Thank you for your correspondence regarding the "South Park" episodes entitled "Cartoon Wars." We appreciate your concerns about censorship and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media, entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.
To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to make people laugh and perhaps, if we're lucky, even make them think in the process.
Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.
With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.
It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.
As a viewer of "South Park," you know that over the course of ten seasons and almost 150 episodes the series has addressed all types of sensitive, hot-button issues, religious and political, and has done so with Comedy Central's full support in every instance, including this one. "Cartoon Wars" contained a very important message, one that Trey and Matt felt strongly about, as did we at the network, which is why we gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a portrayal of Muhammad.
In that regard, did we censor the show? Yes, we did. But if you hold Comedy Central's 15-year track record up against any other network out there, you'll find that we afford our talent the most creative freedom and provide a nurturing atmosphere that challenges them to be bold and daring and places them in a position to constantly break barriers and push the envelope. The result has been some of the most provocative television ever produced.
We would like nothing more than to be able to look back at this in a few years and think that perhaps we overreacted. Unfortunately, to have made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing to take.
Our pledge to you, our loyal viewers, is that Comedy Central will continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and we will continue to push it right to the edge, using and defending the First Amendment in the most responsible way we know how.
Sincerely, Comedy Central Viewer Services
-----Original Message----- From: ComedyCentral Servers @ ComedyCentral Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:22 PM To: Viewer Services @ Comedy Central Subject: South Park - mohammed episode
Name: mike allegretto
E-mail Address: [email]
Message: was last night's episode really censored or was it all part of the gag?
Comedy Central made a choice whether or not to show the Jesus part of the show. Intentionally or not, Parker and Stone has shown Comedy Central as the ultimate hypocrites by banning stuff that may be offensive to one religion (the Muslims) but keeping stuff in the
show that is offensive to another (Christians).
No longer can they use the excuse "we make fun of everyone". If it is not ok to make fun of the Muslim relgion then it is not ok to make fun of the Christian religion. If it is ok to make fun of the Christian religion then it is ok to make fun of the Muslim religion.
Either it is all ok, or none of it is ok. Either it is ok to attack religion or not. By protecting Islam but not Christianity, it makes Comedy Central anti-Christian.
If memory serves me correctly, Nick Cassaro wrote:
Religion doesn't kill people, assholes do.
Sorry, I'm just amused by people who act just like the people they claim to hate. See above's impersonation of the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Fred Phelps.
If memory serves me correctly, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
If Stalin and Mao went after people who didn't eat bread or people who rode bareback, you'd have a point. Instead, they targeted religious institutions and their followers. Throw in Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il and others, and that's probably more killed in the 20th Century due to a system in which state-sponsored atheism is a major tenet than all the religious wars throughout the millenia.
And if you knew a first thing about communism, religion or any other totalitarian system, you'd realize that the only reason communists went after religions is to eliminate the competition. Communism is a quasi-religious system with the exact same structure, ideology and policing. As such, it cannot withstand competition. Stalin killed millions - do you really think his victims were all theists? Don't be fucking stupid.
Blaming communist butchers for mass murder in the name of atheism is as ridiculous as blaming Hitler, Leopold II, Enver Pasha and Hirohito for genocide in the name of religion. Just because they were religious doesn't mean they committed the genocide for the cause of religion. Ditto for communist genocidal maniacs. Their atheism is as incidental to their genocidal acts as is their bread eating and underpants wearing. You're simply rehashing the simplistic religious slogans, like a retarded parrot.
Not really. They targeted some religious groups, but most of the people they killed didn't die because of their religion, but for other political reasons.
When atheism is treated as a *religion*, then yes, people kill over it. The problem isn't religion per se, it's total refusal to look at things from the other guy's perspective. That's the point at which it all starts. From that point, things get tenser and tenser until you have millions and millions of corpses. Religion encourages one to have absolute faith in their beliefs. When one has that, then one can easily feel that no other viewpoints need be considered, since theirs is the only correct one and all the others are false or evil. Atheism was simply part of Mao's religion and Stalin's religion and Hitler's religion, they each had an unshakable faith that their own view as the only right answer for society and the belief that any dissent was harmful to society and therefore evil.
