BILINGUES ? POSTS IN ENGLISH

>
Les musulmans rêvaient d’un Google à part, rien que pour eux, bien séparé des kouffars. Ils l’ont fait ! aidés par Google qui leur a visiblement donné l’autorisation de reprendre leur nom ainsi que le look du célèbre moteur de recherche. Avec Google islamique, les musulmans pourront donc continuer à vivre dans leur réalité parallèle, faite de propagande et de mythes, dans leur espace temps différent, avec moins de risques de se retrouver confrontés nez à nez avec la triste réalité de leur retard dans tous les domaines, ou pire, de croiser sur Internet, “des fils de singes et de porcs” que nous sommes.Non ce n’est pas une blague. La preuve -> [www.islamicgoogle.com] sites français non-hallal seront tous censurés bientôt, n’en doutez pas.
> > > A FAIRE SUIVRE

LISON !!

Aujourd'hui TOUT s'achete !!
Et puis. si ca peut nous debarrasser de certains sur ce site,
encore mieux..

surfeuse a écrit:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libya chairing a Human Rights committee? Was this
> on April 1st?

hi ...don t be so astonished
humain rights still remain a high challenge to take up
as long as they don t go hand in hand with Finance interests and in the same way ...

hi lison ... are you aware of slamic google or worrying about ?
anyway in both cases there is no matter; even I understand perfectly your worries (or awareness);
but google would be just a tool to let people develop their thought;
we have had the same attitude as yours against iran about its program; yeah?
So until when do we remain worrying about all what would be different from our taste?
really it ´s time to be up to manage ones worries and strike a balance between enhancing and preventing others cultures from getting into development ...
thanks .

for to-be-free
not worry at all about Islamic google, why not ?

what is there to do now anyhow ? there will be two school of thinking and doing, is 'nt called Democracy ?

Tout ce qui est bancale s'effondre de toute manière.

Tout à une fin et un recommencement.

Lison

hi... Everything has an end or to end. It first starts, collapses, then resumes, and so on, as well as jewish civilisation after roughly two thousand years.

Over the course of the industrial revolution, the world got firmly split into what we call the west and the east. Hence, the arab world got falling behind. They do need today an opportunity to make up for this missed historical train.

As the church in the past had fear of west blossoming, as now we all may be perplexed by this arab google start-up boost.
As all began in the west with printing press invention, which had been churning out books and spread them out widely among population, as now the share of the free flow of the arab knowledge by mean of google service would put them on track to self questioning and by the way, on the road to keep up with the West.

Imagine that until right now, many cannot afford to buy books or attend school; so they mostly trust on seeming imams who may had never attend school neither.
But now they have a chance to reach information by themselves and moreover in their own culture environment.
Notice, just having a seat in front of screen inside popular cybercafe for few dirham or dinar per hour and getting taping over keyboard would mean a lot. They think! Right?

The question is, do we want arab world cooped up in radicalism or getting into enlightenment. Do we want them with west or against west?

So what does mean exactly Google here ? It means that there no real walls between us.

just to jump over hatefulness, to build together better world, the ours.

good day!

exactly !

It looks like our enemies share one common trait: room-temperature IQ!


[www.seattlepi.com]

The Silly and Harmful Fantasy of “Two States for Two Peoples”

By Steven Plaut (*)
Those who support the “Two States for Two Peoples” doctrine, and I
suppose that now one must even include Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in that category, no matter how reluctantly he joined it, have a very simple position. Indeed, the entire “Two States for Two Peoples” doctrine can be summed up in one simple idea, in fact in one simple sentence. It is this: maybe after the Palestinians get their own state, then they will agree to live in peace with Israel. No matter how complex and “scholarly” is any article or position paper that supports “Two States for Two Peoples” doctrine, once
one clears away the verbiage it all boils down to that one simple idea.

