignacio Goirigolzarri-Tellaeche, que asegur? que ''lo m?s importante es la seguridad jur?dica'', y que las empresas apuestan por un sistema que defienda la democracia y la econom?a de mercado.

Tambi?n el secretario de estado adjunto de EEUU para Latinoam?rica, Thomas Shannon, reiter? que la democracia es un derecho en s?, algo esencial para el desarrollo pol?tico y econ?mico de Am?rica y que su pa?s propugna sistemas pol?ticos abiertos que creen oportunidades.
Pastrana postul? la consolidaci?n de la ''alianza tripartita de Europa (especialmente Espa?a), Estados Unidos y Am?rica Latina'' para fortalecer los ''procesos democr?ticos, el estricto respeto a la propiedad privada y el control ciudadano efectivo en las decisiones del poder''.
Sobre la reelecci?n de Alvaro Uribe para un segundo mandato en Colombia, Pastrana asegur? que es una demostraci?n de que ''en Am?rica Latina s? es posible tener estrechos v?nculos de cooperaci?n y relaciones estrat?gicas con EEUU y al mismo tiempo ganar las elecciones''.

''Lo que trae consigo el populismo no es lo que la gente est? esperando'', que es el fortalecimiento de las instituciones, superar la pobreza y brindar un mayor desarrollo econ?mico, agreg?.

El populismo, diagnostic? por su lado Ar?stegui, manifiesta un ''af?n expansionista'', y asume la premisa de que, una vez que haya un n?mero suficiente de pa?ses captados, se convertir? en una ''realidad imbatible''.
691  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Los secuestros en Venezuela (1959-MAYO 2006) on: June 18, 2006, 03:48:26 AM
Los secuestros en Venezuela (1959-MAYO 2006)
Federaci?n Nacional de Ganaderos de Venezuela - FEDENAGA, 17 de Junio de 2006

Presidente              (A?os)         Casos de secuestros
R?mulo Betancourt    (1959 ? 1964)           2 casos
Ra?l Leoni           (1964 ? 1969)           1 caso
Rafael Caldera       (1969 ? 1974)           2 casos
Carlos Andr?s P?rez  (1974 ? 1979)           4 casos
Luis Herrera Campins (1979 ? 1984)          11 casos
Jaime Lusinchi       (1984 ? 1989)          21 casos
Carlos Andr?s P?rez  (1989 ? 1993)          51 casos
Ram?n J. Velasquez   (1993)                 23 casos
Rafael Caldera       (1994 ? 1999)         190 casos
Hugo Ch?vez          (1999 a la fecha)   1.505 casos (83,14% del total de casos!)
TOTAL SECUESTROS     (1959 a Mayo 2006)  1.810 casos
692  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Marchan en M?rida por la autonom?a universitaria on: June 16, 2006, 09:29:51 PM
Marchan en M?rida estudiantes y profesores por la autonom?a universitaria

Comenz? en M?rida la marcha de estudiantes y profesores de las m?ximas casas de estudio del pa?s convocada por la Universidad de Los Andes en defensa de la autonom?a universitaria. La movilizaci?n parti? del n?cleo de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales de la ULA.
Durante la marcha, se han manifestado mensajes de solidaridad con Nixon Moreno, l?der estudiantil de la ULA, ante los se?alamientos hechos en su contra por representantes del gobierno nacional.
693  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Protestas contra Hugo Chavez on: June 16, 2006, 09:11:36 PM

Demostraci?n anti Chavez frente a la embajada venezolana en Lima, Per?.
694  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Bolivia on: June 12, 2006, 05:12:12 PM
695  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Manuel Rosales propone auditor?a independiente al REP on: June 09, 2006, 05:31:12 AM
Manuel Rosales propone auditor?a independiente al REP

