AFP - Thursday, June 4
DUBAI (AFP) - - Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden on Wednesday scorned Barack Obama's overture to the Islamic world and warned of decades of conflict, at the start of the US president's Middle East charm offensive.
He accused Obama of "antagonising Muslims" in the same way as his predecessor George W. Bush, in an audiotape aired on Qatar's Al-Jazeera news channel less than an hour after the president landed in Saudi Arabia.
"He has followed the steps of his predecessor in antagonising Muslims ... and laying the foundation for long wars," bin Laden said, referring to deadly clashes in Pakistan between the US-backed government and Islamist militants.
"He gave his orders to (Pakistani President Asif Ali) Zardari and his army to prevent the people of Swat from applying Sharia (Islamic) law," he said.
"Obama and his administration have sowed new seeds of hatred against America," said the Al-Qaeda leader whose network carried out the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
"Let the American people prepare to harvest the crops of what the leaders of the White House plant in the next years and decades."
In a swift reaction from Obama's Saudi hosts, a government spokesman in Riyadh said the new tape was a sign of the desperation of the fugitive Saudi-born terror mastermind.
"It's an act of desperation," information ministry official Nial al-Jubeir told AFP. "They are still making their statements while hiding in a cave."
The White House's early reaction was that Al-Qaeda was trying to distract the Muslim world from Obama's "historic" outreach effort.
Bin Laden, who has a 50-million-dollar bounty on his head and been in hiding for the past eight years, also lashed out at Zardari accusing him of "betraying his religion and nation".
"In this war, he (Zardari) is endangering the religion, unity and security of Pakistan, and implementing a Jewish, American, and Indian conspiracy, which would enable India to subject Pakistan's regions one after the other," he said.
"This way, the United States would be relieved from its concerns over the danger of Pakistan's nuclear weapons," he added.
Obama flew into Saudi Arabia before heading to Cairo on Thursday to give a much-anticipated speech to the world's 1.5 million Muslims after eight years of fraught relations under Bush.
Under US pressure, Pakistan launched an offensive last month to crush militants in the northwest, which Washington said threatened the existence of the Muslim country and posed the greatest terror threat to the West.
Bin Laden's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri earlier urged Egyptians to shun Obama, saying his trip was at the invitation of the "torturers of Egypt" and the "slaves of America."
"His bloody messages were received and are still being received by Muslims, and they will not be concealed by public relations campaigns or by farcical visits or elegant words," Zawahiri said in an Internet audio recording.
He described Obama as "that criminal who came seeking, with deception, to obtain what he failed to achieve on the ground after the mujahedeen ruined the project of the Crusader America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia."
Arab newspapers, meanwhile, warned Obama to beware of lecturing Muslims on his landmark trip.
"Don't be biased towards Israel, don't interfere in countries' internal affairs and don't give lessons in democracy," advised a front-page editorial in Egypt's state-owned Al-Rose Al-Youssef.
An editorial in the Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh urged the Islamic world not to put its expectations too high.
"The Islamic world should not think that Obama is coming to be an ally or a supporter... let's realise that he will speak as a moderate American who understands the sensitivity of the region, as well as its wars and suffering caused by the US Machiavellian policy over the past five decades."
In the United Arab Emirates, Vice President and Prime Minister Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum warned Obama that the worsening economic situation would strengthen extremism in the Islamic world.
"Those young men, who are increasingly bored (due to growing unemployment), will be easy prey for those promoting extremism and hostility, mainly against the United States," he wrote in Al-Khaleej.
=============================
Once again he did it - abusing religion, Islam!
Seriously, i think there's a dark room somewhere in California with a camera, the flag of Islam and a Osama Bin Laden beard kit lying around.
He's a 6 foot man on dialysis ! Why is he so hard to find?!
Well.. if Osama Bin Laden gets caged... a lot of those intelligence big wigs will be outa job.
So keep it comin Laden !!
I doubt this is Osama, He is inclined to flamboyance, and always use videos to spread his messages. After a purported video of him after the Tora Bora offensive is touted as fake, all his next messages are in audio.
Note the timing of the message and Obama's soon to be held speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. And the frequency of released messages during the time of Bush's reelection campaign.
Seriously, i think there's a dark room somewhere in California with a camera, the flag of Islam and a Osama Bin Laden beard kit lying around.
