The UN expects Earth’s 10 billionth inhabitant sometime in the early 2050s…????

Is that so?

Something annoys me greatly in all that… I see, in the apps or on the net, a clock that turns like crazy… the birth clock… but nowhere I see a clock for the dead and there is my questionnement.

You read the news and they talk about ~ for exemple ~ the genocide of many population like the Palestinians and Africans, and thousands upon thousands (if not ten of thousands) who died in wars and bombing and massacre and diseases and old age, in land slides, earthquakes and tsunamis… many, many of the babies that are counted as birth will be still born or die at birth or will be dead before reaching their first birthday… hundred of millions (maybe way more) die everyday around our planet and I am not sure how and if they are substracted from the birth clock as she never back up when there is huge amount of death. So… how do they proceed to know exactly how many are now living on Earth? Is this an average birth count from which is substracted an average death amount which don’t really take account of the real death toll?

In what I see, I am doubtful that we are 7.5 billion on this planet as I think that they don’t substract the right amount of dead so the amount of living being on our world is inflated +++++++++

Would it be another way “they” are using to spread more fear and anxieties, saying that there is not enough food and water for everybody? If so, they are wrong… as there is enough to feed more billions of people if the “elite” can stop manipulating our food, our water and health.

What do you think?

 

Mensonges au Sujet de la Syrie????

Je viens de lire cet article Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie about Lying, et je dois admettre qu’il m’a fait réagir avec un mélange de colère et de désespoir et qu’il a suscité pas mal de questions ainsi que de révoltes dans mon esprit – question qui, j’en suis certaine, vous asticotent aussi.

Bon. Le gouvernement syrien dit qu’il n’a jamais lancé ces bombes chimiques sur ses habitants. Faut-il les croire ou non ? Bonne question. Bon… disons que ce n’est pas eux et que ce sont les rebelles. Est-ce que les rebelles auraient lancé ces bombes sur leurs amis, leurs familles, leurs compatriotes ? J’en douterais mais si oui, qui leur aurait donné les armes chimiques ? Autre scénario, si ce n’est ni l’un ni l’autre et si tout ceci n’est pas une gigantesque farce et si vraiment ces 1,300 enfants et adultes ont vraiment été tués, la question est donc, qui l’a fait ? Si ce n’est pas la Syrie donc c’est quelqu’un qui n’est pas très loin et qui a un stock de ces armes. Ou… serait-ce une troisième colonne, à l’intérieur de la Syrie, qui agirait sous les ordres et serait armée par un autre pays qui aurait avantage à fomenter le trouble encore un peu plus et qui ferait passer la responsabilité sur le dos d’Assad pour que la communauté internationale permette une certaine ingérence ? Hmmmm… juste des questions que je me pose en passant.

L’auteur de cet article –David Swanson – décrit sa réaction au sujet du titre d’un article du Los Angeles Times intitulé « Les Etats-Unis se préparent pour une possible revanche contre la Syrie » (en passant, une revanche contre quoi ?). Donc, il écrit – et je cite – « La Syrie n’a pas attaqué les É.U. non plus que ses territoires occupés ni ses forces impériales… ». Bon là, je me suis presque étouffée. Est-ce qu’on parle ici de démoncratie ou en est-on encore aux temps barbares des envahisseurs du style Genghis-Khan-et-Conquistadors qui s’étendaient les griffes sanguinolentes sur le reste du monde ? Ai-je bien lu ? On parle bien ici, dans notre beau 21ième siècle, de territoires occupés et de forces impériales américaines ? Tout un gros morceau à avaler ça et ça fait peur !

Puis, monsieur Swanson en vient à parler de la Charte des Nations Unies où il est dit qu’il est illégal d’utiliser menaces ou force contre un autre pays. Bon bien, j’ai ri là. Quelle farce ! Les É.U. ne sont même pas capable de respecter leur propre Charte des Droits et Libertés, pourquoi voulez-vous qu’ils respectent celle de l’ONU ?

