Israel
The head of Israel's air force has grounded a group of fighter pilots who say they will no longer carry out air strikes against Palestinian territories. The pilots could be dismissed from the military and possibly jailed.
The group of 27 reserve pilots submitted a petition to Air Force Commander Dan Halutz on Wednesday saying they could no longer take part in missions which they believe are "illegal" and "immoral."
"We, veteran and active pilots ... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories." They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians."
Men of conscience are starting to stand up.
Good!
Friday, September 26, 2003
Israel
The head of Israel's air force has grounded a group of fighter pilots who say they will no longer carry out air strikes against Palestinian territories. The pilots could be dismissed from the military and possibly jailed.
The group of 27 reserve pilots submitted a petition to Air Force Commander Dan Halutz on Wednesday saying they could no longer take part in missions which they believe are "illegal" and "immoral."
"We, veteran and active pilots ... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories." They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians."
Men of conscience are starting to stand up.
Good!
The head of Israel's air force has grounded a group of fighter pilots who say they will no longer carry out air strikes against Palestinian territories. The pilots could be dismissed from the military and possibly jailed.
The group of 27 reserve pilots submitted a petition to Air Force Commander Dan Halutz on Wednesday saying they could no longer take part in missions which they believe are "illegal" and "immoral."
"We, veteran and active pilots ... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories." They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians."
Men of conscience are starting to stand up.
Good!
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Iraq
Bush spoke to the UN, utterly unrepentant, still evangelical in his view of the world: you are either with him or against him, either an evildoer or a good guy. No nuances whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the (Arab) press are being muzzled in Iraq, a clear sign that the occupiers are losing control of the situation.
Although I sincerely believe the UN should not allow itself to be exploited by the US in their misguided invasion of Iraq and stay well out of it until their role is the controlling one, it is with a heavy heart that I say this. I believe the Iraqi people will pay for this (dont they always) and that the price will be steep.
However, it will be steep whether the UN gets involved or not.
Bush spoke to the UN, utterly unrepentant, still evangelical in his view of the world: you are either with him or against him, either an evildoer or a good guy. No nuances whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the (Arab) press are being muzzled in Iraq, a clear sign that the occupiers are losing control of the situation.
Although I sincerely believe the UN should not allow itself to be exploited by the US in their misguided invasion of Iraq and stay well out of it until their role is the controlling one, it is with a heavy heart that I say this. I believe the Iraqi people will pay for this (dont they always) and that the price will be steep.
However, it will be steep whether the UN gets involved or not.
Iraq
Bush spoke to the UN, utterly unrepentant, still evangelical in his view of the world: you are either with him or against him, either an evildoer or a good guy. No nuances whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the (Arab) press are being muzzled in Iraq, a clear sign that the occupiers are losing control of the situation.
Although I sincerely believe the UN should not allow itself to be exploited by the US in their misguided invasion of Iraq and stay well out of it until their role is the controlling one, it is with a heavy heart that I say this. I believe the Iraqi people will pay for this (dont they always) and that the price will be steep.
However, it will be steep whether the UN gets involved or not.
Bush spoke to the UN, utterly unrepentant, still evangelical in his view of the world: you are either with him or against him, either an evildoer or a good guy. No nuances whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the (Arab) press are being muzzled in Iraq, a clear sign that the occupiers are losing control of the situation.
Although I sincerely believe the UN should not allow itself to be exploited by the US in their misguided invasion of Iraq and stay well out of it until their role is the controlling one, it is with a heavy heart that I say this. I believe the Iraqi people will pay for this (dont they always) and that the price will be steep.
However, it will be steep whether the UN gets involved or not.
Monday, September 22, 2003
Iraq
I hope the Iraqi's are paying attention and that they note the date for their future history books: the day when their country was auctioned off to the highest bidder. Probably to the ones who are currently so in favour with the American government.
From the Independent article:
• 100 per cent foreign ownership in all sectors except natural resources;
• direct ownership as well as joint ventures and setting up branches;
• full, immediate remittance to the host country of profits, dividends, interest and royalties.
Privatisation of everything from electricity and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and engineering could see hundreds of previously state-owned companies sold off.
There will be a tax holiday for the rest of this year, and income and business taxes for investors will be capped at 15 per cent from next year.
I suppose, if you decide to invade a country, someone has to pay the bill... and if you are bigger and stronger than the rest, well, you will just make your victim pay the bill.
That's how all bullies operate, isnt it?
I hope the Iraqi's are paying attention and that they note the date for their future history books: the day when their country was auctioned off to the highest bidder. Probably to the ones who are currently so in favour with the American government.
From the Independent article:
• 100 per cent foreign ownership in all sectors except natural resources;
• direct ownership as well as joint ventures and setting up branches;
• full, immediate remittance to the host country of profits, dividends, interest and royalties.
Privatisation of everything from electricity and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and engineering could see hundreds of previously state-owned companies sold off.
There will be a tax holiday for the rest of this year, and income and business taxes for investors will be capped at 15 per cent from next year.
I suppose, if you decide to invade a country, someone has to pay the bill... and if you are bigger and stronger than the rest, well, you will just make your victim pay the bill.
That's how all bullies operate, isnt it?
Iraq
I hope the Iraqi's are paying attention and that they note the date for their future history books: the day when their country was auctioned off to the highest bidder. Probably to the ones who are currently so in favour with the American government.
From the Independent article:
• 100 per cent foreign ownership in all sectors except natural resources;
• direct ownership as well as joint ventures and setting up branches;
• full, immediate remittance to the host country of profits, dividends, interest and royalties.
Privatisation of everything from electricity and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and engineering could see hundreds of previously state-owned companies sold off.
There will be a tax holiday for the rest of this year, and income and business taxes for investors will be capped at 15 per cent from next year.
I suppose, if you decide to invade a country, someone has to pay the bill... and if you are bigger and stronger than the rest, well, you will just make your victim pay the bill.
That's how all bullies operate, isnt it?
I hope the Iraqi's are paying attention and that they note the date for their future history books: the day when their country was auctioned off to the highest bidder. Probably to the ones who are currently so in favour with the American government.