He's a 6 foot man on dialysis ! Why is he so hard to find?!
1) He is already dead during the Tora Bora offensive.
2) The US do not want him to be out of the picture....yet
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Seriously, i think there's a dark room somewhere in California with a camera, the flag of Islam and a Osama Bin Laden beard kit lying around.
He's a 6 foot man on dialysis ! Why is he so hard to find?!
Cos in Arab, there are alot of 6 foot and above men with at least a 7 inch hammer attached. So, it kind of hard to find.
03 June, 2009
In one of the most famous novels by Graham Greene, ‘Our Man in Havana,’ a man yields to a Secret Intelligence Service’s recruitment pitch out of a desperate need for extra money to maintain high living standards for his pretty adolescent daughter. The man starts inventing agents and sub-agents to justify the money he gets, but suddenly real people around him are involved in his game, including his friends, and then they start dying for real. The protagonist is a middle-aged Briton who lives in pre-Fidel Havana.
In 2001, another man repeated this fate with a twist: he took a real enemy – international and militant but lacking any actual military force – reinvented it as a ‘network supported by certain countries’, and declared a war. This leap of his imagination, supported by the imaginations or cold-blooded interests of those in his immediate circle of associates, caused several real shooting wars and thousands of totally unnecessary casualties.
The biggest problem with this second protagonist was that he, at the moment when his mind was in its most creative mode, occupied the most powerful office on Earth – that of the President of the United States of America.
Generations of historians will busy themselves with defining the role George W. Bush played in the history of the U.S. and the world. One fact, though, will remain unchallenged by any of them: that the man invented the war on terrorism.
For a historian, terrorism is nothing new. Definitions vary in wording every time a new wave of it starts in the world, but every one of them presumes that terrorism is an attempt to reach political or ideological ends through criminal means (murder, mass murder, hijacking, etc) in order to terrorize society into accepting a certain course of action or a certain idea.
Terrorism is always a militant action by armed criminals against unarmed civilians or against a public figure, guarded by armed bodyguards but denied the possibility to stay protected at all times and against all threats by the very essence of his/her public status. In fewer words, terrorism is always an attempt by a group of people to impose their own rules on society by force.
Prior to the Russian revolution, the best known revolutionaries were the terrorists, or ‘the bombists.’ Very few people knew of Lenin and the Bolsheviks before 1917. Everyone knew Prince Kropotkin, the members of ‘The People’s Freedom’ and later the Socialist Revolutionaries. The latter group evolved into a whole political party which had, like the IRA after it, a political wing and a combat (terrorist) wing.
They proclaimed Socialism as the objective of their struggle and made terrorism their means of choice: the idea was to kill as many officials of the Monarchic state as would be needed to make the people understand that the Romanov Monarchy ruled not by divine right, but by the submission of the people. The ultimate goal was to provoke the people into an uprising against the Monarchy and stand at the head of that uprising.
What the Socialist Revolutionaries failed to achieve by terror from1860-1914, the Bolsheviks achieved in one summer; the summer of 1917, by clever and well-addressed propaganda and by taking over the Soviets – the grassroots democratic institutions, naturally born all over the country during the February 1917 liberal-democratic revolution.
The ‘Red Terror’ of 1918–1920 that the Bolsheviks pursued when they were already firmly in control, was a government policy of suppression that was aimed at eliminating any tiny spec of opposition. It was bloody and ruthless – but it was terror, not terrorism, if you know what I mean.
As for the most active period for the terrorist wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the first decade of the 20th Century, their multi-level clandestine operation met with an equally multi-layered and complex response from the ‘Okhrana,’ or ‘Protective Police Unit,’ a police Special Branch of sorts. The terrorists were the primary targets, because their own main target was the person of the Russian Emperor and members of the Imperial family.
The Okhrana was a mixture of a police agency and intelligence service. It worked both in Russia and abroad, with small but effective networks in Europe and in the United States, especially on the American West Coast. California in those days was the preferred rest and recreation destination for Russian ‘bombists.’ In San Francisco they lived openly, without fear of prosecution or persecution, they gathered and argued about politics and they published their own periodical publications and books in Russian.
