Thursday, May 31, 2007

Aprendendo a se drogar corretamente com o governo brasileiro

Cuidados básicos para quem se injeta.

Se você usa drogas injetáveis, precisa seguir algumas regras básicas. Por isso, dê uma olhada nas seguintes recomendações:

Sim, bizarro.

Ao lado segue a imagem que está no site com a legenda "Pontos para injetar" (de acordo com a página, vá lá, educativa, os verdes são os "seguros"; amarelos "a considerar" e os vermelhos são os "pontos perigosos").

Além dessa bela aula de como e onde se injetar da forma correta, a página ainda tem valorosos conselhos de como evitar uma overdose. Entre os mais brilhantes estão:

*não misture álcool com outras substância. O risco é muito maior;
*não injete quando estiver sozinho. Tente fazer isso com alguém por perto;
*se estiver experimentando uma nova droga ou tiver mudado de fornecedor, divida em duas doses.

Dinheiro bem gasto esse dos impostos, não?!

Pois é, agora é oficial... estamos perdidos.

The Treachery of the "Two State Solution"

By Rachel Neuwirth

Almost everyone involved in diplomacy aimed at a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict thinks that the solution is a "two-state solution" -a state of Israel and a state of Palestine, living in mutual harmony, side by side, without terror or conflict between them. President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert of Israel, the leaders of the European Community, Russia, and the United Nations-all are advocates of the "two state solution." In effect, it is a call for a "three state solution" - Jordan, Israel and a terror state in between threatening the elimination of both.
However, I respectfully disagree with the view of these world leaders that a "two-state solution" is viable. The Palestinian Arab leadership has violated almost every agreement that it has signed with Israel since the "peace process" began in 1993, including and especially their repeated pledges to halt terror attacks on Israelis. Instead, these attacks have multiplied greatly in the past thirteen years, and Israeli casualties, especially civilian casualties, have increased sharply. Palestinian children are systematically indoctrinated in relentless hatred of Israel, Israelis and Jews in general in the Palestinian Authority schools. The mosques indoctrinate Palestinian adults in the same hatred, and openly incite terror and murder against Jews ("martyrdom"). And all this with the support of the U.S. State Department paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Plainly, Israel cannot coexist peacefully with a Palestinian state ruled by the dominant Palestinian factions in the PA-ruled territories (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others). Even Israeli Arab leaders (such as Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara) have increasingly endorsed war and hatred against Israel. Clearly, no "two-state solution" with a leadership possessed of this kind of mindset could possibly bring peace to Israel.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and some of his rapidly dwindling number of supporters say that they will accept a "two state solution" only if the 450,000 or so Israelis who live beyond the "green line" in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are expelled, while the more than three million Palestinians who claim descent from the Palestinians who left the "green line" borders of Israel during the war of 1948 (most of them of their own volition, at the behest of Arab leaders who falsely promised them a quick return), are all allowed to "return" to Israel within its reduced frontiers. But before we take Abbas' reputation for "moderation" at face value, we should reflect on his remarks just a few days ago, at a rally commemorating his late mentor Yasser Arafat, when he openly called on Palestinians to "use their [American supplied] arms" against the "occupation" (meaning Israel).

Nor should we forget that the political-terrorist organization to which Abbas and his supporters belong, Fatah, continues to openly proclaim in its constitution, which is broadcast in both Arabic and English on its web site, that its goal is "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." (Article 12, "Goals" section), and that

"armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" (Article 19, "Methods" section.)

As for Hamas, which now controls the Palestinian government, it has never said that it will accept a "two-state solution" or the existence of Israel in any shape or form. Its Covenant, also freely available in both Arabic and English on sympathetic web sites (its official website has apparently been taken off the web), calls not only for the destruction of Israel but for the extermination of all Jews, quoting a Muslim Hadith (or written tradition recording the sayings of the prophet Muhammad, the second holiest source of Muslim teaching after the Quran), to that effect: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: 'The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"(Article Seven). "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."(Article Twenty-Eight.) Islamic Jihad and the smaller Palestinian terror groups all take similar positions.

Palestinian leaders have made statements suggesting that they are influenced by medieval Islamic conceptions about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, such as the belief that peace agreements with non-Muslim states are only temporary truces,(hudna),which may be violated when it is convenient for the Muslims, as was the case with the truce between the early Muslim community and the Quraysh tribe, the peace of Hudabiyya . Other beliefs that have seemingly been embraced by the Palestinian leadership include the idea that Taquiyyah, or dissimulation, is an acceptable way to speak with non-Muslims, especially when the Muslims find themselves at a disadvantage with respect to relations of power with the "unbelievers".

However, ideology is not the only reason why the present crop of Palestinian leaders will never make peace with Israel and will never accept a "two-state solution" as more than an opportunity to have a safe base of operations for terror against Israel. There is also a practical reason. The vast sums of money that flow to them and their followers every year from the Arab states, from Iran, from the European Community and also from the United States are all predicated, in one way or another, on the continuation of the terror war, and the anti-terrorist measures that these attacks have compelled Israel to take in self-defense.

It is this constant violence that creates a Palestinian "problem" or "question" that the West thinks it can solve, or at least appease, by throwing money at it. And it is this "problem" that allows Arab governments to distract their peoples from the poverty, inequality, the oppression of women, and the general backwardness that afflict their societies, and that provides a ready-made excuse for not dealing with these problems ("we must solve the Palestinian problem and get justice for the Palestinians first").

Peace with Israel would cut off the gravy train that has made Palestinian leaders multimillionaires, including Arafat's widow and daughter. It would also cut off the international publicity and spotlight that Palestinian leaders thrive on and are addicted to. A peaceful Palestine would be off the world's radar screen and no longer a magnet for aid. Leaders used to the glamour and wealth conferred by their status as armed, dangerous revolutionaries would be reduced to managing garbage collection in an impoverished, 2,500 square-mile mini-state (the size of Delaware but without resources or contiguity), without even oil to make themselves important. Why in the world would they trade their present prominence and wealth for this?

Israel has already withdrawn from 90 per cent of the territory it acquired in the 1967 defensive war in return for a "cold peace" with Egypt. Egypt has violated the treaty by filling its state-owned media with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate propaganda, and by giving arms and political support to Hamas. Israeli unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon (2000) and from large parts of the disputed "Palestinian" territories (1994-2005) have not brought about peace or even a reduction in the level of violence. Why should we expect still more Israeli territorial concessions to bring peace?

The West can never begin to think of a realistic prospect for peace until we extirpate the root cause of Islamic ideology and its terrorists infrastructure organizations (such as Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizb'allah, Muslim Brotherhood, and others) from the midst of the Middle East and elsewhere. There can never be peace with terrorists determined to destroy another nation or people. Nor can those willing to tolerate such terrorists contribute to peace.

* John Landau contributed to this article

Black September - The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan
Black September II - Out of Jordan
The Lie About the "palestinian people" and "palestinian land"
The Lie About the "palestinian people" and "palestinian land" II
Mais sobre o "povo palestino"
O mundo permanece em silêncio
Os Refugiados
Fact and Fantasy in the Holy Land
The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Eichmann's passport - Issued by Red Cross

International non-governmental organizations, helping mass murderers and genocidal fanatics escape justice for more than 50 years: Nazi Eichmann’s passport found in Argentina.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is supposedly
an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and
assistance for victims of war and armed violence.

That's what they have stated for many years despite voices protesting their bias against some groups, their affinity for others. Their vaunted claims of independence and neutrality and assisting victims of war has taken another hit with the discovery that

The passport used by notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann to enter Argentina in 1950 has been found by accident in an archive in Buenos Aires.
The passport, still in good condition, was issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva.
Eichmann was one of the main executors of Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’, the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II.

(Hat tip: LGF readers.)

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Jenin comes to Lebanon. So where is the outcry?

Jonathan Kay
National Post (

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Last week, the Lebanese army attacked a squalid Palestinian refugee camp that's become infested with Islamist suicide terrorists and guerilla fighters. On May 20, government troops surrounded the camp, with tanks and artillery pieces shelling it at close range. Army snipers gunned down anything that moved. At least 18 civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. Water and electricity were cut off. By week's end, much of the camp had been turned into deserted rubble. Thousands of terrified residents fleeing the camp reported harrowing stories of famished, parched families trapped in their basements.

How did the rest of the world react? The Arab League quickly condemned "the criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam," and vowed to "give its full support to the efforts of the army and the Lebanese government." EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also condemned Fatah al-Islam, and declared Europe's "support" for Lebanon. And the UN Security Council called the actions of Fatah al-Islam "an unacceptable attack" on Lebanon's sovereignty. As for the Western media, most outlets ignored the story following the first flurry of news reports.

