deepak1977

yes, plus he is barred from entering costa rica, an order issued by none other than former president and nobel peace prize winner oscar arias sanchez. sanchez decided to ban north and other contra figures from entering the oldest democracy in latin america, because the contra resupply network in costa rica, which was coordinated by north from the white house was doubled as a drug smuggling operation. the costa rican government became suspicious about large shipments of drugs arriving at the ranch of john hull, an american who north said we must protect. north was also responsible for the participation of general manuel noriega. along with north, the costa ricans have barred:maj. gen. richard secord, former national security advisor john poindexter, former us ambassador to costa rica lewis tambs, and former cia station chief in costa rica joseph fernandez. all of the findings by the costa ricans were confirmed by the us senate subcomittee, independant journalists & lawyers, as well as north's own journals.

that's even worse, there should be absolutley no talkn'. the most you'll get out of me is a "hi". isn't it funny, how two guys who are the best of friends would not say a word to each other, acting as they were total strangers in the bathroom. yet, if two girls who don't know each other go in the bathroom at the same time, they would come out talking to each other as if they knew one another for years.

the inspections are not a farce, according to the 1999 unscom reports, iraq had significantly reduced their nuclear and chemical weapons. especially since the us and uk stopped giving them weapons. whatever the iraqis have left, it cannot be used as a threat against it's neighbors nor the us. in 1998, iraqi officials cooperated with richard butler's team, until they had evidence of the inspectors were spying. according to the Washington Post, butler admitted to taking cues from the american military, and the us government admitted to use the unscom inspectors as spies. further more, what incentive does saddam's regime have with cooperating with the inspectors. it is us policy to keep the sanctions, until there is a regime change, regardless of how much iraq reduces it's arrsennal? despite such charges, the un has admitted that the iraqi government has cooperated. NO, i mean the united states, we're the ones who supported this guy. we supported saddam since he was just a baath party thug in the 1950's, where he would frequently visit the cia offices in cairo. we assisted him in the coup of 1963. we are the ones who gave him the weapons technology that allowed him to carry out war crimes against the iranians and their supporters. to even say that our tilt towards iraq was a good policy is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. it is such policies that we are now paying the consequences for. we supported bin ladin and the mujahadeens in afghanistan, we supported zia's islamization of pakistan, we supported saddam hussien, all of these alliances is coming back to haunt us. if we have leaders that can think ahead, and understand the consequences of their actions, we wouldn't have masses of people cheering when the towers came down.

she's a hottie, glad to see she kept in shape:D

there is no contridiction in the letter, because ali is criticizing the hypocracy in both american foreign policy and islamic society. ali's opinion has always been in favor of society that respects democracy and human dignity.