In California, Russian terrorists planned their operations. The Okhrana had imposed on itself a permanent ban on any forceful actions in America. The rules were strict: no arrests, no shoot-outs. The objective was to penetrate the revolutionary circles and find out their immediate and long-term plans. It was done, and most effectively, by the means of good old ‘Humint’ – human intelligence: agents or moles planted within the terrorists’ organizations.
The same was done in Europe, where the conditions were not as favorable for the terrorists and local police forces often helped their Russian colleagues (Europe still had most of its Monarchies in place, and Monarchies tend to think alike about regicide, even if they are enemies or rivals).
As a result, all the activities by the terrorists were under close scrutiny of the Okhrana, and even their loudest success, the murder of Interior Minister Stolypin in 1912, is tainted by the fact that the assassin was simultaneously a member of a terrorist combat group and an Okhrana mole.
Russian historians still argue today about the reasons for the killing of Stolypin. They agree that the only party that benefited from it were the land-owning nobility and the court, because Stolypin’s unfinished land reform was rapidly Westernizing the Russian agricultural sector, making a farmer out of the Russian peasant, at the time free more in name than in fact.
The long historical discourse above shows one thing clearly: terrorism is best fought via police and intelligence methods. More than that: it never occurred to anyone in Tsarist Russia to fight terrorism with military force. Or to blame the U.S. government of the time for support of terrorism.
Let us remember that, in the first decade of the 20th Century, Russia, even weakened by the war with Japan and the unsuccessful revolution of 1905-07, still was a superpower rivaling Britain, France and Germany, while America was taking its first steps in the international political arena.
Let us remember as well that Britain and Germany were Monarchies and France, itself a republic, wasn’t trying to impose its democracy on fellow superpowers but, to the contrary, at every opportunity emphasized its deep respect of European Monarchic values. If, in that context, Russia had raised the question of the U.S. supporting and harboring terrorists with known regicidal intentions, it could have led to consequences well beyond simple diplomatic reprimands.
But that never happened. First of all because all European governments understood: terrorists may occasionally use a country or a city as their base, known or unknown to the local authorities, but it doesn’t mean that their cause is not alien to most of the people who give them shelter.
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a very tolerant state and definitely not a democracy. But it didn’t share a cause with Al-Qaeda. And there is still no proof that any connection between them existed at all.
The Taliban in Afghanistan before the 2001 invasion harbored Al-Qaeda. But it also had no common cause with it before foreign soldiers arrived. The Taliban was not even as anti-American as some other regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia.
What has the U.S.-led alliance achieved by the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Regime change. In the both cases a regime was changed and replaced with chaos.
Has anybody caught Bin Laden? Have the two wars weakened Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world?
No, to both questions. And that should be the end of the war on terror. But somehow there is a feeling that it is not…
Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Spin-a-war. The War on Terror as a spin of imagination.
Part 1. Inventions
03 June, 2009
A bit of literature to start with
In one of the most famous novels by Graham Greene, ‘Our Man in Havana,’ a man yields to a Secret Intelligence Service’s recruitment pitch out of a desperate need for extra money to maintain high living standards for his pretty adolescent daughter. The man starts inventing agents and sub-agents to justify the money he gets, but suddenly real people around him are involved in his game, including his friends, and then they start dying for real. The protagonist is a middle-aged Briton who lives in pre-Fidel Havana.
In 2001, another man repeated this fate with a twist: he took a real enemy – international and militant but lacking any actual military force – reinvented it as a ‘network supported by certain countries’, and declared a war. This leap of his imagination, supported by the imaginations or cold-blooded interests of those in his immediate circle of associates, caused several real shooting wars and thousands of totally unnecessary casualties.
The biggest problem with this second protagonist was that he, at the moment when his mind was in its most creative mode, occupied the most powerful office on Earth – that of the President of the United States of America.
Generations of historians will busy themselves with defining the role George W. Bush played in the history of the U.S. and the world. One fact, though, will remain unchallenged by any of them: that the man invented the war on terrorism.
A bit of history to continue
For a historian, terrorism is nothing new. Definitions vary in wording every time a new wave of it starts in the world, but every one of them presumes that terrorism is an attempt to reach political or ideological ends through criminal means (murder, mass murder, hijacking, etc) in order to terrorize society into accepting a certain course of action or a certain idea.