From the Independent article:
• 100 per cent foreign ownership in all sectors except natural resources;
• direct ownership as well as joint ventures and setting up branches;
• full, immediate remittance to the host country of profits, dividends, interest and royalties.
Privatisation of everything from electricity and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and engineering could see hundreds of previously state-owned companies sold off.
There will be a tax holiday for the rest of this year, and income and business taxes for investors will be capped at 15 per cent from next year.
I suppose, if you decide to invade a country, someone has to pay the bill... and if you are bigger and stronger than the rest, well, you will just make your victim pay the bill.
That's how all bullies operate, isnt it?
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Israel and the US
Eleven of the fifteen Security Council nations voted in favor; Britain, Germany and Bulgaria abstained.
The US of course, vetoed.
They do this almost by reflex.
This will be remembered.
America's U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte did say, immediately after the vote, that the US doesn't support the elimination or forced exile of Arafat and believes that diplomatic isolation is the best course.
i'm sure the Israeli's will take it in the spirit it was said...
Negroponte said he had to veto the resolution because it failed to name and condemn groups like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Negroponte was not paying attention.
This resolution was not about terrorism. It was about the Israeli government deciding to exile or assassinate Arafat. The resolution demanded that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority".
And still, the Americans are bewildered and ask "why do they hate us??".
They are stunned when they are attacked on their home ground.
This is not surprising, though.
When you Google the news, it hardly appears in the American papers.
The foreign papers carry this story though and the tone of Arab reports is angry.
Poor misinformed, brainwashed Americans.
Poor Palestinians.
I believe their leader is a dead man walking.
Poor world that will have to live through the backlash...
Eleven of the fifteen Security Council nations voted in favor; Britain, Germany and Bulgaria abstained.
The US of course, vetoed.
They do this almost by reflex.
This will be remembered.
America's U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte did say, immediately after the vote, that the US doesn't support the elimination or forced exile of Arafat and believes that diplomatic isolation is the best course.
i'm sure the Israeli's will take it in the spirit it was said...
Negroponte said he had to veto the resolution because it failed to name and condemn groups like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Negroponte was not paying attention.
This resolution was not about terrorism. It was about the Israeli government deciding to exile or assassinate Arafat. The resolution demanded that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority".
And still, the Americans are bewildered and ask "why do they hate us??".
They are stunned when they are attacked on their home ground.
This is not surprising, though.
When you Google the news, it hardly appears in the American papers.
The foreign papers carry this story though and the tone of Arab reports is angry.
Poor misinformed, brainwashed Americans.
Poor Palestinians.
I believe their leader is a dead man walking.
Poor world that will have to live through the backlash...
Israel and the US
Eleven of the fifteen Security Council nations voted in favor; Britain, Germany and Bulgaria abstained.
The US of course, vetoed.
They do this almost by reflex.
This will be remembered.
America's U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte did say, immediately after the vote, that the US doesn't support the elimination or forced exile of Arafat and believes that diplomatic isolation is the best course.
i'm sure the Israeli's will take it in the spirit it was said...
Negroponte said he had to veto the resolution because it failed to name and condemn groups like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Negroponte was not paying attention.
This resolution was not about terrorism. It was about the Israeli government deciding to exile or assassinate Arafat. The resolution demanded that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority".
And still, the Americans are bewildered and ask "why do they hate us??".
They are stunned when they are attacked on their home ground.
This is not surprising, though.
When you Google the news, it hardly appears in the American papers.
The foreign papers carry this story though and the tone of Arab reports is angry.
Poor misinformed, brainwashed Americans.
Poor Palestinians.
I believe their leader is a dead man walking.
Poor world that will have to live through the backlash...
Eleven of the fifteen Security Council nations voted in favor; Britain, Germany and Bulgaria abstained.
The US of course, vetoed.
They do this almost by reflex.
This will be remembered.
America's U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte did say, immediately after the vote, that the US doesn't support the elimination or forced exile of Arafat and believes that diplomatic isolation is the best course.
i'm sure the Israeli's will take it in the spirit it was said...
Negroponte said he had to veto the resolution because it failed to name and condemn groups like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Negroponte was not paying attention.
This resolution was not about terrorism. It was about the Israeli government deciding to exile or assassinate Arafat. The resolution demanded that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority".
And still, the Americans are bewildered and ask "why do they hate us??".
They are stunned when they are attacked on their home ground.
This is not surprising, though.
When you Google the news, it hardly appears in the American papers.
The foreign papers carry this story though and the tone of Arab reports is angry.
Poor misinformed, brainwashed Americans.
Poor Palestinians.
I believe their leader is a dead man walking.
Poor world that will have to live through the backlash...
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
US vs Iraq - spawning Israel vs Palestine
Talk about the American invasion of Iraq spawning a dangerous precedent:
Jerusalem Post editorial on Sept. 10 calls for the killing of Arafat: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves..... When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right."
Yesterday, Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens said: "It's a core tenet of the Bush doctrine that if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. . . .. Saying [Arafat] is the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and then doing nothing about it is like saying Saddam Hussein is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East and we sure hope those Iraqis are going to do something about it."
Such a dangerous sleeping dog has been awakened.
Sharon may not act now but... act he will, at a time of his choosing.
Like I speculated before, Arafat is a dead man walking. Chaos looms.
Are there no cool heads to prevail in Israel any more?
Talk about the American invasion of Iraq spawning a dangerous precedent:
Jerusalem Post editorial on Sept. 10 calls for the killing of Arafat: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves..... When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right."
Yesterday, Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens said: "It's a core tenet of the Bush doctrine that if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. . . .. Saying [Arafat] is the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and then doing nothing about it is like saying Saddam Hussein is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East and we sure hope those Iraqis are going to do something about it."
Such a dangerous sleeping dog has been awakened.
Sharon may not act now but... act he will, at a time of his choosing.
Like I speculated before, Arafat is a dead man walking. Chaos looms.
Are there no cool heads to prevail in Israel any more?
US vs Iraq - spawning Israel vs Palestine
Talk about the American invasion of Iraq spawning a dangerous precedent:
Jerusalem Post editorial on Sept. 10 calls for the killing of Arafat: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves..... When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right."
