Americans are too stupid to notice how Jewish lobby has corrupted their nation. By the time they realise, it will be too late. Americans do not yet know that AIPAC, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is actually running their country. They have taken billions of dollars without anyone noticing. Now Israel led US into war on terror which is never going to end. Muslims have no issue with American. But Israel we know hates Arabs. Israel have accupied their lands for 60 years and want to destroy Arabs by using stupid George Bush.

Telegraph, which is owned by Jews, naturally dismisses the Jewish plot against America:

Quote:

[b]Conspiracy theory[/b]

According to Ahmad Thomson, the barrister and Muslim convert employed to advise the Prime Minister on ways to combat extremism, the Western world is in the thrall of a conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons. He is entitled to his opinion, even if it is one shared mostly by the most tiresome type of racist.

But one is moved to wonder how he, or anyone, could lump these alleged conspirators together, given their different natures. The one embraces a vast body of humanity, from the barely ethnically distinct and secular to the orthodox religious, while the other consists merely of some thousands of part-time charity fund-raisers with a fondness for drink and the donning of fancy dress.

There are, of course, Jewish Freemasons; but otherwise, curiously, all that unites them is a history of persecution by fanatics fearful of the independence of mind they differently represent.

[b]Jews and Freemasons controlled war on Iraq, says No 10 adviser[/b]

Tony Blair decided to wage war on Iraq after coming under the influence of a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons, a Muslim barrister who advises the Prime Minister has claimed.

Ahmad Thomson, from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said Mr Blair was the latest in a long line of politicians to have been influenced by the group which saw the attack on Saddam Hussein as a way to control the Middle East.

A Government spokesman confirmed last night that ministers and officials consulted Mr Thomson on issues concerning Muslims but refused to be drawn on his views. "We talk to a lot of people, including many whose views we do not necessarily agree with," she said.

Mr Thomson said: "Pressure was put on Tony Blair before the invasion. The way it works is that pressure is put on people to arrive at certain decisions. It is part of the Zionist plan and it is shaping events."

Mr Thomson wrote a book in 1994 in which he said Freemasons and Jews controlled the governments of Europe and America and described the claim that six million Jews died in the Holocaust as a "big lie". In The Next World Order, Mr Thomson, a Muslim convert who was born Martin Thomson in Rhodesia, wrote: "When the majority of people in a predominantly Christian society cease to worship God, the result is fascism.

"When the people in a predominantly Jewish society cease to worship God, the result is either communism or capitalism. A predominantly Christian society is concerned primarily with establishing a political ideology, whilst a predominantly Jewish society is concerned primarily with establishing an economic system."

This, he suggested, led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Mr Thomson, who was called to the bar in 1979, wrote: "The fascism of Hitler was the Christian element in the increasingly "Jewish" environment in which he and his followers found themselves."

He also wrote that the Jews have no right to live in "the Holy Land" because they are not a pure race and therefore not the true biblical Israelites and that Saddam was used as an excuse for US troops - "including thousands of Jews" - to occupy Saudi Arabia.

A Government source said: "It is by talking to people with varying views that we find out what the range of opinions is. It doesn't mean we agree with what they are saying."

in my opionion, 'Conspiracy Theory' translates directly to 'Muslims being unable to understand why certain people, who claim to follow the same belief system as they do, perform horrendous acts of inhumanity both to other Muslims and also to all Children of Adam. These Muslims look everywhere to find someone or something to blame for these atrocities, and due to a lack of A) there being no real scape-goat and having a rubbish imagination, they blame everything on Zionists, Masons and America in general'.

Masons havn't posed a threat to Islam since the Nights Templar days during the Crusades.

Not only Muslims, today even the Christians have statred to suspect their own governments of being involved terrorists plot.

I was watching [b]LOOSE CHANGE 2[/b] available on the internet.

These Americans made a film about how the Great Satan had carried out 9/11 attacks on New York and Pentagon and then went ahead and blamed everything on Sunnis. These film makers offered evidence that these atrocities could not have been carried out by Arabs.
Great Satan kills his own people in terrorist attacks in order to kill Muslims everywhere around the world.
There are many other films made in US that prove Pentagon planned to kill US citizens so that it can use it an as excuse to launch war on Islam.

so we can't say that only Muslims believe in conspiracy. Now Everyone is is believing them too.

for 'Everyone' read 'a small minority of silly people'

"malik" wrote:

These Americans made a film about how the Great Satan

Salaam

I'm not posting a dig at you, I am quite serious. Thank you for distinguishing between the two terms.

