Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (5368)	10/4/2002 12:24:15 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

The trouble with the U.N. Joesph Farah October 4, 2002 There are many reasons it's wrong to go to the United Nations for permission to defend the United States of America. There are even more reasons not to use Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions as the principal justification for an attack. Already the usual suspects are stating the obvious: If we are about to attack Iraq because it has violated U.N. resolutions, why aren't we attacking Israel? The proponents of the argument recognize the U.N. has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy over the last 50 years condemning the Jewish state. There's just no dispute about it. The U.N. hates Israel. It has almost from the moment the U.N. voted to approve the creation of the state in 1948. Israel is perceived by the U.N. as perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the world. Just look at the facts. Of 175 Security Council resolutions passed by the U.N. before 1990, 97 of them were directed against Israel. Of 690 General Assembly resolutions before 1990, 429 condemned Israel. The U.N. is obsessed with Israel. And that is a great example of why we should treat the U.N. for what it is – an evil and irrelevant group of global busybodies. Israel is no threat to anyone except those who seek to destroy it. Frankly, even to those people, it's not enough of a threat. Israel's biggest problem is that it has been so wimpy and conciliatory except during wartime when it is faced with extinction. The U.N. sees no great danger posed by totalitarian nations imposing their will on neighbors – regimes like the one in Syria. Syria, in fact, even served as chairman of the Security Council during the month of June this year. Yet, there is only one nation actually occupying another in the Mideast today, and that one nation is Syria, which has a political and military stranglehold on Lebanon. The U.N. sees no great danger when a nation like Sudan makes war on its own people because of race and religion. The Islamic radicals who run the country have aided Osama bin Laden in the past. Today they are content to continue the mass murder of Christians and animists in the southern region of the country and in the Nubian mountain region. The U.N. sees no great danger in tribal wars like the one that flared in Rwanda, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people. In fact, the evidence is now clear the U.N. had advance knowledge of the impending slaughter and did nothing to prevent or even condemn it. The U.N. sees no great danger in the wholesale, government-sponsored, racist land-grabs currently underway in Zimbabwe, for instance. White farmers are being held hostage and murdered in a systematic, orchestrated, forceful and violent campaign of wealth redistribution. Not as much as a whimper of concern was expressed by the U.N. Conference on Racism. Yet, the U.N. has even characterized the Jewish state as a racist concept. Yet, was it racist when the people of Kosovo – ethnic Albanians, mainly Muslims – wanted independence from Serbia? Evidently not, according to the U.N. In fact, NATO bombed Serbia in an effort to accomplish the objective of an autonomous Kosovo. Was it racist when mainly Muslim Bosnians wanted to create a separate nation? Evidently not, according to the U.N, which helped ensure the creation and maintenance of such a state. Think of all the national independence movements based on ethnicity and religion that have received the support of the international community in recent years. Why is it that only Israel is targeted in this way? It's time for the United States to recognize the U.N. is a sham from beginning to end. It's a disgrace that we continue to court this modern-day global Tower of Babel. It's time for us to say goodbye to this dangerous and useless group of power-mad tinhorn dictators. When the U.S. is attacked without provocation, it's up to us to defend our nation. We don't need nor want the U.N.'s blessing. worldnetdaily.com

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (5368)	10/4/2002 7:03:12 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 32591

The Difficuilties of dialogue with Islam. 1) During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue, an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you." Full article >>> sspx.ca I have been living in Turkey for the past 42 years, a 99.9% Muslim country, and I have been the Archbishop of Izmir - Asia Minor - for the past 16 years. The theme of my intervention is therefore obvious: the problem of Islam in Europe today and in the future. I thank Bishop Pelâtre, who already spoke about this theme in this prestigious assembly, dispensing me therefore of a long examination and relative interpretations. My intervention is to make a humble request of the Holy Father, above all. To be brief and clear, first I will mention three cases that, due to their provenance, I believe to be true: 1) During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue, an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you." This is to be believed because the "domination" has already begun with the "petro-dollars" used not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigrants, including Rome, the center of Christianity. How can we fail to see in all this a clear programme of expansion and reconquest? 2) During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organized by Christians, a Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they did not organize at least one meeting of this kind. The Muslim authority present answered in the following words: "Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn." A dialogue between deaf persons? It is a fact that terms such as "dialogue," "justice," "reciprocity," or concepts such as "rights of man" and "democracy" have a completely different meaning for Muslims than for us. But I believe that by now this is recognized and admitted by all. 3) In a Catholic monastery in Jerusalem there was-and perhaps still is-a Muslim Arab servant. A kind and honest person, he was respected greatly by the religious, who in turn were respected by him. One day, he sadly told them: "Our leaders have met and have decided that all the 'infidels' must be killed, but do not be afraid because I will kill you without making you suffer." We are all aware that we must distinguish between the fanatic and violent minority from the tranquil and honest majority, but the latter, at an order given in the name of Allah or the Koran, will always march in unity and without hesitation. Anyway, history teaches us that determined minorities always manage to impose themselves on reluctant and silent majorities. It would be naive to underestimate or, worse yet, smile at the three cases I have mentioned; I feel that their dramatic teaching must be considered seriously. This is not pessimism on my part, despite the appearance. The Christian cannot be pessimistic because Christ is risen and alive; He is God, unlike any other prophet or one claiming to be such. The final victory will be Christ's, but God's times can be long, and often are. He is patient and waits for the conversion of sinners: in the meantime He invites the Church to organize herself and to work to hasten the coming of His kingdom. And now I would like to make a serious proposal to the Holy Father: to organize as soon as possible, if not a Synod, at least a symposium of Bishops and those engaged in the pastoral care of immigrants, particularly Islamic immigrants, and open to the Reformed and Orthodox Churches. Its organization could be entrusted to the CCEE [Consilium Conferentiarum Episcoporum Europae-Council Conference of European Bishops], which has had a great deal of experience in this matter, in collaboration with the KEK [Konferenz Europdischer Kirchen-Conference of European Churches]. The symposium could be useful to study in a collegial way the problem of the Islamic individuals in Christian countries, and thus find a common strategy to face it and resolve it in a Christian and objective way. We must agree on the principles, even if their application will vary depending on the places and the persons. Nothing is worse than disagreement on principles! I end this exhortation suggested to me by experience: do not allow Muslims ever to use a Catholic church for their worship, because in their eyes this would be the surest proof of our apostasy.