Overdose of Vitamin C is good to prevent Sore throat and curing
cancer.
Sore throat is well proven by myself and others. At least it stopped
the monthly sore throat fever and regretted my son's tonsil removal.
Just before the onset of sore throat I usually take 2000mg non-acidic
Vitamin C. It stopped most of my sore throat. On the onset of fever,
can take 4000mg but once it failed. I had to take antibiotics.
Surprising to me also, is that Vitamin C also made my bleeding cut to
cure faster and with less pain. I tried 4000mg at that time.
I have just met a colleague who told me about his experience with his
sore throat. In his case, he also takes vitamin C only when necessary.
One other colleague takes 2000mg per day everyday for the past few
years. He didn't feel any side effect. This colleague also told of a
documentary TV shown in Beining about a person who uses Vitamin C to
cure cancer. Since I have a suspected tumour in my brain, I shall try
4000mg per day.
One famous bomoh, Ustaz Ku Othman, based on his expereince, he cured
himeself with a strict regime of diet consisting of limau kapas in the
morning and afternoon, as well as eating only boiled vegetables. When
he started the regime he was already blind because the tumour has
grown big. According to him, his tumour and mine is most probably due
to cholesterol. But according to my internet reading, cancer is less
frequent in people who eat less protein.
My teenage son is also on a 3000mg everyday Vitamin C diet to cure his
acute acne. My eldest suffered 3 months of antibiotic but once the
antibiotic stop, the acne returns. The other uses external antibiotic
but this also does not last long. Had to be augmented with external
poison. Vitamin C should be safer and is also almost as effective.
That colleague also told me about his mother who was cured for the
past 10 years of high blood pressure by taking Lecithin. This should
be cheap because it is derived from soya bean waste. It also contains
Omega3 which has to effect of increasing memory retention. We need a
lot of it, more than 10 capsules per day so it is better to take the
powdered form as recommended by one internet source.
Lecithin reduces bad cholesterol by increasing the effectiveness of
good cholesterol in removing fat deposits, but in the stomach, there
are carcinogens being produced as by-products of bacteria action. So
it is advisable to take Vitamin C as well.
So here you are, 2 magic supplements to prevent you from getting a
disease. Overdose of Vitamin C and lecithin.
The key is about 2000mg of Vitamin C per day. That colleague also told
me that while eating the same food, he didn't suffer from food
poisoning while his other colleagues suffer badly from food poisoning.
He is not selling any supplement to me and he is not gaining anything
by telling me this. Actually it was told to him by our famous private
doctor in Sandakan. That doctor himself takes Vitamin C also. Of
course, if more people take Vitamin C, he may lose his business.
Lecithin is something new to me. I have not started taking it.
Monday, 30 May 2011
The idiots talking about Sabah and Sarawak vs Anwar
Here is an idiot who pretends to know more about Sabah and Sarawak
compared to Anwar. Maybe Anwar may not know everything about Sabah and
Sarawak but at least he has more intelligence to respect facts and
figures.
To say that Muslims only account a small majority in Sabah shows
clearly how ignorant this Joe Fernandez is.
Is 60% really a small minority? Even in 1967, the Muslims already
account for 47% of the population in Sabah, and these include the
Dusuns and Muruts, and that was when illegal chinese immigrants was in
gaining in numbers.
As to the kadazans being a large group, if you notice their features,
you should notice that they are not purely Kadazans, but most of them
have chinese relatives.
To say also that all Malays in Sarawak are Bidayuh is also utterly
nonsense. There are true Malays in Sarawak, probably earlier than
Malays in Malaya but they were small in number so intermarry with
locals. Similarly in Brunei and Sabah. He should read more academic
books on this subject.
You can also interview some of these Malays.
Anwar shouldn't unilaterally decide on Sabah, S'wak CM
Joe Fernandez
| May 28, 2011
He dosen't seem to realise that people in Sabah and Sarawak prefer
their chief ministers to be elected by democratic means
COMMENT
De facto Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) chief Anwar Ibrahim attributes
his poor showing at the April 16 Sarawak state elections to, among
others, the idea of a Dayak chief minister.
Anwar was entertaining an online news portal's TV network earlier
this week on his monumental failures in Sarawak, as in Sabah earlier.
Like his equally naïve interviewers, he didn't seem to know whether he
was coming or going on Sarawak.
Anwar's take was that the Malays in Sarawak were put off by the idea
of a Dayak chief minister and refused to award even one seat to the
party.
He claimed that the minority Malays, only 20 per cent of Sarawak,
accused him of promoting the idea of a Dayak chief minister at their
expense. Anwar, it appears, tried to unsuccessfully reason with them
that the Dayaks were in a majority in Sarawak and therefore the chief
minister should come from that community.
For those unfamiliar, Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud is a
Melanau and therefore a Dayak.
The difference is that unlike the great majority of Dayaks who are
Christian if not pagan, Taib is a Muslim.
However, he has a Christian paternal grandfather and as many Christian
relatives as Muslim ones. He also avoided talking about Islam like the
plague since he knew that the Dayaks were watching him like a hawk.
Taib even blasted the recent seizure of bibles in Malay print in
Kuching as "stupid".
It was enough to secure the release of the bibles.
Interestingly, no Sarawak Malay has ever been chief minister of the
state.
All four chief ministers so far have been Dayak, Taib and his
predecessor and maternal uncle Abdul Rahman Yakub being Muslim, and
the first two being Christians i.e.
Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Penghulu Tawi Sli, both Iban Dayaks from
the Sarawak National Party (SNAP).
The Ibans, the biggest community in Sarawak, failed as chief
ministers, because of opposition from the other Dayak communities i.e.
Bidayuh, Orang Ulu and Melanau.
The Sarawak Malays are in no position to object to a chief minister on
the grounds that he's Dayak or a non-Muslim.
To digress a little, the Sarawak Malays are in fact Bidayuh living on
the coasts of the Kuching division and Ibans along the coast of the
other division who converted to Islam.
The Brooke dynasty referred to them as Malays after the fashion of the
colonial British who used it as an umbrella term to describe various
ethnic groups in Peninsular Malaysia.
Also, it's unlikely that the Dayaks will ever support the idea of a
Sarawak Malay being chief minister of the state. If one is thrust on
them, he won't last in the tumultuous politics of Dayak country.
It's more likely that a Sarawak chief minister would continue to come
from among the non-Iban Dayaks – the creed is not in question – and
this would ensure political stability in the state. If a Sarawak Malay
wants to be chief minister he should not deny his Dayak heritage.
PKR's emphasis on a Dayak CM, in any case, led to allegation among the
Sarawak Malays that such a candidate would turn the state into a
Christian one, according to Anwar.
The de facto PKR chief is like a "bull in a china shop" raising a
preposterous non-issue. He naively treads, like all Peninsular
Malaysians, where even devils and angels dare not.
Sarawak is Anwar's second monumental blunder in Malaysian Borneo after
Sabah.
In Sabah, Anwar thundered that there was no way he would have Jeffrey
Kitingan as the Sabah PKR chief". Jeffrey, who has many Musli
relatives, was accused openly by Anwar of being a racist and
harbouring a hidden Christian agenda, whatever that means.
