Moi aussi, grâce aux casinos, même l’argent de la mafia finit pour..."
Posté le Jeudi 16 novembre 2006 par michael
Interessante interview d’un « scientifique » arabe sur al Jazeera .
le niveau de l’interviewe est fort edifiant mais aussi celui de l’interviewer ! C’est surement pas dans le cheptel de la mere Chabot qu’on trouvera des interviewers de ce calibre ! Et je garantis qu’il n’est pas le seul a Al Jazeera…….
Iraqi Researcher Living in Europe on Al-Jazeera TV: The Nobel Peace Prize is Racist; « Why Has the Prize Been Awarded to 167 Jews and Only 4 Arabs… All Considered Traitors? »; The Prize Stems from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
The following are excerpts from an interview with Samir ‘Ubeid, an Iraqi researcher living in Europe, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on October 31, 2006.
Samir ‘Ubeid: « I don?t call it the Nobel Prize – I call it the hubal [idol] prize. »
Interviewer: « Hubal? »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « Yes, because it often encourages heresy. It encourages attacks against the heritage, and encourages those who scorn their people and their culture. The proof is that it was awarded recently to Pamuk, who had encouraged civil strife, which might preoccupy Turkey and the Muslims in general. He held Turkey responsible for what the Ottoman state did, when he referred to the massacre of the Armenians. »
[...]
Interviewer: « In other words, if you are a traitor to your country, you deserve this prize. »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « If you are a traitor to your country, and a heretic, who curses his Prophet, you deserve a Nobel Prize.
[...]
« Why has the prize been awarded to 167 Jews, and to only four Arabs out of 380 million Arabs – and all four are considered traitors? For example, Al-Sadat got the prize during the normalization process, and as a price for Camp David, together with Begin, who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre, and who was in the Hagana gangs. Later, the prize was awarded to [Ahmad] Al-Zewail, in order to buy his invention, and Al-Zewail has disappeared since. »
Interviewer: « You mean the Egyptian Ahmad Al-Zewail? »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « Yes, the Egyptian chemist. The prize was also awarded to Muhammad ElBaradei, and in this case, it is soaked in the blood of the Iraqi children and people.
[...]
« Mother Teresa was brought, along with a group of people like her… »
Interviewer: « Some say the prize was awarded to her for her missionary activity in Africa, India, and so on… »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « Let?s assume she was righteous, according to the logic of the media, which is now controlled by the Jews and Hollywood. When they awarded the prize to Teresa, they were trying to award an ‘artificial hymen’ or ‘artificial honor’ to this prize.
« My colleague said that there is democracy. What democracy is there, if out of 1.5 billion Chinese, only two or three were awarded the Nobel? If you examine the Russian scientists and writers, who shook the world with their literature and their knowledge…
« What about Sakharov, what about Tolstoy? In addition… »
Interviewer: « But Sakharov was awarded the Nobel prize. »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « I meant Chekhov. Chekhov! Chekhov!
[...]
« Are we Arabs not included in the transfer of the scientific genetic code? We, the descendants of Al-Khawarizmi, Al-Jahez, Al-Razi, Avicenna, and Ibn Al-Haytham – are we all born idiots? Is there not a single scientist among us? Are we not included in the genetic code? Is intelligence not transferred down among us Arabs? »
Interviewer: « Scientific creativity occurs in freedom and democracy, brother. »
Samir ‘Ubeid: « Democracy does not explain how it was awarded to 167 Jews, from among those 15 million scattered around the world, while abandoning 1.5 billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and 380 million Arabs. This is racism.
[...]
« The [Grameen] bank for the poor won the prize because some of its shareholders are giants like Haliburton and others.
[...]
« They infiltrated this bank, which came to be in the pocket of the Freemasons. This prize stems from the core of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. »
Laisser un commentaire
3 réponses à “« Hubal » prize !”
16 nov 06 à 06:26
Mais des Guinness Recordsou des Darwin Awards , a la pelle !
16 nov 06 à 06:12
Abou Chirac
Chirac and the Arabs, as the End Approaches
By JOHN VINOCUR
International Herald Tribune
Published: November 14, 2006
PARIS Chirac of Arabia. It could be a video game: mastering the Middle East’s chicanes, holding off a lurking clash of civilizations, winding up lavished by the world with praise and a place on history’s scroll of greatness.
But the desire of France to play a major, seemingly disproportionate role in the Middle East – and the willingness of the French to invest their reputation and credibility in an often virtual and vainglorious pro- Arab policy – has been real enough.
