Nalot izraelski na terytorium Syrii po zamachu ...

[cien_anny]

WSZYSTKIE K|_|RWY: ANNA, ZOSIA, KANADOL, MIRMIL, LUBIN, ITD -
WSADZCIE SOBIE WIDELEC DO DUPY ZAMIAST TUTAJ PISAC!!!!

[goj.nieobrzezany]

A dzisiaj Bush pochlepal Sharona po plecach i dal mu wolna reke!
Brawo!
Nareszcie koniec hypokryzji amerykanskiej

Ofiary zamachu w Hajfie:

[patriota.izraela]

www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=50700

[Gość: kd]

Za "Wojtkiem" : Czesc Ich Pamieci

[Gość: Polak]

www.aljazeerah.info/

troche historii

[patriota.izraela]

www.victimsofarabterror.org/

[Gość: kd]

Bardzo wazny link; Dziekuje KD

[Gość: kd]

Pod tym adresem:
www.petitiononline.com/bombings/petition.html
jest zamieszczona petycja, ktora moim zdaniem, kazdy przyzwoity
czlowiek powinien podpisac

[Gość: Polak]

www.aljazeerah.info/

cien_anny to pedal

[Gość: //]

A TY K__RWO ZOSIU, TEZ ZAMKNIJ SWOJ PARSZYWY PYSK

[cien_anny]

MILWAUKEE OD ANNY NIEDALEKO. WIDZE ZE SIE NAUCZYLAS MOZG WYLACZAC

cien_anny to pedal

[Gość: zz]

ZAMKNIJ SWOJ SMIERDZACY PYSK< K__RWO ZOSIU!

[cien_anny]

ANNA CI SIE ODESRALA DO UST
WIEC ZAMKNIJ PYSK, BO SIE TU WYRZYGASZ!

Wojna Swiatowa?????

[Gość: Polak]

The Middle East road map finally met its untimely but expected demise over the
weekend when Israeli bombs landed near Damascus, aimed at an alleged terrorist
training camp.


The question this week in diplomatic circles is not how to salvage the peace
process but how to avert global mayhem. It's not a question, however, that
worries the Bush administration, which appears content to let the Middle East
hurtle down the path to possible armageddon.


Supporting the Israeli action, the president said, "Israel's got a right to
defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of
the homeland." This weekend's Israeli attack on Syria shows how far Israeli
leader Ariel Sharon will go – and just how willing Bush will cover for his
excesses. When the issue came before the UN Security Council on Sunday, Kofi
Annan and most of the other delegates correctly described the attack as a
violation of international law and the UN Charter.


In contrast, the Americans decided that any resolution had to be "balanced"
with a condemnation of terrorism in general, and the Haifa bombing in
particular. (There is no doubt that the Haifa suicide attack was horrific, but
the Syrians had no provable or likely connection whatsoever with the bombers.)
The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, showed equal chutzpah in
decrying Syria's request for an emergency Security Council meeting. He
said, "For Syria to ask a debate in this council is comparable only to the
Taliban calling for such a debate after 9-11, it would be laughable if it was
not so sad."


The attacks on Syria mark the end of any hope that the U.S. will take a firmer
line with Sharon. "One-sided," "biased," or "unbalanced" are the knee-jerk
reactions to greet UN resolution (or indeed any TV program, or any printed
article) that suggests that Israeli government behavior is less than perfect.
Relentless reiteration by Israel's supporters, the Bush administration, and
Tony Blair's government have shifted the terms of the debate to the point that
one suspects that any action of Israel, however outrageous, could not be
condemned without the insertion of such "balancing" references, or more likely
vetoed outright using the handy justification of self-defense against
terrorism.


Last week, Kofi Annan condemned Israeli plans to build 600 new homes for
settlers in the Occupied Territories as "serious obstacles to the achievement
of a two-State solution," and said that the settlements are "a clear breach of
the Fourth Geneva Convention and also contradict Israel's commitments under
the Quartet's Road Map." The U.S. deemed both statements to be "unhelpful,"
and so far, has shown no signs to suspend the aid that pays for these
unhelpful breaches of international law.


