well Thoth you are making excuses for ur country. So plz enlighten me and everyone else on these half truths that you alledge the some nomads post on here. Give me the 'full picture' that has so far managed to elude myself and indeed the rest of the world. Show me the good deeds of ur country and just give one, just one example of your countrys foreign adventures in the past centuray, indeed since its inception as a super power where it has not acted in the interests of its powerful minorities whilst subjugating the rest of the whole worlds population to poverty and brutual regimes directly sponsering and put them in place indirectly by one of your Various terrorist organisation such as the CIA. Plz am waiting egarly for ur history and science lesson. And whilst i wait ........why dont u take on board the following article and explain whether the argument of the political writer Naomi Klein is also a concuction of half truths aswell. --------------------------------------------------------------- Bomb before you buy Bomb before you buy What is being planned in Iraq is not reconstruction but robbery Naomi Klein Monday April 14, 2003 The Guardian On April 6, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months, "probably longer than that". And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers. "There has to be an effective administration from day one," Wolfowitz said. "People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that's coalition responsibility." The process of how they will get all this infrastructure to work is usually called "reconstruction". But American plans for Iraq's future economy go well beyond that. Rather than rebuilding, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neo-liberals can design their dream economy: fully privatised, foreign-owned and open for business. The $4.8m management contract for the port in Umm Qasr has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring Services, and there are similar deals for airport administration on the auction block. The United States Agency for International Development has invited US multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The length of time these contracts will last is left unspecified. How long before they meld into long-term contracts for water services, transit systems, roads, schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into privatisation in disguise? Republican congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a bill that would require the defence department to build a CDMA cellphone system in postwar Iraq in order to benefit "US patent holders". As Farhad Manjoo noted in the internet magazine Salon, CDMA is the system used in the US, not in Europe, and was developed by Qualcomm, one of Issa's most generous donors. Then there's oil. The Bush administration knows it can't talk openly about selling Iraq's oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to people like Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi petroleum minister and executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies. "We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country. The only way is to partially privatise the industry," Chalabi says. He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles that has been advising the state department on how to implement privatisation in such a way that it isn't seen to be coming from the US. Helpfully, the group held a conference in London on April 6 and called on Iraq to open itself up to oil multinationals shortly after the war. The Bush administration has shown its gratitude by promising that there will plenty of posts for Iraqi exiles in the interim government. Some argue that it's too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They're right. It's about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn't halted, "free Iraq" will be the most sold country on earth. It's no surprise that so many multinationals are lunging for Iraq's untapped market. It's not just that the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100bn; it's also that "free trade" by less violent means hasn't been going that well lately. More and more developing countries are rejecting privatisation, while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush's top trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin America. World Trade Organisation talks on intellectual property, agriculture and services have all got bogged down amid accusations that the US and Europe have yet to make good on past promises. So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower to do? How about upgrading from Free Trade Lite, which wrestles market access through backroom bullying at the WTO, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? After all, negotiations with sovereign countries can be hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn't abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just has a new doctrine: "Bomb before you buy". It goes much further than one unlucky country. Investors are openly predicting that once privatisation takes root in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will all be forced to compete by privatising their oil. "In Iran, it would just catch like wildfire," S Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. Pretty soon, the US may have bombed its way into a whole new free trade zone. So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of Iraq has focused on fair play: it is "exceptionally maladroit", in the words of the European Union's commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, for the US to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It has to learn to share: Exxon should invite France's TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oil fields; Bechtel should give Britain's Thames Water a shot at the sewer contracts. But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling, and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on this matter it's beside the point. Who cares which multinationals get the best deals in Iraq's pre-democracy, post-Saddam liquidation sale? What does it matter if the privatising is done unilaterally by the US, or multilaterally by the US, Europe, Russia and China? Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might - who knows? - want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but in the absence of any kind of democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatisation without representation. A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverised by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found "freedom" - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy. · Naomi Klein's latest book is Fences and Windows (Flamingo). A version of this article first appeared in the Nation www.nologo.org -----------------------------------------------------------------

