Is There really a New World Order Conspiracy?

Wall street is using Obama, as they did Bush, Clinton, Reagan et al. 
And it is true that the international financiers, ( some refer to as New World Order) are using the war on terror to take away our FEW remaining rights. 


The goal is world domination via control of debt. 
”The United States is shifting from a long period of perceived growth to a significant period of decline that will surprise many Americans as they realize the political propaganda about economic recovery was a lie. At that point, it will also be clear that we do not live in a constitutional republic but rather a financial empire where the Wall Street oligarchy rules not only our lives but also the governments we elect. Ever since Wall Street grew to replace our constitutional system of towns, counties, and states, we have not had the freedom we thought we had. 

The great economic debate between socialism and capitalism that happens in the US is no debate at all. People who believe in freedom through the benevolence of local community, i.e. the classic liberal, and those who believe in freedom through the benevolence of Main Street business and free market forces, i.e. the classic conservative, have both been hijacked. Due to our monetary system, their energies have been harnessed into unknowingly propping up the Wall Street oligarchy.” *

Sarah Palin and Beck and the others are merely unwitting dupes, feeding into the fallacy of people's confusion about what is really happening in the U.S. 
They help keep people from seeing reality. 
No one in power wants to shut them up, they serve their purpose well. 

”Rather than being two different choices of left VERSUS right, the debate creates a monolithic system of left AND right as the two sides swap positions every four to eight years while nothing substantial changes. This is the engine of fascism—big corporations and big government working together under the top-down rule of mega banks. Until the debate can move beyond fears about communism and Afghan tribesmen, this engine will continue. . “ *

If you listen to what I said, and investigate it, you will see I am right about this. 
Obama is a shill for big business, nothing more. 
He has no real power. 
Big corporations and big government working TOGETHER under the top-down rule of mega banks run this country and form what some refer to as NWO.

*http://csper.org

The selling of the public library: It's not just "outsourcing," it's privatization

There is a curious malaise in libraryland about the insidious encroachment of privatization in public libraries. Many view the recent events in Hawaii and Riverside, CA, as isolated cases resulting from "poor management." They fail to recognize that the decision to hand over operation of the Riverside County Library to a private company and the attempt to contract out collection development responsibility in Hawaii are not simple outsourcing incidents. These are, instead, attempts to privatize whole core services and even the management of our libraries. They are flash points, ominous harbingers.