Yesterday, Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens said: "It's a core tenet of the Bush doctrine that if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. . . .. Saying [Arafat] is the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and then doing nothing about it is like saying Saddam Hussein is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East and we sure hope those Iraqis are going to do something about it."
Such a dangerous sleeping dog has been awakened.
Sharon may not act now but... act he will, at a time of his choosing.
Like I speculated before, Arafat is a dead man walking. Chaos looms.
Are there no cool heads to prevail in Israel any more?
Talk about the American invasion of Iraq spawning a dangerous precedent:
Jerusalem Post editorial on Sept. 10 calls for the killing of Arafat: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves..... When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right."
Yesterday, Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens said: "It's a core tenet of the Bush doctrine that if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. . . .. Saying [Arafat] is the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and then doing nothing about it is like saying Saddam Hussein is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East and we sure hope those Iraqis are going to do something about it."
Such a dangerous sleeping dog has been awakened.
Sharon may not act now but... act he will, at a time of his choosing.
Like I speculated before, Arafat is a dead man walking. Chaos looms.
Are there no cool heads to prevail in Israel any more?
Saturday, September 13, 2003
Iraq
The spin started way up in the stratosphere: Iraq had WMD, tons of the stuff and was not afraid to use it at a 45 minutes notice.
That was diluted to WMD programs as the spin veered wildly towards earth under the influence of reality gravity.
Now, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, turned the spin this direction: invasion of Iraq was justified in part because Saddam Hussein retained scientists capable of building nuclear weapons.
So, the direction of the spin has now been changed towards: WMD capability!!!
Pretty soon this spinning will get out of control and have us crashing into the ground.
Perhaps the American public will then get their heads out of the clouds...
History will not judge us kindly for this (Us being the Americans as well as the rest of the world who played dumb and pretended that the emperor was in fact clothed) .
The spin started way up in the stratosphere: Iraq had WMD, tons of the stuff and was not afraid to use it at a 45 minutes notice.
That was diluted to WMD programs as the spin veered wildly towards earth under the influence of reality gravity.
Now, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, turned the spin this direction: invasion of Iraq was justified in part because Saddam Hussein retained scientists capable of building nuclear weapons.
So, the direction of the spin has now been changed towards: WMD capability!!!
Pretty soon this spinning will get out of control and have us crashing into the ground.
Perhaps the American public will then get their heads out of the clouds...
History will not judge us kindly for this (Us being the Americans as well as the rest of the world who played dumb and pretended that the emperor was in fact clothed) .
Iraq
The spin started way up in the stratosphere: Iraq had WMD, tons of the stuff and was not afraid to use it at a 45 minutes notice.
That was diluted to WMD programs as the spin veered wildly towards earth under the influence of reality gravity.
Now, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, turned the spin this direction: invasion of Iraq was justified in part because Saddam Hussein retained scientists capable of building nuclear weapons.
So, the direction of the spin has now been changed towards: WMD capability!!!
Pretty soon this spinning will get out of control and have us crashing into the ground.
Perhaps the American public will then get their heads out of the clouds...
History will not judge us kindly for this (Us being the Americans as well as the rest of the world who played dumb and pretended that the emperor was in fact clothed) .
The spin started way up in the stratosphere: Iraq had WMD, tons of the stuff and was not afraid to use it at a 45 minutes notice.
That was diluted to WMD programs as the spin veered wildly towards earth under the influence of reality gravity.
Now, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, turned the spin this direction: invasion of Iraq was justified in part because Saddam Hussein retained scientists capable of building nuclear weapons.
So, the direction of the spin has now been changed towards: WMD capability!!!
Pretty soon this spinning will get out of control and have us crashing into the ground.
Perhaps the American public will then get their heads out of the clouds...
History will not judge us kindly for this (Us being the Americans as well as the rest of the world who played dumb and pretended that the emperor was in fact clothed) .
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Israel/Palestine
Israeli deaths. Palestinian deaths.
I have no words.
Kevin Toolis of The Guardian wrote a piece: "You can't make a deal with the dead" that I agree with 100%.
He says:
Sharon fails to see that he is no longer fighting isolated cells. Through its clinics, universities and mosques, Hamas has enmeshed itself into the hearts and minds of up to 30% of the Palestinian population. Hamas and the political aspirations it represents will not be destroyed by killing Sheikh Yassin.
I wonder if this message can reach anyone in Israel:
It's time to stop the killing and be pragmatic.
You cannot kill the entire top of Hamas.
There are too many others to take their place.
With each killing, support for Hamas grows.
As the strongest party, it is up to Israel to stop the targeted assassinations and retaliations and negotiate for peace.
Even if another suicide bombing should take place.
Keeping a cool head in such a situation would show true grit and self control.
That is sorely needed in the region right now.
The current policy sows only more hate and bloodshed.
The time has come to end it.
Israeli deaths. Palestinian deaths.
I have no words.
Kevin Toolis of The Guardian wrote a piece: "You can't make a deal with the dead" that I agree with 100%.
He says:
Sharon fails to see that he is no longer fighting isolated cells. Through its clinics, universities and mosques, Hamas has enmeshed itself into the hearts and minds of up to 30% of the Palestinian population. Hamas and the political aspirations it represents will not be destroyed by killing Sheikh Yassin.
I wonder if this message can reach anyone in Israel:
It's time to stop the killing and be pragmatic.
You cannot kill the entire top of Hamas.
There are too many others to take their place.
With each killing, support for Hamas grows.
As the strongest party, it is up to Israel to stop the targeted assassinations and retaliations and negotiate for peace.
Even if another suicide bombing should take place.
Keeping a cool head in such a situation would show true grit and self control.
That is sorely needed in the region right now.
The current policy sows only more hate and bloodshed.
The time has come to end it.
Israel/Palestine
Israeli deaths. Palestinian deaths.
I have no words.
Kevin Toolis of The Guardian wrote a piece: "You can't make a deal with the dead" that I agree with 100%.
He says:
Sharon fails to see that he is no longer fighting isolated cells. Through its clinics, universities and mosques, Hamas has enmeshed itself into the hearts and minds of up to 30% of the Palestinian population. Hamas and the political aspirations it represents will not be destroyed by killing Sheikh Yassin.
