How To Write A Tombstone

Winner Sunshinecup 2001



Photos: Coastal Bridge, Maasewerd

The last race of the Sunshine Cup was played in Amathous. The lap was 5.6 km long and was not 175 meters, while the data for that bad, but the ground was so rocky that it was too brutal even go with a full suspension. At 12 clock it went to a first lap and 5 laps, I was right at the start of the race take the lead and keep the tempo high, just before the first climb I overtook Thomas Litscher (SUI), which through a plate in the first downhill and fell flat in the next passage of the subsequent winner Henk Jaap Moorlag (NED). This rate, I could not follow and I tried to secure the podium, which was not so easy. Because from the second round got stuck in my fork, the lockout and I had only one rear suspension, which in this extremely rough course was not easy. But I could keep the pace and finished in third place at the end of another podium place.

So I could win the overall title of the Sunshine Cup and earn 250 ranking points. Better not be, a season opener!

Inrul:multicamera?mode=

What is a fundamental right?

Even lawyers get the answer to this question sometimes into stammering. For only shall establish a fundamental right would be something that one is given by a constitution or Basic Law is, is short-sighted. This article attempts a definition, a historical derivation and a critical look at the implementation and enjoyment of fundamental rights.


definition
A fundamental right is not a given. A fundamental right is something that one can not be taken. A fundamental right is inalienable. It is a positive and pre-state. A fundamental right exists even if it is not written down.

A fundamental right is not to the citizen in front of people or protect the citizens from criminals, but a basic right is to protect the citizens in front of the State. In particular, here are the agents of the state, meant in the form of law enforcement authorities. Sense of a fundamental right is to the criminal violence of the state to draw boundaries, to not demand their use. (*)

limit fundamental rights, the power of the state, but not the freedom of the citizen. The contrary, they constitute freedom. (*)

A fundamental right is absolute. It may not be denied, no matter who he is or what he has done. This is the essence of fundamental rights, and this must never be compromised.

The state must also in the existential Disaster still true to fundamental rights. This is exactly the case for social disorder fundamental rights have been created. to submit the constitutional duty to protect not give the State the right to the protection of the individual aufzunötigen the life of a police service, thus building a welfare police summary of law:

But. The protection must not degenerate to guard. The law also indebted to the vulnerable citizens fundamental right distance. (*)


idea Historical Foundation

state legitimacy by security
According to Thomas Hobbes is the first basic legitimacy of a state security. To this philosophical justification express a few words, people refrain from doing violence to each other. You submit to the state and set it as the guarantor of their security is a another. But the absence of private violence is not unconditional. It applies only if the state is willing and powerful to ensure the safety of the citizen. protect the state which do not have the power to have, not even the right to demand obedience. (*)

security against the guardians of the security
But: The state, which removes the fear of the citizens of each other, itself becomes an object of fear is. The Guardian of the security is a threat. The new need focuses on security from the state. Security means freedom from the state. Freedom is the second legitimacy. Your basic theorist John Locke. (*)

With Locke put differences and trade-offs between them by the state and security against the state. He designed instruments for the protection of human rights against the state: representation, separation of powers, the obligation of state power in the given natural law and positive law to the self-imposed. Give the public the right of resistance as the ultimate means of defense against the tyranny of his natural rights. (*)


Again once a "terror alert"?
It belongs in the basic course for professional revolutionaries: the act of terrorism but also the terror alert giving citizens the feeling of insecurity. The deliberate stoking of fear in the people thus makes its contribution to Entlegitimierung the liberal state and contributes to the citizens of the need for an authoritarian security guarantee to raise. The people should be freedom tired and ready for dictatorship. (*)

At the call "terror alert" the knee-jerk bark begins to tougher laws. Retention, restriction of press freedom in danger of terrorism, the Bundeswehr inside and suddenly much-needed restructuring of the intelligence services and police are just some ideas that are suggestive of an underdeveloped understanding of the law.


State attempts to restrict basic rights
The list of government attempts to restrict the fundamental rights of the citizen is long and points repeated regular-like.

Article 13 GG
Legal gun ownership is sufficient in the Federal Republic of today, already, to restrict the fundamental right of inviolability of the home or abolished.

5 Basic Law
The restriction of press freedom in "terrorist threat" is a popular perennial. And Internet censorship in China is by no means the norm.

Article 10 GG
The retention is a tool that law enforcement agencies want to love on the pretext of "fighting terrorism" to see implemented. Under current law considers the retention is unconstitutional.

Art 8 GG
recently called for a Minister of the Interior at the country level, a "discussion" on freedom of assembly. Presumably with the aim of limiting it. Freedom of assembly is a fundamental right. One limitation is of no profit to internal security, but just means a sacrifice of freedom.


Conclusion
The curtailment of fundamental rights does not begin with attempts to restrict or prohibit gun ownership. As the examples show, it begins much sooner: in everyday life. sometimes with banal and outrageous statements of policy and the fact that few citizens become more aware of their fundamental rights.
fundamental rights are obsolete if they are not perceived. they should be perceived by those to whom they were created: the citizens!


Sources:

(*) Josef Isensee, the basic right to safety - protection duties of the liberal constitutional state, Berlin, 1983, ISBN 3-11-009816-4

and

Federal Agency for Civic Education

Diagrams For Pirate Shipsdiagrams Of Pirate Ships

Lorenzo Veracini, Israel and Settler Society

The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is not unique. Lorenco Veracini argues that the conflict is best understood in terms of colonialism. Like South Africa, the United States, Australia, Israel is also a settler society. The author who is a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University in Canberra, challenges two important myths: firstly, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict defies comparative approaches; and secondly that the struggle for liberation is mainly based in nationality and religion and therefore different to typical colonial conflicts. On the contrary, Israel and Settler Society approaches this conflict by utilizing a colonial framework of interpretation and a number of comprehensive test cases.” The book documents and analyses the colonial endeavour of the Zionist enterprise which were already described in 1983 by Baruch Kimmerling in Zionism and Territory and by Gershon Shafir´s Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palesinian Conflict, which regarded Zionism as a form of “European overseas expansion in a frontier region”. Immediately, one question arises: If Israel is a colonial settler society, where is then the colonial motherland?

The author strongly emphasizes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be seen in the light of Franz Fanon´s The Wretched ot the Earth. Fanon insistes that the true enemy of the colonized is the European settler. Israel and Palestine in the years of the second Intifada resonates dangerously with this logic, writes Veracini. Fanon´s capacity was “to encapsulate the intimate nature of the relationship between colonizer and colonized”. The disappearence of a postcolonial horizon, despite the internationally sanctioned dealings of Madrid, Oslo, Wye River Plantation, and Camp David-II consituted a crucial turning-point. When the possibility of disengaging from Israel´s colonial oppression became postponed into an indefinite future, a colonial phenomenology began increasingely to inform relationships, so the author.

Besides Introduction and Conclusion the book has three chapters: the Geography of Unitlateral Separation; the Troubles of Decolonization, and Founding Violence and Settler Societies. Lorenzo Veracini compares former settler states like South Africa, Australia, and Algeria with the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. In chapter two he appraises increasing occurrence of references to apartheid in relation to Israel/Palestine and assesses a developing practice of exclusion through a comparision with South Africa´s policies during the apartheid era. In chapter three he proposes a comparative analysis of two conflicts in which a settler project supported by a colonial power reluctant to relinquish control over an area deemed strategically and ideologically essential was and is opposed to a nationalist movement struggeling for independence. This chapter analyses Israeli responses to the Al-Aqsa-Intifada by comparing them with the repressive strategies developed by the Forth French Republic to deal with the Algerian war of decolonization. In chapter four the author addresses the evolution of history writing and debates in two very different contexts: Israel and Australia. Two themes emerge as central: the final acknowledgement of the dispossession of the original inhabitants, and the defective legitimacy of the institutions of the state until a settlement with the occupied is reached.

