Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

[The Advocate]

Anti-Imperialist wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why is the US government cooperating with the most anti democratic regime in the Middle East called Saudi Arabia?
They are even fanatic anti democrats even much worse than the Iran regime!
The Saudi Arabian support the worldwide genocide on christians and on Jews and on black africans (Sudan)!
According to Wiki Lekas and many another alternative information sources Saudi Arabia is the world's number 1 funder of islamic terrorism!
Why aren't the UN or US government impose sanctions against Saudi Arabia?
It's similar to Azerbaijan. By far the most brutal and worst regimes in the caucasus region. But oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Moncrief Oil and even BP just dont care and ignore the facts that Azerbaijan's dictator Alyev kill thousands of opposition people every year!

Because they ignore Saudi Arabia as the number 1 currier of favours via the oil vote. You please us, we give you our oil.

Funny thing, the Azerbaijani government gave a statue of Alyev to Avenida Reforma here in Mexico City but a lot of the people here (including yours truly) are now petitioning to remove the statue considering its paying homage to a ruthless dictator. What an embarrassment for Ebrard this is! And get this; the Azerbaijiani government has now threatened to sever ties with Mexico unless we keep the statue. Four billion in revenue from them lost over a fricking statue!

They say it's part of an Armenian plot to turn Mexico against Azerbaijan, but really, it's getting ridiculous!

[The Advocate]

Correction, the statue is of Alyev's father...the dictator before him.

[MUQ]

-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

What Does It Mean To Be a Slave?
A Few Questions to Ask….

By Eric Peters

September 10, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- Debating the merits of a particular government policy or proposal with authoritarian-minded political opponents is pointless – if you’re hoping to persuade, at any rate. Far better to ask them a few apparently simple questions – and force them to confront the disquieting answers about the authoritarian nature of the political and social system they support.

For instance, you might ask what their view of slavery is. Is it morally wrong to own another human being? Probably, they will say it is wrong. Now ask: What does it mean to be a slave? Usually, they will tell you it means being the property of another. Now ask the killer follow-up: What does it mean to be the property of another?

Point out that it means having control over another person’s life – control of his actual person, his body. His mind, even.

To be in a position – to be entitled – to use violence to enforce compliance.

A slave is not at liberty to act as he wishes to act. He must do as he is told – and if he does not, he can expect physical punishment and that punishment will not be considered assault. The slave must accept his punishment.

There is no appeal, no recourse. He must bow low and submit – or risk the repercussions, which ultimately include death.

His only hope is escape.

The slave, most obviously, owns nothing – because he controls nothing. He may be allowed to use things. But the owner of these things – himself included – is someone else. Someone else gets to say yes – or no. When – and where. How – and how much. The slave has no real say – in that he is never in a position to say no. Not without consequences raining down upon him.

He merely obeys. Because he must obey.
The fact that his hands may hold the scythe does not mean the scythe is his. The fact that the effort of his body cuts the wheat does not mean the wheat is his. He is permitted to keep a portion. In principle, because in fact, the slave owns nothing that may not be taken away from him. At any time, for any reason. And he is powerless to do anything about it.

The slave’s dwelling, the clothes he wears – even his very body – are subject to arbitrary control against his will by another person or persons. This is the essence of what it means to be a slave.

Be sure your opponent accepts these points – which he must accept, because to not accept them is not unlike refusing to accept that 2 + 2 = four.

Now ask him whether he (or anyone else he knows) is free to determine the course of his own life. Or do others set down terms and conditions which he must obey?

Is he free to do business with whomever he chooses to do business? Or is he told exactly with whom he must do business – and under what conditions?
May he travel freely? Or is he required to travel with permission – and only under certain conditions? Must he carry ownership papers with him wherever he goes? And is it not true that if he is caught without these papers, he is subject to arrest and imprisonment for that reason alone?

[MUQ]

May he own things?

More precisely, is he permitted other than conditional use of things? For instance, that which he may think of as “his” home. If it is in fact “his,” then surely that means no one else has legal claim to it and cannot take it away from him once he has paid the original seller in full.

Ask him about the large payments he must make to others every year, forever, in order to be allowed to remain on “his” property. Remind him that plantation slaves also had homes – in the sense that they were allowed conditional use of dwellings. Dwellings ultimately owned by someone else.

The slaves were permitted to use these dwellings so long as their labor provided enough return to the true owners of the dwelling. A slave who refused to work – who declined to make payments in the form of his labor then (and tax payments now) would soon discover who the true owner of “his” dwelling really was.

Just as today.

Ask whether he is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others .... Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor….

