'MCA go home' vs 'Where was DAP 13 years ago?' at Jonker Walk
What?! Gan qualified his being there as a survey, not to protest? Let alone to lead the protest? Did Mr. Gan Tian Loo realize that the MCA protest carries more weight than DAP protest many times
over. The state government, being UMNO-led government, considers the DAP as the opposition working hand-in-hand with PAS and PKR to oust UMNO from power, rescinding the directive on the request
from DAP leaders will make the party even more popular. I thought, at first, here come the MCA, finally to do what it's supposed to do. Then the expected happened. He got cold feet. The
reporter who covered the protest reported Gan was suddenly cautious . He was like ..."I'm here to lend my support to..the .. no, wait! I am not here to support the traders - but just to do a quick
survey! But I am glad to be standing here with the protesters but reporters, please put it down in black and white I am not, I repeat, am not here as part of the protest. This is the reason the MCA
was shunned, I mean has been shunned by the Chinese. They do not represent the Chinese anymore. They cannot get things done anymore unlike in the old days. Gan admitted his meeting with the chief
minister was fruitless, but would keep trying. Keep trying for what? He should stop embarrassing the MCA and reducing its credibility further by continuing to beg despite being rebuffed earlier.
Again, this proved that the Malaysian Chinese Association has really completely lost its usefulness. If a small matter like Jonker Walk closure was beyond its power then, that 's it.
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women
THE DRL BLOG
Links You May Like
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Links You May Like
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He was Prime Minister?>More Here
How To Stop Drinking Without Stopping!>Read More Here
Opportunist Writers From Indian Community> Read More
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women>More here
Israel Can Stop Palestinians' Roket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >More
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins A No-No>More
Clinton Or Trump>More
How You Intend To Vote in November?>More
Obama Took The Crown>More Here
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf>More..
Abdullah Rebuffed Them>More
Lim's Horrendous Success>More Here
Lim Guan Eng A Phenomenon>More
Even The Once Mighty British Seem To Have Thrown In The Towel>Read More
Clash Of Titans> More Here
Not Easy Being DAP>Read More
Pak Lah Was Too Kind To Do What Was Expected Of Him>More Here
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired>More
Not Easy Being MCA Leaders>More
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One>More..
Nobel Prize Winners>More..
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise>More
Warning For The Rich And Powerful>Read More
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
MCA Must Demand Return Of All Its Traditional
Seats>Read More
A British Adventurer Who Became King By His Own
Hand>Read More
Where's The MAS Flight MH370 Now>More..
The Greatest Medicine
Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His
Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All)
>Read More...
The Greatest Medicine Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >Read More...
By David Lang
The following stories may fire your imagination, pique your interest. Some say 1MDB is Malaysia's Sovereign Wealth fund; to others they asked what wealth fund when its total capitalization is just One million ringgit? But, then again, if you think you can look down on the pet idea of the Malaysian prime minister, think again. His idea has the potential of turning the now world famous - or shall we say, infamous - 1Malaysia Development Berhad into a giant corporation you can ever imagine - even bigger than Bill Gate's Microsoft! At least, it could be, if the original course is stayed. It was supposed to inspire Malaysians to think big besides advance growth, according to its slogans screaming out of giant bill boards throughout the country. 'Backed' by the finance ministry who owns it - which means money will never be the problem - it can only succeed. But..it didn't. It failed! That's why it may have piqued many people's curiosity. How can a company flush with cash and can borrow any amount (billions) anytime could fail? Well, this may be in line with your thinking. People have seen since its inception - I mean after its name was changed in 1999 from Trengganu Investment Authority (TIA) to the present - it hasn't done any business! I have used present tense deliberately. It hasn't done any business yet. I mean if you are in business you need to make profit or find ways to make profit. Or close shop. Oh, I had heard about their filings of tax returns and hiring of a couple of internationally known auditors to sign off on their balance sheets; but these concerned only the company's borrowings and interests to be paid. Two massive bonds were issued to the tune of $7 billions. To buy up power plants. Again I want to say if you are in business to make money even investing in independent Power Plants, it should be done with the view to making a profit. The decision may be long term or short term, it doesn't matter, it has to make money, or no deal. May be they have done the right thing. Maybe luck was not on their side. Still, the amount is staggering. I didn't know having or managing so much money can be a problem! But many - especially the Malays - have not given up hope yet. Yes, may be the durians are just ripening; may be they need time and may fall soon!
This is a automatic time
Malaysia's Woes
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Why 1MDB Sovereign Wealth Fund Failed?
Local politics
Opportunit Writers From Indian Community
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Alcohol Effect: (PAS' Muslim Now Concerned About Non- Muslims' Health?
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One
Israel Has No Choice But To Deter
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired
About Dr Mahathir
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He Was Prime Minister?
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Recent Articles
This video is presented courtesy of Sally Page:
Malaysia's Vision 2020
By:David Lang
Malaysia is supposed to be on its way to becoming a developed nation, by the year 2020. Will she make it (in less than five years -tick-tuck, tick-tuck)? There is no doubt the year 2020 is coming whether the country is ready or not, and if that will be the only requirement then Malaysia will attain that developed nation status on schedule. There is a question, though, Will Malaysia, or Malaysians, for that matter, be ready for that status as far as their affluence, quality of life's concern? Currently Malaysia's GNI per capita stood at US$10060. According to the World Bank high income economies are those with GNI per capita of US$12,745. And until Malaysians earn much more to be there, the developed nation status may not be achieved even by the year 2020. The futility of declaring a country a high income country when it's not, achieves nothing. May be even counter-productive; it lulls the country into false sense of success and premature celebration. Don't forget China reportedly overtook Japan as the world's second largest economy, but in actual fact China's citizens' ca pita income is a fraction of the incomes of the Japanese who earn $37,000. Chinese incomes range from $13,000. China's gross domestic product, taken as a whole, may beat Japan's, but in term of quality of life, and GNI per capita income, the criteria for a developed nation status, China still has a lot of catching up to do. That's why China still qualifies as recipient of Japan's economic aid meant for developing countries. Comparing with the Chinese per capita domestic product, Malaysia is even worse off. Unless the government bucks up and rushes to create more wealth for its citizens, the Vision 2020 dream may remain just that ..a dream.
Jun 29, 2013
Jun 22, 2013
Apr 20, 2013
Apr 6, 2013
Apr 1, 2013
Feb 15, 2013
How To Repair Your Own Refrigerator And Save A Bundle
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Apr 7, 2018
Content From syriainturmoil.newsvine.com
Ask Mark Zuckerberg why he chose Priscilla Chan to be his legally married
wife, I am sure he'd say he chose his wife not because of her big breasts or
fantastic ass; but because he found her attractive.
This, however, in no way implies that Caucasian, Hispanic, African or other
Asian women make horrible wives. They don't.
If some women find my two cents objectionable, I am sorry.
I am not claiming my two-cent is the only one that's right. It's just that
that's the way it looks so far.
I want to hear from you all. Are you like Murdoch or Zuckerberg, married to
Chinese women? Yours truly by the way, also is. Couldn't be happier.[PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/20/11775547-zuckerberg-had-
just-updated-his-status-to-married]
What You Should Know About Islam?
Islam, mind you, is like a "One-way Street or "No-through Road."
If you are not blind or illiterate, you you know that these street and road
lead to nowhere, but people won't listen!
They, for instance, have to convert to Islam if they want to tie the knots
with their Muslim girlfriends, and yet go ahead.
Islam however is not at fault here. There are ample signs - like road signs -
which lead to dead end; conversion to Islam is permanent.
I mean once a Muslim always a Muslim whether you like or not. Anyone can enter
anytime but they are forbidden to leave. Oh, they will say, anyone can leave
if a sharia court judge allows it. It can happen, though, I concede that. But
don't count on it as your comfort is my only advice.
All followers of Islam are obligated to convert people of other religions to
Islam. It's unthinkable for a sharia judge to sanction you to leave
Islam.
Islam is a great religion if you believe in it and want it and can live with
it. Just..don't use Islam as a passport to your girlfriends' hearts; to keep
your promises to your girlfriends after they consent to have sex with you.
Prevention is better than cure here; don't have sex with a Muslim woman if you
only want sex but she want you to marry her. You will end up regretting until
you die. There is no way out. Even if after you're dead, you're not free. Once
you're confirmed dead, the religious authorities will take charge of your
remains to be done Islamic rites and buried in Muslim cemeteries.
Sympathies expected but none extended as far as Muslims are concerned.
Let's discuss how the American Muslims co-exist with fellow Americans.
If there is a controversy or event involving Muslims and they feel they are
being targeted or perceived to be targeted, they will cry wolf! wolf! wolf!
Yes, they will do that, and boy! how efficiently they respond. All Muslims of
every shapes and colors will down tools and come out in unison to condemn:
"Islam phobia; hate mongering, bigotry; minority religion under threats; we
demand our rights as Americans; we want to expose these people and who are
their financiers; we hel/div>
Their trade-mark minority-religion under attack remarks have become cliched
but will find traction with some Americans (A supposedly white American
reportedly had this to say: 'We have Muslim friends, who even used our church
to pray 5 times per day while their Mosque is being built or repaired; and
they had been our best friends, and will remain our best friends!") Well said,
friend; couldn't be better for your Muslim friends, the ones you had in mind
and those at large. They certainly need all the support they can get,
especially at this moment when they believe "They are under attack."
Ya, there are many white Americans who are easily misled, misguided, naive,
and have their heads buried in the sands.
These so-called, out-of-the-norm, do-good Americans (I prefer to call them
liberals) think they are clever and have goodwill to spare and dispense? Or
just to fish in troubled water? Some people do things mindlessly. Some are in
it cunningly for self-interests. Or selfish interests? They ignore their inner
minds telling them.." your actions will jeopardize your children and grand
children and America's future generations."
Americans are blind if they don't already see the damage already done to
American society through this mission creep perpetrated by Muslim Brotherhood
through their tireless front line soldiers of American Muslim Associations,
and not outright Muslim associations such as AAI, Southern Poverty Law Center,
to name a few. who give their all to help the MB realize their dream of
converting America.
They are not there yet, but on their way; but their mission creep is creeping.
In order to get the resolution to set up the no-fly zone in then Libya, the
western powers first used lies (it was about protecting civilians, remember?)
to pull wool over people's eyes and then...came mission creep. NATO literally
bombed that tiny country back to the stone age. The same scenario is being
repeated in America right now.
Are Americans afraid? We should be. I shudder to even imagine what it will be
like if the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds.
To understand what we are going to be plagued with in the future unless we act
fast, I invite you all to go back in time to the time when the Muslim
Brotherhood was down but not out in Egypt, 2008 to be exact.
After the Arab spring came followed by the Cairo square revolution, everything
changed. Mubarak was toppled and his nemesis emerged triumphant. They never
looked back since. Now only the Egyptian army stands in their way towards
complete control of this center of Arab civilization of 2000 years. They
already gained control of the Egyptian parliament and you know what that
means? It means they replace their nemesis, former president, Hosni Mubarak.
Almost; yes, they are on their way and already they had made clear to the
dreading Israelis across the Sinai desert, that Jews will be in for a tough
time.
But the Israelis are not alone who are dismayed by the turn of events: the 80
millions Egyptians now have found themselves yearning for the good old days
under Mubarak's tyrannous secular government.
It's obvious they can't trust the MB who promised to not run for president, at
first, but later went back on their words, just like that. Whether the Muslim
Brotherhood gets to rule Egypt under sharia law or not depends on the Egyptian
people who (alone) can decide.
If the Egyptian voters - especially women voters - are naive, they only have
themselves to blame (if the MB comes to power and carries out their threats to
impose sharia laws and cancel the peace treaty with Israel).
Similarly; if the MB triumphs in America and subjects us to sharia, it's our
own faults, collectively. It's we the majority who allow a tiny few like the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the AAI, and others, whites - who decried Pam
Geller's Stop Islamisation of America drive; and so they rushed to come up
with their own meeting called Stop Islamophobia in a town hall to discredit
Pam Geller's meeting in the memory of Jessica Moktad who was repeatedly raped
and, when according to police she threatened to reveal all, killed - to act
with carte blanche and embolden the MB and their followers. We allow SPLC to
label the Stop Islamisation of America headed by Pam Geller and Robert Spenser
hate group, just like that.
It's unknown what gave them the power to label others at will like that, and
why?