Terrorism is always a militant action by armed criminals against unarmed civilians or against a public figure, guarded by armed bodyguards but denied the possibility to stay protected at all times and against all threats by the very essence of his/her public status. In fewer words, terrorism is always an attempt by a group of people to impose their own rules on society by force.
Prior to the Russian revolution, the best known revolutionaries were the terrorists, or ‘the bombists.’ Very few people knew of Lenin and the Bolsheviks before 1917. Everyone knew Prince Kropotkin, the members of ‘The People’s Freedom’ and later the Socialist Revolutionaries. The latter group evolved into a whole political party which had, like the IRA after it, a political wing and a combat (terrorist) wing.
They proclaimed Socialism as the objective of their struggle and made terrorism their means of choice: the idea was to kill as many officials of the Monarchic state as would be needed to make the people understand that the Romanov Monarchy ruled not by divine right, but by the submission of the people. The ultimate goal was to provoke the people into an uprising against the Monarchy and stand at the head of that uprising.
What the Socialist Revolutionaries failed to achieve by terror from1860-1914, the Bolsheviks achieved in one summer; the summer of 1917, by clever and well-addressed propaganda and by taking over the Soviets – the grassroots democratic institutions, naturally born all over the country during the February 1917 liberal-democratic revolution.
The ‘Red Terror’ of 1918–1920 that the Bolsheviks pursued when they were already firmly in control, was a government policy of suppression that was aimed at eliminating any tiny spec of opposition. It was bloody and ruthless – but it was terror, not terrorism, if you know what I mean.
As for the most active period for the terrorist wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the first decade of the 20th Century, their multi-level clandestine operation met with an equally multi-layered and complex response from the ‘Okhrana,’ or ‘Protective Police Unit,’ a police Special Branch of sorts. The terrorists were the primary targets, because their own main target was the person of the Russian Emperor and members of the Imperial family.
The Okhrana was a mixture of a police agency and intelligence service. It worked both in Russia and abroad, with small but effective networks in Europe and in the United States, especially on the American West Coast. California in those days was the preferred rest and recreation destination for Russian ‘bombists.’ In San Francisco they lived openly, without fear of prosecution or persecution, they gathered and argued about politics and they published their own periodical publications and books in Russian.
In California, Russian terrorists planned their operations. The Okhrana had imposed on itself a permanent ban on any forceful actions in America. The rules were strict: no arrests, no shoot-outs. The objective was to penetrate the revolutionary circles and find out their immediate and long-term plans. It was done, and most effectively, by the means of good old ‘Humint’ – human intelligence: agents or moles planted within the terrorists’ organizations.
The same was done in Europe, where the conditions were not as favorable for the terrorists and local police forces often helped their Russian colleagues (Europe still had most of its Monarchies in place, and Monarchies tend to think alike about regicide, even if they are enemies or rivals).
As a result, all the activities by the terrorists were under close scrutiny of the Okhrana, and even their loudest success, the murder of Interior Minister Stolypin in 1912, is tainted by the fact that the assassin was simultaneously a member of a terrorist combat group and an Okhrana mole.
Russian historians still argue today about the reasons for the killing of Stolypin. They agree that the only party that benefited from it were the land-owning nobility and the court, because Stolypin’s unfinished land reform was rapidly Westernizing the Russian agricultural sector, making a farmer out of the Russian peasant, at the time free more in name than in fact.
A bit of geography and ethnography for dessert
The long historical discourse above shows one thing clearly: terrorism is best fought via police and intelligence methods. More than that: it never occurred to anyone in Tsarist Russia to fight terrorism with military force. Or to blame the U.S. government of the time for support of terrorism.
Let us remember that, in the first decade of the 20th Century, Russia, even weakened by the war with Japan and the unsuccessful revolution of 1905-07, still was a superpower rivaling Britain, France and Germany, while America was taking its first steps in the international political arena.
Let us remember as well that Britain and Germany were Monarchies and France, itself a republic, wasn’t trying to impose its democracy on fellow superpowers but, to the contrary, at every opportunity emphasized its deep respect of European Monarchic values. If, in that context, Russia had raised the question of the U.S. supporting and harboring terrorists with known regicidal intentions, it could have led to consequences well beyond simple diplomatic reprimands.