Yet more Female candidates have been entered onto my nearly complete list

"The stench of colonialism" Printed on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 10:35:00 By Marc Sirois YellowTimes.org Columnist (Lebanon) (YellowTimes.org) – The symbolism was impossible to miss. The President of the United States traveled across an ocean to confer with his British partner in multiple wars against Iraq, collective security, and self-determination. George W. Bush and Tony Blair could have met anywhere -- London, Madrid, Geneva, etc. -- but instead chose Belfast. Yes, Belfast. How do you keep a straight face when you discuss what you call the "liberation" of the Iraqi people by discussing strategy in the very place where the British subjugation of the Irish people remains at its most palpable? How do you keep from giggling when you proclaim the unity of Iraq while standing in a place where people of different but very similar faiths have been violently divided by the meddling of a foreign invader? How do you expect anyone to believe that you will not set Shiites and Sunnis against each other when you ignore -- or pretend to ignore -- the facts of Catholic-Protestant enmity in Northern Ireland? In Bush's case, it probably helps that he almost certainly had no idea of the immense symbolic gaffe committed by his own staff and that of Canis Familiaris Brittannicus. But what is the latter's excuse? Most of the world is at best deeply worried, and at worst firmly convinced, that the Anglo-American adventure in Iraq is a portent of much misery to come, both in that unfortunate country and in other Muslim nations -- as well as in the United States and Britain. The dangers are many and murderous: civil war in Iraq, another American-led onslaught against an inconvenient regime in the Middle East (Syria? Iran?), retaliation by Islamic militants, etc. There is much justification for the widespread impression that the U.S. and the British governments are using the rhetoric of "democracy" to cover up a modern day exercise in old-fashioned imperialism. The priority should be to dispel these notions by demonstrating sensitivity to these concerns and then acting in such a manner on the ground as to prove that the invasion was a necessary evil to be followed by magnanimous help in reconstruction and a speedy withdrawal. Instead, Bush and Blair chose to spit on their detractors' fears and to bathe in the stench of colonialism. That sends an unfortunate message to the rest of the world, but especially to Arab governments and Arab peoples wondering where the next attack will take place. Donald Rumsfeld's fantasies about total American hegemony over the world, starting with the Middle East, would be amusing if they were not so worrisome. He and the rest of the extremists who have captured Bush's limited imagination are selling damaged goods at prices that no one has even begun to discuss. What Rumsfeld proposes, and what Bush has begun to implement, is folly of the highest order because a) it is impossible; and b) attempting to do it will cause hatred for the United States, and therefore threats against Americans and their interests, to spread like wildfire. The world, especially America, will be anything but safer. The Bush Doctrine, as it has evolved since Sept. 11, 2001, is amazingly exclusionary to the rights of other nation-states. This is no surprise, given that his administration had already reneged on various treaties and entered into needless conflicts with other governments, including some of its closest allies. Where the radical change has taken place is in the extent to which Washington has been willing to claim privileges for itself that don't just pose distinct threats to the barest rights of foreign countries: They obviate even the possibility of other people having any rights at all. Essentially, the Bush administration has made clear that it is willing to oppose most -- if not all -- of the rest of the world in subjugating other governments that refuse to toe the American line. It will use falsified "intelligence" reports to buttress its flimsy cases, intimidate other countries into submission, and use force wherever, whenever and against whomever it sees fit. Fans of such ludicrous notions argue that the world's sole remaining superpower has every right to protect itself from its enemies. They are correct in the strictest sense, but this is not about self-defense: It is about counterproductive aggression. Washington's strategy can only result in the replacing of one unfriendly regime, or two, or three, with dozens more -- not to mention the non-state actors who will be motivated to conduct more of the asymmetrical warfare that America is so ill-equipped to combat. Likewise, supporters of the Bush Doctrine argue that the post-Cold War world requires a "policeman" to maintain balance, and that America's bona fides as a democracy entitle it to the benefit of the doubt. There is no question that the world is better off with the United States as its most powerful country than would have been the case if the Soviet Union had prevailed in the Cold War. That is a far cry, though, from accepting the desirability of a "new world order" in which America, democratic or not, goes around grinding other nations into the dust with diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and outright invasion. The favorite card of dedicated Bush supporters is that those who criticize Washington's strategy are "anti-American." Please. While there is such a thing as knee-jerk anti-Americanism and its adherents are no doubt against current U.S. policy, that is not the same as saying that any and all opposition to the Bush administration can be written off as the product of biased minds bent on undermining the security of the United States. On the contrary, many of the most important arguments against the war in Iraq and against the Bush Doctrine in general are predicated on an earnest desire to shield America and Americans from the inevitable results of that misguided venture and the philosophy that inspired it. In short, the "anti-American" charge is a hiding place for those whose arguments are manifestly not supported by the facts. Far from being able to hunt, that dog won't even get off the porch: It barks a lot, but suffers from undescended testicles. [Marc Sirois is a Canadian journalist who lives in Beirut, Lebanon, where he serves as managing editor of The Daily Star. The proud and fanatically protective father of three beautiful princesses, his opinionated writing style owes to the fact that he is never wrong along with his holding monopolies on wisdom, logic, morality, and justice. He is also exceedingly modest.]

