Windows LiveWindows Live™
 
 
JC 的个人资料jc's webpage照片日志列表更多 工具 帮助

日志
    6月23日

    Hamas in Gaza


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Shunned by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, the Islamist group Hamas scored a publicity coup this week by defending its policies in Gaza with opinion pieces in two of the country's most influential newspapers on the same day.

    The New York Times and The Washington Post gave space to Ahmed Yousef, a senior Hamas figure, on Wednesday to argue that the United States should not interfere in Gaza, where Hamas took control after six days of bloody fighting against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah fighters.

    Yousef is senior political adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, who became Palestinian prime minister after elections last year. He is now contesting his dismissal by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who formed a new government in the West Bank after Hamas took over Gaza.

    Hamas leaders rarely have access to major U.S. media to express their views unfiltered, and getting an opinion piece into the Times and the Post on the same day appeared unprecedented.

    Both Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor and David Shipley, the Times' deputy editorial page editor, said they would not have carried the articles had they known of the other paper's publishing plans.

    In The New York Times, Yousef objected to the Western portrayal of the bloody events in Gaza as a Hamas coup against Fatah. "In essence, they have been the opposite.

    "Eighteen months ago, our Hamas party won the Palestinian parliamentary elections and entered office under Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh but never received the handover of real power from Fatah, the losing party."

    Yousef also complained that recent news coverage had failed to mention that Hamas had offered a 10-year ceasefire to Israel and adhered to a unilateral ceasefire for 18 months.

    "Nor has it been evident to many people in the West that the civil unrest in Gaza and the West Bank has been precipitated by the American and Israeli policy of arming elements of the Fatah opposition who want to attack Hamas and force us from office."

    In The Washington Post, under the headline "Engage with Hamas," Yousef said President George W. Bush's administration had never intended to honor the outcome of the January 2006 Palestinian elections.

    "Those who warn of 'failed states' and 'Hamastan' as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for the failure belongs - at the feet of the American administration which has chosen to isolate, rather than deal with, the elected government."

    The U.S. lifted its aid embargo to the Palestinian government last Monday after Abbas swore in a new 13-member emergency Cabinet without Hamas members.

    Neither op-ed piece mentioned what the United States, Europe and Israel see as the key obstacle to dealing with Hamas: its refusal to recognize Israel and a world view of Jewish conspiracies and domination laid out in the organization's charter.



    12:18 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    5月27日

    China and the US : the next ten years are going to be interesting ...


    US : China, you have to many weapons.
    China : But you have more weapons than us anyway !
    US : No you do !
    China : No YOU do !
    US : You are going to use them for conflict over resources !
    China : And you already are with yours !

    France : Which one shall I surrender to ?

    Chinese media blasts Pentagon report

    11:50 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    5月8日

    Interesting dig ...

    Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

    Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)

    (c) 2003 anarchie bunker

    Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

    Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
    A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
    Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
    A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
    Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
    A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
    Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
    A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
    Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
    A: To use them in a war, silly.
    Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
    A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
    Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
    A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
    Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
    A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
    Q: And what was that?
    A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
    Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
    A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
    Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
    A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
    Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
    A: Right.
    Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
    A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
    A: I told you, China is different.
    Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
    A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
    Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
    A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
    Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
    A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
    Q: Like in Iraq?
    A: Exactly.
    Q: And like in China, too?
    A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
    Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
    A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
    Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
    A: Don't be a smart-ass.
    Q: I didn't think I was being one.
    A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
    Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
    A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
    Q: What's a military coup?
    A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
    Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
    A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
    Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
    A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
    Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
    A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
    Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
    A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
    Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
    A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
    Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
    A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
    Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
    A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
    Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
    A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
    Q: Fighting drugs?
    A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
    Q: How did they do such a good job?
    A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
    Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
    A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
    Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
    A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
    Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
    A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
    Q: What's the difference?
    A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
    Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
    A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
    Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
    A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
    Q: Who trained them?
    A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
    Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
    A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
    Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
    A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
    Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
    A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
    Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
    A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
    Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
    A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
    Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
    A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
    Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
    A: Well, yeah. For a while.
    Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
    A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
    Q: Why did that make him our friend?
    A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
    Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
    A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
    Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
    A: Most of the time, yes.
    Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
    A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
    Q: Why?
    A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
    Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
    A: Yes.
    Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
    A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
    Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
    A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
    Q: Good night, Daddy.

    Reference Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
    http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWhyDidWeHaveToAttackIraq
    19:21 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    3月14日

    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite ...


    "Collectivement, les employeurs testés ont très nettement discriminé les candidats minoritaires", souligne le Bureau International du Travail. "Seulement 11 % des employeurs ont respecté tout au long du processus de recrutement une égalité de traitement entre les deux candidats", ajoute l'enquête, réalisée entre fin 2005 et début 2006 en coordination avec le ministère de l'emploi."

    Discrimination a l'embauche : les employeurs francais montres du doigt.

    Les Francais racistes ? Non, ca n'est pas possible ... vous dites quoi ? 14 % d'intentions de vote pour Le Pen au premier tour des presidentielles 2007 ? Non, pas possible ... : c.f. le lien suivant :

    Intentions de vote 2007.

    Bienvenue en France.


    11:26 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    2月6日

    WHAT ?!


    Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber
    Story Highlights :
    • Iraqi Parliament member convicted of bombing U.S., French embassies in '83
    • Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's position gives him prosecutorial immunity
    • He supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq, D.C. says
    • Mohammed is also accused of attempting to kill a Kuwaiti prince


    11:24 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    1月3日

    Mistreatment at Guantanamo


    I saw this movie a while ago - quite good but it lacked of explanation : The Road to Guantanamo
    However I recommend because it is interesting to see the inhumane treatment of post 9/11 terrorist prisoners in US jails, especially the infamous Guantanamo.

    Well prisoner abuse in Guantanamo prison is not a secret anymore : guards and FBI agents start talking about what they witnessed and it is exactly the same that was depicted in the movie - except the last one : even knowing the seriousness of the matter I had a tough time not laughing. I mean how stupid can guards get ?

    Stated examples of mistreatment :
    - Keeping detainees awake for days on end with strobe lights and loud music
    - Placing a detainee in a darkened cell with the intent of interrogating him for 24 hours straight; the witness reported being told that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved this technique
    - Subjecting a detainee to a lap dance by a topless female guard : WTF ??

    12:59 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    11月24日

    Oh no. Not again ?!


    Et merde : encore 17 % d'intentions de vote pour le Pen ?
    Il est serieusement temps de penser a emigrer ...

    13:49 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics

    What have these recently assassinated russians in common ? ... hum ...


    Anna Politkovskaya
    Alexander Litvinenko

    I really can't figure out why opponents to the russian regime keep dying ? ... hum let's see :

    cited from CNN :

    "Litvinenko was once a colonel in Russia's Federal Security Service, the FSB. He has been a defender of the Chechen separatists who have battled Moscow's rule for much of the past 15 years, and has accused the government of orchestrating the bombings of a string of apartment buildings as a pretext for its 1999 invasion of the breakaway republic. He left Russia in 2000, accusing his former agency of planning to kill opponents of Putin, and he recently blamed the Kremlin for Politkovskaya's death."

    "Litvinenko said he was poisoned after meeting with a contact who claimed to have information connecting the Russian government with the October slaying of a frequent critic, journalist Anna Politkovskaya."

    Ah ok. Nevermind.

    13:22 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    10月23日

    A letter from Pat Tillman's brother


    Remember the story on the soldier whose death in a friendly fire accident was covered up by the administration because he was a football legend used by the army as a role model for the young american volonteers ?

    Well here is an interesting letter from Pat Tillman's brother ...
    Talk about administration plans backfiring !

    Know more about Pat Tillman here.

    Read more on http://www.truthdig.com/.

    10:45 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    10月21日

    Under fire in Iraq


    If you know someone close to you in the american military, do not watch this. This was on CNN's frontpage a few days ago and is very graphic. It is a video made by insurgent sniper team, targeting american soldiers in the street of Baghdad ...
    The other videos are self-explanatory, do not watch unless prepared to.

    Insurgent sniping american troops
    Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)
    Ambushed convoys

    This is the other side of the conflict, a lot of technology involded ... a very different war.
    Do not watch if you do not want to be exposed to the graphic reality of these videos.

    Taking out insurgents from an AC-130
    Taking out roadside bombers

    16:24 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    10月18日

    Veil : France before, now UK ?


    France is a secular state and used this to justify banning the veil from government-run places, but how are the Britons going to pull this one ? Read this : Blair : veil is sign of separation

    10:54 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics
    10月6日

    Sanjay Gupta CNN medical anchor


    Sanjay Gupta is a CNN journalist whose impressive career led him from neurosurgeon to journalist. He was sent to Iraq as a reporter but also performed brain surgery on soldiers and iraqi civilians when there was no one else around.

    http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html

    14:44 | 添加评论 | 固定链接 | 写入日志 | News and politics