I wonder if this message can reach anyone in Israel:
It's time to stop the killing and be pragmatic.
You cannot kill the entire top of Hamas.
There are too many others to take their place.
With each killing, support for Hamas grows.
As the strongest party, it is up to Israel to stop the targeted assassinations and retaliations and negotiate for peace.
Even if another suicide bombing should take place.
Keeping a cool head in such a situation would show true grit and self control.
That is sorely needed in the region right now.
The current policy sows only more hate and bloodshed.
The time has come to end it.
Israeli deaths. Palestinian deaths.
I have no words.
Kevin Toolis of The Guardian wrote a piece: "You can't make a deal with the dead" that I agree with 100%.
He says:
Sharon fails to see that he is no longer fighting isolated cells. Through its clinics, universities and mosques, Hamas has enmeshed itself into the hearts and minds of up to 30% of the Palestinian population. Hamas and the political aspirations it represents will not be destroyed by killing Sheikh Yassin.
I wonder if this message can reach anyone in Israel:
It's time to stop the killing and be pragmatic.
You cannot kill the entire top of Hamas.
There are too many others to take their place.
With each killing, support for Hamas grows.
As the strongest party, it is up to Israel to stop the targeted assassinations and retaliations and negotiate for peace.
Even if another suicide bombing should take place.
Keeping a cool head in such a situation would show true grit and self control.
That is sorely needed in the region right now.
The current policy sows only more hate and bloodshed.
The time has come to end it.
RIAA
So, it's started, the campaign against their own consumers.
261 people sued on Monday and many more to follow.
The first settlement for US$ 2,000: a 12-year old girl who downloaded some 1,000 songs.
This makes me so angry.
Instead of moving with the times, enthusiastically embracing this new technology and finding ways to change the way you do business so as to profit from it, they fight it tooth and nail.
Well, from now on I wont be buying any more American CD's.
My favourite artists still can count on my support... if they come here and perform I will gladly pay the ticket price to watch them play. I will buy any materials they offer for sale at their concerts (as long as the proceeds go mostly to the artists and not to some nebulous middle person).
Apart from that, I will buy CD's online from independent artists, as always.
I just dont want any money to land in the pockets of the RIAA if I can help it.
Since that money is now used to prosecute music lovers.
So, it's started, the campaign against their own consumers.
261 people sued on Monday and many more to follow.
The first settlement for US$ 2,000: a 12-year old girl who downloaded some 1,000 songs.
This makes me so angry.
Instead of moving with the times, enthusiastically embracing this new technology and finding ways to change the way you do business so as to profit from it, they fight it tooth and nail.
Well, from now on I wont be buying any more American CD's.
My favourite artists still can count on my support... if they come here and perform I will gladly pay the ticket price to watch them play. I will buy any materials they offer for sale at their concerts (as long as the proceeds go mostly to the artists and not to some nebulous middle person).
Apart from that, I will buy CD's online from independent artists, as always.
I just dont want any money to land in the pockets of the RIAA if I can help it.
Since that money is now used to prosecute music lovers.
RIAA
So, it's started, the campaign against their own consumers.
261 people sued on Monday and many more to follow.
The first settlement for US$ 2,000: a 12-year old girl who downloaded some 1,000 songs.
This makes me so angry.
Instead of moving with the times, enthusiastically embracing this new technology and finding ways to change the way you do business so as to profit from it, they fight it tooth and nail.
Well, from now on I wont be buying any more American CD's.
My favourite artists still can count on my support... if they come here and perform I will gladly pay the ticket price to watch them play. I will buy any materials they offer for sale at their concerts (as long as the proceeds go mostly to the artists and not to some nebulous middle person).
Apart from that, I will buy CD's online from independent artists, as always.
I just dont want any money to land in the pockets of the RIAA if I can help it.
Since that money is now used to prosecute music lovers.
So, it's started, the campaign against their own consumers.
261 people sued on Monday and many more to follow.
The first settlement for US$ 2,000: a 12-year old girl who downloaded some 1,000 songs.
This makes me so angry.
Instead of moving with the times, enthusiastically embracing this new technology and finding ways to change the way you do business so as to profit from it, they fight it tooth and nail.
Well, from now on I wont be buying any more American CD's.
My favourite artists still can count on my support... if they come here and perform I will gladly pay the ticket price to watch them play. I will buy any materials they offer for sale at their concerts (as long as the proceeds go mostly to the artists and not to some nebulous middle person).
Apart from that, I will buy CD's online from independent artists, as always.
I just dont want any money to land in the pockets of the RIAA if I can help it.
Since that money is now used to prosecute music lovers.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Iraq
Rumsfeld in an interview this Saturday:
"This country belongs to the Iraqi people, and in the last analysis it is the Iraqi people who will provide the security. Instead of pointing fingers, it seems to me, at the security forces of the coalition because there are acts of violence taking place against Iraqi people in this country, it's important for the Iraqi people to step up and take responsibility for security."
I dont think he gets it.
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for security (as well as the costs of the war and subsequent occupation).
Nobody else.
Israel/Palestine
Salvan Shalom, Israeli Foreign Minister says this in a recent radio interview, regarding the bombing of the apartment block in Gaza: Israel does not target Palestinian civilians when striking Palestinian Intifada activists.
He went on to say that using a quarter-ton bomb was aimed at minimizing the causalities, asserting that Israel is the only state in the world that takes such humanitarian perspective into account.
So, Israel is being humanitarian by using only a quarter-ton bomb when bombing a civilian apartment block??
I have a taste for the absurd but this goes way beyond absurd.
It is absolutely unbelievable!
I think he has completely lost touch with reality.
Rumsfeld in an interview this Saturday:
"This country belongs to the Iraqi people, and in the last analysis it is the Iraqi people who will provide the security. Instead of pointing fingers, it seems to me, at the security forces of the coalition because there are acts of violence taking place against Iraqi people in this country, it's important for the Iraqi people to step up and take responsibility for security."
I dont think he gets it.
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for security (as well as the costs of the war and subsequent occupation).
Nobody else.
Israel/Palestine
Salvan Shalom, Israeli Foreign Minister says this in a recent radio interview, regarding the bombing of the apartment block in Gaza: Israel does not target Palestinian civilians when striking Palestinian Intifada activists.