If we allow people with vested interests to act with carte blanche purportedly
on our behalf (Like Congressman Keith Ellison who shamelessly cried during
Congressman Peter King's meeting to discuss the creeping Islamization of
America, to which he was invited and during which he didn't mince his words in
condemnation of Congressman King, we are just asking for troubles. Troubles
will follow us every where until we stop them.
His shedding of crocodile tears during that meeting however gave birth to
derision for him on the internet for moths and became virulent.
Then, somehow, he was like hiatus. Perhaps there were too many questions for
him to answer why since he's so love being a Muslim or defending Islam, why he
chose to masquerade as a Christian by using Christian name Keith Maurice
Ellison. If he's in a Muslim country in Asia he will be in deep trouble; he
wouldn't last a year if he does or uses things even remotely associated with
Christianity, let alone sporting a Christian name. The religious authorities
will send him for religious counseling until cleansed. That's if Muslim
vigilantes didn't get to him first)./div>
The Muslims themselves not only remained silent or refused to condemn the
crime perpetrated against the poor 20 year old deceased in the prime of life,
but chose to go after those who they perceived to be a threat to their way of
life: honor killing.
Even the deceased's own mother showed so little concern for her flesh and
blood what to expect. Pam Geller claimed she was being harassed by the
murdered girl's mother. No, it isn't true! I don't believe it. Jessica's own
mother only wants injustice for her own offspring? I can't believe it. If it's
true, don't expect much from this mother. In fact, she should be deported to
her country of origin, if she's not local born. For a mother who turned away
from protecting her own daughter doesn't deserve to live in America. So too
those Americans, mostly white Americans, unfortunately, who saw fit to fight
against Pam Geller for trying to highlight a horrible practice in Muslim
society: honor killing; so horrible and all the more horrible, when it's used
to hide a crime.
Americans black or white, or Hispanics, the majority, must must not remain
silent, speak out now. Don't allow the minority to ride roughshod over you and
your future generations.
For starter, Americans should put these naive American few who label
themselves as Southern Poverty Law Center and AAI in their place, telling them
they have no place in America, and uphold Pam Geller and Robert Spenser.
Turn up in large number will send a clear enough message in case you don't
like to disparage other people, Muslims or not. Just turn up at the venue
where Pam Geller and Robert Spenser say they are going to hold their
meeting.
Never be intimidated by Pam's opponents' statements or uncompromising stands;
they are just like the rest of us, human beings. If we have fears they also
have fears.
We should not compromise with our children and grand children's choices.
We should respect our fellow Muslim Americans and their choices as we expect
them to respect us, and by extension, our children and grand children's
choices.
As for Jim Zogby (Is he a Jew; his name sounds like he's?) and the likes of
him, don't use violence against him but please be nice and say: "Mr. Jim
Zogby, we respect you as a fellow American highly but we have to tell you to
stop attacking Pam Geller and Robert Spenser. This country is big enough for
all the Pam Gellers and Robert Spensers and Jim Zogbys, or your friends the
Muslims. JUST DON'T try to disrupt others' plans and activities. Please. Thank
you so much!"[PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/30/11467469-what-you-
should-know-about-islam]
Syria A Chink in Iranian Armor
So, it had been decided. All of a sudden, somehow someone had decided time's
up for president Bashar al-Assad. He has to step down. Gives way. Cedes power.
Delegates power to his deputy. Whatever. It means the same thing: regime
change. They want his job.
It does not matter whether the president of Syria is guilty of the crime he's
been accused of; or that he had to act to protect his people, Syrian
sovereignty, or in self defense, he had been judged as guilty;
prejudged.
Nobody cared that he had been in power for more a decade without much problem
until the Arab Spring started. Even if it was true Assad did crack down on
dissent, it was to be expected. What leader would stand for such a challenge
to his authority. You can try the it any where the reaction will be the same.
Even in America itself. I don't think President Obama would find it amusing to
have a large crowd rallying in front of the White House with banners calling
for his downfall.I will be surprised if he hesitates to call in the FBI or CIA
to spirit away every person to prison, or worse to join with Private Bradley
Manning in his solitary confinement.
What President Assad has done can happen anywhere. Bangkok! Not long ago,
during the anti=government demonstrations by the red shirt groups who
supported Thailand's former prime minister Thaksin Shinawat, who was toppled
in a coup by the powerful military who then paved the way for Abhisit
Vejjajiva to succeed him. The majority of Thais saw red and launched their
protests. Prime minister Abhisit then ordered the army to put down the
rebellion with heavy loss of life and hundred injured (the protestors were
unarmed men, women and children and were killed in cold blood). Did the
hardworking UN intervene? No! Nobody, none, in the US or England or France,
said a word. Their hiatuses were unbelievable and absolutely unacceptable.
They should treat all human lives the same. I wonder why these people can
become so pissed off with Assad but not with Abhisit?
And what about President Robert Mugabe of Uganda who brutally seized the
Whites' farmlands, and ignored the human rights of his political rivals and
Zimbabwe's people in general. (Mugabe was also charged by the world court for
crime against humanity but surprisingly was left to his own devices, pretty
much, until today.
To his credit though, Robert Mugabe at later date relented and allowed Morgan
Tsvangiraj to be his prime minister in the unity government. But still his
power remains absolute, undiminished.
Next, the Burmese generals. These generals were so powerful that people or the
world treated them as if they had nuclear weapons. Only the United States
'dared' to stand up to Myanmar. Though gingerly. These generals were so
cocksure of themselves that they thought of themselves as gods. They trampled
on the Burmese people as if they were made of clay not flesh, blood and
brains. Even monks were not spared. And what about the catastrophes in Darfur,
Sudan, where ethnic cleansing was brutally carried by its president, Omar al-
Bashir? Well... so far nothing has happened to him, although the World Court
had laid charges against him. Was there a compromise, a deal struck? A quid
pro quo? Forgiven not forgotten, or forgotten not forgiven? Or both? Which
equals: case closed. Due to...lack of evidence, lack of support from the Arab
League, African Union, opposed by India, China, Russia. Or lack of will? May
be lack of appetite. Not very doable...could be messy. Didn't care. But.
But..wait a minute. President Omar al-Bashir was coaxed into agreeing to allow
the South's people to freely choose whether to remain with Sudan or break away
and become an independent state. They chose the latter. Fine. But what about
the murders he or his agents had committed for which he was charged. Perhaps
President Omar wouldn't agree to the referendum unless the charges against him
were unconditionally dropped?
So if President Assad can hang in there for while, while his army goes all out
to stamp out the opposition once and for all, like his father, he could expect
to be reprieved in a similar deal? He could give Idlib province (which is
already infested with unfriendly Turks anyway) independence like Omar al-
Bashir gave to South Sudan.
There is no difference between Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Bashar al-Assad of
Syria, for crying out loud; except the former killed ten times more of his
people. Omar al-Bashir was given a way out because not only the West lacked
appetite for a possible remake of the scenario as depicted in the movie 'Black
Hawk Down' in which US soldiers were killed and their bodies dragged round by
pickup trucks in the dusty streets of Somali which led to President Bill
Clinton to decide the US was done with Africa, but also because the ends might
not justify the means.
While Sudan may have oil, like Syria, which was tempting to energy-hungry
West, it was not enough. Syria on the other hand was the key to Iran's far
flung influence in the Arab world. Without Syria - or shall we say Assad, Iran
will be isolated, encircled by the Arab countries backed by the US, and will
be eventually hemmed in.
That's the calculation everyone is focusing on. The West had recently lost
Lebanon to Iran, or Syria, or Hezbollah, it makes no difference, which, and
they were angry. They calculated if they could do a 'libya' to Syria, they
could undermine Iran's power as well as its influence in the Middle East,
which had spread to Iraq (another loss experienced by Washington), and even
Afghanistan.
Even the small kingdoms of Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, to name a few, ruled by
the minority Sunnis over Shiia majority, are not safe from Iran, even with the
American Fifth Fleet stationed there. So they had to do something. In Libya,
they dragged their feet. But in Syria, they were in forefront calling among
the loudest for President Bashar to step down. No surprises there.
Unlike in their kingdoms, it's said, the majority of Syrians are Sunnis. Many,
in the West, put Assad's Alawite tribe as about ten percent. Was that right? I
don't know. But if that's correct, then President Bashar al-Assad must have
ruled Syria well (without the oppression or brutality he was labelled with) to
win over more than 60% of Sunni Syrians to support him. Granted, some Sunni
Syrians may choose to support Assad due to fears. But if he has had only
fifteen percent support (Alawite 10% plus Christians and Kurds another 5%), no
matter how strong or brutal his army was, Assad could never be where he's
today. Even his army is consisted of Syrians from all ethnic groups. Women
were free in secular Syria, as were their sisters in secular Egypt and Libya
of recent past. The Christians, the women, and Kurds, in their right minds,
would never dump Assad. To them, he's a known devil. He allowed everyone the
freedom to do his own thing... practice his own faith except..except one
taboo: to replace him. Or his son, later. This he will never agree. Nor will
his son, if he's one to succeed him.
But it seemed that's exactly what's happening. Oh,the Muslim Brotherhood had
tried that; and they had been defeated. No problems. The MB, as they are also
referred to, had also been active in the Mubarak-era Egypt, and there were no
problems, too. Except; the words 'defeated' in the past had been transformed
in, replaced by, oppressed or suppressed. Now the western media as well as the
Qatar-based Al Jazeera, are peddling the snake oil to the world that Syrian
president oppressed his own people, killing them mercilessly. Saying therefore
he has lost the legitimacy to rule. Even the western governments preferred to
avoid mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood are in the forefront in the attacks or
being attacked in Syria at present. To their credit, American officials are
not very enthusiastic about intervening in Syria perhaps due to that dreadful
fact. But to these western governments, or Arab countries, especially the Gulf
Cooperation countries, or Turkey thrown in, Assad represents their nemesis as
well as the key to defang and defeat Iran. With Assad gone, Hezbollah's
aggressiveness or their sense of invincibility will be much reduced. At things
stand, Iran never felt so confident. It's well established in Iraq with a
Shiite government in power (it's unlikely the Sunni minority can muster the
strength to challenge the Shiite government for a long time); it's actively
working with the Taliban, and may be even with the Kabul government, against
NATO in Afghanistan.
At present Iran is safe. Syria is safe. Despite the departure of the Khaled
Meshaal, Hamas' defacto leader, which the western media or governments used to
discredit Assad, Hamas had become a client of Egypt under the influence of
another Muslim Brotherhood. It also remains under the influence of Iran and
ready to carry out its bidding. Moreover, Khaled Meshaal seemed to have lost
the absolute power he once wielded. His well-publicized deal with Palestinian
Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, in which he agreed to Abbas remaining as
president and becoming the prime minister in the proposed new unity
government, was not enthusiastically endorsed by the authorities on the ground
in Gaza.
At this moment in time, nothing much the west or the MB-dominated oposition in
Syria could do, except wait. Wait or hope for the crack in Hamas
leadership.
If they wish to do 'a Libya' to Syria quicker, they need to work to enhance
the disagreement or division among Hamas leaders. Hamas is one of the chinks
in Iran's armor.
But Iran's foes, Assad's foes, or Hamas' foes, should hold their breath for a
moment. The division, let alone the breakup of Hamas, is not a sure thing;
inevitable or imminent. Don't forget this is a terrorist organization. Its aim
is to destroy Israel. Other matters don't count or matter. They have so much
difference with the West even if they do break up, their loyalty stays with
terrorism and destruction of Israel. It's all right for the West to indulge in
a day dream of the breakup of one of Iran's proxies, but in reality it's just
a disagreement according to some Hamas leaders. It, they are confident, can be
resolved through lawyers. So there you have it. They intend to patch things
up. But irrespective of what is going to happen, or what Hamas leaders decide,
the leadership on the ground seems to have a sway for those in exile. And the
Hamas in Gaza depends on Iranian largess to make its payrolls in Gaza.