At this point, please indulge me by re-reading the first paragraph of this column -- except this time, substitute the world "Israeli" for "Lebanese" in the first sentence. Let's imagine what the world's reaction would be if the ongoing siege were taking place in Gaza or the West Bank instead of the Nahr al Bared refugee camp on the outskirts of Tripoli, Lebanon.

First of all, a flood of foreign journalists would descend on the camp to document Israel's cruelty and barbarism, and the story would remain front page news to this day. Al-Jazeera would be a 24/7 montage of grieving mothers swearing revenge on the Zionist butchers, and rumours would swirl of mass graves and poison gas. The Arab League, EU and United Nations would condemn Israeli aggression -- as would the editorial board of The New York Times. The Independent would dispatch Robert Fisk to embed with Fatah al-Islam. And the newspaper's cartoonist, Dave Brown, would produce another award-winning rendition of his signature theme: Jews eating Palestinian babies.

Actually, we don't need to speculate: What I have just written is exactly what happened when the Israeli army invaded the Jenin refugee camp to root out terrorists in April, 2002, a battle that was similar in scale to this month's siege at Nahr al Bared. (At Jenin, 52 refugee camp residents were killed -- most of them gunmen, according to Human Rights Watch. At Nahr al Bared, the figure is 45 and climbing.) The main difference between the two sieges is that Israel's army put its troops at far greater risk by invading Jenin with infantry -- whereas the less humane Lebanese army has simply pummelled Nahr al Bared with explosives from a distance. Jews apparently care a lot more about saving Palestinian civilians than do Lebanese soldiers.

For years, we have been told that Palestinian suffering and "humiliation" is at the root of the Middle East conflict, as well as the Western-Muslim clash of civilizations more generally. This is nonsense: The 200,000-plus Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanese camps are treated worse than dogs -- with no access to decent schools or good jobs -- and no one in the Arab world cares a whit. In fact, many Arabs seem to embrace the same blind anti-Palestinian hatred of which Israel is typically accused. When Lebanese armoured personnel carriers rolled through Tripoli on May 20, they got a standing ovation from local residents. "We wish the government would destroy the whole camp and the rest of the camps," one local told The New York Times. "Nothing good comes out of the Palestinians."

Just as Lebanon's stew of eternally warring Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Hezbollah terrorists and militarized clans serves as a Mediterranean microcosm for the political dysfunction of the Arab world, this month's events capture perfectly the utter cynicism of the Islamic world's trumped up vilification of Israel, and the West as a whole. As with the Muslim- on-Muslim slaughter in Darfur, Iraq, Pakistan, Gaza and a dozen other hot spots, the siege at Nahr al Bared shows that what inflames "the Muslim street" (for lack of a better cliche) isn't Muslim suffering, but the relatively tiny fraction thereof that jihadi propagandists and their Western apologists can lay at the feet of Jews and Christians.

Muslim blood apparently comes cheap -- but only when it's drawn by other Muslims.

Monday, May 28, 2007

The Top 100 Chomsky Lies

Naom Chomsky is undoubtly the uncrowned King of 'The New Age of Unreason', the Halal Hippie guru, the Naivist inspiration, the placard poster-boy of the useful idiots and the psychiatric messup needed to twist rationality and reason into an ideological mental masturbation of wet dreams featuring Pol Pot, Marx, Stalinist Russia in an intellectual gangbang full of unseen and absurd perversities spiced with masochistic self-hatred through fascination with primal primitivism giving the sense of satisfaction.

Here are some of the finer pearls of the Chomsky lies:

"in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."
Deaths: 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on
"The United States and Britain fought the war, of course. But not primarily against Nazi-Germany. The war against Nazi-Germany was fought by the Russians... You have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. Maybe a better way was not to support him (Hitler) in the first place, as Britain and the United States did"

"In January 1976, the US was compelled to veto a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a settlement in terms of an international condsensus, which now included a Palestinian state alongside Israel... [Israel alleged] that the PLO not only backed this peace plan but in fact 'prepared' it; The PLO condemned the tyranny of the veto (in words of the PLO representative) by which the US blocked this important effort to bring about a peaceful two-state settlement.'
The PLO resolution was 'The right of return' and the dissolution of Israel.
PLO publicly stressed - 'This Zionist ghetto must be destroyed' and 'We will not recognize Israel'.

"[By 1982] The PLO was getting extremely annoying to Israel with its insistence on a negotiated settlement of the conflict"
The PLO stated 'Peace to us means the destruction of Israel'.

"I see no Antisemitic implications in denial of gas chambers, or even in denial of the Holocaust"

Get more laughs with more Chomsky lies and absurdities:

Video: Death Cult Children's Theater

Uploaded to YouTube by a Hamas supporter last April, this is one of the most unbelievably evil videos I’ve ever seen.

It’s a home movie from hell, featuring a group of young girls dressed as suicide bombers and terrorists, waving knives and guns and holding dolls, performing a school play somewhere in Gaza. A doting father carefully adjusts his daughter’s suicide bomb belt so it will look just right for the performance.

Absolutely monstrous.

Click here to see the video
In this still from the video, one little girl dressed as a suicide bomber has her hands painted red to symbolize blood, in a scene that’s probably meant to invoke the horrific lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Scrutinizing Amnesty International


The incredibly biased work of Amnesty International is the subject of a new report by NGO Monitor: Scrutinize Amnesty International.

As Amnesty releases its annual report on human rights for 2006, amid highly choreographed public relations events, and repeating the familiar condemnations of Israel and America, NGO Monitor has also published a report on Amnesty’s activities in the Middle East. The result is not a pretty picture for those clinging to the “halo effect.”

Using a detailed and sophisticated qualitative model for comparing relative resources devoted to the different countries, this report clearly shows that in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

During the year, Amnesty issued 48 publications critical of Israel, compared to 35 for Iran, 2 for Saudi Arabia, and only 7 for Syria. Many of the attacks directed at Israel took place during the war with Hezbollah, but this terror group and state-within-a-state also got relatively little attention from Amnesty.

Furthermore, as Amnesty has almost no professional researchers, many of the “factual” claims in these reports were provided by “eyewitnesses,” whose political affiliations and credibility can be only guessed. And the language used in these reports also reflects an obsessive and unjustified singling out of Israel, with frequent use of terms such “disproportionate attacks,” “war crimes,” and “violations of international humanitarian law.”

And while Amnesty International was founded to fight for the freedom of political prisoners, the officials in charge of this organization failed to issue a single statement calling for the release of the Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas, and who have not been heard from since their illegal capture.

These and many other details published in NGO Monitor’s report on Amnesty provide further evidence that this powerful NGO has lost its way, and is no longer a “respectable” or credible human rights organization.

Thursday, May 24, 2007


by Rachel Neuwirth

Administration officials, and some in the media, may refer to certain Arab countries as "our friends" or "our allies." That designation is applied to those Arab countries which receive American support, both military and economic. Such recipients include the Arab Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. With so much attention understandably focused on Iraq, we should not lose sight of the conduct of Egypt, the most populous and most powerful of all the Arab countries. Egypt receives $2.2 billion in American aid each year, and is supposed to be our friend and ally.

For much of the cold war period, Egypt, along with Syria, was a Soviet client. In 1967, and again in 1973, Egypt attacked Israel with Soviet-supplied weapons. After the 1973 Yom Kippur attack on Judaism's holiest day, a badly wounded Israel finally turned the tide and was on the verge of victory. But President Nixon intervened to rescue Egypt from an ignominious defeat, by demanding that Israel halt its advance and allow the surrounded Egyptian army to be secure and re-supplied. If Israel refused, Nixon was prepared to confront Israel with stronger measures.

In 1978, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and with the U.S. as a participating third party. Egypt then recovered all of the Sinai, which it had used to launch three prior wars against Israel, including its 1948 war in violation of the U.N. Partition Plan, which had been accepted by Israel. Following the peace treaty they got back every inch of the Sinai, plus a momentous gift of air fields, roads, and oil wells, all developed by Israel during ten years, plus billions in American economic and military aid. American business was also encouraged to support various development projects in Egypt that would create jobs for their growing population. Egypt launched a war of aggression, loses the war, is rescued by America, signs a peace agreement which it is free to violate, and then receives back all of the Sinai plus billions in U.S. taxpayer aid. Who says `crime doesn't pay'?

