Raymond Duray is rooting for Al-Qaeda and against God,Mom and Apple Pie. Smittee tells me that Ray posted right after 9-11 saying that those who perished in the flames deserved to die.
Ladies and Gentleman; Christians and Jews; atheists and agnostics, Space Truckers and Chickens and those with no affiliations at all, check it out for yourself.
Anything that I've ever told you I've encouraged you to check out and independantly verify for yourself.
That is the Joy of Living in a Free country and having Free Will.
But the deceivers and their allies are actively working to break your mind and spirit in every way imaginable.
AND some of them may just be smarter than you. Or lets put it this way they are totally focused on their core mission. While our friends and allies are not always as focused on how nasty Things can get in our world. Go ask your parents and Grandparents about the 1930's and 1940's.
Life is not always Free and easy as the yippees and hippees, Yuppee's and Dual Income No Kid post modern hipsters might have you believe.
Get out your copy of Private Ryan and see what sacrifice is all about.
Ray tells you exactly where he is at when he signs his posts.
he signs them Salaams, I was waiting to see who was going to pick up on that, as I did fairly early in this practice round.
I'm kind of shocked that our pretty smart team did not get out there and check it out
iqra.net
google.com
Groovesters what it is all about.
OK much as Jimi Hendrix had to really get very provocative and in your face to get his message across to a world that was just barely awakening to The Experience
I wanted to put something out there that was very provocative and would get everyone on SI who has been upset with Ray, to thinking about exactly what his game is
---------------------------
By this logic, the United States should draw a distinction in its war on terror between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and terrorists in Palestine such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
nationalreview.com
--------------
The Coalition’s Price Tag
Rethinking allies.
By Eli J. Lake, State Department correspondent United Press International
October 30, 2001 8:20 a.m.
ince September 11, the State Department has done a good job at keeping most Arab states inside the new coalition against terrorism, but the price is getting steeper.
A stream of Arab leaders are equating the root causes of terror with the frustration their subjects feel regarding Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians. By this logic, Palestinian terrorism is not really terrorism at all, but rather the exasperated response of occupied peoples.
By this logic, the United States should draw a distinction in its war on terror between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and terrorists in Palestine such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Take Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's remarks Monday to Al-Azhar University in Cairo. "People have reached a state of frustration and feeling of injustice which leads to more violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis," he said. And these remarks are from one of Arabia's moderate leaders, according to the State Department, a steadfast American ally that receives billions in military aid.
Mubarak's old foreign minister and the current secretary general of the Arab League, Amre Moussa sounded a similar call on October 22. "Phase two of the international effort should focus on the root causes of terrorism. Frustration, despair and anger are sentiments which if unchecked can be channeled into destructive acts," Moussa told a packed luncheon sponsored by the Washington-based Arab American Institute. "One of the key problems that cause great frustration in the Arab world is to watch the Palestinians suffer under foreign military occupation."
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal made the same point earlier this month when he suggested U.S. Middle East policies may have indirectly brought about the September 11 terrorist attacks. He made the speech after donating $10 million to the charity set up to aid the victims of the crashes that toppled the World Trade Center, money that was returned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the speech.
The Arab coalition calculus is increasingly important in light of this week's events in the Holy Land. Under public pressure from Washington, the Israeli Defense Forces began to withdraw troops from the West Bank towns of Bethlehem and Beit Jala after reaching a tentative agreement with Palestinian security officials in a meeting brokered by the CIA.
Israel went forward with the incursion into the major West Bank towns after members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group with offices operating inside Palestinian controlled territory, claimed responsibility for the assassination of its Right-wing tourism minister, Rehevam Ze'evi.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to the withdrawal one day after Palestinian operatives killed seven Israelis and injured 50 more in Hedera. The IDF's intelligence chief, Col. Yosef Kuperwasser told reporters Monday that the operatives responsible for the attack were among the terrorists Israel has asked Arafat to arrest for months.