1948 was a fateful year for the colonial histories of Israel/Palestine and South Africa. Both societies share a particular preoccupation about demography. As A. D. Smith has pointed out in his work Chosen people: Sacred Sources of National Identity that both Zionism and Afrikaner nationalism have insisted on indigenous absence, on a “land without a people”, or the emptiness of the South African frontier, arguing that the indigenous people had entered the geographic space identified by the colonized project only at some late historical stage. The author mentions also the differences between South Africa and Israel/Palestine regarding the attitude and influence of the international community. “It was ultimately US policy that largely determined the timing and outcome of the conflict in South Africa, just as it was US power that shaped the Oslo process, and supervised its demise.” Does Veracini really think that? Israel is not a banana republic. The influence between the US and Israel is vica versa.

The author is aware of the fact that a comparative approach should take the obvious differences between Algeria in the 1950s and the current situation in Israel/Palestine into account. In France in the 1950s there was a strong and organized opposition to colonialism, in contrast to the apathy that characterizes Israel´s peace movement and the political Zionist left. Veracini hints to more similarities like the war of decolonization in Algeria and the Cold War on the one hand, and the second Intifada and the post-9/11 global “war on terror” on the other. Some historical analogies between the French and the Zionsit colonial enterprise leads the reader astray. The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza-Strip cannot be compared. The first was a military desaster for France while the last one was decided unilaterally out of demographical considerations. Some other comparisions are also ahistoric and superficial.

Veracini argues that in Australia and Israel history and political perceptions are rewritten. Both governments are convinced that they are proposing “generous offers” to their Aboritinal and Palestinian counterparts. As a result, a resolution to the conflict tends to fade into an indefinite future. Until 1988 a systematic historiography on the origions of the State of Israel did not exist. Until 1977 the intellectual debate was hegemonized by the Mapai, the Zionist Social Democratic Party. The so-called New Historians from the left-wing Zionist and non-Zionist parties presented dissenting interpretations of the dominant Zionist narrative. They challenged the “founding myths” which surrounded the establishment of the State of Israel. This debate is still going on in Israel and Australia what the Aboritinal are concerned. Both states have finally failed to become a state of all its citicens. They have remained in many ways the state of a colonial project, so the author.

Progress in Israel/Palestine can only come about through a shift in US sensitivities which brought change in French Algeria and apartheid South Africa., writes Veracini. The Middle East may wait for the end of the global “war on terror” to see some positive developments. “´America´s last taboo` (Edward Said L. W.), the unquestioning and automatic US support for Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, could then be seen as an outcome of a settler consciousness appeased by `frontier` images of a poineering enterprise (as well as by the influence exercised by the Zionist lobby in Washington).” Despite the “tremendously influential factor” the “Israel lobby” (Mearsheimer/Walt) has, the author regards the “settler-determined constituency and the availibility of a settler world-view” more important that can help explain US support for the Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories. Neither the current “unilateral Bantustanization” nor “the stabilization of a number of Bantustans will not bring the confrontation to an end”. Lorenzo Veracini opens a long forgotten persective to look at the longest regional conflict in International Relations. His view could help to understand the neocolonial dynamics in the Middle East and beyond. For the West a rather unconventional viewpoint.

Cloth List Mount And Blade

Afxentia stage race victory at the season opener



Photos: Armin M. Brück coast

The stage race was for 3 days and on Friday it began with a Time Trail. Through my victory in Voroklini I went with the number 1 into the race and thus the last driver of nearly 110 runners on the 5.5 km circuit. A fast lap is not my specialty, but after it began to rain a little, I went faster, so I was still dry finish. In the end I missed the victory by only 1.4 sec. The winner is the Czech Jan Skarnitzel before Henk Jaap Moorlag (NED) and me as a third party. So I went
with a good starting position for the overall title in the 44km-long marathon on Saturday. The race was fast and could be deposited on the first 20km no driver from the field. At the beginning of the long single track I was able to rise behind Emil Lindgren (SWE) classified as second. In a slippery creek crossing then had the Greek Periklis short of wheel and Lindgren and I were able to drop off a little of the persecutors and continue as a duo in the long single track downhill. Downhill Lindgren could settle a little bit of me, but the next rise, I could almost close the gap again, but then he had a flat tire in the next short downhill and I could win alone take the lead and the marathon. On Sunday I went
therefore with the yellow leader's jersey in the final Cross-Counrty, where there was a heavy startloop and 5 rounds to overcome. I had a good start and was able to easily keep in the top and down with Lindgren, the world number one Jaroslav Kulhavy (CZE) Moorlag and to deduct from the rivals. In the third round Moorlag lost the connection to the top flight and in the fourth round, then began to rain slightly and hail, which made the track slippery and dangerous again! The three of it went into the last lap and I tried to keep the pace and get my overall winner. In the end, Kulhavy could settle a little and win the race before me, and Lindgren. Second place in the XC offered me but for the stage race with almost 2 minutes ahead of the two Czechs and Jan Kulhavy Skarnitzl win. A special thanks to my team for their great support. That was an amazing weekend for me!

Are There Any Straight Shota Movies

The West loses his favorite tyrant

as 20 years ago in the states of Central and Eastern Europe, people took to the streets and despatched the communist regime to the dustbin of history, were the U.S. and Western European elites and their media almost over the moon . The U.S. empire emerged victorious from the battle of the systems and was able to compete freely yet its global expansion drive on in his sense democratized part of the globe. The story seemed to have come to an end, was reported of scientific mouth.

accomplished something similar today in the Arab world and the Western elites maneuver between the rebellious people and their oppressors to maintain their "interests" and "stability." The Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron and the entire host of Western Democrats to show people her cold shoulder and ask for political power by the ruling dictators orderly change of people and restraint. Even at the massacre of the Libyan colonel on his own subjects the Western leaders falls outside diplomatic phrases a bit. The EU has completely failed in these uprisings. You cares more about an imminent "exodus" of "biblical proportions" in its domain. What do Western politicians, some cosmetic changes, without thereby changing the global situation radically. Immediately to utilities pulled out of the sleeves to the people point in typical colonial fashion the bureaucratic road to democracy. The West is doing, as if these "savages" did not know how to prevent elections or build a state. Before the stability fixation on the tyrant to overlook that in this countries are a vibrant civil society, which until now only had no voice.
The Egyptian Pharaoh
long stuck to his throne and declares to the world that its corrupt elites wanted to reform itself. Imagine, Egon Krenz had commissioned Erich Mielke to effect an orderly transfer of power in the GDR. But exactly what should take place in Egypt. The long-serving intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Egypt's chief torturer and head of the notorious secret Al Mukhabarat and reliable partner of the CIA in torturing deportees "Islamists" as part of the rendition torture program of the Bush Administration, should the "orderly transition" in the name of "Western interests "as Vice President orchestrate, and under the control of the military. Under pressure from the protesters had to settle the military Suleiman, and he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt shortly afterwards.

The difference between the political classes of the former "Eastern bloc" and their counterparts in the Arab world is that the latter are the allies and friends of the West. They are the ones who have delivered Frantz Fanon the title for his anti-colonial classic "Black Skin, White Masks". The Western elites have cared for well over half a century not one whit about democracy, freedom, women's rights, good governance and other "western values", mainly the Arab despotisms were politically stable and its rulers to the west, well disposed, they could do to their subjects what they wanted. The West looks to date on his "good", that is, Western-oriented dictatorship friends not as closely, as witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and the countries of Central Asia. The comments to the "change of power in Egypt are steeped in colonial paternalistic thinking by the Western leaders say their representatives in the Arab world how to behave and what is supposedly in their interest.

Western magic formulas for these double standards are "political stability" "U.S. same Western interests," "Western values", and since the 9/11-Anschlägen the so-called "war on terror" and "global stability." This makes political terminology western political elites rule through intermediaries in the Arab world and beyond. the Western power politicians have actually stopped to ask what are the interests of the people in the Arab world? The exploitation of mineral resources is probably not their primary interests. Why should the people in this kind of "political stability" have an interest which is more just to their disadvantage? What they need is change, radical change, if need be, a revolution to democracy, human rights and individual freedom. The Western idea of "political stability" must appear the enslaved people "obscene" because they deprive them of their dignity and keep them in poverty and misery, while supporting the rule of a kleptocracy. Who are these "political stability" in question, undermining the "Western values" and an ominous stability and rule of doctrine. This thinking is deeply racist and neo-colonialist, because it denies the Arab peoples, their right to universal values and dignity.