But that never happened. First of all because all European governments understood: terrorists may occasionally use a country or a city as their base, known or unknown to the local authorities, but it doesn’t mean that their cause is not alien to most of the people who give them shelter.
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a very tolerant state and definitely not a democracy. But it didn’t share a cause with Al-Qaeda. And there is still no proof that any connection between them existed at all.
The Taliban in Afghanistan before the 2001 invasion harbored Al-Qaeda. But it also had no common cause with it before foreign soldiers arrived. The Taliban was not even as anti-American as some other regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia.
What has the U.S.-led alliance achieved by the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Regime change. In the both cases a regime was changed and replaced with chaos.
Has anybody caught Bin Laden? Have the two wars weakened Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world?
No, to both questions. And that should be the end of the war on terror. But somehow there is a feeling that it is not…
Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.
By the cynical standards expressed in your conspiracy theories in the US Government policies, should one then safely subscribe that it is also a myth in the US Government accusation that Osama had funded and planned the 9/11 attack on the WTC Twin Towers of New York City ?
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Seriously, i think there's a dark room somewhere in California with a camera, the flag of Islam and a Osama Bin Laden beard kit lying around.
He's a 6 foot man on dialysis ! Why is he so hard to find?!
Same same here.Why cant people just accept the fact that he is really DED>LOL
Originally posted by Atobe:
By the cynical standards expressed in your conspiracy theories in the US Government policies, should one then safely subscribe that it is also a myth in the US Government accusation that Osama had funded and planned the 9/11 attack on the WTC Twin Towers of New York City ?
You don't get it do you and I doubt you will EVER.
Even if the once CIA-trained and funded "Osama" did plan the 9/11 attacks, it still doesn't give the U.S the right to attack and continue to conduct military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to inflame anti-American sentiments and kill countless numbers of innocents. It does not give the U.S the right to force the hand of governments to carry out actions that are against the well being of its people. It does not give the right for Israel to carry out massacres in its Occupied Terroritories.
Everybody now knows of the false evidence that has been planted, the bad intentions and the continued evil acts of the clique of people in the so-called "civilized" west who with the help of an ignorant population carried out these unjustified attacks without United Nations Security Council support. Also, everyone can also see that these same clique of people continue to be responsible for running the American and global economy into the ground and who continue to be a parasitic factor in the world without opposition. These are not "conspiracy" theories.
Terrorists (including the ones funded and trained by the U.S) are best fought by good intelligence operations. The root causes of violent anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism that gives its cause strategic depth is best addressed by giving the Palestinians and muslims a fair deal.
Stop misrepresenting the arguments. The facts are already out there in the public space. Calling all of it "conspiracy" theories doesn't make it all magically go away. At least you could mouth a bit of what Obama is saying, try it on for size and see if you sleep better.
9/11 was actually an attack by a giant monster. But the Ministry of Magic has swiftly stepped in to modify the memory of those who saw it, and even crafted videos to make it look like it is a plane crash.
Originally posted by Short Ninja:Same same here.Why cant people just accept the fact that he is really DED>LOL
I have my doubts on whether he really had the sort of influence the media is claiming.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I have my doubts on whether he really had the sort of influence the media is claiming.
media is in cahoot with osama????
no la, i m just kidding.
Originally posted by eagle:9/11 was actually an attack by a giant monster. But the Ministry of Magic has swiftly stepped in to modify the memory of those who saw it, and even crafted videos to make it look like it is a plane crash.
damn, I actually thought it was an alien, and the MIB stepped in.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
media is in cahoot with osama????no la, i m just kidding.
Won't say cahoots la, but TV viewers always like the facts to be exaggerated to get viewership wat.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I have my doubts on whether he really had the sort of influence the media is claiming.
he only needs to reach to those who are cynical.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:he only needs to reach to those who are cynical.
Or people who actually bother to question the information they're getting?
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:You don't get it do you and I doubt you will EVER.
Even if the once CIA-trained and funded "Osama" did plan the 9/11 attacks, it still doesn't give the U.S the right to attack and continue to conduct military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to inflame anti-American sentiments and kill countless numbers of innocents. It does not give the U.S the right to force the hand of governments to carry out actions that are against the well being of its people. It does not give the right for Israel to carry out massacres in its Occupied Terroritories.
