Saturday, 8 November 2008

Ahmadinejhad's Letter to Obama

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Mr. Barack Obama

President-elect of the United States of America

I congratulate you on having gained the majority of the votes of those who took part in the election. As you know, the chances that God gives to his subjects pass swiftly. They can be used for the perfection of humanity and to the benefit of nations or, God forbid, to the detriment of nations.

I hope you will choose to honor the real interests of people and justice and equity over the insatiable appetites of the selfish minority. Use this chance to serve to the extent you can. And leave a good name behind for yourself.

People expect an immediate and clear response to the pressure for fundamental change in the American government's policies, both foreign and domestic. This is the desire of all the world's nations and of the American nation as well, and it should be the objective and basis of all your future government's programs and actions.

On the one hand, the American nation, which has spiritual inclinations, expects your government to focus its energy and will on serving the people; dealing with the current economic crisis; restoring the country's standing, morale and hope; eradicating poverty and discrimination; and renewing respect for individuals, their safety and their rights. It also expects policies that will strengthen the foundations of the family -- part of the teachings of the holy prophets, who are also revered in America.

On the other hand, the nations of the world expect an end to policies based on warmongering, invasion, bullying, trickery, the humiliation of other countries by the imposition of biased and unfair requirements, and a diplomatic approach that has bred hatred for America's leaders and undermined respect for its people. They want to see actions based on justice, respect for the rights of human beings and nations, friendship and non-intervention in the affairs of others. They want the American government to keep its interventions within its own country's borders.

In the sensitive Middle East region, in particular, the expectation is that the unjust actions of the past 60 years will give way to a policy encouraging full rights for all nations, especially the oppressed nations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region.

If steps are taken in the path of righteousness, toward the goal of carrying out the teachings of the holy prophets, it is hoped that almighty God will help and that the enormous damage done in the past will be somewhat diminished.

I ask the high God to grant all of humanity and all nations health and happiness, honor and prosperity, and to grant rulers and officials the ability to learn from the past and to use every chance to serve, to spread love and kindness, to eradicate oppression, to do justice and to follow the holy guidelines.

Mahmoud Ahmadiniejad


P.S. Dear Mahmoud, sorry, Jewish apartheid trumps every other issue. We're going to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

at 11/08/2008

Jewish settlers beat up Palestinian boy

It really is time this obsenity of a country was wiped off the face of the map. These jews are vicious cowards.

Jewish settlers beat up Palestinian boy

Agence France-Presse
First Posted 19:03:00 11/08/2008

HEBRON -- Jewish settlers on Saturday beat up a six-year-old Palestinian boy near the West Bank town of Hebron, and he was taken to hospital suffering from moderate head wounds, medics said.

Bilal Daana was attacked by a group of settlers near the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba near Hebron. They beat him up and threw stones at him, the Palestinian medics said.

The boy was taken by Israeli soldiers to a checkpoint at the entrance to Hebron from where he was transferred to the local Al-Ahli hospital.

The incident was the latest in a surge of settler attacks on Palestinians, peace activists and Israeli soldiers since the authorities dismantled a settlement outpost near Hebron last month.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has vowed that Israeli security forces will continue cracking down on illegal outposts and settler violence in the West Bank, which Israel occupied in 1967.

Obama calls on Iran to dump their non-existant nuke weapons program

Not only unacceptable but even worse, non existant. It's easy to get rid of something which isn't acceptable but really hard for something which doesn't actually exist.
I wonder if Obama can find Iraq's WMD? It's just one more indication that nothing is going to change under Obama despite the election catch phrase.


You might need to ponder that one Obama

Iran’s nuke development ‘unacceptable’ – Obama

The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss, Change We Can Believe

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has said Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is ‘unacceptable’. At his first news conference since Tuesday’s victory, Barack Obama also said Tehran must stop its “support of terrorist organisations”.
Speaking to some 400 members of the media who gathered at the Chicago Hilton, Obama said:

“Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening. Iran's support of terrorist organisations I think is something that has to cease.”

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent his congratulatory letter to Obama on his win over Republican John McCain. It’s the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that the head of the republic sent his wishes to an American leader. Obama said he would be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and “we will respond appropriately”.

”It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion. I think we've got to think it through,” he added.

During his 20-minute conference, Obama underlined that he hasn’t yet been sworn in as the President of the U.S.

” I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th,” Obama said.

Not surprisingly, the financial crisis was the main topic the President-elect spoke about.

“Tens of millions of families are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills and stay in their homes. Their stories are an urgent reminder that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we're going to have to act swiftly to resolve it.”

He promised that immediately after he becomes President, he’s going “to confront this economic crisis head on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.”

He spoke briefly about key priorities his team will focus on in the coming weeks.

“I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead. We have taken some major action to date, and we will need further action during this transition and subsequent months. Some of the choices that we make are going to be difficult. And I have said before and I will repeat again: It is not going to be quick, and it is not going to be easy for us to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in,” Obama said.

This highly anticipated media briefing, however, left journalists a little bit disappointed because of the lack of information that they got.

Obama kept quiet about many important issues such as his future foreign policy, didn’t give many details about how exactly he is going to tackle financial crisis, and didn’t make any new announcements about appointments to his administration

The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss, Change We Can Believe

Obama Recites Bush on Iran
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:06:57 GMT

The US President-elect Barack Obama has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and lending support to terrorist organizations.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening." Obama said at his first press conference since winning Tuesday's presidential election.

Obama also said, "Iran's support of terrorist organizations, I think, is something that has to cease."

He also pointed to a congratulatory message he received from President Ahmadinejad following his historic victory over Republican John McCain.

"I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad and we will respond appropriately," he noted.


