dusted

How do the Arabs have more right to it than the Jews? And you didn't point out anything that wasn't true. Jews were always treated as second class citizens by the Muslims.

Tell me one thing that wasn't true.

In case you didn't know, the Muslim religion is anti Jew. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THEY HATE ISRAEL SO MUCH! I really wish you people would stop believing all this Arab propaganda! IT WASN'T THEIR LAND! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! IT DIDN'T BELONG TO THEM TO BE STOLEN FROM THEM! God alfuckingmighty, why don't you go read a fucking book about the ORIGINS of the conflict? THESE FUCKING ARABS THINK THE LAND IS ONLY FOR ARABS! ISN'T THAT RACIST? WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ISRAEL HAD TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE? Don't any of you see what they are doing? When they FINALLY realized that they couldn't destroy Israel militarily, (after the six day war), they decided to switch tactics, and destroy Israel with propaganda instead. To turn the world against Israel, by constantly harping about these "refugees", that are a product of the ARABS making, since the ARAB nations didn't take in THEIR OWN PEOPLE! They want to keep them being refugees as an open wound so that the world feels sorry for them and puts pressure on Israel. But the goal is STILL THE SAME- THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL! ISRAEL, in case you didn't know, took in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Jewish refugees that fled or were expelled from ARAB nations, these Jews left everything, their homes and possessions, which the ARABS took. More than 50,000 Jews fled Yemen 123,000 Jews fled Iraq more than 20,000 Jews fled Egypt 100,000 left Morrocco And many thousands more from Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, etc. How come nobody ever mentions this? Israel took in the Jews, The Arab nations should take in the ARABS The idea of the Palestinians being a separate nationality from the rest of the Arabs did not emerge until 2 DECADES after Israel was created. In 1948, Arab activist Musa Alami said: "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word?...The people are in great need of a 'myth' to fill their consciousness and imagination" According to Alami, an indoctrination of the "myth" of nationality would create "identity" and "self respect". But that idea didn't take hold until AFTER the six day war, when they had to change tactics. When the Arabs talked about Palestine, it was in the context of ARAB land on which a JEWISH state was intruding. In short, the ARABs wanted all the Arab land exclusively for ARABS. The idea of the lowly Jews having their own state infuriated them.

I didn't say that, you dick. The post merely indicates that there is a fifth column of Mexicans (and Mexican-Americans) that hate this country, that identify with the Palestinians, and who want to take the southwest US and make it part of Mexico. Hence the phrases "Los Angeles, capital of Aztlan" and such. Do you really think its that far-fetched of an idea? The literature is out there. A LOT of it. Los Angeles already has a state flag with the Mexican colors on it. You're not so uninformed as to have never heard of the "Requonquista" movement?

Of course!

Breaksny REFUSES to argue the facts. In fact, he won't even give you an answer when you ask him a pointed question. I'm STILL waiting for an answer as to why, in 1947, when the UN wanted to create 2 separate states, one Palestinian, and one Israeli, with Jerusalem being a separate, international entity, the Arabs didn't accept, and instead attacked Israel. He WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. I can only assume he doesn't know. Which leads me to assume that he doesn't know enough about the conflict, that he should be so vehemently taking the Palestinian side.

Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' By The Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Charles Truxillo suggests the “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, is “an inevitability.” He envisions it encompassing all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado, plus the northern tier of Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border “there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections,” Truxillo said. “Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again.” Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said. Other UNM professors were skeptical Felipe Gonzáles, director of UNM's Southwest Hispanic Research Institute, said there's a “certain homeland undercurrent” among New Mexico Hispanics who believe land was stolen and promises broken. But, he said, a new nation would need much more widespread support. “Educated elites are going to have to pick up on this idea and run with it and use it as a point of confrontation if it is to succeed,” Gonzáles said. Truxillo contends states have the right to secede under the Articles of Confederation of 1777, in which states retained “sovereignty, freedom and independence.” He contends the Articles were not superseded in that regard by the U.S. Constitution and that although the Civil War settled the question militarily, it was never resolved by courts. History Professor Daniel Feller disagreed “The Constitution does supersede the Articles of Confederation,” Feller said. “It takes no notice of the articles and is not presented as bearing any relation to them. The Constitution does not declare, recognize or in any way acknowledge the right to secede.” And, he noted, the full title was “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1869 the union was indestructible, political science Professor Joseph Stewart said. He also said he was “somewhat skeptical in the sense of minority politics” about a possible Republic of the North. He said Americans of Mexican descent have moved all over the United States and that “I don't see that Hispanic population becoming more distinct but in fact becoming less distinct.” Juan José Peña, Hispanic activist and vice chairman of the Hispanic Roundtable, said there's not enough political consciousness among Mexican Americans to form a separate nation. “Right now, there's no movement capable of undertaking it,” he said. Truxillo, who teaches at UNM's Chicano Studies Program on a yearly contract, believes it's his job to help develop a “cadre of intellectuals” to think about how it can become a reality. Native-born American Hispanics feel like strangers in their own land, he said “We remain subordinated,” he said. “We have a negative image of our own culture, created by the media. Self-loathing is a terrible form of oppression. The long history of oppression and subordination has to end.” Truxillo said Hispanics who have achieved positions of power or otherwise are “enjoying the benefits of assimilation” are most likely to oppose a new nation. “There will be the negative reaction, the tortured response of someone who thinks, 'Give me a break. I just want to go to Wal-Mart.' But the idea will seep into their consciousness, and cause an internal crisis, a pain of conscience, an internal dialogue as they ask themselves: 'Who am I in this system?”' © 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxx

Obviously, Breaksny didn't bother to click on the link that the passage was lifted from, otherwise he would know why I made the comment about terrorism. He would know that Mexicans see themselves as the "New Palestinians" and that there is a sizable contingent of people who want to make the Southwest US into Mexico. All Breaksny is able to do is to shout "racist" and "bigot". Frankly, its getting so tired. Its also distressing that he does not acknowledge his own bigotry, namely the fact that he is biased against white people, and in favor of brown people, of all persuasions. Its OK in his book to talk badly about white people as a group, and to make sweeping generalizations about them. He is so willing to believe that all "people of color" are victims, and all "white people" (people without color?) are the evil agressors. I wonder what he would say if I said "Black people are all shallow and spiritually dead. All they care about are material possessions-bitches, gold chains, fancy cars, designer labels, and benjamins." Its a rhetorical question, of course.

Is it possible for you to argue facts and stop calling people names?