Now, with Jacques Chirac entering the final six months of his 12 years in power, that approach’s coherence and its fairly universal base across the French political spectrum is crumbling. His would-be successors, left and right, hardly accepting the conceit of a successful French pro-Arab policy, fire away at Chirac’s line on Iran, Syria, Israel and the Palestinians. This is an important development because it suggests there’s no longer a sanctified, national consensus on the Middle East in a country once determined to drive the European Union’s view of the region from a French pro- Palestinian stance. The framework has shifted so much that the likely Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal, could say (if incoherently) in a single breath last week that the new « democratic government » in Iraq deserved support, that France ought to talk to Hamas despite its advocacy of Israel’s destruction, but that Iran ought to be denied control of nuclear power because it might mask a covert route to making weapons.
On the right, Nicolas Sarkozy, the virtually certain Gaullist candidate, has always had a more comfortable relationship with Israel and the United States than Chirac’s self-projection as the Arab world’s special friend ever permitted.
As a result, the France that emerges from presidential elections that begin in April, with a probable second round of voting in May, just could be one that doesn’t play the same old virtual game. For now, beyond Chirac’s government, France, as if in preparation for change, is talking differently about the Middle East.
Both Le Monde and Le Figaro have taken note on their editorial pages of a new book that exemplifies this change in tonality. More, it argues the importance of recognizing that through Chirac’s approach France has both retreated as a factor in the Middle East and is diminished in its supposed place in the esteem of the Arab world. The book is called « Chirac d’Arabie: Les mirages d’une politique fran- çaise, » by Éric Aeschimann and Christophe Boltanski, two journalists at the leftist newspaper Libération.
Its thesis is not the one widely held outside of France – that French pro- Arab policy is out of Chirac’s depth and means, and that the country must remake its international ambitions into that of a middle-sized player. Rather, the writers pin France’s slide in influence squarely on Chirac’s errors.
They skip giving much place, obvious in the Arab world, to the lethal collision between pro-Arab French policy, French anti-Arab racism at home, riots in the suburbs, and leaders here who weigh their overall approach against votes and potential violence in the Muslim immigrant community. And they breeze past France’s loss of European leverage through its rejection of an EU constitution, Germany’s unequivocal support of Israel and the EU’s expansion to a majority of countries open to a more American-led view of the Middle East.
But the writers do offer a forthright description of what has motivated Chirac’s policy and the extent of its failure. They assert that for France under Chirac the Arab world represented « a zone to reconquer against American rivals. » They also insist that « Chirac saw the Palestinian issue solely through Yasser Arafat’s eyes. » At the book’s most novel juncture, particularly in terms of choosing a new president with some understanding of France’s ineffectualness in the Middle East, it attacks the myth that Chirac’s opposition to the Americans in the Iraq war created indelible French bona fides among the Arabs.
To the contrary, it says, « The attitude in Arab capitals during the Iraq crisis left Chirac with a bitter taste in his mouth. Officially hostile to the war so as not to clash with their public opinion at home, these Arab leaders reproached France for having gone too far in its opposition. »
Bravely, the writers even point toward France and the Arab world having common difficulties in accepting modernization, although they use the phrase « nourishing the shared hope of escaping from the world’s uniformity. »
This is where, in France’s case, at least, choice and a presidential election come in.
Today, because his Arab policy has visibly come up empty, Chirac has moved in the United States’ direction in trying maintain Lebanon’s independence from Syria. At the same time, as if to compensate for this obvious tilt from familiar doctrine, his foreign minister has met with Iranian officials in Beirut and, praised Iran for « its stabilizing role » in the region.
If this is incoherence, so is Chirac’s decision, largely for personal reasons, not to talk to Syria. France does not speak with Hamas either, but refuses to regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. As commander until January of UN interposition forces in Lebanon, the French will not act directly to stop arms being smuggled across the Syria-Lebanon border to Hezbollah’s nonterrorists – but voted to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council over the weekend (alone with Greece among European members) for its deadly response to terrorist rocket attacks from Gaza.
This incoherence, this insistence on maintaining a virtual, video game policy on the Middle East in a world recognizing its explosive futility, is now penetrating the French political debate.
The presidency will be won next year by a candidate who can best offer reasonable arbitrage between France’s instincts for no change and the necessity for doing something new in a country difficult to lead from its multiple same-old-thing ruts. The way it looks now, and for the first time in years, that acknowledged zone of renewal includes finding a French position with a link to reality that makes more sense on the Middle East.
16 nov 06 à 05:34
Hé hé… avec de tels scientifiques, ils ne sont pas près de gagner de nouveaux prix nobel
