Terrorism Awareness

this is not really a post but couple of flash videos:

Islamic Mein Kampf

About Jihad

preferable to do it with good speakers... :)

History: BIG LIES:

Hi all, I have stumbled upon a wondrous article by David Meir-Levi,
about the so called "Israeli Arab" conflict,

It is called:
Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel

I will post here the intro, please read the rest,
it is a matter of great importance.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS TEXT by David Horowitz

The War in the Middle East is nearly sixty years old. Most people alive today are unfamiliar with its history and origins and lack knowledge of its facts. This state of ignorance provides a fertile ground for the unscrupulous to create myths that will justify their destructive agendas. The political propaganda machine has created many such myths to fuel their war against the Jewish state.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that elects its lead?ers in free elections and guarantees rights to its citizens, and honors those rights. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to be fighting for “human rights.” There are about a million and a half Arabs living as citizens in Israel who elect representatives to Israel’s parliament and who have more rights than the Arab citizens of any Arab state. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to be fighting for “social justice.” Israel’s very creation is referred to by its Arab enemies as "the Nakba", or the “catastrophe,” the clear implication of which is that Israel should not exist. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to support self-determination and oppose genocide. Israel was the victim – at its very birth -- of an unprovoked aggression by five Arab mon?archies and dictatorships. It has been the target of an Arab war that has continued uninterruptedly for nearly sixty years because the Arab states have refused to make peace. Yet Israel is the target of those who say they want “peace.” Israel is the victim of terrorist attacks – sui?cide bombings – which along with the Jews they mark for extinction, kill Palestinian women and children as well. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to speak for humanity and a future that is “free.”

How is this possible? How can evil be dressed in the garments of justice? How can a genocidal war to destroy a democratic people be justified as a struggle for “national liberation?”

They can through the creation of political myths that rationalize aggression and justify war against civilian populations.

In George Orwell’s futuristic novel, 1984, the Ministry of Truth for the totalitarian state proclaims: Knowledge Is Ignorance; Freedom Is Slavery. The nature of political doublespeak never changes and its agenda is always the same: Obliteration of historical memory in the service of power. “The struggle of man against power,” wrote the Czech writer, Milan Kundera, “is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” Only a restored memory can demolish totalitarian myths and make men free.

and again, I urge you to find the time and to read the article.

Politics: The Occupation part 1

There are a lot of people who blame their personal failures or some unsolved personality issues with the most trampled mantra "It's because the Occupation"

there is no peace? its "Because of the Occupation"
the government is dysfunctional? its its "Because of the Occupation"
the economy is bad? its "Because of the Occupation"
the islamofascistic Koranimals killing us? - its "Because of the Occupation"
the islamofascistic Koranimals killing each other?- its "Because of the Occupation"
the Ozone layer is thinning? its "Because of the Occupation"


So, couple of months ago there was an interview with a captured "suicide bomber" who failed to detonate and was captured,
lets see what he said:

Reporter: Why do you want to become a suicide bomber?
BOMBER: I originally decided to become a martyr after I saw what the Israeli army did in the refugee camp of Jenin in the big military campaign of April, 2002.

But this idea became stronger when I understood what status I will have in heaven if I scarify myself for Allah. Every time somebody else dies as a martyr in a suicide bomb attack, I pray for him but I feel jealous. I want to be where he is now and I pray that Allah will one day offer me this occasion and this honor.

now we have to remember what exactly was in Jenin, and what the Arabs were screaming then...


(Palestinian leaders accused the Jewish state of a "massacre," claiming the Israeli Defense Forces killed over 500 Palestinian civilians, including many women and children.

It was later determined 56 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, were killed in the raid, which followed a series of deadly suicide attacks inside Israel that were reportedly planned and directed from the terror infrastructure in Jenin. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers died in the Jenin battle, in which IDF troops conducted house-to-house searches to minimize civilian casualties by avoiding air attacks.)


then comes the next question:

Reporter: Is your main motivation for becoming a bomber is to serve Allah?
BOMBER: Yes, of course. Allah gave Muslims the possibility to gain their prize and payment in different ways. There are those (Muslims) who pray and fast only and respect Allah's commandments, and there are those who wish a higher prize. And the highest prize is given to those who scarify themselves, their lives, their bodies and everything in this world.

and then this "non-brainwashed" "freedom fighter" /sarcazm off

was asked this question:

Reporter: What you are saying is interesting because a lot of academics in the United States and many of my colleagues in the media claim Palestinians become suicide bombers because they are poor and desperate and because of so-called Israeli occupation. Are you telling me these are not the reasons you want to blow yourself up amongst Israelis?


BOMBER: The will to scarify myself for Allah is the first and most major reason. It is true that the Zionists are occupying our lands and that it is our religious duty to fight them, including through suicide attacks. The goal is not the killing of the Jews, but that this is the way to reach Allah.

The goal is satisfying Allah and his instructions. No money interests, nothing. No brainwash, no pressure; it is my decision. All the other lies are pathetic Israeli propaganda.