Pat Buchanan Predicts the Death of "Gringos" by Ernesto Cienfuegos La Voz de Aztlan Los Angeles, Alta California - 12/2/2002 - (ACN) It looks like Pzifer's Sildenafil Citrate (Viagra) tablets are not working for white men if one is to believe Pat Buchanan's new book titled "The Death of the West". Mr. Buchanan is predicting the demise of white America, white Europe and even white Israel because of the greater virility and fertility of people of color. He says that by 2050 the USA will be a Third World nation largely because of Mexican immigration and birthrates. Somebody should remind Mr. Buchanan of the great Olmec, Mayan, Teotihuacan and Aztec civilizations that existed in Mexico way prior to the time that his ragged ancestors arrived at Ellis Island starving for lack of potatoes. Mr. Pat Buchanan is a white racist and a white bigot, plain and simple. He is now a "has been" and is simply race baiting and scaring white people in a last ditch effort to save his political career. It is not going to work. The ex-governor of Alta California, Pete (Pito) Wilson, tried the same thing and now he is a non-entity. The best that Pat Buchanan should hope for is to sell a few of his books to old folks in "white senior care centers" where their ungrateful sons and daughters dump them when they are no longer productive. Buchanan focuses on La Raza in a chapter he titles "La Reconquista" where he contends that an invasion of the United States is taking place and that America now harbors a “nation within a nation.” We suppose that he means Aztlan. It looks like he flunked US History 101 in college because he does not seem to know that we had missions, pueblos and ranchos around here way before "gringos" ever came to this region. He writes that radical and militant Latino and Mexican leaders are conspiring for the cultural and demographic recapture of the Southwest from America and thus reversing the results of The Mexican War. It must be that he wrote the chapter before Mayor James Hahn declared Los Angeles a Mexican city. Not only is Los Angeles a Mexican city but also San Francisco, Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Antonio, Santa Fe, El Paso, and countless other cities in the southwest. The very names of these cities indicate their history. We have been here all this time. The only difference is that we as a people have now overcome many of the oppressive and racist policies that have been imposed on us by the "gringos" like the Buchanans and the Wilsons of the USA. Perhaps Buchanan should look elsewhere for the causes of what he perceives to be "The Death of the West" instead of scapegoating people of color and specially us Mexicans in the southwest. Must we remind Mr. Buchanan of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire and other civilizations throughout the history of the human race. Are we responsible for the high homosexual and lesbian rates among white people? This is one reason why white people are not multiplying. How about the corruption in your highest levels of government? Must we remind Mr. Buchanan of the depraved sexual trysts of ex-president Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky in the White House or about Congressman Condit and his implication in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. Are we responsible for white kids committing suicide at such high rates and the shootouts at schools like the one that occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado. These incidents were all a "white thing" and we had nothing to do with them. Sometimes us Mexicans feel sad for white kids. They do seem like they are dying. A glaring example took place during the Rose Parade in Pasadena, Alta California on New Year's Day. It just happened that the Columbine High School Band made the trip to participate in the parade. Unfortunately the Columbine H.S. Band followed another high school band from Detroit. This band consisted of all black students and they put on quite a show. Watching them marching and playing their musical instruments made one want to dance. They lifted ones spirits joyously. Then came the all white Columbine High School Band. What a sorry sight. One felt sad for them instead of happy. They seemed like people out of the film "Night of the Living Dead." They seemed dead inside with no spirit. No wonder those kids went on a rampage at the high school. I could not help think that there is a very serious "spiritual" problem at Columbine High School and that this was the cause for the shootout and killing of the thirteen students. This very same phenomena can be observed elsewhere throughout white society. Drugs (i.e. Oxycontin), alcoholism, racism, bigotry, hypocrisy, greed, homosexuality and white family incest are but a few manisfestation of the white spiritual problem. Whereas people of color commit economic crimes for survival, white people are committing "spiritual" crimes because of depravity, decadence and other similar factors. Most serial murderers throughout history, including Jack the Ripper have been white. Perhaps the fundamental problem of white people is spiritual in nature and it is this that is causing "The Death of the West". The "West" has lost its moral bearings and it is now devoid of spirituality. People of color have nothing to do with this and, to the contrary, we may be the salvation of the white people who see and understand what is really happening. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check this out to see where the next wave of terrorism will come from: http://aztlan.net/

Bush's gift to Fox (Amnesty for illegals) Passes House . . Bush is pushing Congress to pass a Section 245(i) extension before he goes to Mexico on March 22. Section 245(i) is rolling amnesty. Mexico is demanding amnesty as part of its goal of occupation and conquest of parts of America. WHAT IS Section 245(i)? Section 245(i) would restore a provision allowing illegal aliens to pay the INS $1000 and remain in the country, subject to only a cursory U.S. police record check, before receiving green cards. If Section 245(i) is not revived, these illegal aliens will instead be required to return to their country of origin where their application for an immigration visa would be subject to a far more vigorous home country background investigation. The legal procedure for entering the U.S. involves a background check performed in the country of origin to ensure that the immigrant or visitor does not pose a security threat. These laws were put in place for the precise reason of protecting our homeland and preventing a national tragedy like September 11th.

Never mind that, check this out: She was 12 in the first photo. She's about 29 now.

It's not an assumption. I've been listening to your ramblings on the subject for a week. They reveal a shallow understanding.

So, given that you watch PBS regularly, why is it that you don't know the origins of the Arab/Israeli conflict?