Cet extrait de l’article me fait frissonner d’horreur :

« Obama a aussi contacté David Cameron, Premier Ministre de l’Angleterre » note le L.A.Times « pour discuter des développements en Syrie. Les deux s’opposent, à l’unisson, sur l’utilisation d’armes chimiques, commente la Maison Blanche après l’appel. »

Bien, excepté pour les bombes au phosphore et le naplam. Ceux-çi sont considérés comme étant les « bonnes armes chimiques » et le gouvernement américain est contre les « mauvaises » armes chimiques, donc votre journal ne vous ment donc pas. (…dit monsieur Swanson)

Quelle farce ! Obama et Cameron qui s’unissent contre les armes chimiques. Alors pourquoi est-ce que les américains ont fourni ces mauvaises armes chimiques à Saddam Hussein pour combattre – incognito bien sûr – certains supposés ennemis des É.U. pour ensuite se faire démolir la tronche parce qu’il  les a utilisés… bon oui, il ne les a pas utilisé vraiment sur la bonne cible mais tout de même. Et pourquoi les américains continuent-ils la fabrication et la donation à Israël de ces mauvaises armes de destruction massives comme les bombes au phosphore, les toxiques munitions à l’uranium appauvri (guerre d’irradiation déguisée), les bombes à fragmentation, le napalm de ce cher Monsanto et autres horreurs de même style ?

Pourquoi des pays – quelque soient leur nom ou leur puissance – peuvent-ils fabriquer et posséder en grand nombre et en toute impunité, de telles armes ? Et pourquoi ont-ils donné des armes aux Syriens ? Armer des envahisseurs assoiffés de sang, des faiseurs de guerres, des égomaniaques qui trippent sur leurs pouvoirs et des bêtes génocidaires est bien loin d’être une idée faramineuse. Pourquoi fomenter le trouble dans des pays à tendance explosive en leur donnant des armes de destruction massives ?

Ne me dites pas que les américains ne pourraient pas utiliser ces milliards et ces billions de dollars pour sa population de pauvres affamés, les aider à se loger convenablement, à se soigner, à s’éduquer. Ils pourraient revoir leurs valeurs et redevenir un pays qui ne serait plus un état policier et où la liberté retrouverait ses valeurs. Cet argent pourrait être utilisée pour nourrir adéquatement le peuple au lieu de promouvoir ces omg toxiques qui empoisonnent tout. Cet argent pourrait servir à faire le bien au lieu de nourrir ces scientifiques-fous qui se prennent pour des dieux et qui veulent refaire la création mais suivant le stupide pattern de leurs esprits tortueux.

Bon, je m’écarte du sujet… revenons à l’article. Donc, si j’en crois Obama, il y a de bonnes armes chimiques et des mauvaises armes chimiques. Mais quelqu’un peut me dire qu’est-ce que ça change aux yeux des victimes ? Ça leur fait quoi que ce soit une bonne ou une mauvaise bombe? Une mort plus « propre » ? Quelle différence que ça fait de mourir gazé par des vapeurs toxiques, ou d’avoir la peau, les yeux et les poumons brûlés par une bombe au phosphore, ou encore d’être déchiqueté en petits morceaux par les bombes à fragmentation, ou d’être condamné à une affreuse mort lente par irradiation ? Ça change quoi ?

C’est criminel ! Une arme, quelle qu’elle soit, est une arme et il n’y a pas de bretelles à se péter que de tuer des enfants, des vieillards et des adultes innocents… quelle que soit leur pays. C’est un crime et juste le fait de penser, de créer et de vendre de telles armes devrait être sévèrement punissable par la loi.