"The first film is about the life of Hossein Sabzian, who was the main character of Abbas Kiarostami's drama-documentary called Close Up. A few years after Kiarostami's film, I went to visit Sabzian. He loves cinema. His wife and children get frustrated with him and finally leave him. Today, he lives in a village on the outskirts of Tehran and has come to the conclusion that his love for cinema has resulted in nothing but misery. In my film he says, 'People like me get destroyed in societies like the one we live in. We can never present ourselves. There are two types of dead: flat and walking. We are the walking dead!'" We could find stories like this and worse in every Muslim country. There is a big difference between the Muslims of the diaspora - those whose parents migrated to the western lands - and those who still live in the House of Islam. The latter are far more critical because religion is not crucial to their identity. It's taken for granted that they are Muslims. In Europe and North America things are different. Here an official multiculturalism has stressed difference at the expense of all else. Its rise correlates with a decline in radical politics as such. "Culture" and "religion" are softer, euphemistic substitutes for socioeconomic inequality - as if diversity, rather than hierarchy, were the central issue in North American or European society today. I have spoken to Muslims from the Maghreb (France), from Anatolia (Germany); from Pakistan and Bangladesh (Britain), from everywhere (United States) and a South Asian sprinkling in Scandinavia. Why is it, I often ask myself, that so many are like you? They have become much more orthodox and rigid than the robust and vigorous peasants of Kashmir and the Punjab, whom I used to know so well. The British prime minister is a great believer in single-faith schools. The American president ends each speech with "God Save America". Osama starts and ends each TV interview by praising Allah. All three have the right to do so, just as I have the right to remain committed to most of the values of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment attacked religion - Christianity, mainly - for two reasons: that it was a set of ideological delusions, and that it was a system of institutional oppression, with immense powers of persecution and intolerance. Why should we abandon either of these legacies today? I don't want you to misunderstand me. My aversion to religion is by no means confined to Islam alone. And nor do I ignore the role which religious ideologies have played in the past in order to move the world forward. It was the ideological clashes between two rival interpretations of Christianity - the Protestant Reformation versus the Catholic Counter-Reformation - that led to volcanic explosions in Europe. Here was an example of razor-sharp intellectual debates fuelled by theological passions, leading to a civil war, followed by a revolution. The 16th-century Dutch revolt against Spanish occupation was triggered off by an assault on sacred images in the name of confessional correctness. The introduction of a new prayer book in Scotland was one of the causes of the 17th-century Puritan Revolution in England, the refusal to tolerate Catholicism sparked off its successor in 1688. The intellectual ferment did not cease and a century later the ideas of the Enlightenment stoked the furnaces of revolutionary France. The Church of England and the Vatican now combined to contest the new threat, but ideas of popular sovereignty and republics were too strong to be easily obliterated. I can almost hear your question. What has all this got to do with us? A great deal, my friend. Western Europe had been fired by theological passions, but these were now being transcended. Modernity was on the horizon. This was a dynamic that the culture and economy of the Ottoman Empire could never mimic. The Sunni-Shia divide had come too soon and congealed into rival dogmas. Dissent had, by this time, been virtually wiped out in Islam. The Sultan, flanked by his religious scholars, ruled a state-Empire that was going to wither away and die. If this was already the case in the 18th century, how much truer it is today. Perhaps the only way in which Muslims will discover this is through their own experiences, as in Iran. The rise of religion is partially explained by the lack of any other alternative to the universal regime of neoliberalism. Here you will discover that as long as Islamist governments open their countries to global penetration, they will be permitted to do what they want in the sociopolitical realm. The American Empire used Islam before and it can do so again. Here lies the challenge. We are in desperate need of an Islamic Reformation that sweeps away the crazed conservatism and backwardness of the fundamentalists but, more than that, opens up the world of Islam to new ideas which are seen to be more advanced than what is currently on offer from the west. This would necessitate a rigid separation of state and mosque; the dissolution of the clergy; the assertion by Muslim intellectuals of their right to interpret the texts that are the collective property of Islamic culture as a whole; the freedom to think freely and rationally and the freedom of imagination. Unless we move in this direction we will be doomed to reliving old battles and thinking not of a richer and humane future, but of how we can move from the present to the past. It is an unacceptable vision. I've let my pen run away with me and preached my heresies for too long. I doubt that I will change, but I hope you will" i know it's long, but it's worth reading