Rahm Rahm Rahm, Rahm Rahm Iran

Posted by Lew Rockwell at November 7, 2008 07:26 AM

Yes, it's Change, as The One chooses his one, Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), to be his H.R. Haldeman. Emanuel is known for being smart and intense, mailing dead fish to people he hates, and freaking out at subordinates. Loving revenge, never forgiving a slight, and brooking no dissent, he's famous as an enforcer. Such figures are valued in the state (and the Mafia), if not in private society. Emanuel, with Pelosi's blessing, famously blocked antiwar Democrats from running for the House in 2006 (he controlled the money for new candidates). Emanuel is an advocate of endless war in the Middle East. No chickenhawk, during the Gulf War, he volunteered as a civilian worker for the Israeli army. His father Benjamin, a physician, was a guerilla fighter for the Irgun against the British occupation of Palestine. The Irgun, a secret insurgent group, is described by unfriendlies as a terrorist organization for such acts as bombing the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing with extreme prejudice Arab villages. Rahm's mother, Martha, was a civil-rights activist and rock 'n roll nightclub owner in Chicago.

Friday, 7 November 2008

is there a Theologian on board ??

by Raja Chemayel

Is there a Theologian on board ???

Do you remember that Egyptian baby

who was found in a basket , down by the Nile ??

His is name was Moussa ,

otherwise known as Moses.......Moiise or Moshe....

He left very dramatically Egypt in the direction of Palestine

while saying : " let my people go "

and "his" people followed him........eastwards towards Palestine

it took him 40 years to cross about 300 kilometres....

do not ask me why....I am not a theologian !! ,

my father was a theologian but he died 23 years ago

and I forgot to ask him this precise question.

Back to Moussa and "his" people......

One day Moussa leaves "his" people in a valley

to go up on a Mountain to meditate

and to communicate with the Creator.

Moussa comes later back , down to his people ,

carrying with him , the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

But to his big surprise he finds that "his" people

were worshipping their Golden Calf.......while he was away.....

Moussa ,gets very angry and then he destroys this Golden Calf.....

and obliges "his" people to worship the only God

the one and only God........

You have probably hear this story , so many time....

but you surely have never heard the following questions :

If the people following Moses were those famous "chosen people"

how come they were worshipping the Golden Calf ??

How come that God would choose to protect ,

to rescue and to help a people who worshipped a Golden Calf...

and not obey and love the Almighty, himself ??

Why would the Creator rescue a people worshipping a Golden Calf

from the Pharaohs who worshipped Isis ,Osiris,Amon and Ra....?

what is the difference here ??

Was the Golden Calf superior to Isis ?

If the people following Moses were "God's only people"

or otherwise called the "chosen people" ,

then what does this Golden Calf would be doing among them??

This Golden Calf must have been brought along with them from Egypt

because it is unthinkable that during their desert-crossing

they could make one , from Gold (or even from plastic) .....

nor to buy one at the nearest supermarket ...

I do not claim giving any answer here and now....

I simply put in doubt the term "chosen-people"

in general and peculiarly in this above case .

I do not mind anyone calling himself "chosen"

if and when he can prove why , or if he can justify it

by telling me why I would not be also "chosen"....

a matter of self-pride , or jealousy from my side !!

How could we believe that our Creator

"rescued" those people from the Pharaonic-enslavement

when they worshipped a Golden Calf ??? and not him .

And allegedly, he also allowed them killing and robbing the Egyptians

who were as much "non-believers" as they , themselves , were ?? .

Were they simply slaves who made an escape

or an uprising to liberate themselves and run

away taking refuge in the land of the Philistines ?? ,

regardless which divinity they venerated at that time

but in this case , we could not call them "chosen" anymore....!!

And finally why would the Creator chose, or pre-select anyone

when Jesus never selected nor preferred anyone above the others.

The Prophet Mohammad also never differentiated between the believers,

and he even forbid it for the Muslims to discriminate.

As I said it before ,

I shall not present my answers ,

but provoke yours...............

Raja Chemayel

if I were "chosen ", I would ask myself, why ? first...!

25Th. of October 2005


Dear Dr. Peter Kirsch

Please note the remarks on your article, especially adding the massacres that took place in Arab countries over and above what you mentioned.

We appreciate the efforts you put to document the massacres/holocausts committed by western colonialist powers, and raising the very important question: "Why are ONLY THE JEWISH PEOPLE memorialized and remembered so fondly in the West?" The answer is simple as I mentioned here below.

Adib S. Kawar

An uprooted Palestinian Arab


by Peter Kirsch, MD, February 15, 2006

Dear Friends

Here is a very good article about the massacres (holocausts) against a number of peoples of the world, which were committed during the 20th century. The author, Peter Kirsch, MD, asks at the end of his article: THE CENTURY OF THE HOLOCAUST, a number of questions that I pasted here as follows:

Why are ONLY THE PEOPLE memorialised and remembered so fondly in the West?

What about the Cambodians?
The Ukrainians?
The Russians?
The many nations of Europe?
The Laotians?
The Chinese?
The Africans?
The Latin Americans?
The Armenians?
The one hundred and forty million or more dead human beings throughout the twentieth century?

Are the Jewish people really

that they alone amongst all nations are worthy of Memorials, Remembrance Days, special school lessons about the Jewish Six Million?

And if they are, can someone please tell me WHY?

Because they claim to be the chosen people of g-d who promised them other people's land to be invaded and its indigenous people be displaced and replaced by imported non-Semitic converted Jews. Some people believed this myth, and others found it in their colonialist interest to create a rogue state that will act as their long colonialist arm in the heart of the Arab land. (A.S.K.)

But before trying to answer these questions I would like to point out that Peter Kirsch failed to mention the massacres committed against Arab nationals during the twentieth century, namely:
The Palestinian holocaust, which was initiated since the first Zionist colonialist invader sat foot on the Palestinian soil in 1880 and which is still going on uninterrupted. A great number of massacres and ethnic cleansing were committed against Palestinian and other Arab nationals, during the wars Zionist waged against all Arab in and around Palestine, which include besides Palestine:


The Zionist state invaded Egypt in 1954 (together with France and the UK). The second during 1967. During these two invasions thousands of Egyptian Arab martyrs were massacred, Prisoners of war were killed after their surrender.


was invaded in 1967 and the Golan Heights are still occupied. Besides the big number of martyrs who were murdered there are now about 500,000 thousands refugees from this occupied Arab land in Syria. The number of Syrian Arabs who are still living in their occupied land is only 15,000 people. The Zionist state "annexed" the Golan Heights and considers it a part of it. About 21 colonies were built on the stolen land; so besides the massacres committed, ethnic cleansing was practiced against the Arab inhabitants of the Golan Heights. The Zionist government tried to impose "Israeli citizenship" on those 15,000 Syrian Arabs but they refused to accept it.