As of July, Calabasas, CA, and Jersey City, NJ, had turned their libraries over to Library Systems and Services (LSSI), the same company that manages Riverside County libraries. Local officials in Atherton, CA, have been considering similar moves. While some librarians smugly excuse their complacency by saying that privatization threatens only badly run libraries, in reality the concept is being heavily marketed to local government officials. Robert E. Windrow, vice president of LSSI, recently sent a letter inviting a Broward County, FL, commissioner to stop by the company's booth at the 1998 Florida Association of Counties Annual Conference "to learn more about this exciting new approach for providing improved, cost-effective library services." That county's library was the LJ/Gale Research 1997 "Library of the Year."
Not business as usual
Clearly, America's public libraries have become targets for the privatizers. While it is perfectly understandable that a company would market its successes, it is harder to comprehend why librarians are not rising en masse to protest such privatization. Why are we viewing these appalling events as "business as usual"? Why are we talking about management "prerogatives" rather than public needs? Why are we mouthing business buzzwords (downsizing, cost-effectiveness) instead of analyzing who is outsourcing what to whom?
I'm not alarmed by library networks or consortia, nor by libraries that buy goods (e.g., photocopy machines) and services (e.g., maintenance). Certainly, almost any activity a library contracts for, or any service it buys from another agency, can be classified as "outsourcing." But the all-inclusive use of this term masks the encroachment of privatization. This threatens the library profession's core values--perhaps its very "soul" as a public service.
Libraries exist because our society values the free flow of ideas and opinion. They are not about profit. They promote access, equity, and diversity. America's public libraries are the building blocks of democracy, valued for their comprehensiveness, currency, openness, and multiplicity of viewpoints. Their expert staff is trained not only in the mechanics of handling "things" like books but more importantly has been inculcated with the philosophy that all knowledge is valuable if it is of value to the seeker and that all opinions deserve to be heard.
Keeping the "public" in public libraries will not be easy. We live in a time when the very idea of government and the public sector is under attack. The assault that began in the 1980s with the Reagan administration's emphasis on "less government" and "maximum feasible reliance on the private sector" has continued into the 1990s, with budget balancing and "reinventing government" efforts.
Some say that outsourcing in libraries simply reflects private industry trends. This claim disguises the reality that the management of public assets is being turned over to private interests. There are public policy sea changes going on that will have long-term--perhaps irreversible--- effects on how, at what price, and for whom the knowledge base of this nation is maintained and accessed.
As a profession, we librarians have a choice: we can continue to talk at the level of the lowest common denominator of "outsourcing," or we can reframe the debate in terms of ideals and values that citizens and decision-makers will understand and support. It's foolhardy to bury our heads--and our brains--in the sand with statements like "libraries have always outsourced," or "outsourcing is a management tool," or "we need guidelines for better contracts." Even more dangerous are some of the assumptions being bandied about as if they were truisms.
ASSUMPTION # 1
The private sector can--and will--do it better and cheaper.
Perhaps. But for how long? At what price? At whose expense? There is very little hard data to back up this assumption. No doubt private companies can do some jobs cheaper and provide some services more efficiently. On the other hand, we should have learned something from defense and other government contract overruns. The private sector is not always cheaper, except sometimes at the start, when companies lowball their bids to clinch their first contracts.
The state of some of our federally contracted-out library and information services, well documented by the American Library Association (ALA) Washington Office's ongoing chronology "Less Access to Less Information by and About the U.S. Government," clearly shows that it is not always better to turn public information functions over to the private sector. Privatization often brings with it the appearance of change--at the ultimate expense of the public.
Once the federal government labeled its libraries as "commercial activities" in the mid-1980s, they were vulnerable to wholesale contracting out to the lowest bidder. Some are now run by companies whose major business is cleaning services. Not surprisingly, high staff turnover has resulted; this leads to a loss of institutional memory and disruption of service. Libraries on military installations--the closest federal equivalent to local public libraries-have been a particular target. Frequently, these libraries were closed, viewed as expendable "commercial activities." We are losing our federal libraries. Do we want to see this scenario replayed at the local and state levels?
Before we romanticize the abilities of the private sector, let's not forget the excellence of library managers. They have always done more with less. Good library managers focus on serving the needs of their users. It is this ethos of public service that distinguishes public sector "librarians" from private sector "information specialists." When private sector superiority is assumed, only the successes, not the failures, are singled out. What about Chrysler? HMOs? Even IBM misjudged the marketplace. Can anyone point to our largest public libraries (e.g., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles) and say that their services miss the mark? Hardly!
Librarians are knowledge navigators, professionals ethically committed to the organization and dissemination of knowledge and the tools for empowerment. America's libraries have a trust: they are both the first source and the ultimate repository of knowledge. Their core value is to deliver the materials and services that undergird the public' s right to information. That is why public libraries are geared to choosing quality, equity, and effectiveness over "efficiency." That is why most of the collection of a good library is not in circulation; it is a resource for those whose interests extend beyond what is in vogue. It is this "inefficiency" that distinguishes libraries from bookstores.
Public libraries, by their very nature, are classic "market failures"--as are highways, schools, police, firefighters, and national defense and security. They are not profitable activities that a free marketplace will support. Library services are not designed to generate a profit but rather to provide vital services to the public.
If we expect the public to rely on business interests to provide total library services, then we ignore realistic economic forces and the profit motive. The primary motivation of a business providing contract services to libraries is not public service. It is, of course, staying in business and making a profit.
It's hard to find profit in the essential, professional responsibilities and core competencies of librarians: developing and organizing broadly representative and useful collections; providing qualified, unbiased assistance; locating and using information; promoting free, equitable access to informational and recreational resources; and proselytizing in support of their community's needs, rights, and interests. But they are of immeasurable value to society.
Without attributing any base motives to private-sector enterprises, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy these responsibilities when these activities are measured in strict pecuniary terms. Even private-sector companies are learning this lesson about their libraries (see "Insourcing the Outsourced Library: The Sun Story," LJ 3/1/98, p. 46-48).
ASSUMPTION #2
Private sector accountability to the marketplace is more effective than government bureaucracy.
This assumption supports the move toward privatization of all kinds of public services, including schools, welfare, and other social service programs. It is absolutely false. The private sector and the public sector are subject to vastly different types of accountability and law. These differences become particularly alarming when not only services like maintenance and garbage removal are privatized but when that trend includes more complex people-centered services involving the public's constitutional and statutory rights.
Public law is the foundation of government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights hold government officials and employees accountable in very specific ways. Public law protects citizens' rights. Private business, by contrast, is largely subject to contract, tort, and property law. If entire libraries---or whole areas of library services--are privatized, this puts in jeopardy open government "sunshine laws," not to mention the First Amendment and other public law dealing with the freedom of information, confidentiality of circulation records, and the "right to know."
When contract law replaces public law, the accountability of libraries to their communities changes. Management by contract also changes the traditional relationship of the public to public employees. Accountability then relies on contract compliance monitoring instead of community input and evaluation. And, if something is not in the contract, there is a good chance that the public won't get it--no matter how great the need. This is particularly true when not only service delivery but service management is privatized.
A librarian employed by a corporation may have an ethical obligation to uphold free speech but may enjoy no legal protection when resisting censorship by his or her employer. Also, some private companies, anxious to renew their contracts, might be tempted to relax their commitment to intellectual freedom policies if it meant avoiding controversy and the possibility of nonrenewal. The potential for conflicts of interest is high. Imagine being forced to decide whether to provide badly needed---but expensive--services to homeless shelters when that will impact your employer's profit margin, your performance appraisal, and your raise.
Writing a "better contract" will not make privatization work. Even when private-sector companies hire professional librarians who do an excellent job, basic and fundamental differences between the public and private sectors remain. While most public agencies rely on appropriations or budget allocations to fund operations and services, private companies must earn money to fund their operations--then produce a profit.
Management accountability is very different depending on where a librarian is employed. Of course, corporate employees are concerned about customers and services, but in the end they are accountable to managers, owners, and stockholders. Public employees may be held accountable to managers, boards, politicians, and other officials, but first and foremost they are legally accountable to the public they serve. It does make a difference who signs your paycheck.
ASSUMPTION #3
Libraries have always outsourced, and managers should be free to employ this very useful tool.
Privatization is not a mere management tool; it is a grave public policy shift. Certainly, librarians have traditionally purchased expertise (architectural, technological) and products (books, periodicals, processing) from the private sector. They have also banded together to form self-governed, nonprofit cooperatives, consortia, and networks to share resources and services.
Certainly, outsourcing can be a useful tactic when essential professional functions or responsibilities are clearly distinguished from secondary support activities. I readily concede that a wide variety of functions can be "outsourced" without abdicating professional responsibility or local control. There are differences between simple outsourcing and actual privatizing. And those differences may depend on whether we are talking about total outsourcing, outsourcing some services, or replacing others with commercial ones.
What worries me are those services that, if privatized, might have the potential to violate the public trust. We must draw a line between the simple purchase of products and the privatization of intangible core activities like service, selection, policy setting, and management. Do we really want our libraries held hostage to the whimsy of the marketplace?
America's libraries were founded on the belief that an informed citizenry is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. We know that the privatization controversy is being intensified by a decline in government support of public services. We also know that there are profound differences--in values and law-between government agencies like libraries and private companies. Privatization advocates must be challenged: if the core democratic values of libraries are glossed over in the name of efficiency, economy, and creative management, how will the public interest be protected?
Reframing the debate
We cannot afford silence about the privatization and commercialization of America's premier democratic institution. Once a public library is completely privatized, there is little chance of going back. Privatization is not caused by any single corporate entity. Rather, the privatization of public services like libraries is the culmination of a long campaign to dismantle government.
Fighting prevalent commercialization and privatization trends require us to discard simplistic assumptions and focus on our professional responsibilities and public accountabilities. The private sector is not always better. Privatization means less public accountability and more attention to financial profit. This does not mean that the private sector has ill intent; it does mean that its vastly different goals and measures can have profound effects on library services when they are privatized.
Of course businesspeople will market privatization to public library decision-makers. They have already recruited prominent public librarians to their advisory boards and as employees. That is good business. But the American public requires good public policy. As a profession it is our job to convince policymakers that the shared information in libraries is a critical resource, a public asset, essential for a humane and just society.
Libraries are intrinsically bound to the ideals of democracy. Only democracies support freely available library services for all residents, regardless of age, sex, class, or income.
Library advocates can tell a compelling library story if we talk less about "customers," "management," and "outsourcing well." Instead, we should articulate the inestimable benefits of publicly supported libraries as a public service, inherently governmental and community-based.
Library advocates must also ask some hard questions: Will the public's right to know and First Amendment law be impacted by privatization? How? Should confidential library records be turned over to private companies? What about affirmative action and diversity? How will workers' rights, benefits, obligations, and values be affected? What will happen to this nation's information infrastructure if private greed takes precedence over public need?
We did not make a strong enough case for our federal libraries, so many of them were lost. We mostly ignored the Hawaii battle, which was won by determined local librarians. Now, in the cases of Riverside, Calabasas, and Jersey City, the silence is deafening. The danger is not only clear, it is very much present.
We cannot wait until the privatizers and their supporters come for more of our libraries. We must reframe the debate between social goals and private interests to articulate a clear, passionate, and convincing case for America's premier democratic institutions---our libraries. As a profession, we must speak out loudly and proudly--now!