For the west, democracy means believing in exactly the same things that they believe. Is that really democracy? If we elected our own government, in one or two countries people might elect Islamists. Would the west leave us alone? Did the French government leave the Algerian military alone? No. They insisted that the elections of 1990 and 1991 be declared null and void. French intellectuals described the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) as "Islamo-fascists", ignoring the fact that they had won an election. Had they been allowed to become the government, divisions already present within them would have come to the surface. The army could have warned that any attempt to tamper with the rights guaranteed to citizens under the constitution would not be tolerated. It was only when the original leaders of the FIS had been eliminated that the more lumpen elements came to the fore and created mayhem. Should we blame them for the civil war, or those in Algiers and Paris who robbed them of their victory? The massacres in Algeria are horrendous. Is it only the Islamists who are responsible? What happened in Bentalha, 10 miles south of Algiers, on the night of September 22, 1997? Who slaughtered the 500 men, women and children of that township? Who? The Frenchman who knows everything, Bernard-Henri Lévy, is sure it was the Islamists who perpetrated this dreadful deed. Then why did the army deny the local population arms to defend itself? Why did it tell the local militia to go away that night? Why did the security forces not intervene when they could see what was going on? Why does M Lévy believe that the Maghreb has to be subordinated to the needs of the French republic, and why does nobody attack this sort of fundamentalism? We know what we have to do, say the Arabs, but every time the west intervenes it sets our cause back many years. So if they want to help, they should stay out. That's what my Arab friends say, and I agree with this approach. Look at Iran. The western gaze turned benevolent during the assault on Afghanistan. Iran was needed for the war, but let the west watch from afar. The imperial fundamentalists are talking about the "axis of evil", which includes Iran. An intervention there would be fatal. A new generation has experienced clerical oppression. It has known nothing else. Stories about the shah are part of its prehistory. These young men and women are sure about one thing if nothing else. They don't want the ayatollahs to rule them any more. Even though Iran, in recent years, has not been as bad as Saudi Arabia or the late "Emirate of Afghanistan", it has not been good for the people. Let me tell you a story. A couple of years ago I met a young Iranian film-maker in Los Angeles. His name was Moslem Mansouri. He had managed to escape with several hours of filmed interviews for a documentary he was making. He had won the confidence of three Tehran prostitutes and filmed them for more than two years. He showed me some of the footage. They talked to him quite openly. They described how the best pick-ups were at religious festivals. I got a flavour of the film from the transcripts he sent me. One of the women tells him: "Today everyone is forced to sell their bodies! Women like us have to tolerate a man for 10,000 toomans. Young people need to be in a bed together, even for 10 minutes . . . It is a primary need . . . it calms them down. "When the government does not allow it, then prostitution grows. We don't even need to talk about prostitution, the government has taken away the right to speak with the opposite sex freely in public . . . In the parks, in the cinemas, or in the streets, you can't talk to the person sitting next to you. On the streets, if you talk to a man, the 'Islamic guard' interrogates you endlessly. Today in our country, nobody is satisfied! Nobody has security. I went to a company to get a job. The manager of the company, a bearded guy, looked at my face and said, 'I will hire you and I'll give you 10,000 toomans more than the pay rate.' I said, 'You can at least test my computer skills to see if I'm proficient or not . . .' He said, 'I hire you for your looks!' I knew that if I had to work there, I had to have sex with him at least once a day. "Wherever you go it's like this! I went to a special family court - for divorce - and begged the judge, a clergyman, to give me my child's custody. I told him, 'Please . . . I beg you to give me the custody of my child. I'll be your Kaniz . . . ["Kaniz" means servant. This is a Persian expression which basically means 'I beg you, I am very desperate'.] What do you think the guy said? He said, 'I don't need a servant! I need a woman!' What do you expect of others when the clergyman, the head of the court, says this? I went to the officer to get my divorce signed, instead he said I should not get divorced and instead get married again without divorce, illegally. Because he said without a husband it will be hard to find a job. He was right, but I didn't have money to pay him . . . These things make you age faster . . . you get depressed . . . you have a lot of stress and it damages you. Perhaps there is a means to get out of this . . . " Moslem was distraught because none of the American networks wanted to buy the film. They didn't want to destabilise Khatami's regime! Moslem himself is a child of the Revolution. Without it he would never have become a film-maker. He comes from a very poor family. His father is a muezzin and his upbringing was ultra-religious. Now he hates religion. He refused to fight in the war against Iraq. He was arrested. This experience transformed him. "The prison was a hard but good experience for me. It was in the prison that I felt I am reaching a stage of intellectual maturity. I was resisting and I enjoyed my sense of strength. I felt that I saved my life from the corrupted world of clergies and this is a price I was paying for it. I was proud of it. After one year in prison, they told me that I would be released on the condition that I sign papers stating that I will participate in Friday sermons and religious activities. I refused to sign. They kept me in the prison for one more year." Afterwards he took a job on a film magazine as a reporter. "I thought my work in the media would serve as a cover for my own projects, which were to document the hideous crimes of the political regime itself. I knew that I would not be able to make the kind of films I really want to make due to the censorship regulations. Any scenario that I would write would have never got the permission of the Islamic censorship office. I knew that my time and energy would get wasted. So I decided to make eight documentaries secretly. I smuggled the footage out of Iran. Due to financial problems I've only been able to finish editing two of my films. One is Close Up, Long Shot and the other is Shamloo, The Poet Of Liberty.

