Thread: NWO Is Everywhere !

Originally Posted by chloe24

This was a very interesting site I happened upon while doing some online research. You don't hear about this group from the media:

Jews Against the Occupation
Our Mission


Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel.Â* Our points of unity are as follows:

Â*
NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME

We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.
Â*
Â*
Â*
RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS

The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.
Â*
Â*
Â*
END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL

The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.
Â*
Â*
Â*
STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE
Â*
The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.

http://www.jatonyc.org/

Who knows,maybe those jews are making money off the oil from them ?

I wonder how many marines who know their anthem know which war inspired it ? "from the halls of Montazoma to the SHORES OF TRIPOLI '.
Our first terrorist attacks happened in the 1500s, before we were a nation . And continued up till Thomas Jefferson sent ships to 'patrol the African coast in his ' un-declared' war on these barbareans. Not to speak of the muslims deadly Otterman Empire who had by force taken over much of SE Europe Mid East N.Africa ,Ukrane and spanned 3 continents.

The Marine Anthem was written for our first navy who just so happen to be fighting the 'MUSLIMS' who had already kidnapped and enslaved over a million europeans and Americans between 1530 and 1780 when taking our ships ' Barbary Pirates '. Also their are pictures of their famous torture chambers in our military archives .

Muslm Corsairs kidnapped a whole town in Ireland .

Also We were allies with other nations from our very beginning .

France was one who may have helped us survive to become the great nation we are today, also where our Statue of Liberty came from .

Egyptions ,Africans and muslims were the first to have slaves and still do, also the ones we bought our first slaves from . [ Slavery is evil so not defending it. ] but you will never hear this from any of our universities or schools. And you sure will never see an Alex Haley movie on it either .

Maybe RP should read up on his history .

I am not defending any politicians ,because there is not one I'd vote for .

Originally Posted by fj45lvr

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

I never was for this war and hope to God they stop all the killing of my troops and innocent others. My son was one of the first ones to go, and I'm damn glad he's out of it now, and he's to old to go back.

But I won't blame all the evil of radicals on this war, like Ron Paul did .

The whole crazy world is killing each other, and nobody will stop it , not RP or anyone else . Only a supernatural power can stop us from destroying the human race .

I think you don't understand Paul who has repeatedly said that the people that executed are responsible for what they did that day and that the US (as well as any other country) is responsible for how their actions overseas naturally come back to effect them (it is NOT a vacuum out there and the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders in the region as well as the US giving billions of dollars of aid to DICTATORS (musharif is another example)!! Are we ever gonna learn??? Google and read a very short book on-line entitled "war is a racket" by Highly decorate USMC Major-General Smedley Butler (it opens your eyes to things that the public never gets to focus on working behind the scenes).

The CIA refers to the "reaction" of people as a result of our activity as "BLOWBACK".

Our First President under the U.S. constitution, George Washington stated it all best (from his farewell speech to the nation):

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

George Washinton was not our first president, he was more like our 7th or 8th .

Thanks for the history lesson but as someone who seems quite knowledgeable about it, certainly you cannot believe that Muslims and other people of color, are the only groups who have committed terrorist attacks through the centuries. (Although I think I understand where you're coming from with regard to revisionist history in our classes).

Throughout time we've had tribes of people of all colors and persuasions who are guilty of some very evil and violent acts. They came from China, Scandinavia, Germany, France, England, Rome, etc., etc. They invaded countries, raped and pillaged and took slaves. And just because we Americas didn't invent salvery, we're just as guilty about that, as well as how we treated the Native American Indians.

I'm not about to pull a Rev. Wright and preach that America is completely evil and so is our history. I don't believe that at all. You could argue that the slave trade ended because American abolitionists rose up against it. The fact is, the human race in general has had a pretty poor record of treating one another with compassion and tolerance.

Personally, I find it non-productive to point out all the past horrors committed by Arabs from thousands of years ago to make your point about how we should be entirely committed to Israel. Like I said earlier, we are all guilty of committing violence. But it is this mindset that prevents peace from ever taking root between Arabs & Jews! This living in the past and tit for tat nonesense never gets people anywhere. The Palestinians have a right to a homeland and for their children to live in peace, as well as the Jews.

All I was trying to point out (and I think Ron Paul as well) is that we as a nation and as a world power, have to treat all nations fairly. I mean, isn't that the Christian way? It's our policies that are enraging people and turning them to extremists.

Ron Paul on Palestinian & Israeli Conflict:

I have a proposal and a suggestion which I think fits the American tradition. We should treat both sides equally, but in a different way. Today we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money and telling them what to do. Not $1 million here or there, not $100 million here or there, but tens of billions of dollars over decades to both sides; always trying to buy peace.

Â*Â*My argument is that it generally does not work, that there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. We should start off by defunding, defunding both sides. I am just not for giving all of this money, because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilians killed on the Palestinian side, we can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing.

Â*Â*Â*
So we are, in a way, an accomplice on all of this killing because we fund both sides. So I would argue we should consider neutrality, to consider friendship with both sides, and not to pretend that we are all so wise that we know exactly with whom to have solidarity. I think that is basically our problem. We have a policy that is doomed to fail in the Middle East; and it fails slowly and persistently, always drawing us in, always demanding more money.

With the Arabs, we cannot tell the Arabs to get lost. The Arabs are important. They have a lot of oil under their control. We cannot flaunt the Arabs and say, get lost. We must protect our oil. It is called ``our oil.'' At the same time, there is a strong constituency for never offending Israel.

I think that we cannot buy peace under these circumstances. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. I think we can contribute a whole lot by being friends with both sides. But I believe the money is wasted, it is spent unwisely, and it actually does not serve the interests of the American people.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=737