In return for these huge rewards Egypt committed to implement its peace treaty with Israel and to normalize relations. Egypt never fulfilled its commitments. It blocked Egyptians from visiting Israel, limited trade, blocked cultural exchanges and maintained extreme anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda in the government-controlled media. A few years ago Egypt withdrew its Ambassador to Israel in yet another violation of its peace treaty. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has refused to visit Israel (except for the funeral of Yitzak Rabin in 1995).

Following the 1991 Gulf War, Egypt was forgiven $7 billion of its debt to America in return for their alleged help. We know that NATO allies sent many troops and other countries gave substantial support, but it is hard to discover exactly how much `help' we actually received from Egypt. After receiving that $7 billion gift, there was still no improvement in Egypt's honoring of its peace treaty with Israel. As American military and economic aid continued to flow, Egypt continued it's long-term military buildup including missiles from North Korea. Over the years Egypt has received over 50 billion dollars in U.S. aid.

In return for massive American aid, is Egypt helping us to promote peace and stability in the region? Is it ready to help us fight terrorists and to stand with us in Iraq? Or is it pursuing its own destructive agenda of waging low-level warfare against our Israeli ally? Yes, we do hear State Department pronouncements lauding Egyptian `cooperation' in the region and we even see confused leftist Israeli politicians making an occasional pilgrimage to confer with Hosni Mubarak. But there is a big difference between diplomatic atmospherics and true substance.

Let's take a closer look at some substance. As we look around for urgently needed support troops from our friends it is good to realize that Egypt knows very well how to fight - especially when going to war against Israel. They also knew how to gas the people in Yemen in the 1960's under Gamal Nasser, years before Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. They are full of fighting spirit when openly training for their next war against Israel and while indoctrinating their populace to hate Israel and even their American benefactors. As a recent example Dr. Rif'at Sayyed Ahmad, director of the Jaffa Research Center in Cairo and columnist for Al-Liwaa Al-Islami, Egypt's state-controlled newspaper, published a two-part article, 'The Lie About The Burning of the Jews,' which claims the Holocaust was a Jewish invention.

In addition, no item is too trivial or too petty for Egypt, when it comes to hatred of Israel. After pop star Madonna (now calling herself Esther, as a devotee of Kabala) completed her spiritual, non-political, visit to Israel the Cairo regime ordered its embassies around the world to deny Madonna any request for a visa to visit Egypt. This pathological hatred extends to Egyptian opposition to the normalizing of contacts, even 25 years after the peace treaty. Egyptians who want to visit Israel risk punishment by their government. A recent popular song had the endearing title of, "I hate Israel". And in recent years Hitler's Mein Kampf was an Egyptian best seller in Arabic translation.

Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 25, 2004) that Egypt is "facilitating arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip ... allowing the Palestinians to continue smuggling arms from Sinai into Gaza despite Israeli protests." He said "Egypt knew exactly which arms were being smuggled, and could halt the smuggling of rocket-propelled grenades into Gaza." Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky said on the Anne Coulter Radio Show on May 19, 2004, that "90% of the weapons in Gaza came through the tunnels from Egypt."

Recently nine U.S. Senators (Brownback, Wyden, Talent, Johnson, Santorum, Dorgan, Inhofe, Inouye, and Ensign) have already started a Congressional effort urging President Bush to "convey to Egypt in the strongest possible terms that it has an obligation to put a stop to weapons smuggling that originates from within its borders by shutting down the Egyptian side of the tunnel network." When Israel is forced to respond to the smuggling and to the attacks on its civilians from those smuggled weapons the Administration can readily find it voice to admonish Israel to restrain itself. But where is the Administration's voice to admonish Egypt for its criminal actions?

McLaughlin and Associates conducted a poll about Egypt July 14-15, 2004 on a scientifically selected sample of 1,000 Americans. The question was, "Do you think Egypt is a reliable and trustworthy ally of America in the war against terrorism?" 50.1% said NO and only 22.5% said YES. The rest had no opinion. Even though the public may not know the full extent of Egyptian misconduct, most Americans still understand that Egypt is not our friend and ally, despite the continuing flow of taxpayer billions.

Egypt today is a nation of some 70 million, with a huge standing army of about 440,000 plus reserves. After the 1978 peace agreement with Israel, Egypt embarked on a decades-long program of military buildup - this time with the top-of-the-line American weapons. They are building their army and equipment to match and even to surpass Israeli capabilities, thanks to U.S. aid. Their training exercises are all aimed at fighting a future war against Israel. Their populace and military remain indoctrinated with extreme hatred against Israel and against Jews

Suppose Israel came under coordinated attack from Iran, Syria, Hezb'Allah, Hamas and Arafat's Palestinian Authority - comprising a major threat. Then what would prevent Egypt from seizing the opportunity to join in that war? In 1967 Jordan attacked Israel with U.S.-supplied tanks in violation of U.S. assurances that they were only for defense. Jordan was not punished, but rather received replacements from America for those tanks lost to Israel. In like manner, there is no U.S. guarantee that Egypt would refrain from an unprovoked attack and Egypt's own experience suggests that there would be no tangible U.S. opposition and Israel would be on her own. Our ongoing arming of Egypt, to the point where it can seriously threaten Israel while it remains hostile and in gross violation of its peace treaty, needs some explanation.

In our war in Iraq, we look to our friends and allies to help share our heavy military burden. Except for Great Britain, and modest help from Italy and Poland, NATO has not responded as it should, while the U.N. offers mostly advice. What excuse is there for Arab Egypt to remain on the sidelines, after having received tens of billions of dollars in American aid? To ask the question is also to answer it. The Bush Administration has not demanded that Egypt meet its responsibility to help us out with a sizeable contingent, or else let them forgo our $2.2 billion in annual aid.

It is reasonable to ask why should they volunteer to do anything, if they can do nothing and still receive full U.S. aid? America is a direct participant to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, including obligations to ensure compliance of the parties. There are supposed to be hundreds of American personnel in the Sinai to monitor the separation of forces and adherence to the terms of the peace treaty. Why aren't they monitoring the smuggling of weapons through those tunnels? The U.S. is aggressively monitoring, via satellite and ground inspectors, whenever Israel builds any homes for Jews to live peacefully in certain parts of the historic land of Israel that are claimed by Arabs.

Egypt is being armed by America far in excess of its legitimate defense needs and toward a growing offensive capability. Israel must now divert more of its limited resources to defending yet another border against a huge and powerful enemy. Israel is a country of only 5.5 million Jews, and they must defend against other implacable enemies in the region, totaling many times their size, and with some (Jordan and Saudi Arabia and not counting the Arab Gulf states) being armed with U.S.-supplied weapons.

Another reason Egypt prefers not to help us is that Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, might feel threatened by the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq in the region. It might give ideas to his own oppressed and exploited masses. He is busy grooming his son to become the next dictator over Egypt. And he won his last `election' by some 99% of the vote. Of course he was the only candidate running! So, thanks to American indulgence, he is free to threaten Israel, arm the Palestinian terrorists and in general undermines U.S. attempts to democratize the Middle East.

If the Bush Administration were serious in fighting terror it would advise Egypt to promptly send troops to Iraq to face the terrorists and relieve our own troops, or else forgo our billions in aid. Egypt has a very good army because we armed them and helped to train them. Our failure to demand their help is a signal to other countries that American foreign policy can be easily manipulated to their advantage. And it shows that it is easy to betray America and still receive American aid.

The bottom line is that American policy is contradictory, self-defeating, and dangerous to our Israeli ally, and makes us look bumbling and inept to the world. President Bush's announced goal to fight terrorism and to democratize the Middle East is contradicted by his inconsistent Egyptian policy. He exposes our own troops to high casualties and ongoing attrition while a huge Egyptian army, armed and trained by us, sits nearby in safety and contributes nothing. Our opponents among the Arabs, Europeans, Chinese and others must be smirking with amusement and pleasure as they watch the world's only superpower thrashing around in such abysmal confusion.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

A força de paz da ONU vende armas. Ouro é a moeda


Tropas paquistanesas que integram a missão de paz da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) na República Democrática do Congo venderam e trocaram suas armas aos grupos rebeldes que deveriam desarmar. De acordo com reportagem divulgada nesta quarta-feira pela rede britânica BBC, os soldados da tropa de paz negociaram as armas e conseguiram ouro em troca - os militares patrulhavam uma região próxima às minas de Mongbwalu, nordeste do país.

As milícias que obtiveram as armas nas transações com as forças da ONU foram responsáveis pelos mais graves abusos e atrocidades da longa guerra civil do país. As negociações ocorreram até 2005. De acordo com a BBC, uma equipe de investigação enviada ao país pela cúpula das Nações Unidas foi ameaçada e não conseguiu apurar se as trocas de armas por ouro realmente ocorreram. O relatório da equipe foi cancelado para não prejudicar a missão.

