No Mercy!!

Someone sent me this clip and I want you to see it. Click here to see it, and then continue reading.


Quite freaky, isn't it? They say that we make terrorist, by the United States liberating Iraq they created the insurgency, when the Israeli army defends their citizens they, too, create terrorists. At least that's what people would like you to believe. The truth, however, is otherwise.

Why did Wafa try to kill Israelis? Did they ever harm her or anyone on her family? The excuse Latifa gives us is because, "she had terrible parents, her fiance left her, she felt abandoned and ugly. She cried and said, 'I want to die.' She said, 'Someone give me a bomb.'" Were her parents Israeli? Was her fiance Israeli? She felt "abandoned and ugly" as a result of the actions of her fellow Palestinians. Why not blow herself up amongst those that made her feel this way? Why kill innocent Israelis who never even met her?!

Now that she's in jail and at the mercy of the Israeli justice system she starts crying crocodile tears. "I wanted to be a martyr, but now I want to live, please forgive me. Don't put me in jail for life. I didn't kill anyone." History has shown us that when terrorists are freed from jail they tend to continue their terrorist activities. Who says she won't try it again if she's released? If she is released will that make her not feel "abandoned and ugly" anymore? Not in the slightest, so what guarantees she won't do this again? She says she "didn't kill anyone" as though she were a righteous woman who saved peoples' lives. She didn't kill anyone because, with the help of G-d, she was caught by Israeli soldiers before she crossed the border crossing. Even then she tried to detonate herself not once, but twice! The bomb didn't blow up and it's no thanks to her that it didn't, she did everything in her power to detonate it. Of course now she wants to live and not be put in jail for life, so that she can try this stunt again! She is a terrorist who must be punished to fullest extent allowed by law, and perhaps even further.

The Problem

Like I reported in an earlier post about France's troubles, the same holds true for Belgium. Although it's not definite why cars were set ablaze in Belgium, I am quite sure the reasons are the same as in France. Although the Belgian Muslims don't have the excuse of the headscarf ban, they are causing trouble in any case. This is something that I knew for awhile already, that European countries cannot stand up to terrorists, at least they pretend that they can't.

I was in Belgium about a year and a half ago; I was in the central train station in Brussels, the capital. It was early morning when I was traveling, and by the time I'd reach my destination, in Holland, it would be afternoon. Therefore I decided to pray the morning prayers before I got on the train. So I went and found a quiet corner were there were no people and hardly anyone walking by, and figured that this would be a nice place for me to pray without being disturbed. As I was praying two Muslims came up behind me, and were speaking rather loudly and quickly in Arabic. I didn't understand everything they were saying being that my Arabic is a bit rusty. I did, however, understand a word that they repeated a few time: Yahud (Jew).

I turned around to face them and saw that they were looking right at me and walking straight towards me. I assumed they were looking for a fight, so I stood up and looked them straight in the eye. I gave them "the look," the one which says that I mean business. If they wanted a fight, that was fine, but it would be a fight to the end. They were apparently not looking for a fight that goes to the end and decided to walk away instead. Perhaps they didn't think a Jew would stand up to them and not be afraid of their threats.

As soon as they left I went back to my prayers. Before long I was again disturbed, this time by Belgian security. They asked me to please leave and not to pray in the station. There was no law against praying there, there was no law banning me from being in the station. However, for my safety, they urged me to listen to them. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Instead of protecting an innnocent person who has never done anything wrong, never broke any laws or vandalized property, they chose to side with the aggressors. This is because they are afraid to stand up, look terrorism square in the eye, and put their foot down.

I have an amazing idea for these countries. Why not put all innocent, law abiding, tax paying citizens behind bars with electric fences and barbed wire. No one will be able to get in or out, so their safety will be guaranteed. Let the killers and rapists run loose in the streets and perhaps they might just kill themselves out. The job of security forces worldwide is to ensure to safety of its citizens and visitors. Part of that means arresting people who are disturbing the peace and trying to instigate violence on any level.