Syrian territory, now under Israeli occupation, of about 1,250 km².
The Golan Heights are situated to the east of the Jordan River. Today the population of the Golan Heights is principally Jewish Israeli, after large numbers of locals fled the area in 1973. More than 100,000 locals fled to Syria (80,000) and Lebanon (20,000). The number of Jews moving into the Golan Heights is around 75,000 settlers who live in more than 30 Jewish-only settlements, illegal by international law. Altogether, the number of inhabitants today must exceed 200,000.
Golan Heights has been annexed by Israel, and is under Israeli law, but this is not internationally recognized.

1948: The Golan Heights becomes strategically important, as it is used as a base for artillery attacks on Israel, mostly during wars.
Moshe Dayan wrote in his memoirs that Zionist colonialist in the Holeh insisted that the IOF bombard the Syrian Heights so as the Syrian army to retaliate, and if they did not the bombardment will continue till the Syrians do, and the IOF to occupy the heights.
1967: The Golan Heights are occupied by Israel early in the Six-Day War.
1973: For a couple of days during the Yom Kippur War, the Golan Heights are recaptured by Syria.
1975: Syria gets an area around the town of Qunaytirah, as a result of US-led talks after the Yom Kippur War.
1981: The Golan Heights is officially annexed by Menachim Begin's government. The area is placed under Israeli law, and settlements are established. The annexation is not recognized by the internationa

"Golan Heights

Golan Heights

Golan Heights, Syria

Golan Heights, Syria


Lebanon was invaded by Zionist forces twice in 1978 and 1982. South Lebanon was occupied from 1978 to 2000 when the Lebanese Resistance drove the Zionist occupation forces out of the occupied Lebanese territories with the exception of the Shibaa farms and other plots of land. Only during the 1982 invasion at least 20,000 Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian were murdered by IOF. These occupation forces caused tremendous destruction during the invasion, which included besides private homes all over the occupied area tremendous damage against the infra structure: Electricity plants, roads, bridges and public buildings. The occupation forces brought with them archeologist who dug out archeological treasures and stole them. Even after the IOF were driven out air, land and sea assaults are still being waged daily against Lebanon, people are kidnapped, and martyrs are falling......

The Lebanese resistance drove the Zionist forces out of the occupied Lebanese territories. Only during the 1982 invasion at least 20,000 Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian were murdered by IOF. These occupation forces caused tremendous destruction during the invasion, which reached up to the capital Beirut that was severely bombarded and destroyed. Destruction included besides private homes all over the occupied area by the modern Mongols, tremendous damage against the infra structure: Electricity plants, roads, bridges and public buildings. The occupation forces brought with them archeologist who dug out archeological treasures and stole them. Even after the IOF were driven out air, land and sea assaults are still being waged daily against Lebanon, people are kidnapped, and martyrs are falling......"

All Palestinian refugee camps between Beirut and the soutern border were practically demolished and thousands of Palestinians were murdered. The most famous massacre in Palestinian refugee camps was the Sabra and Shatila. The IOF ordered the Lebanese Fascist militias to do the dirty job as planed by Arial Sharon and under his personal supervision. He was the Zionist "defense minister" at the time.


26 of October coincides with the anniversary of what the Libyans call the Black Day’, on this day in 1911 the Italian fascist invaders shipped thousands of Libyan men, women and children to some small and remote Italian islands. No one knows anything about their fate! Up to this very day, the Italian authorities have refused to furnish the full list of these Libyan victims to the Government and People of Libya. Libya holds an annual Day of Mourning.

All occupation is abhorrent and the Italian one was not an exception: almost one million Libyans died during the Italian occupation from 1911 to 1944!
Like most of the peoples of the Third World, the Libyans have suffered, and are still suffering, great injustices from the Western powers. The history of the Libyan people is a history of blood, tears and broken bones. The people of Libya have been terrorised and victimised for many decades by the various European powers. With the tacit approval of the British and French governments, Italy declared war on Libya on September 12, 1911, under the excuse that the Ottoman Turks — who were then ruling Libya were subject to insults and maltreatment for which they were in danger! On September 17, 1911, the Italians invaded Tripoli and Benghazi. The Italians expected that their invasion of Libya would be easily accomplished. But, to their horror, their aggression was courageously and strongly resisted by the Libyan people. For 20 terrible years Arab Libyan resistance fighters and guerrillas fought against Italian fascists with sweat and blood. The courage of the Libyan martyrs was epitomised by a very old man Sheikh Omar al Mukhtar. A true hero.

Omar Mukhtar upon his capture in September 1931.

Omar Mukhtar, the 'fierce and frightening warrior on his way to the gallows'.
notice the chains and the escort- what does it remind you of?

The Italian aggression and terrorism against Libya was extremely brutal. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed. Their homes were burnt down, their crops destroyed, their wells filled with cement, and copies of their Koran stepped upon. Many women were raped. Thousands of other Libyans were detained in concentration camps in the hot desert. Their properties were confiscated. Others perished under the most repressive conditions. Furthermore, the Italians, had laid about 170,000 landmines all over the country. These landmines have killed and are continuing to kill and maim many Libyans. Italy has refused to furnish maps showing where these landmines were laid. When Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist dictator, was carrying on his terrorism against the Libyan people, he was highly praised by British, French and American politicians, business leaders and the press.

*For instance, on a visit to Mussolini in 1927, Winston Churchill told journalists that Italian fascism “has rendered a service to the whole world.”


Algeria was colonized and considered as a part of France by the French for long decades Actually between 1830 and July 3rd 1962, that is for 132 years.

The first significant French colonial military foray into Africa occurred in Algeria in 1830. The French king at the time, Charles X, sent his army to occupy the town of Algiers in response to the dey of Algiers striking and calling the French consul names. The invasion eventually led to the announcement in 1848 that Algeria was part of the republic of France, making Algeria the first French colony. This led to the eventual creation of one of the largest and longest lasting colonial empires in history.