I pray that Allah gives me the honor to be dead in an operation. This is the supreme and the noblest way to ascend to Allah.

These martyrs have special status in the next world and have bigger chances to watch Allah's face and enjoy the magnificent pleasures he offers us.

'It is our duty to fight Jews but our goal is to please Allah'

Read more here.

So...

its still the "occupation?" right?
well, maybe its the occupation of Jewish ancestral land by Arabs (so called "Paleostinians") is the cause for all the problems in middle east...

think about it...

POLITICS: Open Season....

Good mornin'

there is a rap-metal band "Stuck Mojo", (although I am not a big fan of rap of any kind)
these dudes decided to wake up from their usual MTV style, took the red pill and went to the real world...

if you dont want to read long and boring articles, just watch this short clip...




now... watch it... and send it to all you know...

History: UN resolutions 242 and 338

Following the June 1967 Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the United Nations General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council.
After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.
Pro-Arab ( and uneducated leftists) sources often claim that UNSCR 242 requires Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and other areas.
This is not true! Lets see what UNSCR 242 actually means.
U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 states, in full, as follows:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967).
The
Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation
in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which
every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all
Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have
undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter:

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
include the application of both the following principles:

(i)
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and
respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in
peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For
guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the
area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For
guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every
State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized
zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special
Representative to proceed to them Middle East to establish and maintain contacts
with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to
achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and
principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to
report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special
Representative as soon as possible.

Lets see of whom the resolution is talking...
"to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"
every state in the area means: Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.
lets look again... maybe some other state is hidden in the text?
"all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations"

Lets guess what countries in the region were member states of the charter of the UN... well you were right... its
Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon - no more, no less.

now when we understood of which parties the resolution speaks, lets see what does it says.

"establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:"

and I will translate: UNSCR 242 calls on all parties to the conflict to negotiate a solution, on what terms?
"the application of both the following principles: "
that means only if both of the principles are fulfilled, not one not zero not half,- BOTH.

and what are the principles?
the first:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
lets understand what is said in this line,

Israeli armed forces, not sovereignty, and not anything else.
territories occupied in the recent conflict, is it said "the territories"?- no, is it said "all the territories?" well, no.
so we learn that Israel is not required to withdraw from all the territories "occupied" in the recent conflict.
but from which territories Israel is required to withdraw then?
well we will learn in the second principle.
wait a minute... now a smart person like you will probably say "what the heck? you're just playing with semantics here! not with the "real" intention"
well, lets see what the real intention was:

The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June
4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all,
they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the
day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we
didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.

and
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:

The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are
the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks
of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of
withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli
forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved
to be notably Insecure.

Lets see in the second principle from which territories Israel is obligated to withdraw:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

that means that the real intention is: that Israel will decide according to negotiations with the other parties to which borders to withdraw in order to achieve peace, and those borders must be secured "free from threats or acts of force", no more, no less.
Does Israel have to withdraw its forces even if the other parties don't want to negotiate? lets see:
Eugene V. Rostow (Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs), Rostow was one of the US officials involved in drafting 242 so he knows first hand what was and was not intended. He states:

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs
between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and
allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just
and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved

that means , if the "other" parties (i.e. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon) will not negotiate, Israel has the right to ADMINISTER the territories.
Paragraph 2 in the UN resolution add more topics to negotiate between the parties, and paragraphs 3 and 4 are strictly administrative, and has no interest for us.
of course back in 1967 no Arab country wanted to negotiate with Israel because they didn't recognized the state. so the territories were administered by Israel until the "Yom Kippur" war broke, after the war, (when Israel has captured more territories in Egypt and in Syria almost reaching the capitals of these states) UN came with resolution 338:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973).
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease
all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12
hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they
now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after
the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in
all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the
cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate
auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

the UNSCR 338 says that all the "parties to the present fighting" which means Israel, Syria and Egypt have to negotiate peace.
Israel unconditionally withdraw its forces Kuneitra district in vicinity to Damascus ( Syria), and from Cairo vicinity to the east bank of the Suez canal (Egypt).
Later in 1979 Israel eventually signed peace agreement with Egypt, and withdrew from Sinai peninsula territories to secure borders, thus withdrawing from 91% of the territories achieved in the last two wars. Gaza strip remaining as an Israeli territory (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component).
in 1994 Israel signed a peace agreement with Jordan, withdrawing from some land near river Jordan and leasing some portions of agriculture land in the Jordan valley. (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component) Judea and Samaria stays under Israel's sovereignty.
the Syrian border is still unresolved, since Syria's initial acquisition of the Golan Heights was illegal under international law!
Syria was created by the French mandate, while the Golan heights were under British mandate and part of the Trans-Jordania and part of the Jewish state as agreed in San Remo Conference. so the Golan heights were not legally Syrian in the first place. Israel's reacquisition of this territory was, and its present retention thereof is, lawful under international law.

Sources:
the UN document
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
What was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say?
The San Remo Conference, 1922
The Golan Heights Law
the British mandate 1920-1946