Anwar was playing politics where he should not be doing so.
Jeffrey pushed for the idea that the Sabah PKR chief should be
democratically elected by the division chiefs and not appointed by the
party headquarters (read Anwar) in Kuala Lumpur.
Anwar would have none of it and wanted a Muslim to head Sabah PKR
although the majority of the members were non-Muslim Dusun, including
Kadazan (urban Dusun), and Murut.
Anwar's excuse is that the Muslims, no doubt the illegal immigrants
with MyKads included, were now in a slight majority in Sabah.
Baru Bian seen as stooge for Anwar
He decided unilaterally that the Sabah chief minister should be
Muslim.
He does not seem to realise that the local Muslims in Sabah were not a
homogenous community and were further divided into Dusun Muslim –
Ranau, Bisaya and Orang Sungei, among others – Bajau, Suluk, Brunei
Malay, Irranun, Banjar, and Cocos-Keeling, among others.
In "compensation", Anwar decided also unilaterally that the chief
minister of Sarawak would be Dayak and Christian.
He went on to appoint Baru Bian, an Orang Ulu Christian, as Sarawak
PKR chief.
No one in Sarawak accepts Baru because he was not elected but thrust
on the membership by the party headquarters (read Anwar).
That's one reason why PKR failed to interest the people of Sarawak on
April 16.
Baru was seen as a proxy and stooge for Anwar and Peninsular
Malaysians.
Jeffrey's stand in Sabah, meanwhile, was that if the division chiefs
in Sabah elected a Muslim head, so be it.
Anwar did not want to risk elections and deal with the possibility of
a non-Muslim head.
Eventually, Jeffrey left amidst accusations that he was the King of
Frogs, a label he has explained, and interested only in party posts
and positions and in being number one and chief minister.
Jeffrey's explanations that his politics was all about the people, the
issues, principles, policies and priorities, and not posts and
positions, were pooh-poohed by Anwar and drowned out by the propaganda
barrage from party headquarters.
Sabah Deputy Chief Minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan thinks that Anwar
made many promises to Jeffrey, all of which he had no intention of
keeping, made use of him to build up the party in Sabah and eventually
played him out.
If anyone is obsessed with the ethnicity and faith of the chief
ministers of Sabah and Sarawak respectively, it's politicians from
Peninsular Malaysia. They don't seem to realise that Peninsular
Malaysia – Malay, Chinese, Indian – is no political model for Sabah
and Sarawak.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak prefer the chief minister to be
elected by democratic means and decided by the respective governors in
accordance with the constitutional provisions. Any departure from this
would be an exercise in illegality, and ultimately, futility.
The current unease in Sabah over the post of chief ministeris is
wholly due to the fact that the candidate is appointed by Putrajaya
and not elected by the people in accordance with the state
constitution.
Also, Sabahans are no longer willing to tolerate a situation where a
candidate stays too long in the post. The idea is that the rotation of
the Sabah chief minister's post should be continued but every five
years and not two years as previously and by election. It's not known
whether the proponents want the chief minister's post to be confined
to Umno, an unacceptable idea, or rotated among the Barisan Nasional
component parties as until 2003. The local parties want in as well.
Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition alliance, and Anwar would do well to
take heed of the thinking on the ground of the people in Sabah and
Sarawak on the post of chief minister for their respective states. PKR
should allow only elected candidates to head the party's Sabah and
Sarawak chapters.
In that case, Jeffrey would probably be back with PKR in a wink, the
party is yet to accept his resignation, but not so much to wrest the
post of Sabah chief. Many feel that he should play the role of elder
statesman in Sabah and Sarawak for PKR and function as a de facto
chief. Jeffrey's return to PKR may help arrest the party's declining
fortunes in Sabah and Sarawak.
compared to Anwar. Maybe Anwar may not know everything about Sabah and
Sarawak but at least he has more intelligence to respect facts and
figures.
To say that Muslims only account a small majority in Sabah shows
clearly how ignorant this Joe Fernandez is.
Is 60% really a small minority? Even in 1967, the Muslims already
account for 47% of the population in Sabah, and these include the
Dusuns and Muruts, and that was when illegal chinese immigrants was in
gaining in numbers.
As to the kadazans being a large group, if you notice their features,
you should notice that they are not purely Kadazans, but most of them
have chinese relatives.
To say also that all Malays in Sarawak are Bidayuh is also utterly
nonsense. There are true Malays in Sarawak, probably earlier than
Malays in Malaya but they were small in number so intermarry with
locals. Similarly in Brunei and Sabah. He should read more academic
books on this subject.
You can also interview some of these Malays.
Anwar shouldn't unilaterally decide on Sabah, S'wak CM
Joe Fernandez
| May 28, 2011
He dosen't seem to realise that people in Sabah and Sarawak prefer
their chief ministers to be elected by democratic means
COMMENT
De facto Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) chief Anwar Ibrahim attributes
his poor showing at the April 16 Sarawak state elections to, among
others, the idea of a Dayak chief minister.
Anwar was entertaining an online news portal's TV network earlier
this week on his monumental failures in Sarawak, as in Sabah earlier.
Like his equally naïve interviewers, he didn't seem to know whether he
was coming or going on Sarawak.
Anwar's take was that the Malays in Sarawak were put off by the idea
of a Dayak chief minister and refused to award even one seat to the
party.
He claimed that the minority Malays, only 20 per cent of Sarawak,
accused him of promoting the idea of a Dayak chief minister at their
expense. Anwar, it appears, tried to unsuccessfully reason with them
that the Dayaks were in a majority in Sarawak and therefore the chief
minister should come from that community.
For those unfamiliar, Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud is a
Melanau and therefore a Dayak.
The difference is that unlike the great majority of Dayaks who are
Christian if not pagan, Taib is a Muslim.
However, he has a Christian paternal grandfather and as many Christian
relatives as Muslim ones. He also avoided talking about Islam like the
plague since he knew that the Dayaks were watching him like a hawk.
Taib even blasted the recent seizure of bibles in Malay print in
Kuching as "stupid".
It was enough to secure the release of the bibles.
Interestingly, no Sarawak Malay has ever been chief minister of the
state.
All four chief ministers so far have been Dayak, Taib and his
predecessor and maternal uncle Abdul Rahman Yakub being Muslim, and
the first two being Christians i.e.
Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Penghulu Tawi Sli, both Iban Dayaks from
the Sarawak National Party (SNAP).
The Ibans, the biggest community in Sarawak, failed as chief
ministers, because of opposition from the other Dayak communities i.e.
Bidayuh, Orang Ulu and Melanau.
The Sarawak Malays are in no position to object to a chief minister on
the grounds that he's Dayak or a non-Muslim.
To digress a little, the Sarawak Malays are in fact Bidayuh living on
the coasts of the Kuching division and Ibans along the coast of the
other division who converted to Islam.
The Brooke dynasty referred to them as Malays after the fashion of the
colonial British who used it as an umbrella term to describe various
ethnic groups in Peninsular Malaysia.