When you start believing that a particular viewpoint results in evil, then you people who have that viewpoint and presumably act on it are evildoers. It's a small step to go from thinking of a group of people as evildoers to thinking of that group of people as evil. The progression is the belief that evil must be destroyed for the good of all.
The poster who said the only good Muslims and Christians are dead ones and saying religion should be banned is exhibiting the exact same intolerance he accuses them of!
As far as I'm concerned, atheists are just people like anyone else. There are many who have no problem with religion and get along just fine with Jews, Christians, etc., even going so far as to marry them, they just choose not to believe in a higher power. That's fine with me, and if I didn't make that clear earlier, I apologize. Then you have those who think their refusal to believe "fairy tales" somehow makes them intellectually or morally superior to those who do, and then you get your attitude problems and occasional calls to violence as we've seen above.
I absolutely agree. I sometimes find *myself* thinking I'm somehow superior to people who believe in a certain god, then I have to remind myself that I'm just as much the hairless ape struggling to understand his world as they are, regardless of what beliefs I use to rest upon.
Ultimately, I support whatever will make somebody a better person and will bring them peace of mind, whether it's religion or medication or true love or (God forbid -- no pun intended) a near-death experience. Bashing Christians or homosexuals or whatever is not my idea of peace of mind.
I can be a *very* nasty person, I'm afraid, but I'd rather use humor and sarcasm toward individuals than wanting true acts of evil to happen to groups of largely innocent people.
Wrong. They did not ban anything because it might be offensive to Muslims. They banned something because they don't want innocent people to lose their lives over it as happened with the Danish comics.
They never said it wasn't OK to attack Islam. They said they simply didn't want to be responsible for people getting killed.
But they did not do it to protect Islam. They did it to protect people. Specifically, the people who could die in the riots. If you want them to air the images, thereby risking riots and deaths, doesn't that make you anti-people?
More to the point, you weigh the possible outcomes against each other. CC said to themselves, "On one hand, we could refuse to censor, and the result is that innocent people might be killed; on the other hand, we could censor the image, and the people watching South Park won't get to see a depiction of Mohammed handing Peter a silly hat."
I did not suffer any great personal loss over not seeing that image, and I believe that anyone who feels they did is in need of therapy. However if they showed the image and people got killed over it, that would be an actual tragedy. On one hand, a few people get annoyed, on the other hand, people might die.
No, you're completely missing the point. What CC is saying is that they did not show Mohammed because they feared Muslim violence. This would not be expected of Christians, so they showed Jesus.
Frankly, I think they were wrong. The neutral depiction of Mohammed would not have lead to any violence. The focus of Muslim anger with the Danish cartoons was the bomb in the turban cartoon. Without that, there might have been no violence at all. That being said, if Mohammed were depicted in some unflattering or scatalogical way (a la Bloody Mary), then that would be another story.
If I were Muslim, I don't know if I would be happy or sad at CC's decision. It's clear that it was done not out of respect or a sense that the depiction is inappropriate in some way, but out of fear of violence. I'm sure some Muslims, realizing that, wish that CC had shown the image.
The 'no depiction of Mohammed' rule in Islam is meaningless, especially with modern technology, and I think most Muslims agree with that.
Ah, but what you are forgetting is that the South Park Mohammed was presenting a salmon helmet to "Peter". This is clearly a reference to Salmon Rushdie, who is hated and feared by all Muslims because of his popular book "The Satanic Bible", a collection of essays, observations and basic Satanic rituals. Details on this book can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Bible
Since the publication of this book, any mention or depiction of salmon is sure to send militant Muslims into a frenzy. It is for this reason that just about all fish are outlawed by Muslamic dietary law. If I ever move there I plan to open a hamburger stand or a pizza parlor; I'll really clean up.
"Captain Infinity" wrote in message news:[email]...