What do the Islamists offer? A route to a past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. If the "Emirate of Afghanistan" is the model for what they want to impose on the world then the bulk of Muslims would rise up in arms against them. Don't imagine that either Osama or Mullah Omar represent the future of Islam. It would be a major disaster for the culture we both share if that turned out to be the case. Would you want to live under those conditions? Would you tolerate your sister, your mother or the woman you love being hidden from public view and only allowed out shrouded like a corpse? I want to be honest with you. I opposed this latest Afghan war. I do not accept the right of big powers to change governments as and when it affects their interests. But I did not shed any tears for the Taliban as they shaved their beards and ran back home. This does not mean that those who have been captured should be treated like animals or denied their elementary rights according to the Geneva convention, but as I've argued elsewhere, the fundamentalism of the American Empire has no equal today. They can disregard all conventions and laws at will. The reason they are openly mistreating prisoners they captured after waging an illegal war in Afghanistan is to assert their power before the world - hence they humiliate Cuba by doing their dirty work on its soil - and warn others who attempt to twist the lion's tail that the punishment will be severe. I remember how, during the cold war, the CIA and its indigenous recruits tortured political prisoners and raped them in many parts of Latin America. During the Vietnam war the US violated most of the Geneva conventions. They tortured and executed prisoners, raped women, threw prisoners out of helicopters to die on the ground or drown in the sea, and all this, of course, in the name of freedom. Because many people in the west believe the nonsense about "humanitarian interventions", they are shocked by these acts, but this is relatively mild compared with the crimes committed in the last century by the Empire. I've met many of our people in different parts of the world since September 11. One question is always repeated: "Do you think we Muslims are clever enough to have done this?" I always answer "Yes". Then I ask who they think is responsible, and the answer is invariably "Israel". Why? "To discredit us and make the Americans attack our countries." I gently expose their wishful illusions, but the conversation saddens me. Why are so many Muslims sunk in this torpor? Why do they wallow in so much self-pity? Why is their sky always overcast? Why is it always someone else who is to blame? Sometimes when we talk I get the impression that there is not a single Muslim country of which they can feel really proud. Those who have migrated from South Asia are much better treated in Britain than in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States. It is here that something has to happen. The Arab world is desperate for a change. Over the years, in every discussion with Iraqis, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians, the same questions are raised, the same problems recur. We are suffocating. Why can't we breathe? Everything seems static: our economy, our politics, our intellectuals and, most of all, our religion. Palestine suffers every day. The west does nothing. Our governments are dead. Our politicians are corrupt. Our people are ignored. Is it surprising that some are responsive to the Islamists? Who else offers anything these days? The US? It doesn't even want democracy, not even in little Qatar, and for a very simple reason. If we elected our own governments they might demand that the US close down its bases. Would it? They already resent al-Jazeera television because it has different priorities from them. It was fine when al-Jazeera attacked corruption within the Arab elite. Thomas Friedman even devoted a whole column to praise of al-Jazeera in the New York Times. He saw it as a sign of democracy coming to the Arab world. No longer. Because democracy means the right to think differently, and al-Jazeera showed pictures of the Afghan war that were not shown on the US networks, so Bush and Blair put pressure on Qatar to stop unfriendly broadcasts.