He went on to say that using a quarter-ton bomb was aimed at minimizing the causalities, asserting that Israel is the only state in the world that takes such humanitarian perspective into account.
So, Israel is being humanitarian by using only a quarter-ton bomb when bombing a civilian apartment block??
I have a taste for the absurd but this goes way beyond absurd.
It is absolutely unbelievable!
I think he has completely lost touch with reality.
Iraq
Rumsfeld in an interview this Saturday:
"This country belongs to the Iraqi people, and in the last analysis it is the Iraqi people who will provide the security. Instead of pointing fingers, it seems to me, at the security forces of the coalition because there are acts of violence taking place against Iraqi people in this country, it's important for the Iraqi people to step up and take responsibility for security."
I dont think he gets it.
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for security (as well as the costs of the war and subsequent occupation).
Nobody else.
Israel/Palestine
Salvan Shalom, Israeli Foreign Minister says this in a recent radio interview, regarding the bombing of the apartment block in Gaza: Israel does not target Palestinian civilians when striking Palestinian Intifada activists.
He went on to say that using a quarter-ton bomb was aimed at minimizing the causalities, asserting that Israel is the only state in the world that takes such humanitarian perspective into account.
So, Israel is being humanitarian by using only a quarter-ton bomb when bombing a civilian apartment block??
I have a taste for the absurd but this goes way beyond absurd.
It is absolutely unbelievable!
I think he has completely lost touch with reality.
Rumsfeld in an interview this Saturday:
"This country belongs to the Iraqi people, and in the last analysis it is the Iraqi people who will provide the security. Instead of pointing fingers, it seems to me, at the security forces of the coalition because there are acts of violence taking place against Iraqi people in this country, it's important for the Iraqi people to step up and take responsibility for security."
I dont think he gets it.
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for security (as well as the costs of the war and subsequent occupation).
Nobody else.
Israel/Palestine
Salvan Shalom, Israeli Foreign Minister says this in a recent radio interview, regarding the bombing of the apartment block in Gaza: Israel does not target Palestinian civilians when striking Palestinian Intifada activists.
He went on to say that using a quarter-ton bomb was aimed at minimizing the causalities, asserting that Israel is the only state in the world that takes such humanitarian perspective into account.
So, Israel is being humanitarian by using only a quarter-ton bomb when bombing a civilian apartment block??
I have a taste for the absurd but this goes way beyond absurd.
It is absolutely unbelievable!
I think he has completely lost touch with reality.
Iraq and the war on terror
First, read the article in the link above for a really good summing up of exactly what has been achieved in this "war on terror" being waged these past two years. Perhaps the Americans are calling it a success because all the deaths happened outside of the USA... and for the most part don't involve Americans. So, that makes it distant and not... real??
Some recent quotes:
John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control: whether Saddam Hussein's regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".
...the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that was the purpose of the military action."
Mr Blair at his Downing Street press conference last week: "Let me say why I still believe Iraq was the right thing to do and why it is essential that we see it through. If we succeed in putting Iraq on its feet as a stable, prosperous and democratic country, then what a huge advertisement that is for the values of democracy and human rights, and what a huge defeat it is for these terrorists who want to establish extremist states."
So, the current spin is not even that Iraq had a "weapons program", since the 1,400-strong American Iraq Survey Group (led by pro-Bush David Kay) is expected to report this week that it found no WMD hardware, or any sign of active programmes. All they can say is that Iraq had scientists with the necessary knowledge to develop such weapons. Blair's argument is that the regime was bad so it had to be changed. This is the worst argument for pre-emptive war there is, and a rabidly dangerous one.
In that case, any modern nation on earth can be a target, especially if it disagrees with the US or UK.
Why are not more people speaking up??
Why dont I see resignations in the various countries??
Where is the public outcry??
Where is the press??
This is so, SO immoral and (in American terminology) just plain wrong!
First, read the article in the link above for a really good summing up of exactly what has been achieved in this "war on terror" being waged these past two years. Perhaps the Americans are calling it a success because all the deaths happened outside of the USA... and for the most part don't involve Americans. So, that makes it distant and not... real??
Some recent quotes:
John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control: whether Saddam Hussein's regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".
...the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that was the purpose of the military action."
Mr Blair at his Downing Street press conference last week: "Let me say why I still believe Iraq was the right thing to do and why it is essential that we see it through. If we succeed in putting Iraq on its feet as a stable, prosperous and democratic country, then what a huge advertisement that is for the values of democracy and human rights, and what a huge defeat it is for these terrorists who want to establish extremist states."
So, the current spin is not even that Iraq had a "weapons program", since the 1,400-strong American Iraq Survey Group (led by pro-Bush David Kay) is expected to report this week that it found no WMD hardware, or any sign of active programmes. All they can say is that Iraq had scientists with the necessary knowledge to develop such weapons. Blair's argument is that the regime was bad so it had to be changed. This is the worst argument for pre-emptive war there is, and a rabidly dangerous one.
In that case, any modern nation on earth can be a target, especially if it disagrees with the US or UK.
Why are not more people speaking up??
Why dont I see resignations in the various countries??
Where is the public outcry??
Where is the press??
This is so, SO immoral and (in American terminology) just plain wrong!
Iraq and the war on terror
First, read the article in the link above for a really good summing up of exactly what has been achieved in this "war on terror" being waged these past two years. Perhaps the Americans are calling it a success because all the deaths happened outside of the USA... and for the most part don't involve Americans. So, that makes it distant and not... real??
Some recent quotes:
John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control: whether Saddam Hussein's regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".
...the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that was the purpose of the military action."
Mr Blair at his Downing Street press conference last week: "Let me say why I still believe Iraq was the right thing to do and why it is essential that we see it through. If we succeed in putting Iraq on its feet as a stable, prosperous and democratic country, then what a huge advertisement that is for the values of democracy and human rights, and what a huge defeat it is for these terrorists who want to establish extremist states."
