IsraelAmerica

IsraelAmerica
IsraelAmerica

Saturday, December 9, 2017

trump is Accomplishing One Thing: Making America Hate Again

This orange tinted clown doesn't even have the sense to realize he is the most disliked president in history.


Most Americans think Trump has encouraged white supremacist groups—and that he's done so intentionally



Following a white supremacist rally that turned deadly in Charlottesville, Virginia, 65 percent of Americans said they felt the level of hatred in the U.S. has gone up since President Donald Trump entered office. (Photo: Rodney Dunning/Flickr/cc)
A new poll by Quinnipiac University reveals that a growing number of Americans think President Donald Trump has contributed to a more hateful atmosphere in the U.S., and many think he's deliberately encouraged hate groups. Nearly two-thirds of Americans said they believe that the level of hatred and prejudice have gone up since President Donald Trump entered office in January.
Researchers polled 1,514 voters across the nation between August 17 and 22. The data was collected on the heels of widespread criticism of Trump's refusal to unequivocally condemn this month's white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia, and just before Trump suggested he would pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio in an off-script tirade in Phoenix, Arizona on Tuesday. Arpaio, a longtime Trump supporter, was convicted last month of failing to obey a judge's order to end his practice of racially profiling Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona; the ACLU called Trump's hint at pardoning him "an official endorsement of racism."
Thirty-two percent of respondents said the level of hatred in U.S. public life has not changed since Trump was inaugurated, while two percent stated that it has improved.
The survey's findings correspond with the Southern Poverty Law Center's most recent report on the rise of hate groups in the U.S. In February the group found that the number of these groups "rose for a second year in a row in 2016 as the radical right was energized by the candidacy of Donald Trump...The most dramatic growth was the near-tripling of anti-Muslim hate groups—from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year."
Nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed by Quinnipiac said they felt Trump's actions and decisions had encouraged white supremacists like the ones who gathered in Charlottesville, and 61 percent said his encouragement of hate groups had been deliberate.
When asked if bigotry is a major issue for minority groups in the U.S. today, 50 percent said it was a "very serious" problem. Among Republicans, more respondents said they were more concerned about prejudice toward white people than toward minority groups—25 percent versus 21 percent.
Poll-takers also asked respondents to share the first word that came to mind when they thought of Trump. The word "strong" was the most-reported word, with 64 votes—but far more respondents came up with negative words as their first choices.
The rest of the top five most-reported words were "idiot" (59 votes), "incompetent" (58), "liar" (50), and "president" (49), while the sixth-most common word was "racist," with 29 votes.


Share This Article

Be Thankful trump and Bannon Are Idiots and Fox is Run by Illiterates



I don’t think anyone is surprised that Fox news has become a mouthpiece for Putin and the idiocy of trump, bannon and their gang of cowardly traitors.
Fox has zero crediblity, and the unfortunates who do watch it can’t really tell you what they are hearing, they say “It’s too complicated.”
It's fodder for the foolish, not considered a news source by anyone with a measurable IQ.
Fox is basically a waste of airtime.
Given their lack of anything approaching sophistication, it's not surprising they support America's dumbest president.
The one thing you will never hear anyone say about trump is “He is smart.”
Even the low information nutjobs that voted for him don’t think that he has the ability to think or reason clearly.
The “brains” behind this administration is Bannon, an individual who apparently can’t even remember to shave or bath.
Most people consider Bannon an idiot as well, but not quite as stupid as his sock puppet, trump.
Here is an example of Bannon’s stupidity, “Mitt Romney was a Christian Minister during the Vietnam war. He didn’t serve in the war.”
This overweight, unshaven moron forgot that trump dodged the draft by pretending to have “bone spurs”, which didn’t stop him from running around like an uncoordinated fool on the tennis courts, or swinging wildly at golf balls, but DID make it impossible to be a man, pick up a gun, and defend the country he would later repeatedly betray.
Mitt Romney has more honor in his little finger than all of the yahoos and scumbags. like trump and his fellow pedophiles Bannon and Roy Moore, that are attempting to destroy America for trump’s hero, Putin.
Although the befogged and hapless dummies that support trump’s “Making America Look Stupid Again” shennagans are a minority of Americans, mainly dropouts, alchoholics, crack and meth addicts, Southern pedophiles and incest supporters, foriegners point to the orange-tinted avatar of American stupidity, money addiction and inherited wealth as typically American.
In a recent article in Der Spiegal, “Only in dumbed down America could someone as racist and pathetically ignorant as trump hold ANY office.”
The nutjobs have taken over the asylum, but they will be kicked out  on the seat of thier pants in less than three years.
Americans are tired of being called stupid because of trump and his boss, the corpulent idiot, Bannon.
In the meantime, Americans can be thankful that trump and his co-conspiriters ARE stupid, shooting themselves in the foot every time they open their ignorant pieholes.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Palestinian Scholar Explains Why Arabs Oppose Peace in Israel




These are the two reasons why the "peace process" in the Middle East will continue to revolve in a vicious cycle. In order to make peace with Israel, you need to prepare your people for peace with Israel. This is something that the Palestinian Authority has failed to do. And that is why we will not see the emergence of a more moderate Palestinian leader in the near future.