The exception was the administration's announcement that it may deduct some of
the construction cost for the Israeli security wall separating Israel from the
West Bank from the $9 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel as authorized
by Congress. UN Human Rights Rapporteur John Dugard, a South African anti-
apartheid activist and lawyer, recently issued a report that found that
those "living between the Wall and the Green Line will be effectively cut off
from their farmlands and workplaces, schools, health clinics and other social
services. This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or internally
displaced persons." Unsurprisingly, the Israelis immediately denounced
Dugard's report as "biased and one-sided" even though it had refused to even
meet with him during his visit to the region.


The U.S. may not have offered unqualified support for the Wall, but in a
typical show of "balanced" policymaking, during the same week, it vetoed a
resolution condemning Israel's statements threatening to exile and if
necessary assassinate Yasser Arafat (who for all his faults is the only freely
elected leader of the Arab world). U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte predictably
insisted that resolution lacked "balance."


The degree of support for U.S. policy in the Middle East can be measured by
the vote in the UN General Assembly to condemn Israel for its threats on
Arafat. It makes the so-called "coalition of the willing" look impressive. The
United States and Israel were joined by Micronesia and Marshall Islands, two
tiny states totally dependent on Washington for their budget, as the only
states to vote against the resolution.


Bush's position on the attack on Syria has disturbing implications for the
world, coming on the heels of Kofi Annan's speech to the General Assembly
warning of the dangers of unilateralism. In many ways, it's the
administration's own actions that have led the way down this dangerous road
of "hot preemption." If the U.S. can attack Iraq on suspicion of possessing
weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorism, then how can it call
Ariel Sharon to order when he wants to whack an old enemy in a fit of pique?
And down the line, what does Washington tell New Delhi if India decides to
strike Pakistan or if China takes action against Taiwan?


The Bush White House, however, is far more intent on pursuing its own plan for
global payback, irrespective of its consequences. Its position on the Israeli
attacks was hardly coincidental. There is every sign that the Bush
administration is relapsing to its bad old ways. An anonymous administration
official told the Knight-Ridder News Services that hawks within the
administration are still hoping for "regime change" in Syria, and recently
asked the CIA to come up with a list of replacements for Syrian President
Bashar Assad. The Congress in tandem is considering the Syria Accountability
Act, which authorizes the Bush administration to impose new economic and
diplomatic sanctions on the nation.


The reality is that there is more resistance inside the Israel Defense Forces
to Sharon's policies than there is in Washington. Twenty four officers of the
Israeli air force in recent weeks refused to participate in raids on the
Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, especially the assassination raids
against the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The officers felt too many
innocent civilians were being killed in the attacks. It's a pity that neither
Bush nor Sharon have any such qualms.

Syria-Izrael

[Gość: Polak]

The Middle East road map finally met its untimely but expected demise over the
weekend when Israeli bombs landed near Damascus, aimed at an alleged terrorist
training camp.


The question this week in diplomatic circles is not how to salvage the peace
process but how to avert global mayhem. It's not a question, however, that
worries the Bush administration, which appears content to let the Middle East
hurtle down the path to possible armageddon.


Supporting the Israeli action, the president said, "Israel's got a right to
defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of
the homeland." This weekend's Israeli attack on Syria shows how far Israeli
leader Ariel Sharon will go – and just how willing Bush will cover for his
excesses. When the issue came before the UN Security Council on Sunday, Kofi
Annan and most of the other delegates correctly described the attack as a
violation of international law and the UN Charter.


In contrast, the Americans decided that any resolution had to be "balanced"
with a condemnation of terrorism in general, and the Haifa bombing in
particular. (There is no doubt that the Haifa suicide attack was horrific, but
the Syrians had no provable or likely connection whatsoever with the bombers.)
The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, showed equal chutzpah in
decrying Syria's request for an emergency Security Council meeting. He
said, "For Syria to ask a debate in this council is comparable only to the
Taliban calling for such a debate after 9-11, it would be laughable if it was
not so sad."