En passant… vrai ou non???… il y a quelques semaines, j’ai lu plusieurs articles sur le fait que la Maison Blanche aurait donné son accord pour une attaque chimique en Syrie qui pourrait être blâmé sur le dos d’Assad et permettant de ce fait, une intrusion de la communauté internationale et une action militaire. Si cela s’avère vrai, ce serait une étrange coïncidence, non ?

Maintenant, Chris Cuomo aurait supposément dit, d’après l’article de monsieur Swanson : « Qu’il y aurait évidence que le gouvernement syrien aurait déjà utilisé ces armes dans le passé ». Étrange commentaire dont on nous a rabâché les oreilles il n’y a pas tellement longtemps un brin avant l’attaque en Irak, non ? Est-ce que les É.U. vont se permettre de s’attaquer à Assad comme ils l’ont fait avec Hussein ?

Puis, David Swanson continue en disant :

Cuomo, frustré par son désir de cadavres syriens, se prévaut du standard John McCainisme. Le sénateur McCain, Cuomo dit, pense que la crédibilité américaine serait entachée si l’on n’attaque pas la Syrie

Qui est ce Cuomo, de toute façon ? Et McCain… quelle mentalité de clocher stupide, violente, bornée pour quelqu’un qui se pavanait et voulait être président de É.U… Ça fait vraiment peur.

Pauvre Syrie ! Ils sont sans doute les prochains en liste pour rejoindre l’Irak, l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan. Pays tourmentés pleins de morts, de bains de sang, de génocides, de maladies, de peurs, d’horreurs qui essaient faiblement de survivre sous la noire ombrelle de la démoncratie et de leur propres gouvernement. Qui sait. Peut-être aussi qu’une autre « attaque » en sol américain se produira, utilisant cette fois-çi les mauvaises armes chimiques. Attaques qui – comme le 9-11, fomentés par des petits génies des sous-gouvernements américains – tuerons encore plus d’innocents et seront l’excuse pour une nouvelle guerre. Quelle anxiété que de voir le pouvoir entre les mains de tels maniaques à l’esprit tortueux qui n’ont qu’un seul but… le contrôle total, et qui considèrent tous ces morts innocents comme des dommages collatéraux.

J’aimerais aussi comprendre ce que cet idiot voulait dire que la crédibilité des É.U serait entachée si la Syrie n’était pas attaquée ? Y a-t-il une crédibilité que d’aller en terre étrangère, d’attaquer, de bombarder et de tuer des innocents dans leurs villes, dans leurs maisons, dans leurs lits ? Est-ce que leur réputation de guerriers-fous (warlords) vaut la mort de milliers d’innocents ? Je me demande si c’est un sujet sur lequel ils se pavanent en rigolant dans leurs meetings, tout en sirotant leurs whiskey ?

Monsieur Swanson dit aussi que les lois internationales interdisent les attaques et les prises de pouvoir ou coup d’état en terres étrangères. Hmmm, bien, il semble que quelqu’un a oublié d’en avertir les Bush quand ils ont attaqués l’Irak… par deux fois… puis l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan (et bien d’autres…) et maintenant, pour plaire à Israël, considèrent-ils de mettre l’Iran au tableau de chasse ?

Qui fait ces lois internationales de toute façon ? Qui va donner le coup de règles sur les doigts de celui qui fera fi de ces lois ? Qui jugeras le coupable ? Et qui renforcera la sentence ? Personne, j’en ai bien peur. Ces lois, je crois, ne sont que façade, qu’un écran de fumée pour faire croire aux gens qu’ils sont protégés.

Ces attitudes stupides entraînent le monde vers une guerre horrible qui pourrait détruire notre civilisation (si on peut appeler ça une civilisation) et pourquoi finalement ? Juste pour le profit du mini-minorité à l’égo super enflée et qui se croient les maîtres du monde et se pensent meilleurs que tous les autres parce que leurs porte-monnaie sont bien dodus. Ils pensent que leurs menaces vont nous faire taire et que nous ramperons comme des vermisseaux et que nous serons leurs esclaves… non, je ne crois pas.