A BBC informa que os paquistaneses que participaram das trocas foram bem recebidos na região, palco de violentos conflitos entre os grupos étnicos Lendu e Hema. Mas as tropas logo se interessaram mais pela riqueza das minas de ouro da região do que pela sua pacificação. De acordo com Liki Likambo, líder da mineração no local, os paquistaneses começaram a negociar o ouro e logo estavam acertando as transações diretamente com as milícias mais perigosas.

Video: Bloodshed and Anarchy in Gaza

"Palestinians" from Gaza:“We Pray that Israel will Come Back and Rule Us Again"

Here’s another UK TV clip from LGF operative Kasper, a better look at the situation in Gaza than we usually get from US media, in which a Palestinian man fed up with the fighting and bloodshed says he wishes Israel would come back in and take over.

"Hamas is Worse than Israel, Worse than Sharon"

The speaker of those words is one Ziad Zaranda, the Gazan whose fiancée, Yusra Azzami, 20, was murdered because the couple were seen walking by the sea and Hamas operatives decided this act was so immoral, she deserved to die.

The young couple's tale is fraught with implications for Palestinian political and social life, but I focus on Zaranda's statement that Hamas is worse than Israel because it fits a theme I have researched for some years and have just gone into print with. Titled "The Hell of Israel Is Better than the Paradise of Arafat," the longish article provides what may be the first-ever compilation of pro-Israel statements by Palestinians, then draws some conclusions from this recurring pattern.
Palestinos pró-Israel
Pro-Israel Palestinians
"The Hell of Israel Is Better than the Paradise of Arafat"

IBD: Jimmy Carter 'Worst' in U.S. History

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history"

Jimmy Carter (the Genocide-Enabler who was overwhelmingly defeated by Ronald Reagan in his bid for reelection)

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

"Is America as respected throughout the world?”

Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter (two poignant questions that the public took to heart. The result? A landslide in which Carter won only 41 percent of the popular)

Former President Carter recently lashed out at the Bush administration, calling it "the worst in history" in international relations.

But Investor's Business Daily believes the "worst" label applies to Carter.

In an editorial headlined "Carter: Our Worst Ex-President?" the newspaper slams the ex-president for his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," saying "Carter has deservedly been hammered for his twisted anti-Israel beliefs. Now, his namesake Carter Center has been rocked by the departure of a number of well-respected board members, angry over the book."

Calling the book "a doozy," IBD says it is permeated with anti-Israel bias. It also rips Carter for telling a "truly big whopper" in claiming that the late Yasser Arafat, Hamas and others in the Palestinian leadership are men of peace.

"This is an absurdity, by any stretch of the imagination. These are men of terror, and should be treated as such," IBD says.

"Carter on page 62 recounts a meeting with Yasser Arafat in 1990. He quotes Arafat, uncritically, saying: 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' Arafat blames the idea on 'Zionists.'

"Since Carter lets this lie go completely unchallenged, he must believe it. In fact, the very reason for the PLO's founding was to eliminate Israel. There are many other lies, large and small."

The editorial, which kicks off a 10-part series about Carter, concludes:

"We're pretty sure Carter's reputation will remain in tatters, given his anti-Israel diatribes. The peanut farmer from Georgia, once the leader of the free world, now seems a very small man indeed."

The 10-part series also states:

"So Jimmy Carter calls the Bush administration "the worst in history." This from the man who wrecked the world's greatest economy and made a nuclear Iran and North Korea possible."

"When it comes to economic performance, there's no contest: Apart from the early years of the Depression, Jimmy Carter's brief tenure as president was the worst in the 20th century."

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Ciência ou palhaçada?

Olavo de Carvalho
Diário do Comércio, 21 de maio de 2007

“Verdade inconveniente”, por definição, é algum fato cuja divulgação fere os interesses de uma elite dominante e por isso acaba sendo boicotada e suprimida. Quando, ao contrário, quem sai alardeando a tal verdade são os grupos político-econômicos mais possantes do universo – proprietários da quase totalidade dos meios de comunicação na Europa e nos EUA –, o mínimo que a prudência recomenda é suspeitar que está sendo servida ao público uma farsa monstruosa calculada para usurpar, em benefício dos próprios donos do poder, o prestígio cultural da marginalidade e da independência.

O detalhe de que no Brasil o apoio a esse empreendimento venha do maior banco nacional e da maior rede local de TV já basta para alertar que não se trata de nenhuma verdade renegada buscando abrir espaço entre barreiras de silêncio erigidas pela classe dominante. Vocês já viram alguma verdade inconveniente ser estampada nas manchetes do New York Times , ganhar o Oscar , ser trombeteada pela rede Globo e abrilhantada pelo charme e beleza (já um pouco passados, é verdade) de Xuxa Meneghel em pessoa?

A sabedoria popular brasileira já deu sua opinião a respeito, acorrendo aos milhões para aplaudir o papa Bento XVI e ignorando solenemente o show bilionário do sr. Al Gore, bem como as gesticulações histéricas com que nossos parlamentares procuravam, na mesma semana, mobilizar as massas contra os supostos horrores da “homofobia”.

“Gore” quer dizer “ferir”, “derramar sangue”. Nomen est omen , “o nome é profecia”, diziam os romanos. A carreira do referido, uma longa sucessão de gentilezas a algumas das forças políticas mais sanguinárias do planeta, incluindo Fidel Castro e as Farc, só foi possibilitada pelo dinheiro com que a ditadura soviética engordou o seu pai, Albert Gore, por intermédio do megapicareta Armand Hammer, o qual, com razão, dizia ter o então senador “no bolso do colete” (a história completa de Hammer está no livro de Edward Jay Epstein, “Dossier. The Secret History of Armand Hammer”, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, 1999). Desse bolso emergiu a figura bisonha de Gore Júnior, em cuja candidatura presidencial outro príncipe da picaretagem internacional, George Soros, apostou quantias incalculáveis nas eleições de 2000.

Com a mesma cara de pau com que durante anos negou o genocídio stalinista na Ucrânia e proclamou Fidel Castro um campeão da democracia no Caribe, o New York Times apresenta-nos agora o ex-candidato crônico à presidência americana como um homem bem-aventurado a quem o fracasso eleitoral libertou das malhas do oficialismo, dando-lhe a oportunidade de falar em seu próprio nome, ser sincero, dizer aquilo em que acredita e ser reconhecido enfim como um profeta. Essa mudança de casta, da realeza para o sacerdócio, é uma farsa total. Se Gore acreditasse numa só palavra do que diz, não gastaria mais combustível fóssil em sua mansão de Belle Meade, Tennessee, do que várias centenas de famílias americanas juntas (ver
link). E o estatuto de profeta só se consegue quando aqueles que por longo tempo negaram as nossas previsões acabam concordando com elas a contragosto. No caso de Gore isso não aconteceu de maneira alguma. Aqueles que o aplaudem agora são os mesmos que sempre o fizeram: o NYT, o CFR, George Soros, a ONU, Hollywood e as fundações bilionárias. Não consta que um só membro da abominável direita tenha dado sua mão à palmatória ante as revelações eco-ilógicas de Al Gore.

Para compensar, a mobilização mundial para dar ares de verdade científica final à impossível teoria da origem humana do aquecimento global adquire dia a dia mais força, alimentada pela santa aliança da mídia chique, dos organismos internacionais, da militância esquerdista organizada e das grandes fortunas – os quatro pilares da estupidez contemporânea. A mais recente efusão de sapiência dessas criaturas é o manifesto “Defendam a Ciência”, assinado por 128 professores universitários que, por motivos insondáveis, acreditam falar em nome de uma entidade mítica chamada “a ciência”.

A referida ciência, segundo os distintos, está sofrendo, nas mãos da administração Bush, horrores só comparáveis àqueles que os primeiros mártires do saber científico teriam padecido nos cárceres da Santa Inquisição. Em vão se procurará nas colunas do Index Librorum Prohibitorum um só título de Descartes, de Kepler, de Newton, de Leibniz ou qualquer outra obra fundamental para o advento das ciências modernas; mas, uma vez consagrada a lenda de que a perseguição inquisitorial sufocou a ciência nascente, novas lendas podem ser fabricadas a partir dessa, tomada como premissa tremendamente científica. Bebendo nessa fonte, o manifesto acusa o governo americano de “ bloquear o progresso científico, minar a educação dos cientistas e sacrificar a integridade mesma do processo científico, tudo em busca de implementar sua própria agenda política particular,... aliada a uma agenda ideológica extremista defendida por poderosas forças religiosas fundamentalistas geralmente conhecidas como a Direita Religiosa. É freqüente, na presente administração, o governo negar subsídios, censurar relatórios científicos, manipular, distorcer ou suprimir descobertas científicas que ela ache objetáveis .”