tariq ali, writes this wonderfully illustrated letter to a muslim he right after 9/11. although ali was raised in a traditional muslim home in pakistan, he is an atheist and due to his radical beliefs his family made him leave pakistan for the uk. i hope this can allow people to look at the middle east differently, regardless of your political views. he understands the anger of young muslims, but argues not to turn to the beliefs of bin ladin. "Dear friend Remember when you approached me after the big antiwar meeting in November 2001 (I think it was Glasgow) and asked whether I was a believer? I have not forgotten the shock you registered when I replied "no", or the comment of your friend ("our parents warned us against you"), or the angry questions which the pair of you then began to hurl at me like darts. All of that made me think, and this is my reply for you and all the others like you who asked similar questions elsewhere in Europe and North America. When we spoke, I told you that my criticism of religion and those who use it for political ends was not a case of being diplomatic in public. Exploiters and manipulators have always used religion self-righteously to further their own selfish ends. It's true that this is not the whole story. There are, of course, deeply sincere people of religion in different parts of the world who genuinely fight on the side of the poor, but they are usually in conflict with organised religion themselves. The Catholic Church victimised worker or peasant priests who organised against oppression. The Iranian ayatollahs dealt severely with Muslims who preached in favour of a social radicalism. If I genuinely believed that this radical Islam was the way forward for humanity, I would not hesitate to say so in public, whatever the consequences. I know that many of your friends love chanting the name "Osama" and I know that they cheered on September 11, 2001. They were not alone. It happened all over the world, but had nothing to do with religion. I know of Argentine students who walked out when a teacher criticised Osama. I know a Russian teenager who emailed a one-word message - "Congratulations" - to his Russian friends whose parents had settled outside New York, and they replied: "Thanks. It was great." We talked, I remember, of the Greek crowds at football matches who refused to mourn for the two minutes the government had imposed and instead broke the silence with anti-American chants. But none of this justifies what took place. What lies behind the vicarious pleasure is not a feeling of strength, but a terrible weakness. The people of Indo-China suffered more than any Muslim country at the hands of the US government. They were bombed for 15 whole years and lost millions of their people. Did they even think of bombing America? Nor did the Cubans or the Chileans or the Brazilians. The last two fought against the US-imposed military regimes at home and finally triumphed. Today, people feel powerless. And so when America is hit they celebrate. They don't ask what such an act will achieve, what its consequences will be and who will benefit. Their response, like the event itself, is purely symbolic. I think that Osama and his group have reached a political dead-end. It was a grand spectacle, but nothing more. The US, in responding with a war, has enhanced the importance of the action, but I doubt if even that will rescue it from obscurity in the future. It will be a footnote in the history of this century. In political, economic or military terms it was barely a pinprick. continue

i have heard this question over and over from chickenhawks, that no matter how many times i've offered them alternatives, they don't listen. here are 6 -let the inspections continue, share information with hans blix and others about a "smoking gun". let them verify there is a link between saddam's regime and al qaeda. the inspectors never had a chance to finish their job. contrary to popular belief, saddam never threw them out in 1998. according to the Washington Post, 12/18/98 , richard butler, head of the inspections, ordered his crew to leave iraq in anticipation of american bombing. how do we know that inspections do not work, when we never let them complete their job and fully support their efforts? -sign onto the international criminal court and bring formal charges against saddam and the baath party. the international community-including arab states-would be more willing to support an effort to apprehend them and bring them to the hauge. -expose and seek out justice for those corporations that have provided saddam with weapons' technology during the 1980's. also those who created american policy to "tilt" towards iraq during the iraq-iran war should also be tried, including don rumsfeld. after all, it wasn't the peace protesters that gave saddam his weapons of mass destruction, nor it was them that gave him intellegence about the iraqi monarchy when he was just a party thug in the baath party. -while keeping military sanctions on iraq, lift the barring of humanitarian aid to iraq. under the current conditions, about 30% of the iraqi oil revenue generated goes to kuwait and the un as reprerations for the gulf war. this has greatly limited what can be imported. plus the united states determines what gets imported into iraq. the state department have intentionally prevented various medical supplies to come in, such as chemotherapy drugs. not only have these sanctions have killed 500,000 children, but they have only made saddam more popular. by lifting these parts of the sanctions, we can undermine his popularity. -support the un resolution that declares all of the middle east to be a nuclear free zone, that includes israel too. -the bush administration must support the peace process between the israelis and the palestineans. they must support a peace plan, where the palestineans get a state that is made up of the gaza strip and all of the west bank, israel must dismantle all settlements, and have east jerusalem as their capital. in return, palestineans will give up the right to return to israel, arab states must normalize relations with israel and recognize their right to exist, and have a un peace keeping force to protect israel from outside aggression. "Fighting for peace is like fu*king for virginity" Richard Nixon

well, i would not say that limiting our dependance on foreign oil will end all terrorism, but it is no doubt a part of the solution. poverty and a feeling of hoplessness is a major cause of terrorism in the world. not only do we need a serious investment in alternative fuels, but also we need to look at urban planning. through proper urban planning we can have efficient mass transit to move around. however, bush is too obcessed with giving the wealthy more money that he couldn't care less about limiting our oil dependancy.

