Kuwait to extend citizenship to Palestinians and Jews alike. Why isn't this being reported?!

It seems that no one is reporting the news that the Kuwaiti foreign minister announced today that Kuwait is extending an offer of citizenship to both Arabs and Jews who were displaced in the 20th Century.

The foreign minister is quoted as saying

The Kingdom of Kuwait encompasses nearly 7000 square miles and has a population of only four million people. We also have great wealth. We most certainly have the room and resources to accommodate both Palestinians who left Israel to fight with Arab nations against it, and also for the millions of Jews who were displaced from their ancestral homelands in the Arab world during the same time.

Asked why they are agreeing to extend Kuwaiti citizenship to Jews as well as Palestinians, the minister replied:

We recognize that Jews who were expelled from their homes in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Yemen literally have no other country other than Israel in which they can relocate in the middle east. To the same extend we feel that Palestinians should have a right to return to homes their parents abandoned in Israel, so too should Jews have a right to reclaim their homes in Arab lands that they were forced to abandon. Accordingly, we have decided to lead by example.

Asked why they were offering citizenship and not just residency, the minister replied:

The only country in the middle east that has ever offered full citizenship to the Palestinians is, oddly enough, Israel. We felt that it would be hypocritical to condemn Israel while offering out brethren less than Israel. The only moral thing to do is offer full citizenship.

We were wondering why this news is not being reported, so we asked the article's author. The author explained that the story is being quashed because it is untrue, that the quotes are false, and that the forgoing never actually happened. Neither Kuwait nor any other middle eastern country other than Israel  has ever actually permitted persons of Palestinian descent to obtain citizenship and has none have offered the Jews it expelled in the 20th century to return to their ancestral homes. Kuwait did not say that it recognizes that Jews were not only kicked out of the other countries in the middle east, nor did it acknowledge that the Jewish people literally have no place else to go as there are no other Jewish countries anywhere in the world (there are 28 Muslim countries, btw.) In fact,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Kuwait_relations

  

Do not pity Hamas. They asked for this.

Q: How can Israel justify killing civilians if their intent is to crush Hamas?

A: The death of innocents is a tragic inevitability of war. Our hearts go out to all those caught in the middle. The sad fact is that the Palestinian people are being held hostage by Hamas. Just as it is clear that Hamas is morally culpable for any harm done to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli hostage that they hold, so too are they culpable for the fate of Palestinian innocents amongst whom they hide. A civilian who is killed while being used by a terrorist as a human shield is a victim of the terrorist, not the Israeli army, who does not target innocent civilians.

Q: Isn't Israel's response a bit disproportionate?

A: If Israel's purpose was to take revenge, then perhaps the question of "proportion" would apply here. But Israel is waging a defensive war. In war, you don't measure your response to the enemy by what they have done to you in the past, but rather by what needs to be done to stop them from attacking you. Israel must destroy Hamas' capability to continue shooting rockets at Israeli cities. Israel's actions are proportionate to the present and future threat, not just the damage done in the past.

Q: Doesn't Israel understand that they are just creating more terrorists? The anger and fury at Israel as a result of bombing Gaza will only make more people want to join Hamas.

A: Feelings of frustration, anger, fear and rage do not make you into a terrorist. A culture of death and an education of hate does. Israel doesn't need to do anything to create terrorists - Islamic extremism does that - but Israel must act to destroy those who threaten its people.

Q: Hamas indeed has a militant wing, but it also does a lot of good. They are responsible for social programs, educational projects and humanitarian work in Gaza. By destroying Hamas, Israel also destroys all the good they do. Aren't we demonizing a group that is not all bad?

A: If a serial killer also happens to volunteer for his local hospital, has donated money to an orphanage, and looks after his ailing grandmother, he is still a serial killer, and he and the threat he represents must be treated as such. The danger he poses far outweighs the concern for any good he may do.

Q: By using violence, how is Israel any better than its terrorist enemies?

A: That is as ridiculous as saying that a woman who fights off an attacker is no better than her attacker. Israel would not touch Hamas if Hamas would stop sending rockets and suicide bombers into Israel. Israel seeks to live in peace with its neighbors; Hamas and its allies seek to destroy Israel, no matter what Israel does.

There is a world of difference between the Hamas terrorists and the Israeli soldiers. The Hamas terrorist seeks violence as a way of life; his aim is to sow war and death. For the Israeli soldier, war is a necessity, and a moral duty, because Israel's citizens are being attacked and innocent lives are being threatened. The Hamas terrorist seeks to maximize civilian casualties; the Israeli soldier does everything in his power to minimize them.