Contra este calamitoso estado de perseguição e censura, a ciência silenciada geme e se debate no fundo do poço da exclusão social, pedindo socorro (e dinheiro, evidentemente) à opinião pública.

Mas só um trouxa completo ou um cérebro intoxicado de maconha intelectual esquerdista pode acreditar nessa patacoada.

“O governo” não rejeita relatório científico algum. Quem o faz são cientistas de profissão – tão cientistas quanto os signatários do manifesto – que exercem o seu direito de não dar chancela oficial a teorias que lhes parecem duvidosas ou simplesmente interesseiras (o fato, por exemplo, de que o sr. Gore tenha quase toda a sua fortuna investida hoje em “fontes alternativas de energia” mostra que o que está em jogo para ele não é tanto a sobrevivência da humanidade, mas a integridade do seu próprio traseiro).

Em segundo lugar, George W. Bush não é “o governo americano”, é só uma parte dele. O Congresso é dominado pelos fãs de Al Gore; se eles tivessem em mãos a prova de uma só supressão proposital de dados científicos vitais para a segurança nacional, já haveria comissões de inquérito mordendo os calcanhares do presidente como o fazem a toda hora pelos motivos mais fúteis (como por exemplo as historinhas de Valerie Plame).

Em terceiro lugar, o governo americano, considerado como máquina de divulgação, é literalmente um nada, é um cocô de mosquito, em comparação com o conjunto da grande mídia que apóia maciçamente o alarmismo goreano. Como na história do milionário português que instalou uma janela de vidro fumê na sala de sua casa para que os vizinhos não espionassem as gandaias homéricas que ele ali promovia, mas, por um lapso formidável, colocou o vidro voltado para o lado errado, o governo Bush, se quisesse ocultar alguma “verdade inconveniente” sobre o aquecimento global, só conseguiria ocultá-la de si próprio, deixando-a à vista da opinião pública. Vocês já viram algum jornal ou canal de TV alardear as conquistas espetaculares da ajuda americana no Iraque, a recuperação da economia do Iraque, a prosperidade geral da população iraquiana, a reconstrução de todas as escolas e hospitais do país em tempo recorde? Já leram em manchetes de oito colunas que, em comparação com todas as guerras dos últimos cem anos, a do Iraque foi a que menos atingiu a população civil? O governo vive divulgando essas coisas, mas elas sim são verdades inconvenientes. O establishment midiático suprime-as tão completamente que falar delas é passar por maluco. O manifesto dos 128 iluminados, exatamente como o próprio título do livro-filme de Al Gore, condensa a exata inversão do estado real de coisas.

A organização que promove o empreendimento é aliás bem característica da rede de entidades ativistas por onde circula o dinheiro dos bilionários apóstolos da Nova Ordem Mundial. O site como principal financiador o Institute for the Study of Natural and Cultural Resources. O diretor deste último, Lee Swenson, começou sua carreira na militância anti-americana dos anos 60, indo heroicamente para a cadeia para fugir do serviço militar. Depois ajudou a criar uma série de entidades militantes da New Left , entre as quais o Institute for the Study of Non-Violence, junto com a cantora Joan Baez. O Institute the Study of Natural and Cultural Resources é apenas a última da série. Uma notável carreira científica, como se vê.

Se vocês querem uma genuína “verdade inconveniente”, assistam ao documentário “A Grande Trapaça do Aquecimento Global” (“The Great Global Warming Swindle”), uma resposta arrasadora aos esforços publicitários do sr. Gore. Não foi feito com subsídios bilionários nem recebeu da mídia e do beautiful people o respaldo generosamente oferecido à autopromoção desse indivíduo. Os depoimentos ali apresentados são de cientistas profissionais, alguns de fama mundial, que não têm por que ser excluídos a priori da condição de representantes legítimos da sua classe, na qual ocupam posições pelo menos similares às dos sacerdotes do culto goreano. Vejam e em seguida escrevam às organizações envolvidas na promoção da visita de Al Gore, perguntando por que elas se recusam a oferecer ao público os dois lados da questão; por que alardeiam um só e ainda proclamam, com intolerável cinismo, que é uma verdade sufocada pelo establishment , quando obviamente elas próprias são o establishment e a única verdade sufocada é aquela que elas sufocam.
Mas nem tudo no manifesto é empulhação barata. Há nele uma subcorrente de argumentos que vem do fundo dos séculos, alimentando um dos erros mais trágicos em que a humanidade já se meteu.

O paradoxo mais chocante da ideologia científica atual é sua capacidade de fundir, às vezes num mesmo parágrafo, o prestígio intelectual das precauções metodológicas popperianas que afirmam a inexistência de verdades científicas definitivas com o apelo à prosternação geral ante a autoridade inquestionável dessas mesmas verdades. Do ponto de vista sociológico, trata-se de misturar numa só pasta confusa, os três tipos de autoridade assinalados por Max Webber, os quais, normalmente, deveriam permanecer estranhos e independentes entre si: a autoridade racional da ciência, a autoridade tradicional da religião estabelecida e a autoridade carismática dos profetas. Conforme expliquei em artigo anterior, a condição básica da investigação científica é a renúncia ao dom de proferir verdades definitivas, quanto mais ao de transfigurá-las em leis e reivindicar a punição dos discordantes. A própria natureza crítica e analítica do processo científico exige essa renúncia, bem como a abertura permanente e ilimitada às objeções e críticas, que são a alma mesma da racionalidade científica. Essa renúncia, que deu à classe dos cientistas o prestígio incalculavelmente valioso da modéstia racional em confronto com as pretensões dogmáticas do clero religioso, dissolve-se a si mesma no momento em que as conclusões provisórias de tal ou qual conjunto de investigações são proclamadas como verdades definitivas e a tentativa de discuti-las é criminalizada como um ato de lesa-majestade. Após haver atribuido esse tipo de autoridade à teoria da evolução, o ativismo científico procura arrogá-la agora a uma doutrina ainda mais incerta e problemática, a da origem humana do aquecimento global. E, ao mesmo tempo que usa de todos os recursos econômicos e políticos ao seu dispor para sufocar as vozes dissonantes, ele próprio se faz de perseguido e silenciado. A voz que se queixa de sufocada ecoa por todos os canais da mídia mundial, denunciando sua própria farsa da maneira mais patente e apostando, em última análise, na incapacidade pública de notar o paradoxo. Esse apelo à autoridade dogmática por parte daqueles que continuam se nomeando representantes do pensamento crítico é maravilhosamente complementado pela glamurização de Al Gore como um profeta – profeta que clama no deserto de Hollywood, ante as câmeras, holofotes e microfones. O caráter paródico do empreendimento no seu conjunto não escapa ao observador atento, mas talvez escape às multidões distraídas. E é com isso que contam os autores do manifesto.

Israel the biggest human rights problem? Really?

(Iranian Police Beat Women in Tehran)
The Iranian theocracy was serious about that crackdown on “un-Islamic” dress; they’ve begun
beating women in Tehran who don’t comply.

Gerald Steinberg, who publishes the NGO Monitor, has carefully reviewed the various activities and official activities by Amnesty International in the last year, and found that for Amnesty, Israel is a bigger human rights problem than Sudan. In fact Israel is near the top of the list of all the "bad" countries on Amnesty's list, barely getting nosed out by Iran as the top focus of the organization.

Steinberg develops a model for comparing Amnesty's activities for each country. The Amnesty obsession with Israel puts it in line with the United Nations, where 40% of all resolutions are aimed at Israel. When there is so much real evil in the world, and a human rights group focuses on Israel in this way one can conclude a lot about its motivation, fairness, and objectivity.

Peanut Envy

Almost always, when former President Jimmy Carter opens his big, smug mouth, he has already made the psychological mistake that is going to reduce his words to absurdity. When he told the press last week that the Bush administration had aroused antipathy around the world, he might have been uttering no more than a banality. But no, he had to try to invest it with a special signature flourish. So, he said instead:

I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including [those of] George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.