Khaled Abu Toameh

Americans and Europeans who keep talking about the need to revive the stalled peace process in the Middle East continue to ignore these two factors. They continue to insist that peace is still possible and that the ball is in Israel's court.
The Americans and Europeans fail to acknowledge that in order to achieve peace, the leaders must prepare their people for compromise and tolerance.
In fact, it is inaccurate to say merely that Palestinian leaders have failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel. Instead, one should say that the Palestinian leadership has long been inciting its people against Israel to a point where it has become almost impossible to talk about any form of compromise between Israelis and Palestinians.
Since its inception in 1994, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has devoted most of its energies and propaganda to delegitimizing and isolating Israel. Ironically, this incitement continued even as the PA was negotiating with Israel in an attempt to reach a peace agreement.
If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people every now and then that the Western Wall has no religious significance to Jews and is, in fact, holy Muslim property.
You cannot make peace with Israel if you continue to deny Jewish history or links to the land. Take, for example, what the PLO's Hanan Ashrawi said in response to statements made by President Barack Obama, in which he acknowledged Jewish history. "Once again, he [Obama] has adopted the discourse of Zionist ideology," she said. "He adopted it when he came to this region, speaking about the Jews' return to their land, and that this is a Jewish state."
You will never be able to make peace with Israel if you keep telling your people and the rest of the world that Zionism was created in order to implement the Jewish project of world domination. This is what the Palestinian Authority ambassador to Chile, Imad Nabil Jadaa, said at a conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace in Santiago.
Imad Nabil Jadaa, the Palestinian Authority ambassador to Chile, declared on May 15 that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (an antisemitic forgery) contains proof of a Jewish plan for world domination. In the same speech, Jadaa declared "there is no Jewish People" and that Palestinians do not recognize the existence of a Jewish people. (Image source: ISGAP video screenshot)
It will be impossible to make peace with Israel at a time when the Palestinian Authority is telling its people that Jews use wild pigs to drive Palestinian farmers out of their fields and homes in the West Bank. This is what PA President Mahmoud Abbas told a pro-Palestinian conference in Ramallah.
According to the PA, Jews have also used rats to drive Arab residents of the Old City of Jerusalem out of their homes. The official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, which reports directly to Abbas's office, claimed in a dispatch that, "Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents" of the Old City of Jerusalem. The agency reported: "Settlers flood the Old City with rats... they release the rats to increase the suffering of the [Arab] residents and force them to evict their homes and leave the city."
These messages are being sent to Palestinians not only by Hamas, but also by the Western-funded Palestinian Authority, which happens to be Israel's "peace partner." The messages are being sent to Palestinians through the mosques, media and public statements of Palestinian leaders.
This is in addition to the PA's worldwide campaign to isolate, delegitimize and demonize Israel and Israelis. PA leaders and representatives who continue to accuse Israel of "war crimes" and "genocide" are certainly not preparing their people for peace with Israel. On the contrary, such allegations serve to further agitate Palestinians against Israel.
This is the type of incitement, in fact, that drives more Palestinians into the open arms of the Palestinian Authority's rivals, first and foremost Hamas. If you keep telling your people that Israel does not want peace and only seeks to destroy the lives of the Palestinians and steal their lands, there is no way that Palestinians would ever accept any form of reconciliation, let alone peace, with Israel.
Yet this is not only about the lack of education for peace or anti-Israel incitement.
It is time for the international community to acknowledge the fact that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to reach an everlasting peace agreement with Israel. That is because no leader in Ramallah or the Gaza Strip is authorized to end the conflict with Israel.
If Yasser Arafat was not able to accept the generous offer made by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the 2000 Camp David summit, who is Mahmoud Abbas to make any form of concession to Israel? Arafat was quoted back them as saying that he rejected the offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
In many ways, Abbas can only blame himself for the situation he faces today. If you are telling your people that you will never make concessions, how can you ever sign a peace agreement with Israel?
Those who believe that whoever succeeds Abbas will be able to make real concessions to Israel are living in an illusion. It is time to admit that no present or future Palestinian leader is authorized to offer even the slightest concessions to Israel. Any Palestinian who dares to talk about concessions to Israel is quickly denounced as a traitor.
These are the two reasons why the "peace process" in the Middle East will continue to revolve in a vicious cycle. In order to make peace with Israel, you need to prepare your people for peace with Israel. This is something that the Palestinian Authority has failed to do. And that is why we will not see the emergence of a more moderate Palestinian leader in the near future.
Khaled Abu Toameh


Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Donald Trump Officially Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital


Take a quick look at the map above.
Israel is that tiny blue country.
Arabians that call themselves "Palestinians" say "Israel is stealing all our land."
Obviously a lie.
The Arabs have said repeatedly "We will drive the Jews into the sea."
I'm not a fan of Trumps, but he did the right thing here.
Sadly, many on the left have decided that Israel is the cause of all the problems in the middle east.
So, for now, the recognition is the right thing to do.
MBSR


Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Albuquerque Police Officer Ryan Holets Adopts Addicted Baby



When a Police Officer makes a mistake, we hear about it for weeks.
Ryan Holets is a good representative of the Albuquerque Police Department and we commend him.

