The terrorists and three hostages

December 11, 2008

 My son read this joke in the web a couple of days back and I thought that this was quite funny. It made his day and also mine

Three guys were capture by terrorists, one smart ,one average and one dumb guy.

So the penalty would be death, they took the three guys and said ” We will execute you one at a time”, they placed the smart guy in front of a firing squad.

The smart guy thinks to him I’ve got to think of a disaster.

The commander orders “Ready aim.”

Suddenly the smart guy yells out, “Earthquake!” all of sudden everyone scrambles.

They realize the false alarm but the smart guy gets away, they capture the other two, to carry out their sentence. They place the average guy in front of the firing squad. The average guy thinks to himself that if it works for the smart guy, I’ve got think of a disaster.

The commander orders, “Ready aim” the average guy yells out “Flood!” and everyone scrambles he gets away.

So it came down to the dumb guy he gets capture, they place him in front of the firing squad. He thinks to himself, ” Well it works for the smart guy; it works for average guy; I know it will work for me. I’ve got to think of a disaster.”

The commander orders” Ready! Aim! ”

And the dumb guy yells out “FIRE!!!!!”

Boss humour

February 22, 2007

I was flipping through the web and this one caught me as particularly funny.

Question: How many bosses does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer: One. He holds up the light bulb and expects the universe to revolve around him.

Facts about the Israeli lobby in America

February 12, 2007

ISRAEL THE ROOT OF MID-EAST TERRORISM

1)      Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget.  In percapita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.

2)      Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes, like building settlements in the
West Bank.

3)      The United States has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like theLavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need, while giving Israel access to top‐drawer U.S. weaponry likeBlackhawk helicopters and F‐16 jets.

4)      In the thick of the Lebanon war withHizbollah Jul, 2006, US was supplying Israel with planeloads of laser guided missiles passing through Scotland while condemning Iran & Syria for supplying arms for the Hizbullah.

5)      The United States gives Israel access to intelligence that it denies its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye towards
Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

6)      In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.  Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members

7)      US blocks Arab states’ efforts to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Agency’s list.

8)      The International Atomic Energy Agency’s agenda prior to the invasion of Iraq was at least partly intended to improve
Israel’s strategic situation.

9)      “Terrorism” is a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups; it is not a single unified adversary (as G.W. Bush would have it).  The threat faced by the US from terrorist organizations is by association (with Israel)– not by implication. That means “terrorist” groups that threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not necessarily threaten the United States, except when it intervenes on behalf of and associates with Israel (as in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006). The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.

10)  Palestinian terrorism is not random violence or “hatred” directed against Israel or “the West”; it is largely a response to
Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There is no question, for example, that many alQaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Arab lands, oppression of the indigenous Arab population, sequestration of Arab property and the continued and sustained hindrance to Palestinian lives and livelihood.

11)  Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason why some of its neighbors want nuclear weapons, and threatening these states with regime change merely increases that desire and the threat of terrorism. If Arabs are a security threat to Israel, then the reverse of the grave threat of the state of Israel armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, is also true. Security is not a one way street where the safety of one small entity is secured at the expense of a much larger entity.

12)   Un-questioning support for Israel also weakens the U.S. position outside the Middle East. Foreign elites consistently view the United States as too supportive of Israel, and think its tolerance of Israeli repression in the occupied territories is morally obtuse handicap in the war on terrorismwhich is supposedly a moral war. In April 2004, for example, 52 former British diplomats sent Prime Minister Tony Blair a letter saying that the Israel‐Palestine conflict had “poisoned relations between the West and the Arab and Islamic worlds,” and warned that the policies of Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were “one‐sided and illegal.

13)  Israel’s strategic value is that it does not act like a loyal ally.  Israeli officials frequently ignore U.S. requests and renege on promises made to top U.S. leaders (including past pledges to halt settlement construction and to refrain from “targeted assassinations” of Palestinian leaders). Moreover, Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential U.S. rivals like China, in what the U.S. State Department Inspector‐ General called “a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers.” According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, Israel also “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any ally.”  In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which Israel reportedly passed onto the Soviet Union to gain more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official (Larry Franklin) had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat, allegedly aided by twoAIPAC officials. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the United States, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value to the US.