J’espère de toute mon âme et de tout mon cœur que tout le monde se réveilleras bien vite et qu’ils se rebellerons pour arrêter cette insanité avant que nous ne soyons plongés dans cet affreux, redoutable et effroyable bain de sang et que nos cités ne soient réduites en poussières vitrifiées hautement radioactives.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/lying-about-syria-and-the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-the-lying.html

The Lies About Syria???

This article Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying is quite an article and made me react with a mix of anger and desperation and raised a lot of questions and revolt in my mind – questions many of you has too, I am sure.

First of all, Syrian government says they never used those chemical bombs (true or not? Should we believe them?). If not, is it the rebels who attacked their own friends, families and compatriots… if so… who gave them the weapons? So, IF it is not one of them and IF it is not a huge ugly farce and IF those 1,300 poor kids and adults had been really killed, then the question is… who did it? If it is not Syria then, it is somebody else not far away and who has those weapons in stock nearby? Or… maybe it is a third faction, inside Syria, armed by another country, who sent these gas bombs to cause trouble and international finger pointing on Assad. Er… Just a question that drifted through my mind.

Then, the author of the article – David Swanson – wrote of his reaction about a Los Angeles Times headline “U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria” (why retaliation, by the way?) … so he wrote – and I quote – “that Syria has not attacked U.S. or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces…” OOOOk! I almost choke on that sentence. Are we supposed to be in demoncracy or are we still in barbarian time where Genghis-Khan-and-Conquistador-style invaders were spreading their deadly claws over the rest of the world? Did I read well? “Occupied territories and imperial forces”? Wow! That’s a mouthful. Scary!

Then he goes on talking about the U.N. Charter and the illegality of using threat or force against another country. Well! I laughed at that one! They don’t even respect their own Charter so why do you want them to respect the international one?

This part gives shivers too:

“Obama also called British Prime Minister David Cameron,” says the LA Times, “to talk over the developments in Syria. The two are ‘united’ in their opposition to the use of chemical weapons, the White House said in a statement issued after the call.”

Well, except for white phosphorus and napalm. Those are good chemical weapons, and the United States government is against bad chemical weapons, so really your newspaper isn’t lying to you at all

What a farce when Obama and Cameron said they were “united” in their opposition to the use of chemical weapon. If so, why is the U.S. would have given Saddam Hussein the famous chemical weapons to fight – under cover – against some supposed U.S. enemies and then run after him because he used it… on maybe not the good target? And why do they continue to fabricate and give deadly weapons to Israel, weapons of mass destruction like white phosphorus, toxic DU ammunitions (irradiation war in disguise), cluster bombs, Monsanto wonderful napalm and other chemicals and horrific sh…tuff of the same style?

Why are countries – whatever their name and “power” – be allowed to fabricate such weapons and have such an arsenal (and we don’t talk about the nuclear sh…tuff here)? And why did they give weapons to Syria? Arming bloodthirsty, invaders, warmongers, power trippers and genocidal beasts is far from to be a good idea. Why fomenting more trouble by giving all of them weapon of mass destruction?

Can’t U.S. be able to use these billions and trillions of dollars for its own poor people, to feed them properly, to give them a roof over their head and medical, to help them to get a good education and to take their country back to the legendary land of the free without a police state and without spreading unrealistic fears to allow them to have a bigger grasp on their population? Could they use this money to give them proper nutrition instead of promulgating this gmo toxic waste that will destroy our civilization and environment? Could they use that money to do good around them instead of feeding mad scientist who think they are better than God and want to correct His Creation with their own twisted mind?

So, to come back to this article (sorry I digressed), if I believe what Obama said, there is good chemical weapons and bad ones… somebody can tell me what difference it makes to the victims? A “cleaner” death? What difference does it makes to be gassed by deadly vapors, or to have skin, eyes and lungs burnt by white phosphorus, or to be shredded to pieces by cluster bombs, or to be condemned to slow death by DU irradiation?