(CNN) – An Albuquerque police officer’s encounter with a heroin-addicted woman affected him so much, he was compelled to help in an extraordinary way. Heroin and crystal meth control Crystal Champ’s life. The strangling grip of addiction has left her homeless on the streets of Albuquerque. “I did give up, I just decided that this was going to be my life,” Champ said. Living in a tent, in the brush alongside a highway. For Champ, the thought of aen a police officer guardian angel walking into her life was unimaginable, but that’s what happened when Albuquerque Police Officer Ryan Holets found Crystal Champ and her companion, Tom, shooting up heroin behind a convenience store in September. “Looks like you guys are getting ready to shoot up over here,” Holets is heard saying on police video. Ryan Holets, a father of four, wasn’t ready for what he noticed next. “Are you pregnant?” Holets asked Champ. “How far along are you?” “Seven or eight months,” Champ answered. “Oh my gosh,” Holets said. “Why are you doing that stuff? It’s going to ruin your baby. You’re going to kill your baby.” His words brought Crystal Champ to tears. “How dare you judge me, you have no idea how hard this is. You have no idea. I know what a horrible person I am, what a horrible situation I’m in,” Champ said. In that instant, the moment changed. A crazy, overwhelming idea crept into Ryan’s mind. “Realizing that she was desperately wanting someone to adopt the baby, I just felt God telling me, ‘Tell her that you will do it because you can. You can,'” Holets recalled. Three weeks later, Crystal Champ gave birth and Ryan Holets and his wife agreed to adopt the baby. They named her “Hope.” “I’ve gotten tired of seeing so many situations where I wanted to help but can’t and in that moment I realized that I had a chance to help,” Holets said. Hope suffered through withdrawals during weeks of medical treatment, but she’s gaining weight and doing well. “Her father and me love her very much. We did not give her up because we did not want her,” Champ explained. However, Champ remains an addict and admits she’s in no place to care for a baby. “I just want her to be safe and secure and be in a family and be loved and have a chance,” she said. “I am so thankful and blessed and humbled that we are allowed to have Hope in our family,” Holets said. “No coincidence. It’s like providence. We’ll be there for her and whatever struggles that she has, we’ll be there and we’ll work through it. And that’s what makes me happy, that we’ll be there for her,” he said. For Officer Ryan Holets, it’s proof that even in the darkest moments, you never know when love and hope will reveal itself.

Monday, December 4, 2017

America has been without a leader for 318 days, 8 hours, 10 minutes and 42 seconds

Israel has this man of greatness, Bibi Netanyahu
This is what a REAL leader looks and sounds like.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