Tancredo doubts he can block amnesty-extension bill By Bill McAllister Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief Friday, March 08, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo takes credit for thwarting the Bush administration's last effort to offer partial amnesty to thousands of illegal residents, but Thursday the outspoken immigration foe said he may have been outmaneuvered by the White House. President Bush has struck a deal with the House leadership to place legislation that offers an extension of amnesty on its consent calendar before Bush heads to Mexico for a state visit next week, the Colorado Republican said. That action should ensure quick House passage of legislation that Bush has repeatedly sought from Congress. It would allow an undocumented person to receive legal standing, such as a valid green card, by filing a declaration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It presumably also would require the person to have been in the United States by a certain date and have filed a declaration with the INS from an appropriate sponsor, such as a relative or employer, and pay a $1,000 penalty. "The terms are still up in the air," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration, a group that has been allied with Tancredo. "We've heard to the effect that the president wants something to bring down to Mexico." The initial Bush proposal, designed exclusively for Mexicans, once was high on the president's legislative wish list, but it was delayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. However, as the president noted Wednesday in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he now is pushing for the extension of the amnesty program known by the section of immigration law that covers it, Section 245I. The president hailed it as a way to reunite family, separated by the border. "If you believe in family values, if you understand the worth of family and the importance of family, let's get 245I out of the United States Congress and give me a chance to sign it," Bush told the chamber members. Tancredo, the head of a congressional caucus on immigration issues and proponent of halting virtually all immigration, said he had blocked a previous attempt by Bush to push an extension of the amnesty program through the House. But this time, he said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., had agreed to place the issue on the suspension, or consent, calendar, making it difficult to defeat the proposal. The Senate might be more favorable to the bill than the House, expanding the numbers of individuals who can apply, Tancredo said.

Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, deserves our moral support The Sunday Independent (Ireland) | Sunday March 10th 2002 Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, deserves our moral support, says Declan McCormack IT'S open season for Jew-bashing in the West at the moment. As the Middle East's only democracy is subjected to wave after wave of vicious terrorist attacks by Palestinian gunmen and suicide bombers the pious West and the sanctimoniously 'liberal' Western media lay the blame firmly where it has always lain with the Jews. Yes, while every other democracy in the 'free world' claims a sovereign God-given right to extirpate terrorism and to protect their innocent citizens from the evil deeds of men and women of violence, the Jewish state of Israel is supposed to take the vicious, murderous attacks on its citizens lying down and presumably apologising for its existence, for the Jewish people's history and for 'going on about' the Holocaust. The Jews were, after all, made to be attacked, annihilated and scapegoated. First the pogrom, then the expulsion, then the name-calling. How odd of God to choose the Jews, indeed. But, of course, no-one even the rabidly pro-Palestinian Western media really approves of these attacks on ordinary Jews. No-one, that is, except the gore-glorying mobs who celebrate every blood-bedraggled mission by dancing in the little streets of the Palestinian townships. We in the West would rather ithe ordinary Israelis who travel on buses or who attend bar-mitzvahs or eat as a family in pizza parlours weren't blown to pieces by Palestinian suicide bombers because it doesn't square with our cherished notion that the poor Palestinian freedom fighters are being savagely bullied by the US-backed fascist colonial Semitic superpower that is Israel. Little urchin catapault-wielders fighting against Merkava tanks and Hellfire missile-shooting fighter jets. Of course, all Palestinian violence is mere retaliation. Sure, wouldn't you blow yourself up right beside a mother and her small children if you had to queue everyday at checkpoints? Sure, we all know that Ariel Sharon is worse than Hitler. Remember the Lebanese massacres. (How could you ever forget when they're mentioned in every news reports even as the blown-to-pieces bodies of Israeli children are picked off the streets of Jerusalem.) Don't, of course, mention the 1997 suicide bomb which killed 13 Israelis in Jerusalem just after Israel had given the PLO control of Hebron. It doesn't really fit in with this schema whereby all Palestinian violence is just the understandable reaction of a downtrodden people to the gratuitous incursions and the targeted killings by Israel. Don't mention, either, the fact that while Israel only targets terrorists who endanger the lives of their families by using them as human shields (thus the killing of the Hamas leader's family last week, for which Israel apologised) while the lovely, generous Palestinians (as described on Liveline last Tuesday) support terrorist organisations who kill Israelis at random. But then they're only Israelis. Jews. And what are they doing in Zion, anyway. Zionists! Fascists! Colonists! And so the West lends immoral support to the Palestinians and delivers high-minded lectures to Israel about 'how to handle terrorists without hurting anyone'. Lesson one when, eh, we haven't worked out the details yet. The Swedes are very good at giving this advice. They had a great record in the last war facilitating Nazi steel transportations. And, of course, the UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson, formerly President of neutral Ireland, has been getting up on her high nelly lecturing Israel and telling them to be respectful of minorities. Especially, one presumes, suicide bombers at bus-stops. It wasn't that long ago since Ms Robinson was emoting about how she herself was a Jew (back in August last year in South Africa, to be precise). She might just show a little consideration for the embattled and terrorised Jews of Israel now. She might also bear in mind that someone else recently announced in public that he was a Jew. The kidnapped Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl was forced by his captors to say on video in a sick parody of the Palestinian Martyrs' final self-glorifying videos that he was a Jew and that his father was a Jew and his mother a Jew. That said, his Muslim captors slit his throat and cut off his head. Nice people. In the ongoing Middle Eastern and potentially worldwide battle between Islam and Judaism it is sincerely to be hoped that this time out some European countries may learn the lesson of their obscene history and bring themselves to say and mean that 'in that case, I'm a Jew'. They could start by giving moral support to the only democratic state in the middle east as it tries to quell a coldly calculated uprising inspired by little else except the ideology and praxis of terrorism and the undiluted anti-Semitic hatred of the toxic wing of Islam.