14)  Israel is the only nation in the world that has threatened to use it’s nuclear weapon on another country (Iran). The
US, EU nor the UN has not called it to account on it’s existing nuclear arsenal (only recently confirmed inadvertently by PMEhud Olmert) nor was the US for it’s covert nuclear weapons supplies to Israel. It also has not affirmed a “no first use” policy of nuclear weapons nor has it been subject to IAEA inspection. Which makes it a grave regional as well as an international security threat.

Such extraordinary support for another nation could only be justified when true US strategic interests are compromised or when there is a compelling moral caseneither of which are present in the current context of political, economic or security realities. In truth Israel is a strategic liability and a security risk for the
US.

Laugh of the day

February 9, 2007

I got this joke from a friend of mine… She made me laugh in an otherwise dreary day at work. Here is a conversation between a middle aged couple…

 Wife : Honey do you like my sexy buns or voluptious bosoms?

Husband : (after thinking for a while and looking a little puzzled) I like your sense of humour.

The increasingly militant, rightwing political and media establishments of the west

January 29, 2007

 Ever wonder why the same news that comes in BBC also appears in CNN, CNA, fox news etc? They don’t have an independent view and they follow the media herd mentality of western bigotry when reporting anything un-western or is not representative of Western values. Anything that is not western is portrayed as something exotic and pagan much to the pleasure of an increasingly militant, western right-wing politcal establishment headed by the current US administration. We hear outright racism in Big Brother TV being shamelessly being downplayed as nothing more petty female rivalry. Covered muslim women and religious figures being regarded as objects of ridicule and then justified again with the hackneyed statement of political correctness : “democratic freedom of speech” that everyone else is expected to accept as valid excuse for such bigotry. Why can’t the same standards be applied for the frank discussion of issues like the holocaust and the habits of gays. Muslim anger against Jewish atrocities are amplified as terrorism while largely ignoring or suppresing Jewish terrorism and neo-nazi and anti-Jewish movements developing in their own backyards.It is as though since 9-11 the Ku-Klux-Klan traded their traditional white hooded garbs for tuxedos and had taken control of the White House and Downing Street. The media had been very disappointingly accommodative of the Bush administration and failed to bring it to task for lying to the public, countless gross human rights violations in Iraq, constitutional violations on individual privacy, Guantanamo Bay and Europes secret renditions, squandering tax payers money to wage wanton wars and the list just goes on.They may appear impartial but they hide a deeper level of ignorance and bigotry that may not necessarily give you the whole story. Be very clear, the western media controls the flow of mass media and they feed us in Asia and the rest of the world with nothing but western prejudices and views. I scoff at the thought that Channel news Asia gives you “a truely asian perspective on events happening around the world”. But really, is it any different from CNN or BBC? With having to put up with the fake American accent of the correspondents and the news casters together with their fawning reproduction of western media sentiments. We have to understand that they are in effect profit oriented capitalist entities trying to muscle in to their $lice of a lucrative media market – the standards of which were set by the same people they are trying to differentiate themselves from. I consider this as media junk that lacks breath and depth with the same information circling among the media big-wigs with just different company names. Read on the following from taken from Al Jazeera