"America's sovereign right to do whatever it pleases" Printed on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 19:58:15 CST ( ) By John Chuckman YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada) (YellowTimes.org) – The U.S. is claiming a "sovereign right" to try Iraqi officials as war criminals. I thought it was a nice touch, including, as it does, an allusion both to Bush's scholarly observations on Nazis and an assertion of rights. Rights are always good, aren't they? Even when they are the rights of conquest? So, you attack a country for no other reason than an arrogant demand for "regime change," overwhelm its relatively puny armed forces, kill thousands of people, and claim a "sovereign right" to bring its leaders to trial? This threatens to become the model for international affairs in the twenty-first century, the banana-republic concept applied on a world scale. America has refused to have anything to do with the International Court for War Crimes, but then the Creator never granted international institutions that purity of essence that is America's peculiar birthright. International institutions are corrupt. They are foreign. And they are not inclined to do things in the American way. America, babbling endlessly about its rights and the way it sees things, so often displaying impatience over listening to the other 95% of the human race, easily forgets the many incontestable horrors it has bestowed upon the world. General Pinochet's murder of perhaps 15,000 Chileans plus a few Americans who got in his way gets barely a nod of drowsy recognition. The "boyz" chugging down frosty Cokes while napalming Vietnamese villages or the blood-soaked savagery of Cambodia's rice paddies are mostly forgotten. Few Americans ever caught, or cared to imagine, the screams of the Shah's victims having their finger nails extracted. There have been so many of these good works that a full list would resemble a reference book rather than an article. Dealing with them on American television would make evening watching a drag, so they are forgotten, and America lumbers on to its next bellowing claim that something about the world stands in the way of its full enjoyment of rights and privileges. Of course, none of America's chosen monsters ever saw a trial or tribunal by the United States. A few of them still live in quiet retirement. Why? Because they served American interests faithfully. If Saddam is tried, it will be precisely because he failed to do so. That's certainly an inspiring reason for bombing the hell out of a country. But America is doing its very best, with precision missiles and gigantic bunker busting bombs, to be sure Hussein is murdered rather than captured. His trial, even if it does happen to fall to America as a sovereign right, would be exceedingly inconvenient for relations with the Arab world. The United States asserts another arrogant claim, wrapped in different words, to justify its mistreatment of prisoners from Afghanistan. It ignored the Geneva Conventions, shackled hundreds of them up, flew them, blindfolded and strapped into cargo planes, to new homes in Cuba, which consist of cages far away from everything they know, with no access to lawyers or relatives, a form of slow torture used to extract information. Never mind that information gathered in this way is more likely to tell you what you want to hear than what actually is, and never mind that treating people in this way violates every principle America likes to say it holds sacred. There is still another such claim, again expressed with altered words, to proclaim its right to determine who will govern Iraq when America's destructive tantrum is over. After all, it has had such success in Afghanistan on which to build. After killing thousands of innocent people there, wrecking the country's already damaged infrastructure, and sending tens of thousands fleeing their homes in terror, it set up a government whose key achievement to date is monthly assassinations. That dire concern over women's rights in Afghanistan, something carefully tailored to the psychological needs of soccer moms who might have had a doubt or two about bombing villages, has faded into the mountain mists. An excellent proxy measure of America's violent achievement in Afghanistan is offered by a Canadian documentary filmmaker who observed that outside Kabul, virtually 100% of women still wear the burqa. The figure in Kabul, the only place policed by foreign troops, is about 70% and that comes with a great deal of abuse. With a record like that, why wouldn't you feel justified in violently reordering the affairs of the planet? Quick success in Iraq will undoubtedly set Washington's ideologues' glands pumping and mouths watering. There's already talk about blasting Syria. Clearly, Iraq's shell game with weapons of mass destruction was continued on a grander scale, with the elusive weapons shifted to Syria for safekeeping, perhaps shipped in milk trucks by night. Hussein wouldn't use them to protect his life. No, after defeating the United States, he undoubtedly planned to reclaim them for another diabolical plot. The possibilities must seem endless to Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld, and Co. Indeed, regretfully for the rest of the planet, they undoubtedly are. [John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company . He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the country embarked on the pointless murder of something like three million Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