Also, it's unlikely that the Dayaks will ever support the idea of a
Sarawak Malay being chief minister of the state. If one is thrust on
them, he won't last in the tumultuous politics of Dayak country.
It's more likely that a Sarawak chief minister would continue to come
from among the non-Iban Dayaks – the creed is not in question – and
this would ensure political stability in the state. If a Sarawak Malay
wants to be chief minister he should not deny his Dayak heritage.
PKR's emphasis on a Dayak CM, in any case, led to allegation among the
Sarawak Malays that such a candidate would turn the state into a
Christian one, according to Anwar.
The de facto PKR chief is like a "bull in a china shop" raising a
preposterous non-issue. He naively treads, like all Peninsular
Malaysians, where even devils and angels dare not.
Sarawak is Anwar's second monumental blunder in Malaysian Borneo after
Sabah.
In Sabah, Anwar thundered that there was no way he would have Jeffrey
Kitingan as the Sabah PKR chief". Jeffrey, who has many Musli
relatives, was accused openly by Anwar of being a racist and
harbouring a hidden Christian agenda, whatever that means.
Anwar was playing politics where he should not be doing so.
Jeffrey pushed for the idea that the Sabah PKR chief should be
democratically elected by the division chiefs and not appointed by the
party headquarters (read Anwar) in Kuala Lumpur.
Anwar would have none of it and wanted a Muslim to head Sabah PKR
although the majority of the members were non-Muslim Dusun, including
Kadazan (urban Dusun), and Murut.
Anwar's excuse is that the Muslims, no doubt the illegal immigrants
with MyKads included, were now in a slight majority in Sabah.
Baru Bian seen as stooge for Anwar
He decided unilaterally that the Sabah chief minister should be
Muslim.
He does not seem to realise that the local Muslims in Sabah were not a
homogenous community and were further divided into Dusun Muslim –
Ranau, Bisaya and Orang Sungei, among others – Bajau, Suluk, Brunei
Malay, Irranun, Banjar, and Cocos-Keeling, among others.
In "compensation", Anwar decided also unilaterally that the chief
minister of Sarawak would be Dayak and Christian.
He went on to appoint Baru Bian, an Orang Ulu Christian, as Sarawak
PKR chief.
No one in Sarawak accepts Baru because he was not elected but thrust
on the membership by the party headquarters (read Anwar).
That's one reason why PKR failed to interest the people of Sarawak on
April 16.
Baru was seen as a proxy and stooge for Anwar and Peninsular
Malaysians.
Jeffrey's stand in Sabah, meanwhile, was that if the division chiefs
in Sabah elected a Muslim head, so be it.
Anwar did not want to risk elections and deal with the possibility of
a non-Muslim head.
Eventually, Jeffrey left amidst accusations that he was the King of
Frogs, a label he has explained, and interested only in party posts
and positions and in being number one and chief minister.
Jeffrey's explanations that his politics was all about the people, the
issues, principles, policies and priorities, and not posts and
positions, were pooh-poohed by Anwar and drowned out by the propaganda
barrage from party headquarters.
Sabah Deputy Chief Minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan thinks that Anwar
made many promises to Jeffrey, all of which he had no intention of
keeping, made use of him to build up the party in Sabah and eventually
played him out.
If anyone is obsessed with the ethnicity and faith of the chief
ministers of Sabah and Sarawak respectively, it's politicians from
Peninsular Malaysia. They don't seem to realise that Peninsular
Malaysia – Malay, Chinese, Indian – is no political model for Sabah
and Sarawak.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak prefer the chief minister to be
elected by democratic means and decided by the respective governors in
accordance with the constitutional provisions. Any departure from this
would be an exercise in illegality, and ultimately, futility.
The current unease in Sabah over the post of chief ministeris is
wholly due to the fact that the candidate is appointed by Putrajaya
and not elected by the people in accordance with the state
constitution.
Also, Sabahans are no longer willing to tolerate a situation where a
candidate stays too long in the post. The idea is that the rotation of
the Sabah chief minister's post should be continued but every five
years and not two years as previously and by election. It's not known
whether the proponents want the chief minister's post to be confined
to Umno, an unacceptable idea, or rotated among the Barisan Nasional
component parties as until 2003. The local parties want in as well.
Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition alliance, and Anwar would do well to
take heed of the thinking on the ground of the people in Sabah and
Sarawak on the post of chief minister for their respective states. PKR
should allow only elected candidates to head the party's Sabah and
Sarawak chapters.
In that case, Jeffrey would probably be back with PKR in a wink, the
party is yet to accept his resignation, but not so much to wrest the
post of Sabah chief. Many feel that he should play the role of elder
statesman in Sabah and Sarawak for PKR and function as a de facto
chief. Jeffrey's return to PKR may help arrest the party's declining
fortunes in Sabah and Sarawak.
6 million less Jews in Israel if Palestine is stronger?
"The Israeli general asked him a very sobering question: If the
Palestinians had the Israelis' military capability and vice versa,
what would happen? After a brief pause, the official said, "I guess
there would be six million fewer Jews in the region.""
Using this GUESS, a former US diplomat concludes that there will be 6
million Jews if Palestine were more powerful than Jewish Israel!!!
This is all a falacy and not backed up by any single fact in the past
and in the immediate future.
The FACTS are very clear:
1. There ARE 6 MILLION FEWER ARABS in Israel NOW, when JEWS were and
ARE strong in Israel.
2. The ARABS had never been stronger than JEWS, in the PAST AND
FORESEEABLE FUTURE. Especially TINY PALESTINIAN ARABS.
When FACTS are ignored by US diplomats in favour of FALLACIES, there
will be no peace at all.
The SOLUTIONS IS VERY SIMPLE: DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL, not JUST
FOR JEWS.
1. Return all Israeli Arabs to their native land in ISRAEL and grant
them voting rights. Then there is no reason for them to do suicide
bombing or as it is now getting popular, SUICIDE DEMONSTRATIONS.
2. DO NOT ASSUME THAT PEOPLE ARE GUILTY FIRST, and then proven
innocent, like OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Arafat and HAMAS. US and Jewish Israelis are more terrorists than
these FREEDOM FIGHTERS ARE and YET they don't want to sign the ICJ
agreements. Prove that US and Israel are not TERRORISTS BY submitting
THEMSELVES to the ICJ.
Obama's speech on Middle East was most perfect
By Mark Paredes
Deseret News
Published: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:12 a.m. MDT
From my perspective, this has been a great month for President Obama's
Middle East policies.
First, the Navy Seals dispatched Osama bin Laden to the depths of the
Indian Ocean, then the president slapped personal sanctions on the
thugs ruling Syria, which was a step that no other president has had
the guts to do.
More kudos are due to President Obama for delivering a 5,450-word
speech on the Middle East on Thursday that was almost perfect.
These actions were all courageous ones, and one can only hope that
they portend decisive American engagement with the region.
The president began his address by highlighting the impending
withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever one
thinks of the wars that we have waged in those countries (I supported
both of them), this is a positive development, especially in the case
of Iraq. As for Afghanistan, a gradual reduction in U.S. forces is the
only way to see whether Afghan President Hamid Karzai can actually
impose his will on an area larger than his palace.