Everybody now knows of the false evidence that has been planted, the bad intentions and the continued evil acts of the clique of people in the so-called "civilized" west who with the help of an ignorant population carried out these unjustified attacks without United Nations Security Council support. Also, everyone can also see that these same clique of people continue to be responsible for running the American and global economy into the ground and who continue to be a parasitic factor in the world without opposition. These are not "conspiracy" theories.
Terrorists (including the ones funded and trained by the U.S) are best fought by good intelligence operations. The root causes of violent anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism that gives its cause strategic depth is best addressed by giving the Palestinians and muslims a fair deal.
Stop misrepresenting the arguments. The facts are already out there in the public space. Calling all of it "conspiracy" theories doesn't make it all magically go away. At least you could mouth a bit of what Obama is saying, try it on for size and see if you sleep better.
If you could control your knee jerking emotions, you will probably read my response to Ah Chia's piece with some care.
Was the conspiracy a creation of my imagination, or your own reading abilities ?
Was the discussion about the "validity of reasons for the US involvement in Iraq and or Afghanistan" ?
To begin with - the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are two different bags of reasons, can they be mixed together ?
If you believe in "mouthing a bit of what Obama is saying" - did you first digest his message of what he had said concerning Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Did his speech turned into marshmallow that you found difficulty to chew on his views ?
Did you missed out to his statements on the necessity of staying the course in Iraq at least until 2012, and until the Talibans and Al Qaeda no longer posed a threat to the USA while hiding in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan ?
How did you manage to find the "false evidence planted" in Iraq ?
How did you manage to do so when with 2020 hindsight, everyone knows now that there are no evidence to the WMD that Saddam Hussein had boasted and which gave the USA the excuse to return into Iraq - and in a climate of fear after 9/11 incidents ?
Were the entire US population supportive of the US President George W Bush's decision to attack Iraq after 9/11 - as you have so brilliantly claimed ?
Perhaps you could modify your 2020 hindsight with some reading of the following - which were documented prior to the invasion during 2003 and the period after:
‘January 2003 – Would an Invasion of Iraq be a “Just War” ?
Will it surprise you that ‘Israel warned US not to invade Iraq after 9/11 – Israel told USA: Iraq is not the enemy – Iran is THE Enemy’
This is logical as Israel could reach and neutralise Saddam Hussein, who has largely been made toothless after the UN sanctioned Operation Dessert Storm in 1991 - when Saddam made an insane decision to invade Kuwait.
However, Iran was seen as a long term threat to Israel, and is harder to reach even as Iran has been the source of finance and weapons supplier to Israel's enemies operating along her borders with Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have balanced the Iranian's ambitions, and kept the Iranians busy in handling the potent threat from Saddam.
Unfortunately for everyone, Israel and the rest of the World Community could not stop the unbridled "cowboy stupidity" in George W Bush - who was encouraged by Dick Cheney's "gunner instinct" - to drive blindly to achieve their shared goal of ridding Saddam Hussein and to complete an unfinish business from the 1991 Desert Storm operation.
It was on George Bush agenda from the first day he was elected into his first term as the US President - to get rid of Saddam Hussein - as researched and documented in ‘Bush sought “Way to invade Iraq ?’
Then there are the other ‘The Top 40 reasons to doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001’ that will probably make you happier and exercise your knee jerking emotions into perfection.
The color of "Black" will always be "Black", and the color of "White" will remain as "White".
Only a child - with a fresh mind - can be brainwashed to learn that the "color of black is white" and vice versa, and to accept this as a natural consequence of colors as he is taught to identify.
This child will surely become confused when in a community that know the true names of the colors from what was brainwashed into his innocent mind.
Those who know and have a common understanding of the names of the different spectrum of colors - will all speak a common term and have mutual understanding.
Can there be any mix up - when "Black is Black" - "White is White" - and there will be a mix of both to become "Grey, which will be accepted and understood as Grey" ?
its beyond conformity, the general lack of curosity that is commonly witness in the regions demographics and our population is a genetics defects in the Brain. Even LHL demonstrate the political indifferent ..... : )
Originally posted by Arapahoe:its beyond conformity, the general lack of curosity that is commonly witness in the regions demographics and our population is a genetics defects in the Brain. Even LHL demonstrate the political indifferent ..... : )
Forgive me if i misunderstood you.
But are you saying we're genetically inferior to the West?