Your reference has nothing to do with Rushdie. As per your reference "The Satanic Bible is a book written by Anton LaVey in 1969". Perhaps you'd prefer a hyperlink to Satanic Verses, written by Rushdie and published in 1988.
Did you actually look at your own reference? Obviously not or you'd have realised it had nothing to do with Rushdie.
Please provide some sort of evidence to support your claim that fish is outlawed under Islamic law because the English word for one variety of fish sounds similar to the name of someone who published a book in 1988.
Then what, pray tell, is a "salmon helmet"? Do you think that the South Park writers would just pull this reference out of their asses? Hardly. Such a thing has never been heard of before, so obviously some thought went into its creation. It's *clearly* a reference to Salmon Rushdie, as anyone with half a brain can tell you, and *is* telling you! "Salmon helmet" = "Salmon Rushdie". What's so hard to understand about that?
I made no such claim. I said that it was prohibited under Muslamic dietary law, which are the rules they live by over in Musland. Or is it Muslamistan? I was never very good at geography, sorry.
You may want to *read* what I wrote before you start criticising. I'm just trying to point out some stuff that other viewers may not have thought of.
**
Captain Infinity
..."When trying to untangle
the Jingle from the Jangle,
it's easy if you listen with your heart."
--the Archies, "The Jingle Jangle Song"
"Captain Infinity" wrote in message news:[email]...
The real question should be "Satanic Bible <> Satanic Verses. What's so hard to understand about that?" It is your reference that had nothing to do with Rushdie. I merely provided you with a more accurate reference.
To quote myself (even though it's just up there ^^^^), I said "Your reference has nothing to do with Rushdie. As per your reference "The Satanic Bible is a book written by Anton LaVey in 1969". Perhaps you'd prefer a hyperlink to Satanic Verses, written by Rushdie and published in 1988."
All I can conclude is you read neither your own reference nor my paragraph that questioned your reference.
If we analyse your quote, it says
* "any mention or depiction of salmon is sure to send militant Muslims into a frenzy" * this has occurred "since the publication of this book" * "It is for this reason that just about all fish are outlawed by Muslamic dietary law."
It looks pretty straight forward to me. You'll have to tell me how your statement doesn't suggest that fish is banned because of Salman Rushdie.
You may want to *read* what you wrote before you hit send.
I have no particular issue with you, Captain. I just saw parts of your post that didn't wash with me.
I'm sorry George. Normally I would let this dialog continue for a while, but you seen like a nice guy, so you should know: I've been yanking your chain from the very start. C'mon, "Salmon Rushdie"? "Muslamistan"? You got caught up in the emotion and missed all my clues. But I really don't mean to piss you off, so here's a catch-and-release. Truce?
"Captain Infinity" wrote in message news:[email]...
It was either a wind-up or comprehension wasn't one of your more prominent attributes. I gotta admit that you sucked me right into that one. Hahahaha...
No, you miss the point. Because Christians don't murder over offensive images doesn't mean that it is any less hurtful or insulting.
The cowardice of this !!!
Consider an analogy, a bully attacks a much smaller person because he/she can't/won't defend themselves. Oh it's so "funny". Then the bully pick another target, a misjudgement this time, that threatens to kick the shit out of them....the bully then whimpers off.
The bully is a COWARD !
Yes I've observed many times that the fact the Christians believe in "turning the other cheek" and non-violence if possible...this fact has invited many bully and other assorted Leftists to view them as easy targets...where's the danger you see.
Now we've the Islamist. There is no "turning of the other cheek" tradition. Now the sniveling little Leftist, who spout "Free speech or Death !" (they say things like this when Christians criticize things like the infinitely offensive "Piss Christ")....are running away whimpering like little girls..."The big bad Muslims have threatened me....WWWWAAAAAAAA! Someone protect us !"
OH MIGHTY LIBERALS OH MIGHTY ACLU CHAMPIONS OF THE FIRST ADMENDMENT YOU'LL NEVER BACK DOWN HOW BRAVE
You are STILL missing the point. It doesn't matter if South Park is hurtful or insulting. It's SUPPOSED to be. That's what makes it FUNNY to the people who watch it, see?