The attacks on Syria mark the end of any hope that the U.S. will take a firmer
line with Sharon. "One-sided," "biased," or "unbalanced" are the knee-jerk
reactions to greet UN resolution (or indeed any TV program, or any printed
article) that suggests that Israeli government behavior is less than perfect.
Relentless reiteration by Israel's supporters, the Bush administration, and
Tony Blair's government have shifted the terms of the debate to the point that
one suspects that any action of Israel, however outrageous, could not be
condemned without the insertion of such "balancing" references, or more likely
vetoed outright using the handy justification of self-defense against
terrorism.


Last week, Kofi Annan condemned Israeli plans to build 600 new homes for
settlers in the Occupied Territories as "serious obstacles to the achievement
of a two-State solution," and said that the settlements are "a clear breach of
the Fourth Geneva Convention and also contradict Israel's commitments under
the Quartet's Road Map." The U.S. deemed both statements to be "unhelpful,"
and so far, has shown no signs to suspend the aid that pays for these
unhelpful breaches of international law.


The exception was the administration's announcement that it may deduct some of
the construction cost for the Israeli security wall separating Israel from the
West Bank from the $9 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel as authorized
by Congress. UN Human Rights Rapporteur John Dugard, a South African anti-
apartheid activist and lawyer, recently issued a report that found that
those "living between the Wall and the Green Line will be effectively cut off
from their farmlands and workplaces, schools, health clinics and other social
services. This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or internally
displaced persons." Unsurprisingly, the Israelis immediately denounced
Dugard's report as "biased and one-sided" even though it had refused to even
meet with him during his visit to the region.


The U.S. may not have offered unqualified support for the Wall, but in a
typical show of "balanced" policymaking, during the same week, it vetoed a
resolution condemning Israel's statements threatening to exile and if
necessary assassinate Yasser Arafat (who for all his faults is the only freely
elected leader of the Arab world). U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte predictably
insisted that resolution lacked "balance."


The degree of support for U.S. policy in the Middle East can be measured by
the vote in the UN General Assembly to condemn Israel for its threats on
Arafat. It makes the so-called "coalition of the willing" look impressive. The
United States and Israel were joined by Micronesia and Marshall Islands, two
tiny states totally dependent on Washington for their budget, as the only
states to vote against the resolution.


Bush's position on the attack on Syria has disturbing implications for the
world, coming on the heels of Kofi Annan's speech to the General Assembly
warning of the dangers of unilateralism. In many ways, it's the
administration's own actions that have led the way down this dangerous road
of "hot preemption." If the U.S. can attack Iraq on suspicion of possessing
weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorism, then how can it call
Ariel Sharon to order when he wants to whack an old enemy in a fit of pique?
And down the line, what does Washington tell New Delhi if India decides to
strike Pakistan or if China takes action against Taiwan?


The Bush White House, however, is far more intent on pursuing its own plan for
global payback, irrespective of its consequences. Its position on the Israeli
attacks was hardly coincidental. There is every sign that the Bush
administration is relapsing to its bad old ways. An anonymous administration
official told the Knight-Ridder News Services that hawks within the
administration are still hoping for "regime change" in Syria, and recently
asked the CIA to come up with a list of replacements for Syrian President
Bashar Assad. The Congress in tandem is considering the Syria Accountability
Act, which authorizes the Bush administration to impose new economic and
diplomatic sanctions on the nation.


The reality is that there is more resistance inside the Israel Defense Forces
to Sharon's policies than there is in Washington. Twenty four officers of the
Israeli air force in recent weeks refused to participate in raids on the
Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, especially the assassination raids
against the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The officers felt too many
innocent civilians were being killed in the attacks. It's a pity that neither
Bush nor Sharon have any such qualms.

CWOKU, KIEDY CYTUJESZ< NAPISZ KOGO!!!

[cien_anny]

BO TO PLAGIAT!