Israel
- R_P - Apr 25, 2025 - 9:28pm
Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 25, 2025 - 8:30pm
Graphs, Charts & Maps
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 25, 2025 - 6:42pm
M.A.G.A.
- R_P - Apr 25, 2025 - 5:16pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Apr 25, 2025 - 4:13pm
Anti-War
- R_P - Apr 25, 2025 - 4:04pm
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2025 - 3:40pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 25, 2025 - 3:27pm
NY Times Strands
- GeneP59 - Apr 25, 2025 - 3:22pm
NYTimes Connections
- GeneP59 - Apr 25, 2025 - 3:04pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- GeneP59 - Apr 25, 2025 - 2:47pm
Who is singing?
- ledzeplisa - Apr 25, 2025 - 2:08pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- R567 - Apr 25, 2025 - 1:54pm
April 2025 Photo Theme - Red
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2025 - 1:32pm
Got a Good (True) Ghost Story?
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2025 - 1:27pm
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2025 - 7:18am
Ukraine
- Coaxial - Apr 25, 2025 - 5:53am
President(s) Musk/Trump
- Red_Dragon - Apr 24, 2025 - 5:44pm
Recommended devices
- bluewolverine - Apr 24, 2025 - 5:17pm
New Music
- R_P - Apr 24, 2025 - 4:29pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Apr 24, 2025 - 4:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 24, 2025 - 3:18pm
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Apr 24, 2025 - 3:17pm
Economix
- Isabeau - Apr 24, 2025 - 2:55pm
Freedom of speech?
- R_P - Apr 24, 2025 - 1:00pm
The Obituary Page
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 24, 2025 - 9:44am
Russia
- Red_Dragon - Apr 24, 2025 - 9:36am
Breaking News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 24, 2025 - 8:15am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Steely_D - Apr 24, 2025 - 7:28am
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote')
- JimTreadwell - Apr 24, 2025 - 3:23am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 23, 2025 - 10:00pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 23, 2025 - 5:39pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 23, 2025 - 5:01pm
Commercializing Facebook
- R_P - Apr 23, 2025 - 2:29pm
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- Isabeau - Apr 23, 2025 - 2:22pm
Business as Usual
- R_P - Apr 23, 2025 - 1:05pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- Steely_D - Apr 23, 2025 - 9:38am
Radio Paradise Staion Break
- geoff_morphini - Apr 23, 2025 - 8:16am
Geeky funny
- Proclivities - Apr 23, 2025 - 7:42am
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey
- dischuckin - Apr 23, 2025 - 7:13am
Things You Thought Today
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 22, 2025 - 9:45pm
Real Time with Bill Maher
- R_P - Apr 22, 2025 - 1:51pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- Lazy8 - Apr 22, 2025 - 12:27pm
Happy Earth Day
- R_P - Apr 22, 2025 - 12:26pm
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- islander - Apr 22, 2025 - 10:03am
Thimerosal Vaccines linked to neurological disorders
- islander - Apr 21, 2025 - 8:48pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- GeneP59 - Apr 21, 2025 - 8:40am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 20, 2025 - 7:45pm
::yesterday::
- Red_Dragon - Apr 20, 2025 - 3:35pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 20, 2025 - 8:43am
Favourite Scriptures
- black321 - Apr 20, 2025 - 8:30am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Proclivities - Apr 20, 2025 - 7:55am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 19, 2025 - 10:23pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 19, 2025 - 8:53pm
I Thought Earth Had Only One Moon
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2025 - 5:06pm
The war on funk is over!
- R_P - Apr 19, 2025 - 4:02pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - Apr 19, 2025 - 1:43pm
Quick! I need a chicken...
- Isabeau - Apr 19, 2025 - 1:00pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 19, 2025 - 12:45pm
Best Song Comments.
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 19, 2025 - 11:15am
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Apr 19, 2025 - 9:59am
Mars
- oldviolin - Apr 19, 2025 - 9:53am
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Apr 19, 2025 - 9:32am
Live Music
- Steely_D - Apr 19, 2025 - 7:30am
Immigration
- R_P - Apr 18, 2025 - 7:05pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2025 - 6:43pm
Need A Thread Killed?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2025 - 6:25pm
Music Videos
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2025 - 5:19pm
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- Antigone - Apr 18, 2025 - 3:04pm
Fascism In America
- RedTopFireBelow - Apr 18, 2025 - 3:01pm
Comics!
- Steely_D - Apr 18, 2025 - 11:04am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- Steely_D - Apr 18, 2025 - 10:49am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 18, 2025 - 8:58am
How's the weather?
- GeneP59 - Apr 18, 2025 - 8:40am
NASA & other news from space
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 18, 2025 - 12:36am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Anti-War
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27, 28 Next |
cc_rider