Title: The selling of the public library: It's not just "outsourcing," it's privatization by Patricia Glass Schuman.

Journal: Library Journal, 8/1/98, Vol. 123 Issue 13, p503p; 1bw

Author: Schuman, Patricia Glass

ISSN: 0363-0277 Accession Number: 967507

Online resource: Full text: Retrieved on August 5, 2007 from The Library of Texas:

http://is.gd/fw3mX

Who is the Enemy?

It's not Obama, although he may actually work for the enemy, multi-national corporations and financial entities.
It's not the Israelis, struggling to survive the hatred of violent Arab gunmen
It's not the liberals or the conservatives.
Its ignorance.
Ignorance exacerbated by propaganda from the right and the left.
A partial solution is for people to read more, not just material they agree with, but the entire spectrum.

By the way, there is a movement by local governments to turn libraries over to private companies, along with jails and prisons and schools.
Be aware of and follow this trend.
It is not a good sign.

Undoubtedly the drawbacks of privatization of our nations libraries will be greater cost, fewer books and less access, with no benefit to the citizens.

Now the company, Library Systems & Services, has been hired for the first time to run a system in a relatively healthy city, setting off an intense and often acrimonious debate about the role of outsourcing in a ravaged economy.
A $4 million deal to run the three libraries here is a chance for the company to demonstrate that a dose of private management can be good for communities, although so far, privatization, remember Blackwater and Correction Corporation of America has been disastrous.
 But in an era when outsourcing is most often an act of budget desperation — with janitors, police forces and even entire city halls farmed out in one town or another — the contract in Santa Clarita has touched a deep nerve and begun a round of second-guessing.
Can a municipal service like a library hold so central a place that it should be entrusted to a profit-driven contractor only as a last resort — and maybe not even then?
  Frank A. Pezzanite, the outsourcing company’s chief executive. He has pledged to save $1 million a year in Santa Clarita, mainly by replacing unionized employees. “Somehow they have been put in the category of a sacred organization.” Yeah, right pal, like schools and books.


The company, known as L.S.S.I., runs 14 library systems operating 63 locations. Its basic pitch to cities is that it fixes broken libraries — more often than not by throwing employees into the street.

The members of the Santa Clarita City Council who voted to hire L.S.S.I. acknowledge there was no immediate threat to the libraries. The council members say they want to ensure the libraries’ long-term survival in a state with increasingly shaky finances.
Until now, the three branch locations have been part of the Los Angeles County library system. Under the new contract, the branches will be withdrawn from county control and all operations — including hiring staff and buying books — ceded to L.S.S.I.
Library employees are furious about the contract. But the reaction has been mostly led by patrons who say they cannot imagine Santa Clarita with libraries run for profit.
“A library is the heart of the community,” said one opponent, Jane Hanson. “I’m in favor of private enterprise, but I can’t feel comfortable with what the city is doing here.”
Mrs. Hanson and her husband, Tom, go to their local branch every week or two to pick up tapes for the car and books to read after dinner. Mrs. Hanson recently checked out Willa Cather’s classic “Death Comes for the Archbishop,” although she was only mildly in favor of its episodic style; she has higher hopes for her current choice, on the shadowy world of North Korea.
The suggestion that a library is different — and somehow off limits to the outsourcing fever — has been echoed wherever L.S.S.I. has gone. The head of the county library system, Margaret Donnellan Todd, says L.S.S.I. is viewed as an unwelcome outsider.
“There is no local connection,” she said. “People are receiving superb service in Santa Clarita. I challenge that L.S.S.I. will be able to do much better.”
As a recent afternoon shaded into evening, there were more than a hundred patrons at the main Santa Clarita library. Students were doing their homework. Old men paged through newspapers. Children gathered up arm’s loads of picture books. It was a portrait of civic harmony and engagement.
Mrs. Hanson, who is 81 and has been a library patron for nearly 50 years, was so bothered by the outsourcing contract that she became involved in local politics for the first time since 1969, when she worked for a recall movement related to the Vietnam War.
She drew up a petition warning that the L.S.S.I. contract would result in “greater cost, fewer books and less access,” with “no benefit to the citizens.” Using a card table in front of the main library branch, she gathered 1,200 signatures in three weekends.
L.S.S.I. says none of Mrs. Hanson’s fears are warranted, but the anti-outsourcing forces continue to air their suspicions at private meetings and public forums, even wondering whether a recall election is feasible.
“Public libraries invoke images of our freedom to learn, a cornerstone of our democracy,” Deanna Hanashiro, a retired teacher, said at the most recent city council meeting.
While the company says it retains some employees, it emphasizes that their lifestyles will be impacted radically, that they might want to start looking at food stamps and other forms of compensation,  they will all lose their  pensions.
L.S.S.I. got its start 30 years ago developing software for government use, then expanded into running libraries for federal agencies.
The company is majority owned by Islington Capital Partners, a private equity firm in Boston, and has about $35 million in annual revenue and 800 employees. Officials would not discuss the company’s profitability.