there is no human being on earth-with the exception of osama bin ladin and the enron execs-that repulses me as much as mariah carey. i'm sorry, she's hot, but God i can't stand her. maybe it is the fact that she got paid NOT to sing for her record label that makes her so useless to humanity. plus after seeing her cribs episode, my opinion of her as a person just plumeted. God, i can't stand her, but i have nothing against those who want to bang her. after all that's probably all she's good for.

considering bush cut federal spending on alternative fuels by 50% during his first days in office, giving tax breaks to suv drivers doesn't suprise me.

please don't put that image in my head, i'm trying to eat here.

he's not going to run dry anytime soon, because he owns the rights to the beatles' music, which will keep pumping cash into his bank account.

January 08, 2002 Rationalizing Racism: Panic And Profiling After 9/11 By Tim Wise Random security checks. That’s what they’re called anyway: those extra bag searches and body scans being done at airports across the U.S., presumably to deter a new round of terrorist attacks. On each flight, a handful of passengers are pulled aside and given additional scrutiny, despite having gone through souped-up metal detectors and having their luggage scanned and examined far more intently than prior to 9/11. Having traveled on 40 flights since that fateful day, I’ve had the chance to observe how these "random" checks are being done. And I can say without fear of contradiction that the only time randomness comes into play is on those flights where there are no persons of Arab or Middle Eastern descent present. Otherwise, the random selection begins to bear a striking resemblance to blatant racial and ethnic profiling. The wrong last name or skin shade, or even better, a hijab, turban or other religiously-identifiable head covering, are just a few of the factors that the "random" computer selections seem to miraculously pick out every time. Even Latinos, whose ethnicity isn’t readily apparent to the ticket takers, are facing additional scrutiny. I recently observed a nervous gate crew eyeing four young men on a flight from Nashville: this despite the fact that even under the overbroad anti-Arab profiling that has become so common, they hardly "fit the description." Their names, (which I learned by peeking at their boarding passes), were Martinez, Melendez, and Rodriguez. They all spoke Spanish, their final destination was Guadalajara, and one was flying with his girlfriend and their newborn baby. But their appearance got every one of them pulled out of line. I’ve even had the occasion to watch two white women singled out by ticket agents who saw their last names--Rashidi and Habib--and assumed the worst. Although they continued the searches even after realizing their mistake, one could hardly miss the embarrassment on their faces. Inconveniencing white folks after all, is never one’s desire. In addition to profiling in airports, one might also consider the rounding up of over a thousand immigrants from the Middle East, almost none of whom have ties to al-Qaeda or any terrorist group, but whom the Administration wants detained anyway. Likewise, the 5000 or so whom Attorney General Ashcroft wants interviewed by local police, despite no reasonably inferred connection between them and terrorist organizations. Again, nationality and ethnicity suffice in the eyes of officialdom, to justify suspicion and differential treatment. To many, complaints about such measures may seem trivial. ‘What’s the big deal?’ ask some. Isn’t security worth the mild inconvenience to those singled out? But as with all other racial profiling, the present incarnation is every bit as unjust and irrational. Despite calls from many quarters for even more profiling, under the rubric of good "common sense," the fact remains that it is not sensible at all. To single out persons of a particular nationality or ethnicity, or to heighten one’s suspicion of such a group is blatantly unjust. It is in fact plainly racist, as such generalized suspicion, fear, and mistreatment never seem to attach to white folks, no matter what profile we may fit. After the Oklahoma City bombing, white men were not singled out, held incommunicado, rounded up for questioning, nor quizzed when trying to rent moving vans. Indeed, I rented a Ryder truck shortly after McVeigh blew one of their fleet sky-high, along with the Murrah Building. And despite being a white guy, with short hair, no one said a word to me, nor asked for a deposit up front, just in case I decided to load it up with fertilizer and ammonium nitrate and take out a city block. Although white supremacist and militia groups most certainly came in for additional scrutiny in the aftermath of McVeigh’s act of mass murder, notice the difference between that response and what is happening now: in the former instance, only very specific kinds of white people became possible suspects. In the latter case, there is a general response of fear towards all persons fitting the physical, ethnic, and religious description of the terrorists. Even the bombing of Afghanistan can be viewed as racially selective. After all, if the attackers of 9/11 had been members of the Irish Republican Army, it is simply inconceivable that we would