After lauding the courage of protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iran
and Yemen, the president observed that "through the moral force of non-
violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six
months than terrorists have accomplished in decades."
Needless to say, there were lots of target audiences for that
statement in the region.
The president was careful both to make his case for intervening in
Libya and to remind his listeners that the U.S. "cannot prevent every
injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people…We have learned
from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to
impose regime change by force."
It bears repeating again: Every country in the Middle East needs a
U.S. policy that is tailored to its unique history, demographics and
power dynamics. A one-size-fits-all approach to protests and uprisings
is most unwise. Well said, Mr. President.
After imposing unprecedented personal sanctions on Syrian President
Bashar Assad, President Obama told Assad that he had two choices: lead
a transition to democracy or leave office. My guess is that Assad will
choose the third option of continuing to murder his people, but it was
refreshing to hear an American president dispense with the illusion
that the Syrian government is a potential partner for peace.
More than a few eyebrows raised when the president singled out
regional ally Bahrain for criticism. Not only did the Bahraini ruling
family use brutality to put down the protests by the Shiite majority,
but it did so with the help of Saudi soldiers. Surely the corrupt al-
Saud family in Riyadh felt just as targeted as their feckless Bahraini
counterparts did by Obama's broadside. I only wish that the president
had mentioned the Saudis by name when he spoke of the crying need for
women's rights to be respected in the Middle East.
In a laudable effort to support the new governments in Egypt and
Tunisia and to offer encouragement to protesters in other countries in
the region, the U.S. will offer them significant financial support in
conjunction with the World Bank, IMF and other countries. Let us hope
that this aid will produce stable democracies in those countries.
The president must also be praised for demanding that Coptic
Christians in Egypt be accorded the right to worship freely.
Christians continue to be persecuted and harassed throughout the
region, yet few religious leaders mention their plight. As a result,
many Christians are leaving historically Christian cities like
Bethlehem and Nazareth, both of which now have Muslim majorities.
Had President Obama ended his talk there, he would have delivered the
most detailed and comprehensive speech on the Middle East in recent
memory. However, he made the mistake of ending the talk with a
lamentable analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that showed he
does not really understand it.
I'm not sure that there was a need to mention Israelis and
Palestinians in the talk, but if he was going to do it, he should have
reflected more on the lessons of the failed Oslo process.
Jews who vilify President Obama for his positions on Israel have it
wrong as well. I do not believe for a second that he intends to sell
out Israel or compromise its security. It's just that Jews have been
spoiled by 16 years of Clinton and Bush II, both of whom had a special
place in their hearts for Israel.
Like Bush I, President Obama does not get misty-eyed when he talks
about the country. In all likelihood, he regards it as an important
ally that must be defended, but it does not tug at his heart strings.
Given the president's background, there's no reason that it should.
To be sure, there were plenty of positive statements in the speech in
support of Israel. The president noted that "antagonism toward Israel
became the only acceptable outlet for political expression" under the
region's authoritarian rulers; expressed his uneasiness with the
recent Hamas-Fatah pact; called on Palestinians not to take unilateral
steps towards statehood and condemned Hamas's terrorism.
Unfortunately, all of these positives are outweighed in many circles
by his call for the borders of Israel and "Palestine" to be based on
the pre-Six-Day War borders of 1967. As Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu told the president to his face, this proposal is
simply unworkable.
Mr. President, the problem is not the plan.
As Israel has shown with Egypt and Jordan, the details of peace
agreements can be worked out when there is trust on both sides. The
problem here is with who is sitting on the Palestinian side. For years
Bill Clinton's naÏve advisors told him that if he just came up with
the right formula and invited the terrorist Yasser Arafat to the White
House enough times, there would be peace in our time.
More sensible people knew from the beginning that as long as a
terrorist was sitting on the other side of the table, there would
never be peace. The compromises that Israel is being asked to make are
almost all permanent in nature (e.g., land), while the Palestinians
are only asked to make statements and promises that can be retracted
at will. Right now the Palestinian representatives are a weak,
illegitimate president whose term expired more than two years ago and
the terrorist group Hamas. Would the U.S. negotiate away land to them
if they were our neighbors?
President Obama did well to observe that "everyone knows … a lasting
peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish
state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of
Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state
enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace."
The problem is that no one, certainly not their Palestinian
counterparts, can guarantee the Israelis that their state will be left
in peace after the ink is dry.
In a remarkable and little-noted statement, the president called for a
"non-militarized" Palestinian state. (No Arab leader wants a
militarized Palestinian state, but it was refreshing to hear this come
from the mouth of a U.S. president.) The reason for this statement is
precisely the reason that negotiations to establish a Palestinian
state are useless right now.
During a briefing given to a senior State Department official and me
(the note taker) by the Israeli Army's Head of Research some years
ago, the official remarked that he was profoundly troubled by what he
was hearing, which seemed to suggest that murderous anti-Semitism was
alive and well in the region.
The Israeli general asked him a very sobering question: If the
Palestinians had the Israelis' military capability and vice versa,
what would happen? After a brief pause, the official said, "I guess
there would be six million fewer Jews in the region."
The president is only kidding himself if he believes that the answer
has changed in the intervening years. Until it does, there is no point
in talking peace, regardless of the plan.
Mark Paredes served as a U.S. diplomat in Israel and Mexico, blogs for
the Jewish Journal, and will begin leading tours to Israel next year
for Morris Murdock Travel. He can be reached at
deverareligione@yahoo.com.
Palestinians had the Israelis' military capability and vice versa,
what would happen? After a brief pause, the official said, "I guess
there would be six million fewer Jews in the region.""
Using this GUESS, a former US diplomat concludes that there will be 6
million Jews if Palestine were more powerful than Jewish Israel!!!
This is all a falacy and not backed up by any single fact in the past
and in the immediate future.
The FACTS are very clear:
1. There ARE 6 MILLION FEWER ARABS in Israel NOW, when JEWS were and
ARE strong in Israel.
2. The ARABS had never been stronger than JEWS, in the PAST AND
FORESEEABLE FUTURE. Especially TINY PALESTINIAN ARABS.
When FACTS are ignored by US diplomats in favour of FALLACIES, there
will be no peace at all.
The SOLUTIONS IS VERY SIMPLE: DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL, not JUST
FOR JEWS.
1. Return all Israeli Arabs to their native land in ISRAEL and grant
them voting rights. Then there is no reason for them to do suicide
bombing or as it is now getting popular, SUICIDE DEMONSTRATIONS.
2. DO NOT ASSUME THAT PEOPLE ARE GUILTY FIRST, and then proven
innocent, like OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Arafat and HAMAS. US and Jewish Israelis are more terrorists than
these FREEDOM FIGHTERS ARE and YET they don't want to sign the ICJ
agreements. Prove that US and Israel are not TERRORISTS BY submitting
THEMSELVES to the ICJ.
Obama's speech on Middle East was most perfect
By Mark Paredes
Deseret News
Published: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:12 a.m. MDT
From my perspective, this has been a great month for President Obama's
Middle East policies.