Why are the Western statesmen and public men and their intellectuals, especially the otherwise contentious French philosopher, not on the side of rebellious populations and demand the departure of outspoken of all the Arab dictators? In particular, the French feature stars who are against any human rights violation that is not started by the West or its consent to accomplices "to protest, are silent with regard to the insurgency in the Arab world. An overthrow of Arab regimes would not be in the interest of Israel, could be an explanation. The changes in the Arab world are actually not in the interests of Israel. One need because simply looking at the hysteria in the Israeli media. Some journalists attacked U.S. President Obama because he did not support Mubarak, and they longed for the good old days of George W. Bush. But Israel's interests are not identical to Western interests, even his nearly 44-year-old policy of occupation is a heavy burden for the credibility of the West. The country has its own hegemonic agenda in the Middle East.

How can it be that Israel would be threatened by democratic revolutions in the Arab world? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had given even the beginning of February in the Knesset, following on record: "All those who appreciate the value of freedom to be inspired by the calls for democratic reforms in Egypt (...) An Egypt that will adopt these reforms, a source of hope for the world will be. The stronger the foundations of democracy are, the stronger the foundations for peace. "How come is it that suddenly the Israeli government against free elections in these countries with the argument warns that they would not necessarily lead to democracy? Or has become the traditional thinking of the Israeli security establishment, which the former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens as "convincing" in the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" and later on in the "Berliner Zeitung" 2 February has argued that one could easily conclude peace treaties with dictators: "Peace is concluded with dictators." Since there were no democracies in Israel's neighborhood, you were forced willy-nilly, to conclude peace treaties with dictatorships. Israeli President Shimon Peres met with the same hymn. On a Banque Peres said in Jerusalem that an anti-democratic regime that is for peace is better than a democracy that is against peace. He praised in his speech, Mubarak warned against the danger of elections, because they lead to an electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood could. Now it becomes clear why one has to the democratic electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 from the United States, Israel and the EU all under way to urge the only democratic Arab government from office. Had the freely elected Hamas government to survive, Israel's status as the "only democracy in the Middle East" would have been perdu. Such as the publication has shown the "Palestine Papers," it seems to be easier to conclude with a democratically legitimized Arab "president" as Abbas and his cronies than with democratically elected Hamas representatives in peace indeed.

Israeli leaders and Israeli "Arabists" in the media create a nightmare scenario in which the Muslim Brotherhood is playing the lead role. Democratic elections, they could bring to power, it would be like in Iran and Gaza. Democracy in the Middle East lies not in Israel's interest and constitutes a danger to the country, the dominant theme in the media landscape.

Where is the main problem of the West with the revolutions in the Arab world? It is the imaginary threat of domination and takeover by "Islamists". The Egyptian revolution is primarily a desire of youth and the majority of Egyptians for freedom. The Mubarak regime was like mildew over the country. The Revolution was not controlled by "Islamists" or representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, or even lit. Even in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, they have done little or nothing to revolt. You are in this power struggle is only one actor among many. The spread of fear of "Islamists" or is the demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood by political propaganda of the preservation of the geopolitical influence of the West and Israel in the region, which has so far worked to the detriment of the people. Mubarak, along with Israel and the U.S. have done everything to the Palestinian people continue to colonize and oppress. Mubarak and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have nothing against the Israeli Massacres of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, in which 1 400 people - mostly women and children - were killed objection, had it even though they have been notified in advance. Mubarak had made even the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, so that none of the inhabitants managed to escape from the prison of the Strip.

Runs after the revolution in Egypt, not everything again in the sense of the West? The revolution is guided by the military in "orderly", and the U.S. are pulling the strings in the background. But perhaps the "Western farmers" made the statement again without the people. It would be very unlikely that the Egyptian give people with a light-Mubarak dictatorship satisfied as a future vision. What happens in the Arab revolution, is a defeat for the U.S. and the West in the region. On the western end, there are double standards and a dishonest policy in the pillory. Not only the Arab world is looking forward to the answers.

Mucous Glands On Inside Of Lower Lips

modifications to fuse with long arms and the security rules?


The letters on the subject, when a rifle is to be secured or unlocked numerous. From attentive readers were indications, such as the backup to an AK / AKM can be modified. There were comprehension questions on training methodology, which should be clarified and, in fact - and that was new to me - is there in the training scene in an arbitrary transformation of the security rules, which performs the basic idea ad absurdum.


no way should the entry from 18th February 2011 the impression that the firing rates with Gabe Suarez and Kyle Lamb are less secure just because, in some situations, a different philosophy of use of long arms fuse taught. Both gift and Kyle are among the world's top trainers. Each of which provides an opportunity, shooting at them to attend courses should take this. The article went

would only care to raise a question of detail and show different approaches. Both approaches are possible. Both have advantages and disadvantages.


modifications
unergonomic The AK / AKM fuse can be a user-friendly Lever to be replaced, which can be operated only with the index finger of the shooting hand. Should the backup be made smoother, make sure that the function is retained as such and the backup is not automatically replaced.

alter security rules
There are at least an American school, which hopes a reorganization of the 4 safety rules that generate more security to. It has the four existing and generally recognized as being fundamental rules of safety fifth rule invented. This is done in our own chronology in place of # 4.
It says: "Keep your weapon on safe until your sights are on target"

"The weapon is secured to the sight is on target." Consider the facts a bit more precisely. With basic safety rules are the same as with fundamental rights: they are always, everywhere and for everyone. They are to take literally and have no room for discussion. This is the essence of all basic stuff and even the nature of the 4 safety rules according to Jeff Cooper.


holding shift due Battlefield Zero or side wind?
"Sights on target" means iron sights are on target. It does not mean "Point of Aim" (stop).

"Sights on target"



the situation demands that a gunner has to deal with an average distance of 300m to 400m with a certain degree of cross wind, become his iron sights not on the target. To place a hit, he must compensate for the crosswind by his breakpoint may elect puts a target width. "Sights not on Target "- After literal interpretation of the security rule would mean the weapon can not be unlocked. A rifle is impossible. An arbitrary rule without any practical security.

"Sights not on target"



If a Battlefield Zero, it is necessary to let each sit for weapons configuration 100m distant target, or generally lower stop. "Sights not on target" - under this newly devised security rule, this means the weapon is secured.


"Sights on Target" in the drawing process with short arms?
The education industry has agreed to a large extent on a standardized drawing process with handguns. This drawing process is divided into four phases. Phase 2 is also known as a retention position. According to this doctrine in the Unlock position or securing handguns with a manual backup takes place outside, as, for example, is available at 1911er-guns. Background, the shooter would keep the option open to fire already from this attitude, and in the absolute short-range effect to the finish. The situation is similar with the 3-position (Compressed Ready). Here again the weapon should already be unlocked.
At both times, the sight not necessarily lie on the target.

"Keep your weapon on safe" for short arms?
The weapon is secured to the sight is on target. What should Glock shooters? What should revolver shooters? Would be exempt from this additional rule # 4? Obviously. But then it is not a fundamental security rule, because they would always apply everywhere and for everyone.


Conclusion
It is noteworthy that make people think about how they can design their own courses of safe shooting (Supposedly). This, however, to invent a new security rule, which ultimately does not meet the demand, is likely lead to more be the desire to give itself a unique feature. The 4 safety rules for Jeff Cooper are robust and consistent. You do not need supplements.

