* CREDIT TO MASTERX PRODUCTION FOR PIC
[KvS] WINGS - 01 - Keris Tak Ada Sarung.mp3 [LOADOWN]Takdir pertemukanku dengan dirimu
yang membuat aku jatuh cinta
malam gelisahkanku tentang bayangmu
yang hantui setiap mimpiku
takdir yang bisakanku
dengan dirimu saat ini
ketika kuterbuai dalam lumrah
takdir cinta di hatiku
c/o
aku mencintaimu merindukanmu
menginginkanmu
pasti takdir tak bisa
pertemukanku dengan dirimu
Alkisah seorang anak gadis yang ingin berkahwin mengikut pilihan sendiri.. Lalu dinyatakan hasratnya kepada orang tuanya.. kemudian berkatalah orang tuanya… sekiranya engkau ingin lelaki pilihan engkau sendiri.. carilah yang sopan santun dan ORIGINAL.
Hatta sebulan mencari bertemulah dia dengan seorang jejaka yang sopan santun tapi keORIGINALannya belum lagi diketahui… setelah selesai upacara akad nikah maka malam pertama pun dilalui bersama.
Pada malam pertama si suami memakai kondom kononnya untuk merancang keluarga. Keesokan harinya.. si isteri pun memberitahu kepada orang tuanya bahawa suaminya memang betul-betul ORIGINAL..
Kemudian orang tuanya pun bertanya: “Macam mana engkau tahu laki engkau tu ORIGINAL?”
Anaknya dengan selamba campur megah berkata: “Betul abah…! ORIGINAL…! Plastik pun tak bukak lagi…!”
Seorang pemuda hensome yang sedang mabuk, berjemur dipantai tanpa pakaian menutup tubuhnya. Ketika dia melihat seorang anak gadis kecil lebih kurang berumur 7 tahun berjalan melintasinya, Dengan pantas dia menutup bahagian tubuhnya yang tertentu dengan buku yang sedang di bacanya.
Kerana hairan, anak gadis kecil itu berkata, “Abang, apa abang tutup dengan buku tu?” tanya gadis kecil sambil menunjuk ke arah buku.
Kerana malu, pemuda itu menjawab,
“Ah tidak ada apa-apa. ini hanya seekor burung pipit?” Seekor burung pipit?” tanya gadis itu kebingungan. Betul, hanya seekor burung pipit,” jawab pemuda lebih tegas. Setelah gadis kecil itu pergi berlalu, si pemuda kembali membaca buku sambil meneguk minuman kerasnya. Tak lama kemudian, si pemuda tertidur.
Ketika terbangun, dia berada di hospital dan merasa sakit yang amat sangat.
Seorang polis menanyainya, “Apa yang terjadi?” “Saya tidak tahu. Saya sedang berjemur di pantai, lalu ada gadis kecil bertanya sebentar dan tidak lama setelah dia pergi saya tertidur dan kini tiba- tiba berada di sini.
Polis itu pergi ke pantai mencari gadis kecil dan bertanya, “Apa yang kamu lakukan terhadap lelaki yang sedang berjemur itu tadi?”
Gadis kecil itu menjawab, “Saya tidak melakukan apa-apa terhadap abang tu pon. Cuma waktu dia tidur, saya main dengan burung pipitnya. Tapi tidak lama kemudian, burung itu meludahi muka saya. Karena itu saya patahkan leher dan paruhnya, saya pecahkan telur-telurnya & saya bakar sarangnya!”
Nota : Jangan cuba temberang budak kecik.. susah nanti… ekekekekek
The recent boycott resolutions of CUPE and NATFHE against Israels Apartheid predictably awakened Israels willing apologists, initiating a high pitched chorus of condemnation and self pity across the Western media, not to mention the blogosphere.
Their arguments, however, are flimsy, not to say rotten. Ill review them one at a time.
But first a clarification. The boycott/divestment/sanctions (BDS) campaign is a very diverse campaign. Each organization has its own specific criticism of what it condemns. Israels offensive policies of colonization in the West Bank and Gaza are the common denominator, but some organizations go beyond that. Likewise, each organization has a different take on what action its members should undertake. But all agree on the need for and appropriateness of some kind of collective action that puts pressure on Israel. I have my own take on both these questions -- what to condemn and how to respond -- but my following remarks address only the broad consensus.
1. Boycotting Israel is hypocritical. There are many other and worse human rights violators. Why aren't these organizations boycotting the UK for occupying Iraq or Russia for its massive slaughter of Chechens?
If a group were to participate in the BDS campaign against Israel while supporting the invasion of Iraq and the massacres in Chechnya, such a group would probably be hypocritical, or at least seriously confused. Are there such groups? I am not aware of any. But if they do exist, they should indeed rethink their stance.