In the early morning hours of All Saints' Day, November 1, 1954, guerrillas of the National Liberation Front (Front de Libération Nationale -- FLN) launched attacks in various parts of Algeria against military installations, police posts, warehouses, communications facilities, and public utilities. From Cairo, the FLN broadcast a proclamation calling on Algerian Arabs to join in a national struggle for the "restoration of the Algerian state, sovereign, democratic, and social, within the framework of the principles of Islam." The French minister of interior, socialist François Mitterrand, responded sharply that "the only possible negotiation is war." It was the reaction of Premier Pierre Mendès-France that set the tone of French policy for the next five years. On November 12, he declared in the National Assembly: "One does not compromise when it comes to defending the internal peace of the nation, the unity and integrity of the Republic. The Algerian departments are part of the French Republic. They have been French for a long time, and they are irrevocably French... Between them and metropolitan France there can be no conceivable secession."

In the three years (1957-60) during which the regroupement program was followed, the war uprooted more than 2 million Algerians were uprooted, who were forced to relocate in French concentration camps or to flee to Morocco, Tunisia, and into the Algerian hinterland, where many thousands died of starvation, disease, and exposure. Additional pro-French colaborators were killed when the FLN settled accounts after independence.

The FLN estimated in 1962 that nearly eight years of revolution had cost 300,000 dead from war-related causes. Algerian sources later put the figure at approximately 1.5 million martyrs, while French officials estimated it at 350,000. The actual figure of war dead may be far higher than the original FLN and official French estimates, even if it does not reach the 1 million adopted by the Algerian government. Uncounted thousands of Algerian Arab civilians lost their lives in French army ratissages, bombing raids, and vigilante reprisals.

Of course we have to mention the massacres that took place over and above these Arab countries: Morocco, Tunis, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula states: The Yemen and the Arabian Gulf states.

The Palestinian HOLOCAUST

As for Palestine, the whole land of Palestine is still stolen and what ever movables that were on it were stolen too. More than 500 Arab towns and villages were completely demolished. Now there are more Palestinian Arabs in the "shatat" diaspora than in historic Palestine. The numbers of Palestinian Arabs who were massacred by Zionists with the help of the British occupation forces before 1948 are beyond counting.

So in brief Zionists stole the land of Palestine, ethnic cleansed it, and stole all movable and non movable properties, and caused the death of tens of thousands martyrs.

I don't see a reason why the Palestinian holocaust was not mentioned by Dr. Peter Kirsch, even though his pointing out these massacres and crimes against humanity were brought out and condemned.

The Palestinian holocaust with the exception of few others is unique, because more than half of the Palestinian Arab population was ethnic cleansed and their land was confiscated/stolen.

We appreciate Dr. Peter Kirsch's efforts to bring out to the light all these massacres and crimes against humanity, but we don't see a reason why the Palestinian holocaust as well as all the above mentioned Arab holocausts were not, even though he condemned them and asked for the reason saying

Are the Jewish people really

Can Someone Venture an Answer to the Questions Posed at the End of this Article?


by Peter Kirsch, MD, february 15, 2006

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ³holocaust as follows:
1) A sacrifice wholly consumed by fire;
2) A complete or large-scale sacrifice;
3) A complete or wholesale destruction, esp. by fire; a great slaughter or massacre;
4) spec. The (period of the) mass murder of the Jews (or transf. of other groups) by the Nazis in the war of 1939 ­ 45.

Palestinian Arabs were transferred by Zionist in the years 1947/1948 & 1967 and in other occasions, this should also mean a Palestinian holocaust.

On the basis of these definitions, the 20th century qualifies eminently as the century of the holocaust. Let us take a look at a few of the major events of that 100-year span.

1) The Anglo-Boer War (1899 ­ 1902) in South Africa (in which the British, at great cost to both sides, seized the gold and diamond fields from the Boers) was significant in that it led to the invention of the concentration camp designed especially for women and children ­ an all-British idea which was subsequently developed by the National Socialists in Germany. In these concentration camps was an early holocaust of the century ­ the death of thirty thousand women and children from starvation, typhoid and measles. In proportion to later holocausts, the numbers don¹t sound very impressive, but they constituted a significant proportion of the Boer population at the time.

2) Contemporaneous with the Anglo-Boer War was the Spanish-American War of 1898 ­1902 in which some three or four hundred American soldiers were killed and 270 000 Filipinos died of wounds, disease or starvation. What both these wars of aggression had in common was, of course, greed.

3) Between 1914 and 1918, the First World War killed thirteen million soldiers and seventeen million civilians ­ indeed a holocaust which could have pleased only a Malthusian. During this period, to add to the slaughter, was the Turkish/Ottoman massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in about 1915 ­ yet another holocaust to blot the pages of that century.

4) In the early years of the USSR under Lenin (1917 ­ 1923) it is estimated that about seven million people died during the civil war, either from starvation or military action. I should note here that numbers vary from five to ten million, depending on whose figures one accepts, so I have given an average. We can skip a few years to the late 1920s and early 1930s, when Josef Stalin collectivised the kulaks of the USSR, killing millions of them either by the sword or by disease and starvation throughout Russia and Siberia. In 1932-1933, Stalin also summarily appropriated all the grain in Ukraine and had this essential foodstuff transported to Russia or sold abroad for much-needed foreign goods.
The result of this was mass starvation in Ukraine and the death of approximately five to seven million Ukrainians ­ a period and a holocaust known in Ukraine as the Holodomor.

5) It was only about three years later that Stalin began
the great purges of 1936 ­ 1938, the Yezhovshchina, in which it is believed that about eight million Soviet citizens died either by execution or by disease and inanition in Siberia.

6) World War Two. The numbers of deaths vary slightly, but a generally acceptable figure is fifty-six million military and civilian dead. This is doubtless the greatest holocaust in history. As a footnote to it, we can mention that amongst the casualties were three gratuitous massacres ­ the devastation of Dresden by Sir Arthur (³Bomber²) Harris who killed between 40 and 70 000 civilians when the city posed no military threat to the Allies and refugees were streaming into it, fleeing from the advancing Russians; and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki ordered by President Truman one month after Emperor Hirohito of Japan had made a personal appeal to him for peace negotiations. The combined death toll of these two bombs was between
two and three hundred thousand (immediate and short-term).