El gobernador del estado Zulia, Manuel Rosales, asegur? que Un Solo Tiempo, el partido pol?tico que lo apoya, impulsar? la realizaci?n de una auditor?a al Registro Electoral Permanente independiente y paralela a la realizada por el CNE.
Rosales explic? que la revisi?n al REP buscar? determinar las edades de los votantes, el n?mero de registros por d?a, la ubicaci?n de los electores con sus respectivas direcciones a ser verificadas, para luego presentarle las correcciones al Consejo Nacional Electoral.
Por otra parte, la m?xima autoridad de la entidad anunci? que este s?bado Julio Borges, Teodoro Petkoff y su persona se reunir?n con los dem?s precandidatos presidenciales, con el fin de discutir el mecanismo para seleccionar la candidatura ?nica de la oposici?n.
El gobernador adelant? que en la reuni?n participar?n S?mate, el grupo La Colina y Queremos Elegir.
696  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / El CNE est? proponiendo una mamadera de gallo on: June 09, 2006, 05:26:52 AM
Hemos logrado que tres pol?ticos de importancia se lanzen al ruedo para las elecciones presidenciales en diciembre. El problema que tenemos es que el gobierno no quirere permitir una auditor?a independiente del Registro Electoral Permanante (REP) el cual sospechanos que est? altamente trampeado.

Teodoro Petkoff califica de grave e inaceptable propuesta de auditor?a del CNE

?El CNE est? proponiendo una mamadera de gallo?

El candidato presidencial hizo un llamado al ente comicial a comprender la gravedad del asunto y que una auditor?a planteada en sus t?rminos no ofrecer? confianza en el proceso electoral.

(Caracas, 8 de junio de 2006. Caracas).- ?Esto lleg? a donde ten?a que llegar, llegamos al momento de las decisiones cruciales?, dijo el candidato presidencial independiente al reaccionar frente a la decisi?n del CNE de efectuar una auditor?a del Registro Electoral Permanente sin la participaci?n de tres de las principales y m?s prestigiosas universidades del pa?s. ?Estas condiciones me plantean a mi la necesidad de pensar seriamente en la viabilidad de esta y todas las candidaturas?.

?Esto es grave, es un segundo strike que nos mete el CNE entre gallos y medianoche. Esta decisi?n no recoge la aspiraci?n de los venezolanos. Es inaceptable que nos planteen esto que no es una auditor?a al REP sino una mamadera de gallo, una cosa poco seria, una verdadera falta de respeto contra los venezolanos y tenemos que protestar en?rgicamente?, subray? Teodoro. El candidato coment? que dado que ni las universidades ni el CNE han cerrado las puertas a una salida racional, les propuso que vuelvan a sentarse a la mesa de di?logo y solicit? le entreguen a los candidatos el registro electoral para que hagan su propia revisi?n.

?Le hago un llamado a los sectores que adversan al gobierno para que acordemos una estrategia com?n de cara a esta grave circunstancia que le permita al pa?s agotar todas las posibilidades?, subray? Teodoro. ?Pero sobre todo le hago un llamado al CNE, para que comprendan que sin la Central, la Sim?n Bol?var y la Cat?lica la gente no va a recuperar la confianza en el proceso y sentir?n que las puertas est?n cerradas a la democracia. Si todav?a queda una oportunidad de hacer elecciones limpias en Venezuela hay que escuchar a los t?cnicos, a los que saben, no puede dejarse fuera a tres de las universidades m?s serias del pa?s. ?C?mo se puede confiar en una auditor?a en la que est?n representadas s?lo seis universidades que no son aut?nomas que son las que dependen del Ministerio de Educaci?n? Aqu? el gobierno se paga y se da el vuelto?, coment?.

Las declaraciones las hizo el candidato de manera muy enf?tica antes de entrar a la Sala de Conciertos de la UCV, donde centenares de estudiantes de varias universidades lo esperaban para participar del acto J?venes sin miedo convocado por su comando de campa?a.

??Qu? puedo decirles muchachos? Quiero llamarlos a construir una Venezuela sin miedo porque ustedes tienen derecho a un pa?s mejor, ustedes tienen derecho a que su voz cuente, pero parece que nuestro presidente no quiere contarse limpiamente. El derecho a que la voz de ustedes cuente no est? garantizado, pero no podemos cruzar de brazos, menos ustedes, los necesito para luchar y conquistar nuevamente este derecho sagrado?, dijo luego Teodoro ante el auditorio mayoritariamente juvenil.