However, there is no direct line from condemnation to choice of action. When considering what action to endorse, a group must take into account other considerations beyond the moral wrongness of what is being condemned.
Responsibility. Are Russian academics involved in the Russian occupation of Chechnya the way Israeli academics are involved in legitimizing Apartheid? Obviously not. If some Israeli apologists believe the opposite, they are welcome to make the case. The case for the complicity of Israeli academia has been persuasively made.
Practicality. Is it practical to try to influence US policy in Iraq through a boycott of US academics? Clearly not. Israel�s small academic world is vulnerable and therefore susceptible to pressure. The British boycott resolution already succeeded in scuttling a proposed cooperation between Hebrew University and the Israeli Security apparatus. There is no point in trying to use the same tactics against the U.S. That is unfortunate. But taking an all or nothing attitude to human rights -- which is what some of Israel�s apologists demand -- is silly. Not to mention the real hypocrisy of those who call attention to human right violations in Sudan or Russia without having any demonstrable interest in human rights at all, but rather out of the desire to defend human rights violations.
Saliency: Most of the organizations that call to boycott Israel have their own different missions that are not focused on the Middle East. Each has to consider the role solidarity with Palestinians and pressure on Israel plays in its overall position and the way it reflects its identity and specific goals. Those groups committed to defending human right are completely within their rights, for example, to consider that Israel damages the framework of humanitarian law more than China does, even though China has jailed more people than Israel has. Israel�s democratic rhetoric and its claim to be a beacon of civilization and morality mean that the occupation in Palestine doesn�t merely violates human rights, it relaxes and degrades the principles of human rights in a way no other rogue state does.
Local leadership: Like most strategies of collective action, the boycott/divestment/sanctions campaign depends on broad consensus. The first requirement for such a consensus to form successfully is that the campaign be actively supported and demanded by the victims, in this case Palestinians. At least for now, there is neither an Iraqi nor a Chechnyan boycott campaign or even demand. Palestinians, on the other hands, are leading the boycott/divestment/sanctions campaign against Israel. Also important is the vocal support from a minority of Israeli groups that support Palestinian rights. This is similar to the way the South African campaign was led by the ANC and was supported by an activist minority of White South Africans. Without local leadership, a campaign lacks legitimacy and is less likely to take hold. Groups are therefore fully justified in taking that in consideration when deciding their priorities.
Tailoring different responses to different transgressions based on complex considerations is not necessarily hypocritical, although it can be. The more appropriate adjective in this particular case is �thoughtful.�
2. The comparison between Israel and South Africa is misguided. Israel is very different and not as bad as South Africa.
�Apartheid� means �separation� and so does �Hafrada,� the Hebrew term for the current policy of Israel vis-�-vis Palestinians. But nobody claims that Israel is �the same� as South Africa. A glance to the globe is enough to ascertain that the two are indeed different countries, and therefore have different, unique and specific histories and institutions. What we claim, however, is that the Apartheid regime in South Africa and the current regime in Israel have a number of significant common traits, and that these common traits are repugnant.
This is not the place to engage in that substantive debate. For those who wish to deepen their knowledge of the issue, Chris McGreal provides an excellent introduction in The Guardian. But one does remark that Israel�s defenders are not in a very good position to argue now that the regime in Israel is not as repugnant as South Africa was. In fact, Israel�s apologists today are often the same groups that used to defend the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Zionist organizations feted the similarities between Afrikaners and Jews, the Anti-Defamation League, for example, even spied on anti-Apartheid activists in the U.S. Israel, for its part, supported South Africa�s nuclear program and later helped it evade sanctions. On the other hand, South African Black and Jewish anti-Apartheid activists who visited the West Bank said that the conditions of Palestinians were similar or even worse than what Blacks endured under Apartheid.
Who has more credibility on the subject of how repugnant the Israeli brand of �Hafrada� is, Abe Foxman, head of an organization that supported Apartheid in South Africa, or the victim of Apartheid, Archbishop Desmond Tutu?
3. Putting pressure on Israel is one-sided and therefore unfair. It would be better to encourage both sides to engage each other in dialogue.
Israel�s apologists have a simple narrative about the history of the relations between Jews and Palestinians. In that narrative, Jews came to Palestine with open palms, and have tried ever since to achieve peaceful co-existence with Palestinians, only to be repeatedly rebuffed by hostile and belligerent Palestinians. Base on that narrative, Israel�s apologists demand more �dialogue,� and excuse all Israel�s actions as self-defense.