Rhianna, Masochist, Eminem, Sadist, shall We dance?

Still working, still studying, still hoping to bring the remaining followers information and ideas.
Just one thing I really wanted to comment on.
Its seems unimportant, but it is one of the most popular songs on the radio today among 12-14 year olds.
It's called, "I love the way you hurt" by Rhianna and Eminem.
She likes getting beaten, he beats up girls.
That's what the song is about.
You can't say "fuck" on the radio, but Eminem can say, "Next time I'm going to tie her to the bed and set the house on fire."
Go figure.
If you can :-)

Woodward Strikes Again

A new book out by Bob Woodward, Hero of Watergate, author of "All The Presidents Men" called
" Obama's Wars".
Initial reviews are, as expected, titillating.
Here are some of the details of what may be a burgeoning firestorm: From Talking Points Memo.com  Michael

1. Obama set July 2011 withdrawal start date to keep support from Democrats
The New York Times details parts of the book suggesting that the Afghanistan decision was considered with a political lens.
The most telling quote from the book is one Woodward reports that Obama told to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The Times reports that Obama was asked if his withdrawal date was firm:

"I have to say that," Mr. Obama replied. "I can't let this be a war without end, and I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

The Times also reports that Obama said he has "two years with the public on this," meaning he'd lose support without a swift exit strategy.

2. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert Gates he didn't want to spend a decade nation-building in Afghanistan
The Washington Post reports that Obama told Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October 2009, "I'm not doing 10 years ... I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
3. Obama wanted to 'reduce footprint' in Afghanistan
"Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint," Obama says in the book, according to the Washington Post. "It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."
4. Obama says nation could 'absorb' a terrorist attack
From the Post:

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

5. The CIA created a secret army
From the Post:

The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.

Bonus factoid: The White House likes the book.
According to Politico, which wrote two stories on Woodward's tome, officials believe the portrait is flattering to the president.
A senior administration official told Politico:

The president comes across in the [Afghanistan] review and throughout the decision-making process as a commander-in-chief who is analytical, strategic, and decisive, with a broad view of history, national security, and his role.

Politico also reported that the White House made a calculated decision to work with Woodward.

The Peace Process Story So Far: Israel's Cooperation with the US

By Barry Rubin*

In one of his out-of-control anti-Israel rants, Andrew Sullivan included in his list of alleged evils that Israel had repeatedly "defied" the United States. That point stuck in my mind and made me reflect how demonstrably untrue is that charge contrary to what people might think. 

Certainly, there have been incidents of friction and disagreement--though always fairly short-lived--and at times Israel has either convinced U.S. policymakers of its position or the two sides agreed. Yet consider on all the key issues of the last twenty years how Israel did heed every major U.S. request.

In 1991, President George Bush asked Israel not to respond to Iraqi attacks. This was a huge request for any country whose civilians were being targeted by missiles and especially for Israel which has always believed that retaliation is essential to maintain its credibility. I can speak from personal experience here, with the nearest hit about ten blocks away from my home. The country not only faced the terror of sudden missile attacks, with the possibility of bacteriological or chemical warheads, but was also largely shut down economically for weeks. Yet Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir agreed, and Israelis stood by passive while the United States fought Iraq in Kuwait and Baghdad shot missiles onto its soil.

The Oslo agreements were an Israeli initiative yet during the nine years of negotiations that followed, Israel and the United States cooperated closely. Israel made a very forthcoming offer in 2000 supported by the United States that was rejected by the Palestinian leadership. There were no major incidents of conflict during the Clinton Administration.

The George W. Bush years were ones of relative amity. Ironically, the greatest disagreement, contrary to mythology, was Israel's lack of enthusiasm for the Iraq war. The concern was that Israel would be asked to pay the political bill afterward, that Saddam might again fire missiles, and that the project of making Iraq into a democracy seemed ill-fated. But Israel supported its ally once the decision to attack Iraq was made.

The administration of Barack Obama has been seen as one of great tension and a U.S. policy less supportive of Israel. Yet every time Obama made a request or demand, Israel has complied, if not immediately then after a brief period, with concessions that were very difficult given internal politics and perceptions of its own interests:

--Obama called for an Israeli freeze of construction on settlements in the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked a freeze.

--Obama insisted on direct Israel-Palestinian negotiations. Netanyahu supported this stance beginning in mid-2009.

--When Obama changed his position and also demanded a freeze on Israeli construction in areas of Jerusalem beyond the 1967 border, an extremely difficult concession for Netanyahu and Israel to make, the Israeli government did so.

--Finally, when Obama insisted on a change in the sanctions' regime imposed on the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu quickly complied. The U.S. government approved the terms before they were announced.

Thus, on all of the four big issues during the first 17 months of the Obama presidency, Israel did do what the United States asked. In exchange, Israel received no concession whatsoever from either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. It did get continued U.S. cooperation and praise for so doing, yet basically received nothing new in exchange for these steps.

Whether this compliance was wrong or right in terms of Israeli interests isn't the point here. What's important is that Israel did take actions and risks at the behest of the U.S. government, which also puts the lie to the idea that Israel "controls" U.S. policy. In addition, Washington made some commitments in response to these concessions which have often been forgotten by successive U.S. governments.

It should also be noted that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority (nor Iran or Syria for that matter) complied with any U.S. request or demand during this period yet reaped benefits from Israeli concessions or U.S. efforts at engagement. Indeed, the PA has continually refused to enter direct negotiations with Israel. And despite stories of U.S. "pressure" has lost nothing as a result.

These points are one small example of how myths about Israel and U.S.-Israel relations are so easy to concoct yet equally easy to demolish with simple reference to the facts. Large elements in the mass media constantly claim that Israel, or at least the current government, doesn't want peace despite all the efforts, sacrifices, and risks made. 