Dell Webcam Central No Webcam Detected

President Obama: Netanyahu's and the Israel lobby's puppet

Barack Hussein Obama is a gifted orator, but nothing more. Could he score in the 2008 election campaign against a Republican Party still totally discredited by his eloquence, he was ordered back soon by the neo-conservative and reactionary forces in Washington on the carpet of the facts. "Yes we can!" Was his former magic formula. In the third year of his presidency, the only answer: "Yes, you can not"

foreign policy is the U.S. president one disappointment as once the "Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance." His talks in Ankara and Cairo have turned out to be what they were: rhetorical tranquilizers for the Muslim world. Had George W. Bush or a dizzying explanation for why Muslims hate the United States alleged, then Obama did not even bother an intellectual justification, but scattered like the sand of the Muslim male population simply "sleep sand in his eyes. Of these, the people of the Arab world had enough. One country after another crash, the U.S. puppets.

Obama and all enlightened Americans know that America is not problems in the Middle East are Muslims but their "Albatross like ally, Israel. This holds since the "magnificent" victory in the Six Day War of 1967, the various U.S. administrations in the political stranglehold. This "allies" is America's heaviest burden for a credible U.S. policy in the Middle East. He leads the U.S. in the same isolation, is located in Israel, ie the position of a "pariah" state.

Who the books "The Passionate Attachment" George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball and "The Israel Lobby" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt has read, can come to no other conclusion than that of Israel for the U.S. foreign policy, the greatest leaving for their credibility is. In this alliance, the double standards of U.S. politics for all to see, they are the sole political benefit of Israel. The most recent example of this harm to U.S. foreign policy was the U.S. government's veto against a resolution from the UN Security Council condemning the Israeli settlement policy. The vote was 14:1. Although the UN Security Council resolution has already watered down completely, has once again shown that the refusal front is against peace in the Middle East from the U.S. and its allies called Israel. Every protest and criticism against the Israeli colonization must concern itself primarily against the U.S. Government because they are the ones who finance the continued colonization of Palestine, not just those of also politically and justify. The Arab revolutions must be in a thrust not only against their oppressors, but especially against the American-Israeli alliance set up, which is essentially anti-Arab. For fear of their own people, these Arab despots come to terms with this alliance against the real interests their own people.

U.S. president, Obama has tried everything in advance of the vote to express its "president" colleagues to the presentation in the UN Security Council. Quasi U.S. President to "President" of a National Authority, he has located 50 minutes taking the time to take him by phone bullying on line. After Abbas was signaled by the PLO Executive Committee adopted a negative attitude, he gave this "no" next to Obama. Why Obama has stooped to such a humiliating gesture, it becomes clear how political this U.S. veto was absurd.

A year ago, Obama had demanded a settlement freeze with verve by Netanyahu. Forma liter was this for nine Months, "agreed," although Israel continued to build in the occupied territories and colonized. After that period had expired and they wanted to perform the farce of the "peace process" on the international stage on, almost begging Obama to Netanyahu, to agree an extension of three months, which rejected this sovereign. could plus a commitment for an indefinite period of time against all so-called veto UN resolutions critical of Israel not convince Netanyahu - Even the bribe with over 3.5 billion U.S. dollars extra - in addition to the normal 3 billion per year. He saw no reason to get involved in Obama's offer, he knew that he U.S. Congress and the "Israel Lobby" has in store.

This veto of the United States on Friday 18 February 2011, was pronounced against their own political beliefs. After Netanyahu not only U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden was publicly discredited in Jerusalem, he humiliated and Obama with his refusal to renew the colonization process by three months, after which Obama took the call for a settlement freeze just from the political agenda. The crowning glory of this self-denial process now even the Obama Administration voted against their own convictions. Ridiculous may be a "world power" to make any more. The Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy called it a veto against all hope, indeed it was even "not friendly to Israel, right it supports the settlers and the Israeli, and them alone".

This veto is against fundamental national interests of the United States. In a time when the Arab world is in turmoil and people fight for their freedom, the U.S. is on the side of the Israeli oppressor and colonialism and give the wrong signal to the Arab despots. Obama would not have been a clearer sign to send to the Arab world. In this position, the real reasons are that "hate" much of the Arab-Muslim world, the U.S., as it not only double standards measure, but because they stand on the side of the oppressors of freedom and self-determination, this may now be the colonialism of Israel or the repression of Arab despots.

I have always held the theory that Obama only represents a Bush-lite version of U.S. foreign policy. He is too much a "prisoner" of political interest groups, a particularly influential is the "Israel Lobby" dar. his discretion in matters of the Middle East is low, especially in a quite conservative-oriented U.S. Congress. Also in Europe, Obama's star has faded, and not just because it's political disunity of the "EU Leaders' sucks, but because his political Attention is directed to Asia. Here are the future challenges of the U.S. empire.

The powerful alliance of U.S. and Israeli government are in danger of a site which has located the Israeli government as enemy already, and that the BDS campaign and the international solidarity movement with the Palestinian people. With the weapons of "soft power" is one against the two nuclear powers and makes their anti-democratic as well as international law and human rights misconduct to the public pillory. This "legitimacy war" as he called the American international lawyer Richard Falk sees so far only one winner: the Palestinians under occupation and in exile.

This can free the U.S. administration from the Arabic " quicksand " (Geoffrey Wawro ) should make it a reverse turn 180 degrees in its Middle East policy. This includes an immediate end to their neo-colonial wars of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a relaxation of its submissive attitude towards Israel. U.S. interests are very different from Israel. Similarly, the U.S. should be at the forefront of the democratic revolutions in the Arab world. Western values of freedom and loyalty to dictators are contradictory opposites. The revolutionary upheavals in the Arab world also a rejection of American-Israeli-Egyptian alliance against the Palestinian people. In light of the revolutionary upheavals in the Arab world should the Palestinian "president" and his friends recognize the signs of the times and voluntarily leave the political stage and the legitimate democratic government it back in her office.

Party Wear Dress Found In Bangalore

First race, new wheel and equal a victory! Great way to start the season did not. Today we went to Voroklini over 6 rounds and a seed round, the weather was perfect, a little muddy from the rain yet, but not nearly as bad as the hotel where there were violent thunderstorms. My start was not as good, but after the startloop I was already in the top 10 and then it was almost by itself, the longer the race lasts, the smaller was the leadership group, beginning the last round there were four people. Up to the highest point, I was the first attack and I was able to drop me off a bit, but Fabian Giger (SUI) and Emil Lindgren (SWE) closed up again and attacked twice, I was both However, hold times and drive at the end of the first over the finish line.

Gay Cruising Etiquetter

The assurance for long guns

are all weapons loaded - says the most important safety rule. When one rifle to be secured is through the safety rules but not defined. Even in the training scene, this question is considered very controversial and trained.


to co-develop courses at the Academy DWJ interesting discussions on detailed issues in dealing with firearms. Tobias, one of the regular participants, accused recently on the issue of when a rifle was secured. This question appears at first sight appears significant. The ensuing discussion showed, however, that the answer to this question in no way should be left to run the self.

Also, the response is not defined by the 4 safety rules and can be drawn from this. According to these 4 rules every weapon is loaded. The mouth can not paint over what should not be shot at. The user touches only the trigger when the decision is made to shoot and the aim and the target background must have been positively identified.

Two philosophies
Some research shows about how controversial deal, even the training scene with this issue. There are two faiths. Some say one rifle is to be secured in principle as soon as the shoulder stock leaves the cheek of the shooter. The other view could be described thus, that the rifle is only secured in a situation in which a handgun would be inserted back into the holster.
best there so far. The human being could now walk the path of least resistance and accept at face Option 2 for himself.
followers of the philosophy are one example, trainers such as Paul Howe and James Yeager. Followers of philosophy two are handed Suarez and Kyle Lamb. These names alone show that the two philosophies is with advantages and disadvantages must vitiate and behind both a great deal of practical experience.

weapon system-related features
Looking at the (presumably) most used weapons in the tactical area, namely
the AR-15,
the AK / AKM,
the MP-5,
the SIG 55x
and maybe the G36
there are some special features in terms of security.
An AR-15 can not save in the relaxed state. A
AK / AKM can sometimes back up only when the firing hand from the grip increases.
An MP-5 requires, depending on Hand size and finger length also an easy grip.
Only the SIG and the G36 is equipped with easily available, ambidextrous safety, which can be activated at any time.