First, the Navy Seals dispatched Osama bin Laden to the depths of the
Indian Ocean, then the president slapped personal sanctions on the
thugs ruling Syria, which was a step that no other president has had
the guts to do.
More kudos are due to President Obama for delivering a 5,450-word
speech on the Middle East on Thursday that was almost perfect.
These actions were all courageous ones, and one can only hope that
they portend decisive American engagement with the region.
The president began his address by highlighting the impending
withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever one
thinks of the wars that we have waged in those countries (I supported
both of them), this is a positive development, especially in the case
of Iraq. As for Afghanistan, a gradual reduction in U.S. forces is the
only way to see whether Afghan President Hamid Karzai can actually
impose his will on an area larger than his palace.
After lauding the courage of protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iran
and Yemen, the president observed that "through the moral force of non-
violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six
months than terrorists have accomplished in decades."
Needless to say, there were lots of target audiences for that
statement in the region.
The president was careful both to make his case for intervening in
Libya and to remind his listeners that the U.S. "cannot prevent every
injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people…We have learned
from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to
impose regime change by force."
It bears repeating again: Every country in the Middle East needs a
U.S. policy that is tailored to its unique history, demographics and
power dynamics. A one-size-fits-all approach to protests and uprisings
is most unwise. Well said, Mr. President.
After imposing unprecedented personal sanctions on Syrian President
Bashar Assad, President Obama told Assad that he had two choices: lead
a transition to democracy or leave office. My guess is that Assad will
choose the third option of continuing to murder his people, but it was
refreshing to hear an American president dispense with the illusion
that the Syrian government is a potential partner for peace.
More than a few eyebrows raised when the president singled out
regional ally Bahrain for criticism. Not only did the Bahraini ruling
family use brutality to put down the protests by the Shiite majority,
but it did so with the help of Saudi soldiers. Surely the corrupt al-
Saud family in Riyadh felt just as targeted as their feckless Bahraini
counterparts did by Obama's broadside. I only wish that the president
had mentioned the Saudis by name when he spoke of the crying need for
women's rights to be respected in the Middle East.
In a laudable effort to support the new governments in Egypt and
Tunisia and to offer encouragement to protesters in other countries in
the region, the U.S. will offer them significant financial support in
conjunction with the World Bank, IMF and other countries. Let us hope
that this aid will produce stable democracies in those countries.
The president must also be praised for demanding that Coptic
Christians in Egypt be accorded the right to worship freely.
Christians continue to be persecuted and harassed throughout the
region, yet few religious leaders mention their plight. As a result,
many Christians are leaving historically Christian cities like
Bethlehem and Nazareth, both of which now have Muslim majorities.
Had President Obama ended his talk there, he would have delivered the
most detailed and comprehensive speech on the Middle East in recent
memory. However, he made the mistake of ending the talk with a
lamentable analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that showed he
does not really understand it.
I'm not sure that there was a need to mention Israelis and
Palestinians in the talk, but if he was going to do it, he should have
reflected more on the lessons of the failed Oslo process.
Jews who vilify President Obama for his positions on Israel have it
wrong as well. I do not believe for a second that he intends to sell
out Israel or compromise its security. It's just that Jews have been
spoiled by 16 years of Clinton and Bush II, both of whom had a special
place in their hearts for Israel.
Like Bush I, President Obama does not get misty-eyed when he talks
about the country. In all likelihood, he regards it as an important
ally that must be defended, but it does not tug at his heart strings.
Given the president's background, there's no reason that it should.
To be sure, there were plenty of positive statements in the speech in
support of Israel. The president noted that "antagonism toward Israel
became the only acceptable outlet for political expression" under the
region's authoritarian rulers; expressed his uneasiness with the
recent Hamas-Fatah pact; called on Palestinians not to take unilateral
steps towards statehood and condemned Hamas's terrorism.
Unfortunately, all of these positives are outweighed in many circles
by his call for the borders of Israel and "Palestine" to be based on
the pre-Six-Day War borders of 1967. As Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu told the president to his face, this proposal is
simply unworkable.
Mr. President, the problem is not the plan.
As Israel has shown with Egypt and Jordan, the details of peace
agreements can be worked out when there is trust on both sides. The
problem here is with who is sitting on the Palestinian side. For years
Bill Clinton's naÏve advisors told him that if he just came up with
the right formula and invited the terrorist Yasser Arafat to the White
House enough times, there would be peace in our time.
More sensible people knew from the beginning that as long as a
terrorist was sitting on the other side of the table, there would
never be peace. The compromises that Israel is being asked to make are
almost all permanent in nature (e.g., land), while the Palestinians
are only asked to make statements and promises that can be retracted
at will. Right now the Palestinian representatives are a weak,
illegitimate president whose term expired more than two years ago and
the terrorist group Hamas. Would the U.S. negotiate away land to them
if they were our neighbors?
President Obama did well to observe that "everyone knows … a lasting
peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish
state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of
Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state
enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace."
The problem is that no one, certainly not their Palestinian
counterparts, can guarantee the Israelis that their state will be left
in peace after the ink is dry.
In a remarkable and little-noted statement, the president called for a
"non-militarized" Palestinian state. (No Arab leader wants a
militarized Palestinian state, but it was refreshing to hear this come
from the mouth of a U.S. president.) The reason for this statement is
precisely the reason that negotiations to establish a Palestinian
state are useless right now.
During a briefing given to a senior State Department official and me
(the note taker) by the Israeli Army's Head of Research some years
ago, the official remarked that he was profoundly troubled by what he
was hearing, which seemed to suggest that murderous anti-Semitism was
alive and well in the region.
The Israeli general asked him a very sobering question: If the
Palestinians had the Israelis' military capability and vice versa,
what would happen? After a brief pause, the official said, "I guess
there would be six million fewer Jews in the region."
The president is only kidding himself if he believes that the answer
has changed in the intervening years. Until it does, there is no point
in talking peace, regardless of the plan.
Mark Paredes served as a U.S. diplomat in Israel and Mexico, blogs for
the Jewish Journal, and will begin leading tours to Israel next year
for Morris Murdock Travel. He can be reached at
deverareligione@yahoo.com.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Sugar is very important for survival
I had just experienced a dehydration bout that I used to suffer on the
first day of my fasting month, except that it was not a fasting month.
I only skipped sugary drinks. I though plenty of water, fruits can
make up for the loss of sugar. I skipped my breakfast of Vico drink,
coffee morning break, coffee afternoon break, replacing them with just
plain water and chicken broth soup during lunch. My lunch was
vegetarian. Yesterday was the first time that I skipped my sugary
drinks but the aim was not to skip sugar but to avoid milk or any
cholesterol inducing food and anything that is rich in protein. I am
trying to control my fat and protein intake because my blood has a
high concentration of uric acid and cholesterol. I also took anti-
gastric pill in the morning and hacks sweets to control my sore
throat.