Leave aside the sophomoric slackness that begins a broken-backed sentence with the words "as far as" and then cannot complete itself. "Worst in history," as the great statesman from Georgia has to know, has been the title for which he has himself been actively contending since 1976. I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. "Mr. Carter," he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

I still think Richard Nixon has to be the prime candidate here, but you will notice that Jimmy Carter evinces nostalgia for that period, too. Apparently, the Christmas bombing of Vietnam, the invasion of Cambodia, the subversion of democracy in Chile, the raising of illegal slush funds, and the attempt to bug the Democratic National Committee offices were assertions of America's "basic values." Leave aside Carter's newfound admiration for Ronald Reagan, who is now undergoing a more general historical revision thanks to the work of professors Diggins and Brinkley, and just concentrate for a moment on what he says about George Bush Sr. What did he say at the time? Many people in retrospect think Bush did a good job in assembling a large multinational coalition, under U.N. auspices, for the emancipation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. But Jimmy Carter used his prestige, at that uneasy moment, to make an open appeal to all governments not to join that coalition. He went public to oppose the settled policy of Congress and the declared resolutions of the United Nations and to denounce his own country as the warmonger. And, after all, why not? It was he who had created the conditions for the Gulf crisis in the first place—initially by fawning on the shah of Iran and then, when that option collapsed, by encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and by "tilting" American policy to his side. If I had done such a thing, I would take very good care to be modest when discussions of Middle Eastern crises came up. But here's the thing about self-righteous, born-again demagogues: Nothing they ever do, or did, can be attributed to anything but the very highest motives.

Here is a man who, in his latest book on the Israel-Palestine crisis, has found the elusive key to the problem. The mistake of Israel, he tells us (and tells us that he told the Israeli leadership) is to have moved away from God and the prophets and toward secularism. If you ever feel like a good laugh, just tell yourself that things would improve if only the Israeli government would be more Orthodox. Jimmy Carter will then turn his vacantly pious glare on you, as if to say that you just don't understand what it is to have a personal savior.

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president's dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House "Bible study" sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.

The quotation with which I began comes from an interview that he gave last week to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He also went on the British Broadcasting Corporation to make spiteful and cheap remarks on the retirement of Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling him "loyal, blind, apparently subservient." Yes, that's right, Mr. Carter. Just the way to make friends and assert "America's basic values." Show us your peanut envy. Heap insults on a guest in Washington: a thrice-elected prime minister who was the first and strongest ally of the United States on the most awful day in its recent history. A man who was prepared to risk his own career to be counted as a friend. A man who was warning against the Taliban, against Slobodan Milosevic, and against Saddam Hussein when George Bush was only the governor of Texas. Leaders like that deserve a little respect even when they are wrong—but don't expect any generosity or courtesy from the purse-mouthed preacher man from Plains, who just purely knows he was right all along, and who, when that fails, can always point to the numberless godly victories that he won over the forces of evil.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction (Ludwig von Mises)

A FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE) publicou o livro "Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction". São nove conferências de Ludwig von Mises ministradas na San Francisco Public Library.

O livro está disponível gratuitamente no formato PDF e pode ser baixado aqui -->

O site oficial da FEE é:

Al Durah Affair: What Happened?

People who followed Middle East news in 2000 cannot forget the image of Muhamed al Durah, gunned down in a hail of Israeli bullets at the very beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada. The impact of this dramatic footage on global culture is close to incalculable. Its prominence goes far beyond any other image from this terrible conflict and its impact goes far beyond any of its other images, one of “the most powerful images of the past 50 years,” one of the shaping images of this young 21st century. One extreme claims that it reveals Israeli malevolence and wanton violence, deliberately targeting a defenseless child and killing him in cold blood. “In killing this boy the Israelis killed every child in the world” (Osama bin Laden). The other side claims that it was either staged or a snuff film that reveals the ruthless and paranoid nature of PA media culture… the first blood libel of the 21st century. Even-handedness – Who knows who did it? It’s a tragedy – doesn’t work here. If we hope to learn anything from this terrible event, it will come from examination. We put the evidence before you and the five possible scenarios with arguments for and against. Judge for yourself.

Al Durah Affair: The Dossier

The articles gathered here represent the major material at the Augean Stables on al Durah Affair. For further material go to the The Second Draft.

Al Durah: The Chronology
Enderlin vs. Karsenty Decision (English Translation)

BACKGROUNDER: Mohammed Al Dura
Anatomy of a French Media Scandal

Friday, May 18, 2007

Of Flatulent Cows and Liberal Madness

The other day we were once again warned about that dire danger to our existence - cow flatulence. It just so turns out that the gaseous emissions of the bovine digestive tract account for more greenhouse gasses than all the SUVs, airplanes, trucks and cars combined. In other words, as far as global warming is concerned cows pose a greater threat to our survival than transport. And this according to the UN no less.

All those worried about the future of our planet should be asked whether they really believe that cow flatulence can lead to an atmospheric meltdown.

If you are even remotely tempted to answer in the affirmative you have a serious problem. And don't think that citing Al Gore will get you off the hook; hiding behind the foolhardiness of others is a poor way of concealing your own. The truth is that Al Gore is an unbalanced man which should be obvious to everyone with the eyes to see. That he still enjoys any credibility is evidence of just how confused we have become.

Which brings us to the rapidly growing ranks of crazies crowding the leftist loony land. To be sure, not all of them are panic-stricken followers of Al Gore. Should truth be told, the left has become a powerful magnet for the unhinged of all stripes. Lest you have any doubts consider some of the more mainstream views entertained therein:

-Sucking out the brains of the unborn should be a constitutional right
-It is proper for two men to become a husband and husband
-Murderous Islamists are freedom fighters
-Higher taxes lead to prosperity
-George W. Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11

The question is how otherwise intelligent human beings - as many leftists clearly are - can believe such inanities. Many have puzzled hard over this but with little success, mainly because they tend to overlook the very thing from which it all ultimately originates.

Whatever else can be said about the left, godlessness is its cardinal trait. So much so that even the most unobtrusive and innocent tokens of religious expression unfailingly draw its ire. The Ten Commandments in a courthouse, ‘one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘merry Christmas' in a greeting are like a red cape before a raging bull. The left is more than just atheistic; it is rabidly so.

But this is a very precarious state to be in and something that a very wise book expressly cautions against. There we learn that those who turn on God will be afflicted with ‘madness, blindness and confusion of mind.'

Only this can explain how apparently intelligent people can approve of driving a pair of scissors through the skull of an unborn baby, think it normal for two men to say ‘I do,' or believe that bovine flatulence will push up ocean tides.

Those who argue that liberal confusion is due to stupidity are flat out wrong. Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards and many of their ritzy friends consistently display uncommon ingenuity and cunning in the management of their worldly affairs. Rather than lacking in brainpower, these people suffer from something worse. They have been stricken with that moral madness that so frequently grips those who turn against God. It is a madness whose roots are ultimately spiritual and one that is all the more insidious for the fact that it hides behind a façade of apparent normalcy.

It is an observable fact that the more virulently anti-God people are, the madder they as a rule become. We have seen a stunning demonstration of this in the former communist block where the flauntingly atheistic revolutionists ultimately succumbed to that terminal form of madness - bloodlust. So crazed they eventually became that murder and torture seemed the natural solution to every problem. Shedding their humanity in the name of ruthless secularism, those militant atheists left behind more than one hundred million corpses.

In the first Soviet Gulag, which was paradoxically set up in the ancient Solovetsk monastery, the Bolshevik capos flaunted their disdain for things divine by topping the altar with a picture of Lenin. So amusing they found their prank that for weeks they could not stop laughing. Even the fact that innocent people were dying all around them could do nothing to temper their hilarity. They did not laugh for very long, however, for in a few short years they all found themselves in a Stalinist hell. It was a hell where no one could be sure of his life, a hell where executioners would themselves be executed in wave after wave of never-ending purges. When it was all finished and done there lay twenty million dead. What began with wanton desecration ended in sheer madness.

It is a great tragedy that contemporary western leftists have shown themselves more than worthy heirs of their communist cousins. In addition to wreaking all kinds of social and economic havoc, their bloodlust has claimed more than forty million unborn in America alone. This, too, is sheer madness.

There is nothing more dangerous than waging war on God. Should you not be inclined to consult scriptures or study history, you only need to look at today's liberals to see that this is so. Once you do, you will see crazed devotees of infanticide and sexual perversion shamelessly flaunting and promoting their twisted ways.

It is difficult to accept that so many of our fellow citizens - and they almost invariably congregate on the political left and in the Democrat Party - have been struck with moral madness whereby they believe that evil is good and darkness light. The mangled bodies of countless little innocents stand out among their dark works as the chilling evidence of the reality of this dreadful affliction.