But on the other hand, if Iran becomes another North Korea and explodes a
nuclear bomb, and uses denial or silence or stealth to elude discovery until
it has successfully tested a nuclear device, everything is changed. So far
Iran seems unstoppable. It denies it's making a bomb; so how to stop it? What
president Obama said was true when he said if Iran really wanted to build
nuclear bombs, they can. "What we can do to their ambition to emulate North
Korea, is to delay it. Not stop it," he said. "The only way," according to
Obama, "to stop the Iranian project of weapons of mass destruction is to coax
them to stop it themselves. Like Col. Qaddafi of Libya agreed to former
president George W. Bush's advice to dismantle and cancel his nuclear bomb
project." Except that nothing good came out of that listening to Bush. In
fact, Iran was watching and came to the conclusion that Qaddafi erred; and he
paid for it with his life. So Iran may go for North Korean's example instead,
which was better. They could secretly research, develop through trial and
errors and then explode a few nuclear bombs, which they could deny as
vigorously as they could that they were nuclear bombs, at first, but later
admit they were. They could claim it was for peaceful purposes, though!
So far the North Koreans, or their beloved young great leader, are not in
imminent danger. Except for the rice or food aid promised by Washington may be
suspended for a while. Who cares for the rice or food aid? National pride is
more important. Already they have nuclear bombs. Now they are going to send a
satellite into space on their giant rocket, which they can also use to send
nuclear bombs in the future after they have successfully managed to
miniaturize them enough to be fitted to the rocket tips.
Washington, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines took note of the North's
intention. But only Japan warned North Korea their missiles or any parts may
be shot down if they are deemed headed for its territory, while the North
declared if that happened it would consider that act as an act of war
(declaration of wars). But I don't think Japan or any country, even the US,
for that matter, will go that far. Don't forget North Korea has nuclear
weapons. Primitive may be, but still nuclear bombs.
The North Koreans may threaten the US with an intent to drop the first bomb on
the South, the easiest. It just has to load it on its military plane, fly it
over to Seoul and drop it (like the Americans dropped theirs on Japan during
WW2. Of course, the Obama administration would likely put North Korea's
leadership on notice, there will be retaliation in kind, which will mean the
end of the young beloved leader, if not the whole of North Korea. Will the
North be crazy enough do it? Will President Obama make good his threat? I
think nobody even dare to calculate. Only President Obama knows what he will
do, will not do, have to do. He alone decides.
So, in view of that, I believe President Assad is safe, at least for now. No
matter how many egged him to intervene in Syria, which the US has the power
to, Obama could not relish the idea of intervening in every country that
everyone wants him to. "We just can't intervene in every country in the world,
" were his own words. "Tempting, but no! In Libya it was different. The world
was united then; and Libya was much smaller, weaker, poorly equipped country -
doable."
The Syrian army is ranked sixth in the world. Numbering 320, 000 excluding the
reservists. What's more, they have sophisticated air defenses, large
stockpiles of chemical weapons and nerve gas.
In an all out war with the US, if it comes to that, there is no doubt who will
win; but there is also no doubt, we will pay a high price. It has become clear
that if left alone, President Assad will easily triumph over his opponents,
Muslim Brotherhood or not.[PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/12/11164024-syria-a-chink-
in-iranian-armor]
Shooting spree in Tulsa, Okla should not be labelled a hate crime
After reading these comments about whites killing blacks, targeting blacks,
or blacks killing blacks, or why would whites be so stupid as to go into black
neighborhood to kill blacks where he won't be able to escape, and some
replied..."there are whites who go to black areas to buy drugs and sex," I
found most of these posts don't make sense.
Whatever your position is somebody is bound to come up with an argument
to debunk it. Then you get the urge to answer and hit back. Back and forth;
and when you have a hell lot of people (more than a thousand) who are blacks
and whites hammering away at their keyboards, a lot of feelings will be roiled
and bruised.
to debunk it. Then you get the urge to answer and hit back. Back and forth;
and when you have a hell lot of people (more than a thousand) who are blacks
and whites hammering away at their keyboards, a lot of feelings will be roiled
and bruised.
Some wrote with wisdom and moderation. Thank God. But most were
uncompromising. They were blacks and they're not in the mood to forgive
'whites' for doing this to 'blacks.'
uncompromising. They were blacks and they're not in the mood to forgive
'whites' for doing this to 'blacks.'
While white writers were beside themselves with indignation when fingers were
pointed at a 'white' man in a white truck, implying that the perpetrator or
perpetrators were white. When a local council official was asked by
reporters, if he thought this was a hate crime (whites attacking blacks), he
had the audacity to say: "Yes, absolutely!" I wonder if the councilor was
black? We all are responsible for this disunity; we are all guilty of
unrestrained in our behavior, thinking. We want bloodshed, we love chaos and
mayhems. That's why we stop to witness a road accident; we love to see
bloodshed, others' blood. We will never lift a finger to help the victims but
only want to watch. That's who we are. And many on this Newsvine
discussion.
pointed at a 'white' man in a white truck, implying that the perpetrator or
perpetrators were white. When a local council official was asked by
reporters, if he thought this was a hate crime (whites attacking blacks), he
had the audacity to say: "Yes, absolutely!" I wonder if the councilor was
black? We all are responsible for this disunity; we are all guilty of
unrestrained in our behavior, thinking. We want bloodshed, we love chaos and
mayhems. That's why we stop to witness a road accident; we love to see
bloodshed, others' blood. We will never lift a finger to help the victims but
only want to watch. That's who we are. And many on this Newsvine
discussion.
Some feel because being privileged with the ability to write, they want to
show the world what they can do with words. And they don't mince their words.
Some even took the opportunity to praise President Obama and hammered the GOP
and the Teapartiers who had no idea what hit them! My own take is, well, we
should use restrain. We have no idea, the police said they had no evidence
that this was a hate crime; so until we do, it's best we refrain from judging
whites, blacks or Hispanics.
As for the statements by the black survivors that they saw a white man in a
white truck, or that it was a white man in a white truck (they didn't say the
white man did it, they just saw the white man there), I call them mere
speculations. That's what they were. Even if there was a white man in a white
truck, it didn't mean we had identified the shooter or shooters already. It
means we are anxious to nail the suspects, so bad we didn't care we just
speculated. Just as the person who took the opportunity to stump for Obama's
reelection in November when that person injected Obama good deeds and dumb
deeds of the GOP into this discussion about murder! Even Israel was not
spared!
white truck, or that it was a white man in a white truck (they didn't say the
white man did it, they just saw the white man there), I call them mere
speculations. That's what they were. Even if there was a white man in a white
truck, it didn't mean we had identified the shooter or shooters already. It
means we are anxious to nail the suspects, so bad we didn't care we just
speculated. Just as the person who took the opportunity to stump for Obama's
reelection in November when that person injected Obama good deeds and dumb
deeds of the GOP into this discussion about murder! Even Israel was not
spared!
Personally I am not sure if the man, white man, in the white truck, was
the culprit. For all I know, the white man may happen to be in the area for a
reason - not necessarily to commit murders. He may be lost and was asking for
direction. Who knows? Ya, I also am curious what these people were doing
loitering about after midnight? It's too early to say anything for sure. If
you want to speculate (don't we all), be my guests. [PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/08/11080654-shooting-spree-
in-tulsa-okla-should-not-be-labelled-a-hate-crime]
the culprit. For all I know, the white man may happen to be in the area for a
reason - not necessarily to commit murders. He may be lost and was asking for
direction. Who knows? Ya, I also am curious what these people were doing
loitering about after midnight? It's too early to say anything for sure. If
you want to speculate (don't we all), be my guests. [PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/08/11080654-shooting-spree-
in-tulsa-okla-should-not-be-labelled-a-hate-crime]
Iran's ambition or Iran itself may be a goner if...
Iran's nuclear ambition, or even Iran itself, may be a goner. Just my humble
opinion. You see, if the West, especially led by the US, says come clean, Iran
should choose to listen. It's not wise to defy the West. They should recall
what happened to Libya. Fresh from victory in Libya, though bogged down in
Afghanistan, NATO knows what it can do. No way, anybody (country) could match
the strength and destructive force of NATO. As amply demonstrated in Libya,
they can bomb any country back to the stone age!
Iran's saber-rattling means nothing to the West. After Libya, the West
knows, NATO deters; and Iran is fully aware of that. But don't underestimate
the Persian minds and cunningness. Their empire once ruled half the world,
remember. They might spring a surprise yet. I don't count on Iran giving up
their favorite dream. Their goal is damned too near, tempting, to stop now.
That's why they agree to negotiate anytime as long as it's not about uranium
refining or enrichment (the material they need for making nuclear bombs).
And you know what, the Americans actually have no desire to stop Iran racing
towards its goal (of joning Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea in the
exclusive nuclear club). They have said as much. The American intelligence
agency still stubbornly sticks to its finding that Iran has not decided to
move towards making nuclear bombs, and seems unlikely it ever will.
knows, NATO deters; and Iran is fully aware of that. But don't underestimate
the Persian minds and cunningness. Their empire once ruled half the world,
remember. They might spring a surprise yet. I don't count on Iran giving up
their favorite dream. Their goal is damned too near, tempting, to stop now.
That's why they agree to negotiate anytime as long as it's not about uranium
refining or enrichment (the material they need for making nuclear bombs).
And you know what, the Americans actually have no desire to stop Iran racing
towards its goal (of joning Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea in the
exclusive nuclear club). They have said as much. The American intelligence
agency still stubbornly sticks to its finding that Iran has not decided to
move towards making nuclear bombs, and seems unlikely it ever will.
How do they know? Of course, these American officials don't know. They just
speculated. If they were so knowing as they say they are, how come North Korea
managed to test a nuclear bomb under their nose without being stopped? Did
they approve (permit) North Korea to have nuclear weapon? After this debacle,
what right the Americans have to stop Iran from trying to emulate the North
Koreans? What's their argument against Iran? But Iran is in dilemma. It cannot
argue that the West practice double standard. Any way putting it, Iran will
end up the loser. Either the Israelis will reduce their nuclear facilities to
rubble or the West will tell them to dismantle them. Because the West is
having the upper hand here. Although they may have failed to stop - or
permitted - the North Koreans, it's their prerogative to allow or disallow any
country to have nuclear weapons.
speculated. If they were so knowing as they say they are, how come North Korea
managed to test a nuclear bomb under their nose without being stopped? Did
they approve (permit) North Korea to have nuclear weapon? After this debacle,
what right the Americans have to stop Iran from trying to emulate the North
Koreans? What's their argument against Iran? But Iran is in dilemma. It cannot
argue that the West practice double standard. Any way putting it, Iran will
end up the loser. Either the Israelis will reduce their nuclear facilities to
rubble or the West will tell them to dismantle them. Because the West is
having the upper hand here. Although they may have failed to stop - or
permitted - the North Koreans, it's their prerogative to allow or disallow any
country to have nuclear weapons.
Because the western powers possess the means to destroy any country that defy
them. If, however, Iran manages to fool the West through delaying tactics
while they race to come up with a nuclear explosion (like North Korea), and
actually conducts a nuclear test, they could hope to deter the West by
threatening to drop - not deliver through ballistic missiles, which is not
believable or possible yet - a bomb on Saudi Arabia or Bahrain where the
American Fifth Fleet is stationed, Iran might get away with it or anything.
Otherwise, NATO rules![PERMALINK
them. If, however, Iran manages to fool the West through delaying tactics
while they race to come up with a nuclear explosion (like North Korea), and
actually conducts a nuclear test, they could hope to deter the West by
threatening to drop - not deliver through ballistic missiles, which is not
believable or possible yet - a bomb on Saudi Arabia or Bahrain where the
American Fifth Fleet is stationed, Iran might get away with it or anything.
Otherwise, NATO rules![PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/08/11080604-irans-ambition-
or-iran-itself-may-be-a-goner-if]
or-iran-itself-may-be-a-goner-if]
Afghanistan is like hell (for American soldiers)
President Obama is absolutely right. End of story.
But it seems someone or some people want to prolong the story.
There's no reason for NATO or coalition forces to lie or hush up things if
they had found more than one soldier was involved unless they believed that by
lying only one Sgt. Robert Bales carried out the massacre the fallout would be
less damaging to the coalition's standing in the eyes of Afghan government or
people.
So far this was not the case.
At the same time the Afghan side seemed to reject NATO's investigation or
explanation out right and in a way tried to inject additional information
that's not there earlier into the massacre.
Perhaps as opposed to the conclusion by American investigators which they (the
Afghans) suspected was put forward to lessen the anger against American
servicemen, the Afghan side came out with a story that was intended to stoke
fury against foreign forces.