Ask whether he is at liberty to do as he wills even with his own poor body. May he freely choose to treat his body’s ailments as he sees fit? Or will he be chained and jailed if he treats himself in other than the “lawful” manner?Ask whether he knows that he may be forcibly taken from his home if he declines to be “treated” in the manner prescribed by others.

Who, then, owns his body? His very person? If I have the power to compel you to do – or not do – then is it not a fact that to some degree at least, I am your owner?And in that case, are you not a slave?

The control need not be vicious or even mean. The owner of a beloved dog is no less the owner of the animal by dint of the fact that he treats it kindly and tends to its needs. The dog is not at liberty to come and go as it pleases. It is allowed to use certain items – an old sofa, for example – and not other things. It does not own anything.

It is owned.

Neither did the plantation slave own anything. And many had benevolent masters – for example, Thomas Jefferson – who tried to treat them with kindness, as they saw it. Who saw themselves as parents of subnormal adult children in need of guidance – and restraint. This benevolent treatment, however, in no way made the slaves other than slaves.

Behind the gentle guiding hand, always the whip.
As it is today – with the exception that today’s slaves are unaware of their condition and imagine themselves to be free. Its subtlety is its genius. Instead of individual plantations, there is one consolidated plantation called “our country.” But we are owned nonetheless.

It is immaterial that we are not normally chained… if the chains may be put on at the first hint of disobedience.

That we are allowed use of more (and nicer) things than the slaves of the past does not in any way change the fact that they are just as owned (because just as controlled) by someone else – and may be taken away at any moment, if the true owners so choose.

Our cotton fields are the cubicles of the modern office; our overseers called by different names. But their job is what it has always been: To make sure we toil, submit and obey. And if we do not….

Well, we all know the answer to that one.

Throw it in the Woods?

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his website.
Copyright © 2012 Eric Peters

[w wman uk]

The Advocate wrote:

Park Avenue; Money, Power and the American Dream.
An excellent documentary on the illusion of supposed economic freedom in the US, and how far off the current system is from democracy.

There has never been freedom . Just a degree of comfort and choices for most people. Whats the differance between slavery and exchange . Western countries are not perfect but the system beats anything else out there including stupid mugs dream murhumna land islam. If Plato couldnt work it out in the republic its not fair to expect our resident cut and paste muslim to.

[w wman uk]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
Democracy no doubt has many good points, but it has fatal flaws in it, since it disregards Divine Guidance.
A controlled democracy is what we actually need and that is what is provided in islam.
A democracy which re-elects GWB the Great and Tony Blair has some fatal flaws in it.
A democracy in which "majority" votes for invasion of Iraq in 2003 has some fatal flaws in it.
And nobody in your country is thinking about how to rectify those flaws, are they?
Why only in KSA, even in USA I could be arrested and sent to GITMO if I say I am a member of Al Qaeda and praise Osama bin Laden!!

egypt will show how the murhmna governs already morsi is preparing to assume the roll of supreme arseholla if he and the murhumna party can get away with it. I do admire the courage of the people making a stand against him. They run the risk of proper torture not water play as carried out in getmo. Who are you to state what we actully need keep it to yourself next thimg your be saying allah has told me that an islamic goverment is all we need to put things right. Thats funny hitler said the same thing only he wanted a nazi goverment. What do you think the idlogical differances are between nazis and islamofachiests are? Does allah talk to the prophet mug?

[running dog lacky]

w wman uk wrote:

<quoted text> egypt will show how the murhmna governs already morsi is preparing to assume the roll of supreme arseholla if he and the murhumna party can get away with it. I do admire the courage of the people making a stand against him. They run the risk of proper torture not water play as carried out in getmo. Who are you to state what we actully need keep it to yourself next thimg your be saying allah has told me that an islamic goverment is all we need to put things right. Thats funny hitler said the same thing only he wanted a nazi goverment. What do you think the idlogical differances are between nazis and islamofachiests are? Does allah talk to the prophet mug?

And what does your mindless rant have to do with NAZI ISRAEL?

[w wman uk]

running dog lacky wrote:

<quoted text>
And what does your mindless rant have to do with NAZI ISRAEL?

Iran is run by murhumnas and arsehollas some of them as mad as frogs. Playing with dodgy russian made nuclear trying to make a bomb. They are supply rockets to the palistian murhumnas to fire at the Jews.Palistinians that have been betrayed by their own brothers but for their gangsta leadership.
As you call them nazi Isrealis have showen great restraint because the murhumna ever can overcome the IDF the genocide would be total and the likes of mug would rejoice. Iran is an excelent example of a dog shite islamic goverment.

[Doctor REALITY]

Unlike an 'unrepentant' Ahmadinejad,Israel will endure FOREVER.