The Hamas terrorist fears times of peace, because then he has no purpose. The Israeli soldier dreams of a time when peace will reign. Then, the Israel Defense Force will be made joyously redundant, as "one nation will not lift a sword against another nation, and they will no longer learn to wage war".

Mexico Attacks!

Mexico has acquired thousands of long and short range missiles and have been firing them at cities within the United States. Two civilians have been killed by the incessant missile fire, including an American of Mexican heritage in El Centro, and another American in San Diego. The United States has been respecting a cease-fire with Mexico since the end of the Spanish-American war in which the United States won territories in what is now the southwest United States, including most of California.

America has attempted diplomacy in an attempt to resolve the situation, and has gone so far as to give the disputed territories back to Mexico as a means for avoiding armed conflict. Mexico has set up provisional governments in those territories, but, contrary to international expectations, rather than curtailing the violence, Mexico has used those reclaimed territories as launching grounds to hoard and fire missiles at more American cities.

In response to international efforts to calm an already tense situation, the Mexican authorities have stated, "We will not rest until every American is dead and we have taken over the entire United States. We will continue our campaign deeper and deeper into the American heartland, making use of every weapon available from rocks to suicide bombers until every American has left America."

Oh wait, that's not Mexico, they're not that crazy, and America's would never make such concessations or be so patient. It's Hamas and Israel. Did they think that Israel had to let this keep going on? Even now that they are a separate state? If we wouldn't let Mexico do it to us, why should Israel let Hamas do it to them?

Further down the rabbit hole...

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday."

1. Pakistan is in a time of transition in which a staunch U.S. ally, a military leader, Musharref, was unable to control the fundamentalist factions in his otherwise moderate moslem country.
   
2. This country became unstable the minute it was clear that Musharref could not maintain his power. I think that was about July.
3. Shouldn't our special forces be operating in our war zones? Oh, we must be opening another front in our war. Pakistan's a good choice: after all it is an increasingly fundamentalist moslem country, thrust into a period of political instability, which has nuclear capacity.
4. Also I guess the fact that Al Queda is already entrenched and protected by the locals-- because they like Al Queda-- shouldn't make you worry that, if a U.S. invasion leads to a galvanization of the fundamentalists, Al Queda could easily end up with nukes.
5. But then again, what are the odds that a U.S. invasion would actual create greater instability in the country resulting in the galvanization of, increased recruitment for, and thus power in the hands of the fundamentalists. I mean that already happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, so (ala Garp) what are the odds of that happening again?
6. Well no doubt we'll have far better luck than Musharref in getting Pakistan to follow a moderate line, after all, what could Musharref possibly have known about Pakistan?
7. Oh, something else-- how much do you think its going to help Benazir Bhutto's husband to have a US military presence in the country when he's promising to reestablish a moderate and functional democracy and actually has a chance to do so?
8. Isn't there some historical precedent for when a president authorized special forces to conduct operations in a country we were not at war without the approval of that government? How did that work out? Not too good, huh? Well I'm sure things will be different this time. After all, history never repeats itself.
   

Idiots.
(The forgoing sarcastic tirade, of course, is subject to withdrawal if we nab Osama as a result of these operations. Maybe two weeks before the election in November would be the best timing. But to suggest that the administration is taking this stupid risk to try to help McCain's otherwise worthless campaign would be the type of conspiracy-theorist paranoia that this writer tries --sometimes helplessly-- to avoid. Maybe they're not just stupid, maybe they're evil too.)

Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years

Last updated at 1:44 AM on 24th July 2008

Aliens have contacted humans several times but governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, the sixth man to walk on the moon has claimed.

Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of many UFO visits to Earth during his career with NASA but each one was covered up.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is 'not nearly as sophisticated' as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned 'we would be been gone by now'.

Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission.

'I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real,' Dr Mitchell said.

'It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it.
alien

UFO theorists believe Roswell in New Mexico was the site of an alien crash in 1947

'I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit.'

Dr Mitchell, who has a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering and a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics claimed Roswell was real and similar alien visits continue to be investigated.

He told the astonished Kerrang! radio host Nick Margerrison: "This is really starting to open up. I think we're headed for real disclosure and some serious organisations are moving in that direction.'

Mr Margerrison said: 'I thought I'd stumbled on some sort of astronaut humour but he was absolutely serious that aliens are definitely out there and there's no debating it.'

Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down.

In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'