It's plain as a sunny day, someone or people didn't want us to have it easy in
there; they want us to leave, the sooner the better. They can't stand the
sight of our men and women any more, and if they can't make us leave they
would kill us one by one.
They are in fact bidding their time. And can't wait to see the American G.I.s
or NATO leave.
They don't want us or anything from us. Whatever training or aid we gave them
they accepted, yes. Why not? But to be grateful and repay our good deeds with
good deeds such as friendliness, etc., never.
Although it used to be that they didn't care whether the Americans stay or
leave; now they wished we would leave as soon as possible.
Just look at their president, Hamid Karzai. Every time he opens his mouth is to
chide the American side, trying his best to show how ungrateful he is.
When some French soldiers were killed recently and French president blurted
out he wanted to withdraw France's contribution earlier, President Karzai
pretended to sympathise with President Sarkozy called for the withdrawl of
foreign forces from Afghanistan earlier than the set date of end of 2014. And
he never condemned the Afghan perpetrators who killed NATO soldiers; but if
the Americans coalition soldiers ever hurt an Afghan fly, even a fly, he will
be in forefront protesting. And he will demand the American soldiers should
not operate at certain villages, or be restricted to certain areas.
>br/>
It's hard to believe why Obama wants to prolong the war which is not winnable.
Why do something we don't need to. What's stopping the US government from
withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan; or at least turn over the duty of
security enforcement to the Afghans? Because we set the date of 2014 and had
to abide by it?If that's the case, it's the biggest blunder the American
administration can make. We worry the Afghans will not be ready to take care
of their own security? The Afghans are as ready now, have been for years, as
they will be when the 2014 comes. Actually we worry too much. Tell me if I am
wrong, I have never noticed any worry shown by the Afghan side at all.
It's obvious they are neither excited about us being in their country or us
chasing baddies in their villages or nor sad when we leave , for that
matter.
Of course it'll be irresponsible for President Obama to abandon Afghanistan if
it's sure to lead it to a disaster, the same thing like to hand over an asylum
seeker back to his original country if he's likely to be tortured or killed.
But if President Hamid Karzai's actions or statements are any indications,
he's not in danger of being toppled soon after we leave. I think he has
already made some arrangement to ensure he continues to lead Afghanistan for a
foreseeable future.
I think he has put his eggs in more than one basket.
If I were him, I would have appointed my own loyal people to all important
posts in the government. Like what Prime minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq had
done (to ensure his survival).
President Obama will not be failing in his duty even if he withdraws American
forces at the end of this year. Don't worry he'll not leave Afghan army or
police in bad shape or good shape if he ends the involvement now or end of
2014. It made no difference.
Remember, the condition on the ground is changing everyday. Three years ago,
we seldom heard of Afghan soldiers meaning us harm; now killing of American
officers or soldiers by their Afghan comrades is normal. Now the Americans
have become targets of both the Taliban and Afghan army. How are they going to
operate in the environment where they have to risk their lives against not
only their enemies but against their (Afghan) comrades? In short, Afghanistan
is like hell or at any rate like my own mental picture of hell, for our
troops. Most of the things one imagines in hell are there - hatred, betrayal,
explosion, confusion, hopelessness, anger, grief, pain, torture, death, greed,
and treachery.[PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/30/10941025-afghanistan-is-
like-hell-for-american-soldiers]
North Korea Wanted to Launch a Satellite
When breaking news was splashed on front pages across the globe about North
Korea under the new leadership of the young son, agreeing to halt all works of
its nuclear project in exchange for food donation from the US, a lot of people
(especially liberal people on NBC Newsvine) started touting the success of
sanctions or diplomacy as advocated by President Obama instead of airstrikes,
or threat of airstrikes (as advocated by Israel) against Iran for its race to
build a nuclear bomb.
They were quick to cite the success of apparent climb down of the North
Koreans who can be said to be even more recalcitrant than the Iranians.
It proved that diplomacy does work; and President Obama deserves every credit
for his vision and farsightedness which paid off.
That North Korea, under the new leadership of the late beloved leader's young
son, had agreed to forego its nuclear ambition and to stop all related
works.
That's it? North Korea had mended its ways? Just like that? North Korea said
they wanted food aid for its hungry people and, if their requests are met,
they would make sure we would have no more problem from them, and we believe
them?
Let me ask this: since when North Korea had kept its words? How many times it
had agreed with the US and US fell for them and every time we had been left
high and dry?
I know we all love to be praised or love to shower praise on our leader we
admire; but it's ridiculous to heave praise on ourselves for job well done
just because the North Korean seemed to show sincerity (this time), only to be
had again, as usual.
They hoped to use the same approach with Iran: no airstrikes or threats of
airstrikes but to use diplomacy to talk sense into them to agree to volunteer
to stop on their own.
But as everyone knows saying is not the same thing as doing.
For North Korea to issue statements agreeing they would cooperate with
Washington (if enough food to feed its hungry millions was donated in
exchange) costs them nothing. Words are free. They can repeat the same
performance anytime they want.
After what Obama supporters thought Obama had done it again (after he had
ordered the elimination of Osama Bin Ladin), the North Korean announced they
wanted to launch a satellite!
What that means? It means they wanted to improve their rocket systems under
the disguise of putting a satellite into space, which of course is within
North Korea's right as a sovereign nation.
It also means North Korea had out maneuvered the West again.
And now I am sure Iran can't wait to agree to Obama's well tested approach of
diplomacy, too. The question is in exchange for what?
They most probably would want us to leave Assad alone. Can we do that? What
about the Syrian opposition battling Assad? Do they matter?
Okay, let's look at the bigger picture (as they say). The Syrian opposition be
damned. We say. If they don't see the bigger picture, too bad. Let them perish
at the hands of Assad' army.
Won't the Israelis protest? Who cares, we say, let them protest until the cows
come home, right? Do we send our joint Chief of Staff General Martin E.
Dempsey to assure the Israeli prime minister that all is well and shall end
well? That they can forget about preemptive strikes. They are unnecessary. He
would impress on the Israelis they would set back the Iranians may be only 5
to 10 years. Not to mention the retaliation by Iran that would follow.
The General also would brief the Jewish state on the success of our dealing
with North Korea using diplomacy. In that the North Korean themselves agree to
stop all nuclear projects or activities even without saber rattling from
us.
It's like we killed two birds with one stone! We stopped Iran from becoming a
nuclear power, and also avoided being coaxed by the Gulf states and Turkey to
repeat what we did in Libya in Syria.
Thanks to the wise approach of diplomacy and some sanctions, the Middle East
was spared from imminent conflagration.
So everybody was happy. No more problem. Obama went on to get reelected in
November!
And that was that?
No!
Then..it happened! The whole world was stunned. Iran had detonated its nuclear
bomb (a device as powerful as the ones dropped on Japan during the 2nd world
war), at last!
The whole world including Europe and America found themselves rocking on their
foundation; their leaders delirious with anger, bewilderment, disappointment,
embarrasstment or shame for allowing their nemesises to beat them at their own
games.
First, the North Koreans wanted to experiment to improve their ballistic
missile systems but adeptly fooled everyone into believing that they wanted to
launch a satellite.
For Iran, once it has joined Pakistan and India in the the exclusive nuclear
club, it can do as it pleases; not necessarily wiping out the Jewish state from
the map, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often threatened, though![PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/25/10853311-north-
koreawanted-to-launch-a-satellite]
Secular Or Islamic Do We Want ..?
Most of us here have largely missed the point.
It's a battle between the Syrian government and the Muslim Brotherhood; as
always has been. And Syria is not the first place, nor the last, I am afraid,
where the MB wants to overthrow the government and impose their own Islamic
system or Sharia instead.
I mention impose because for these clergymen or imams, their goal is not to be
allowed to pray five times per day in peace without interference, wherever
they live, by anybody - but also want others to adopt their ways too.
That's, to me, the Muslim Brotherhood; and if they cannot convert you they
will kill you. Oh, I have heard of the moderate Muslims, too.
Yes, there are moderates Muslims everywhere! No doubt about it. They are
moderates in the situations like this: when they are a tiny minority; when
they want to marry you or court you - they will say or do anything to make you
fall for them. Once married (and all persons of any faith must embrace Islam
if you want to marry a Muslim), you are trapped. They may stop being nice too
if there is no reason to. When you realize your naivete, or folly, it's too
late. You cannot get out of Islam. It's not allowed. Some had to resign to
their fate until death.
But if you talk to western women (mostly British) aid workers in foreign
lands, who had been abducted, and who were forced by fear of death and torture
to become Muslims while in captivity, it's a different story. These women have
been forced to read or study the Koran by their captors, if they want to live
or suffer less inhumane treatment. Many chose to obey and came out in one
piece. Some, if not most, even went on to accept their new faith in the
end.
If you bad-mouth Islam to them, you can expect these women (at least) to walk
away. Since they are no loner under the threat of pain, their defense of Islam
wherever they go is genuine.
In a way, they are grateful that Islam had saved them. To these women only
Islam could save them and would do anything for Islam as long as they
live.
And these converts effectively represent the moderate face of Islam.
They are the real moderate Muslims. Not born Muslims who try to impress on you
they are moderates.
Now how one defines a Muslim as moderate? Is the ruler of Saudi Arabia who has
been a staunch ally of the United States in the on-going Arab Spring,
moderate?
Compare the king with President Assad of Syria: who is moderate? How about
some clue? In Syria, under Assad, you can bring your bible anywhere. Caution:
Don't do that in Saudi Arabia. I am not saying anything. Just..don't do
that.
There you have it. It's the desire or business of all Muslims to covert people
of other religions to their faith - and not vice versa. One-way street for
them and us.
In a Muslim country, Islam holds sway over all other people. Muslims are not
allowed to eat 'unclean' things such animals have to be slaughtered according
to Islamic way, non-Muslims are considered 'unclean'. That's why you need to
become a Muslim in order to marry a Muslim that's final.
Now where were we? Oh, Syria massacres its own people. Are we sure that Assad
is not killing armed terrorists as he calls them? Are we to accept whatever
the Syrian opposition dish out to us, line and sinker? Is Assad that bad? What
about the Sunny men and equipment pouring in from Iraq and Libya? What about
sabotage by Turkey and its harboring of anti-Assad protesters? And the Arab
League? The Gulf Cooperation countries led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
As everyone who can read knows these countries and their leaders are not
angels themselves.
Take Bahrain, where the Americans have their fifth fleet, the Sunny king have
been suppressing his Shia majority subjects for a long time.
During the recent, biggest so far, demonstration, Bahrain found itself rocking
on its foundation, and had to call on Saudi Arabia for help to crush the
uprising.
While I am not condoning Assad in his efforts to suppress the rebellion with
whatever he has at his disposal, and regrettably many innocent men, women and
children have been killed, I think it'll be a big mistake to work to getting
rid of Assad. How do we know the heart-wrenching pictures received by the
British and American media are genuine; that those mangled bodies of old men,
women and children are killed by Assad forces? And not killed by the rebels
themselves and heap the blame on Assad? Even the purportedly leaked emails of
Assad that were pushed by anti-Assad opposition group had seemed suspicious,
but still had been accepted as genuine by the Guardian newspaper, saying it
had done some checking itself and found them to be authentic.
But I am not surprised. But it just sprang to my mind that nowsdays British
newspapers have become very competitive. Extremely competitive, if I may say
so. Remember the scandals of British Tabloid newspapers hacking into people's
phones or, when police reports were made and investigation begun, bribing the
cops? They will do anything to find stories for their readers, won't they?
Back to Syria compared to the Saudi kingdom. At least, under Assad everyone
can lead his own life the way he wishes and practices his own chosen
religion.
That's why it's not easy for Assad to fall. Most ordinary and peaceful people
will not abandon Assad; he's a known devil, compared to what might turn up
once Assad is gone.
Look at Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood there had been trying for years to
propagate their ideology to the Egyptian people with little success; not until
the Cairo demonstrators' excesses messed things up. By then the MB had already
got what they longed for (the departure of President Mubarak), and they
cleverly and quietly distanced themselves from the relentless protests. They
were afraid of backlash from the Egyptians (the silent majority) who might
become fed up with the continuing violence and what seemed incessant demands
by the revolutionary youths.
And they were right.
While the internet savvy demonstrators were viewed with admiration for what
they had done and achieved, at first, they soon lost the support of the people
when their demands became more and more extreme.