So, the current spin is not even that Iraq had a "weapons program", since the 1,400-strong American Iraq Survey Group (led by pro-Bush David Kay) is expected to report this week that it found no WMD hardware, or any sign of active programmes. All they can say is that Iraq had scientists with the necessary knowledge to develop such weapons. Blair's argument is that the regime was bad so it had to be changed. This is the worst argument for pre-emptive war there is, and a rabidly dangerous one.
In that case, any modern nation on earth can be a target, especially if it disagrees with the US or UK.
Why are not more people speaking up??
Why dont I see resignations in the various countries??
Where is the public outcry??
Where is the press??
This is so, SO immoral and (in American terminology) just plain wrong!
First, read the article in the link above for a really good summing up of exactly what has been achieved in this "war on terror" being waged these past two years. Perhaps the Americans are calling it a success because all the deaths happened outside of the USA... and for the most part don't involve Americans. So, that makes it distant and not... real??
Some recent quotes:
John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control: whether Saddam Hussein's regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".
...the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that was the purpose of the military action."
Mr Blair at his Downing Street press conference last week: "Let me say why I still believe Iraq was the right thing to do and why it is essential that we see it through. If we succeed in putting Iraq on its feet as a stable, prosperous and democratic country, then what a huge advertisement that is for the values of democracy and human rights, and what a huge defeat it is for these terrorists who want to establish extremist states."
So, the current spin is not even that Iraq had a "weapons program", since the 1,400-strong American Iraq Survey Group (led by pro-Bush David Kay) is expected to report this week that it found no WMD hardware, or any sign of active programmes. All they can say is that Iraq had scientists with the necessary knowledge to develop such weapons. Blair's argument is that the regime was bad so it had to be changed. This is the worst argument for pre-emptive war there is, and a rabidly dangerous one.
In that case, any modern nation on earth can be a target, especially if it disagrees with the US or UK.
Why are not more people speaking up??
Why dont I see resignations in the various countries??
Where is the public outcry??
Where is the press??
This is so, SO immoral and (in American terminology) just plain wrong!
Israel/Palestine
Why are Americans so hated in the Middle East?
Why are they such targets?
Here is the main answer, in a nutshell (emphasis added by me):
..the Israelis feel free to continue targeted assassinations. The Americans “don’t tell us to keep killing Hamas leaders, but we don’t hear any criticism,” says one senior Israeli official. “They say: make sure they are good, clean air strikes, and we agree that we don’t want to kill innocent people.”
Why are Americans so hated in the Middle East?
Why are they such targets?
Here is the main answer, in a nutshell (emphasis added by me):
..the Israelis feel free to continue targeted assassinations. The Americans “don’t tell us to keep killing Hamas leaders, but we don’t hear any criticism,” says one senior Israeli official. “They say: make sure they are good, clean air strikes, and we agree that we don’t want to kill innocent people.”
Israel/Palestine
Why are Americans so hated in the Middle East?
Why are they such targets?
Here is the main answer, in a nutshell (emphasis added by me):
..the Israelis feel free to continue targeted assassinations. The Americans “don’t tell us to keep killing Hamas leaders, but we don’t hear any criticism,” says one senior Israeli official. “They say: make sure they are good, clean air strikes, and we agree that we don’t want to kill innocent people.”
Why are Americans so hated in the Middle East?
Why are they such targets?
Here is the main answer, in a nutshell (emphasis added by me):
..the Israelis feel free to continue targeted assassinations. The Americans “don’t tell us to keep killing Hamas leaders, but we don’t hear any criticism,” says one senior Israeli official. “They say: make sure they are good, clean air strikes, and we agree that we don’t want to kill innocent people.”
Israel/Palestine
Now that Abbas has resigned, now that the European foreign ministers also labelled Hamas a terrorist organisation, what are the odds that... one of these days... Arafat is assassinated (oops... I mean accidentally shot or bombed to smithereens) ??
I'd say the odds are pretty good.
I wish everyone would simply be pragmatic and decide to sit around a table and hammer out a solution, never mind if you hate the person seated across from you. That would be the adult and responsible thing to do.
Dropping three 550-pound bombs on an apartment block in Gaza city because it contains several Hamas members is not the adult and responsible thing to do.
Had they not been wearing uniforms, I would have to call that a terrorist action....
Now that Abbas has resigned, now that the European foreign ministers also labelled Hamas a terrorist organisation, what are the odds that... one of these days... Arafat is assassinated (oops... I mean accidentally shot or bombed to smithereens) ??
I'd say the odds are pretty good.
I wish everyone would simply be pragmatic and decide to sit around a table and hammer out a solution, never mind if you hate the person seated across from you. That would be the adult and responsible thing to do.
Dropping three 550-pound bombs on an apartment block in Gaza city because it contains several Hamas members is not the adult and responsible thing to do.
Had they not been wearing uniforms, I would have to call that a terrorist action....
Israel/Palestine
Now that Abbas has resigned, now that the European foreign ministers also labelled Hamas a terrorist organisation, what are the odds that... one of these days... Arafat is assassinated (oops... I mean accidentally shot or bombed to smithereens) ??
I'd say the odds are pretty good.
I wish everyone would simply be pragmatic and decide to sit around a table and hammer out a solution, never mind if you hate the person seated across from you. That would be the adult and responsible thing to do.
Dropping three 550-pound bombs on an apartment block in Gaza city because it contains several Hamas members is not the adult and responsible thing to do.
Had they not been wearing uniforms, I would have to call that a terrorist action....
Now that Abbas has resigned, now that the European foreign ministers also labelled Hamas a terrorist organisation, what are the odds that... one of these days... Arafat is assassinated (oops... I mean accidentally shot or bombed to smithereens) ??
I'd say the odds are pretty good.
I wish everyone would simply be pragmatic and decide to sit around a table and hammer out a solution, never mind if you hate the person seated across from you. That would be the adult and responsible thing to do.
Dropping three 550-pound bombs on an apartment block in Gaza city because it contains several Hamas members is not the adult and responsible thing to do.
Had they not been wearing uniforms, I would have to call that a terrorist action....
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
The end of the world - asteroid killer!
Oh dear, Bruce Willis and his team of maveric heroes to the rescue??!!
Scientists warn of asteroid collision
PA, 02 September 2003
Scientists today warned that an asteroid was on a possible collision course with Earth.