And now these same people cow in fear, because they think that cows will parp us out of existence. This is madness squared.

Behold liberals and be warned. Mocking God can carry a terrible price indeed.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The myths of islam

Muslims often complain of the popular "misconceptions" about their religion in the West.

We took a hard look, however, and found that the most deeply held myths of Islam are the ones generated by Muslims and its Western apologists. The only glaring exception to this is the misconception that all Muslims are alike (they aren't), but even Muslims fall into this trap as well, as evidenced by the various contrary factions insisting that they are the true Muslims, while others are either infidels, hijackers, or hypocrites.

Don't be fooled! Hear the myths, but know the truth.

Jerusalem Day

Forty years ago this week (on the Jewish lunar calendar - June 5 on the Gregorian calendar) Arab armies massed, vowing to "drive Israel into the sea." Miraculously they didn't succeed, although their hatred still burns undiminished, their evil goal not forgotten.

In the course of the 1967 Six Day War war, Israel regained control of the historic and religious areas of Jerusalem which were then under Jordanian control. Jordan, defying the terms of the 1948 Armistice, had denied Jews access to these neighborhoods, expelled the Jewish inhabitants, allowed a hotel to be built on top of a Jewish cemetery while using the headstones as paving stones, and desecrated other religious sites. Except for the Israelis, no one complained.

After the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli control, which respects the rights and sites of all religions, the entire world complained. Immediately after the reunification of Jerusalem the UN, the Europeans, the Vatican all issued calls for the city's internationalization.

Today Israel celebrates the 40th anniversary of the reunited city, although most countries, including the United States, avoided the festivities.

The United States will avoid Jerusalem Reunification Day festivities this week despite a 12-year-old Congressional bill calling for the American embassy to be located in the capital. Since then, every President has exercised a waiver in the bill allowing the move to be deferred for a renewable period of six months.

Participate and celebrate if you wish.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Al Jazeera was on Saddam's payroll

The MEMRI blog has an interesting document from Iraq, a letter dated September 2002 referring to a recent decision by the Iraqi Council of Ministers under Saddam Hussein to make monthly payments of 50,000 Euros to ... Al Jazeera Television.
How much was he giving others? We know CNN acted as his press agency for the right to have a bureau there. We know now he paid Al-Jazeera. It's the pressies we don't yet know about that concerns me most. Oh, I am sure there are others. Aren't you?


The weakest link

By Caroline B. Glick

The British people could be forgiven if they feel bewildered by the poor treatment they have been receiving at the hands of the Muslims of late.

Iran places Britain in the category of Satan, along with the US and Israel, and eagerly kidnapped its servicemen and humiliated Her Majesty's Admiralty and Government. But for all of Iran's anti-British rantings, the fact of the matter is that Britain is the mullahs' most effective defender.

By working with France and Germany to fecklessly negotiate with the ayatollahs regarding their nuclear weapons program, the British were more responsible than anyone for giving the mullahs three years to work freely on developing their nuclear weapons. If the French and Germans had engaged Iran without the British at their side, the Bush administration would have condemned the talks for the stalling tactic they were and set out to shape a coherent, effective policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs.

When, last summer, it became impossible to ignore the fact that the Europeans' jaw-jaw had failed, it was once again Britain who curbed Washington by convincing President George W. Bush to empower the UN Security Council to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Without Britain pressing the UN route, it is difficult to imagine Bush agreeing to subordinate US national security to a body more or less dedicated to demonizing, isolating and eviscerating America.

The Ignominy Britain suffered at the hands of Iran occurred a week after BBC Gaza reporter Alan Johnston was abducted by Palestinian terrorists. After a month of silence, Sunday his kidnappers announced that they had executed Johnston.

Monday morning, the kidnapers had yet to produce their promised execution film, and so Johnston's status was still unknown. But with or without a body bag, the British could be excused for feeling even more confused by their reporter's plight than by their servicemen's kidnapping in Iraqi coastal waters.

After all, since the 1920s, the Palestinian Arabs have had no friend more stalwart than the British. Until Israel declared independence 59 years ago the British did everything possible to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. They even enabled the Holocaust by blocking the doomed Jews of Europe from escaping to the Land of Israel.

Since Israel declared independence, the British have been unrelenting detractors of the Jewish state and champions of the Arabs. In recent years, British support for the Palestinians against Israel has been one of the rallying cries not only of the Foreign Office but of British society as a whole.

In a sharp departure from both British and EU official policy, Britain's consul-general in Jerusalem Richard Makepeace held open talks with Hamas terror commander and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on April 5 in a bid to secure Johnston's release.

Last week, after declaring a "day of action" on Johnston's behalf, BBC Chairman Mark Thompson went to Ramallah, where he met with Fatah terror chief and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. After the meeting Thompson praised Abbas and announced that Abbas claimed to have "credible evidence that Johnston was safe and well."

Poor Johnston was so biased in favor of the Palestinians that he could have been forgiven for believing he would be safe from Palestinian terror. As the BBC's Middle East Bureau chief Simon Wilson put it, Johnston "is regarded as a Gaza journalist foremost and a foreign journalist second." The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate said that Johnston is "famous for his opinions which are supportive of the Palestinians."

Of course, there is nothing extraordinary about Johnston's anti-Israel positions. The day before his execution was announced his colleagues in Britain went out of their way to prove their anti-Israel animus. By a vote of 66-55, Friday the British National Union of Journalists voted to boycott Israeli goods.

It will be interesting to see how they manage to implement their boycott and work as reporters at the same time. Since Israeli engineers developed their cell phones, their Pentium chip computers, their voicemail and their instant messenger software, boycotting Israel will involve giving up their ability to quickly amass their anti-Israel propaganda, vomit it out on their computers and send it off to their Israel-bashing editors.

But then, even if they figure out a way to work without technology, one can still only wonder at their decision. After all, their Palestinian colleagues don't seem too concerned with Israel these days. They have real tyrants to contend with.

In response to Johnston's disappearance and in protest against the utter lack of press freedom in the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate called a boycott not of Israel, but of the PA.

The sad truth is that British journalists are far from the worst Israel-bashers in Britain. Anti-Semitism has increasingly become the defining characteristic of British society.

First there are the non-governmental organizations. Last week, Oxfam, one of Britain's largest charities, chastised Blair, claiming that both his decision to participate in the US-led campaign in Iraq and his refusal to side with Hizbullah against Israel in last summer's war have damaged Britain's international clout. Oxfam is calling for the UK and the EU to resume their transfer payments to the Hamas-controlled PA.

Yet Oxfam, which claims to "support Israel's right to exist alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state," could be mistaken as an Israel advocacy group compared to those tasked with educating British students. Last year, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), the largest university and college trade union in the UK, and the Association of University Teachers (AUT), agreed to institute a "silent boycott" of Israeli universities, students and professors.

NATFHE urged its members to consider "the appropriateness of a boycott of those [Israelis] that do not publicly dissociate themselves [from Israel]." The organization also castigated the British media and government for their response to Hamas's victory in the January 2006 Palestinian elections. NATFHE decried the "hysterical reporting of the [election] result by most of the British news media and the outrageous bias shown by UK government statements against the outcome of a democratic process"

Britain today is in the throes of a noxious blend of virulent anti-Semitism and indifference. An example is the willingness of school teachers to abandon their professional duties in a bid to appease their Muslim students ( Rather than confront the Muslims' rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, their teachers have opted to stop teaching about the genocide of European Jews.

According to a study just released by Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, another product of this mix has been a steep rise in anti-Jewish violence in Britain.

In one of the 136 "major violent attacks" against Jews last year in Britain, last August, while riding a London bus, Jasmine Kranat was brutally beaten by a gang of Muslims. The attackers refused to believe her when she denied being Jewish. They beat her unconscious, then continued to stomp on her chest and head, breaking the orbital bone in her eye.

Not one of the bus passengers or the bus driver came to her defense.

It is true that the Blair government is criticized by the British people for not following them in labeling Israel the greatest threat to global security, and the US as the second-greatest threat to global security. But the fact is that the Blair government has been responsible for turning the Bush administration into a loud proponent of Palestinian statehood. And it was Blair who brought the White House on board with both the so-called road map peace plan and the Saudi peace plan. Were either of the plans to be implemented, Israel would lose its ability to defend itself or to survive as a sovereign Jewish state.

Yes, it is more than understandable for the British to wonder why they are being targeted by the likes of the Iranians and Palestinians, whose interests they have done so much to advance.

But to answer the question they need to look in the mirror. In their relentless campaign to advance the interests of the Palestinians and Iranians who daily call for their destruction, the British have made themselves the most attractive targets for attack.