Location: Bastrop Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:52pm |
|
kurtster wrote: The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.
... What would happen if a small group of extremists highjacked a religion for political purposes? What if religious fanatics used fundamentalism as a cover to perpetrate violence and oppression? And the government tacitly approved of their actions, by doing nothing to stop the spread of hatred? In fact the government explicitly created laws that discriminated against people based on their religious beliefs. That would be horrible. Good thing it can't happen here in the U.S.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:44pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?
Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.
If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East. SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept. Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world. I'm not paranoid, just offering my take. Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't. If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless. No worries on my part. I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else. But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century. The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere. We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over. Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind. We've paid for it long enough. Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:14pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?
Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.
If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
Stop confusing the issue with facts!
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:08pm |
|
kurtster wrote:
I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...
Rather reaching.  As usual I agree with RichardPrins.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:02pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ... These are my assumed givens ... in no particular order. Jihad is seperate from Islam in the senses I am speaking. Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus. Jihadists only respect power. Negotiation is interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore to be regarded as inferior and the negotiators culled. Arminajad or however you spell his name is serving his last term in office. Arminajad seeks to bring the Islamic version of End Times on the world. He is hell bent of wiping out Israel and will use the bomb as soon as he can. As long as Obama is in office, there is doubt that the US will back Israel should they elect to act on their own and are highly vulnerable to unchallenged retaliation. Romney as POTUS clearly represents unwavering support for Israel, making any initial hostile actions towards them less likely. How much I don't pretend to know, but there would certainly be an effect. The mullahs in Iran are getting unhappy with A...d and if there is chance to wait him out, that is the best strategy. The mullahs are looking at him like a loose cannon. I don't think they really want to bring about End Times. There is no way we can stop Iran from getting a nuke without a military action and even that is uncertain. I would prefer to have someone in office who might make the mullahs think twice about it and slow down A....d internally. Meanwhile, we secure our own energy resources and make us totally independent of the Middle East so when it does go nuclear, we will not suffer immediately and directly. It becomes Europe, Russia and China's problem as they are the ones dependent on the oil, not us. We will cut Israel loose, but later rather than sooner. Eventually Israel will have to stand up for itself. We need to get back to where the US was at its peak and strongest. That was when we didn't need the rest of the world, they needed us. The Monroe Doctrine again comes into play as a guide for our future foreign policy. All the above is incomplete, oversimplified and broadbrushed. And it only matters if we can survive our domestic economic problems.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:59am |
|
kurtster wrote:Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way. If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally? Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria. If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:20am |
|
kurtster wrote:
Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:13am |
|
sirdroseph wrote:If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House. Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS? Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us. Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 10:59am |
|
kurtster wrote:I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above. Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post. They are always a threat to peace. Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm. Jihad is sanctioned war. It is instutionalized. It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly. It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented. It is a fight to the death. While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within. Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna. It is an ideal. It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely. It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons. To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied. The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years. Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it. Same as erasing Israel from the map.Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak. There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time. I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die. Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole. I'll let y'all decide ... If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House. Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS? Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 10:48am |
|
islander wrote: Who do you feel has called for Jihad? What do you think it would take to satisfy it? Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above. Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post. They are always a threat to peace. Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm. Jihad is sanctioned war. It is instutionalized. It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly. It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented. It is a fight to the death. While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within. Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna. It is an ideal. It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely. It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons. To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied. The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years. Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it. Same as erasing Israel from the map. Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak. There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time. I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die. Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole. I'll let y'all decide ...
|
|
miamizsun

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 4:50am |
|
from Anti-War.com... By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO | Associated Press – 14 hrs agoNEW YORK (AP) — A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press. Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests. "We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater." Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was "detrimental to the Constitution." After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, "Steve," and his handler's NYPD phone number was disconnected. Rahman's account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using. The AP corroborated Rahman's account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants. Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD's wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques — known informally as "mosque crawlers" — tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime. The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA. more...
|
|
islander

Location: West coast somewhere Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 6:45am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
Who do you feel has called for Jihad? What do you think it would take to satisfy it? Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
|
|
Zep

Location: Funkytown 
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 6:36am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad. The greatest threat to world peace is economic inequality. There was war long before there was jihad, and there will be war after jihad. Wars, on the other hand, have almost invariably been over economics. Jihad is the struggle of Muslims that is either internal or external. Like many things Islam, there are many meanings, from improving your home and community, to the armed struggle against infidels and non-believers.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:56am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
I actually think on the whole Jihad is not really a big deal. At worse they may unleash a bomb here and there. No, the greatest threat does not even involve bombs and military at all, that is an antiquated 20th century way of looking at the world. No the greatest threat is the world economy and currency.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:24am |
|
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:18am |
|
miamizsun wrote: americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it
it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises
some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence
others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them
those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages
obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along
the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages
human rights? peace? innocent life?
they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...
regards
Interestingly, it didn't always use to be this way (see Vietnam). And even stranger when you go further back in time: American Resistance to a Standing ArmyNow, apparently, "resistance" is living the atomized good life, keeping your head down and avoiding eye contact.
|
|
miamizsun

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 4:42am |
|
RichardPrins wrote: americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages human rights? peace? innocent life? they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it... regards
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
|
Umberdog

Location: In my body. Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 21, 2012 - 4:06am |
|
RichardPrins wrote:Michael Parenti: The Nobel Peace Prize for War(...) But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look. (...) A very thoughtful piece. Thank you. Note that my remaining eye hates you. ::joking:: (It's hard to read these days.)
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 21, 2012 - 2:26am |
|
Michael Parenti: The Nobel Peace Prize for War(...) But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look. (...)
|
|
|