I say not all Americans have fallen into the trap of Satan. I believe that most are quite good people. Which is why I might go and live there one day when Imam Mahdi orders Jesus Christ takes over the White House and kick out its diabolical occupants.

Me personally, I dislike conspiracy theories. Some are probably true, so i do not dismiss them.

But at the same time we have to face up the fact that there are a lot of bad people out there. Some of them Muslims.

A few months ago, I asked myself the question whether Muslims as a whole get hat they deserve. The answer is yes. We deserve a lot of the ridicule we get.

As Muslims we are supposed to have impeccable manners. When is the last time we saw them used?

We are supposed to be pro education, but well, look at the world. The Muslims regions are not the ones you would say are the educated ones. On the contrary, some even go as far as preventing education.

We are supposed to be peace loving. Have a look in Palestine. It's Muslims killing Muslims. Same in Iraq. and Pakistan. And Afghanistan. And Sudan.

Muslims are supposed to only submit to the will of Allah, but we submit to anything but. Look at the Muslim world. It's full of repression.

Where is it that we as a whole have done something right?

We can blame others for a lot of things, but until we fix our selves, why should someone else go out of their way to help us?

Great Satan is conspiring with with Israel to make sure that no deals or treaty is every honoured by either side. Just look at the number of US backed peace attempts that have been made in recent years. Not one of them is taken seriously.

Quote:

BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666393.stm

Monday, 21 May 2007

[b]History of failed peace talks [/b]

SCR 242, 1967
Camp David, 1978
Madrid Conference 1991
Israeli-Syrian talks
Oslo Agreement, 1993
Camp David, 2000 Taba, 2001
Saudi plan, 2002
Road Map, 2003
Geneva Accord, 2003
Current position

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242, 1967

This was passed on 22 November 1967 and embodies the principle that has guided most of the subsequent peace plans - the exchange of land for peace.

The resolution called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

The resolution is famous for the imprecision, in English, of its central phase concerning an Israeli withdrawal - it says simply "from territories".

The Israelis said this did not necessarily mean all territories, but Arab negotiators argued that it did.

It was written under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, under which Security Council resolutions are recommendations, not under Chapter VII, which means they are orders. Many peace proposals refer to 242.

Resolution 338 is usually linked to it. This called for a ceasefire in the war of October 1973 and urged the implementation of 242 "in all its parts".

Text of UN Security Council Resolution 242
Text of UN Security Council Resolution 338

CAMP DAVID ACCORDS, 1978

There were several peace plans following the 1967 war, including one by Yigal Allon, an Israeli general who proposed that Israel give back to Jordan the highlands of the West Bank while retaining a defensive line along the Jordan valley.

However, nothing happened until after the war in October 1973, during which Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal. There followed a new mood for peace, at least between Israel and Egypt, as was shown by a historic visit to Jerusalem by the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in November 1977.

US President Jimmy Carter capitalised on the new mood and invited President Sadat and the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for talks at the presidential retreat at Camp David near Washington.

The talks lasted for 12 days and resulted in two agreements.

The first was called A Framework for Peace in the Middle East. It laid down principles for peace, expanding on resolution 242, set out what it hoped was a way of resolving what it called the "Palestinian problem", agreed that there should be a treaty between Egypt and Israel and called for other treaties between Israel and its neighbours.

The weakness of the first agreement was the section on the Palestinians. The plan aimed to set up a "self-governing authority" in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual "final status" talks, but the Palestinians were not party to the agreement.

The second accord was the framework for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This followed in 1979, after an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai.

This was the first recognition of Israel as a state by a major Arab country. They probably stand as the most successful negotiations in the whole peace process.

The treaty has lasted, and it substantially strengthened Israel's position. However the peace between Egypt and Israel has not been warm. President Sadat was himself later assassinated.

Text of Camp David agreement

THE MADRID CONFERENCE, 1991

This conference, co-sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union, was designed to follow up the Egypt-Israel treaty by encouraging other Arab countries to sign their own agreements with Israel.

Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were invited as well as Israel and Egypt. The Palestinians were also represented, but as part of a joint delegation with Jordan and not by Yasser Arafat or other leading figures in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), to whom the Israelis objected.

The conference eventually led to a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, but this probably would have happened anyway.

The symbolism of Arab countries other than Egypt openly negotiating with Israel was probably the main achievement of the Madrid conference. The Palestinian track soon gave way to secret talks that led to the Oslo agreement.

ISRAELI-SYRIAN TALKS

After the Madrid conference in 1991, direct talks began between Israel and Syria. Syria's main demand was for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the plateau overlooking the Sea of Galilee that Israel had captured in 1967.