To put it even more strongly, no one who is currently promoting “Two States for Two Peoples” would still be promoting it if they could be persuaded beyond all doubt that the Palestinians would NOT live in peace after getting their own state under “Two States for Two Peoples,” or if they discovered with certainty that the second of those states (“Palestine”) would be used for nothing other than terrorist aggression. Well, almost no one would. In the increasingly anti-Semitic Left around the world and even at the margins of the Israeli Far Left there are already people arguing that Israel
should agree to “Two States for Two Peoples” even if it is totally clear and obvious that “Palestine” will be used for nothing besides terrorist aggression against Israel. They support that idea because they think that creating a Palestinian state is the right thing to do no matter how destructive it will be and no matter how disastrous for Israel will be the consequences of its creation. The more honest far Leftists defend this position by admitting that they want Israel annihilated and all of its Jews thrown into the sea.

Today to promote “Two States for Two Peoples” requires a bit of
cognitive dissonance. After all, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, turning it over to the “Palestinian Authority,” and the whole world saw the consequences. They included 8000 rocket missiles aimed at Jewish civilians inside Israel. So those who insist that the Palestinian will desire to live in peace once they have their own state are about as consistent and credible as are people who argue that North Korea and Iran will seek genuine peace once they get nuclear weapons, or those that once insisted that Hitler would be satisfied once he gets the Sudetenland.

But more generally, the whole “Two States for Two Peoples” campaign is nothing more than a special case of the “Then Maybe they Will” doctrine. For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been prisoner to the "Then Maybe They Will" doctrine. Every major policy decision made by the government has reflected the power of wishful thinking and faith in the make-pretend. Here is a brief recapitulation of the doctrine:

If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in their state-run media.

If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop seeking Israel's destruction and the world will not try to set up an independent Palestinian Arab terror state.

If Israel provides the Palestinian Authority with arms and funds, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not be used for terrorist atrocities against Israel.

If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and seeking the annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population.

If Israel frees thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce violence and not murder any more Jews.

If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL put a stop to Palestinian terrorism.

If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold elections, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not elect Hamas.

If the Palestinians elect Hamas, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not pursue a program of aggression and terrorism against Israel.

If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their genocidal ambitions and seek peace.

If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and allows Hezb’allah terrorists to station rockets on the border, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not launch any of them.

If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in Hezb’allah and stop border attacks on Israel.

If Israel refrains from retaliating against Hezb’allah terrorists after they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not seek to kidnap any more soldiers.

If Israel agrees to one cease-fire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL eventually comply with one.

If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public lands, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and moderate.

If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel.

If Israel ignores Hezb’allah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL come to an end.

If Israel lets the Muslims control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation.

If Israel expels all Jews from Gaza as a gesture of friendship to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with friendship toward the Jews.

If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel.

If Israel turns the other cheek after Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired.

If Israel allows the Palestinian Authority to control parts of the West Bank, THEN MAYBE THE PALESTINIANS WILL not fire rockets at Jews the same way they do from Gaza.

If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE THE SYRIANS WILL seek peace and reject the idea of using the Heights to attack Israel again.

If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo/Road Map/Saudi Plan noose,THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL not pull the rope.

If Israel officially agrees in principle to let the Palestinians have a state, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.

(*) Articulist and Professor of Economy at Haifa University[/center]

Where are you Lison ?

Why Obama Should Keep the Heat on Israel ...

[www.time.com]

The big question about Barack Obama has always been this: Is he a risk taker? Domestically, he answered it months ago with his massive stimulus package. On foreign policy, we only just learned the answer. By taking on the Israeli government over the issue of settlement growth, Obama is showing that he's a gambler overseas as well. Despite the conventional wisdom that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is impossible anytime soon, he seems hell-bent on pursuing one. And if he breaks china in the process, so be it.

American Presidents have opposed Israeli settlements in the West Bank since Israel conquered it in 1967. But in practice, they've mostly turned a blind eye. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush showed why when he tried to condition loan guarantees to Israel on a halt to settlement growth and stirred up a nasty political hornet's nest in the process. He won only 11% of the Jewish vote the following year.