Equally, they claim that the PA is moderate and does want peace despite the fact that it does nothing to promote such an outcome. In 2000, the PA rejected the Camp David and Clinton plan deals, launched a violent and terrorist war, and continued it for five years. During the last five years, the PA has not taken a single step toward ending incitement, educating its people for a two-state compromise solution, or offering better terms to Israel. It has not moved one bit from its stance in 1993, 17 years ago.

Meanwhile, as I predicted, here's the Washington Post cartoon, "explaining" how Netanyahu and Abbas are "equally" against direct talks, despite Netanyahu advocating and Abbas opposing them for the last 16 months!

What I'm Doing..And Why.

I'm studying the Crusades, Afghanistan and economics.
The Crusades offer at least a partial glimpse into why Muslims are afraid of us.
Coming out of Afghanistan is a group called RAWA who oppose the Taliban, Karzai and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, particularly the killing of innocent Afghans.
The Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women.
They aren't leftists, they aren't hard right, either.
They just want peace in their time.
Like many women they show extraordinary courage, many have been killed.
Many have been brutalized in different ways.
These brave women fight on, shaming, in my opinion, the men who try to terrorize them.
Some people trivialize the battle for women's rights in Afghanistan.
They say that brutalizing and enslaving women is "Just their way, and we have to respect it."

Everyone who reads the paper knows what happens to women in Islamic countries, and Afghanistan is the worst of them.
RAWA has asked U.S. military Officers to provide security for the girls going to school.
"Can't do it." the women are told.

If what I am learning about Afghanistan is true, the U.S. needs to change the mission, at the very least.
Stay tuned.

Continued Abuse In Afghanistan

I wish I could report that things are getting better in Afghanistan, but that is not the case.This is another excerpt from the web site http://RAWA.org which is compose of pro-Democracy women opposed to the Taliban, Karzai and U.S. enabling of both groups.: MFB

 Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the International Women’s Day, 2010

Today, on the 8th of March, Afghan women are mourning for the gang-rape of Bashiras and Saimas, for being flogged by most lowed elements, for being auctioned in open market and for their young daughters who put an end to their miserable lives by self-immolation. But the perpetrators of all these crimes are forgiven; therefore they enjoy complete immunity, are still holding their official positions and tightening it through plundering our people and country.

February 2010: Local warlords in Ghor province in Western Afghanistan publicly flogged two Afghan women.

Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqisand Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.

In such conditions, we saw that Karzai, as the most demagogic and flagrant President, turgidly talks about the London Conference, which in fact had no positive outcome for Afghan people, where he only bargained and dealt for the return of the terrorist Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to power and the pouring of millions of more Dollars which will go to the pockets of the Karzai family and the mafias of Fahim, Khalili, Dostum and other murderers.

The Karzai puppet and reactionary regime is implicated in corruption and blood of the poor from top to bottom. Only the hundreds of people killed in the recent avalanche tragedy in Salang and the miseries of millions of refugee Afghans in the hands of the Iranian criminal regime are enough to punish and jail many of the so-called high ranking officials for negligence and inattention to the problems of our people.

But the US government does not try to curb its Afghan stooges and allows them to commit many crimes, betrayal and lootings, so they could repress and intimidate Afghans in any possible way and stop the emergence of any anti-fundamentalist and pro-independent uprising in Afghanistan. Therefore, it comes of no surprise that the decay and corruption of top criminals such as Rabbani, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah, Qanoni, Karzai family, Zia Massoud, Fahim, Khalili, Saddique Chakari, Mirwas Yassini, Zahir Aghbar, Hadi Arghandewal, Anwar Jakdalak, Ismael Khan, Atta Mohammad and others are even reflected in some Western media, who have made dirty businesses and multi-billion Dollar investments in Afghanistan and Dubai as a result of their lootings and drug-dealings in Afghanistan.

To show to the world that they value women’s rights, the US and its Afghan mafia lackeys nourished a bunch of flunkeys and pro-occupation women to hold conferences and meet the so-called “his Excellency” President Karzai and his US-assigned spokespersons Wahid Omer, Siamak Herawi, Sibghatullah Sanjar and other traitors to ask for more ministries for Afghan women. But they are grasping the intentions of others with their own dirty mirrors and think ordinary Afghan women are unaware of the fact that even if all the members of the cabinet are made up of reactionary women such as Amina Afzali, Hassan Bano Ghazanfar, Massouda Jalal, Noorzia Atmar, Qadria Yazdanparast, Shukria Barakzai, Fouzia Kofi, Manija Bakhtari and others linked to brutal warlords, still it will not bring any positive change for Afghan women, because such women, acting as committed agents of the US government and its fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist menials, only define themselves by raising soft criticisms and asking for some reforms acceptable for the governing criminals and their foreign masters.

With money and offers of official posts, the US and its Afghan agents have bought many Afghan intellectuals. Many of the writers and poets are paid by the blood-thirsty Iranian regime who instead of raising people’s awareness and mobilizing them for pro-independence, pro-democracy and anti-fundamentalism struggle, try to pave the way for Iranian theocratic regime’s deeper involvement in Afghanistan and inflame and fuel ethnic, sectarian and lingual tensions among Afghan people.

RAWA always believes that women’s problem is a political issue and we cannot tackle it separately from the current catastrophic political situation. Without the overthrow of the current puppet regime, which is becoming more mortal and odorous than before by the inclusion of Taliban and Gulbuddini murderers, none of the thousands of the problems of our unhappy people will ever be solved.

Slogans about restoring peace, security, democracy and women’s rights will be empty and amplified claims, as long as Afghanistan has not gained its independence; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance killers are not prosecuted and the billions of wealth they have pillaged from people are not taken back from them. The benchmark to judge if any individual or organization is truly patriotic and progressive in the current situation is their struggle in any possible means against US occupation, the criminal Taliban -- who have the enslavement harness of Pakistan around their nick -- and the hirelings of Iran and the US in the “National Front”.

RAWA is eager to get united in solidarity with individuals and forces that are ready to fight for democracy in an independent front against the occupation, the Taliban,Jehadi and Khalqi and Parchami homeland-sellers.