America's Dumbest Intellectual



Walk onto the popular-music floor of Virgin Records in midtown Manhattan, and you encounter, as you’d expect, kids with shoulder tattoos and pierced body parts, wandering through rows of the latest hip-hop, altrock, and heavy-metal CDs as heavily amplified beats thunder. At the checkout counter, though, is a surprise. A single book is on display: perennial radical Noam Chomsky’s latest anti-American screed, 9/11—an impulse item for the in-your-face slackers of the Third Millennium. Strictly speaking, 9/11 is a non-book, a hastily assembled collection of fawning interviews with Chomsky conducted after the terrorist attack on New York City and the country, in which the author pins the blame for the atrocities on—you guessed it—the U.S. But you’d be wrong to dismiss 9/11as an inconsequential paperback quickie. More than 115,000 copies of the book are now in print. It has shown up on the Boston Globe and the Washington Postbest-seller lists, and in Canada, it has rocketed to seventh on the best-seller list. And as its prominent display at Virgin Records attests, 9/11 is particularly popular with younger readers; the book is a hot item at campus bookstores nationwide. The striking success of 9/11 makes Chomsky’s America-bashing notable, or at least notably deplorable—especially here in New York, which lost so many of its bravest on that horrible day.
Chomsky’s title for his new book may have a little to do with its best-seller status: some people may have picked it up assuming it to be a newsworthy account of September 11. But undoubtedly, the main reason 9/11 is selling so briskly is because of its author’s fame. According to the Chicago Tribune, Noam Chomsky is cited more than any other living author—and he shows up eighth on the all-time most-cited list, the paper says, right after Sigmund Freud. Do a search for “Noam Chomsky” on Amazon.com and up pops an astonishing 224 books. The New York Times calls him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.” He’s even been the subject of an adoring 1993 movie-length documentary film. Chomsky has achieved rock-star status among the young and hip. Rock groups like Bad Religion and Pearl Jam proudly quote his writings in interviews and in their music. To the self-styled bohemian coffee-house crowd, observes Wired magazine, “Chomsky is somewhere between Kerouac and Nietzsche—carrying around one of his books is automatic countercultural cachet.”
Chomsky, now a 73-year-old grandfather living in suburban Massachusetts, has worked for decades to win that cachet. Avram Noam was born in Philadelphia in 1928. His parents, William and Elsie Chomsky, had fled from czarist oppression in Russia to the City of Brotherly Love, where William established himself as a Hebrew scholar and grammarian. Radical politics aroused the young Noam—at ten, he wrote a school newspaper editorial on the Spanish Civil War, lamenting the rise of fascism, and two years later he embraced the anarchism that he still adheres to today. By the age of 16, the bright, ambitious youth had enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he eventually earned a Ph.D. in linguistics. Passed over for a teaching position at Harvard, he landed in 1955 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has remained ever since.
Most linguistics professors would have toiled in obscurity in a science-and-industry school like MIT. Not Chomsky. In the 1950s, he brashly challenged psychologist B. F. Skinner’s theory of language as a learned skill, acquired by children in a process of reward and punishment. Chomsky claimed instead that when we learn a language as children, we can articulate and understand all sorts of sentences that we’ve never actually come across before. “What we ‘know,’ therefore,” Chomsky held, “must be something deeper—a grammar—that makes an infinite variety of sentences possible.” In Chomsky’s view, the capacity to master the structures of grammar is genetically determined, a product of our evolutionary development. This idea—that grammar is hardwired in the labyrinth of DNA—shook the walls of linguistics departments across the globe. Chomsky promoted his theory tirelessly, defending it in countless symposia and scholarly reviews. By the mid-sixties, he was an academic superstar; in the seventies, researchers at Columbia University even named a chimpanzee trained to learn 125 words “Nim Chimpsky” in his honor.
With this fame as a base, the professor proceeded to wander far from his area of expertise. Such uses of fame, ironically, are common in the country Chomsky attacks so relentlessly. In America, you come across two kinds of fame: vertical and horizontal. The vertical celebrity owes his renown to one thing—Luciano Pavarotti, for example, is famous for his singing, period. The horizontal celebrity, conversely, merchandises his fame by convincing the public that his mastery of one field is transferable to another. Thus singers Barbra Streisand and Bono give speeches on public policy; thus linguistics professor Chomsky poses as an expert on geopolitics.
Chomsky first employed his horizontal celebrity during the 1960s, when he spoke out forcefully against the Vietnam War. His 1969 collection of agitated writings, American Power and the New Mandarins, indicted the nation’s brainwashed “elites”—read: government bureaucrats and intellectuals who disagreed with him on the morality of the war. But Vietnam was only the beginning: over the next three decades, Chomsky published a steady stream of political books and pamphlets boasting titles like What Uncle Sam Really Wants and Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies—all of them filled with heated attacks on American policies, domestic and foreign.
Those attacks would be laughable if some people didn’t take them seriously. Here’s a small but representative sample. The goal of America, Chomsky charges, “is a society in which the basic unit is you and your television set. If the kid next door is hungry, it’s not your problem. If the retired couple next door invested their assets badly and are now starving, that’s not your problem either.” Prisons and inner-city schools, Chomsky maintains, “target a kind of superfluous population that there’s no point in educating because there’s nothing for them to do. Because we’re a civilized people, we put them in prison, rather than sending death squads out to murder them.” Another example: “When you come back from the Third World to the West—the U.S. in particular—you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other.”
Goodness. But if America is all about ignoring hungry children, why does the country spend billions in public and private funds every year on the poor? Does America deliberately seek to mis-educate and send to prison a “superfluous” population? Wouldn’t today’s knowledge-based economy benefit from as many decently educated people as it could find? What Third World countries does Chomsky have in mind where the discussion is more freewheeling and open than in the U.S.? Algeria? Cuba? Such puerile leftism is scarcely worthy of a college sophomore.
If possible, however, Chomsky’s assessment of U.S. foreign policy is even more absurd. The nightmare of American evil began in 1812, he thinks, when the U.S. instigated a process that “annihilated the indigenous [American] population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world.” That the U.S. saved the Philippines during World War II, that Hawaiians voted to become the fiftieth state, that every day Mexicans pour across the border to take part in the economy of the hated United States—all of that is irrelevant to Chomsky. He believes in the Beaumarchais mode of political debate: “Vilify, vilify, some of it will always stick.”
For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence.
The Chomskian rage hasn’t confined itself to his native land. He has long nourished a special contempt for Israel, lone outpost of Western ideals in the Middle East. The hatred has been so intense that Zionists have called him a self-hating Jew. This is an unfair label. Clearly, Chomsky has no deficit in the self-love department, and his ability to stir up antagonism makes him even more pleased with himself. No doubt that was why he wrote the introduction to a book by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. Memoire en Defensemaintains that Hitler’s death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank’s diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists. That was too much for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who challenged fellow leftist Chomsky to a debate. In the debate, Dershowitz keyed in on the fact that Chomsky had described Faurisson’s conclusions as “findings,” and claimed that they grew out of “extensive historical research.” But as numerous scholars had shown, Faurisson was not a serious scholar at all, but rather a sophist who simply ignored the mountain of documents, speeches, testimony, and other historical evidence that conflicted with his “argument.” Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.”
Just recently, Chomsky spearheaded a group pressuring universities to divest themselves of any stock connected with the Jewish state: Israel equals South Africa in the Chomskian universe of moral equivalence. Here, happily, Chomsky got nowhere. He obtained 400 signatures for his movement; opposing him, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, gathered 4,000 signatures in support of Israel. The controversy set Dershowitz off again. This time, he said, he wanted the MIT prof to debate him “on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself—and the world—against terrorism that targets civilians.” He pointed out that universities have always invested in companies head-quartered in foreign nations with unsavory reputations—countries whose citizens don’t have the freedom the Israelis enjoy or suffer the terror they endure. “Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights. This is bigotry pure and simple.” Chomsky declined the challenge.
That brings us to 9/11, an egregious insult to decency in general and to the citizens of New York in particular. True to form, in one of the interviews, Chomsky calls the United States “a leading terrorist state” and equates President Clinton’s 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan with the horrors of September 11. In every way, Chomsky’s comparison is obscene. The bombing was in response to attacks on two U.S. embassies that had resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands. The U.S. made sure it took place at night, when the target was empty of civilians. U.S. intelligence, mistaken though it may have been, indicated that the pharmaceutical factory was producing weapons of mass destruction. The unprovoked attack on the World Trade Center, needless to say to anyone except Chomsky and his disciples, occurred in broad daylight, with the intention of inflicting maximum damage and death on innocents.
Chomsky concedes that the WTC attack was unfortunate—not so much because of the deaths of Americans, but because “the atrocities of September 11 were a devastating blow to the Palestinians, as they instantly recognized.” (Some other group, disguised as Palestinians, must have been dancing in the streets that day.) Israel, he adds, “is openly exulting in the ‘window of opportunity’ it now has to crush Palestinians with impunity.”
On the rare occasions in 9/11 when Chomsky expresses condolences for the victims of the terrorist attack, he immediately goes on to excoriate the U.S. “The atrocities were passionately deplored, even in places where people have been ground underfoot by Washington’s boots for a long, long time,” he typically says. Chomsky rolls on in this manner. The West is the Great Satan, the Third World its eternal victim. The World Trade Towers were a symbol of America’s gluttony and power. In effect, we were asking for it and are now unjustly using it as a casus belli. More U.S. oppression is about to take place all over the globe. If you didn’t know better, you could be reading one of bin Ladin’s diatribes. Chomsky’s response to September 11 outraged even leftist Christopher Hitchens, a former admirer of the MIT professor who now attacked him for abandoning “every standard that makes moral and intellectual discrimination possible.”
Does anyone believe these inanities? It would be tempting to say that the author only preaches to the choir. But there’s more to Chomsky’s success than that. True, Chomsky is like the Bog Man of Grauballe, Denmark, preserved unchanged for centuries. Since the early 1960s, no new ideas have made it into his oeuvre. He is as he was, and his rage against democracy as practiced in the U.S. is of a piece with the raised fists of the Chicago Seven and the ancient bumper stickers condemning “Amerika.” But his message still seems to resonate with a sizable faction of the Boomers, trained to respond to emotion rather than reason. These are the people who sympathized with Susan Sontag’s notorious post–September 11 observation: “Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?” These are the folks who applauded Bill Clinton’s fatuous mea culpa appraisal of the WTC attack: “This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. . . . [W]e are still paying a price today.”
And now a younger crowd is following the Pied Piper of anti-Americanism. 9/11makes it easy for them. They needn’t read it; they just have to make sure the thing is sticking out of their backpacks or sitting on their milk-crate coffee tables, a symbol of mass-market rebellion pushed at the record stores for $10.95—less than the new Eminem CD! Call it Anti-Americanism for Dummies. It would be more than a pity if the lies of 9/11 seduced more innocents; it would be a clear and present danger. We are at war now, and two generations of Chimpskies are enough.