On the contrary, in the meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood had been quietly
working to convince the Egyptians, including the Coptic Christian Egyptians
they mean no harm.
Though they were grateful to the youngsters for paving the way for the MB to
be a force to be reckoned with at last - its rightful place in Egyptian
society - there was no love lost between them when it called for a stop to the
endless demonstrations which were bad for Egyptian economy and disruptive to
people's life.
This pro-Egypt and concern for the people's welfare got, as intended, the MB
into the good book of the Egyptians in general. And couple that with its
mosque pulpit sermons that those who didn't vote for the MB would not go to
heaven but to hell, the Muslim Brotherhood easily won the first vote post
Mubarak. The hundreds of thousands - not even a million, out the total
population of 80 million, who claimed to be the 'people' of Egypt to demand
Mubarak's ouster- who went in with the record of being responsible for
toppling the former dictator were rejected by the Egyptian people.
Their aspiration of a train of change had puffed to a stop without any steam
left; their dream revolution had vanished into thin air!
Of course, the picture now in Egypt was far from rosy. But I don't intend to
go into that.
Suffice to say that this clamoring for Assad to go doesn't make sense at all.
It's like jumping from the pan into the fire, maybe worse.
Personally I don't know if Assad could survive. But I do know the MB is not
going to give up, until they capture Syria. It will be a matter of time for
them they believe. They have the patience and resources to wait or fight. So
far they have done remarkably well, (with western powers' help). Within a
short period of time they were done with their foes in Tunisia, Libya and
Egypt, and very much hopeful they would prevail in Syria too, and elsewhere!
[PERMALINK
https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/21/10789225-secular-or-
islamic-do-we-want]
president was a liar? The editor seemed to have chosen sides. Why? To be https://syriainturmoil.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/21/10789225-secular-or-
islamic-do-we-want]
in the good book...? Do you wish to know more? [Source]
Content From davidrubinlang.newsvine.com
By:David Lang
November 28, 2017 Updated Today:November 28, 2017
However..if you are interested (for a reason) in reading the content from DavidLang again you are in luck. Following are the content retrieved from the Newsvine.com
Content From My MSNBC Newsvine column:
Content From DavidLang
Content From David Lang
David Lang
David Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine.
Articles: 5 Seeds: 0 Comments: 19 Since: Jan 2011
The US The Conquerer of Iraq; It Deserves T Be Treated As
Such
By David Lang
Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:07 AM
libyachinapakistanmiddle-eastpoliticsobamaweaklingsyrian-president
DISCUSS: 24 4 !
m-612920, with 25. you really never get it, do you? It's the way of the United
States of America to go invading other countries for one reason or
another.
Whether to avenge for the bombing of the World Trade Center, or help the
French to extricate itself from the hopeless fight in Vietnam, or to remove a
leader of a foreign country the sitting US president doesn't like; so it's not
that former President George Bush was trigger-happy or blood-thirsty to
attempt such an adventure, which was what many of you all Obama supporters
like to condem him for.
It's in the interest of the US and its people to deploy American forces
wherever they are needed. All US president did it and will do it. Even
president Obama, your beloved president, just did it! And he did it with the
least reason or rational (to boot). Now that's what you should call a
foolhardy, reckless, unjustified, unscrupulous, needless, unethical,
naive,bubbling,dangerous,misleading......adventure.
That's what it was ..the so-called No-Fly zone joke.
The whole world - or at least it seemed - bought into Obama's pitching (snake
oil) wholesale. They believed what Obama told them (speculated) that up to
70,000 people would be slaughtered unless Col. Qaddafi was stopped), hook,
line and sinker!
No one, no one, was wise enough to rationalize that there was no way the
Libyan strongman could have killed so may people short of using weapons of
mass destruction. Or the need or desire to do so. Yet, no one came forward to
call him what he was: a liar! No! a murderer!
Wait a minute, there was one: Pat Buchanan of MSNBC's talk show "Morning Joe
fame. But before I get Pat Buchanan into trouble, I want to add that Pat
Buchanan did not say Obama was a liar.All he said was: "..hard to believe what
Obama said (speculated), for even after months of fighting, there was not even
a single report of Qadaffi or his loyalist troops going on killing spree, and
(what's more) all the reporters covering the war were anti-Qaddafi!"
Never before in the history of the US intervention in other countries, when
the siting president was so emotional that he allowed his 'enemy' (Col.
Qaddafi) to be killed in cold blood. He cannot escape blame by saying he
didn't kill Qaddafi himself. He didn't need to. As US president everything or
everyone is on his call. Where would these murderous NTC rebels/fighters be
today without NATO's help, and guess who controls NATO? US general, of course.
Who controls British prime minister David Cameron and his cruise missle firing
military: President Obama!
Would those guilty of hasty killing of Qaddafi face justice? Not likely. You
know why? Beause they are in the good book of President Obama. They are
Obama's 'Red Guards', if you will.
Even the international Court of Justice preferred to not get involved (so much
for its noble objectives of ensuring justice for all).
Since President Obama came on the scene, everything in the world, the world
court, the UN, to name a few, have become fake. (it's the most devilish thing
ever happened to our world, after Hitler).
He must be the most selfish man ever lived, after Hitler; he wanted to be seen
as keeping his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq - which he used
to exploit the weariness of Americans towards the Iraq war - to his advantage
during the US presidential general election - so he withdrew troops from Iraq,
regardless...He knew exactly what would happen once US military was withdrawn;
but for a man who would do anything to get elected - or shall we say get
reelected - as president of the world's only super power, expect nothing
unless it helps him get another four years as the king of the universe!
If he could get away with murder, what do you expect? He could even betray his
own country's (American) interests, for crying out loud. He knew he failed in
Iraq, even though not started by him, so he took the easy way out: he withdrew.
Oh, he did make some half-hearted attempts to ask Iraqi leaders for permission
to leave behind a residual force of fifty thousands (which his generals said
was needed to see to things that could be unpredictable). Who said the US, the
conqueror of Iraq should be submissive to its leaders? It should dictate
terms, not being dictated to. He could put his foot down and say: enough
wrangling already; now it's time for a brand new prime minister (like when on
Bush's watch when a few prime ministers were replaced by the American
government). It seemed clear that Obama had been treating Iraq as Bush's
problem - not American problem - so he didn't do anything to make the
occupation of Iraq a success. He didn't force the present prime minister out
when he lost the election (like Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast, remember?)
and refused to make way for his Sunni opponent, the winner. Later after some
maneuverings it turned out al-Mlikki , the current premier, had the numbers to
continue helming the Iraqi government. Nobody could tell what happened, but
it's clear al-Milikki, like all incumbents every where, didn't want to give up
what he loved, being prime minister. It was Obama's job - if his intention was
to serve the interests of the United States of America, and not his own, to
see to it that Iraq remains stable, reasonably stable; and that the US, being
its conquerer, shall be accorded the respect it deserved , like becoming the
most favored friend of Iraq forever.
During almost entire term in the presidency, nothing much happened in Iraq,
except violence, of course. No new prime minister, let alone prime miniters,
were appointed. This unfortunately makes or allows the present prime minster
to become entrenched. When a leader stays in his office for long, too long,
he, like leaders every where, can and will consolidate his position by
replacing everyone with his own people, angering those being replaced which
inevitably leads to instability.
This, I am sure, Obama was aware of. Unless the hundreds of people whom he
called advisors he surrounded himself with at the expense of American tax
payers, are all morons, he knew Iraq was going to the dogs. He should have
done something; he should leave his predecessor alone, or ask his liberal
supporters like those on Newsvine.com panels, who keep on
bashing former President Bush as if it has become an obsession, to stop. It
saps their brain cells which turn them into the likes of robots. I say this
because if someone keeps hounding another for one mistake - which, what's
more, actually was not a mistake - relentlessly, then there are lots of people
we can hound on. Take the US president, for instance. He's far from being an
angel. Actually he's the devil, ten times worst than Bush. He attacked a
country's leader solely because that leader looked likely to buck the trend
(throw a spanner into his Arab Spring works.
He said he wanted to cleanse the Middle East, but he meant not those parts
that contained Saudi Arabia, Kuweit, Qatar,
or Bahrain.
Kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are no better than the hounded Syrian
president, yet they 're left alone.
When former Thai prime minister @!$%# Vejejaya, or something, fired on women
and children beside men and old men in Bangkok not long ago when more than 90
people were shot dead, where was President Obama? His silence was deafening.
Abhijit was worse that Gadaffi, he was also left alone.
I could go on and on.
Because of the failure of Obama as president, Iraq, which had turned around
after the surge, had now started to descend into a free-for-all mayhems.
If only he did his duty, properly instead of venturing into Libya and wasted
billion of US dollars tax payers' money..for what? If only he was fair and
firm when dealing with Iraqi leaders, like former President George Bush. Make
them work things out among themselves, or replace the prime minister. He could
appoint another Shiite prime minister if necessary. Instead, he did nothing
other than sending his vice-president to shake a few hands.
He views himself as tough president because of his signature succes - the
killing of Osama Bin Ladin and the
murdering of Col.Qaddafi - but actually he's a weakling president. Although he
may have regained his courage somewhat after shouting across the bow in South
China Sea and Australia against China, basically he's a weakling person. Seen,
viewed as weakling. A strong or commanding personality doesn't necessarily
need to be aggressive to deter or awe his opponents. People like former
President Bush. When dealing with Chinese leaders, one of Obama's failures,
Bush was firm and fair. (When he sent the American aircraft carrier to the
China Seas for naval exercise with South Korea, the Chinese kept quiet (what's
the big deal; only an exercise the Chinese thought), but when came Obama's
turn to do so, Beijing was outraged, and demanded Obama move his carrier to
conduct the exercise elsewhere. Why? And Obama obeyed). I don't know if Bush
would relent in the face of Chinese similar demand; but I am sure of one
thing, with Bush, it would never have come to that, issuing ultimatums. It
largely boils down to if you're highly respected; respected by the way you do
things: firmly but fairly.
To know how President Obama scores in this department look no further than our
long-term ally Pakistant.
When some Pakistan soldiers are killed by mistakes, all hell breaks loose,
every time. No amount of apology is accepted or sufficient for its leaders.
They usually close the border-crossing faster than the fall of the hat. Even
after Obama dispatched his special representatives to offer sincere and
personal apologies, Islamabad did not move. To rub salt into Obama's wound
they gradually opened the crossing at their own pace. Such was the gratitude
the multi-billion dollar recipient of American aid for the US government or
shall we say, the respect the Pakistani leaders accorded to the US
president.
Do you wish to know more?C
[Pemalink:https://davidrubinlang.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/26/9711970-
the-us-the-conquerer-of-iraq-it-deserves-t-be-treated-as-such]
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
24 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Comrade Vlad's dogDec 26, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
Do you wish to know more?
No, please don't make us KNOW any more, it was hard enough trying to get
through this piece twice.
10SHAREREPORT
Buono CaneDec 26, 2011
#1.1
comment author avatar
thank-you Vlad, I could not, nearly, say it as nicely
3SHAREREPORT
lloyd-3730046Dec 26, 2011
#2
comment author avatar
Some of the stuff is accurate, more of it is partisan propaganda.
Drawn from the pages of marginal scholarship and slanted viewpoints....
5SHAREREPORT
AlanA0720Dec 26, 2011
#3
comment author avatar
I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine.
I found it rather odd that a "writer" who claims the above in his tagline,
would write something which portrays himself to be quite the opposite. The
"fierce protector of the oppressed" has just openly stated that Obama was
wrong for protecting the oppressed.
I must admit, I have not had to trudge through this much @!$%# at 5 am since I
was 10.
11SHAREREPORT
Shelby DavenportDec 27, 2011
#3.1
comment author avatar
LOL
Nice!
3SHAREREPORT
Ripley8Dec 26, 2011
#4
comment author avatar
wow ! one needs hipwaders to read this slop !
7SHAREREPORT
Buono CaneDec 26, 2011
#4.1
comment author avatar
hipwaders? shit, scuba gear is necessary...maybe even one of those ultra-deep
diving suits...good lord deliver us from this evil
4SHAREREPORT
Fed up with RepublicansDec 26, 2011
#5
comment author avatar
This is real tripe.
Even for a Republican.
5SHAREREPORT
Buono CaneDec 26, 2011
#6
comment author avatar
I wanted to take some time off posting on the vine and just read again.