Speaking of which… true or not? But remember few weeks ago, there was big talks about some leaked emails divulging that the White House would have given the OK to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on the Assad’s regime and allowed – by this way – “foreign” and international military intervention. Strange coincidence, no?

This kind of thinking is criminal. A weapon is a weapon and there is no good in something that kills children, elders and innocent people of whatever countries. It is a crime. Just the thought, the research and the act of building such miserable devices should be punished by Law… but… is there any more real Justice in our world? It is freakingly crazy!

Now, Chris Cuomo who supposedly said: “There’s strong proof they used them already, though, in the past.” We have seen this pattern before, aren’t we? Will U.S. go after Syria’s president like they run after Hussein? And when David Swanson said:

Cuomo, his thirst for dead Syrian flesh perhaps getting a bit frustrated, reached for the standard John McCainism. Senator McCain, Cuomo said, thinks U.S. “credibility” is lost if Syria is not attacked.

Who is that Cuomo anyway? And McCain… what a stupid, violent, narrow minded, parochial mentality for somebody who was (is still?) running for presidency! Gosh! It is frightening!

Poor Syria! They will be another Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tormented countries, blood baths, a place where genocide, death, disease, fear and horror root themselves under the montruous demoncracy black umbrella… and they will become another “occupied territory” under the coup of the American warlords. Or… maybe… a sudden attack in American territory with the “bad” chemical weapon will start another insane war on innocents as this attack will be like the 9-11, an inside job… frightening to have such crazy, twisted and insane people with governing power, with this kind of control and domination in their hand, and who consider death of people (even the one of their own) as collateral damage in their quest toward total control.

And I would like to understand why in the heck U.S. would lose credibility if Syria were not attacked? Somebody can explain that one to me? Is there credibility in going in foreign country and attack and drop bombs and kill innocent population in their own town and houses? Is a warmonger reputation worth the death of so many innocent and the destruction of a country? Is that something they boast and laugh about around a whiskey in their meetings?

Swanson said also that International Laws forbids attacking and overturning other nations governments… well seems that nobody told the Bush guys when they went and attacked Iraq… twice… and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and then… to please Israel… Iran next.

Who is implementing these laws anyway and who would slap the hands of the one who go against these laws and what would be the penalty and who will carry through with the penalties? Nobody, isn’t it? Those International Laws are just smoke screen, an illusion to make people believe they have some kind of protection.

These stupid attitudes are bringing our world on the verge of an ugly war that could destroy our civilizations for what, finally? Just for the profit of a tiny-microscopic minority with inflated ego and who think that they are masters of the world and better than everybody else because of their chubby and money-plumped pockets. And they want us to shut up and let them treat us like slaves and push our faces in mud? I don’t think so.

Hope people will wake up in masses and stop this insanity before they plunge our world in a hideous, dreadful, appalling bloodbath and reduce our cities into vitrified ashes.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/lying-about-syria-and-the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-the-lying.html

Vatican says the fragment of papyrus is “fake”!


The Papyrus… or at least the fragment…

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/gospel-jesus-wife-fragment-fake-vatican-says-121133725.html

Well! Did they really expect the Vatican to say it is a true one? Come on! Pope and other authorities around him will never, ever admit it, even thought they find something written by Jesus himself (maybe they have in their library). Can you imagine? It will completely destroy the very base of the Christian faith and will – Oh! Horror – allow women to be priests and worst… priest to be married.

It is ridiculous to see at what point they are stuck in old believes and rejecting, with a parochial and narrow-minded attitude, all possibilities of evolution and renewal.

Of course, I don’t say that this document is a real one. I have no knowledge to say so and haven’t even seen it, except like everybody else on this photo. But when I read some of the comments like this one of the editor of L’Osservatore Romano, Gian Maria Vian who said: “In any case, it’s a fake”. And this other one, Professor Francis Watson: “It’s really pretty unlikely that it’s authentic”, I feel they talk as if they have blinders.