Nobody is born a serial killer, they build up. First they start off stealing candy from a store, then they start mugging people until they reach a point where human life is valueless. To prevent big crimes from happening, you have to crack down on the new guys trying to work their way up the ladder of crime. As long as a government can't realize its responsibilities, its future is in question. Like those of France and Belgium, and, sad to say, many others.

Election Day

So tomorrow is election day and we are voting for mayor in NYC. Mayor Michael Bloomberg seems like the winner against former Bronx Borough president Fernando Ferrer. He spent millions of dollars on his campaign, even when the polls showed him at 60% to Ferrer's 30%. This is obviously the mind of a businessman, he spends millions of dollars to get his message across. It is no wonder that he is a billionaire, he definitely knows how to market himself (and other things, too).

Ferrer, who is running as a democrat, is having difficulties with Bloomberg, who is running as a republican, even though NYC is a city dominated by democrats. People, however, seem to forget that Bloomberg wasn't always a republican. In fact, he only became a republican right before the previous mayoral elections, when he realized that he couldn't run as a democrat. Up until that time he was a democrat. His actions, too, are moderate if not left leaning. Similar to NYS Governor George Pataki, who is a republican, yet is liberal on many issues. That perhaps is the only way for a republican to win an election in this part of the country. The same goes for former mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Don't get me wrong, I support both Pataki and Giuliani, voted for them in elections, and I support Mike Bloomberg as well. Tomorrow I will vote for Mike, definitely because I don't want Ferrer, and also because he has done a good job. Granted he isn't Rudy, and I'm sure that there are many people out there who could do a better job than him. However, he has done a lot of good things for the city, even though there were some things that he did which weren't so good. Therefore (and because of some other reasons, too), I support Mike.

A Lonely Person

When the US invaded Iraq, French president Jacques Chirac opposed the move. He was against the idea of imposing our beliefs on other people. That caused alot of friction between France and the USA. Americans started despising the French and their products, just as much as the French despised Americans and their products. But now they stand alone, without the Americans and without the Muslims.

The French first rubbed shoulders with their friends, the Muslims, when they banned them from wearing religious garb to public schools. The ban wasn't directed at Muslims exclusively, however they threatened to attack France if the law was passed. Apparently they were waiting for an excuse to attck France. They found an excuse ten days ago.

French police came to investigate a crime scene and three youths thought the police were coming for them, the police deny it. Believing the police were after them they started to run. They found a place to hide in a power substation where they were accidentaly electrocuted. I've seen police many times, I never ran from them, I'm not afraid of police. That's because I'm a law abiding citizen. Only criminals have reason to run from law enforcement officials. So why were these youths "running from police?" What crime did they do? What were they trying to hide? But that doesn't matter, what matters is that the Muslims found an excuse to declare war on France.

Since then violent riots have been spreading throughout the country. Every day in seems to grow to other cities, and the damage done is climbing steadily. Last night about 1,300 cars were torched, up from about 900 the night before. Police and firefighters were attacked with baseball bats and pickaxes. Last week, paramedics were stoned when they attempted to treat a patient who was ill; their ambulance was set ablaze. Schools were torched, businesses looted, cars destroyed. The picture at left shows a nursery that was burned, and the roof collapsed. Burned toys were scattered on the ground beneath some pictures of school children which remained hanging on the wall.

The French demanded the army be broght in or they be allowed to take up arms to defend themselves. The French government, however, is not allowing militias. What are these people supposed to do? The government isn't putting a stop to the violence and doesn't allow them to put a stop to it. Does this mean that the end of France is near? How many more nights will it take for these hoodlums to burn down the entire country?

In cities where unemployment is above 20%, a family car can mean a lot to them. Imagine what they are going through now when they wake up in them orning and find their car torched? Imagine yourself, as someone who makes a nice living and has a nice house. What would your reaction be to finding your car torched in the morning? Why is this happening? Because Muslims are being allowed to vent their rage and humanity. It must be stopped if we wish to perserve democracy.

Zuma

Well, what I can say? I'm a bit of an addict. To computer games, that is, and there are quite a few games out there that can be addictive. Today I want to discuss a game called Zuma, pictured above.