[MUQ]

w wman uk wrote:

<quoted text> egypt will show how the murhmna governs already morsi is preparing to assume the roll of supreme arseholla if he and the murhumna party can get away with it. I do admire the courage of the people making a stand against him. They run the risk of proper torture not water play as carried out in getmo. Who are you to state what we actully need keep it to yourself next thimg your be saying allah has told me that an islamic goverment is all we need to put things right. Thats funny hitler said the same thing only he wanted a nazi goverment. What do you think the idlogical differances are between nazis and islamofachiests are? Does allah talk to the prophet mug?

You do not admire the courage of people for standing out against Israel and its oppressive army?

Why this double standard?

[MUQ]

-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Children Who Sell Themselves

By SONIA FALEIRO

September 10, 2012 "New York Times" ---- PATNA, INDIA — While investigating child labor in India last month for a book, I found myself in the northern state of Bihar, an established source of children for trafficking networks.

Here, alongside the expected stories of abduction, I heard of another unexpected and heartbreaking path to servitude. Children as young as 10 had begun to directly offer themselves to traffickers because they could no longer go hungry.

I met 14-year-old Arun Kumar, who told me of his experience.

Kumar lives with his uncle and two younger siblings in Amni village, a day’s journey by bus from Patna, the Bihar state capital.

Two days before we met, Kumar had been returned home by a local nonprofit organization, supported by Save the Children, from a rice mill in the state of Haryana, where he had been working 18-hour days, seven days a week. He had been paid 800 rupees (a bit less than $20) a month.

On a rare day, he said, a machine would break down and the workers would be shooed out for a “holiday.”“I’d walk to the next village about an hour away,” he said,“to buy biscuits.”

The nonprofit organization first entreated, then threatened the factory owner with a noisy protest outside his mill.“I paid for him,” the owner argued, before finally releasing Kumar.

This was not the first time the organization sprang Kumar — he had been brought home from a another rice mill last year. The police were not approached either time, since it’s understood that they’re paid off by traffickers.

When I asked Kumar who had sent him to the mill, he said:“No one. I went because I wanted to.”

Kumar told me that although his uncle worked, there was not enough money for more than one one meal a day.

Better-off families in Amni eat twice a day. The village has never had electricity, running water or land to cultivate. There are no opportunities for education or employment, and the upper-caste families in the neighboring village routinely coopt government provisions meant to alleviate the grim, hard lives of Amni’s lower-caste Dalit families.

Poverty has traditionally fed child labor. India has an estimated 17 million child laborers, many of whom are visible in roadside restaurants, bakeries and car repair shops. Urban Indians assume that these children are either locals sent to work by their parents to earn a little extra cash, or runaways.

The truth is that a many of them are trafficked through massive networks. The poverty of the country, the children’s needs, the public’s blind eye and the profits of this illegal trade afford these networks immunity from India’s child labor laws.

(Contd.)

[MUQ]

The networks pay middlemen to find victims not just in the urban sprawls of cities like Delhi or Haryana, where child laborers are in high demand for work in mills, factories and private homes, but in far-off towns and villages where poverty pushes people to the brink. Because recruiters are so numerous, children like Kumar can approach them on their own, sometimes without even their parents knowing.

Kumar knew life in Amni had no promise, but the fact that he simply did not have enough to eat led him to seek what he called a “labor contractor.” He spoke to a few people who’d made it all the way to Haryana and back, a distance of over 22 hours by train. They were all children between the ages of 10 and 15; like him, they all believed they needed to work to survive.

Even though child labor laws prohibit the employment of children under 14, the contractor not only hired Kumar on the spot, but also gave him an advance of 1,000 rupees ($20). That’s a small fortune for a hungry village child, and almost a month’s wages for an adult manual laborer.

Kumar soon learned that he was being paid much less than adults for the same work at the mill, and that some of the tasks he was assigned, such as operating heavy machinery, were dangerous. This was also a violation of the law. But he said he was grateful for the opportunity.

The fact that he was made to return home against his wishes not once but twice doesn’t perturb Kumar. The activists of the nonprofit must follow their conscience, he believes. But then, so must he.

“When the vegetables run out,” Kumar says.“We eat plain rotis”— an unleavened bread.“And when the rotis run out I will return to work.”

Sonia Faleiro is the author of “Beautiful Thing: Inside the Secret World of Bombay’s Dance Bars.”

[w wman uk]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not admire the courage of people for standing out against Israel and its oppressive army?
Why this double standard?

The fact is that they are the palistinian youth who have had their spirit courupted by the gangsta leadership. The people l admire are the palistinians who have the great courage to speak out against the hammas and hezz leadership and swim against the ride of hatred.