Teodoro manifest? su solidaridad con el dirigente estudiantil Nixon Moreno quien se encuentra bajo persecuci?n judicial luego de que protestara la suspensi?n de las elecciones estudiantiles en la Universidad de los Andes. ?Siento que los estudiantes est?n despertando, se est? despertando el esp?ritu combativo. Ac? no van a callar a nadie?, dijo.

??A qu? le tienes miedo Hugo??, emplaz? Teodoro al Presidente. Todav?a hay chance de contarte limpio y no hacer de las elecciones un plebiscito?, enfatiz?. ?Te crees tan poderoso pero temes competir en condiciones de igualdad. Ac? los venezolanos queremos contarnos?.

El candidato presidencial anunci? que se har? una campa?a para informar a los venezolanos lo que significa esta decisi?n del CNE? para que conozcan la gravedad de la decisi?n del CNE y llamar? a las fuerzas de oposici?n a unificar su posici?n frente a este ?nuevo strike contra la democracia? para que los venezolanos, si es necesario, ?tomen la calle para exigir el derecho a contarnos?.
697  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Hugo Ch?vez es el ?nico derrotado on: June 04, 2006, 10:27:43 PM
"Hugo Ch?vez es el ?nico derrotado"

El candidato aprista Alan Garc?a dijo que el presidente venezolano Hugo Ch?vez "es el ?nico derrotado" en las elecciones presidenciales que, seg?n los resultados oficiales de la ONPE, gan? a Ollanta Humala, candidato de UPP.

En un discurso ante miles de sus simpatizantes, Garc?a P?rez dijo que "aqu? el ?nico derrotado no tiene documento de identidad nacional peruano, es el que quiso llevarnos de las narices con la fuerza de su negro dinero, el que quiso extender su dominaci?n y dictadura, el que quiso traer hasta nuestro pa?s y a otros el militarismo como f?rmula repulsiva del ayer", dijo Garc?a.

Como se sabe, Hugo Ch?vez apoy? decididamente a Ollanta Humala, rival de Garc?a. Incluso lleg? a anunciar su intenci?n de cortar las relaciones diplom?ticas con Per? en el caso de una victoria del l?der aprista.

Durante los ?ltimos d?as de campa?a, ambos pol?ticos intercambiaron descalificaciones e insultos, con Ch?vez llamando a Garc?a "truh?n" y "ladr?n" y ?ste respondiendo que el mandatario venezolano es un "sinverg?enza", entre otros.


Parte del discurso de Alan Garcia proclamando su victoria como presidente electo del Per?:

Aqu? el ?nico derrotado no tiene documento de identidad nacional perunano

Es el que quiso llevarnos de las narices con la fuerza de su negro dinero

Es el que quiso extender su dominaci?n y su dictadura

Es el que quiso traer hasta nuestro pais y a otros el militarismo como formula repulsiva del ayer

Alli esta la democracia del Peru que le ha dicho: ?No!

Alli esta la democracia que reinvidica la independencia de los peruanos

698  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Per?: resultados internacionales on: June 04, 2006, 07:09:52 PM
Resultados a boca de urna a nivel internacional

Televisi?n Nacional del Per? (TNP) difundi? algunos resultados a boca de urna de la segunda vuelta electoral en algunos pa?ses del extranjero.

Alan Garc?a P?rez 56%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 44%

Alan Garc?a P?rez 57%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 43%

Alan Garc?a P?rez 72%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 28%

Alan Garc?a P?rez 52%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 48%

Estados Unidos
Alan Garc?a P?rez 70%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 30%

Alan Garc?a P?rez 65%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 35%

Alan Garc?a P?rez 59%
Ollanta Humala Tasso 41%
699  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Ch?vez, escucha, Alan ya gan? on: June 04, 2006, 06:51:24 PM
Elecciones en el Per?