Israel responded that it was prepared to negotiate a withdrawal but the extent and timing of that withdrawal depended on Syria agreeing to a peace treaty and to an extended period of normalisation of relations first. Any agreement would also have to be accepted in a referendum in Israel.

Syria claims that in talks in 1995, the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to a total pullback. However, the Israelis say this was only a theoretical acceptance and that it depended on the full normalisation of relations, a condition that Syria, it claims, did not accept.

An unofficial agreement between Israeli and Syrian private citizens was reported to have been reached in 2006 but this has not led to talks between the two governments.

Israeli talks with Lebanon took place after Madrid but have stalled, complicated by border disputes and, more recently, last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah. Any Israeli treaty with Lebanon is expected to have to wait until after one with Syria, given Syria's influence in Lebanon.

OSLO AGREEMENT, 1993

The Oslo negotiations tried to tackle the missing element of all previous talks - a direct agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, represented by the PLO.

Its importance was that there was finally mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO.

The talks took place in secret under Norwegian auspices and the agreement was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, witnessed by President Bill Clinton.

The PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook hands.

The agreement was that Israeli troops would withdraw in stages from the West Bank and Gaza, that a "Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority" would be set up for a five-year transitional period, leading to a permanent settlement based on resolutions 242 and 338.

The agreement spoke of putting "an end to decades of confrontation and conflict" and of each side recognising "their mutual legitimate and political rights".

Therefore, though not stated explicitly in the text, the implication was that a state of Palestine would one day be set up alongside Israel.

There was an exchange of letters in which Yasser Arafat stated: "The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." Yitzhak Rabin said: "The Government of Israel has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."

Hamas and other Palestinian rejectionist groups did not accept Oslo and launched suicide bomb attacks on Israelis. There was opposition within Israel from settler-led groups. Oslo was only partially implemented.

Text: Oslo Declaration of Principles

CAMP DAVID, 2000

Various attempts were made (including at Taba in 1995, the Wye River in 1998 and Sharm el-Sheikh in 1999) to speed up the withdrawal and self-government provisions of Oslo.

Then in 2000, President Bill Clinton sought to address the final status issues - including borders, Jerusalem and refugees - that Oslo had left on one side for later negotiation.

The talks took place in July between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat.

There was no agreement. However, the negotiations were more detailed than ever before.

The basic problem was that the maximum Israel offered was less than the minimum the Palestinians could accept.

Israel offered the Gaza Strip, a large part of the West Bank, plus extra land from the Negev desert, while keeping major settlement blocks and most of East Jerusalem. It proposed Islamic guardianship of key sites in the Old City of Jerusalem and contributions to a fund for Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinians wanted to start with a reversion to the lines of 1967, offered the Israelis rights over the Jewish quarter of the Old City and wanted recognition of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees.

The failure at Camp David was followed by a renewal of the Palestinian uprising or intifada.

Text of joint statement on Camp David peace talks, July 25, 2000

TABA, 2001

Although he was about to leave office, Bill Clinton refused to give up and he presented a "bridging proposal" which set up further talks in Washington and Cairo and then Taba in Egypt.

These talks were not at the top level, but differences were narrowed without being overcome. There was more flexibility on territory and it was reported by EU observers that Israeli negotiators accepted the concept of East Jerusalem being the capital of a Palestinian state. A statement afterwards said that "it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues".

The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, fighting an election campaign, said that "nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon " and said that he could not commit a subsequent government to what he called the "ideas" coming out of the talks. With the election of Ariel Sharon in February 2001, time ran out.

Text of EU paper on Taba talks

SAUDI PEACE PLAN, 2002

After the failure of bilateral talks and the resumption of conflict, the Saudi peace plan presented at an Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002 went back to a multilateral approach and in particular signalled a desire by the Arab world as a whole to put an end to this dispute.

Under the plan, Israel would withdraw to the lines of June 1967, a Palestinian state would be set up in the West Bank and Gaza and there would be a "just solution" of the refugee issue. In return, Arab countries would recognise Israel.

The plan was re-endorsed by another Arab summit in Riyadh in 2007.

Its strength is the support given by Arab countries to a two-state solution. Its weakness is that the parties have to negotiate the same issues on which they have failed so far.

Text of Saudi initiative/Beirut Declaration

ROAD MAP, 2003

The road map is a plan drawn up by the "Quartet" - the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It does not lay down the details of a final settlement, but suggests how a settlement might be approached.

It followed efforts made by US Senator George Mitchell to get the peace process back on track in 2001.

The plan was preceded by an important statement in June 2002 by President George W Bush who became the first US president to call for a Palestinian state. The road map tries to lay down conditions for its achievement.