Actually it has everything to do with us.

Anyway, back to my original post. The reason I posted it is because it makes me sick that this piece of shit prince is making money off Sept. 11. That sick country spawned 11 of those hijackers, and it was bad enough that the prince tried to use his money to influence our govt., but in the WSJ today he was quoted as saying that he was only taking advantage of the fact that Sept 11 caused the stocks to drop to "ridiculously low prices", that he would have been a fool not to have taken advantage. What a piece of shit. Why doesn't he use some of his money and influence to do something about the piece of shit terrorists that his country is producing? Now he practically owns AOL/Time Warner and whats gonna happen now? Is he going to use these companies to spread Arab/Palestinian anti American propaganda? He has always owned a lot of CNN and does anyone remember after Sept 11, CNN refused to refer to it as a terrorist attack? They kept calling it a "disaster" and a "tragedy" and "the recent tragic events" Why wouldn't they just call it what it was? They also turned the coverage away from the fact that it was a terrorist attack and chose to cover the "human interest" side of it. Like stories about the "heroes" and such. Obviously, they were trying to be uncontroversial and not offend the Muslims. Also deliberately trying to divert attention away so that Americans wouldn't get too angry, cause apparantly, Americans aren't allowed to be angry about this.

Who gives a flying fuck about Koppel or any of the network anchors. The writing is on the wall for the networks. Their newscasts are on the third grade level. Half the time is spent lecturing people "It's cold outside, make sure you wear a hat and coat" Or "Its hot outside, make sure you drink lots of water". The anchors are irrelevant at this point. Anyone with any brains at all watches cable news, and ITN and others for other perspectives. The networks are dead, and deserve to be, they might as well put Letterman and maybe Seinfeld on in their place. PBS is horrible. Besides blatantly slanting the news to the left, they are SOOOOO boring to watch. Charlie Rose just puts me to sleep. He's so horrible. PBS has a bunch of granola heads running the show. They don't show anything of any interest to most people. Basically they put on shows that are interesting to them and their friends. If they weren't being funded by the govt. they would have been dead long ago.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID ASSHOLE COMMENT IS THAT?

I think you're just an anglophile, thats why you think the BBC is so great, but I'll tell you this: I just spent a month in England and the people there didn't know anything about anything. The coverage on the war was abysmal, sandwiched between endless football games and stories about petty corruption in the government. I would say they devoted about 5 minutes a day to the war. Almost all their news was local. Hardly any world news at all. It was just as bad as the networks here. The biggest topic on the news was trying to convince the people that they should switch to the Euro. Their news is totally British and Eurocentric, unless their doing some puff piece about Africa or something. Total crap.

Basically, you think the BBC is better because they are more left wing, and you agree with that point of view. Your grasp of the conflict indicates that you haven't read much about it, that you are getting all your info from the tv news, which only deals with the here and now, but doesn't give the origins of the conflict, which happens to be necessary to understand it. That probably explains why you don't know anything pre-1967, cause thats all they talk about in the news.

How can you say that? How can they be balanced on one thing, and censor another? The very fact that they blatantly censored a topic that was unfavorable to the British government, shows that they are not to be entirely trusted. My advice is to not depend on tv for your news. Try reading instead. (and I'm not talking about the NY times either. You have a computer, there's no excuse.)