have ripped up the real estate of Dublin as punishment. So despite the cavalier claims by many whites that anti-Arab profiling is no big deal, and that they would be happy to be profiled if white guys had been behind the attacks in September, the fact remains, whether willing or not, they would never have had to worry about such a response. And that’s the point. Even when law enforcement operates with a profile in mind that involves white men--as in the case of serial killers--it never results in random harassment of white guys. Having walked around Spokane, Washington on many occasions, all the while "fitting the description" of any number of serial killers whom the area seems to breed like rabbits, I can attest to never once feeling under suspicion, nor being stopped and frisked, searched or even asked the time of day by law enforcement officials. And with the FBI announcing in October that recent anthrax attacks are almost certainly domestic in origin, and even likely the work of far-right or neo-nazi groups, "rational" profiling would then dictate that white men who have had access to government or private labs working with anthrax be rounded up and questioned. But don’t expect that to happen, though it likely would have had the source appeared to be Middle Eastern in origin. Even beyond the sheer injustice of generalized suspicion and mistreatment of specific groups, is the simple reality that such tactics are not likely to boost security one iota. First off, any terrorist linked to al-Qaeda seeking to engage in further acts of mayhem, would likely pick other means for carrying out planned attacks: means that would not be given to the kinds of security measures now in place at airports. Secondly, if such persons were to attempt more hijackings it is unlikely that they would make use of the same kinds of folks as those who carried out the attacks of 9/11. Al-Qaeda, it should be recalled, has members who are Sudanese, Somali, Indonesian, and Filipino: none of whom would necessarily, by virtue of their appearance or names, touch off suspicion. In addition, airline bombings could still be carried out, with explosives checked under the plane, and placed in the luggage of unassuming travelers whose names would be less likely to trigger a bag check. Smith or Jones, for instance. Profiling and special scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims would also inevitably result in the letting down of one’s guard, relative to other possible threats. Just as white suburban school shootings or workplace murders are made more likely by the belief that such things "can’t happen here," (since crime and violence are thought to be the province of the dark or poor), so too could the extra attention given to those perceived as possible Middle Eastern terrorists result in too little caution applied elsewhere. Neo-nazis, anti-abortion militants, and assorted domestic nuts of all stripes will be able to fly below radar, while the rest of us remain fixated on stopping every guy named Mohammed for questioning. And by engaging in selective profiling and harassment of certain groups, we can only succeed in sowing more mistrust among those targeted. Such a result would certainly not bode well for any real attempts at fighting terrorism. After all, if people really do have information about terrorist plots, but are unwilling to come forward for fear that they may become suspects themselves--or merely because they view law enforcement as implacably arrayed against them in an unfair manner--then the cooperation sought and required for truly effective counterterrorism efforts will be hampered. Just as antiblack profiling increases resentment in the black community, so too will such actions reap discord among Arabs, Muslims, or those perceived as either. What’s more, if the government sends the message that certain people are to be considered more dangerous based solely on their color, national origin, religion, or name, then they are implicitly encouraging individuals in the society to also treat such persons differently, or in a discriminatory fashion. And with that, comes the real possibility of bias crime, harassment, and even violence by weak-minded individuals who figure that if their leaders say certain folks are a problem, then perhaps they should take things into their own hands. Already, there have been roughly one thousand cases of physical violence or harassment against persons perceived as Arab or Muslim. Such incidents can only increase as officials send forth the message that these persons are dangerous. The bottom line is this: unless we are prepared to profile every group equally when their members are disproportionate among certain wrongdoers, then it is unjust and racist to engage in such practice selectively. Until whites are subjected to random searches, home invasions, highway stops, and other mistreatment for the negative actions in which we lead the pack--such as drunk driving, drug use, mass murder and serial killing, shoplifting, kidnapping, and child sexual molestation among them--then any suggestion that we should give our blessing to the singling out of those fitting this year’s "terrorist" profile is simply an excuse for the systematic oppression of weaker groups by the more powerful. A decent people should say no to such insanity.