The whole day, I was not feeling well. I thought it was due to my sore
throat. Just before dinner, I drank water, took 3000 mg of acid-free
vitamin C and 3 slices of pineapple. After crunching 2 pieces of Hacks
sweets, I felt more head ache, as though I was fasting, and wanted to
vomit. I tried to eat rice with boiled fish with vegetable but by that
time I vomit the vegetables. I started taking 10 tablets of 5mg
Vitamin b6 which is good for curing the feeling of nausea but it
failed to quickly cure me. I tried one packet of dehydration salt. My
nausea slowly disappears. I also took another 400mg anti-gastric pill.
I went to sleep without finishing my dinner.
This morning, I woke up feeling normal. No sense of hunger despite
skipping my dinner. So I start taking Vico without the milk. For
morning break, I took Teh O, tea without milk, only sugar. Yesterday,
it cannot be the 3000 mg acid-free Vitamin C or lots of Hacks sweets
because I had done this before without any side effects. the only
change was the skipping of sugary drinks during breaks.
My habit during the fasting month is also similar to yesterday's
experience. I don't take sweets during Sahur, the early morning,
before the fasting day. Of course, in my younger days, I don't
experience any problem at all. Problems started after my ages exceed
the mid 40s.
I used to think that tea breaks are just a waste of time. I only did
it because I was used to it since I was young. My mother prepared
sweet drinks for us in the morning and afternoon. It is not the coffee
or tea or whatever beverages that we choose. It is the sugar. My
colleague told me that he keeps sugar and salt in his office and will
take it when he felt uncomfortable. I should start implementing this
practise. So tea or coffee breaks are vital for human beings, despite
some efforts to remove breaks during work. It is inhuman to prevent
humans from taking their required nourishment while working.
first day of my fasting month, except that it was not a fasting month.
I only skipped sugary drinks. I though plenty of water, fruits can
make up for the loss of sugar. I skipped my breakfast of Vico drink,
coffee morning break, coffee afternoon break, replacing them with just
plain water and chicken broth soup during lunch. My lunch was
vegetarian. Yesterday was the first time that I skipped my sugary
drinks but the aim was not to skip sugar but to avoid milk or any
cholesterol inducing food and anything that is rich in protein. I am
trying to control my fat and protein intake because my blood has a
high concentration of uric acid and cholesterol. I also took anti-
gastric pill in the morning and hacks sweets to control my sore
throat.
The whole day, I was not feeling well. I thought it was due to my sore
throat. Just before dinner, I drank water, took 3000 mg of acid-free
vitamin C and 3 slices of pineapple. After crunching 2 pieces of Hacks
sweets, I felt more head ache, as though I was fasting, and wanted to
vomit. I tried to eat rice with boiled fish with vegetable but by that
time I vomit the vegetables. I started taking 10 tablets of 5mg
Vitamin b6 which is good for curing the feeling of nausea but it
failed to quickly cure me. I tried one packet of dehydration salt. My
nausea slowly disappears. I also took another 400mg anti-gastric pill.
I went to sleep without finishing my dinner.
This morning, I woke up feeling normal. No sense of hunger despite
skipping my dinner. So I start taking Vico without the milk. For
morning break, I took Teh O, tea without milk, only sugar. Yesterday,
it cannot be the 3000 mg acid-free Vitamin C or lots of Hacks sweets
because I had done this before without any side effects. the only
change was the skipping of sugary drinks during breaks.
My habit during the fasting month is also similar to yesterday's
experience. I don't take sweets during Sahur, the early morning,
before the fasting day. Of course, in my younger days, I don't
experience any problem at all. Problems started after my ages exceed
the mid 40s.
I used to think that tea breaks are just a waste of time. I only did
it because I was used to it since I was young. My mother prepared
sweet drinks for us in the morning and afternoon. It is not the coffee
or tea or whatever beverages that we choose. It is the sugar. My
colleague told me that he keeps sugar and salt in his office and will
take it when he felt uncomfortable. I should start implementing this
practise. So tea or coffee breaks are vital for human beings, despite
some efforts to remove breaks during work. It is inhuman to prevent
humans from taking their required nourishment while working.
Re: Zero energy travel is our god given right
On May 11, 8:03 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
Re: Zero energy travel is our god given right
On May 11, 8:03 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
Re: Zero energy travel is our god given right
On May 11, 8:03 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
>
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
>
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
>
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
> works.
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
frictional losses.
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
Energy recovery.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
doing it.
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
travel.
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
transatlantic tunnel.
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
100%, theoretically.
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
>
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
>
> Two reasons -
>
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
>
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
>
> Outstanding....
>
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
>
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> humiliated.
>
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
>
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
>
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
>
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
>
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
>
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
>
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
>
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
>
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
>
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.
Thursday, 12 May 2011
Experiments on Zero energy travel
Zeroenergytravelexperiment:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zero_energy.gif
Zeroenergytransatlantictravel:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zero_energy_transatlantic.jpg..
Similar to the above experiment but intercontinental.
We can still do it in our cities. The chinese have started building
these vacuum tube trains. For more information refer to Wikipedia:
Vactrain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
Zeroenergytransatlantictravel:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zero_energy_transatlantic.jpg..
Similar to the above experiment but intercontinental.
We can still do it in our cities. The chinese have started building
these vacuum tube trains. For more information refer to Wikipedia:
Vactrain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Zero energy travel is our god given right
We do not need exotic physics to travel from one place to another with
zero energy. Newton's and Faraday's laws guarantee us this right. My
colleagues disagree with me. It is even strange that we can move
objects with zero energy but we still need energy to communicate or to
think(intelligence). This may appear as a paradox but it could be due
to the fact that I still do not know ways to communicate and think
with zero energy unlike travelling.
The technology to achieve this is already available. Superconducting
generators will achieve 99.5% conversion efficiency. Vacuum tube
trains are being developed. Capital costs may be high but after that,
the running cost will be very low, unlike Air Travel. I still have not
found ways to travel in the air with zero energy cost. This fact will
become significant as energy resources become more expensive. It is
ironic that Air Travel has become dominant because it uses the least
amount of energy due to the low air frictiion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
is a good survey site for more information about researches into
vacuum tube trains but all of them miss the zero energy aspect of
their designs. Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact. I
have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
publications. The technical level of this zero energy travel is so low
that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
but they seem to be so slow. I shall be presenting a poster in our
innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
of zero energy travel took off.
I only use energy conservation laws to prove the concept of zero
energy for travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist. I feel disappointed
that the aspect of zero energy travel is not explained in engineering
and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
If for whatever reason, I fail to publish this zero energy travel
explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle our energy just as
we have to recycle our water.
zero energy. Newton's and Faraday's laws guarantee us this right. My
colleagues disagree with me. It is even strange that we can move
objects with zero energy but we still need energy to communicate or to
think(intelligence). This may appear as a paradox but it could be due
to the fact that I still do not know ways to communicate and think
with zero energy unlike travelling.
The technology to achieve this is already available. Superconducting
generators will achieve 99.5% conversion efficiency. Vacuum tube
trains are being developed. Capital costs may be high but after that,
the running cost will be very low, unlike Air Travel. I still have not
found ways to travel in the air with zero energy cost. This fact will
become significant as energy resources become more expensive. It is
ironic that Air Travel has become dominant because it uses the least
amount of energy due to the low air frictiion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
is a good survey site for more information about researches into
vacuum tube trains but all of them miss the zero energy aspect of
their designs. Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact. I
have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
publications. The technical level of this zero energy travel is so low
that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
but they seem to be so slow. I shall be presenting a poster in our
innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
of zero energy travel took off.