While women of Afghanistan are experiencing a new era of captivity and are in the grip of the fundamentalist monsters, RAWA sends it heartfelt salutations to struggling brave women of Iran, Palestine, Kurdistan, Sudan, Nepal, India and the rest of the world and announces solidarity with them.

Fighting for Human Rights in Afghanistan

I wish I could report that things are getting better in Afghanistan, but that is not the case.This is another excerpt from the web site http://RAWA.org which is composed of pro-Democracy women in Afghanistan opposed to the Taliban, Karzai and U.S. enabling of both groups.: MFB

 Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the International Women’s Day,  2010

Today, on the 8th of March, Afghan women are mourning for the gang-rape of Bashiras and Saimas, for being flogged by most lowed elements, for being auctioned in open market and for their young daughters who put an end to their miserable lives by self-immolation. But the perpetrators of all these crimes are forgiven; therefore they enjoy complete immunity, are still holding their official positions and tightening it through plundering our people and country.

February 2010: Local warlords in Ghor province in Western Afghanistan publicly flogged two Afghan women.

Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqisand Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.

In such conditions, we saw that Karzai, as the most demagogic and flagrant President, turgidly talks about the London Conference, which in fact had no positive outcome for Afghan people, where he only bargained and dealt for the return of the terrorist Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to power and the pouring of millions of more Dollars which will go to the pockets of the Karzai family and the mafias of Fahim, Khalili, Dostum and other murderers.

The Karzai puppet and reactionary regime is implicated in corruption and blood of the poor from top to bottom. Only the hundreds of people killed in the recent avalanche tragedy in Salang and the miseries of millions of refugee Afghans in the hands of the Iranian criminal regime are enough to punish and jail many of the so-called high ranking officials for negligence and inattention to the problems of our people.

But the US government does not try to curb its Afghan stooges and allows them to commit many crimes, betrayal and lootings, so they could repress and intimidate Afghans in any possible way and stop the emergence of any anti-fundamentalist and pro-independent uprising in Afghanistan. Therefore, it comes of no surprise that the decay and corruption of top criminals such as Rabbani, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah, Qanoni, Karzai family, Zia Massoud, Fahim, Khalili, Saddique Chakari, Mirwas Yassini, Zahir Aghbar, Hadi Arghandewal, Anwar Jakdalak, Ismael Khan, Atta Mohammad and others are even reflected in some Western media, who have made dirty businesses and multi-billion Dollar investments in Afghanistan and Dubai as a result of their lootings and drug-dealings in Afghanistan.

To show to the world that they value women’s rights, the US and its Afghan mafia lackeys nourished a bunch of flunkeys and pro-occupation women to hold conferences and meet the so-called “his Excellency” President Karzai and his US-assigned spokespersons Wahid Omer, Siamak Herawi, Sibghatullah Sanjar and other traitors to ask for more ministries for Afghan women. But they are grasping the intentions of others with their own dirty mirrors and think ordinary Afghan women are unaware of the fact that even if all the members of the cabinet are made up of reactionary women such as Amina Afzali, Hassan Bano Ghazanfar, Massouda Jalal, Noorzia Atmar, Qadria Yazdanparast, Shukria Barakzai, Fouzia Kofi, Manija Bakhtari and others linked to brutal warlords, still it will not bring any positive change for Afghan women, because such women, acting as committed agents of the US government and its fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist menials, only define themselves by raising soft criticisms and asking for some reforms acceptable for the governing criminals and their foreign masters.

With money and offers of official posts, the US and its Afghan agents have bought many Afghan intellectuals. Many of the writers and poets are paid by the blood-thirsty Iranian regime who instead of raising people’s awareness and mobilizing them for pro-independence, pro-democracy and anti-fundamentalism struggle, try to pave the way for Iranian theocratic regime’s deeper involvement in Afghanistan and inflame and fuel ethnic, sectarian and lingual tensions among Afghan people.

RAWA always believes that women’s problem is a political issue and we cannot tackle it separately from the current catastrophic political situation. Without the overthrow of the current puppet regime, which is becoming more mortal and odorous than before by the inclusion of Taliban and Gulbuddini murderers, none of the thousands of the problems of our unhappy people will ever be solved.

Slogans about restoring peace, security, democracy and women’s rights will be empty and amplified claims, as long as Afghanistan has not gained its independence; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance killers are not prosecuted and the billions of wealth they have pillaged from people are not taken back from them. The benchmark to judge if any individual or organization is truly patriotic and progressive in the current situation is their struggle in any possible means against US occupation, the criminal Taliban -- who have the enslavement harness of Pakistan around their nick -- and the hirelings of Iran and the US in the “National Front”.

RAWA is eager to get united in solidarity with individuals and forces that are ready to fight for democracy in an independent front against the occupation, the Taliban,Jehadi and Khalqi and Parchami homeland-sellers.

While women of Afghanistan are experiencing a new era of captivity and are in the grip of the fundamentalist monsters, RAWA sends it heartfelt salutations to struggling brave women of Iran, Palestine, Kurdistan, Sudan, Nepal, India and the rest of the world and announces solidarity with them.

TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

 

The September 13, 2010 issue of TIME Magazine arrived yesterday. The cover story is titled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” and is illustrated by a large Jewish star composed of daisies. Yes, daises—as in “counting daisies, don’t have a care in the world.”

by Prof. Phyllis Chesler 

This is precisely the point of Karl Vick’s article. He writes:

Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter [of peace with the Palestinians]. They’re otherwise engaged: They’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of the late summer … they have moved on.

Vick quotes an Israeli real estate agent in Ashdod, one Eli, who tells him:

People are indifferent. They don’t care if there’s going to be war. They don’t care if there’s going to be peace. They don’t care. They live in the day.

According to Vick, Israelis don’t care about peace, peace negotiations, or about the Palestinians because they are simply having too good a time: sunbathing, swimming, café-hopping, profiting from start-up companies, and, according to polls cited by Vick, utterly disconnected from “politics;” indeed Vick suggests that Israelis resemble Californians more than they resemble Egyptians. These are all points which scream: Israel does not fit in; if Israelis were only more impoverished, more indolent, and paradoxically, even more “laid back,” they might be recognizable as indigenous to the region, a true part of the Middle East.