Situational characteristics
The typical situation, "secure" in the question or "not secure" is becoming increasingly important is the change from long to short weapon - the so-called transition.
reason for a transition is (and in most cases) a blank shot or dysfunctional rifle. The shooter must continue to have effect to the finish and therefore changes immediately to his handgun.
In this scenario, the long gun with a high probability "safe", meaning "unable Committee. The fuse would operate is not absolutely necessary. The AR-15 even technically impossible and an AK / AKM at least time-consuming.

In addition, there are other reasons for a transition.
For example, after a gun was used as a ballistic Aufbrechwerkzeug and Breacher again takes to his primary weapon.
Or the spatial space allow the use of a rifle not continue.
Or the small group has a wounded and evacuated the and must be one or two group members have to get their hands free, by throwing her long arms on the back. Here at the latest rifles should be secured. In a 360-degree safety rule # 2 Wounded scenario muzzle discipline is to ensure not full. Through tactical equipment to be worn next to the body and can become caught in the trigger, the risk of an unintended firing increased enormously. Therefore, the rifle must always be backed up.

Source: Tactical Response, Tennessee, USA



A Question of Education
So the question is just when the rifle is secured. The shooting training here should set a specific time and implement this standard without making any concessions. The selected date on which the backup will be somewhere between the stop and all kinds of positions and willingness to carry conversations.
The first option that comes to mind is to secure as soon as the body leaves the cheek. So that the weapon is secured in all movements, too. Whether they're in the low-ready position remains or goes into a carrying position before the upper body or on the back or at risk of further emergence of a back into the attack and is unlocked. In fact, it is a question of education. If this movement in training practiced consistently, it becomes automatic and increases the safety level.
The downside: As described above can not save a severed AR-15. The attempt to do it but can cost in the Transition to a precious second, that matters. In an AK / AKM the movement is very ergonomic.

Conclusion
ultimately has to choose the weapons carrier itself which way it goes. The relative safety or the relative speed. Two decision aids are still called: Weapons designers have invested a lot of brain activity in security systems. You would not use it sacrilege. If the
Projectile leaves the barrel, you can retrieve it any longer. Not even if the weapon immediately after secure.

Dogs Without Testicles

perfect start to the season 2011 season finale Roc d'Azur

The winter training for the 2011 season in the Ötztal was hard, but good and almost too quickly over. Since yesterday I am now in Cyprus, where on Sunday the first race of the Sunshine Cup takes place in Voroklini. I was now with the new Felt edict on the local track and it went straight to the point! The route is rocky, slippery and downhill from a demand everything. The weather forecast for Sunday is not so good, what will make the race again difficult. Let's see so expect the shape. We continue then with the Afxentia stage race (26-28.2) and the Cross-Country in Amathus (06.3).

`` I-catcher Console- Web Monitor``

"Israel critic" in the crosshairs of the "Israel Lobby"

critic of Israeli government policies have been taken over by the Government of Ariel Sharon in February 2001, but ever since the right-wing nationalist government under Binyamin Netanyahu and his right-wing foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, a tough time more. Critics the brutal colonization and oppression not only get into the U.S. but also in the countries of Western Europe - particularly in Germany where there is a long tradition of denunciation of dissidents - in the crosshairs of extremist right-wing Zionist lobby groups and individual philo-Semitic partisans of Israel who action against such persons by means of defamation, denunciations, lies, distortion and victimization, and also before the destruction of the professional critics, they do not shy away.

also for institutions and the media do not stop these extremists. They are under massive pressure, do not occur so-called Israel critic . Let The media are attacked because they allegedly one-sided report on the crimes of the Israeli occupying power, so their coverage is always uniform and on the scandalous events such as the racist statements by rabbis in Israel, Safed, and elsewhere have called upon to, no apartments to rent Israeli Palestinians or Palestinian students to read in the German media or hear anything. Even before the Office of the President quenched these extremist lobbyists back. When the then Federal President Horst Kohler had the temerity without prior agreement with the "Israel Lobby" (Mearsheimer / Walt) Mrs. Felicia Langer in July 2009, the Federal Cross of Merit 1st to present class, broke an unprecedented smear campaign is upon him. This smear campaign culminated in the open blackmail of the President, Mrs. Langer to withdraw the award, or else would some German-Jewish officials to return their Order of Merit. The President stood his ground, following which two unimportant Altfunktionäre their order have returned. The other officials have preferred to carry him to continue on his lapel.

How did such a world, "legitimacy" of critics of Israeli government policy? This campaign is closely linked to the 9/11-Anschlägen and together with the consequence with the colossal international law and human rights crimes committed by the U.S. and its "willing accomplices" in Iraq and Afghanistan and of the Sharon government in Palestine. This is flanked delegitimization of a defamation campaign against Islam and everything that looks Muslim. Sharon left the military against Arafat's Palestinian Authority-act with brutal force. An unimaginable scale vandalism could let off steam in the Israeli-occupied territories. All ministries have been devastated by Israeli soldiers completely, Arafat's headquarters was turned into a ruin. The PLO leader lived until he was flown to Paris terminally ill is like a tramp in a room. The Sharon government could deal with the worldwide criticism of its policy less and less rational, and they invented the bugbear of the "legitimization" of Israel. "Israel critic" was transformed into a dirty word. The Israel lobby and the Israeli government accused the critics, their criticism was aimed at the destruction of the Jewish state, which is of course nonsense. There is no legitimate critics of Israel, Government policy, Israel's political existence - at least as a state of all its inhabitants - is in question. They are all respectable individuals who criticize the excesses of a brutal occupation policies, they do, that the Israeli Government to the generally accepted international legal norms and values are continuing. And these are not just rhetoric conjures. Surprising is that the media can be set before this propaganda nonsense and write the other hand, not massive, but they too are under pressure, and the journalists are intimidated.

The world condemned the Israeli commando raid on the six-vessel flotilla of the organization "Free Gaza" in the early morning of 31 May 2010 was not the first of its kind on 8 June 1967 were killed by the Israeli military in the U.S. signals intelligence ship Liberty 34 U.S. Marines and 171 wounded. The U.S. turned the incident under the rug, and still is no one who was on board allowed to talk about it publicly. An Israel-impaired U.S. Congress has no interest in education. Also, the application of ships in international waters has tradition in Israel. Thus, the Israeli navy took on 29 June 1984, the Cypriot passenger ship "Alisur" on the high seas off Lebanon and took an undisclosed number of passengers with Israel in order to interrogate them. Despite the now, 43 years later, executed nine peace activists from Turkey and 45 injured has to expect the Israeli government has no legal or political consequences of the international community.

Who now are the real delegitimize Israel? None other than the Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has dated in an article for the newspaper "Junge Welt" 10 August 2010, the real delegitimize Israel called by their names, and it, this includes the foreign, defense and interior ministers, which operated a policy that not only contrary to all rules of international law, but also all the so-called Western values. In particular the massacres of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip at the turn of 2008/2009 and the execution of nine Turkish citizens in the hijacking of a Turkish aid ship in international waters for the trapped population of the Gaza Strip by Israel was an unimaginable propaganda counteroffensive accompanied. It does not shrink back against the discredit regarded South African judge Richard Goldstone as "Jewish self-hater", who on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council prepared a report on the massacre and accused it also of Hamas, "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity "committed to have. That the "Goldstone report has dealt with nine-tenths of the war crimes of the Israeli army, was in the nature of things. The "Israel lobby", especially in the United States participated in this massive smear campaign "We're leaving now to delegitimize those who trying to delegitimize us, "said the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, as the UN Human Rights Council decided, the Goldstone report to send to the UN Security Council.