[MUQ]

-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Attack "Imminent."
Report: Documents Disclose 9/11 Warnings

By Matt Vasilogambros

September 11, 2012 "Yahoo News" -- Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said,“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote.“In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote.“In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.“Look at what the Pentagon said,‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book,“500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[The Advocate]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
Democracy no doubt has many good points, but it has fatal flaws in it, since it disregards Divine Guidance.
A controlled democracy is what we actually need and that is what is provided in islam.
A democracy which re-elects GWB the Great and Tony Blair has some fatal flaws in it.
A democracy in which "majority" votes for invasion of Iraq in 2003 has some fatal flaws in it.
And nobody in your country is thinking about how to rectify those flaws, are they?
Why only in KSA, even in USA I could be arrested and sent to GITMO if I say I am a member of Al Qaeda and praise Osama bin Laden!!

This is a very flawed argument. I do not think you even allow yourself to argue without using religious terms and arguments. Religion is never a viable basis for discussion; if you want to debate based on epistemological/deontological terms or even attempt something based on morals/ethics, and THEN you will start making more sense.

[Live Love and Laugh]

If one's religion leads to intolerance, hatred and war, then what good is it? Over the course of a thousand years, more people have been killed in the name of religion then any other cause. That is disturbing and sad. The evil that men do, may one day destroy us all. Hopefully some day, man will put aside his greed and lust for power so there will be no need for any more wars. Will man ever find true peace; or are we destined to be forever violent?

[w wman uk]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
You always like "traitors" like "Sir" Salman Rushdie and their likes!!
That is your problem , if you were dealing with the "mainstream" Muslims, then it would have been different thing.
You are living in a dream world and not in a real world!!
Dealing with a "handful of people" is always much easier than to deal with the overwhelming majority of people.

Why answer with a foolish lie. Salman rushdie was just a fool grandstanding he knew full well what he was doing and the murhmna everywhere reacted as perdicted. As members of the religion of permenant offence would do they jumped up and down burned flags managed to kill a few people it was oh so islamic. Why the shite rusdie was ever given a knighthood l dont know there are many many more deserving people. Why do muslims present no problems untill the get above 5% of population the larger the % the more troubles.

[how much you paying i hav]

never

[The Advocate]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I do not know why are you so allergic to religious terms to be used in any discussion.
02 And I see no reason to avoid discussing religions, when it is the thing on which most people are ready to give up their lives. Why would you want to avoid discussing something that precious to you?
And what do you mean by these "heavy weight" terms like "Epistemological and deontological"….. do you think that by talking in "Doctoral language" will bring us closer to each other?
Is making your language unintelligible a "better" way to have discussions?
03. I think you are moving in "High Class literary circles" a lot of lately. It is time you come down to earth and start speaking in human language for a change.

"Allergic?" No, I just think you fail to understand that religious thought is very skewed and not of objective at all and only caters to a specific set of people; the ideas of a Sikh will be different than the ideas of a Lutheran, and thus they are unable to judge each other w/out bias on their own terms precisely because those terms only favour a certain set of people. If we wish to be ibjective then we do away with religious judgement.

What do you mean by "unintelligible?" You've access to a computer, and you can look these up on the internet. These are not necessarily "high class" terms, but are actually rather basic philosophical criterions and bases.

How can you expect to debate me if you do not know the fundamentals of philosophy?

[MUQ]

-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

The Method to the Post 9/11 Madness

By David Swanson

September 11, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- To your average educated careful consumer of U.S. news media, our militarism looks like ad hoc reactionary responses. A crisis flairs up here. We “intervene” there. An irrational foreign dictator threatens the peace over yonder. We get into wars because we have no choice, and then continue them because ending them would be somehow even worse than continuing them.

In fact, there is a method to the madness. I don’t mean just the pressure that President Eisenhower warned us would be created by massive military spending. I mean that the war planners have planned far ahead. They have lists of upcoming wars.(In 2001, according toWesley Clark the Pentagon sought wars in the coming years with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Tony Blair independently confirmed a similar list.) They invent the public excuses for those wars as the need arises. The actual motivations are not humanitarian, but driven by a crazed desire to dominate the world’s economies, waterways, and fossil fuels.

The papers of the 1990s pro-war think tank, the Project for the New American Century, fit with and explain what the United States and NATO and their allies have done for the past 11 years far better than President Bush’s speech given on the wreckage of the World Trade Center or anything announced by the White House right up through President Obama’s latest campaign speeches this week.

A new book called “The Globalization of NATO” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya traces the development of NATO, from a supposedly defensive and North Atlantic organization, into an aggressive and global one, albeit one with some deep internal rivalries and tensions.