The truth is that I don't even know why this game is addictive, I can go a few days without playing it, so I don't think it can really be called an addiction. However, I enjoy playing this game immensely. I play it very often and I try to convince myself that it has some good things to it. That if I play this game it'll sharpen some of my senses.

But in order to understand how, let me explain how the game goes in short. There are different color balls on the screen, as you can see (unless your screen is black and white). The balls keep moving along their tracks until they reach the skull(s) where they get swallowed up, in which case you lose the game (or a life in the game). Your objective is to clear the screen of balls by shooting same colored balls at groups of balls. There need to be at least two balls (plus the one you shoot) to get the balls off the screen.

There are many tricks to the game of how you can get more points, and how you can cause the balls to go back on the track. But this isn't the time or place for any of that. Some hints are posted on the website and others you just pick up after playing for some time.

The site offers a free online version of the game which has four levels; each level has four sublevels, so to say. As you advance in the levels, the balls move along quicker, and there are more colors. This obviously makes the goal harder with each level. You only get three lives to play the entire sixteen levels (in the picture above I am in the last level available online, and I'm on my second life). In other words, with eacj passing level you have to get quicker and more decisive. You don't have time to start debating where it is better to shoot a ball. If you do procrastinate that way, you will find it very difficult to finish the game. It is this that I have convinced myself which is beneficial for me (and you). By being put into these "situations" where you have to make quick decisions which can mean winning or losing a game, you are sharpening your leadership abilities, without endangering anyone, or anything.

This could be all a bunch of baloney, or it could be not. One thing is certain, though, if you are bored and have nothing to do, this game won't harm you any more than doing nothing will. It may not be advisable to waste precious time from doing something else which is constructive (like posting a blog), but for those times you just want to relax, this is great.

You are welcome to try the game and see how you like it, and how you do. In the picture you can see that my score is holding at 112780, at the end of this game, however, I had a score over 125000 (if I remember correctly). So try it out, and try to beat my score, and perhaps you might make it to the Zuma highscores. What do you think?

"Europe Died With Auschwitz"

After the original post of Mark Twain and the response that I received and posted, I got another e-mail along the same lines. The following is an article which was written by a Spanish journalist, Sebastian Villar Rodriguez, in September 2005.

Europe Died With Auschwitz

I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!

We burned in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create. We burned the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God. Because it is the people who gave to humanity the symbolic figures who were capable of changing history (Marx, Einstein, Freud...) and who is the origin of progress and wellbeing.

We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened its doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.

We have also exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition. We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better peaceful world, for the suicide bomber. We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death.

Our death and that of our children. What a grave mistake that we made!!!

Here is a person who lives in Europe and is experiencing our worst nightmares on a daily basis. Let's hope it is an experience we will never have to witness, nor one that our children will have to witness. We need to unite to end the terror.

Who needs insurance?

Some guy is walking down the street and falls in front of your house. He decides that since it is easy to sue in this country, he will. However, the case never actually goes to court because you settle out of court, yet your insurance premiums still go up. Isn't that weird?

The reason that your premium goes up is because you had a case brought against you, regardless of the outcome. The case could have been dropped, or a judge could have thrown it out of court, your premiums will still go up. The reason is because something is wrong, something happened and the insurance company is afraid it might happen again. So they raise your premiums. Does that make sense to you?

The only reason why people take out insurance is in the event they get sued they will not have to declare bankruptcy. The insurance companies know quite well why people get insurance policies, they weren't conned into covering anyone. The reason why people pay them is so that if/when they're sued they'll be covered, and here the insurance company comes along and starts charging them more. Is that not the exact reason why this person got insurance in the first place?!

If the insurance companies are afraid that he is reckless or negligent with his property and this caused someone to fall on his property, then what will it help by raising his premium? Someone else will fall and sue and the insurance company will have to pay for it, does the extra couple of dollars they're making off someone by raising their premiums really gonna make a difference when he's sued for a few million dollars? Or perhaps they're giving him a fine for being irresponsible/negligent with his property. But what authority do they have to do that?

Here's the catch. Being that people need insurance because they are afraid of being sued, the insurance company can do whatever they like, and people will pay out of fear of losing their coverage. Sort of like blackmail, no? What do you think?