stephan kanfer

Monday, November 27, 2017

Victim of trump Rape When 13 Defies Death Threats To Speak Out

Her story, like those of other victims of Donald Trump's sexual assaults IS corroborated.
Trump is backing another child rapist for the Senate in Alabama, "He denies it."
Trump shouts.
Trump has weakly denied the truth of the women that have accused him as well.
Numerous investigations are ongoing in relation to sexual misconduct by other powerful men , trump's victims seem much more credible than trump's denials, given that he has been described as a pathological liar.
It is time to bring the pedophile president to justice.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

"Trump Raped Me When I was Thirteen". One of Trump's Victims Speaks Out

During the campaign America's dumbest President referred to his supporters as stupid and  uneducated.
"If I shot innocent people on Park Avenue I wouldn't lose any supporters." he crowed.
Perhaps he was preparing them for the relevations, from 16 credible victims, of his long history of sexual assault and pedophilia.
While the bewildered world looks at this disgraceful deviant backing sexual predator and pedophile Roy Moore for Senator, his supporters say, "I don't care he be a rapist,
an' I don't think he stupid". Right.
As we predicted, trump got the nutcase vote, all 30 million of them.
And although he took a fearful beating from Hillary, losing by almost four million votes, the Electoral College did their part in this disgraceful situation and over rode the majority of Americans by appointing the loser of the vote as president.

View this video of some of trump's many sex crimes, just another day in the life of the Pedophile President.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Trump Facing Multiple Sexual Abuse Allegations Backs Child Molestor in Alabama


Trump has officially endorsed accused child molestor Roy Moore for Senator in Alabama.
Like Moore, Trump has also been accused of numerous incidents of molestation,and the allegations against both perpetrators are considered quite credible,
Zamir Etzoni

The president says he's "very happy" sexual misconduct by powerful men is being "exposed." He denies all of the allegations against him. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)
“Women are very special. I think it’s a very special time, a lot of things are coming out and I think that’s good for our society and I think it’s very, very good for women and I’m very happy a lot of these things are coming out. I’m very happy it’s being exposed.”
— President Trump, remarks to reporters, Nov. 21, 2017
Sexual misconduct by powerful men has all but taken over the news, with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and senatorial hopeful Roy Moore (R-Ala.) among the politicians on this growing list.
Trump vociferously has taken aim at accused Democrats, while apparently giving a pass to Republicans. Moreover, it was only a year ago that similar accusations against Trump dominated the headlines, with more than a dozen women accusing Trump of improper conduct or sexual assault. Many of the accusations surfaced after the release of a 2005 tape of Trump speaking graphically about kissing and groping women uninvited.
During the second presidential debate, Anderson Cooper asked then-candidate Trump point blank whether he had “actually kiss[ed] women without consent or grope[d] women without consent?” Trump asserted that “nobody has more respect for women” and Cooper pushed him, asking, “Have you ever done those things?” Trump denied that he had, responding: “No, I have not.”
The president has held this line, telling the New York Times, when asked the same question: “I don’t do it. I don’t do it.”
But it’s not as simple as that. Many of the women have produced witnesses who say they heard about these incidents when they happened — long before Trump’s political aspirations were known. Three have produced at least two witnesses.
Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chance that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the “she said” side of the equation. Often, a sexual assault will occur behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean an allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.
The Fact Checker first detailed some of the accusations against Trump during the 2016 campaign. That fact check also detailed the witnesses who backed up claims of sexual accusations against former president Bill Clinton — who, like Trump, insisted the women accusing him were not telling the truth.
Here’s a list of 13 women who have publicly come forward with claims that Trump had physically touched them inappropriately in some way, and the witnesses they provided. We did not include claims that were made only through Facebook posts or other social media, or in lawsuits that subsequently were withdrawn.
We also did not include the accounts of former beauty contestantswho say Trump walked in on them when they were half nudebecause there were no allegations of touching. Trump had bragged on the Howard Stern show of his “inspections” during the pageants: “You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
Two or more contemporary corroborators
Natasha Stoynoff
Allegation: While she was interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago, forced her against a wall and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth. He then said they were going to have an affair.
Corroborators: 
Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the alleged attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall.
Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.
Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”
Liza Hamm, part of a “tight-knit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.
Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.
Response: Anthony Senecal, Trump’s former butler, denied the incident: “No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap.” Trump said: “Why didn’t she do this 12 years ago? She’s a liar. … It never happened. It’s a lie.”