Comedy Central does not give a shit if SP hurts the feelings of Christians or Muslims. If people don't like the show but they're too stupid to change the channel, piss on 'em. And I fully agree.
The reason they didn't show the image of Mohammed is because there was more at stake than hurt feelings, they felt that lives could be lost over it and they didn't want to be responsible for that. If they feared that riots would occur in which innocent people would get killed if they had showed Jesus eating poop, then they would not have shown that either.
"seon ferguson" wrote in message news:448d2302$0$7230$[email]...
The whole thing IS a joke. The fact that South Park depicted Jesus crapping on the flag and the President yet they can't show Mohammed at all is amazingly funny, especially when you consider that Mohammed had a reasonably big role in Super Best Friends in season 4 yet no-one batted an eyelid.
What would you consider more offensive? A religious figure defecating on the nation, or a religious figure not doing anything offensive? South Park said "we made ours offensive and yours not". They could show "our" offensive one but weren't allowed to show "theirs" under any circumstances.
If South Park showed "ours" being grossly offensive, there'd be no particular response (as was the case). If South Park showed "theirs" having tea or handing someone a helmet, there would have been blood in the streets. Normal people don't take up arms and riot in the streets over a cartoon. The image of Mohammed was censored to prevent an irrational response from excitable people with poorly developed frontal lobes.
Yeah I never realised Muhammad was shown in the super friends episode before it was mentioned in this group. It didn't offend me but then I'm anti Bush and a anti Christ (at least according to some Christians) But your right if there allowed to insult Christianity they should be allowed to insult Islam. One more thing that seems to be the way society is going. Were allowed to insult Jesus and show him crapping on people but oh we cant offend the poor Muslims. I hate political correctness.
The fact is due to the advancement of technology the world is now a much smaller place and people are just going to have to learn to get along. Somebody is going to step on somebody elses toes at some point (as has always been the case).
Imagine if all this was all happening on one street. One of your neighbours decided to kill another because of a cartoon, they'd be locked up. Obviously we have to respect other religions but what about them respecting us? The world is changing extremely fast nowadays and intolerance towards other people just isn't going to wash anymore.
Making a descision out of fear is giving in to terrorism which is always a bad thing (as the episode pointed out) doesn't do anything to bring us together but in fact makes us even more secular and distant. Whatever happens blood will be spilt, but when it's happening over a JOKE and not only that a JOKE that's making an excellent point.
I will never understand people who get upset about religious issues. If they truely believed in an all powerful God then surely they should just trust in him/her/it to work it out with fire and brimstone the old fashioned way.
They did what they had to do to stay alive, but it's sad that no one is standing up to these izlamist fuckers. They've already won the war, as they now have the power to tell us what to do. Now more demands will be made and pretty soon we will be licking their sandals because we are afraid they will riot, loot, and kill if we don't.
Comedy Central and all other American and Western corporations should stand firm, and the U.S. and Nato governments will use military force to to respond to moozlum attacks on Western interests.
Just remember the scene where Mrs. Garrison tells the class that they are not allowed to depict the prophet Mohammed, and Kyle correctly replies that it is moozlums who are not allowed to depict him. Since we are not moozlums, we have every right to depict him. Moozlums are not allowed to eat pork, am I required to abide by their food taboos?
It doesn't take long to figure out what groups can be insulted and what groups for which this is taboo. They made a movie called "Legally Blonde", which of course I did not see. It's well known that you can joke about blondes anywhere and it is accepted and you don't get fired. If you joke about Blacks you do get fired. Blondes are fair game because they are White and probably not Jews. Jews control the media and the entire culture. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Women can only be insulted if they are blonde. It's actually White men that the Jews really hate. In their show "Simpsons" they regularly show all the men as stupid and all the women as smart. This is also the Jewish show that said the French were "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", for not going along with the Jews agenda. What if there was a show calling Jews "money grubbing culture corrupters"? Of course that would never be on TV. "Beavis and Butthead" are of course White men.