I can't believe I've ever read as much naivete', propaganda, and
misinformation in any one piece.
Nothing served but those that wish to exploit America's resources, wealth, and
people.
5SHAREREPORT
hsquared-1401940Dec 26, 2011
#7
comment author avatar
m-612920, with 25. you really never get it, do you?
It would appear this is spill over from an MSNBC article between m-612920 and
the author.
As a newsvine member is cited by name and is marked "all of newsvine", I
believe it is a breech of the CoH and thereby reported.
3SHAREREPORT
hsquared-1401940Dec 27, 2011
#7.1
comment author avatar
The multiple accounts has been reported as violation of User Agreement.
3SHAREREPORT
Randy McMurphyDec 26, 2011
#8
comment author avatar
Poor Poor "Murdered" Colonel...why he was just mining his own beeswax, not
doin anything...right? WRONG, as He had mobilized Armor and air forces and
attacked attacked and subdued Zawiya, Zuara, Ra's Lanuf, Brega, Ajdabiya, and
the working class districts of Tripoli itself, using live ammunition fired
into defenseless rallies.Around 8,000 dead according to the transitional
authority. Where were such massacres occurring to trigger the "humanitarian"
invasion and occupation of Iraq? Answer NONE of record ....perhaps because
Saddam controlled only 1/3 of Iraq operationally as the no fly zones prevented
actions against the southern shia and the northern kurds ...Oh an WMD? Yeah we
were 2 months away from the complete unfettered access of weapons inspectors
when Bush told them to leave because we were going to start bombing.
The Libyan uprising caused massive defections of Quddafis military ,prompted
by the brutality
of the regimes response to protestors...No other nations in the region , Not
Syria Iran , favored regime change of tyrants as Libya had...this is an
important point, as we did not aid Libyan rebels to dictate their future, or
use them as a base of operations for a regional control agenda as the Neo Cons
saw the Iraq debacle to be. The Transitional Authority of Libya rejected
outright any notion of western nato or american military bases on their soil.
Iraq cost us 4,450 Dead American servicemen and women, 30,000 wounded, half of
them catastrophically .The initial cost was a trillion, but all told , we will
have spent 3 trillion when accounting for lifetime care for the wounded. The
Libyan incursion cost us initially 2 billion $ no Americans dead, very few
civilian casualties
No Iraqis were clamoring for foreign military aid, the marsh shia or Kurd did
not cry for us to invade their country
on their behalf, But the Libyan protesters and later rebels, and defector
ambassadors and generals and confederate military units begged the world to
help.
Quddafi pledged to "Cleanse" Benghazi , a city full of anti quadaffi libyans.
the population is 700,000, not 70,000, an if you think it would be hard to
kill that many people, the hutu killed 1 million people in 100 days, with only
machetes and the crudest of primitive weaponry, not aror rifles an artillery
that Qudaffi had.
Bush ...projected strength? When he paid China to return our aircraft that
they caused to crash? How about when Bush had to pay homage to hu jintao at
the red olympics, while our allies Georgia was getting crushed by Russia,
after Bush administration assured them that ""we had their backs"? No he was
the joke of the world and the country by that point.
2SHAREREPORT
GoldenGateMami_SusiDec 26, 2011
#9
comment author avatar
"...I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine...."
My how quixotic! Seems the armor is crusted over with the lichen of a "proper
propagandist."
Good Lawd. I have trudged through some pretty thick @!$%# in my time here on
the Vine but this ones a topper.
I believe it qualifies for Ph.D.
Piled Higher and Deeper.
5SHAREREPORT
magnoliaaveDec 27, 2011
#10
comment author avatar
Good reading and I would like to have your opinion on more!
0SHAREREPORT
Randy McMurphyDec 27, 2011
#10.1
comment author avatar
What does it for you, is it the Revisionism or the lack of facts?
1SHAREREPORT
Buono CaneDec 27, 2011
#10.2
comment author avatar
my guess randy is magnoliaave comment is dripping with sarcasm
0SHAREREPORT
AlanA0720Dec 27, 2011
#10.3
comment author avatar
my guess randy is magnoliaave comment is dripping with sarcasm
If only.... Magnolia is actually being quite serious. Shared intellect and
"values".
0SHAREREPORT
Shelby DavenportDec 27, 2011
#11
comment author avatar
The whole world - or at least it seemed - bought into Obama's pitching (snake
oil) wholesale.
Delete Obama, insert Bush.
Wow. Just wow! I can't even respond to this it's such an overwhelming pile of
sewer sludge!
3SHAREREPORT
BadfishDec 27, 2011
#12
comment author avatar
One president, Two president, red president, blue president. Try it try it and
you will see, you might like war just like me.
0SHAREREPORT
Buono CaneDec 27, 2011
#13
comment author avatar
anyone notice how the esteemable seeder has been absent from the discussion,
it must be a troll seed
0SHAREREPORT
Shelby DavenportDec 27, 2011
#13.1
comment author avatar
Then, I'm glad I haven't invested much in it. He's probably exhausted after
the diatribe he posted.
1SHAREREPORT
AlanA0720Dec 27, 2011
#13.2
comment author avatar
Shoveling @!$%# does take a lot out of ya!
1SHAREREPORT
hsquared-1401940Dec 28, 2011
#13.3
comment author avatar
Author banned for multiple accounts.
1SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilApr 12, 2013
#14
comment author avatar
You all sound like President Obama's supporters. So am I now. Welcome on
board!
0SHARE
0SHARE
David Lang
David Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine.
Articles: 5 Seeds: 0 Comments: 19 Since: Jan 2011
We should build a temple for former President Bush
By David Lang
Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:02 AM
politicsobamageorge-w-bushadeptnesscoalition-of-the-willing-liesjoint-letter
DISCUSS: 26 8 !
The other day I stumbled on an article on the MSNBC blog about the demise of
Muammar Qaddafi (the bogeyman of European leaders and President Obama).
What's so intresting about the article, other than the death which everyone
had been forcusing for months, was the writer's praise for President Obama for
another job welldone. Another feather on Obama cap, he said, after his success
in making the AlQaeda chief Osama Bin Ladin history.
He seemed to be an Obama supporter and couldn't care less whether Obama
deserved those accolades or not.
Ah yes, Obama actually claimed credit for the elimination of the number one
enemy of the United State of America.
Immediately after the news broke that Osama was dead, the good people at the
Navy Seals were instructed to say the right things. That Osama was killed as a
result of an operation planned painstakingly by Prsident Obama himself, down
to even the last details, according to Navy Seals, of ordering the teams to
bring along a spare radar-proof helicopter, just in case something goes wrong
and it was a wise decision.
Wait a minute. Am I missing something here? I thought the Navy Seals are
supposed to be some slick guys in such operation? Do they need a president who
should be better off getting out of the way of the men trained to do the job,
to tell them how to do their job? And what about the efforts of men and women
who painstakingly pursued Osama for years pieacing together bits and bits of
information and intelligence they could lay theitr hands on. It was an ongoing
work; it was started from as far back as during President Bush junior's term
or possibly even during President Clinton's administration.
But to these two great leaders they didn't have it in them to crave so much
accolades to the point of ordering or hinting at the Seals to do the right
things.
But to be fair, Obama may not have ordered the Navy Seals to say those words
per se, but he showed or made clear he wasn't averse to such praises, it makes
no difference.
He wasn't averse to receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, was he?
President Obama sounds like many friends I used hang out with in those
days.
During our free time, since we're single, we would go around courting girls.
Our hunting grounds included shopping complexes or departmental stores.
Once we spotted a pretty girl (usually a promoter) I would be asked to
approach the girl while my friends observed from a distance. Once I got to
know the promoter and asked for her name and was about to extend my hand to
shake the girl's, my friends also thrust out their hands almost
simultaneously.
That's right, they got to know the pretty girl through no efforts of
theirs.
Just like president Obama, if you will.
When President Obama decided to withraw all US forces from Iraq by year end,
he was not worried that Iraq could slide back to where it was at the
beginning. Although this withdrawal was negotiated and planned during President
Bush's time, and Iraq probably had no objection to a force of fifty thousands
to be stationed there indefinitely then, President Obama saw it as another
feather on his hat. He knew the Iraqis cannot and should not be allowed to
dictate terms, he didn't pursue the matter as it was going to be good for his
reelection campaign come 2012.
He now foocuses on his reelection to another four years in the
Whitehouse.
I digress.
I want address the issue of former President George W. Bush going after Sadam
Hussein's hide for having WMD but turned out he didn't. Now look, I don't
think the former prsident meant Sadam had nuclear bomb per se; he meant the
man wanted to build them. That's the fact. If not why would the Israeli
government wanted to launch airstrike, risking condemnation from the
international community?
In fact, there was a nuclear plant called Osirak Sadam ambitously built with
French and Italian helpuntil the reactor was reduced to ruins by the Israeli
airforce in 1981.
Iraq also assembled 12 divisions of armed men, 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft at
its disposal. Coupled with his belligerent behavior Saddam could really be a
threat to anyone who crosses him. For the Israeli government, the idea of any
Arab state holding nuclear over Israel was intolerable. Although the expert
estimates of Iraq capable of making nuclear weapons ranged from two years to
ten years, Begin then decided it was too risky to wait; what if the
calculation was wrong?
So the IAF was ordered to preemptively destroy the reactor. It was believed
the attack may have set back Iraq many years, though Saddam might have hidden
some diagrams or formulas (backup research breakthroughs some where which he
could fall back on to rebuild his project with little difficulty since he had
the means.
Sadam also boasted a large stockpile of all kind of chemical weapons
(according to him) second only the United States and the Soviet Union.
Seeing how he used them so successfully against Iraq Kurds and Iran, President
George W. Bush decided to take him out. Which he did.
But that's where or when the trouble started for Bush. While he got rid of
Sadam he also inevitably got many American soldiers killed in the invasion and
the occupation later. This made many people furious, none the least Cindy
Sheehan, who couldn't get over the loss of her son (probably the only
son).
Her protest against President Bush was persistent, filled with hatred and
vengeance. She was relentless until Bush finished his term, second term.
But when Prsident Obama started his own war in Libya with even less reason,
Cindy Sheehan considers it's not her fight, perhaps. Of course none of her
loved ones were involved, in harm's way as they say.
Cindy Sheehan, if you happen to read this, I want you to go out and protest
against Obama's action in Libya. Did you know how many thousands innocent
Libyans Obama martyred during the round-the-clock bombing by NATO planes?
You're smart, intelligent woman, I know. You can see through Obma's lies. If
not, how about google for the joint letters which Obama, Prime Minister David
Cameron of Britain and French President Nichalos Sarkozy displayed to the
world at their press conference. Note: when a reporter asked why the coalition
of the willing kept on bombing Qaddafi's troops and armor when the purpose of
the no-fly zone as to protect civilians from Qaddafi's planes only, the three
leaders resoundingly answered: "Well, we lied!"
Compared to these three unscrupulous leaders former President Bush was a
breath of fresh air. We should a temple for him instead of demonizing
him.
If not for Bush, Saddam could alive today and then the scenarios for the Middle
East would be far from today.
With Sadam's big army, 2,200 tanks and almost 500 aircraft airforce, not to
mention his belligerence, the present mayhem can be compared to stampede at a
football match./div>
We should show our gratitude to Bush for doing what he did and stop demonizing
him one and for all. He was a great president by any standard; but he was
misunderstood. It's never too late for us all to repent and change.
If we don't want to build a temple for him, fine..just stop attacking
him.
Here's my poem:
George W. Bush was a hero hold,
Of noble enterprise;
For although no WMD was found,
No smoking gun,
Osirak was there,
Not an imagination.
Do you wish to know more?
[Permalink:https://davidrubinlang.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/23/8452246-
we-should-build-a-temple-for-former-president-bush]
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
26 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
obie-oneOct 23, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
I'd have to disagree with what I have read.
George W. Bush was a terrorists fool, used by Ossama like a political tool.
He went into war not ever knowing why and the soldiers would bleed and many
would die.
For what do we ask, never to understand, for the sake of lost cause of a
paranoid man.
So we splintered and fought on the political field, from his lack of insight
and power he'd wield.
And now we return, weaker and poor to our home much darker and much more
insecure.
No , President Bush was not an American hero nor a man to embrace.
Just the wrong guy for the job who made too many mistakes.