They are the weakest link in the alliance of so-called Satans. And as members of the alliance, the British are in the best position to pressure the US and Israel. Iran, the Palestinians and their allies understand and exploit this fact.

The British will continue to be targeted for as long as they champion the cause of their enemies and then react to attacks against them by redoubling their pressure on the US and Israel to join them in appeasing those sworn to our collective destruction.

If it wished, the Bush administration could try using the bully pulpit to at least stem Britain's societal dementia. For its part, aside from warning British Jewry to leave before it is too late, the Jewish state can do nothing to influence England.

The most urgent change that must be made in Israel's policy toward Britain is to cease viewing it as an ally. As with France, it is possible for Israel to cooperate with Britain on certain levels, but impossible to trust British support on any level. Although they share the same enemies and interests as Israel, the British, blinded by their bigotry, are incapable of understanding this basic reality. Until they do, Israel must keep its distance and watch its back when the British come a-calling.

Jihadi commentary on election of Sarkozy
The upshot of this post... that the torching of over 700 cars is what France deserves for electing a Jew.

That he previously met with Bush is just further evidence that Sarkozy is part of the Great Conspiracy™

Friday, May 11, 2007

Notícias de jornal velho - Imprensa brasileira com amnésia ou mentirosa?

De Norte a Sul vivas à Contra-Revolução
“Desde ontem se instalou no País a verdadeira legalidade ... Legalidade que o caudilho não quis preservar, violando-a no que de mais fundamental ela tem: a disciplina e a hierarquia militares. A legalidade está conosco e não com o caudilho aliado dos comunistas”
(Editorial do Jornal do Brasil - Rio de Janeiro - 1º de Abril de 1964)

“Multidões em júbilo na Praça da Liberdade"
Ovacionados o governador do estado e chefes militares.O ponto culminante das comemorações que ontem fizeram em Belo Horizonte, pela vitória do movimento pela paz e pela democracia foi, sem dúvida, a concentração popular defronte ao Palácio da Liberdade. Toda área localizada em frente à sede do governo mineiro foi totalmente tomada por enorme multidão, que ali acorreu para festejar o êxito da campanha deflagrada em Minas (...), formando uma das maiores massas humanas já vistas na cidade”
(O Estado de Minas - Belo Horizonte - 2 de abril de 1964)

“Salvos da comunização que celeremente se preparava, os brasileiros devem agradecer aos bravos militares que os protegeram de seus inimigos”“Este não foi um movimento partidário. Dele participaram todos os setores conscientes da vida política brasileira, pois a ninguém escapava o significado das manobras presidenciais”
(O Globo - Rio de Janeiro - 2 de Abril de 1964)

“A população de Copacabana saiu às ruas, em verdadeiro carnaval, saudando as tropas do Exército. Chuvas de papéis picados caíam das janelas dos edifícios enquanto o povo dava vazão, nas ruas, ao seu contentamento”
(O Dia - Rio de Janeiro - 2 de Abril de 1964)

“Escorraçado, amordaçado e acovardado, deixou o poder como imperativo de legítima vontade popular o Sr João Belchior Marques Goulart, infame líder dos comuno-carreiristas-negocistas-sindicalistas.Um dos maiores gatunos que a história brasileira já registrou., o Sr João Goulart passa outra vez à história, agora também como um dos grandes covardes que ela já conheceu”
(Tribuna da Imprensa - Rio de Janeiro - 2 de Abril de 1964)

“A paz alcançada"
A vitória da causa democrática abre o País a perspectiva de trabalhar em paz e de vencer as graves dificuldades atuais. Não se pode, evidentemente, aceitar que essa perspectiva seja toldada, que os ânimos sejam postos a fogo. Assim o querem as Forças Armadas, assim o quer o povo brasileiro e assim deverá ser, pelo bem do Brasil”
(Editorial de O Povo - Fortaleza - 3 de Abril de 1964)

“Ressurge a Democracia!"
Vive a Nação dias gloriosos. Porque souberam unir-se todos os patriotas, independentemente das vinculações políticas simpáticas ou opinião sobre problemas isolados, para salvar o que é de essencial: a democracia, a lei e a ordem.Graças à decisão e ao heroísmo das Forças Armadas que, obedientes a seus chefes, demonstraram a falta de visão dos que tentavam destruir a hierarquia e a disciplina, o Brasil livrou-se do governo irresponsável, que insistia em arrastá-lo para rumos contrários à sua vocação e tradições”“Como dizíamos, no editorial de anteontem, a legalidade não poderia ter a garantia da subversão, a ancora dos agitadores, o anteparo da desordem. Em nome da legalidade não seria legítimo admitir o assassínio das instituições, como se vinha fazendo, diante da Nação horrorizada ...”
(O Globo - Rio de Janeiro - 4 de Abril de 1964)

“Milhares de pessoas compareceram, ontem, às solenidades que marcaram a posse do marechal Humberto Castelo Branco na Presidência da República ...O ato de posse do presidente Castelo Branco revestiu-se do mais alto sentido democrático, tal o apoio que obteve”
(Correio Braziliense - Brasília - 16 de Abril de 1964)

“Vibrante manifestação sem precedentes na história de Santa Maria para homenagear as Forças Armadas”“Cinquenta mil pessoas na Marcha Cívica do Agradecimento”
(A Razão - Santa Maria - RS - 17 de Abril de 1964)

“Vive o País, há nove anos, um desses períodos férteis em programas e inspirações, graças à transposição do desejo para a vontade de crescer e afirmar-se.Negue-se tudo a essa revolução brasileira, menos que ela não moveu o País, com o apoio de todas as classes representativas, numa direção que já a destaca entre as nações com parcela maior de responsabilidades”.
(Editorial do Jornal do Brasil - Rio de Janeiro - 31 de Março de 1973)

“Sabíamos, todos que estávamos na lista negra dos apátridas - que se eles consumassem os seus planos, seríamos mortos. Sobre os democratas brasileiros não pairava a mais leve esperança, se vencidos. Uma razzia de sangue vermelha como eles, atravessaria o Brasil de ponta a ponta, liquidando os últimos soldados da democracia, os últimos paisanos da liberdade”
O Cruzeiro Extra - 10 de Abril de 1964 - Edição Histórica da Revolução - “Saber ganhar” - David Nasser

E o mais inacreditável:

07/10/1984 – O GLOBO – (Do editorial, JULGAMENTO DA REVOLUÇÃO)
"...Sem o povo não haveria revolução, mas apenas um "pronunciamento" ou "golpe" com o qual não estaríamos solidários". "... nos meses dramáticos de 1968 em que a intensificação dos atos de terrorismo provocou a implantação do AI-5." " expansão econômica de 1969 a 1972, quando o produto nacional bruto cresceu à taxa média anual de 10%..." "...naquele primeiro decênio revolucionário, a inflação decrescerá de 96% para 12% ao ano, elevando-se as exportações anuais de 1 bilhão e 300 mil dólares para mais de 12 bilhões de dólares". "... elevando a produção de petróleo de 175 mil para 500 mil barris diários e a de álcool de 680 milhões para 8 bilhões de litros, e simultaneamente aumentar a fabricação industrial em 85%, expandir a área plantada para produção de alimentos com 90 milhões de hectares a mais, criar 13 milhões de novos empregos, assegurar a presença de mais de 10 milhões de estudantes nos bancos escolares, ampliar a população economicamente ativa de 25 milhões para 45 milhões elevando as exportações anuais de 12 bilhões para 22 bilhões de dólares". "... há que se reconhecer um avanço impressionante: em 1964 éramos a quadragésima nona economia mundial, com uma população de 80 milhões de pessoas e renda per capita de 900 dólares; somos hoje a oitava, com uma população de 130 milhões de pessoas, e uma renda média per capita de 2500 dólares". "...Não há memória de que haja ocorrido aqui, ou em qualquer outro país, que um regime de força consolidado há mais de dez anos, se tenha utilizado do seu próprio arbítrio para se auto limitar, extingüindo-se os poderes de exceção, anistiando adversários, ensejando novos quadros partidários, em plena liberdade de imprensa. É esse, indubitavelmente, o maior feito da Revolução de 1964".
Impressionante, não?! Como é que os mesmos jornais hoje 'noticiam' coisas tão diferentes sobre o mesmo período, e escondem que a contra-revolução tinha apoio maciço da população?

Pois é, parece que no "país de futuro" só o que muda é o passado.


Para saber o que realmente aconteceu em 1964:

  • A Verdade Sufocada - A história que a esquerda não quer que o Brasil saiba