If Kuperwasser is right and if PFLP offices are indeed operating freely inside the borders of what may one day become the Palestinian state, then Arafat is a harborer of terrorists. And if President Bush means what he said on September 19, that the new war is against all terrorism, including those who give them "safe haven," then Arafat should be worried about U.S. reprisals.
The State Department however has been reluctant to accept this point. While spokesmen for the department repeat the same tired rhetoric that Arafat must do more to control the violence, these phrases are said in the same breath with pleas for Israel to restrain its response. Thus the reaction to terror somehow fuels it.
Secretary of State Colin Powell walked this line on Thursday when told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "You start to run into areas where one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And that's where you have to apply judgment. You have to apply judgment that says, is there a better way to express grievances?; or is there a better way to change the political problem that you're dealing with?"
And this rhetoric is backed up by the Bush administration's reluctance to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah — three groups it dubs foreign terrorist organizations — on a list of groups for which the Treasury Department has instructed all banks worldwide to freeze assets. So far that list only includes groups linked to al Qaeda.
The State Department instinctively understood the Arab coalition calculus in the 24 hours following the September 11 attacks. The Israeli government had hoped that terrorist acts in the United States would create a further common bond between the two countries, and strengthen U.S. opposition to the suicide attacks by Palestinian groups that killed Israeli civilians at open markets, in stores, and at bus stops.
To the surprise of Israeli officials, the reverse happened. In telephone calls to Israel, U.S. diplomats pressed Ariel Sharon's government to allow his dovish foreign minister, Shimon Peres to meet with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat — something Sharon had been resisting. Other State Department officials made the point more forcefully to Jewish organizations, hoping they would serve as a back channel to Sharon's government.
And sure enough, instead of sending Mossad bounty hunters to Afghanistan, Israel acquiesced to American demands and cobbled together yet another ceasefire that would be broken in a matter of days.
If Moussa, Mubarak, and Prince bin-Talal get their way, then U.S. rhetoric at Senate hearings and press briefings will be backed up by real policy. So far this hasn't happened. But it's worth asking the question what would a pro-Arab shift in Middle East policy look like?
To start, Washington can invoke the little known Arms Export Control Act. That law specifically prohibits countries that receive U.S. armaments from using the weapons for anything other than self-defense, particularly if the actions decrease stability in the region. Despite the repeated calls for Israel not to use U.S. helicopter gunships and jet fighters in targeted killings of suspected Palestinian terrorists, the Bush administration has not even started a review of whether Israel may have violated the legislation.
This is exactly what Moussa's host last Monday, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute has pushed the State Department to do for the last nine months. But to date there has been no action from the State Department or Congress.
The United States has vetoed any efforts in the United Nations Security Council to send an international peacekeeping force to hot spots in the conflict and even lobbied other states on the U.N. panel not to support such a resolution. Taking away an American veto threat would be another way the Arab world may want to see Washington get serious about the peace process, considering Arab states in conjunction with the Palestinians have pushed for U.N. peacekeepers since the beginning of the latest conflict.
In the end however, it is up to President Bush to decide whether these actions, which would enrage already nervous Jewish American voters not to mention all Israelis, are worth the promise of an Arab coalition against terror — and the promise of security that it holds.
It's worth noting that four of the seven states Washington deems "sponsors of terrorism" are members of the Arab League — Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. This is not to mention the financial links the Treasury Department is seeking to sever between al Qaeda and large banks in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
In countries like Yemen, where the government is seen as friendly and cooperative on terrorism, there are still huge swathes of the country that escape the reach of a central government — areas where terrorists enjoy safe haven due in part to the government's inability to assert its reach. Other states, like Syria employ terror as a strategy by allowing arms and supplies to reach the groups over their sovereign territory.
Eliminating terrorism and those who aid and abet it in the Arab world will require significant sacrifices for many leaders, to say the least. There are some in the Bush administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who argue it would require ending some of these regimes altogether. Others like Powell have argued that international isolation as a result of a coalition only helps the U.S. cause in hunting down suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his associates by denying them safe haven.
If the war on terrorism is just that — a war on all terrorism — bin Laden will only be phase one. And if Moussa gets his way, Israel may in some way pay the price for his capture. |