President Bush did the American people wrong. Though I do not believe it to
have been intentional it should serve notice to what the Republican Party is
offering up for choices. Re-writing history does not change the
outcome...........
21SHAREREPORT
Fed up with RepublicansOct 23, 2011
#3
comment author avatar
Bush and his War on Terror was a failure.
It did not achieve the desired objective.
13SHAREREPORT
GgapOct 23, 2011
#3.1
comment author avatar
It did not achieve the desired objective.
...Unless his desired objective from the beginning was to see how many
American troops, Iraqi civilians he could kill and maim for Iraq's oil
reserves, before the American people will inform him that the jig is up. I'd
say it took about six months, give or take a few.
8SHAREREPORT
JimEdeeOct 23, 2011
#3.2
comment author avatar
What I found so strange for Bush "The War President", he was so quick with his
"Bring it on" but even quicker to duck and hide out in Alabama and Texas when
he thought he MIGHT have to go to war. Tells me one thing, he'd fight to the
last drop of someone else blood.
Why should Bush have worried about OBL? From Bush's own lips, "I don't think
to much about him." But he sure thought about the money to be made in
Iraq...how much was Black Water making, and Halliburton? Yeah, he sure was a
great "war president", he waged the best war ever seen against this
country.
12SHAREREPORT
hugh bOct 23, 2011
#3.3
comment author avatar
One of the biggest disappointments for the Military was the rapid defeat of
Iraq in 1991.
Dumbya learned much from his father's mistakes and made the most of those
lessons.
Undermanned, improperly equipped, incompetently planned, the second war in
Iraq is a good ol' military cluster@!$%# of the Vietnam type. Long lasting,
with crushing debt, little or no results, and huge profits for the Military
Industrial Complex Thieves.
Dumbya, Dummy Rummy, and Cheney Chummy, should be staked to a fireant mount
and coated with the blood of the innocent people they have murdered.
8SHAREREPORT
Davy-755715Oct 23, 2011
#4
comment author avatar
(snicker...)
2SHAREREPORT
bondiboxOct 23, 2011
#6
comment author avatar
I was wondering where the usual right wing drivel was this morning.
Osama was killed as a result of an operation planned painstakingly by President
Obama himself, down to even the last details, according to Navy Seals, of
ordering the teams to bring along a spare radar-proof helicopter, just in case
something goes wrong and it was a wise decision
Ah, here it is. I don't suppose you'd stop shoveling your @!$%# long enough to
cite a source for this. Obama gave the "go ahead" and that's all anyone has
ever claimed.
But really, Obama is at fault for not being "averse" to receiving credit. He
wasn't "averse" to Nobel prize accolades.
Although this withdrawl was negotiated and planned during President Bush's
time,
I won't ask you to cite this, because I KNOW it ain't even close to the truth.
Now, although your sentence structure starts to give way to incoherence, you
seem to be whining most loudly that Obama has ... kept another one of his 2008
campaign promises.
11SHAREREPORT
WheelOct 23, 2011
#7
comment author avatar
Yeah, a temple...
as long as it has bars on the windows, a dungeon to keep him in and his very
own waterboard. Otherwise, I only wish there really was a hell so Bush could
burn in it.
15SHAREREPORT
ScienceGuy57Oct 24, 2011
#7.1
comment author avatar
Texas George and the Temple of Dumb.
Compare the strategic role of the U.S. in the Iraqi invasion and subsequent
extended occupation, the cumulative cost in lives, dollars, etc. ... to that
which took place in Libya. Nuf said.
5SHAREREPORT
Fed up with RepublicansOct 23, 2011
#8
comment author avatar
Jimmy Carter got all the blame for the Iranian Hostage rescue from the
Republicans, no one claimed it was a failure of the military.
Obama gets the credit for having Osama Bin Laden killed, and the military gets
credit for carrying out the operation.
But if it had failed does anyone doubt that the Republicans and conservative
media would have crucified President Obama and his team.
I can hear the word incompetent ringing from every Republicans lips.
I am just glad he doesn't have to get congressional approval to carry out
foreign military missions and that the US Military is a non partisan
organization.
If this had been a domestic policy the Republicans in Congress would have
undermined and sabotaged the President just as they have on everything he has
tried to do for the American people.
14SHAREREPORT
hugh bOct 23, 2011
#9
comment author avatar
As a matter of fact, certainly not that it matters, Obama was very much
chagrined to receive the Nobel Prize. Not that he had a say in the matter. He
should grace and humility in his acceptance speech. And, unlike Bush, he
didn't come off sounding like an idiot, like Bush did every time he opened his
Saudi cocksucking mouth.
That politicians make political points with events that happen during their
tenure, is probably the second oldest act of any profession.
The above post shows the danger of stopping medications cold turkey. The
delusions become reality.
Volcanoes erupting are proof that hell is overflowing with conservatives. Wait
until Cheney, Rummy, and Dumbya get down there this planet will come apart at
the seams.
6SHAREREPORT
JimEdeeOct 23, 2011
#10
comment author avatar
Fed up with Republicans
Jimmy Carter got all the blame for the Iranian Hostage rescue from the
Republicans
Read a book about WILLIAM CASEY, used to head the C.I.A., you get a chance and
can find it. He had some really interesting facts about this.
0SHAREREPORT
Dale SOct 23, 2011
#11
comment author avatar
I saw what would be a suitable temple for Dumbass Jr. up in the mountains a
few days ago. It was about 3 feet square, 6 ft. tall, had a door with a
crescent moon cut into it. Trouble was, the stench from something inside was so
putrid, so vile I could get close enough to see the interior. That, and flies
were so thick even the outside was partially obscured. Still, it looked like a
suitable temple for the dumbest, most useless President in American
history.
10SHAREREPORT
XanthianaOct 23, 2011
#12
comment author avatar
Comparing Iraq with Libya is comparing apples to oranges:
1.) The people of Libya along with the UN asked the West to intervene. There
was no support for Iraq despite the US asking for the go ahead. Additionally,
the UN inspectors repeatedly claimed that Hussein was incapable to pose a
serious threat at the time, while Qaddafi of course was slaughtering his
people by the hundreds.
2.) Most of the weapons you were citing for Hussein came directly from the US
with the goal of him keeping Iran at bay, Gaddafi got his weapons from a bunch
of sources ...
3.) Hussein was put on trial and sentenced to death with the Iraqis having a
chance to address their grievances and Qaddafi was killed by his own
countrymen, not by a US drone.
4.) Osama Bin Laden does not fit into this comparison at all. He was never a
head of state and as such the US did not invade his foreign nation when
killing him. While I wish they would have arrested him and tried him in the
Hague his killing was different than the other two.
So what it boils down to: Bush started a war by lying to the UN, Obama decided
to intervene after having been asked by multiple factions in the fight. Bush
promised to kill Bin Laden, failed as in many other things, and Obama carried
out that promise made to the American people. So come again with that temple
idea?!?
8SHAREREPORT
Dale SOct 23, 2011
#12.1
comment author avatar
So come again with that temple idea?!?
I think he forgot the "High Satire" tag. It would have been satire that would
have flown over Mel Brooks's head by 40,000 ft., but hey, comedy isn't always
pretty.
5SHAREREPORT
NaughtiaOct 23, 2011
#12.2
comment author avatar
Read a book about WILLIAM CASEY, used to head the C.I.A., you get a chance and
can find it. He had some really interesting facts about this.
You mean RONALD REAGANS CAMPAIGN MANAGER? besides for the CIA he was the guy
who ran AGAINST carter.. and you want us to read his book for the "facts" of
the iranian hostage situation? really? Thats an interesting suggestion, but I
could get similar "facts" from the world nut daily.
Hey if you want I can find a book written by a carter lackey and tell you to
look up the facts, but best and non biased, would be to tell you to look at
the wiki page
4SHAREREPORT
JimEdeeOct 24, 2011
#12.3
comment author avatar
Naughtia
you want us to read his book for the "facts" of the Iranian hostage situation?
Oh, does that mean you believe all it took was for Reagan to get elected and
all of sudden, the fear of God struck Iran, and said "Please Mr. Reagan, take
your people, we didn't mean it". MMM
1SHAREREPORT
NaughtiaOct 23, 2011
#13
comment author avatar
Crap I wanted to do the "mission accomplished thing"
teh right wing media are all over the dial screaming to give bush credit..
for everything.. the Arab spring, the killing of osama.. it was all bush
at the same time their clones are all over posting this garbage saying the
president of the US who ordered the mission shouldn't get any credit what so
ever... and he didn't even make a ship called the Lincoln, sail out to sea so
he could fly out to the ship in a flight suit he had never worn before just so
he could stand in front of a mission accomplished banner.
and yall want to claim Obama is hyping this up for votes? @!$%#ING REALLY?
5SHAREREPORT
DocPhilOct 24, 2011
#14
comment author avatar
this may be the funniest article of the month...... definitely one of the top
five of the year...... Bush took us into the the worst war in our
history....... turned the USA into an aggressor nation for the first
time...... declared mission accomplished and then allowed almost 4000 more
Americans to die while we killed tens of thousands of Iraqis....... a
temple?...... how about a prison?....... if there was ever an action that the
USA took that was criminal, this was it.
7SHAREREPORT
sbstarliteOct 24, 2011
#15
comment author avatar
I certainly agree! It should be in the shape of a large hand with two fingers
on each side pulled down and the middle extended. A perfect monument for a
perfect @!$%#.
1SHAREREPORT
MikeBravoOct 24, 2011
#16
comment author avatar
We should build a temple for former President Bush
Did I miss the sarcasm tag? Perhaps we should build an alter to Bush and
sacrifice GOP congressmen on it while searching for their harts with a rusty
knife.
1SHAREREPORT
1SHAREREPORT
David Lang
David Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine.
Articles: 5 Seeds: 0 Comments: 19 Since: Jan 2011
Care for a trip to hell, anyone?
By David Lang
Thu Sep 1, 2011 7:04 AM
religiontaiwanhellshsoulsphysical-bodies-left-behindshoelthe-hades
DISCUSS: 1 0 !
The news - or shall we say announcement - that you can now go to hell will
undoubtedly surprise and make people sit up and listen. I did. I mean this is
fantastic, it's incredible; I thought hell is a place exists only in the world
of the dead. It's unthinkable to think that someone would want to do a thing
like visiting hell - even if it's possible (though I doubt it).
A person must be mad to want to go to a place that exists only to inflict
pain, punish and torture. What if he gets caught and thrown into a giant pan
full of boiling oil? What if he is not allowed to ever leave?C
Many people will definitely ponder over this before embarking on such a
journey.
They definitely want to know how they will be transported to the Hades. As
only one hundred will be accepted to join in the tour, they want to know the
reason. Why limit the number to 100? Why not 150? If they are to travel to the
shoel only in their souls i.e., what about the physical bodies they leave
behind? Are they alive and breathing? Do they function like a normal human
beings - like having to urinate or defecate? Or all form of human traits and
functions stop (suspended) until his or her soul returns to the body?
It will be out of this world if this tour to hell organizers can assure the
would be tourists that it will be safe and they can return, just like the
normal worldly tour to, say, China!
I myself was originally hooked on the idea also; it would be great if I could
meet with my father i.e. if he had done anything. But after consulting a few
friends, I called the organizer to count me in next time. The spokeswoman
agreed to leave my name on the list for the next trip, if any.
I understand this is not the first trip of its kind in the world (it can't
qualify for a Guinness World Record); there have been others conducted from
Taiwan, and even in Penang, Malaysia.But until now these tour participants had
been confined to within the four walls of temples; this is the first time the
'touring' session will be conducted in the open.
According to master Kek, the man leading the tour, you will be asked to close
your eyes and follow his instruction. He also warned some people may not
successfully be transported to to hell because he doesn't have what it takes
to make the trip, such as lack of belief, etc.
For me, the fact that the tour was billed as a "Tour To Hell" but without the
words "And Back" could unnerve some people.
What do you think?
[Permalink:https://davidrubinlang.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/01/7554808-
care-for-a-trip-to-hell-anyone]
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
1 COMMENT
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
SyriaInTurmoilNov 9, 2013
#1
comment author avatar
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
1 COMMENT
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
SyriaInTurmoilNov 9, 2013
#1
comment author avatar
What I think? I think it would be one helluva tour. But I don't see why would people want to go to a place like that; a place of misery, where extreme forms of pain and torture are inflicted, or believed to be inflicted, to make life there ...well...hell! While there's no denying the intriguing side of it, such as the spookiness emanating from it which some may find to their liking, I am deterred - or shall we say spooked - by the absence of guarantee given by the organizers ...that one can return safely.