Rachel Crooks
Allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.
Corroborators: 
Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”
Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”
Response: Shouting at the New York Times reporter who called for comment, Trump said, “None of this ever took place.” He then told the reporter, “You are a disgusting human being.”

Cathy Heller
Allegation: While having Mother’s Day brunch at Mar-a-Lago in 1997 or 1998, her mother-in-law introduced her to Trump. She extended her hand to greet him and he grabbed her and kissed her on the mouth. She did turn her head slightly and so he wasn’t able to “get my whole mouth.”
Corroborators:
Lloyd Heller, her husband. He said that she immediately told him. He said he told her that “you should have punched him” and he remembers being “puzzled” by why Trump would do something like that in a public space.
A relative who was there, but wanted to stay unnamed. This person said Heller was immediately shocked and asked whether he or she had seen what happened. The two then talked about the incident asking, “Who does he think he is?”
Response: Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told People Magazine: “There is no way that something like this would have happened in a public place on Mother’s Day at Mr. Trump’s resort.”
One contemporary corroborator, one additional witness
 4:22
Woman says Trump reached under her skirt and groped her in early 1990s
Speaking to Washington Post reporter Karen Tumulty via a telephone earpiece, Kristin Anderson recalls Donald Trump groping her. (Alice Li, Brian Young/The Washington Post)
Kristin Anderson
Allegation: While she was at a Manhattan nightclub in the early 1990s, Trump slid his fingers under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear.
Corroborators: 
Kelly Stedman, a friend. She said she was told about the incident at a women’s brunch a few days later. The women found themselves “laughing at how pathetic it was” on Trump’s part.
Brad Trent, a New York photographer. He says he heard the story from Anderson at a dinner in 2007. “It was just girls saying stories about how they got hit on by creepy old guys,” Trent said of the conversation around the table.
Response: The Trump campaign, in an emailed statement, said Anderson had fabricated the story: “Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity. It is totally ridiculous.”
One corroborator
Summer Zervos
Allegation: Trump kissed Zervos on the lips when he met her in his New York office, which upset Zervos, who had been a contestant on Season 5 of Trump’s “The Apprentice.” She then met Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel in 2007 for what she thought would be dinner; instead, she was escorted to his private bungalow. “I stood up and he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me toward him,” she said. “He then grabbed my shoulder and started kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast.” He kept pursuing her, she said, at one point “thrusting his genitals” against her as he tried to kiss her. She said she again rebuffed him.
Corroborator:
Ann Russo, friend: She said that Zervos told her in 2010 that Trump had been “verbally, physically, and sexually aggressive with her” but that she had rebuffed his advances. “It was apparent she was conflicted with what Mr. Trump had done to her,” she said, adding that Zervos was torn between her admiration for Trump and Trump’s behavior.
(In her lawsuit against Trump, Zervos says that in 2007 she “spoke to a friend and her parents about [the initial kiss], all of whom concluded that this must just be the way that Mr. Trump greeted people.” She then told her father about the hotel incident, the lawsuit says.)
Response: Trump issued a statement by John Barry, a cousin of Zervos’s: “I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump. That’s not how she talked about him before. I can only imagine that Summer’s actions today are nothing more than an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense, and I don’t think it reflects well.”
Mindy McGillivray
Allegation: McGillivray said she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2003, when she was 23, at a photo shoot during a concert by Ray Charles.  “All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’ She told the Palm Beach Post she was certain it was not an accident. “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’
Corroborator:
Ken Davidoff, photographer: He vividly remembers when McGillivray pulled him aside moments after the alleged incident and told him, “Donald just grabbed my ass!’’ He did not witness the incident himself.
Jill Harth 
Allegation: In the early 1990s, Jill Harth and her boyfriend at the time, George Houraney, worked with Trump on a beauty pageant in Atlantic City, and later accused Trump of inappropriate behavior toward Harth during their business dealings. She said that Trump pursued her and groped her; she alleged attempted rape in a sexual harassment suit that was withdrawn as a condition for settling a contract dispute. (We are including her account here because she gave interviews making these charges even after the lawsuit was withdrawn.) Trump had “his hands all over me,” Harth told the New York Times. “He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out.”
Corroborator:
George Houraney, her boyfriend and later husband. The two are divorced but he confirmed her account in an interview with Nicholas Kristof: “Houraney and Harth haven’t spoken in years, but they offered almost identical accounts when I interviewed them separately, and their stories match Harth’s deposition and her sexual harassment lawsuit from the time.”
Response: Trump said it was Harth who had pursued him, and his office shared email messages in which Harth thanked Trump for helping her personally and professionally. The campaign said she was a “pawn” in a lawsuit created by her ex-husband.
 3:25
'Trump just keeps merrily going along': For Trump accusers, nothing has changed
After Harvey Weinstein's fall, Trump accusers wonder why not him too.(Video: Alice Li/Photo: Celeste Sloman/The Washington Post)
Jessica Leeds
Allegation: Trump attacked her while seated next to her on an airline flight. More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling business executive at a paper company, Leeds told the New York Times in 2016, she sat beside Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before. About 45 minutes after takeoff, Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” Leeds said. “His hands were everywhere.” She fled to the back of the plane. “It was an assault,” she said.
Corroborator: Leeds told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with the New York Times. But most appear to have heard about it more recently. Linda Ross, a neighbor and friend, heard about it six months before Leeds went public, for instance.
Reaction: The Trump campaign offered the perspective of a British man who claimed to have sat near the two on the plane and three decades later remembered the incident in detail. “She was the one being flirtatious,” he said.
Other accusers
Temple Taggart McDowell: The 1997 Miss Utah USA said Trump kissed her directly on the lips, at a time he was married to Marla Maples and McDowell was 21. Later, when she visited Trump Tower to discuss a modeling contract, she says Trump again embraced and kissed her on the lips, this time in front of two pageant chaperones and a receptionist. The New York encounter made one of the chaperones so “uncomfortable” that she advised McDowell not to go into any rooms with Trump alone, McDowell told NBC News.
Karena Virginia: A yoga instructor said Trump harassed and groped her during a chance encounter at the U.S. Open in 1998. Virginia said Trump, a total stranger, then grabbed her arm and touched her breast. “I was in shock,” Virginia said. “I flinched. He said, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ I felt intimidated and powerless. I said ‘yes.’”
Jennifer Murphy: A former Apprentice contestant said Trump in 2004 kissed her on the lips. “He walked me to the elevator, and I said goodbye. I was thinking ‘oh, he’s going to hug me,’ but … he pulled my face in and gave me a smooch.”
Ninni Laaksonen: A former Miss Finland said Trump in 2006 grabbed her bottom shortly after he had married Melania. “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt. He really grabbed my butt.”
Jessica Drake: A porn star and sex educator said that during a 2006 golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Trump “grabbed” her and two other unnamed women tightly and kissed them on the lips “without asking permission.” He then offered Drake $10,000 and the use of his private plane, she said, if she would agree to come back to his room and accompany him to a party.