Thus instructed Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Ambassador to recruit in their respective host country so-called "Allies" for propaganda purposes to which are to write against the "Israeli critics." This public propaganda campaign of the Israeli Foreign Ministry Barak Ravid comments in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz of 28 November 2010: "The campaign, Which will make extensive use of professional advocacy and public relations experts by Israeli embassies in Europe, aims to also use as many as a thousand people in each country, who will be willing to volunteer to spread Israel's message (…) Each ambassador was instructed to prepare, by January 16, a list of at least 1,000 "allies" who will be routinely briefed by the embassy for advocacy and public relations. These "allies" will have to be willing to take action on behalf of Israel, through support demonstrations and rallies, in publishing articles in the press, etc.” Eine Frage drängt sich zwangsläufig auf: Machen diese “Israel-Allies” ihre propagandistische Arbeit aus philosemitischer Überzeugung oder gegen Bezahlung? Die israelische Hasbara und ihrer treuen Parteigänger bekämpfen only the false "Israel critic" because the real delegitimize Israel by Uri Avnery in Israel are sitting, and while in government.

Strategic preparation of this organized by the state of democratic legitimization of legitimate criticism were already at the "International Conference of the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism" 16 and 17 December 2009 in Jerusalem made. At this conference, the fight against the "legitimacy" and "demonization" of Israel as the "crucial issues of our time" was called. Consequently, a panel examined under the direction of Professor Gerald Steinberg, with the theme "Trends in the Delegitimization of Israel in the International Arena and one of the five working groups with the "Deligitimization of Israel: 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions'. As co-chair this working group was Dr. Mitchell Bard, executive director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, and Professor Gil Troy of McGill University. You write: ". We need to point out how BDS crosses the line from legitimate criticism to historically-laden, anti-Semitic messaging" In its report such an approach with the BDS campaign appears to be "war." Their military phraseology latches as follows: "Enemy," "command center", "Combat," "Battle" or "battlefield". As a result, a strategy paper of the same name was published. This Action Plan is designed to five years out. A central role in this plan comes to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which should help "to centralize the fight against BDS and delegitimization, coordinate responses to what is a coordinated attack, share information, take a moral stand against the human rights hypocrites, engage diplomats in a fight for Israel's basic rights, and train Israeli diplomats about the BDS movement ". This paper uses an offensive and aggressive language, which gives an idea of what will happen to the critics of Israeli government policy.

How important has this challenge to Israel, shows a further policy paper by the Reut Institute (Re'ut = friendship) at the annual conference in Herzlyia 2010, on which all the big names in the Israeli security establishment, to an annual rendezvous come together to discuss the security of the state. The 92-page document entitled: "Building a Firewall Against Israel's Political Delegitimization" There is a comprehensive summary of 31 points. According to the Reut Institute presented the critics of Israel is a serious threat to the existence of Israel dar. Consequently, they must be fought on a global scale. The authors this anti-democratic policies do not hesitate to recommend the government to attack human rights activists. This institute recommends that all but the first of the Israeli government, through its intelligence agencies to suppress human rights activists in London, Toronto, Madrid and San Francisco. The, report correctly but a distinction between those who "criticize" Israel and others who "legitimize" allegedly. On the nature of Machiavelli, one should engage in the former, whereas one should suppress the latter. To the "crimes" allegedly committed the latter to show the lack of seriousness of this "research institute" nothing else in mind seems to have, as to justify the criminal policy of occupation of the Israeli government. According to that report, all belong to the so-called de-legitimize the "(1) single out the Israeli government for its failure to abide by international law and seek to hold its political and military leaders accountable under universal jurisdiction, (2) label recent Israeli military attacks on Palestinians and Neighboring countries war crimes, crimes against humanity, or aggression, (3) describe Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as "illegal and immoral", (4) demand from end to discrimination against Palestinians within Israel's boundaries in 1967; ( 5) criticize the Israelis of Gaza blockade as illegal collective punishment, (6) label the Israeli government as a "pariah, apartheid state", (7) refuse to accept Israel's "right to exist" (4) or the right of the Jewish people to self -determination, or (8) call for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That supporters of the campaign for "boycott, De-investment and sanctions (BDS) to the" enemies of Israel "are, of course after this oblique view of the world from itself, the assessment of Uri Avnery, that this sort of" scientists "" amateurs " were is still flattered. The fact that the Re'ut staff are not too good to recommend to the Israeli government to "attack" human rights and civil rights activists and "sabotage" to be as "serious" institution is disqualified for all.

Since not refute the arguments, the Israel lobby with massive international and human rights abuses, they resort to defamation. The most popular instrument of struggle is the accusation of "anti-Semitism," this was made mainly to non-Jewish critics of Israel, the Jewish critics of Israel is assumed to predominantly "Jewish self-hatred," which differ from the anti-Semites as "useful Idiots were abusing. " can impress the fact that Western societies are still free of these grotesque allegations, speaks for their lack of courage to reject this nonsense. As the ideology of Zionism is seen as a key obstacle to a settlement with the Palestinians who claim Israel lobbyists, that anti-Zionism or criticism of Zionism was the same anti-Semitism, virtually a new form, a so-called "secondary antisemitism". This assertion lacks any basis and shall not constitute more than an instrument of struggle, an attempt to silence legitimate criticism. Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism and nationalism as any of the devil and therefore open to criticism because it all those who do not belong to the "tribe", treated as citizens of lower status. Another complaint is the alleged "demonization" of Israel, when only single out this country and strongly criticize. You would create different standards to Israel than to the other countries where there is also human rights violations. Neither is Israel demonized other standards will be applied to the land, but the critics only require that at last the usual standards as international law and other Western values should apply to Israel, where the leadership of the country's often said the "only to democracy in the Middle East to be ". Who runs the singularity of Israel, the Israeli governments that act contrary to all international law and human rights law and contrary to all permanent so-called Western values. Israel claims a special status in international relations, or does such a claim for themselves, as it can be assumed that the U.S. cover any wrongdoing, apologize, or relative in the UN Security Council impose a veto. The fight Israel lobbyists, especially those that refer to Israel as "apartheid state". The fact that Israel is not South Africa, has the British journalist Ben White in his book "Israeli Apartheid" clearly worked out. It has nothing to do with the South African "petty apartheid" in common. Israel, however, has adopted a structure of about 30 laws and regulations that stipulate what the unequal treatment of Jews and non-Jews. In the occupied territories once again it looks different. There is Israeli law and Israeli jurisdiction only for the settlers, for the occupied and dispossessed military regulations apply, and military courts, known as Kangaroo Courts are responsible for them.

The "Israel Lobby" in the U.S. and Germany are the main representatives in this smear campaign against critics of Israeli government policy. That in the U.S., a strong "Israel lobby" is, is well known. At least since the book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt with the same title. This is nothing special, because the U.S. has a long history of interest groups have. The lobbying is it in all policy areas. As to the "Israel Lobby" apart is its high degree of organization that affect their competence and their effectiveness, all sectors of society of the USA in their favor. In Germany, the "Israel lobby" that status had not yet reached Thanks to God, but their influence also behaves now disproportionate to their size.

Wen can be seen in Germany belong to this "Israel Lobby"? the chief editor of "The Semite," Abraham Melzer has, in his article "The Israel Lobby threatens democracy" in eponymous magazine, No. 6, December / January 2009/10, p. 25-27, a number of organizations and people together, you can count on in Germany for the "Israel Lobby".

a special role in the Federal Republic of Germany plays the Israeli Embassy. Edit your representative not only the members of the German Bundestag and the staff of many ministries permanent, but the embassy staff mix is also massively in the German domestic politics. Such interference does not fall within the mandate of has a message to primary care for their citizens and to maintain contacts with their governments. Thus, for example, the Israeli charge d'affaires in Berlin, Emmanuel Nahshon, heavily mixed in during the campaign against the speech of Alfred Grosser Frankfurt's St. Paul Church of Kristallnacht in November 2010. He commented that "Mr. Grosser's criticism of Israel illegitimate and immoral" and that states that in "marked his extreme views of self-hatred." Clearly out of line may be you do not, and no member of the German political class had the courage, the interference of an Israeli diplomat in the German domestic politics must be rejected. Such kind of criticism of a diplomat is totally unacceptable. Since when is criticism of Israeli government policy "immoral"? A survivors and victims of Nazi terror accuse of "self hatred" can only be considered tasteless.