That I cannot compromise. And I don't think anyone would either.
The eeriness many can't avoid feeling when they look at the billing for the tour is unmistakable: 'Tour To Hell Anyone?' Notice the glaring absence of assurance (in conjunction) such as : 'Dont Worry It's Safe; No One Will Be Left Behind; You Can Go To Hell And Return!'
Here's a thing. Not only I will give it a miss but also think this type of tour will not be a sold out one ... for obvious reason.
0SHARE 0SHARE David Lang David Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet. ABOUT I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those being victimized can count on me, rain or shine. Articles: 5 Seeds: 0 Comments: 19 Since: Jan 2011 Haley Reinhart foundered due to too many negative comments... By David Lang Mon May 23, 2011 9:56 AM entertainmentawhatjacksonpoorwasterandyjenniferlopezhaleybooted DISCUSS: 3 2 !
As American Idol Competition inches to the finale, one notable absentee will
be missed.
Haley Reinhart thought she as much as had every thing looking promising for
herself for that coveted crown; she made the last-three round, and then her
luck petered out. She didn't make it.
Amazingly she felt right at home when she performed on stage, as if she
belonged there, and she vowed, win or lose, that's where she wanted to be. She
wanted to be a star, whatever it takes.
There was one snag. The other two finalists were after exactly the same thing
and they were good.
Although she's doing every thing she possibly could to stay in the
competition, which was getting tighter and tighter as they're heading to the
finale, Haley hoped her broad and captivating smiles would see her through to
the finale. They didn’t. And every time Jennifer Lopez or Randy Jackson, or
both, took her to task over poor song choices (not her vocals, thank God), her
heart sank. She was concerned about the danger of too many criticisms from the
judges. While at the tail end of the competition, it was the nation-wide
voting which determined who continued to have a shot at the title, she could
not dismiss the judges' comments (criticisms) as having no effect on her
overall chance. They did, unfortunately. She had landed herself in the bottom
three more than once and she could not rule out it was not due to the two
judges' remarks.
Even Jennifer Lopez and Randy Jackson suddenly realized they might have gone
too far in their criticisms and, to their credit, tried to minimize, if not
undo, the damage to poor Haley, but it was too late.
The nation-wide voters, while they thought the world of Haley Reinhart’s
singing prowess, still had two equally good singers to choose from and that’s
all they needed. They didn’t relish cutting short Haley’s amazing journey
towards the American Idol’s (season 10) crown, but they’d a job to do, and was
looking forward to finishing it, with or without Haley. There were only two
places in the finale. Somebody out of the three would have to go home and,
based on the judges’ (Lopez and Jackson) frequent, unfavorable remarks, the
nation-wide voters' task was made somewhat easier - they decided it should be
Haley.
Poor Haley, she gave her all but still fell short. Like James Durbin who
assigned blames for his defeat, on the ubiquitous, over-board praises of his
every performance by Jennifer Lopez and Randy Jackson, which might have put
off some people, Haley was booted out apparently because of the opposite
reason.
To Haley, I want to offer this advice: "Keep doing what you do best. You have
proven you're as good as the other two finalists. You made to the last three,
remember? That's no mean feat. You deserved to win, but, unfortunately, so did
Scotty McCreery and Lauren Alaina. You’re a star; your gorgeous looks, the
best smile ever, and good stage presence will get you far in the music
industry. Don't give up.
As far as I am concerned, your American Idol contest participation was just a
start…start, I hope, to great things to come – such as lucrative contracts and
slew of albums to your name, and who knows... may be the #1 spot on the
chart!"
"Good luck!
[Permalink:https://davidrubinlang.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/23/6701167-
haley-reinhart-foundered-due-to-too-many-negative-comments]
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
3 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Lori-3534038May 27, 2011
#2
comment author avatar
We loved Haley. Would buy any music she puts out. The final 2 country idols
were ok but I felt if it hadn't been for Lauren, Haley would have been in the
final 2 so we voted for Scotty to vindicate our feelings toward Lauren for
Haley's elimination.
0SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilAug 20, 2013
#3
comment author avatar
I can live with scotty as champion and Lauren number two. I have nothing
personal against Lauren although if given the power to choose, I will choose
Haley.
0SHARE
David Lang
David Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
I'm fierce protector of the oppressed; whether animals human beings. Those
being victimized can count on me, rain or shine.
Articles: 5 Seeds: 0 Comments: 19 Since: Jan 2011
Egypt In Turmoil
By David Lang
Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:48 AM
egypthillary-clinton-deserves-credit-if-president-hosni-mubarak-fallsjoe-
biden-grasps-situation-betterobama-admonishes-mubaraktunisia-
uprisinguprising-in-making
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ...President Obama is at it again -- purportedly trying
to repair the mangled image of the United States of America -- by wading into
Egypt's problem plainly copied from Tunisia's uprising which led to the
toppling of president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali who recently fled the
country.
The problem of lack of freedom, injustice, lack of reforms, to name a few,
that the Egyptian demonstrators used to justfy their own uprising in making
are real and present, but to openly model it, so soon, after the Tunisian coup
d'etat, seems to reflect badly on their timing if not themselves. Questions
may be raised who is behind the protest.If there is none, which is unlikely,
there are plenty of people waiting to take advantage of the turmoil. But for
president Obama to want to be seen to be siding with the anti-government
protesters seems odd, if not unwise. Why can't he steer clear of getting
involved -- and getting bogged down again? --in other people's problem for
once? If he is doing it because Egypt is an important ally which is essential
fordefending Israel, he's adopting a wrong approach! And secretary of state
Hillary Clinton deserves most of the credit if president Hosni Mubarak could
not prevail and the country descends into untenable scenario that happened in
Tunisia.
President Obama or his press secretary, Roberts Gibbs,or who ever are
authoriezd to make statements -- and that includes Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and vice-president Joe Biden -- should know better and stop
encouraging and galvanizing the Egyptian protesters to try to emulate the
Tunisians.
President Mubarak, they shoud not forget, despite his faults, is one of our
few allies in the middle east. The consequences of the removal of him as
Egyptian president are many and frightening so president Obama better not
think of it.
Also,if he really cares about the security of Israel, or about the plight of
the Egyptian people, he should not hurt the feeling of Mubarak. Who knows what
Mubarak is capable of if he is pissed off. Don't forget in life no friend, or
enemy, is permanent. He should study the many examples around the world and
learn from them. Take president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as an example.
From what I observed, among many American allies, especially in the Middle
East, there are few as loyal as the Egyptian president, beside Israel prime
minister. So Obama should be careful and lead by example to his entire
administration.
What if, in an unlikely scenario, Mubarak is toppled? You can speculate on the
scenario of Mubarak fleeing into exile and a new, and untested, leader takes
over. What then? What will happen to Israel's security if a Muslim hard-liner
replaces Mubarak and joins Syria as an ally of Iran? Oh, don't argue that we
could threaten to reduce our annual aid of 1.3 billion. Is that how we retain
loyalty of our friends - we pay them? If Obama thinks he can get his way with
Mubarak by using threats to review aids, he is wrong, very wrong. Who or what
is to stop Mubarak from getting similar aid or even more from someone else.
Someone like president Mamoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. I can easily think of many
such people in the world, especially in West Asia. Who knows, right now emails
may be flooding Mubara's inbox to the brim with offer of aids!
Never underestimate a leader of a counrty of 70 million people; despite this
setback, or other setbacks that may come later, president Hosni Mubarak may
continue to rule Egypt long after Obama ends his two terms as president of the
United States, assuming he could win a second term, of course. Again, just
look at how president Hugo Chavez is doing! It's wrong for the US to look at a
scenario without Mubarak just because he was caught by surprise by the biggest
ever opposition to his rule of Egypt. That, in a nutshell, how America usually
regards its friends -- expendable.No wonder so-called friends of the United
States, who receive billions of dollars of aid, think nothing of throwing the
uncle Sam under the bus! When the Pakistani army lost a few men purportedly
due to American air strikes, Pakistan couldn't be bothered with the billion-
dollar aid and closed its border at the most important supply lines completely
stranding hundreds of lorries, exposing them to the Taliban's rockets! Despite
the Americans apologizing for the mistake and loss of life, the Pakistan
government took their sweet time to reopen the border, although they're aware
they're jeopardizing the supposedly common war efforts! Fine example of loyal
friends, grateful recipient of aid, or war partners!
It will not be wrong to not defend one's friend, though we should, but is
definitely wrong to foment, even indirectly, the handful of protesters to rise
up against a legally elected president. Moreover, he's our friend. Right now
he needs our support -- not lecture or admonishing. For the record, Joe Biden
did show his grasp of the situation when he said president Hosni Mubarak is
not a dictator and should not step down.
Now, it's not too late for President Obama to send someone to tell Mubarak we
standby him, though. Just hurry. And Obama himself must make clear to the
world, if not the Egyptian protesters directly, that his administration will
not agree with the removal of Mubarak by illegal means (uprising). And at the
same time say that only the Egyptian people as a whole have the right to elect
or diselect their president -- through the ballot box.
[Permalink:https://davidrubinlang.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/29/5946143-
egypt-in-turmoil]
Articles commented on by David Lang
Behind the scenes, US tries to calm Iraq published on Mon Dec 26, 2011
m-612920, with 25. you really never get it, do you? It's the way of the United
States of America to go invading other countries for one reason or another.
Whether to avenge for the bombing of the World Trade Center, or help the
French to extricate itself from the hopeless fight in Vietnam, or to r
Israel says Iran closer to atom bomb than thought published on Mon Nov 14,
2011
care4mycountry,mychildren,myparents You sound like an Iranian, Iranian
supporter or an Israeli hater as your comment pretty sums that up. Your
display name says you're 4 your country, your children,your parents, good; but to
me you're 4yourself - your ego. You went to great length to make Israel look l
Saudi royal offers bounty to catch Israeli soldier published on Mon Oct 31,
2011
Experienced-1110305 I agree someone has his head buried in the sand. Susan
Rice doing an excellent job as our representative in the UN? Yeah, I agree she
worked her butt off convincing..no..arm-twisting members of the UN security
council into approving the no-fly zone resolution so that her boss Pr
Iowa Poll: Cain, Romney top field ahead of caucuses published on Sun Oct 30,
2011
For the Gop hopefuls Iowa is the make or break state; whether they are good
enough for a ticket to have a shot at the whitehouse is decided here. It could
be Mchele Bachmann or Mitt Romney, as far as I am concerned. They have what it
takes. Don't count either your losses or chickens yet though. But
Bachmann: 2012 bid not 'personal' against Obama published on Mon Jun 27, 2011
Will D For Barrack Hussein Obama, alright: President Barack Obama. Are you
satisfied now? But I respect your opinion. But I am sorry I cannot click on
the Facebook Like Button for this man after he went for the hide of a man who
meant no harm to him or the US. Worse, he dithered purposely at the beg
'Why are you waiting?': Residents plead for Libyan fighters to attack their
town published on Thu Sep 15, 2011
They are good at another thing: lying (making up stories about Qaddafi's sons
surrendering or being captured; about capturing this town that town and
Qaddafi's soldiers killing civilians, etc. etc.).
Of coure, everything about protecting civilians used by Obama and his European
cliques was fake. I mean since they are riding high they can get away with
anything - even murders. All they have to do is get Susan Rice and Hillary
Clinton to do some arm-twisting or quid-pro-quo and it's done. Sky is the
limit!
Gadhafi 'on the run,' US defense chief reports published on Tue Sep 06, 2011
Wolften Try this link This link. This link. And this link.
Do you wish to know more?
Mike-1817409 Mike, I am sorry I have to disagree. On the contrary, you lack
fact for your argument. If any anybody should read up first before posting on
this forum, it is you. As everyone knows, it's President Obama who launched
the so-called Arab Spring revolution. It's his idea to make the Cairo
REMNANT47, Yes to your first question but I am not sure about the second. Some
say the AlQaeda was actually an American (C.I.A) creation. Perhaps they failed
to obey and their masters wanted them exterminated. To what extent this is
true I don't know. What I know is, judging by Obama's actions so far
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)