Western media misrepresenting Iraq
Posted January 3, 2007

Here is an interesting story from Al Jazeera, article quotes are bullet points.Al Jazeera English – Middle EastInformation about Iraq propagated by Western media is often woefully inaccurate or downright wrong, according to leading Arab figures, and such distortions are damaging any chance of peace in the country. Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq’s Sunni Arab vice-president, says that one idea – widely accepted in the West as true but which lacks evidence to support it – has upset the balance of power in Iraq to such an extent that violence was an inevitable outcome. Western media often refer to Iraq as being “overwhelmingly Shia”, or use other phrases to imply a large Shia majority. This, he says, is wrong – and it has resulted in over-representation of Shia parties in the Iraqi government at the expense of Sunni Arabs. Where the figures came from to back up assertions of a large Shia majority are unclear: no Iraqi census in modern history has ever included sect. Al-Hashimi has also blamed the Western media for the feeling of deprivation among Iraq’s Shia, referring to phrases such as “the once-dominant Sunni”, and “Sunni who enjoyed privileges under Baath Party rule” – widely used in news reports. “Western media always put question marks around this community and speak of it in the same breath as terrorism. They portray it as a community that is still incapable of comprehending the new Iraq; hence, it is not qualified to play a role in a democratic process. Such allegations are backed by lobbies whose aim is to undermine Iraqi nationalism.” Iraqi Nationalism seems to be an important concept that Western media has overlooked, consistently. It was Iraqi nationalism that made life hard for the first Imperialist invasions by the British in the 1920s. When American tanks rolled into Baghdad in 2003, the Iraqi population had been in various degrees of conflict for most of 23 years (Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988, Kuwait invasion 1990, Gulf war 1991, sanctions and embargoes 1991-2003). Saddam Hussein, like any “War Leader” would use nationalism and nationalist propaganda to raise morale and keep control. Nationalism is not the only idea at work here, but it is certainly more important than it is being given credit for.The spokesman for the Arab Baath Socialist Party, which ruled Iraq from 1968 to 2003, who asked to be identified as Abu Muhammad for security reasons, said: “Most Western media outlets have been helping the US occupation authorities to portray the Baath party as a Sunni party which suppressed the Shia and deprived them of their rights. “Actually, sect was never an issue in Iraq. I am a Shia and I have been a senior Baath official … No Baath party official – no Iraqi official – ever asked me about my sect. “When the US army occupied Iraq they issued a list of 55 wanted top Iraqi officials, starting with President Saddam Hussein; half of those senior officials were Shia.” Abu Muhammad voiced resentment at the the term “Sunni insurgency”, saying that Iraqis from different backgrounds are fighting the foreign presence in Iraq. “This term plays down Iraqi nationalism,” he said. “I repeat, I am a Shia and I am resisting the US forces in Iraq, and we know for sure that resistance fighters from all background are fighting.”

Saddam was lynched – Bad news for Iraqis seeking justice and reconciliation

January 3, 2007

I saw the CNN broadcast of the Saddam hanging just a couple of hours ago. I was thinking if the hanging was conducted by court officials or extremist Shia mob. How can the so-called cradle of Democracy allow the legimisation of this preceedings? Bush called this a milestone for Iraqis! He called this the justice that Saddam himself denied his own people! I can hardly see the difference between the Iraq of then and now. To borrow a phrase from BBC, I see this as nothing more that politically motivated sectarian lynching sanctioned by the US. The US administration by allowing and encouraging this act have seriously undermined their own sacred democratic institution of due process and rule of law – a cornerstone of every democracy.

Here we have a guy breathing his last and we see him being taunted and ridiculed. The room looked like a basement right out of a Freddy  Kreuger movie more than a designated court execution room. The people tending to Saddam looked more like the hooded Hizbullah suicide sqaud than court officials. We hear Moqtadar’s name being mentioned repeatedly which I take to mean that this hanging of Saddam was to avenge Al-Sadr and his men are there doing it. 

One guard even took a video of the whole thing and it eventually made it’s way to the net. It was gruesome and it may have worked the other way to gain sympathy for Saddam. How could a court that has even a iota of legitimacy allow this without proper procedure?

I mean what kind of court proceeding is this? The US war in Iraq does not even have a UN mandate to start with.

 – Firstly the legitimacy of the kangaroo court trial was seriously suspect. The judges were purposely chosen to be those who are likely to be opposed to Saddam.

 – The ex-iraqi PM pronounced the death sentence before the Judge (something like “Saddam should be hanged many times over”).

– Defense lawyers were myteriously killed

– Court application by defense counsel was made difficult

– The country was under foreign Military occupation that had an interest in Saddam’s demise

– The Shia establishment in the government so hastily carried out this execution without resolving the other two cases of genocide against Saddam citing Iraqi law that requires hanging within 30 days of sentencing. But by executing Saddam so hastily, the other cases remained unresolved without the primary perpetrator being alive to take the stand. Who else could have been implicated had these cases proceeded? We will never know.

– the execution guards were not properly chosen and it seems like there were no existence of observable procedures for a serious thing like criminal court executions. Why were the guards not searched for recording devices? Was there any rule on this at all other than the 30 day execution rule?

 And the list goes on..

The Iraqi PM Noori Al-Maliki, who is a Shia, signed the death warrant on Saddam and unleashed a sectarian lynch mob to execute Saddam. He failed to check the proceedings and together with the US, allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to be perpetrated while trying to make it look like a legitimate process worthy of international praise.

Where is the international community? Where is the European Union that prides itself in preserving the rule of law and justice. It is true we have seen the consequences of righting a wrong with another wrong. This is indeed a dark day for all good people people out there.