The asteroid, known as 2003 QQ47, is around two-thirds of a mile wide and could hit the earth on 21 March, 2014. It has been classified by astronomers as "an event meriting careful monitoring".
In the unlikely event of it hitting earth, the rock would have the force of 350,000 megatonnes - around eight million times more powerful than the bomb dropped at Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War.
The probability of the asteroid hitting earth however, is just 1 in 909,000 and the risk of impact is likely to decrease further as experts collect more information.
Dr Alan Fitzsimmons of Queen's University, Belfast, one of the expert team advising the UK Near Earth Objects Information Centre, based in Leicester, said there was no cause for concern about the asteroid.
"There is some uncertainty about where it is going", he said. "In all probability, within the next month we will know its future orbit with an accuracy which will mean we will be able to rule out any impact.
"I would say there is no cause for concern at all."
Scientists warn of asteroid collision
PA, 02 September 2003
Scientists today warned that an asteroid was on a possible collision course with Earth.
The asteroid, known as 2003 QQ47, is around two-thirds of a mile wide and could hit the earth on 21 March, 2014. It has been classified by astronomers as "an event meriting careful monitoring".
In the unlikely event of it hitting earth, the rock would have the force of 350,000 megatonnes - around eight million times more powerful than the bomb dropped at Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War.
The probability of the asteroid hitting earth however, is just 1 in 909,000 and the risk of impact is likely to decrease further as experts collect more information.
Dr Alan Fitzsimmons of Queen's University, Belfast, one of the expert team advising the UK Near Earth Objects Information Centre, based in Leicester, said there was no cause for concern about the asteroid.
"There is some uncertainty about where it is going", he said. "In all probability, within the next month we will know its future orbit with an accuracy which will mean we will be able to rule out any impact.
"I would say there is no cause for concern at all."
Israel/Palestine
To close this "Roadmap to Peace" chapter, the complete Guardian article on how the cease-fire was broken. The bare bones of it makes quite clear: peace had no chance.
How the truce was broken
Brian Whitaker, Friday August 22, 2003, The Guardian
June
27 Israel and Palestinians agree disengagement deal in Gaza
29 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullback. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Arafat's Fatah faction, including al-Aqsa Martyrs, declare truce
July
2 Israel withdraws from Bethlehem. US announces $30m (£18.8m) aid for West Bank and Gaza
3 Israeli troops shoot dead a militant and block traffic on Gaza's main road, angering Palestinians
5 The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, meets the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin for the first time
6 Israeli cabinet decides to release several hundred Palestinian prisoners
9 US approves giving $20m in aid directly to the Palestinian Authority in a move aimed at strengthening Abbas
20 Abbas meets Ariel Sharon
25 Abbas meets George Bush in Washington for the first time
27 Israel agrees to free 210 militants
28 Israeli troops fire teargas and rubber bullets to break up protests against the construction of a huge separation/security barrier in the West Bank
29 Sharon meets Bush in Washington
31 Israel announces plans for 22 new homes at a settlement in Gaza, in defiance of the US
August
2 Al-Aqsa Martyrs threaten to resume attacks after Yasser Arafat has 20 of them detained in Ramallah. Lebanon car bomb kills a Hizbullah member, Ali Hussein Saleh; Hizbullah accuses Israel of involvement
5 Abbas calls off meeting with Sharon, accusing him of dragging his feet
6 Israel releases 336 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture
8 Two Hamas militants and an Israeli soldier killed in Israeli raid on West Bank refugee camp. Two more Palestinians die later in protests
12 Two suicide bombers strike in Israel; one other person killed in each attack
14 Israeli troops kill Mohammed Seder, head of Islamic Jihad's armed wing in Hebron
17 Israelis and Palestinians fail to agree terms for the handover of four West Bank cities to Palestinian security control
19 Suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus kills at least 20
21 Israel kills Ismail Abu Shanab of Hamas; Islamic Jihad official declares ceasefire over
To close this "Roadmap to Peace" chapter, the complete Guardian article on how the cease-fire was broken. The bare bones of it makes quite clear: peace had no chance.
How the truce was broken
Brian Whitaker, Friday August 22, 2003, The Guardian
June
27 Israel and Palestinians agree disengagement deal in Gaza
29 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullback. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Arafat's Fatah faction, including al-Aqsa Martyrs, declare truce
July
2 Israel withdraws from Bethlehem. US announces $30m (£18.8m) aid for West Bank and Gaza
3 Israeli troops shoot dead a militant and block traffic on Gaza's main road, angering Palestinians
5 The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, meets the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin for the first time
6 Israeli cabinet decides to release several hundred Palestinian prisoners
9 US approves giving $20m in aid directly to the Palestinian Authority in a move aimed at strengthening Abbas
20 Abbas meets Ariel Sharon
25 Abbas meets George Bush in Washington for the first time
27 Israel agrees to free 210 militants
28 Israeli troops fire teargas and rubber bullets to break up protests against the construction of a huge separation/security barrier in the West Bank
29 Sharon meets Bush in Washington
31 Israel announces plans for 22 new homes at a settlement in Gaza, in defiance of the US
August
2 Al-Aqsa Martyrs threaten to resume attacks after Yasser Arafat has 20 of them detained in Ramallah. Lebanon car bomb kills a Hizbullah member, Ali Hussein Saleh; Hizbullah accuses Israel of involvement
5 Abbas calls off meeting with Sharon, accusing him of dragging his feet
6 Israel releases 336 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture
8 Two Hamas militants and an Israeli soldier killed in Israeli raid on West Bank refugee camp. Two more Palestinians die later in protests
12 Two suicide bombers strike in Israel; one other person killed in each attack
14 Israeli troops kill Mohammed Seder, head of Islamic Jihad's armed wing in Hebron
17 Israelis and Palestinians fail to agree terms for the handover of four West Bank cities to Palestinian security control
19 Suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus kills at least 20
21 Israel kills Ismail Abu Shanab of Hamas; Islamic Jihad official declares ceasefire over
Israel/Palestine
To close this "Roadmap to Peace" chapter, the complete Guardian article on how the cease-fire was broken. The bare bones of it makes quite clear: peace had no chance.