I only use energy conservation laws to prove the concept of zero
energy for travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist. I feel disappointed
that the aspect of zero energy travel is not explained in engineering
and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
If for whatever reason, I fail to publish this zero energy travel
explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle our energy just as
we have to recycle our water.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
OSAMA was killed because he is innocent
It is ironic that because he is innocent that he has to pay for it
with his life, while some, obviously guilty like Gadafi and Assad, are
allowed to live happily ever after.
Osama may be guilty for supporting the 9/11 suicide bombers but that
does not make him a murderer. If he were a murderer, then many other
Muslims are also murderers, as so are many US a nd western supporters
of the murderous Jewish Israeli soldiers.
Is Osama guilty of ORDERING suicide bombers to attack USA? These are
voluntary soldiers that are willing to sacrifice themselves. They are
not ordered against their own free will. They are not even paid. How
can they enjoy the money paid to them? The stupid jewish propaganda
that these suicide bombers are paid money to their mothers are just
nonsense. Is there any mother who would prefer money over their dead
sons, who can earn much more if they are alive, or sold as slaves,
rather than dying? Only sick minds will consider such actions.
To explain the reasons is to explain why the American passengers
decided to to fight to the death to stop the aeroplane from hitting
the white house. They know that they will die anyway, so why should
they bother about dying? It is just a standard human reaction. If they
know that their fight is useless, they don't mind dying.
A very interesting comment by the reporter who interviewed Osama for a
few times. He is surprised to have been called a Muslim for his honest
reporting. This is actually a standard Muslim practise and comment but
utterly alien to the westerners. For Muslims, the teaching of Islam is
not unique to Muslims. Even non-Muslims, are capable of practising the
standard practise of Muslims and will be rewarded in the hereafter.
You don't need to be a follower of Muhammad to be granted heaven, or
to be called Muslims.
Not only Osama, who has been saying these things(treating high
integrity westerners as Muslims), but also my friends, which I
believe, is a result of our Muslim upbringing. This may be alien to
the Christian or Buddism or Hinduism, but it does not mean that Islam
has to be similar to them.
As to Obama being innocent. There are 20 US soldiers versus only about
4 from AlQaedah, including Osama. All are dead, not even a single
witness. There are even reports that Osama is not even armed. One
report suggested that he was trying to take a gun. Come on, the
fighting had been going on for a few minutes. Why should he try to
look for a gun just before he was shot?
Maybe Osama was also brainwashed by the movies that he used to see as
a teenager, of Western soldiers who will not kill unarmed villains, no
matter what the cost in their lives are. They was just movies after
all. Osama is not even a villain. He is not in the same class as
Hitler. Osama has never ordered people to kill. Suicide bombers are
not soldiers who are ordered.
Gadafi and Hitler ordered soldiers, paid with money for daily expenses
and luxuries, to kill on their behalf. The mercenaries in Libya now
are just as innocent as the German soldiers in the 2nd world war. The
guilty ones are Hitler and Gadafi.They should be the one who should be
killed in order to save countless innocent lives, the Western Allies
as well as the Axis soldiers. The stupid western governments keep on
repeating the same mistake. Killing the mercenaries and paid soldiers
of Gadafi while allowing Gadafi scot free.
On the other hand, killing an unarmed, non-violent Osama. Osama has
not even threatened western lives. He only advised them that they will
get what they did onto others, i.e. death and destruction, by the
victims of the western atrocities, in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and
Iraq. Western governments may not be atrocious but by supporting
atrocious leaders like Mubarak, Gadafi and Sadam, they are just as
guilty.
Muslims, as well as Osama, are just as confused as to who are the real
innocents. But if someone feels that they are willing to die for
revenge against atrocities committed against their people, the
Palestinians or Iraqis, who are we to judge against them. It is like
judging the suicidal US passengers who tried to stop the plane from
crashing the white house and thus kill more innocent lives that are
not even related to them, apart from just being US citizens.
Similarly for the Saudi citizens, flying the jets into the twin
towers. They are fighting for their Muslim comrades in Palestine who
are suffering under the Jewish Israeli regimes, strongly supported by
the US government, although t hey are not related to the Palestinians.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135980620/on-whether-bin-laden-war-armed-heres-what-officials-said
On Whether Bin Laden Was Armed, Here's What Officials Said
Categories: War, National News, Security, Foreign News
08:25 am
May 4, 2011
* Twitter
* Facebook
* E-mail
* Share
o Stumble Upon
o Reddit
o Linkedin
o Digg
What is this?
Share
* Print
* Comments (0)
* Recommend (0)
by Mark Memmott
In the first few hours after the world learned that U.S. forces had
killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, most news reports said he had
been involved in the firefight at his compound in Abbottabad,
Pakistan, and at least implied that he was armed when he died.
Osama bin Laden.
Enlarge Anonymous/The Associated Press
Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden.
Anonymous/The Associated Press
Osama bin Laden.
And it was said that a woman on the scene had been used as a human
shield.
By Monday evening, as more details emerged, it was being reported
(including by The Two-Way) that bin Laden likely did not fire a weapon
in the last moments of his life and that the woman who was killed
likely was not a human shield and died in crossfire.
Now seems like a good time to go through the transcripts to see just
what has been said:
— Sunday, 11:35 p.m. ET: President Obama addresses the nation and says
"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted
operation. ... A small team of Americans carried out the operation
with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed.
They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they
killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
— Monday, 12:03 a.m. ET: "Senior administration officials" brief
reporters. One says that bin Laden "did resist the assault force. And
he was killed in a firefight." He also says that "one woman was killed
when she was used as a shield by a male combatant."
— Monday, 2 p.m. ET: John Brennan, the president's top
counterterrorism adviser, tells reporters that bin Laden "was engaged
in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was
in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't
know." Brennan also says "there was a female who was in fact in the
line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield bin Laden
from the incoming fire."
— Tuesday, 1:57 p.m. ET: White House spokesman Jay Carney, during his
daily briefing, says "there was concern that bin Laden would oppose
the capture operation — operation rather, and, indeed, he did resist.
In the room with bin Laden, a woman — bin Laden's — a woman, rather,
bin Laden's wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg
but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."
Asked about what type of resistance bin Laden put up, Carney says
"resistance does not require a firearm. But the information I gave you
is what I can tell you about it."
After another question on the topic, Carney says "it was a highly
volatile firefight. I'll point you to the Department of Defense for
more details about it, but it was a — he resisted. The U.S. personnel
on the ground handled themselves with the utmost professionalism and
he was killed in an operation because of the resistance that they
met."
The New York Times writes this morning that Carney "and other
officials reiterated that this was a violent scene, that there was
heavy fire from others in the house, and that the commandos did not
know whether the occupants were wearing suicide belts or other
explosives."