Grass = Informer (u work that out non-uk nomads)

"U.S. military conducts forcible censorship of Arab and other media outlets" Printed on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 @ 23:57:41 CST ( ) By Firas Al-Atraqchi YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada) (YellowTimes.org) – Reports from the Arab world indicate that anti-Americanism has reached unprecedented levels in the wake of Tuesday's bombing of Arab TV networks. Al Jazeera immediately claimed that the reason both they and the Abu Dhabi TV news network were targeted was to stifle any voice reporting on the invasion of Iraq from an uncontrolled perspective. Arab analysts immediately took to the airwaves condemning the attacks and warning the Arab community that the Anglo-American coalition forces are about to commit atrocities in Iraq, far from the watchful eyes of Arab media. Al Jazeera media analysts have claimed that only embedded journalists are allowed safe haven and security. Both Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV are now pleading with U.S. forces for safe passage out of Iraq. (In recent weeks, the concept of embedding has received much criticism charging bias and censoring of information that paints coalition forces in a negative light.) Regardless of the bickering over semantics between the Pentagon and Arab media, many in the Arab world believe that the coalition has already lost the war. Sadeq el Azm, a well-known Syrian intellectual, recently told the Financial Times that "it's already too late; in a political sense, the U.S. has lost the war. The war in Iraq will actually hinder reforms in the Arab world." El Azm believes that "with the conflict in its third week and with television pictures of civilian casualties being beamed into homes across the Arab world, the momentum for potential democratic change in the region has been lost as the negative aspects have been seized upon by Arab regimes." At press time, José Couso, of Tele 5, the Spanish channel, and Taras Protsyuk, a Ukranian based in Warsaw who worked with Reuters, were also killed by determinant U.S. tank fire aimed at the Palestine Hotel where all foreign journalists in Baghdad were residing. "They want to silence us," said a reporter from LBC, a Lebanese news network operating in Baghdad. "They want to butcher Iraq and have no one live to tell the story." [Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.]

CANADIANS: This is a lighthouse. Your call, Captain. Quality

vital = Component

I agree. But am not supprised, they have been oppressed for sooo long that they will of course cheer those who come to kill saddam and remove his regime, especially those in the southern regions and the north. But i think that they are caught between a HARD place and a ROCK (if u will excuse the phrase). Which way to go, defend saddam and die for a dictator, or give in to the rentless bombings, propaganda, and betrail by fellow arab countries. The know that this war is not about liberating them or giving them the power to control their destiny (self government), some of the more prosperous elite iraaqis no all to well that this is a war of occupation, to try to get rid of islam from the land and establish Kufur, Siphon the black gold they poses and so forth. But i belive that they are all to arrogant, they think that they have planned everything to the last minute detail, but the dont know that Allah is the best planner of all. They may get there military victory, perhaps even soon (inshallah they wont) but the have made the world a more dangerous place for themselves to operate in, the have created seemingly unbridgable divides between old imperialist alliances such as the with france. But for the iraqis the future does look bliqe. They may be colonised for a long time to come.

I think the qustion u posed is interesting indeed. Clear though we have moved on and there isnt said Barre's dictatorship there anymore, but have we moved on?? Nop, infact chaos insues back home, even more rampantly and seemingly indefinately. The fact remains that somalia is @ its lowest point since its inception as a state back in the early 20 centuary, and the americans under ths current guise of 'War on Terrorism, Fighting Rogue states, Liberators etc etc' could very easliy move on to somalia if it felt that some interests could be served by such a move. Infact it might already have stated to do so as it already has several army units stationed in various countries around the horn of africa, It recently sent some special units to arrest a "al-qaida suspect in Mogadisho", and it is giving various forms of Aid to the current addis abba administartion which is decidedly Pro-War. I think Iraq could very well prove to be a case study for a large number of countries and perhaps one day somali's will have to decide to wlcm or fight such coalition forces. But i would say that for the time being it looks unlikey that america will divert any of its attentions from Iraq and controlling the middle east and central asia for various critial interests