A curiosity, for the extremist "Israel Lobby" can be expected to be mentioned yet. There is a group that most publicly the U.S. policy of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel's endorsement, they call the "anti-German." Their main task is to decompose the existing rudimentary political left in the Federal Republic and to discredit them. How could from the former left, which was the world revolution at heart, be apostates who approve not only the oppression of the Palestinian people, but the wars of conquest of the West in Iraq and Afghanistan and an attack on Iran clamor and fight their critics by any means?

your inner social enemy, the critic of Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians. These include Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Alfred Grosser, Felicia Langer, Norman Paech, Abraham Melzer, Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, Rupert Neudeck, or I do. The methods are always the same: bullying through public actions, any critics of Israel as long as hunting, until he gives up or buckle the organization or the politicians. Without the inglorious role of many "well-meaning" fellow traveler had this "Israel Lobby" is not this striking success.

The following quote by former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman, who was provided as an intelligence coordinator of the Obama Administration, will show going by what insidious means the "Israel lobby" against critics of a policy that disregards any international law and human rights and all Western values as trampling. He was supported by the Israel lobby as long as slander and defamation with covered, so he took up his post does not arise. He wrote this lobby Following into the record book: "The tactics of the Israel lobby represent highlights of the shame and indecency, they include character assassination just as we selectively misquotes, deliberate falsification of the facts, fabrication of lies and total disregard for the truth." Has the smear campaigns of lobbyists by all Democrats and civil society groups at all levels of society objected be resisted.

First appeared in: The Semite. independent Jewish magazine, published in another version in: International . Journal of International Politics .

Zastava Gun Blueprints

initiative rejected

The Swiss can not disarm himself. A victory for freedom and personal responsibility.



"Those who give up freedom in order to gain security will end up losing both."-Benjamin Franklin



"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state. "-Thomas Jefferson



almost 1.4 million Swiss citizens voted NO to the" Initiative against the force of arms. " This represents 57% of all votes cast. The voting turnout was only 49%.

most clearly was the rejection in the cantons of central Switzerland, Appenzell, with more than 70%.
Only in the bulbous cantons of Western Switzerland, Zurich and Basel-City was able to score the initiative.

Source: http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/wird-die-schweiz-entwaffnet-166244

Can A 3d Movie Give You A Migraine?

A one-, two-or three-state solution for Israel and Palestine?

The "peace process" that was in September 1993 set as a deus ex machina on the lawn of the White House in the international community as a way to resolve the Middle East conflict in motion, has no peace, only more crew processes to be related. A state of "Palestine" worthy of the name seems to be no longer feasible. A solution of the oldest regional conflict is nowhere in sight. Even U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama had before the might of Israel and its auxiliary forces capitulate in the U.S.. Under his presidency is in the Middle East conflict, nothing change for the better. The "peace process" has led to considerable frustration among all parties. So it is no wonder that is kept on the lookout for alternative solutions.

The one-state solution as a utopia

In recent years there have been various conferences, which promotes the old idea of a "one-state solution" as "the solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have. Such events were held in Madrid, London, Haifa, Texas, and last of 26 to 28 November 2010 in Stuttgart. One of their key arguments of the one-state representative is: All attempts to the Middle East conflict through the creation of a second States to solve for the Palestinians, have failed. Similarly, speaking for the development site for a two-state solution because it comes from a symmetry of power between the colonial power and the colonized. This is based on a false premise, namely the concession that by guaranteeing a limited national rights to Palestinians in the territories that were conquered in the June 1967 war by Israel, while refusing the Palestinians within Israel and those in the Diaspora, to grant the same rights. What also speak against a two state solution, according to the proponents of a one-state solution is the fact that in the former Israeli citizen Palestinians continue remain second-class and the refugees their UN-chartered resolution right of return would be denied.

In relation to the right of return is important to note that such under international law, only the directly affected families deserve, the descendants and their descendants, however, is only a right to compensation. Thus, the international law Dieter Murswiek writes with reference to Gornig Gilbert: "The right of return is not inherited, so this may be done in the course of time. can inherit the other hand, his compensation claims. "caveat, he adds, however, that which applies to individual claims, not necessarily for Group claims should apply in that they receive their return claims as a group, "as long as it exists as its identity-aware group and as long as the territorial status of the expulsion zone, in accordance with the self-determination of peoples has changed in such a way that a legal tie between the territory and the displaced group no longer exists. The existence of displaced people group is not dependent on the survival of the generation that grew up in the expulsion area yet. Of course, the group regularly lost consciousness during the time go when the members of the group are integrated in the host country. "

Murswiek this has indeed written anything in relation to the rights of displaced persons after the Second World War, but in the form of generalizing, it is also true of the Palestinians displaced in 1948, especially to those who have not been integrated into the Arab states. But Murswiek has continued to point to the problems of relying on the right of return, which occur "when the expulsion area, a new population has become established." Relying on the international law, Christian Tomuschat goes Murswiek on to say that although the national law of the displaced in principle prevail must, "because it might otherwise be frustrated by illegal settlement activities". It still speak some evidence "that acquires in the course of time, the resettled population own national law. The solution can not be that one of the competing rights of the home side prevails. It would create new injustices, if the current soft in the areas of expulsion would have people living, and it would continue existing injustice perpetuated if the displaced with regard to the rights of absprächen now living in their homes the right of return. In such cases, a solution must be sought which enable the interests of both groups will meet. The longer the period of expulsion, are the stronger the Enforcement capabilities of the new settlers. "

connoisseurs know that international law does not like national law can be enforced because there is no centralized sanctioning authority. The enforcement of international law claims essentially depends also on international power constellations. Consequently, one must detach themselves from the idea that international law a strict order of rules or commands into gear, where you only need to follow to reach a "just" goal. Prudence is as important as Rechtsdogmatismus not be regarded as the ne plus ultra. Proponents also claim

one-state solution, that a two state solution would deny refugees their internationally guaranteed right of return. The above statements on this internationally guaranteed rights are not as clear, as generally assumed. Furthermore, it is claimed that an internationally sought two-State solution could not create a viable Palestinian state and a Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli independence in their own countries could eliminate the fundamental injustices. As there is only one independent state of Israel, can be negotiated on this issue when an independent Palestinian state by the international community established and has been accepted.

That a one-state solution, the cheapest solution would be politically and economically, I have emphasized in many presentations, but added again that I believe in the prevailing international power relations and the dominance of the Zionist ideology on the consciousness of Israelis for absolutely utopian. In contrast to the observations of the other conferences that have addressed the issue of one-state solution was in the "Stuttgart Declaration" a linkage between the very important BDS (boycott, sanctions and de-investment) with the political requirement for a state solution prepared. I think of counterproductive for the BDS campaign and, because it primarily through their actions aimed, ended that by international economic pressure, Israel's occupation rule over the Palestinian homeland and allow the Palestinian people a life of self-determination in their own state, worthy of the name, and without settlers. Had Israel followed the example of Germany in terms of integration of its refugees, would be pretty long peace in Israel and Palestine. The stands but still the ideology of Zionism as the main obstacle in the way. Not only almost 100 percent of Israelis are against a one-state solution, they also consider a "bad joke" but not a member of the United Nations is committed. So where, representatives of such a solution the hope that such an approach could ever be realized, if not only by Israel and its colonial expansionism? Israel continues this policy, it is not only the Arabs but the whole Muslim world to raise against him.

The two-state solution as a solution to the Middle East conflict?

Many Jewish leaders have spoken out before the State of Israel for a bi-national state. Whether Albert Einstein, Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt, all of them were politically marginalized by the dominant Zionist elite who wanted to found a Jewish state in order to create not only the problem that anti-Semitism in the world, but also to enable the Jewish people to live as equal and same in the international community.

speaks for a two-state solution is not only the United Nations partition plan of 29 November 1947 (UN General Assembly Resolution 181), but also as a result, all subsequent UN resolutions, they were adopted by the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. There is virtually no one except a few thousand individuals working for the state solution. Even the recent letter from former Government and the President finally calls for the solution of the Middle East conflict through a two-state solution. The only state that can torpedo a two-state solution, Israel continued its colonization.