Unfortunately for them, nobody else accepts that fairy tale today. Actual history is very different. Since the very beginning, the Zionist leadership was clear about its intention to displace and dispossess Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state. That goal had been largely accomplished in 1948. Thereafter, Israel found the status quo comfortable, and saw no urgency in resolving its conflict with the Palestinians. At every occasion, Israeli leaders expressed disinterest in peace. Ben Gurion said the solution for the Palestinian problem would be that Palestinians would become �human dust.� Moshe Dayan told them after the 1967 occupation, �we have no solution, you will continue to live like dogs.� Golda Meir said there was no need for dialogue because �there is no Palestinian people.� Begin and Shamir refused to negotiate on Palestinian rights in the face of serious U.S. pressure. Begin even invaded Lebanon to avoid having to talk with Arafat (who had already agreed to a �two state solution� in 1974.) After Oslo, despite their lip service to advancing a �two state solution,� Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak have all refused to evacuate a single settlement. All three built new settlements, Barak being the most industrious. At no point has any Israeli leader agree to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in full, not to mention to recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees.
The evacuation of Gaza, contrary to the fairy tale, is not a withdrawal at all. Israel is still the occupying force in Gaza. The situation of Gaza today is in fact the closest Israel comes to the full South African Apartheid model; Gaza is an effective separate Bantustan under full Israeli military control. Finally, Olmert�s latest plans for �unilateral separation� in the West Bank point in the same intensified Apartheid direction.
Those who might fear that this historical excursus is threading stale water should consider how Sharon�s advisor Dov Weissglass recently described the purpose of evacuating the settlements from Gaza:
��we succeeded in removing the issue of the political process from the agenda. And we educated the world to understand that there is no one to talk to.�As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact�.. [until] Palestine becomes Finland.�
There you have it succinctly. Israel�s consistent policy is to avoid dialogue in order to maintain its domination. Based on this analysis, peace can only be advanced by putting pressure on Israel. This is exactly the purpose of the divestment, boycott and sanctions campaign.
4. The boycott advocates are anti-Semitic.
Puhleeeeze!
Writing in the Boston Globe, Reason magazine�s Cathy Young insinuates that Mona Baker is guilty of anti-Semitism.
Young�s evidence: Baker says that in the U.S., �Zionist lobbies are extremely powerful with both Congress and the media.� Apparently, according to Young, you�re either an anti-Semite or an idiot. Because only an idiot would argue with what Baker said.
Young�s smear, to put it mildly, is despicable, but very much de rigeur in almost every standard apology for Israel. Dear Ms. Young, please read the first half of Norman Finkelstein�s book, Beyond Chutzpah, and copy the following sentence 500 times in your notebook: �I will not use accusations of anti-Semitism to smear critics of Israel and Zionism.�
Now, there are certainly a few lost souls out there whose motive for supporting Palestinian rights is anti-Semitism. It�s a pity. They are the mirror image of the Zionists who support human rights in Sudan for the sole purpose of deflecting attention from Israel. We wish both kinds of bigots full recovery. But we won�t stop eating Broccoli if we discovered that it was Hitler�s own favorite food. Nor should we stop supporting Palestinian rights because David Duke support them too.
Besides, outside the fervid imagination of Israels willing apologists, the problem of real anti-Semitism is negligible. To gauge how negligible it is, consider that in 2003, the ADL, which is supposed to lead the struggle against anti-Semitism, honored former Italian PM Berlusconi, weeks after the latter made sympathetic remarks about Mussolini -- Hitler�s sidekick in World War II -- a dictator who enacted race laws and sent Jews to the death camps. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Christian Zionist right in the U.S. and the anti-Muslim right in Europe, I think it is safe to say that there are more anti-Semites among Israel�s friends than among those who express solidarity with Palestinians.
Gabriel Ash is an activist and writer who writes because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword and sometimes not. He welcomes comments at: g.a.evildoer@gmail.com.
| A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.
Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2) "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6) | |||
| ||||
One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News:
(*Writer's note: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these "Arabs" were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not "sheikh uniforms") |
 | Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey.
| |
| When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis! According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers: | ||
Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD? The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (11)
|
The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:
It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14). What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 (15), the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (17) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel. But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (18), and Yediot America, (19) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel. It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five. Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play. From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks.
A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21).
The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. (23). The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. (24)
|
| Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (26) |
| How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:
Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1 The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, "experts", and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable. We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place! But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the
You never heard that quote on your nightly newscast did you?
Bin Laden is not named as the perpetrator of 9/11 by the FBI:
To date, the only shred of “evidence” to be uncovered against bin Laden is a barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. How very convenient, and how very fake. (33) There is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of terror, but there is a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America.
If the sovereign foreign government mentioned by Senator Graham was an enemy of the United States the "compelling evidence" would not be kept secret for 20+ years. One final point; at 09:40 on 9-11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks (35). This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed "terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories." (36) Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people (37) make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?
The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists. |
| "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring. |
|