7) In the Asian theatre, the Japanese were responsible for
the death of approximately five million people in China, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma, Malaya, Singapore and other East Asian countries.


Exact figures are difficult to obtain and vary widely from one authority to another, so generally I have averaged them out in an attempt to get a fairly balanced count.

8) In the late 1940s, in the Mao v. Chiang Chinese civil war, untold, unknown millions of Chinese were slaughtered. The estimates vary and an accurate count is probably impossible. In 1966, Mao, egged on by his lovely wife, initiated the Cultural Revolution in China, which led to a few more million dead ­ exact numbers unknown. Meanwhile, there was the Korean ³Police Action² as Harry Truman nicely phrased it ­ a vicious civil war between North and South Korea which were in fact puppets of the USSR and the USA. Another few million dead Koreans ­ we don¹t know exactly how many, but do know exactly how many white folk (Americans, Brits etc) were killed. Hardly had that slaughter been calmed when the French were badly beaten in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu and the US gladly took over from them in due course. The tragic irony of that unnecessary conflict is that it needn¹t have happened at all and would not have, had Secretary of State John Foster Dulles not walked out of peace negotiations. It also could have ended in 1968, but this is not the place to discuss the idiocy of Robert McNamara and his Pentagon cronies before and after the Tet offensive. The Vietnam war gave rise to a new term ­escalation ­ which proved to be apt, as Kissinger, President Nixon¹s pro-consul to the world, extended the war into Laos and Cambodia, where, in the killing fields, an estimated two to three million people were massacred while back in Vietnam itself the US continued to devastate the country and kill off about three million Vietnamese.

9) Meanwhile, down in Indonesia, great danger presented itself to the United States ­ there was a chance that a government hostile to the US might take power, so in 1965, the US sent troops and military materiel to ensure that Suharto, their blood-stained friend, would be the dictator of the country. There was a holocaust of about half a million civilians.

10) In 1975 ­ 1978, the number of dead under the Pol Pot regime was between 1.6 and 1.8 million ­ about one-fifth of the population. This doesn¹t include those millions already killed by Kissinger.

11) During that same period, approximately 100 000 civilians were murdered in East Timor ­ about 24% of the East Timorese population.

12) Probably the biggest killing field of the lot was the continent of Africa from Sudan to the borders of Zambia, and from Eritrea to West Africa. Countless millions were slaughtered or starved to death by sundry warlords and dictators ­ the syphilitic Idi Amin, the megalomanic Mobutu Sese Seko (one of whose close business associates for some time was the Reverend Pat Robertson who recently recommended ­ on two separate occasions - the assassination of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela), the attack by Rwanda and Uganda on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (3.8 million dead), the ongoing disturbances in Darfur (400 000 dead) the civil war between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the madman Robert Mugabeٹ the list is long and tiresome. I think it is fruitless even to attempt to count the number of Africans slaughtered in the last fifty or so years. The numbers are probably in the tens of millions.

The author forgot the Algerian hocaust, the Algerian war of independence during which one million martyrs fell on the hands of the French colonialists, it is known as "the revolution of the one million martyrs."

By comparison, the Balkan massacres of the 1990s were numerically minor, while the Bush/Clinton/BushII/Blair murder of over a million Iraqis between about 1991 and the present, is a significant testimony to Anglo-American blood-lust (or is it just lust for oil?). Saddam Hussein murdered approximately 300 000 of his citizens ­ far fewer than the killers named above. And then we have estimates that over a million Iraqis and Iranians were killed in the long-drawn-out war between the two countries in the 1980s.

I have added up the numbers given above and present them with the caveat that they are not accurate but approximate and very conservative.


The death toll during the Chinese civil war and the cultural revolution, as well as the number of dead in various parts of sub-Saharan Africa are unreliable and are not included. There are also disputes about the death tolls in South Asia. I have no reliable figures on the number of dead in the India-Pakistan dispute and have omitted the relatively minor number of victims in the Balkans and Central America. All these figures probably add up to tens of millions, but WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH BLOOD DRIPPING FROM THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.

Now, in that century of holocausts in which at least one hundred and forty million human beings were killed, amongst that number were approximately six million Jewish people (the official number accepted by World Jewry with few exceptions such as Professor Norman Finkelstein whose parents were Nazi victims).

The term ³holocaust² as generally understood today was first used by Elie Wiesel in his imaginative autobiography first published in Yiddish (³Und Die Welt hot Geshvign², 1956) and then in French, (³La Nuit,² 1958). He used the term in the sense given under 3) in the Oxford Dictionary: mass immolation by fire, reporting that people were placed on the edge of flaming pits and then pushed into them. Interestingly enough, he does not once mention gas chambers in this book. Since the end of the second world war, the multiple holocausts of the last century have remained un-capitalised, with one exception ­ the Jewish Holocaust.

Now some Western countries, led by the USA, have Jewish Holocaust Memorials, Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Days, Jewish Holocaust Laws (it¹s forbidden by law in some countries even to question the fact that six million Jews were Holocausted). The politicians in these same countries make pre-election pilgrimages to the Jewish State to garner the Jewish vote. The children in these countries have classes in school devoted to the Jewish Holocaust. I am told that in some American schools, the children sing the Israeli national anthem. Many universities have programs in what are called Holocaust Studies.

So I ask myself questions:

Why are ONLY THE JEWISH PEOPLE memorialised and remembered so fondly in the West?

What about the Cambodians?
The Ukrainians?
The Russians?
The many nations of Europe?
The Laotians?
The Chinese?
The Africans?
The Latin Americans?
The Armenians?
The one hundred and forty million or more dead human beings throughout the twentieth century?

Are the Jewish people really

that they alone amongst all nations are worthy of Memorials, Remembrance Days, special school lessons about the Jewish Six Million?

And if they are, can someone please tell meٹ


I hope that I was able to answer this question, and appreciate if somebody else can be more specific.