Even the PLO, which was originally the concept of a secular and democratic state for all inhabitants of Palestine, with the exception of the Israelis who are following the state of Israel came into the country was represented, had to bow to the realities and has 1988 in Algiers Proclamation of the State of "Palestine" for the two-state solution and recognition of Israel decided. That since the outbreak of the "peace process" in September 1993 no Palestinian state is created, the policies of Israel is due to the occupied areas of urban sprawl since that time with a pace and built a wall, respectively, a security fence around these areas has to imagine no one that, on the basis of this island kingdom a viable state could emerge.

Not only the UN but also the international community has a duty to its member land of Israel to get them to finally accept that international law and to accept the undersigned human rights covenants relating to the treatment of the oppressed Palestinians. When Member States of the UN do, they can international law , Prevail as the U.S. government has demonstrated in regard to Iraq, only in the case of Iraq, no violation of international law was in place, but the United States pursued their murderous sanctions regime, only the intention of Iraq to the level of a third world country " to develop down "for it to be easier to shoot assault in order to fill it up. More justified would be a collective action by the international community against the occupation regime of Israel, since for 43 a violation of international law and humanitarian law is evident to all. It therefore lacks only the will of the United States and other countries, international law once to solve a use dangerous regional conflict rather than abuse it lead to war.

The argument that we have already been created irrefutable facts on the ground is not convincing. In a colonial conflict, and therefore it is in the Middle East conflict, acquires the colonial power no legitimacy over the occupied territories. All unilateral measures are null and void under international law. This is also true for the 500 000 settlers who have settled as colonists in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Israeli governments have shown that they are in a position with the interests of the state benefit their citizens from the occupied Areas to the heartland of Israel to bring back, as happened in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Both resettlement schemes were implemented by Ariel Sharon. As the German-Israeli human rights activist Felicia Langer in her speech in Stuttgart has stressed France was transferred to Algeria in a position to one million French people back to the motherland.

The realization of self-determination of the Palestinian people must be the primary goal of all states of the UN because it is rooted in all UN resolutions. It is essential that the end of the 43-year Israeli occupation regime and the cancellation of all unilateral measures. This should be the solidarity movement To concentrate because the first positive steps to recognize a state of "Palestine" by some Latin American countries. Furthermore, the solidarity movement have a second thrust, namely, the domestic policy of the State of Israel. Israel defines itself as "Jewish and democratic", what wise and far-sighted Israelis for an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and regard as the wrong path. Israel is largely a vibrant democracy, but in the classic sense of the word only for its Jewish citizens. All non-Jewish citizens of the country are second class citizens. There are numerous laws and regulations that these discriminatory Status stipulate. The goal of the Solidarity movement must be to make this public, so that transformed Israel from a "ethnocracy" to democracy in the Western sense for all its residents. It is the duty of the supporters of Israel to abandon its double standards and convince the leadership of the country to transform itself into a democracy in the classical Western understanding. Such a state of all its citizens in addition to a sovereign Palestinian state worthy of the name is in the interests of all concerned. A major obstacle on the road to full democracy seems to be the ideology of Zionism. It represents the biggest obstacle to the solution of the conflict dar. Therefore, according to Elias Davidsson opposition to the Zionist imperative, because they "derive from a vision of humanity based on the inherent dignity and equality of every human. Without a "de-Zionization" Israel, as it has been called Michel Warschawski, the country will be no state of all its inhabitants. Only when this goal will be reached, and the Middle East conflict to be resolved.

But primarily decide on the Israeli and Palestinian people. We should not succumb to the hubris to make it better or be able to know before the affected site. What can the international solidarity movement, awareness training about the inhuman policies of the Israeli occupation regime and the racist developments in Israel is recent and the legal constitution of the state that has enshrined the inequality of its citizens based on religion at all social areas. If this is achieved, a democratic Israel in the classic sense of the word and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state worthy of the name, then both people are on the way to a State or even to a still larger unit, maybe even a three- state solution (Confederacy) to open. But everything depends on the end from the occupation regime, and it should focus on all civil society forces, united in an international movement.

First appeared in: The Semite. independent Jewish magazine.

Plastic Snowboard For Adults?

Donald Rumsfeld's Known and Unknown

The memoirs of the Bush warmongers ever stranger. After U.S. President George W. Bush has thrown his "Fairy Tales " on the U.S. market, moves to his former Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and tops his former boss one of self-righteousness, arrogance, and of history. The essence of this ensemble is that all have done everything wrong up to Donald Rumsfeld! Even at 78 years is Rumsfeld serenity or wisdom from any age. As a die-he is still fighting the battles of yesteryear.

Its dogmatism is frightening. It could result from the fact that he has been both the youngest (the 13th) and the oldest so far (the 21st) U.S. Secretary of Defense. His capacity for self-criticism or even to question his many mistakes him leave. Whether it is by its very age stubbornness may be due, he settles old scores and blame only distributed, but are forgetting as central to the levers of power acting actor? In particular, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell get punched in the stomach. You may reply to the in the memoirs of Professor be curious. Of the foreign leaders get from the former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former French President Jacques Chirac her fat. The latter raises Rumsferld "cynicism" before. Who does not remember his division of Europe into "old" and a war-willing "new"? Here, too, Rumsfeld sees the error only in the other.

Rumsfeld was not only "famous" for his cynicism in the various press conferences, but also for its Orwellian word play. "Reports that say that something has not happened are always interesting to me because, as we know, there are known knowns, there are things we know we know We also know. there are known unknowns, that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are so unknown unknowns - the ones we do not know we do not know "Remember this is not the Israeli" after Orwellismus "from the" present-absentees "

As Rumsfeld half of his memoirs of the time 9th? / 11 is dedicated, it seems nearly 70 years of his political existence not to have gone so exciting. As for the fictitious Iraqi WMD, "we've all been wrong." Thus, historical revisionism also be operated. It would have been 1983 on Rumsfeld's "state visit" in the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein like to know more than he in submissive posture could have the best greetings of U.S. President Ronald Reagan brought him good and conveyed the same commitment for the supply of U.S. poison gas to Saddam has killed not only the Kurds in northern Iraq, but the Iranian attackers. In the eight-year war against Iran Saddam was the darling of the U.S. empire, before he later described as "Hitler" demonized. Rumsfeld is doing as if he had been a voice of sanity in an insane asylum, which is called the White House. The servant may not have been better than his master. What about the torture prisons in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other crimes on behalf of the U.S. military or the U.S. democracy? Thu you feel remorse, Mr. Rumsfeld? No, repentance is not a category in the minds of a cynical power politics. By the way, but there were others.

Rumsfeld almost the only peers in the Bush administration with Glaceehandschuhen to: Dick Cheney, the most powerful vice president or president under George W. Bush true. He is treated as an equal among equals, that is rarely mentioned, so Rumsfeld's star shine even brighter can. The more than 4400 dead U.S. soldiers, the complete destruction of the entire infrastructure of Iraq, the millions of refugees and the fury of the terrorists in this country, everything is not worth mentioning: "Stuff happens," Shit happens, no remorse, nothing, only arrogance, dogmatism and blind hubris.

Perhaps this memoir-Marathon will only be topped by Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. It is in these concoctions is not an explanation, but massive historical misrepresentation to suggest that a devastating eight-year presidency for posterity in a better light. If it soothes the conscience of the elite of the U.S. empire, so be it. No one believes their euphemisms, but the "believers" neo-cons and Christian fundamentalists. Rumsfeld's remarks are not worth the paper on which they have been printed, let alone $ 36. By a translation into other languages can only be strongly discouraged, because this truth constructed justifications nobody needs to put out the English speaking world for information. That the book a "fascinating narrative for today's readers and to unprecedented resource for tomorrow's historians" was the opinion of advertising copywriters, whose denial of reality qua profession is inferior to that of politicians in anything.