Having doubts after such discovery is more than normal, and that scholars and scientist examine the papyrus to determine its authenticity is again, normal but what is annoying me is this attitude of the Vatican to get angry and reject – at the first word – the possibility of a new discovery.

We have to think also that Constantine had written/compiled the bible in the 3rd century. He – if we believe history – and the monks/priests/scholars surrounding him, took all the papers they could find and decided which one was going or not in the book and it seems that they destroyed the rest. The level of translation also might have been not very extensive and it seems that the emperor asked to modify some of the texts as it was not quite pleased with them. And this is without talking about all the Councils that followed where popes (some with already quite a questionable reputation) were modifying the writings at will.

So, what is left from the original texts supposedly written by God? Really?

The Vatican’s reaction of being angry at anything that touch Jesus’ celibate is also dubious – to my point of view. Would it be that they know he was married but erased that fact from the texts because they wanted to have control over the mass? Not having their priests married and be faithful only to them? And mostly, having women reduced to the most abject obedience and stripped of their power? What were they fearing?

Why would it be so wrong that Jesus had been married? And had children?

Remember the Vatican’s irritated reaction when Dan Brown published “The Da Vinci Code”? They were not angry to the fact it was talking about all that conspiracy inside the Vatican, neither of the different sects like the Opus Dei but they were almost explosive to the part where Dan Brown talks about Jesus, his wife and his children.

A bizarre reaction, don’t you think?

There are so many things we don’t know and I am very curious to more discoveries that will open our mind to a glorious – or less glorious – past. There has been so many manipulation of the truth, so many forgeries, so many lies regarding religions.

I knew a man who was at the Vatican. He was in the high hierarchy, near the pope and had access to a big part of the library. He told me that, if only people knew about the knowledge hidden down there, all religions would collapse in a blink of an eye. He told me that there is extremely old, beautiful but dangerous manuscripts with writings that will illuminate everybody and render religions irrelevant.

I wish I could read these manuscripts… it would be wonderful, isn’t it? I just wonder what could be written on them? How old they could be? In which language are they written? And what could be the forbidden knowledge? Is this knowledge could be the famous tree in the Garden of Eden? The tree of Knowledge?

Abandon Afghan Baby Found by Soldiers

This article caught my attention this morning and I started to read the comments. I was pleased of some nice comments but I was a bit shocked to see how many people are negative, full of hate and judgemental, how many don’t think for and by themselves but follow the brainwashing that medias and governments flood on the american people.

Many people in these comments accuse the mom but do we really know for sure why the mom left her baby there? A mom is a mom, whatever her nationality and she would not have done that without a reason if it is really her who put the little one there.

Maybe she put it there because she heard the soldiers coming; maybe she was hiding behind rumbles checking to be sure they saw the little one. Anyway, who are we to judge her. We don’t know her reason and her life. Maybe she died giving birth and somebody put the baby there to have the soldiers or somebody taking her. If the person who did that wanted the baby to be dead, they would not have wrapped her in a towel and not have put her on the road to be seen. They would just have let her to die hidden in the ruins strewn all around.

We had and still have a lot of women in our countries who abandon their babies, isn’t it? Many in churches or hospitals or orphenages or even on the street in garbage bags so, what is different?

The Afghan people — as well as several other countries in Middle East — are suffering tremendously. These people are like us.They love and they cry, they work hard and they have big dreams of peace and bright future, they love their wife/husband/children.