4:25 pm. Cientos de simpatizantes apristas apostados en la sede de dicha agrupaci?n, en la Av. Alfonso Ugarte, comenzaron a entonar a voz en cuello "Ch?vez, escucha, Alan ya gan?", ante la mirada curiosa de decenas de transe?ntes y polic?as que custodian el orden. El tr?nsito en la zona se ha restringido.
700  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / La balanza en suspenso on: June 04, 2006, 10:29:51 AM
La balanza en suspenso

El Universal
Domingo 04 de junio de 2006

LIMA.- Hoy en las urnas peruanas parece jugarse algo m?s que el rumbo de los pr?ximos cinco a?os. De la serie de elecciones de este 2006, la segunda vuelta aqu? aparece como la m?s importante de la regi?n porque ayudar? a volcar la balanza hacia uno de los lados de esos dos modelos en pugna que afloraron en Sudam?rica desde hace poco m?s de un mes, cuando el venezolano Hugo Ch?vez decidi? intervenir en las formas -no en el fondo- de la nacionalizaci?n de los hidrocarburos bolivianos, que termin? enfrent?ndolo con Brasil.

Venezuela y Brasil est?n enfrentados no s?lo por sus presidentes -de lo que sobran testimonios de discusiones subidas de tono en las ?ltimas cumbres entre Lula y Ch?vez-, sino con relaci?n a sus petroleras estatales PDVSA y Petrobras, que se disputan en Bolivia buena parte de las reservas de gas.

Per? tambi?n posee m?dicas reservas gas?feras (13 trillones de metros c?bicos) pero con posibilidades de ampliarlas considerablemente.

No s?lo por su ansiado gasoducto sudamericano es que Ch?vez y su proyecto pusieron los ojos aqu?.

Su anhelado liderazgo regional, con el que busca fortalecerse ante Brasil, fue el que lo movi? a apoyar con declaraciones y algo m?s la candidatura de un camarada de armas tan controvertido como Ollanta Humala. El tama?o econ?mico y geogr?fico de Brasil es ocho veces m?s el del l?der petrolero regional y s?lo sumando voluntades como las de Evo Morales, su proyecto podr?a tener indicios de ?xito.

En el camino por conquistar Per?, Ch?vez se encontr? con uno de los pol?ticos m?s avezados de la regi?n: el ex presidente Alan Garc?a, a quien ni su amplio rechazo entre el electorado y en ciertos sectores de poder le provocaron una p?rdida de su talento a la hora de hacer pol?tica. R?pido de reflejos, Garc?a se erigi? en el retador de Ch?vez, golpe?ndolo ah? donde m?s le duele: en su controvertida y por momentos inexplicable relaci?n con Estados Unidos y con las empresas petroleras de ese pa?s.

"Aqu? se define el futuro inmediato de la regi?n. O se ?bolivarianiza? o lo que primar? ser? una tendencia m?s racional, moderna y de una centroizquierda a la altura de los tiempos", resume a EL UNIVERSAL un ex canciller sudamericano que participa de la observaci?n de la OEA en Lima, apasionado por conocer el desenlace.

Mientras Colombia acaba de renovar su alianza con Estados Unidos con la reelecci?n de ?lvaro Uribe y despu?s de conocer si se termina de construir ese dique al chavismo en el que se erigi? y erigieron los gobiernos de la regi?n a Garc?a, o de abrirle las puertas a trav?s de una figura tan sinuosa como Humala, todas las miradas se dirigir?n a Ecuador, donde Ch?vez ya tiene preparada su infanter?a pol?tica para dar la batalla.

Hasta el gobierno del presidente argentino N?stor Kirchner entendi? de qu? iba la partida. As? como en la primera vuelta apoy? abiertamente a Humala, ahora envi? a un senador del oficialista Frente para la Victoria con un mensaje de apoyo a Garc?a.

Brasil y Chile no s?lo esperan ver a Alan asumiendo el pr?ximo 28 de julio sino que aguardan saber con cu?l de los dos candidatos mexicanos, Andr?s Manuel L?pez Obrador o Felipe Calder?n, pueden estructurar una agenda de intereses comunes que se diferencie de la de Ch?vez, tal como coincidieron diplom?ticos de ambos pa?ses en d?as pasados. "PDVSA y Petrobras tambi?n est?n llamados a enfrentarse", destac? el funcionario brasile?o. Por eso hoy en Per? no se juega nada m?s que una presidencia, "ni el mal menor" o la humalista "nueva pol?tica" con muchos pol?ticos viejos (fujimoristas, toledistas, montesinistas), sino el color y el rumbo geopol?tico de una regi?n que, hasta aqu?, viene desperdiciando una de las mejores coyunturas regionales de toda su historia.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!