Since then, public spats with Israel have been the third rail of U.S. foreign policy. If Obama loses his current showdown with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they could well remain so for a generation. But luckily for Obama — and unluckily for the supporters of the political status quo in Washington and Jerusalem — he's not likely to lose.

The first reason is that he's taking on Netanyahu where the Israeli Prime Minister is weakest. Israelis may not be thrilled about freezing settlement growth, but it's not an issue like Iran's nuclear program, which they consider important enough to risk their relationship with the U.S. over. A poll published in Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, on June 5 found that 56% of Israelis would rather cave on the settlements issue than face sanctions by the U.S.

Obama also has the political advantage in Washington. Settlements are to the mainstream pro-Israel crowd what partial-birth abortions are to the mainstream pro-choice crowd: the issue they hate talking about. Even the most powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which opposes public U.S. pressure on Israel, hasn't taken an explicit stance on the settlements dispute. Obama has also surrounded himself with the kind of advisers (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross) and made the kind of symbolic gestures (holding a seder at the White House and condemning Holocaust denial in Cairo) that reassure many American Jews. Historically, Israel's American supporters have used their strength in Congress to box Presidents in a corner. But when Netanyahu came to Washington last month, even reliably pro-Israel Jewish members of Congress gave him an earful on settlements.

The third reason Obama will most likely win this fight is that Netanyahu has bigger fish to fry. He knows that sometime in the next year or two, he could well end up paying a visit to the White House to ask for U.S. support for a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. For an Israeli Prime Minister, alienating a U.S. President is almost always bad politics, but it's particularly bad politics when you need his help to stop what you've called an existential threat. If Israelis decide Netanyahu can't negotiate with the U.S. effectively over Iran, they may demand that he be replaced with someone who can.

For Netanyahu, backing down won't be easy. If he concedes too much, his right-leaning government could fall. But that's not Obama's problem. In fact, the White House would probably be thrilled if Netanyahu were forced to trade his right-wing partners for a coalition with Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima Party, which is serious about a peace process with the Palestinians. It would be even happier if Livni replaced Netanyahu altogether.

This crisis has already revealed something about Obama: he's not timid. If he succeeds in getting Netanyahu to freeze settlement growth, his next moves may be to dial up the pressure on the U.S.'s Arab allies to take steps toward recognizing the Jewish state and put heat on the Palestinians to overcome their political division, which might entail some easing of the U.S. ban on dealing with Hamas. The latter move would spark loud wailing and gnashing of teeth on both the Israeli and American right. But it may not matter. During the campaign, Obama's foreign policy advisers told journalists that unlike past Democrats, he wouldn't be afraid to test the limits of what was politically possible. We're now starting to see what that means. It should be an interesting few years.

Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Another useful idiot...

Idiots are those lacking arguments ...

"When you have nothing to say, say nothing."
Charles Caleb Colton

LISON ???C'EST TON FIL !!
TU REVIENS QUAND ?

BONNE JOURNEE
Pièces jointes:

Lison,

I need your help on this thread, I can't do this alone! Who's bilingual (trilingual, really ) beside you and me?

L I S O N ! ! ! ! meme Surfeuse t'appelle au secours ! !

thanks ! give me some more time.


soon.

Lison

All right! Lison is stepping up to the plate! Excellent!
Pièces jointes:

June 23, 2009
LONDON (JTA) -- Britain's Parliament for the first time elected a Jewish
speaker of the House of Commons.
John Bercow, 46, a Conservative lawmaker, was elected Monday in a secret
ballot.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown in congratulating Bercow noted that he was the
Parliament's first Jewish speaker.

[jta.org]

IL NE FAUT PAS COMPTER LES MOTS !! IL FAUT LES PESER !! salomon/LES ROIS