OK! They don’t have the same religion as you and their “god” is saying pretty violent things but… have you read your bible with all this violence and battles and killings and murdering of babies your “god” asked his people and angels to do? Have you read your history books to see all the miseries and killing and atrocious tortures your religion has done just because somebody didn’t have the exact same point of view as the pope or the priests? And should we talk about the cases of pedophilia and beating in schools? Well… nobody is perfect, isn’t it? But it seems that it is human to see the straw in other peopl eye but not seeing the big 10×10 beam in ours,
They have fear and hate, like us and until the day we all realize they are humans with emotions exactly like us, there will be hate and wars. People can have different ways of life, they might not eat like you or have the same way to do something but that doesn’t mean they are not human. Those people are bombed, killed, have everything they have destroyed, they come back home after work to find their home to the ground, their families killed, they see the bodies of their children dismantled and full of blood, they hold their little dead bodies in their arms and you expect them to be happy, serene and non-violent?

Come on, people, wake up and give your head a shake.

Oh! By the way, I am very happy that the little girl found a nice home and wonderful loving parents in her country. Wish her a beautiful life and hope she and her new parents will be protected from the drones bombs.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/afghan-baby-happiness-found-beside-road-gets-family-130312573–abc-news-topstories.html

What is wrong in this pattern?

Might not be a completely new one but I found this video on YouTube. Title: Mocking Jesus on Israeli TV.

Well! So, if I understand well this process, the jews are allowed to mock Jesus publicly, to consider all the non-jew living beings on Earth as useless and to genocide palestinians and all this is OK, but if somebody look at them a bit with a dark eye or a with mumbling tongue, that poor guy is called an anti-semite.

And if somebody say something against the muslim prophet Mahomet — even though they could be right — than their is howling, yelling, bombs and murders all over the world. But, if something as ugly as this video is on the web against somebody else religious or sacred personna, nobody react.

Hear me well, I am not a Christian neither than a Muslim but I just ask myself a lot of questions here and what happened these last days just reafirm my theory that religions and religious beliefs are the very base of wars. And it is so sad.

Many caricatures and wrong saying has been published against Buddha, Indian deities, Christian deities, etc… and no wars were started because of this so what is the problem?

I tried to download this video on my page here but it doesn’t work so, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6vRC1xW_c&feature=player_detailpage

 

 

U.S. free speech rights complicate handling of maker of anti-islamic film?????

Well! First of all, this movie didn’t ignite the violence across the middle east as the violence was and is always there, but it gives another excuse for it to explode a bit more. How many suicide bombers per year there? And that movie was not out yet. But, it was the drawing of the prophet and then this crazy guy who wanted to burn the Koran and then the burning of one book and now the movie… and all the other excuses in between. It is an explosive area of the world full of unsatisfied and frustrated men ruled by a religion that gather a lot of extremists and guided by a religious book (and priests) that is also far from to be non-violent – like other religious books we know of.

But, is it abnormal to have such violence in countries that are bombed by another country, which wants to invade and control them? Is it so abnormal to have men furious and mad because those bombs killed their parents, their wives, their children, their siblings and their friends?

Hear me well, I am certainly not pro-Muslim — far from there — but I can understand their rage.

And, talking about the free speech rights? So, somebody do a racist movie that put the world on the fringe on the third world war and they talk about free speech but when a group of people gather in the street and ask calmly for their rights to be respected, they are charged upon by the SWATT guys dressed like killer robots and sparkled with huge weapons, they are tazed, gazed, bear sprayed, arrested, imprisoned, harassed. You call that free speech rights? Where is the freaking logic in all that?

So, if the free speech serve their purpose of spreading hate on a certain part of the world population so they can continue their little wars, then it is big stuff but if the free speech is for their own people asking for their rights to be respected, then it is not OK and they run to the senate to have laws written to suppress that free speech right and to forbid gatherings. Nice hey?

As for the guy who supposedly did it… who knows if it is really him who did all that. Who are the people who financed the movie? I think he is a scapegoat to camouflage the real people and/or organisation behind the scene. Are the medias will drive the focus on that poor guy so people will forget about the real offenders, the ones who financed and really did this movie?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-free-speech-rights-complicate-handling-maker-anti-100029220.html