whats up nomads Man all i got to say is that its Real for the Champs League No doubt lol. Not because they have Ronaldo (he was poorlast night) or Raul or Figo, but because they had Zizo Tops Zidane on top form,i just couldnt belive some of the things he was doing yesturday. Without him real would be on a level playin feild with man u and the rest. LOL but with him its not fair it looked like amatuers playing against professionals. But what do u guys think will be the cosres later on tonight?? I will gamble (being a SERIA A addict) Juve 3 - Baraca 1, and Inter 2 Valencia 1.

lol ahh things are geting perosnal now... I have just added another perosn to the least needless to say the name.

Inshallah Ameen

Thx for the post saxiib that was indeed a very interesting read.

lol hey that was funny...........i havent checked them all out staright away i left some so that i can treat myself later nice one xafsa

Getting deeply involved in the side issues, our religious leaders ignored the main issues and problems. Later the main issues were eclipsed by the side issues creeping up in thousands. Paralysis of the Muslim mind 4/4/2003 - Religious - Article Ref: IC0304-1918 By: IslamiCity IslamiCity* - The world has changed beyond recognition. The conditions prevailing in the world, its views, trends and theories have entirely changed. The social problems and issues have taken many turns, but our religious leaders are still living in the same old conditions of past centuries. They made no progress and never tried to understand the ever-new changes and the issues and problems emerging from these changes. Rather they tried to hold back their people from adjusting themselves with the changing times and to pull them back to the past. Such an attempt can and did succeed for some time but not forever. No nation can afford to keep itself aloof and unaffected by the new thoughts and issues for long, while dealing with other nations and countries. If their leadership fails to guide them in the ever-new intellectual, academic and practical issues and problems, then it is quite natural that their followers will discard their leadership. But the trouble lies actually somewhere else. Getting deeply involved in the side issues, our religious leaders ignored the main issues and problems. Later the main issues were eclipsed by the side issues creeping up in thousands. These side issues carried no real importance in Islam but assumed importance like the fundamentals of Islam. The progress of Islam suddenly stopped when the Muslim religious leaders and scholars gave up delving into the Quran, stopped, ascertainment and scrutiny of the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad , blindly followed exegesis's and narrators of Traditions, when the casuistic works of the jurists and scholars of the past were made unalterable and permanent laws, when direct acquisition of knowledge from the Quran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet) was given up and when the side issues and the details worked out by the scholars of the past were regarded as the main and principal issues leaving aside the fundamentals of the Quran and Sunnah. Muslim scholars and researchers got involved in explaining and debating the out-dated issues instead of leading the world in the new field theories and practice. They differed and debated on the details and inferences of the old scholars, forming new factions and groups on the basis of different religious interpretations, indiscriminately declaring their opponents as infidels and deviators from the path of Islam. Instead of attracting the world to the path of Islam, they started discarding even the Muslims as infidels. Some blamed religion for all the misdeeds and failure of the religious leaders, holding religion as the biggest hurdle in their march towards progress. They openly called the Muslims to discard Islam and follow the developed nations. Some others made it a point to condemn and abuse the Islamic scholars and the religious leaders, as if the secret of progress and prosperity lay only in this reproach and condemnation of religious leaders. Another group started amending and trimming the religion. The real remedy is to set right the order already reversed. The Quran should be reinstated to its real place of guidance. The traditions of the Prophet should enjoy the same importance and status as enjoyed in the golden era of the Prophet and his devoted companions and all those related to him. The contributions of the past jurists, scholars, commentators and the Traditionalists should be given the same importance and respect as was given to them by the scholars of those days. We should not tamper with anything that needs no change and yet should not take everything of the past thinkers and scholars as the last word and as unalterable verdict, or that their writings have left us in no need of any further deliberations in the Quran and research on the Hadith or that no further research and thinking on Quran and Sunnah is now possible. Once this sequence is restored, the impeded train of Islam shall start moving again. The train has stopped simply because the engine has been detached and put behind the train, the driver too has left the engine and is seated somewhere in any back cabin, while it is presumed that the front cabin would not only move by itself but also carry the other cabins with it. Nobody can allege that the religious scholars had somewhere conferred and decided to impose stagnation on Islam and prevent its onward march. This is simply the outcome of the decline in intellectual, literary and ideational faculties of the Muslim communities and their political, military, economic and cultural vigor and strength. This decline has not only blighted their fighting spirit but also the enthusiasm in the field of academic research and casuistry. As the concept of life and its various problems underwent a change, so changed their notions about religious and academic issues and by and by all their intellectual faculties decayed. The only remedy possible is a dispassionate study of the malady in depth and of the extent to which it has spread and, with all wisdom, to replace the wrong with the right. Excerpted and adapted from the book "Let us change the world" by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi

The freedom Fighters (May allah bless them) continue to fight against all odds in Israel. The Israel government continues to show its nothing but a military Junter, and Israel an illegal state, infact nothin more than a military outpost for america. All the Palestinian that were present in this ''Forgery'' of reality and truth acted correctly. Mocking the whole trial and refusing to acknowledge the legality of the proceedings was the required actions to take. It is they i.e. Marwan Barghouti and the other 3 hostgers of this terrorist aggressor and the whole population of Plaestine who are the wronged ppl. And to this the need not apply to the UN (that useless Bargening shop for the Imperilists), the need not Beg america. The should continue to resist and fight these Jews where ever possible and by what ever means necessary, and allah inshalla will grant them death of shaad.

lol that was some great qoutes lovely me am be sure to rember some of them especially No 10 & 21

Salams nomads i came across 2 interesting articleas and an interview that i thought would were well worth reading. "Something monstrous this way comes" Unholy war Southeast Asia - Image of `ugly American` grows

Amiin. Thanks indeed for sharing that with us gediid.

"Do Not Forget Me" "Do not forget me I am the one with the empty looking eyes; war torn; speechless; hard like steel, but inside, like glass, I am shattered. I have witnessed death. It revealed its horrid face in the form of my mother, father, sister and brother. And with death, came destruction. It left me a portrait of grief. Where are you? Can't you hear me? My whole village represents loss; filled with still-framed memories of the less fortunate ones, whose spirits walk about aimlessly, waiting for a resting-place. I am alive; yet I stand alone in the middle of these makeshift graves, amongst these mounting bones: am I not also less fortunate? Nevertheless, it is each man for himself; remember me. I am just a child. If I depress you, please do not turn away. Do not forget me; note my haunting stare. Let it pierce through your heart, reminding you it could be your child. Imagine. When you look into your child's eyes, see my eyes of emptiness staring back at you. When you hear his or her cries, hear my silence, ringing louder and louder in your mind. Cry me oceans, lakes and streams may your salty tears attempt to heal my eternal wounds; provide me nourishment, with your overburdening emotion. I lost my voice when I lost everything. Your endless determination speaks for me now. All that I feel remains, is a skeleton of who I was and who I am. And if by chance I die tomorrow, please do not forget me. I am too, a (little) martyr. I am the one with empty looking eyes; war torn; speechless; hard like steel, but inside, like glass, I am shattered." www.ValleyofOppression.

Kentucky fried chicken = African Americans

lol this an amusing topic. am am however supprised to see that i have been nominated twice already so be warned the daggers will be out

if everyone practiced Islam, there would be no need for feminism, but the fact of the matter is, majority states/dictator countries suppress women, not even allowing them the rights God gave us Just to re state what ameenah (the big time prankster) stated Feminisim is something that i view as being dellusional because it tries to equate a woman to a man. Is an orange an apple?? If what u where trying to say was that culturally women do face discrimination through the abuse and miss interpretation of islam then fine i dont disagree with you. The quite obviousy can happen and indeed does. But u shouldnt restrict this to women only men also suffer from such abuse of athuority However the solution then is to seek proper islamic law, rulings and so forth and not to turn to such ideas as socalisim, feminism, Ineed-apay_riseism cause this simply wont solve the problem. Do u think women in the west dont face a glass ceilng when it comes to epmloyment? Dont they have to dress a certain way? Just think about it. Feminism hasnt acheived much for women and they still have to dress and behaviour to a very narrow minded male fantasy in this and many other western society.

Ok the other sister wanted to marry that guy, her mother didnt not agree so she killed her mother and the sister found out and killed her sister