Adib S. Kawar

An uprooted Palestinian Arab

Thursday, 6 November 2008

Obama appoints the son of a Jewish terrorist to be the White House Chief of Staff

Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff is Rahm Israel Emanuel. His father was Benjamin Emanuel a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun. The Irgun was of course a Jewish terrorist organisation that carried out at least 60 acts of terrorism between 1937 and 1939, not only against Palestinian Arabs but also the British.

This perhaps can be considered an early pointer to the fact that little is going to change in regards to American policy in the Middle East

Obama picks pro-Israel hardliner for top post

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada,
5 November 2008

"During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel......

Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun, the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The Irgun carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians including the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946.

Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for Israel; during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern Lebanon was still occupied by Israeli forces......

One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his party, Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive board just after the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby's conference last June.

In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003).

In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both countries that caused thousands of civilian victims......

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... that was never true."

Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself from friends and advisers suspected or accused of having "pro-Palestinian" sympathies. There are no early indications of a more balanced course."

Al-Qassam: The Israeli military aggression puts the truce on the line

GAZA, (PIC)-- Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, stated Wednesday that the heinous Israeli military aggression last night, which claimed the lives of six of its fighters, puts the truce on the line, holding Israel fully responsible for all the consequences of its flagrant breach of the calm.

Hamas: Israel's claims of having no intention to escalate is disinformation

In a statement posted on Al-Qassam website, Abu Obeida, the spokesman for the Brigades underlined that the Palestinian resistance has the right to retaliate and the truce would not prevent it from defending the Palestinian people against the Israeli aggression.

Abu Obeida called on Egypt which sponsors the calm to declare its position clearly against Israel, pointing out that the Palestinian resistance was on the defensive and no one has the right to blame it for its retaliation to the Israeli massacre which was carried out suddenly and in a barbaric way.

In the context of its retaliation to the Israeli massacre, Al-Qassam Brigades reported that its fighters managed Wednesday morning to fire four homemade rockets on the Majdal city, north of the Gaza Strip.

Israeli media sources said that the Palestinian rocket attacks led to a power outage in large parts of the city, pointing that one of the rockets landed in the heart of the city and another fell in the southern industrial zone wounding at least two settlers.

The Brigades had announced that it fired dozens of rockets and mortar shells on Israeli settlements, cities and military posts and warned the Israeli occupation that it would pay dearly if it persisted in its aggression.

In a military communiqué received by the PIC, the Nusoor of Palestine Brigades, the armed wing of the popular front for the liberation of Palestine, claimed its responsibility for firing at dawn Wednesday a mortar shell on the Israeli Kissufim military post and a homemade rocket on the Miguen military post, east of the Masdar area.

In another communiqué received by the PIC, Al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad Movement, claimed responsibility for firing two homemade rockets on the Israeli Sderot settlement.

For its part, the Brigades of Abu Ali Mustafa, the armed wing of the popular front, fired two rockets on the Sderot settlement and three mortar shells on the Kfar Azza settlement.

The Aqsa Brigades, the group of martyr Ayman Juda, also announced that its fighters managed to fire four rockets on the military posts of Kissufin and Miguen, pointing out that the rocket attacks were carried out in cooperation with Al-Quds Brigades.

GAZA, (PIC)-- The Hamas Movement on Wednesday stated that the Israeli war minister's declaration that Israel still want the calm and has no intention to escalate is "disinformation" and another trick to deceive the public opinion after he murdered six Palestinian fighters.
In an exclusive statement to the PIC, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum underlined that the Israeli occupation took advantage of the worldwide preoccupation with the American presidential elections to commit this heinous massacre against a group of resistance fighters in order to disturb the dialog atmosphere.
Regarding the possibility of continuing the calm with Israel, Barhoum said that this matter must be discussed with other Palestinian resistance factions which are parties to the truce agreement in order to review it again.
The spokesman also pointed out that Hamas is always in contact with the Egyptian leadership in its capacity as the truce agreement broker either to brief it on Israel's violations against the calm or to urge it to curb Israeli assaults on Gaza.
Israeli security sources had claimed following a special meeting called by Israeli war minister Ehud Barak to assess the situation after the military aggression on Gaza that Israel wants to keep the calm.
The IOF troops admitted this morning that four of its soldiers were wounded during confrontations with Palestinian resistance fighters in central Gaza and two settlers sustained injuries after rocket attacks which led also to a power outage in the Majdal settlement.

Wednesday, 5 November 2008

Why Muslims Will Regret Voting for Obama

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Between Hope and Reality

Wednesday, November 05, 2008


Dear Senator (President) Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Ralph Nader
Posted by Faisal Tehrani at 3:52 PM

Bush’s Foreign Policy Heritage Awaits Obama


Hanan Awarekeh
Readers Number : 40


Newly-elected U.S. president Barack Obama faces the daunting task of sorting out American policy in the Middle East and turning around deep-seated hostility in the region after it was plunged into turmoil under the Bush administration.

Crucial dates loom for America's controversial role in Iraq, its relations with archfoe Iran and its efforts to achieve an elusive peace accord between the Zionist entity and the Palestinians.

There are also fundamental long-term questions about US dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Washington's relations with the Arab states of the Gulf.

US President George W. Bush's push to spread democracy to the Middle East has run into the sand while his so-called "war on terror" to stamp out Al-Qaeda and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only sown deep anti-American sentiment in the region.

"Is Obama going to save America and the world from the hostility and extremism caused by Bush's policies?" questioned Al-Dustur newspaper in Jordan, a close US ally.

"The mantra for the next administration has to be, 'Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it,'" said James Lindsay, who was a foreign policy aide to President Bill Clinton and is now with the University of Texas, Austin.

"The new president-elect is going to have a full foreign policy inbox and decisions to make with enormous consequences for American security," added Lindsay.

Foreign policy advisers say Obama, a Democrat who is the first black U.S. president, has an understanding of world affairs rooted in a childhood spent partly in Indonesia and a quest to learn about his father's Kenyan heritage.

On November 15, Bush will convene a summit in Washington to look at the global economic crisis. While Obama is unlikely to attend the meeting himself, it could give his economic team the chance to meet some of the visiting foreign officials on the sidelines of the conference.

The Obama administration will also inherit the Iraq and Afghan wars and an intensifying effort to pursue al Qaeda militants on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

Stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon - Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes - and holding North Korea to its promise to dismantle its nuclear weapons program are also pressing issues.