The Jews also hate Arabs. They want to steal Arab land of course. But they also hate people who are against the homosexual perverts and the feminists. Look at any film of the Jews country and see how many female policemen they have. Arabs are the opposite of Jews. Maybe they are too extreme on the opposite direction. But they have traditional values that the USA and other liberal, Jewish controlled countries don't have. The spokesmen for the so-called "right" in America are Rush Limbaugh, who is probably a Jew, (He once said on his show he and his Jewish rabbi--Rush used the words, "My rabbi"- had traveled to Israel and met there privately with former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.) and other Jewish neo-cons. The TV can then truthfully declare that they are unbiased and they appear neutral and fair between the Republicans and the Democrats, since they are both firmly in the Jewish play pen and are not likely to wonder out.
This quote explains what is going on in the Middle East:
Der St�rmer, #23/1944, What is Americanism
"The family ties between hundreds of thousands of German families and their American relatives led many to think that America would never join a second war against Germany. Now that that has happened, many Germans still believe that America will never allow Bolshevism to conquer and destroy Germany. Recent events have proven how false and dangerous this idea is. One has to be foolish or irredeemably stupid to believe that anything good can come to Europe from the land of presumed opportunity. That that did not happen after the First World War, and will not happen after the second. The Jews have made America what it is today: a nation raped by the Jews , a nation whose 130,000,000 people of many colors and races have been forced into helping the Jews achieve world domination!"
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality...
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
Also See: http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Citizens for Fair Legislation ALERT: NO NEW AID TO ISRAEL
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1556560.php
Congressman Paul Findley: Liberating America From Israel
http://www.mediamonitors.net/findley2.html
Pat Buchanan: Why Politicians Prefer Israel over American
Interest?
http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html
Israeli Minister - 'We've Become Barbarians'
http://rense.com/general33/become.htm
Wales Politician Compares Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12498073
&method=full&siteid=50082
Israel's image of liberal democracy takes a battering
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/04/wisr04.xml&s
Sheet=/news/2003/01/04/ixworld.html
Israel Bans Christian Politician and Party from Election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1845530.stm
Israel to Expel Christian Politician and non-Jewish Parties from
Knesset
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,866348,00.html
Row over Arabs' election ban
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/01/wisr01.
xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/01/ixnewstop.html
How Americas Zionist controlled media spin the facts.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/98414_comment.php
American Media Controlled by Israeli Supporters
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Eric+Alterman+MSNBC+Israel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3caaa1d0_1%40news.tm.net.my&rnum=1
The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer
http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
Direct Financial Cost of Israel to US: $1.6 trillion and
growing
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
MAKING MERCHANDISE OUT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD: SELLING THE UPCOMING
WAR IN
IRAQ http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/m2_s1.html
Zionism Unbound - Vidal Gored 16 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm
'It's Time To Get Tough With Israel' - Patriotic US Army Brig
General
http://www.rense.com/general33/tough.htm
Israel's Policy Of 'Covert Aggression'
http://www.rense.com/general31/ze.htm
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/rokach.html
The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
http://rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM
Christian Coalition Abandonment of Palestinian Christians is
Hypocritical http://www.mediamonitors.net/sherri64.html
Where does world-famous televangelist's money go?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845747.asp#BODY
Christian Patriarch of Holy Land calls for end of Oppressive
Israeli
occupation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604761.stm
Zionism versus the Bible - Peace and Jutice on Earth or the
Extremism of
the 'Christian' Right? http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson4.html
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - Christianity & The NWO
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
No Joy in Bethlehem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,865083,00.html
'Saddest Christmas Ever' in Bethlehem
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021225&cat=news&st=newsmideas
tdc
For Good Analysis and Commentary, visit: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ http://www.robert-fisk.com/ http://www.iacenter.org/ http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html http://www.nader.org/public_interest.html http://reese.king-online.com/ http://fair.org/media-beat/ http://avnery-news.co.il/english/