It proposed a phased timetable, putting the establishment of security before a final settlement. It is designed to create confidence, leading to final status talks.

Phase 1: Both sides would issue statements supporting the two-state solution, the Palestinians would end violence, act against "all those engaged in terror", draw up a constitution, hold elections and the Israelis would stop settlement activities and act with military restraint
Phase two: Would see the creation, at an international conference, of a Palestinian state with "provisional borders"
Phase 3: Final agreement talks.
The road map has not been implemented. Its timetable called for the final agreement to be reached in 2005. It has been overtaken by events.

Road Map text

GENEVA ACCORD, 2003

While official efforts foundered, an informal agreement was announced in December 2003 by Israeli and Palestinian figures - Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of Oslo, on the Israeli side, and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo on the other.

It reverses the concept of the Road Map, in which the growth of security and confidence precede a political agreement and puts the agreement first, which is then designed to produce security and peace.

Its main compromise is that the Palestinians give up their "right of return" in exchange for almost the whole of the West Bank. Israel would give up some major settlements such as Ariel, but keep others closer to the border, with swaps of land in Israel for any taken in the West Bank.

Palestinians would have the right to have their capital in East Jerusalem, though with Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall in the Old City. The Geneva agreement has no official status.

Geneva accord

CURRENT POSITION

There are currently no peace talks. The government of Ariel Sharon decided on a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the construction of a wall and fence to separate the Israelis and Palestinians.

The new government of Ehud Olmert, elected after Mr Sharon's incapacitation, planned a further unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank but the war with Hezbollah in 2006 put that on hold.

The Palestinian Authority is now run by Hamas, which has rejected a full recognition of Israel and refused to endorse previous agreements.

It is in a struggle for power with the Fatah movement led by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who took over after the death of Yasser Arafat.

Email: Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

[b]Israel backs tougher Gaza action[/b]

20 May 2007 - Israel's security cabinet has approved plans to step up operations against Palestinian militants in Gaza.

"If the measured steps we are taking, in the political and military sphere, do not bring about the desired calm, we will be forced to intensify our response," Mr Olmert said at the cabinet meeting.

More than 20 people have died in Israeli air strikes on Gaza in the last five days, which were resumed after a six month lull.

Israel hits Hamas politician home

An Israeli air strike has hit the Gaza home of a leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, witnesses and officials have said.
At least eight relatives were killed in the attack, said to be on the home of Hamas lawmaker Khalil al-Hayya, who was not there at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6674927.stm

A number of those yielded some success, such as returning the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for recognition and peace, and a peace deal with Jordan, who wanted nothing from Israel and were not remotely aligned with Fatah.

What states like Iran fail to acknowledge when making threats is that Israel has absolutely nothing to do with them. If they were to declare a peace with Israel it would stand de facto and set a memorable precedent for further goodwill just as surely as Camp David and Madrid led to Oslo.

lol ^

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

What states like Iran fail to acknowledge when making threats is that Israel has absolutely nothing to do with them.

It is Israel that makes threats to Iran. Israel is worried about their nuclear program and wants America to bombs it.
Israel should stop making threats and extend hands of peace.

If I use your own words:
[b]What states like Israel fail to acknowledge when making threats is that Iran has absolutely nothing to do with them.[/b]

I find it hard to imagine malik believes what he writes. It seems like a knowing, aggressive campaign of subverting the facts. I could understand it better if he lived under a regime that dictates that version of reality.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

I find it hard to imagine malik believes what he writes. It seems like a knowing, aggressive campaign of subverting the facts. I could understand it better if he lived under a regime that dictates that version of reality.

without being rude to anybody, I think that sometimes families can act as a regime that dictates a version of reality.

It would also be interestig to know how old Malik is. At the moment I'd say 15 years old

popadoms

don't like 'em.

One persons reality is another persons fantasy.
Some people live in their own world.

For example, Satan Bush still believes he is winning in Iraq when his own congress, Pentagon, the CIA, The Generals are all telling his that Iraq is a lost cause.

Another monkey in Israel, Ehud Olmert, still believes Israel did not fail in its war against Hezbollah when his own appointed committee found Israel guilty of many failures. His own foreign minister wants him to resign over Lebanon war failures. how disgraceful can a person fall.

Likewise, some of you lot just cannot face the truth.

"malik" wrote:

Likewise, some of you lot just cannot face the truth.

Tell us "TheTruth"© oh great one!

Show us the light.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

It seems like a knowing, aggressive campaign of subverting the facts.

*cough*[size=7]look who's talking[/size]*cough*

Hostility noted long ago, *DUST*. You might find me troublesome. I think I'm pretty straight.