These are Vick’s thoughts, not mine.

Of course, Jews are the original Palestinians and the most indigenous of the region’s inhabitants; yes, there are many impoverished Israelis, both Jews and non-Jews; and, let’s not forget that there are even some Israelis who remain permanently on high alert for the next terrorist attack, permanently scarred by the last ones. For a moment, let’s forget about all that. Allow me to ask: Why doesn’t Vick also point out that Palestinians are leading the high life on the West Bank and in sumptuous villas on both the West Bank and in Gaza; that they, too, are sunbathing, swimming, shopping, dining out, and relaxing at the beach—at least as much as the Islamist thugs who run the lives of Palestinians will allow it?

Vick and his editors at TIME seem to think that showing six photos of Israelis at leisure: blowing smoke on a beach chair, lounging on a beach chair, resting in an army uniform on the beach without a chair, playing with one’s baby in a stroller, sitting at a café—are proof that Israelis are engaging in activities which are not admirable, are, in fact, “proof” that they are not suffering but rather, proof that Israelis simply don’t care about peace with the Palestinians. And Vick brings in polls as well as expert and person-in-the-street opinions to back up this claim.

Vick writes that real estate is booming, as is business in general, Israeli “brainiacs” have helped their nation avoid the economic disasters that have plunged Europe and America into a recession. He literally writes this. “Israel avoided the debt traps that dragged the U.S. and Europe into recession. It is known as a start-up nation—second only to the U.S. companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange.”

Is Vick aware that, consciously or not, intentionally or not, he is counting on the world’s long-held resentment about Jewish creativity, genius, and scientific and economic success—counting on the world’s willingness to scapegoat Israel once again for crimes that it has not committed? Or because Jews seem to “know something,” maybe they are channeling God directly and thus, the deck is stacked against non-Jews. Vick presents  Israel’s “success” as somehow unseemly, because it makes other nations look bad. Does he harbor the suspicion that Jewish prosperity has been “stolen” from non-Jews or is he merely advertising that Jewish gold is there, ripe for the taking?

Buried—but really buried-- in Vick’s four page cover piece are snippets of true facts: That the Israelis are weary of peace negotiations which never succeed because the Palestinians do not want peace; that Arabs and Palestinians want to destroy the Jewish state and as many Jews as possible.

But Vick fails to convey that negotiations cannot work as long as the ultra-Nazified Arab Islamic propaganda  against Jews and Israel continues to turn out children who hate Jews and who become human homicide bombs, snipers, kidnappers, kassam rocket throwers, etc.

Here is what Vick utterly fails to comprehend, namely, that the Israelis are not merely tired, disenchanted, living in la-la land a la southern Californians (hence, the Jewish star made of daisies on the cover). The Israelis are actually showing the entire world how to embrace life, even as they live, trembling, in the shadow of death. They are teaching the world how to “love life more than they fear death.” A new and wonderful book A New Shoah. The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism by Italian journalist Giulio Meotti, which is not yet out, makes precisely this point.

Pictured: Prof. Phyllis Chesler     The Jewish insistence on life may be the key to our survival as a people despite ceaseless persecution. It might be the lesson, the model, for all humanity in an era of genocides, civil wars, torture chambers, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Why is TIME turning things on their head and refusing to recognize the courage and the heroism of Jewish Israelis who choose to live in the moment when the moment is all they have? Against all odds, the Jews simply refuse to give up. As Meotti writes of the numerous victims of terrorism during the ongoing Intifada of 2000, “Israel teaches the world love of life, not in the sense of a banal joie de vivre, but as a solemn celebration.”

Meotti begins where I began in early 2004, when I wrote about a new Holocaust in the pages of The Jewish Press, a Holocaust which is now based in Israel. At the time, I was not heard beyond a small circle. I did what Meotti now does in his opening pages. Meotti fully understands that Israel is the “first country ever to experience suicide terrorism on a mass scale: that more than 150 suicide attacks have been carried out plus 500 have been prevented."  According to Meotti, there have been “1,723 people (murdered) and 10,000 injured” in Israel. Meotti does what I did: He converts these numbers into the demographic equivalent of attacks on Americans. When I did so there were somewhat fewer people in both categories. Thus, Meotti writes that in American population terms, this means that “74,000 Americans” would have been killed and “400,000 injured.”

Vick does not factor this grave reality into his article. Nor does he seem to know how high the Jewish population growth was in the DP camps right after the Holocaust. Can he comprehend that permanently endangered Jews—a people that has survived as a people for nearly six thousand years—the Chosen People—have always chosen life in the moment, have chosen to seize life with both hands, even as they memorialize their dead and make sense of their persecution in a way that illuminates this particular Hell for all humanity?

What Meotti is doing is remembering the lives and the deaths of the Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism during the last decade. I have only read the first few chapters but cannot put it down. These are unknown stories, unnamed victims, whose mortal remains have often evaporated, disintegrated as surely as those Jews who literally went up in smoke during the Nazi Holocaust. His stories are mainly of victims who were unarmed and helpless and who, it turns out, were actually exceptionally kind to others, often to the very Arab Palestinians who shot them down, bludgeoned them to death, or blew them up into unrecognizable bone fragments, drops of blood, perhaps a few teeth.

I look forward to completing Meotti’s book. I hope that people more fully understand that TIME Magazine as well as countless other media in the Western world, can no longer be trusted to tell the truth.

Prof. Chesler  is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She also is an author and appears often in international media interviews. She lives in New York City.

Peace with Criminals, War with People! « RAWA

There are many Afghanistanis who object to the U.S. presence, RAWA is one such group, they are pro-democracy and very much pro-human rights.