Bush's hardline approach has failed to deter Tehran from its nuclear drive. Some analysts say sanctions on Tehran have actually increased support within Iran for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spurring the tirades against the "Great Satan" and Israel to distract attention from domestic economic woes.

"America will never stop its enmity with Iran and it appears that the US policy under the next presidency will not fundamentally change," said the Tehran newspaper Kayan.

Bush has never ruled out a military strike to stop Iran, while Obama has said he would engage in direct diplomacy at the same time pushing for tougher sanctions.

Obama, like his defeated Republican rival John McCain, has vowed a reinvigorated effort toward Middle East peace and promised staunch support for Israel.

Obama has pledged to end the Iraq war and bolster the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan.

But the biggest challenge will be to reduce a near 145,000-strong force in Iraq without compromising on security gains after a deeply unpopular war that has claimed tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and killed more than 4,190 US personnel.

And if Washington and Baghdad fail to sign a military pact by December 31 and there is no new UN mandate, Obama will face a potentially hazardous situation with US occupation forces having no legal right to operate.

The ability to tackle deteriorating security in Afghanistan and pursue militants is "linked to the ability to make progress on political reconciliation in Iraq and the ability to draw down there," Obama foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert Lippert said.

McCain agreed on the need for more forces in Afghanistan, but opposed a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, saying U.S. occupation troops should remain there as long as they are needed.

Obama's willingness to talk directly to U.S. adversaries such as Iran and Syria was another major point of disagreement during the campaign. Obama said the Bush administration's resistance to engaging foes has limited its diplomatic options, a position which the McCain camp called naive.

Obama opposed calls to oust Russia from the elite Group of Eight club of rich nations in response to Moscow's August war with Georgia, although he condemned the Russian invasion, triggered by Georgia's bid to reimpose control over breakaway South Ossetia.

One foreign policy priority Obama is likely to concentrate on is repairing ties with traditional allies, including many European countries that were strained under the Bush administration.

With the world's most powerful economy on the brink of recession, Obama has said one of his long-term repairs would be a renewable energy drive to break America's addiction to oil from the Middle East and other hotspots.

While this aim could hit the revenues of the oil-rich Gulf States, the US administration will need to keep the region's sovereign funds sweet so they still see America as a good place to invest their vast petrodollar wealth.

Democrat Barack Obama captured the White House on Tuesday after an extraordinary two-year campaign, defeating Republican John McCain to make history as the first black U.S. president.

(...) The win by Obama, son of a black father from Kenya and white mother from Kansas, marked a milestone in U.S. history. It came 45 years after the height of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King.

"It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, at this defining moment, change has come to America," Obama, 47, told 125,000 ecstatic supporters gathered in Chicago's Grant Park to celebrate. "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there," he said.

(....) In a campaign dominated at the end by a flood of bad news on the economy, Obama's judgment on handling the crisis tipped the race in his favor. Exit polls showed six of every 10 voters listed the economy as the top issue. Obama has promised to restore U.S. leadership in the world by working closely with foreign allies, and has pledged a tax cut for low- and middle-class workers while raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Americans Crowd Polling Stations in Historic Electionurce

No Change’

Posted in 2008 elections, Election Fraud, Ron Paul, Ry Anti-Neocons, Ryan Dawson by detainthis on November 4th, 2008

By Ryan Dawson ∙ Anti-Neocons ∙ November 3, 2008


Israeli FM: US dialogue with Iran could be problem

Amy Teibel – Associated Press November 6, 2008

Israel's foreign minister said Thursday that President-elect Barack Obama shouldn't talk to Iran just yet, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness" — a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration.

Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, which Israel, the U.S. and others believe is aimed at developing an atomic bomb. His policy marks a departure from that of the Bush administration, which has refused to engage Iranian leaders.

Tzipi Livni, a contender for prime minister in February elections, noted in an interview with Israel Radio that Obama is not willing to accept a nuclear Iran.

But "dialogue at this time is liable to broadcast weakness," cautioned Livni, who is head of the governing Kadima Party. "I think early dialogue at a time when it appears to Iran that the world has given up on sanctions could be problematic."

Obama, who swept to victory in elections Tuesday, reasons that direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders would give the U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. The U.N. Security Council already has passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran.

He has said he would step up diplomatic pressure on Iran before Israel feels compelled to launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israeli officials describe Iran as the biggest threat to the Jewish state's existence, citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's frequent <>calls for Israel's destruction<><> and its development of <>long-range missiles capable of striking the Jewish state<><>.

Iran says its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons, but Israel, like the U.S., is unconvinced. Israeli military officials have said Iran could have the capacity to produce a bomb as early as next year.

Livni has repeatedly said she hopes international diplomacy prevails. But she doesn't rule out force if U.N. sanctions don't pressure Tehran to scale back its nuclear aims. In June, she said Iran "needs to understand the military threat exists and is not being taken off the table."

Israeli combat planes destroyed an unfinished Iraqi reactor in 1981. But policy makers and experts are at odds over whether Israel could cripple Iran's nuclear program, whose facilities are scattered and in some cases built underground in heavily fortified bunkers.

A letter to Obama

Last month you said that if elected President you would "change the world". Sorry to disillusion you but the rest of us in the world outside of the USA doesn't want the world being changed, we want America to change.

In fact I can safely say that we've had enough of America's changes to the world, the illegal invasions undertook for solely economic motives, the death and destruction the USA has brought to millions of innocent civilians in your quest for world hegemony.

We've had enough of your concentration camps dotted throughout the world from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib where America suffered their greatest humiliation since 1776.
We've had enough of your blind support for the Apartheid regime in Israel with their policies of ethnic cleansing and in turning Gaza into the world's largest prison camp, slowly starving the occupants into submission or flight.

We've had enough of America disregarding International Laws when it suits you and then falling back them when it's to your advantage.

We've had enough of your threats against Iran on the basis of their non-existant nuclear weapons program or your violations of sovereignty in places such as Pakistan and Syria.

We've had enough of the USA being the sole opposition to United Nations resolutions intended to improve human rights.