And Fox News reports it has been told by a "senior U.S. official" that
bin Laden "appeared to be reaching for a weapon before being shot."
The National Journal says it has been told by officials with knowledge
of the situation that the Obama administration preferred that the
mission end with bin Laden's death, but that if he had indicated he
wished to surrender he would have been taken into custody.
Tags: John Brennan, Jay Carney, Osama bin Laden, President Barack
Obama
with his life, while some, obviously guilty like Gadafi and Assad, are
allowed to live happily ever after.
Osama may be guilty for supporting the 9/11 suicide bombers but that
does not make him a murderer. If he were a murderer, then many other
Muslims are also murderers, as so are many US a nd western supporters
of the murderous Jewish Israeli soldiers.
Is Osama guilty of ORDERING suicide bombers to attack USA? These are
voluntary soldiers that are willing to sacrifice themselves. They are
not ordered against their own free will. They are not even paid. How
can they enjoy the money paid to them? The stupid jewish propaganda
that these suicide bombers are paid money to their mothers are just
nonsense. Is there any mother who would prefer money over their dead
sons, who can earn much more if they are alive, or sold as slaves,
rather than dying? Only sick minds will consider such actions.
To explain the reasons is to explain why the American passengers
decided to to fight to the death to stop the aeroplane from hitting
the white house. They know that they will die anyway, so why should
they bother about dying? It is just a standard human reaction. If they
know that their fight is useless, they don't mind dying.
A very interesting comment by the reporter who interviewed Osama for a
few times. He is surprised to have been called a Muslim for his honest
reporting. This is actually a standard Muslim practise and comment but
utterly alien to the westerners. For Muslims, the teaching of Islam is
not unique to Muslims. Even non-Muslims, are capable of practising the
standard practise of Muslims and will be rewarded in the hereafter.
You don't need to be a follower of Muhammad to be granted heaven, or
to be called Muslims.
Not only Osama, who has been saying these things(treating high
integrity westerners as Muslims), but also my friends, which I
believe, is a result of our Muslim upbringing. This may be alien to
the Christian or Buddism or Hinduism, but it does not mean that Islam
has to be similar to them.
As to Obama being innocent. There are 20 US soldiers versus only about
4 from AlQaedah, including Osama. All are dead, not even a single
witness. There are even reports that Osama is not even armed. One
report suggested that he was trying to take a gun. Come on, the
fighting had been going on for a few minutes. Why should he try to
look for a gun just before he was shot?
Maybe Osama was also brainwashed by the movies that he used to see as
a teenager, of Western soldiers who will not kill unarmed villains, no
matter what the cost in their lives are. They was just movies after
all. Osama is not even a villain. He is not in the same class as
Hitler. Osama has never ordered people to kill. Suicide bombers are
not soldiers who are ordered.
Gadafi and Hitler ordered soldiers, paid with money for daily expenses
and luxuries, to kill on their behalf. The mercenaries in Libya now
are just as innocent as the German soldiers in the 2nd world war. The
guilty ones are Hitler and Gadafi.They should be the one who should be
killed in order to save countless innocent lives, the Western Allies
as well as the Axis soldiers. The stupid western governments keep on
repeating the same mistake. Killing the mercenaries and paid soldiers
of Gadafi while allowing Gadafi scot free.
On the other hand, killing an unarmed, non-violent Osama. Osama has
not even threatened western lives. He only advised them that they will
get what they did onto others, i.e. death and destruction, by the
victims of the western atrocities, in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and
Iraq. Western governments may not be atrocious but by supporting
atrocious leaders like Mubarak, Gadafi and Sadam, they are just as
guilty.
Muslims, as well as Osama, are just as confused as to who are the real
innocents. But if someone feels that they are willing to die for
revenge against atrocities committed against their people, the
Palestinians or Iraqis, who are we to judge against them. It is like
judging the suicidal US passengers who tried to stop the plane from
crashing the white house and thus kill more innocent lives that are
not even related to them, apart from just being US citizens.
Similarly for the Saudi citizens, flying the jets into the twin
towers. They are fighting for their Muslim comrades in Palestine who
are suffering under the Jewish Israeli regimes, strongly supported by
the US government, although t hey are not related to the Palestinians.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135980620/on-whether-bin-laden-war-armed-heres-what-officials-said
On Whether Bin Laden Was Armed, Here's What Officials Said
Categories: War, National News, Security, Foreign News
08:25 am
May 4, 2011
* Share
o Stumble Upon
o Reddit
o Linkedin
o Digg
What is this?
Share
* Comments (0)
* Recommend (0)
by Mark Memmott
In the first few hours after the world learned that U.S. forces had
killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, most news reports said he had
been involved in the firefight at his compound in Abbottabad,
Pakistan, and at least implied that he was armed when he died.
Osama bin Laden.
Enlarge Anonymous/The Associated Press
Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden.
Anonymous/The Associated Press
Osama bin Laden.
And it was said that a woman on the scene had been used as a human
shield.
By Monday evening, as more details emerged, it was being reported
(including by The Two-Way) that bin Laden likely did not fire a weapon
in the last moments of his life and that the woman who was killed
likely was not a human shield and died in crossfire.
Now seems like a good time to go through the transcripts to see just
what has been said:
— Sunday, 11:35 p.m. ET: President Obama addresses the nation and says
"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted
operation. ... A small team of Americans carried out the operation
with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed.
They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they
killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
— Monday, 12:03 a.m. ET: "Senior administration officials" brief
reporters. One says that bin Laden "did resist the assault force. And
he was killed in a firefight." He also says that "one woman was killed
when she was used as a shield by a male combatant."
— Monday, 2 p.m. ET: John Brennan, the president's top
counterterrorism adviser, tells reporters that bin Laden "was engaged
in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was
in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't
know." Brennan also says "there was a female who was in fact in the
line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield bin Laden
from the incoming fire."
— Tuesday, 1:57 p.m. ET: White House spokesman Jay Carney, during his
daily briefing, says "there was concern that bin Laden would oppose
the capture operation — operation rather, and, indeed, he did resist.
In the room with bin Laden, a woman — bin Laden's — a woman, rather,
bin Laden's wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg
but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."
Asked about what type of resistance bin Laden put up, Carney says
"resistance does not require a firearm. But the information I gave you
is what I can tell you about it."
After another question on the topic, Carney says "it was a highly
volatile firefight. I'll point you to the Department of Defense for
more details about it, but it was a — he resisted. The U.S. personnel
on the ground handled themselves with the utmost professionalism and
he was killed in an operation because of the resistance that they
met."
The New York Times writes this morning that Carney "and other
officials reiterated that this was a violent scene, that there was
heavy fire from others in the house, and that the commandos did not
know whether the occupants were wearing suicide belts or other
explosives."
And Fox News reports it has been told by a "senior U.S. official" that
bin Laden "appeared to be reaching for a weapon before being shot."
The National Journal says it has been told by officials with knowledge
of the situation that the Obama administration preferred that the
mission end with bin Laden's death, but that if he had indicated he
wished to surrender he would have been taken into custody.
Tags: John Brennan, Jay Carney, Osama bin Laden, President Barack
Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)