MFB

Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on “Consultative Peace Jirga”

By inviting criminals like the Taliban, the leaders of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s party and other “Jehadileaders” to be part of a “Consultative Peace Jirga,” Mr. Karzai is committing yet another treason against the Afghan people. Like any puppet, anti-people ruler, he initially compromised with all the murderers associated with April 27th 1978 (former Russian puppets) and April 28 1992 (the Northern Alliance warlords) and installed them in key posts of his government. He then went to the extent of assigning the two most notorious warlords Karim Khalili and Qasim Fahim as his vice presidents. Now, he calls the Taliban and Hekmatyar party terrorists “Afghan sons” and tries to either share power with them, or offer them the opportunity of asylum and amnesty to their leaders in any country of their choice. He is also offering jobs to their gunmen so he can prolong his mafia-style rule with ease of mind.

A known terrorist from Hekmatyar’s Islamic Party called Farooq Wardak has been awarded the responsibility of running theJirga. Additionally, the delegates from Hekmatyar’s blood-thirsty party in Kabul were received like showbiz celebrities with local Afghan media being offered in their service. The infamous criminals Mullah Wakil Ahmad Motawakal, Mullah Zaef, Humayun Jarir, Abdul Hadi Arghandewal, Sabaoon, Mullah Rocketi and many other such terrorists of the Taliban and Islamic Party have had their reputations sugarcoated in the past few years. All these things not only illuminate the true nature and goal of this Jirga, but also constitute an insult to our people who have sought their liberation in the prosecution and punishment ofKhaliqi, Parchami, Jehadi and Taliban criminals, but instead still feel the heavy load of these brutal enemies on their wounded bodies.

Without receiving a green light from their US masters, the puppet government of Afghanistan could never raise a hue and cry about this “Consultative Peace Jirga.” It could also not consider making peace with the Taliban and Islamic Party assassins while they are apparently still on the “Black List” of the US government. This in itself proves that the US doesn’t just want a puppet government, but also a stable and efficient government to easily change Afghanistan into a strong military base in Asia, extend its grip on the oil and gas of the Central Asian Republics and maintain its supremacy in competition with rivals such as China and other regional powers. For the US and allies, the deeply criminal, treacherous, anti-democracy and anti-independence essence of this puppet regime has no significance at all. Apart from a handful of sold-off intellectuals of Afghanistan, this reality is crystal clear to even our children that the claim of the US about bringing “democracy” and “women’s liberation” to Afghanistan was the biggest lie of the century. In fact, it was even more striking than the claims of the US about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and more comic than its pretence of having an opposition to fundamentalist bands and governments.

At the height of a piercing outcry over a “Peace Jirga,” the Taliban intensified their inhuman brutalities by killing school children, teachers, men, and women of Kabul and other cities, but Karzai and his spokesmen expressed with detestable indifference that, “Inshallah, with national unity soon we will emerge from these problems”! If their own sister, mother or daughter were raped, killed publicly or torn to pieces by suicide bombings, would they still call these killings “problems” they have with Taliban, their “disaffected brothers”? But considering the power-lust and impunity of the ruling mafia, they may still not call the Taliban criminals, and their acts as crimes, because despite having some differences, in the final stage they regard themselves from the same ranks and deem it necessary to become united in order to run the state machinery in front of people’s wrath. Both the Taliban and the ruling mafia know well that the day US/NATO occupation forces leave Afghanistan; all the tribes of Afghanistan will consider unity amongst themselves to topple their bloody rule.

While the US is trying to unite its lackeys through the “Peace Jirga” and other means, it is afraid of unity and integration among Afghan people. Therefore, through its puppet government and Northern Alliance agents, the US is trying hard to sow disruption and animosity among the different tribes of Afghanistan. For example, in Behsood and Daimirdad they inflamed fighting between Hazaras and Nomads and similarly in Northern Afghanistan among Tajiks, Pushtoons and Uzbeks so they can continue the occupation of a divided and disarrayed nation.

The so-called intellectuals of Afghanistan who directly or indirectly hope that the Taliban will end the US occupation, are carving a dark mark of history on their forehead. They are like those who rely on the US and the bloodthirsty Iranian regime to emancipate them from the yoke of the Taliban. If such people are not foolish, then they are spineless because they neither remember the marks of the Taliban flogging our mothers, sisters and fathers nor the beheading of our children and poor women (in the name of rooting out “spies”), or the spraying of acid on innocent school-girls. If they believe that by relying on tribal issues, corruption, and looting of the puppet regime they can find an argument for their support of the brutal Taliban, then by what trick can they ignore the ISI-born nature and medieval mentality of the Taliban? Can they point out any example anywhere in the world of such an anti-democratic and anti-women group dominated by drug lords and dependent on the intelligence agency of a foreign country that dares to struggle for independence and liberation? The intellectual supporters of the Taliban are possibly agents of the US CIA and other agencies who by upholding the Taliban and calling them a “resistance movement” want to pave the way for their joint domination with President Karzai and the “National Front” mafia.

In the past, through the meddling of Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai as representatives of UNOCAL, the US dealt with the Taliban and pumped tens of millions of dollars into their pockets. Today if the Taliban once again comes to power, the US will easily “work” with them and prefer their bloody and suffocating rule of Afghanistan to an independent, pro-democracy and pro-women’s rights government, because the US counts on them as the most loyal group to safeguard its interests in the region. The Taliban also will not forget that the US was their creator, trainer and mentor through Pakistan’s ISI god-fathers.

The current conflict between the US, Taliban, and Northern Alliance is in fact a family matter between them which will be solved sooner or later. When that happens, the ranks of friends and enemies of our people will become clear and the illusion spread by pro-Taliban, pro-April 27 and April 28 treacherous intellectuals will be countered. Under such conditions, it is the duty of pro-independence, pro-democracy and pro-women’s rights intellectuals to increase their organized efforts for a coordinated uprising of our people against all traitors to Afghanistan.

Let the puppet mafia government of Karzai bring together all its agents in the “Peace Jirga” and similar ridiculous shows and by organizing luxury meetings, dance over the dead bodies of our innocent people, but the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), alongside the aggrieved Afghan people thinks that such deceitful games mean throwing salt on the wounds of our people caught in the US/NATO bombings, insecurity, poverty, unemployment and desperation all over Afghanistan.

Shame to the “Peace Jirga” of criminals with criminals!
Neither USA, Nor Taliban and the National Front murderers!
An independent and democratic Afghanistan!