In short Mr Obama get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and get used to the idea of buying your oil and gas on the open market instead occupying and threatening oil producers.

It's not as though you don't have enough problems at home, the Bush administration has been busy printing new money to pay your way in the world, your Treasury deficit is exceeding half a trillion dollars a year, your trade deficit is around $60 billion a month and that is partially because "made in the USA" is not a favourable trade mark to billions of people around the world.

We need action not words and change is certainly necessary, if you can change the USA you will truly change the world.


Tuesday, 4 November 2008

Britain's Cowardly Crimes

Britain's history is littered with cases of genocide, particularly in the Indian sub-continent and in Africa and in addition, many of the problems facing the world today can be traced back to British imperialism. I write this of course being English , but I wish to assure everyone that the British history being taught to children in British schools doesn't mention these facts, it's only when you get older that the brutal truth becomes apparent.


Three such cowardly crimes stand out from all others, and everyone with a British connection should be ashamed of each and every one of them.

Going along with the U.N. plan for the partition of Palestine - 1947-1948

During the First World War, after the nefarious and imperialistic Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 between Britain and France to carve up the Arab Provinces of the Ottoman Empire into zones of influence to be attributed to each of these two states, and the even more cowardly and treacherous Balfour Declaration of the following year, Britain had a responsibility towards the people of Palestine to protect them from invasion by foreigners who wished, above all, to get rid of them and take over their land. Having once taken over a League of Nations Mandate of the country, Britain had a duty of care towards the people who had never been permitted to have any say in their own fate during the Versailles Conference in 1919.

In 1947, when the supposedly "Great" Powers were deciding how to carve up the world into zones of influence, the part of Palestine occupied by those who claimed (under the Hitlerian definition) to be Jews amounted to about 7% of the total area of the country, and the remaining 93% was occupied by and belonged to Muslim and Christian Arabs. Amazingly, the plan put forward by the United Nations provided for the country to be divided into two separate states each comprising nearly half of the total area, with an international zone comprising Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings. If Britain had shown itself to be honourable, it would immediately have vetoed that plan, and insisted that any break-away "Jewish state" was limited to the lands already occupied by those who claimed to be "Jews", approximating 7% as already mentioned. The cowardice arose from the acceptance of this very obviously grossly unfair division because Britain wished to escape from the Zionist terrorism which it had itself nurtured by the lethal mixture of its past colonial greed for influence and its abject submission to Zionist pressures in Britain and in the world in general.

The Arab world will never forget this betrayal of trust, whereby Britain left a peaceful reasonably prosperous people at the mercy of waves of well-armed foreign invaders who were determined to get rid of the indigenous inhabitants by the most brutal ethnic cleansing, which continues to this day. If Britain had had the slightest sense of honour, it could have saved the whole world from Zionist racism and the continuing suffering of the Palestinians people for which it had taken on responsibility.

Dividing the former Raj into India and Pakistan - 1947-1948

The great Indian leader, Mohandas Gandhi (known as the Mahatma), planned with his colleagues in the Congress Party a multi-faith India to take over the whole of the former Raj, whether the states in question were ruled directly by Britain or through their local hereditary princes. Intolerance, in the form of the Muslim League under its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had been on the increase for many years, and the League found it easy to blackmail Britain into agreeing to a partition of India to put the most easterly and westerly areas under Muslim rule. This partition caused terrible slaughter as tensions rose between Hindu and Muslim masses, and the division was entrusted to ignorant British surveyors, and included the highly arbitrary division of both Bengal in the east and the Punjab in the west between the two new states. The princely states were supposed to be allowed to choose to which to belong, but this depended on the ruling house and was abandoned in states where there was a Muslim ruler and a majoritarily Hindu population. We still see the results of this ghastly error of judgment in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, where each of India and Pakistan claims the whole and militarily occupies about one half. If Britain had been honourable, it would have kept the whole Raj together to make one multi-faith country, according to Mohandas Gandhi's dream, which could have thereby saved itself the human and economic cost of constant hostility, and avoided the coming into existence of the extremist supposedly Muslim terrorist groups which were spawned by the enmity fostered on partition.

Actively participating in the wars against Iraq - 1990-2003

The former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein Takriti, was given vast supplies of arms to enable him to wage war against the régime installed in Iran by the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, who had removed the puppet Shah, much appreciated for his willingness to obey orders from the "West". However, in 1990 the then United States Ambassador gave the Iraqi leader what he considered a green light to invade and "recover" the emirate of Kuwait, referred to throughout by Iraqis as their lost province. The invasion thereupon took place, and the U.S.A., under the presidency of Mr George H.W. Bush (former head of the CIA, the world's leading terrorist organisation), led a "coalition" of states to drive Iraqi forces out of the Kuwait. Despite having made it militarily impossible for Iraqi forces to repeat their invasion of their southern neighbour, the U.S.A. and Britain decided to maintain an embargo on food and medicines on Iraq, thereby causing thousands of deaths and great suffering, particularly among children. The only reason for this embargo seems to have been to punish the Iraqi régime for its steadfast and constant support for the Palestinian people, and its opposition to Zionist ambitions in the whole of the Near and Middle East. After the strictest United Nations controls of Iraq's possible development of weapons of mass destruction, it became obvious that Iraq had no such weapons, but the U.S.A., under Mr George W. Bush (son of the former president), and Britain, under Mr Anthony C.L. Blair, by the use of obvious untruths, persuaded their respective peoples that Iraq poqed a threat to them. This was such a blatant lie that it is amazing that anyone believed it, and the criminality of these two men, and their minions, is clear under the Nuremberg Principles, agreed by the United Nations after the Second World War.

No-one can doubt the bravery of the armed forces of the U.S.A. and Britain who have carried out the orders of these two criminals, but that does not in any way justify the destruction of the physical and political infrastructure of what was until then, a modern secular state. These armed forces were among the first victims of the criminality of their leaders, to whom honesty and decency meant, and still mean, nothing. Britain has a lot to atone for as a result of its involvement in Iraq, and should be ashamed for its honour.

All these crimes are a horrible legacy for Britain to leave to its people's future generations, and the rpesent government should show the way by apologising for its crimes and trying to do something to make up for them.