A famous blog, famous for its clear overview of the reality, shows these pictures today.

The publishing of these pictures have been refused by the most important newspapers in the world, and within the limited capabilities of this weblog i would like to give them a better visibility.

In these cases the doubt about avoiding to publish them is that the reason is not simply in avoiding to hit the sensitiveness of the readers, that's one of the results of this new war, 2 children among many.

What i am going to write can be difficult to be accepted by someone and considering my poor english maybe also difficult to understand for many. I want to start from the statement of a person who had a chance to listen to an english dubbed version of an arab television broadcast. This person is arab and he could understand both the original language and the dubbed one. He said the traslation was wrong. Too wrong. The first evaluation is that the news that we receive are not 100% true. Not a discovery, you may think. The world is exploding and we are not informed properly, we are badly informed even. We receive lies, not news. The news might be, and actually in that circumstance they were, artificially modified. Now looking back at the cause of the war between lebano and the western countries, better to say at the cause reported by the news channels. It is a consequence of the middle east problem so the analysis should move to the middle east problem.

I want to try for a moment to be on another side of the war. I am aware that i am not arab but I want to imagine independently from the race and culture what is wrong on one side and the other. Nothing. They want something which for many, really many reasons is right from both the points of view. If one people wants the land for his country and the other people wants exactly the same land then how can you say one is wrong. I repeat i want to examine this independently from my belonging to one or the other party but it is important to consider their own culture, backgrounds and all those factors that make the enviroment of this problem.

What is wrong is to support one or the other. Yes, because this is not a soccer match, this is not something where you can be a supporter, and since it is serious there should be no fan-style news. It is such a big topic... but if someone decided to support one side where apparently there is no reason to make a choice then the reason comes from another area which does not include the reported causes of a war for a people' own country. So we are watching a war whose reasons are not the ones reported in the news. The proof comes from the modified news.

Giving a bad quality news or modifying the news means to show the willing to influencing the war or the enviroment in which is happening. It means someone made a choice for one of the sides. From that moment, that i fear it is not so close to the present, it is a war for something else, not for the land of two countries.

So we have two countries, we have one land, we have reasons to fight that seem to be different from the obvious ojbective, we have supporters created by the media, news mistified, what we see is not what is true. Now with this show running we need also stars, showmen. what the fuck! How can we run a show without. We need actors. The actors will be probably examined in the next days on this blog. What can i say... to be continued....?

Before starting with the cabaret stars, let me say that i had not been watching the television for many years when i was younger and not so often even recently. Which saved me from berlusconi's campaigns at least. I know i might sound like i want to seem different at any cost or better, well... that's right. Looking above, i guess it can be one of the effects of media who pushed too much on the reasons of one of the fighters, giving out those charming descriptions that made it a star. Looking for a little bit of glory is so perfectly understandable, and who should we blame for this image, the writer or who gave them wrong elements to take decisions. I didnt expect to see this, but i can evaluate it as a consequence of the make-up operation to a war. News modification and show business applied to lobbys' interests have this audience. A successful show until now, maybe just a slower than director's storyboard. And running in a smaller version too:

Yesterday in Rome there was the Conference for the peace, organized by the italian minister for foreign affairs D'Alema with representatives of G8, ONU, United States, UK (both mentioned out of the previous organizations on porpouse), World Bank and Commerce organizations, Lebanon, Mediterranen countries etc. The objective of the conference was to stop the war.

The result has been that it would be nice to stop the war but it is not possible.

The reason for which it is not possible to stop the war is that the break will not last.

To take this decision this news reported by Condoleeza Rice has been more than enough. In effect if the break depends on the country represented by the guy above... It reminds me someone who was used to make rude gestures too while taking pictures. Ok, why to stop a war when we are not sure that it will be stopped enough.... then if it does not last they have to go back to kill each other again, and we need to avoid this going back and forth with all those cars and tanks...especially with this high prices for oil.

Now the problem is another one, how do we get rid of people that can say bullishts in a conference for the peace, so easily and without any sign of doubt. The party has been held in italy, which better place than the country who refused the war in iraq to let a peace conference fail. Ok, there is a remote risk that something can happen and the war course might change because of this first step, and D'Alema in these situations can play the smart ass better than any american... also because he has been traind by many ass-screwers in italy during the last 5 years, but for now let's think of the worst and more probable consequence.

Rice would have liked to say the war has to continue, no way to stop it, since she needs it for practice-low-moral reasons and among these reasons also to reduce the prestige and give a lesson to these spaghetti-eaters who didnt send those few tanks in iraq and had also the bad idea to start speaking about peace.

She could not say it since in that case also the fools could understand that they decided to support a war whose origin is not the one told by the media. Another problem is that between italy and usa there will be a lot of these tough situations from now on. And all of them will be reported here, when noticed and also when simply predictable... if they can predict that a ceasefire does not last, then why can't i predict if they are going to say other bullshits...

This is the actual news, i will not mention the origin, i know there is an argument about blogs which have an informative role but do not report news origin. I will report a news origin when Condoleeza tells me who told her that the ceasefire will not last. Fair enough.

Who is the bullshiter? That's the hard question.
Nasrhalla? No.
Fox? Probably.
Usa? Sure.

First of all i didnt hear Nasrhalla pronuncing even one word.
So someone translated and reported the announcement.
Ok so show me the original.

Lebanon which lost 700 people, soldiers and civilians, whose weapons arrive from the third world and whose economy makes it a third world country is threating one that lost 50 soldiers, replenished in guns and bullets by Usa with the latest technology's wonders, whose economy controls crucial nodes all over the world.
Ahah. And do they really feel threatened?
Cmon greg tell us this joke. You made my day, m8.

So the news is this: a translation done by someone that we dont know, on an announcement that we never heard from a third world country announces that they will shoot a rocket in a park of israel, possibly a central park, this time without watching the israeli tv to adjust the sight.

It was not so hard to report it fairly.

I feel insulted by this news service.

Here the email address of Fox news

"[...]some contingencies will remain where the most appropriate response may include the use of US nuclear weapons. Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force[...]Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation."

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, from which at page 12 we published these sentence above is a document deployed and approved by Bush administration in 2005.

For 25 years US stated as its basic rule in nuclear weapons is not to be the first nuclear striker in the conflict.

In few years Bush's madness changed it.
60% of recent US nuclear tests have been performed on the so called mini-nukes, 6-times more powerful warheads than the one dropped on Hiroshima, and currently charging intercontinental missiles.
Someone could affirm that such a document is the best deterrent policy that even Bush's sick mind could produce.

But is that true if we consider the cost of Iraqi war is 300 billion dollars and is not yet finished and neither we can see an end?
Isn't a mininuke so charming when thinking you might save such an amount of money and even win a war?

Iran's president has ben described as Hitler. And someone who is Hitler-like can assure a hundred times that he only wants to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him.

But would the arrogance of Bush, putting in writing his madness, make us believe that his own document is false?

I feel ashamed to belong to the human specie.

This guy from Iran is becoming interesting, he could give lessons in straight-thinking techniques to some of our politicians.

The Iranian press agency renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows:

"'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II ..."

In effect we europeans speak about the Holocaust as if someone else did it. While we should be ashamed of it.

"...If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there... "

Now we know there are historical reasons to claim that part of the world, and not one in europe, alaska etc. But i won't start this argument.
Just let me underline that he speaks clearly, because he uses clear ideas though obfuscated by the anger of the aggressions received.

"...If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization."

That's a critics to our world. And sounds deep and painful.