By Meg Kelly November 22 at 3:00 AM

Monday, November 20, 2017

Trump: A Clear and Present Danger

The New York Times bestseller! More than two dozen psychiatrists and psychologists offer their consensus view that Trump's mental state presents a clear and present danger to our nation and individual well-being.
This is not normal.
Since the start of Donald Trump’s presidential run, one question has quietly but urgently permeated the observations of concerned citizens: What is wrong with him? Constrained by the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater rule,” which inhibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined, many of those qualified to answer this question have shied away from discussing the issue at all. The public has thus been left to wonder whether he is mad, bad, or both.
In THE DANGEROUS CASE OF DONALD TRUMP, twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts argue that, in Mr. Trump’s case, their moral and civic “duty to warn” America supersedes professional neutrality. They then explore Trump’s symptoms and potentially relevant diagnoses to find a complex, if also dangerously mad, man.
Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword, for instance, explain Trump’s impulsivity in terms of “unbridled and extreme present hedonism.” Craig Malkin writes on pathological narcissism and politics as a lethal mix. Gail Sheehy, on a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia. Lance Dodes, on sociopathy. Robert Jay Lifton, on the “malignant normality” that can set in everyday life if psychiatrists do not speak up.
His madness is catching, too. From the trauma people have experienced under the Trump administration to the cult-like characteristics of his followers, he has created unprecedented mental health consequences across our nation and beyond.
It’s not all in our heads. It’s in his.
"There will not be a book published this fall more urgent, important, or controversial than The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump...profound, illuminating and discomforting" ―Bill Moyers

Monday, November 6, 2017

Dr. Bandy Lee discusses why Trump’s attraction to violence is problematic for all

"We believe that Mr. Trump, in the office of the presidency, poses a danger to the public, and in fact the international community," Dr. Bandy Lee told Salon's Andrew O'Hehir on "Salon Talks."

Lee is a professor of law and psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine, and also editor of the new book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President."

Under the guise that these mental health professionals feel a "duty to warn" and a "duty to protect" the public, an array of experts chart President Donald Trump's clinical symptoms, potential diagnoses and most importantly, his danger to the public at large.

"Assessing dangerousness is actually more about the situation and not just about the person, whereas a diagnosis would be about the person and stays with the individual," Lee explained. "So, a certain individual may be dangerous in a certain position of power and not dangerous in another situation."

When identifying Trump's signs of danger or emergency, as the professionals use to describe his presidency and personality in the book, Lee said she would run out of time listing them all.

However, "the most obvious ones are verbal aggressiveness, history of sexual assault, incitement of violence at his rallies, attraction to violence and powerful weapons, provocation of hostile nations," she said.

And the list continues. "Since this book has been out," Lee continued, "there's the endorsement of violence and an encouragement of a kind of culture of violence, which could give rise to epidemics of violent behavior, which has happened after Charlottesville."

Trump's taunting of nuclear power, Lee says, is "probably our greatest concern."