How the truce was broken
Brian Whitaker, Friday August 22, 2003, The Guardian
June
27 Israel and Palestinians agree disengagement deal in Gaza
29 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullback. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Arafat's Fatah faction, including al-Aqsa Martyrs, declare truce
July
2 Israel withdraws from Bethlehem. US announces $30m (£18.8m) aid for West Bank and Gaza
3 Israeli troops shoot dead a militant and block traffic on Gaza's main road, angering Palestinians
5 The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, meets the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin for the first time
6 Israeli cabinet decides to release several hundred Palestinian prisoners
9 US approves giving $20m in aid directly to the Palestinian Authority in a move aimed at strengthening Abbas
20 Abbas meets Ariel Sharon
25 Abbas meets George Bush in Washington for the first time
27 Israel agrees to free 210 militants
28 Israeli troops fire teargas and rubber bullets to break up protests against the construction of a huge separation/security barrier in the West Bank
29 Sharon meets Bush in Washington
31 Israel announces plans for 22 new homes at a settlement in Gaza, in defiance of the US
August
2 Al-Aqsa Martyrs threaten to resume attacks after Yasser Arafat has 20 of them detained in Ramallah. Lebanon car bomb kills a Hizbullah member, Ali Hussein Saleh; Hizbullah accuses Israel of involvement
5 Abbas calls off meeting with Sharon, accusing him of dragging his feet
6 Israel releases 336 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture
8 Two Hamas militants and an Israeli soldier killed in Israeli raid on West Bank refugee camp. Two more Palestinians die later in protests
12 Two suicide bombers strike in Israel; one other person killed in each attack
14 Israeli troops kill Mohammed Seder, head of Islamic Jihad's armed wing in Hebron
17 Israelis and Palestinians fail to agree terms for the handover of four West Bank cities to Palestinian security control
19 Suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus kills at least 20
21 Israel kills Ismail Abu Shanab of Hamas; Islamic Jihad official declares ceasefire over
To close this "Roadmap to Peace" chapter, the complete Guardian article on how the cease-fire was broken. The bare bones of it makes quite clear: peace had no chance.
How the truce was broken
Brian Whitaker, Friday August 22, 2003, The Guardian
June
27 Israel and Palestinians agree disengagement deal in Gaza
29 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullback. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Arafat's Fatah faction, including al-Aqsa Martyrs, declare truce
July
2 Israel withdraws from Bethlehem. US announces $30m (£18.8m) aid for West Bank and Gaza
3 Israeli troops shoot dead a militant and block traffic on Gaza's main road, angering Palestinians
5 The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, meets the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin for the first time
6 Israeli cabinet decides to release several hundred Palestinian prisoners
9 US approves giving $20m in aid directly to the Palestinian Authority in a move aimed at strengthening Abbas
20 Abbas meets Ariel Sharon
25 Abbas meets George Bush in Washington for the first time
27 Israel agrees to free 210 militants
28 Israeli troops fire teargas and rubber bullets to break up protests against the construction of a huge separation/security barrier in the West Bank
29 Sharon meets Bush in Washington
31 Israel announces plans for 22 new homes at a settlement in Gaza, in defiance of the US
August
2 Al-Aqsa Martyrs threaten to resume attacks after Yasser Arafat has 20 of them detained in Ramallah. Lebanon car bomb kills a Hizbullah member, Ali Hussein Saleh; Hizbullah accuses Israel of involvement
5 Abbas calls off meeting with Sharon, accusing him of dragging his feet
6 Israel releases 336 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture
8 Two Hamas militants and an Israeli soldier killed in Israeli raid on West Bank refugee camp. Two more Palestinians die later in protests
12 Two suicide bombers strike in Israel; one other person killed in each attack
14 Israeli troops kill Mohammed Seder, head of Islamic Jihad's armed wing in Hebron
17 Israelis and Palestinians fail to agree terms for the handover of four West Bank cities to Palestinian security control
19 Suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus kills at least 20
21 Israel kills Ismail Abu Shanab of Hamas; Islamic Jihad official declares ceasefire over
Iraq
The American politicians are starting to wake up and are seeing the dollar bills fly out the window.
They dont much like it.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: money for Iraq should be "in the form of a loan that's going to be paid back either from the oil revenues or from contributions from other countries."
Ummm... no, it does not work that way, my dear.
You invade a country, you bomb it to kingdom come, you destroy much of it's infrastructure, you disband the army... then you are the occupier; you are responsible for safety and you foot the bill for the costs of reconstruction and returning the country to itself.
You are responsible, you alone.
That was the way you wanted it, so that is the way it is.
The American politicians are starting to wake up and are seeing the dollar bills fly out the window.
They dont much like it.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: money for Iraq should be "in the form of a loan that's going to be paid back either from the oil revenues or from contributions from other countries."
Ummm... no, it does not work that way, my dear.
You invade a country, you bomb it to kingdom come, you destroy much of it's infrastructure, you disband the army... then you are the occupier; you are responsible for safety and you foot the bill for the costs of reconstruction and returning the country to itself.
You are responsible, you alone.
That was the way you wanted it, so that is the way it is.
Iraq
The American politicians are starting to wake up and are seeing the dollar bills fly out the window.
They dont much like it.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: money for Iraq should be "in the form of a loan that's going to be paid back either from the oil revenues or from contributions from other countries."
Ummm... no, it does not work that way, my dear.
You invade a country, you bomb it to kingdom come, you destroy much of it's infrastructure, you disband the army... then you are the occupier; you are responsible for safety and you foot the bill for the costs of reconstruction and returning the country to itself.
You are responsible, you alone.
That was the way you wanted it, so that is the way it is.
The American politicians are starting to wake up and are seeing the dollar bills fly out the window.
They dont much like it.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: money for Iraq should be "in the form of a loan that's going to be paid back either from the oil revenues or from contributions from other countries."
Ummm... no, it does not work that way, my dear.
You invade a country, you bomb it to kingdom come, you destroy much of it's infrastructure, you disband the army... then you are the occupier; you are responsible for safety and you foot the bill for the costs of reconstruction and returning the country to itself.
You are responsible, you alone.
That was the way you wanted it, so that is the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