bobby hull vs. brett hull-father and son peter ferraro vs chris ferraro-twin brothers(they're both minor league hockey players) gordie howe vs mark howe-father and son bob boone vs. brett boone-father and son

adam graves, brian leetch, mark messier, and mike richter are the athletes that i admire the most. not only did the four were the heart and soul of the greatest ranger team, but they have done so much for new york city. they have been active with various charities throughout the city and gave underprivlege kids an opportunity to play hockey through hockey in harlem. they really made the rangers be a part of new york.

saddam is a threat to those who he percieves is a threat to his power. meaning, only when he is threatened, he'll attack. hell, he killed his own son-in-law, because he defected to jordan. saddam has a stalin-like paranoia that makes him too concerned about maintaining his own power that he doesn't have time to expand to other areas. this guy is no hitler, becasue hitler's mission was to expand the third reich. he's stalin, who just wanted absolute power over what he already had. he invaded iran, but only after iran tried to assinate high ranking iraqi officials, carried out border raids, and called for spreading the revolution to iraq. remember, ayotollah ruhollah khamienie was exiled in iraq during the shah's regime. meanwhile, kuwait had issues with iraq, such as war debts and oil prices. when the us embassy in baghdad said it will not interfere with inter-arab issues, saddam was given a green light to invade. another thing to consider, is that all of saddam's victims were isolated and could not match his strength. the kurds, the shittes, other iraqi's, all couldn't match his power. even when launched scuds at israel in the gulf war, he was able to do it, because he knew israel won't retaliate. he will not use wmd's, because we have bigger and better wmd's, and so does israel. sharon has made it clear, that he will not think twice of retaliating, should saddam attack israel again. the guy is neurotic, but he's no idiot, he knows what would happen if he attacked the us.

well there are plenty of alternatives out there. -first off, fully cooperate with hans blix and the other inspectors, give them all the support they need. share actual intellegence with them. blix questioned many of the things that colin powell brought up in the un, saying they found no info pertaining to those specified sites. remember, the inspectors never had a chance to completley finish their job. while there is a common perception is that saddam had kicked the inspectors out in 1998, it is a myth. according to the Washington Post, 12/18/98, the inspectors, led by richard butler, left iraq VOLUNTARILY, in anticipation of a military attack. -restructure the sanctions, such that humanitarian aid can be delievered, while a military sanction is intact. under the current conditions, up to 30% of the money generated from the oil for food program is given to the un and kuwait as reperaitions for the gulf. this cut severly prevents need supplies from being aquired. also, it is the un and the state department that determines what iraq can buy and what it can't. the state department has put alot of restrictions on what iraq can buy, that even basic neccessities like chemotheraphy drugs can't be brought into the country. also the us has prohibited NGO's from bringing in medicine to help the needy. as a result over 500,000 children had died due to the sanctions. by ending the sanctions or at least the humanitarian sanctions, you would undermind saddam's popularity. -have the bush addministration sign on to the ICC, and file charges against saddam. it is time that the bush administration and the rest of america realize that we are part of a global community, whether they like it or not. through joining we can show legitimacy in our claims and gain the support of the international community. plus, if we can get milosovic and the nuns & priests that took part in the rwandan genocide in court, why not saddam. -expose the corporations that have supplied saddam with weapons' technology in the 1980's during the iraq-iran war, as well as government officials that help create the tilting policy towards iraq. -implement un resolution 661, that makes the middle east a nuke free zone, and that includes israel. -before starting another war, solve the current israeli-palestinean conflict. where a palistinean state is created with the gaza strip and the west bank, while a un peacekeeping force seperates the two sides. "Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies." yitzhak rabin

yeah, i would like to have kids, maybe in 15 or 20 years from now. the only thing, is that they have be really close in age. they can't be more than 3 years apart.

well, i don't like cock, i just wanted to vote:)

YUP!!! LET'S GO RANGERS!!!!!!! (don't laugh)

graduated over the summer at Rutgers hopefully, i'll be going to grad school at Boston U or Penn State next year

RELAX, there's plenty of danny for all of us:D we have to share:tongue: