450 children married in mass marriage - Gaza

[Anuki Profile]

this is an authentic report from al jazeera tv and they didnt say anything about hidden brides

Upload to Disclose.tv

Lets confront eachother with our mistakes

that'll bring peace

[Endless16 Profile]

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

[Anuki Profile]

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

and the other way round

[Anuki Profile]

@ zinzana

hush....?

[Infidelesto Profile]

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

Are you serious?

[Otomon Profile]

[Lowsix Profile]

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

Are you serious?

Im pretty sure hes serious, because it is the truth.

[Infidelesto Profile]

One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

Are you serious?

Im pretty sure hes serious, because it is the truth.

Ok, as a very minimum standard, can't we at least agree that in order to be called a "freedom fighter," you have to be fighting for freedom? We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he's told us. It's not freedom; it's an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated. People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off. That's how sick this mentality is.

So, if The New York Times and CNN and News­week and the rest of the mainstream media outlets are right and there is no objective difference between the ter­rorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that we teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are vil­lains? We both know why... because we think.

George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in the his­tory of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff. Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people's money, sent 14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies, all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.

But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of Euro­pean descent. If there is no difference between the behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Sadd­am Hussein are villains? There can be no other rea­son than they are darker-skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.

So when push comes to shove and after 18 Unit­ed Nations resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people. You and I know why because we think: because we make critical, rational, moral judgments.

But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we're evil and Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim. So they will rush there, as we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his tor­ture chambers because they won't judge rape rooms and torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral judgment.

And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which the mainstream press euphemistically called "anti-war rallies," you could hear their chant: "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war." What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know. It's not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement. Didn't we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?

What is this based on? It's based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, any­thing other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.

[Eliakim Profile Website]

Very good, infidelesto, welcome to DTV.

[Endless16 Profile]

Ok, as a very minimum standard, can't we at least agree that in order to be called a "freedom fighter," you have to be fighting for freedom? We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he's told us. It's not freedom; it's an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated. People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off. That's how sick this mentality is.

So, if The New York Times and CNN and News­week and the rest of the mainstream media outlets are right and there is no objective difference between the ter­rorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that we teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are vil­lains? We both know why... because we think.

George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in the his­tory of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff. Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people's money, sent 14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies, all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.

But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of Euro­pean descent. If there is no difference between the behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Sadd­am Hussein are villains? There can be no other rea­son than they are darker-skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.

So when push comes to shove and after 18 Unit­ed Nations resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people. You and I know why because we think: because we make critical, rational, moral judgments.

But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we're evil and Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim. So they will rush there, as we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his tor­ture chambers because they won't judge rape rooms and torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral judgment.

And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which the mainstream press euphemistically called "anti-war rallies," you could hear their chant: "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war." What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know. It's not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement. Didn't we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?

What is this based on? It's based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, any­thing other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.

From my point of view, George Washington was a Terrorist, he helped to ruin the greatest Empire on Earth with his greed, and his success led to the rising of the greatest threat since the Nazi's that is the modern American way of doing things. Whereas, from my perspective, because that's what it come down to with short-cut words like "terrorist"; Osama Bin Ladin was not effectively linked to 9/11, nor was Saddam Hussain responsible for being anything more than a dictator who didn't follow American policy closely enough, by trading oil by the Euro he became a threat to American interests, and so was removed. Hardly a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter as far as I can tell.

If foreign policy is a reason to take over a country and eliminate their infrastructure, then the USA is also, in the eyes of the rest of the world, a leading candidate for elimination, they are occupying Native American land, if you want to come right down to it. They committed large scale genocide against the native population, perhaps the USA should be dissolved and the land given back? Israel is an acceptable target, as an occupying force for any Arab/Muslim nation, any and all hostile actions can be easily perceived as attempts to liberate Palestine from a hostile oppressive force.

The thoughts and feelings of everyday Americans dos not concern me in the slightest, the U.N. is a Western organisation, and went along under duress with a bi-lateral invasion plan formulated by the UK/US with regards to Iraq, the war had no legitimacy whatsoever. The Iraqi people preferred how things were before the war, and Iraq was not a threat to Western civilisation. There is more to the world than the Rogue state, the only state ever to use nuclear weapons on a civilian target, that is the USA.

Fighting for freedom using Guerilla tactics was practised for 50 years by the USA against Cuba simply because they dislike Socialism, and continues to this day, from the perspective of the rest of the civilised world the USA are engaging in state sponsored Terrorism. It was practised by the French resistance against the Nazi's during the Second World War, in this case the blatant acts of Terrorism were perceived as Fighting for Freedom to everyone except the Nazi's simply because it served our interests.

Us vs Them mentality is the way the world works. History is written by the winners.

And I say again, One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.