Rachel Leah is a culture writer for Salon. You can follow her on Twitter: @rachelkleah

MORE FROM  RACHEL LEAH

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Buddhists Fighting Back Against Muslim Killers

      

Ahinamo Kurasawa From Tokyo.
Its Not Buddhists Killing Muslims In Myanmar, Its Rohingya Muslims Killing Buddhists From 1947
There’s a big misconception about the violence in Burma that has caused severe casualties to both Rohingya Muslims and Burmese Buddhists. Therefore it is important that a fair assessment to this issue is done to shed light on the grey areas and enlighten those who are clueless on the subject.
The Rohingyas are a Muslim minority who migrated from Bangladesh and reside in Myanmar. The community procreated in large numbers within a very short period of time without any family planning and considerations to limited resources, because of which the native community in the area has became a minority and deprived of their own lands that were grabbed by increased population of Rohingyans.
According to Rohingyas, they are indigenous to Rakhine State, while the Burmese historians claim that they migrated to Burma from Bengal primarily during the period of British rule in Burma, and to a lesser extent, after the Burmese independence in 1948 and Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.
General Ne Win’s government, in 1982, enacted the Burmese nationality law, which denied citizenship to the Rohingyas honoring the opinion of vast majority of Burmese. (96%) The decision also came as a result as the Rohingyas were rebelling the government for several decades with the support of external forces, mainly from separatists movements and extremist groups including Al Qaeda.
The Rohingya insurgency in Western Myanmar was an insurgency in northern Rakhine State (also known as Arakan), waged by insurgents belonging to the Rohingya ethnic minority. Most clashes have occurred in the Maungdaw District, which borders Bangladesh.
Local mujahideen groups were rebelling government forces From 1947 to 1961, in an attempt to have the mostly Rohingya populated Mayu peninsula in northern Rakhine State secede from Myanmar, and have it be annexed by East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). In late 1950s they lost most of their support and surrendered to government forces.
The modern Rohingya insurgency in northern Rakhine began in 2001 although Shwe Maung, the then MP of the Rohingya-majority, rejected claims that new Islamist insurgent groups had begun operating along the Bangladeshi border.
Latest incident that got reported was in October 2016, where clashes have erupted on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border, with Rohingya insurgents linked to foreign Islamists suspected of being the perpetrators.
However Rohingyas have stayed in Burma for several generations and account for nearly 4% of Myanmar’s population.
On the other hand the incident where brutal rape and murder of a Rakhine Buddhist woman by Muslim men, followed by the killing of Rohingya Muslims (as retaliation) sparked the communal riots between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims. This was not exactly a one sided massacre, but a communal riot with victims from both sides.
The issue became more severe when Rohingyas started killing monks too. Often by beheading them. At least 19 such monk killings were reported within a couple of months where monks started to take the side of the native groups who were fighting the Rohingyas.
Now the question every one of us must be asking is, why do Muslims kill Christians? Why do Muslims kill Muslims? pretty much everywhere in the world. None of the Buddhists we know did/ does / wants to kill Muslims, at least not because of any religious reasons. But in Myanmar we find low tolerance towards proselytism, this means there’s no problem with any religion you may have, as long as you stick to it and don’t attempt to convert others. The Christians have learned their lesson a long time ago although they continue to do it without being aggressive about it, the Hindus never had such ambitions, the Buddhists never engage in that, but the Muslims…Well…Well…Well
On the other hand Rohingyas communities tend to be highly conservative of inter-faith marriages where they punish and sometimes kills their women in case they marry someone outside Rohingyas. While they are ready to marry Buddhist women and convert them to Islam. This doesn’t sit well with some conservative factions of the Buddhist majority, for obvious reasons.
Christians and hindus, the 2nd and 4th largest communities, by population, are integrating just fine despite many Christian ethnicities engaging against the Buddhist Bamar (Kachin, Chin, Karen, etc), the disputes are historical, territorial and resource-based, never religious. Also, insulting religion, ANY religion, for whatever reason, is illegal in Myanmar and would land you in jail in a matter of hours. And that’s actively enforced, probably for good reason.
Rohingyas Muslims were welcomed as guests in the beginning according to historians. There was little or no problem at the beginning. Problems such as rebelling did happen later but an agreement was reached and they disarmed in early 60s. Although minor conflicts occurred among both communities, nothing serious occurred until about 5 years ago where Muslims gathered in numbers and walked the streets killing the minority natives in their areas. Which is why Burmese Buddhists started counter attacking the Muslims who were killing their brothers and sisters in Rohingyas lands.
Therefore, it is critical that one needs to understand that Buddhists do not kill Muslims but the natives are responding to the rebels who are virtually on a ethnic cleansing mission is Rakhine State. If Buddhists were at fault, they should probably be attacking Christians too. At least some type of discrimination against Christians which is the 2nd largest religious community in Burma which has never happened.
It must also be noted that no one should be linking the unrest to religious war. Its a political war where natives trying to protect their life from insurgents belonging to a migrated community. Who are not only trying to procreate at a disturbing rate but also trying to convert natives to their faith forcibly by direct and indirect means. To make it worst, they are promoting Rohingyas men to marry Buddhists but has banned Rohingyas women to marry Buddhists. Its a riot the Rohingyas started by attacking Buddhists and other way round as it is evidently true to anywhere else in the world. It is Rohingyas who kill people Chanting Allahu Akbar and not a single Buddhist because Buddhists can’t possibly justify killing according to their teachings. But their survival has become a priority which compel them to fight back.
Buddhists in Burma have seen Rohingyas rioting against them for more than half a century for no apparent reason except the need to create a separate Islamic region in Burma with the funding that comes from extremist organizations and middle east in addition to the support they have from neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. Its as the last resort they have opted to deal with the obvious problem they have at hand. It was simply a question for Buddhists whether they were willing to die at the Hands of Muslim separatists or try to prevail by fighting back.  
 Thanks to Raquel Gooch for alertimg us to this article.

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky