Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Martin Luther King in Iraq

Un buon MLK day a tutti!
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0116-22.htm
10 Things Martin Luther King Would have Done about Iraq
by Juan Cole
Every year we honor Martin, and we hear again his stirring sppech, "I
have a Dream." But in many ways, that speech is among the least
challenging of his charges to us, however hard and unfulfilled it
remains. He dreamed other dreams, of the end of exploitative
materialism and relentless militarism, of an America devoted to social
justice and creative non-violence, which our mainstream media do not
dare repeat over and over again.
We do not have Martin among us to guide us with his wisdom. But it is
not hard to extrapolate from his "Beyond Vietnam" address of 1967 to
what he would think about the Iraq morass.
He would say we have to treat with the Sunni Arabs and the Shiite
Sadrists. We have to treat with the enemy. Not only for their sakes,
for the sake of ruined cities like Fallujah and Tal Afar, and those to
come-- but for our own sakes.
1. Martin urged the end of the offensive bombing raids.
    ' Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam. '
The US has increased the number of its bombing raids in Iraq from 25 a
month last summer to 150 in December. Bombing raids are very bad
counter-insurgency tactics and should be rethought.
2. Martin suggested that the US begin, on its own account, a cease
fire.
    ' Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such
action will create the atmosphere for negotiation. '
3. He urged that the widening of the war be stopped:
    ' Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in
Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our
interference in Laos. '
If we applied that to Iraq, I think it implies that the US should seek
better relations with Syria and Iran and cease menacing the latter with
an air attack.
4. He insisted that the US recognize the widespread political support
for the NLF:
    ' Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation
Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a
role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.
'
With regard to Iraq, this principle would imply that the US should
recognize that the Neo-Baath Arab nationalist leaders, the Salafi Sunni
revivalists, and local guerrilla chiefs have genuine popular support
among Sunni Arabs, and cannot be shut out of the new order. (Note that
some 150 candidates who ran in the Dec. 15 elections were excluded
after the fact by the debaathification committee controlled by Ahmad
Chalabi.) The Cairo Conference held last fall was a step toward this
recognition, and acknowledged the right to mount a resistance to
foreign military occupation. The work of the conference must be
continued.
5. Martin supported a timetable for withdrawing US troops.
    Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from
Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained
applause]
Iraqi Sunni parties, as well as the Shiite fundamentalist bloc of
Muqtada al-Sadr, have demanded that the US set a timetable for
withdrawal. Some 120 Iraqi parliamentarians out of 275 called for it
last year. The new parliament may well have a majority that supports
it.
These five principles are not the only ones that can be extrapolated
from Martin's sermon. They concern more tactics than over-arching
strategy. Here are some principles of strategy that he mentioned:
6. It is necessary to understand the common people among the "enemy" if
anything is to be accomplished:
    ' And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself
for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes
constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the
soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front,
not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been
living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now.
I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no
meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and
hear their broken cries. They must see Americans as strange liberators.
'
7. Concern to save US troops from creeping cynicism must be paramount:
    ' I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything
else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in
Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war
where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding
cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short
period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are
really involved. Before long they must know that their government has
sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated
surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure,
while we create a hell for the poor. '
In Iraq, too, virtually "none of the things we claim to be fighting for
are really involved." Not weapons of mass destruction, not
international terrorism, not Swedish style democracy, not social
justice, are actually on the agenda of the present administration.
8. The initiative belongs to the US:
    ' Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a
child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for
those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed,
whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who
are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death
and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the
world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who
loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative
in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours. '
Likewise, in the Sunni Arab heartland, homes are being destroyed and
culture subverted.
9. A revolution in American values away from consumer materialism and
militarism is needed if we are not to go on having one Vietnam after
another:
    The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within
the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause],
and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves
organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next
generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will
be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about
Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen
other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a
significant and profound change in American life and policy . . .
    Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation
has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by
refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the
immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are
to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must
undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin
[applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented
society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than
people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and
militarism are incapable of being conquered . . .
    A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring
contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will
look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only
to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of
the countries, and say, "This is not just . . ."
    A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and
say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This
business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's
homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate
into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from
dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically
deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation
that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense
than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
[sustained applause]
10. Love and justice, not aggression and exploitation, hold the real
hope for a peaceful and prosperous future:
    ' This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly
concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a
call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This
oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily
dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force,
has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I
speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response.
I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am
speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as
the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that
unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This
Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is
beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love
one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is
born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for
God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his
love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the
order of the day. '
Note that Martin recognized love as the principle that all the great
religions saw as the "supreme unifying principle of life," including
Islam. His religious universalism might be a starting point for
Americans to rethink the Islamophobia that has become so widespread.
We cannot in any simplistic way extract a template from Martin's sermon
that we can apply to Iraq today. We can, however, explore his wisdom
for inspiration in how to go foward, end the quagmire, and make amends
for the horrors of the way we have waged this illegal war of choice.

 by Juan Cole
Poveraccio ... Si mette a parlare pure a nome di MLK.
Deve essersi fatto qualcosa di molto buono :)
-Stefano


Eggia.   Si chiamano "libri".    Il tipo esatto sono "libri di Martin
Luther King".
Dovresti provare anche tu.  Anzi, come ogni spacciatore che si rispetti
ti do una tirata gratis:
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Beyond Vietnam,"
Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned
about Vietnam, at Riverside Church
4 April 1967
New York City
 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very
delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see
you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed
tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I
consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr.
Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and
personalities of our nation. And of course it's always good to come
back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the
privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is
always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and
this great pulpit.
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my
conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting
because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the
organization which has brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned
About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are
the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when
I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That
time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they
call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their
government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human
spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of
conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world.
Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do
in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of
being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night
have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but
we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate
to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well,
for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a
significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond
the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm
dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of
history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us
trace its movement, and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive
to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the
darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my
own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have
called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many
persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of
their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are
you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of
dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you
hurting the cause of your people? "they ask. And when I hear them,
though I often understand the source of their concern, I am
nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the
inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling.
Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in
which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem
it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely,
why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church-the
church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate-leads clearly
to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved
nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National
Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it
an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the
need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it
an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front
paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the
successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have
justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United
States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that
conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both
sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the
National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I
have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my
moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile
connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others
have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment
in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for
the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were
experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam,
and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some
idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that
America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in
rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued
to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction
tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the
poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became
clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes
of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and
their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions
relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young
men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight
thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they
had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been
repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys
on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been
unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in
brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize
that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not
be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it
grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last
three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among
the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that
Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have
tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my
conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through
nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about
Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of
violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my
voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the
world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the
sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands
trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and
thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this
further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the
soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision
to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction
that America would never be free or saved from itself until the
descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they
still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black
bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath-
America will be!
Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern
for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war.
If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must
read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the
deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are
yet determined that "America will be" are led down the path of protest
and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America
were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in
1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a
commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before
for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond
national allegiances.
But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the
meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the
relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that
I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the
war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for
all men-for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for
black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they
forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his
enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the
Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can
I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads
from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most
valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I
share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond
the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and
brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned,
especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come
tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the
burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and
loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go
beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to
speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation,
for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make
these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for
ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly
to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of
each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the
junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under
the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of
them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful
solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their
broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people
proclaimed their own independence in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a
combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist
revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they
quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document
of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to
support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government
felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence,
and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has
poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic
decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking
self-determination and a government that had been established not by
China-for whom the Vietnamese have no great love-but by clearly
indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this
new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs
in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right
of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in
their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war
we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the
French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their
reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge
financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had
lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this
tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land
reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there
came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the
temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we
supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man,
Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly
rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and
refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants
watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and
then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help
quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was
overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military
dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their
need
for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments
in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and
without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and
received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform.
Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow
Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we
herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where
minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be
destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we
poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They
must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to
destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at
least twenty casualties from American firepower for one
Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them,
mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the
children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets
like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they
beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our
soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and
as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land
reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them,
just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the
concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent
Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and
the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have
cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist
revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have
supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted
their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only
solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military
bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified
hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new
Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such
thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot
raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for
those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National
Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or
"communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when
they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem,
which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the
South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to
their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when
now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing
more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge
them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them
with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land?
Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone
their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed
them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized
plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is
less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them
the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are
aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear
ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized
political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can
speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and
controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder
what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only
party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political
goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they
will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our
nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up
upon the power of a new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when
it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to
know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see
the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may
learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are
called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land,
and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but
understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of
confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American
intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence
against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in
the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and
the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second
struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were
persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth
and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954
they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could
have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and
they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not
leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the
presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been
the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign
troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large
numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had
moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the
earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed
that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has
watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now
he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American
plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling
and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy.
Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears
the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it
drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight
hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these
last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to
understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as
deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it
occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not
simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies
face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the
process of death, for they must know after a
short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for
are really involved. Before long they must know that their government
has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more
sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy,
and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child
of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those
whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose
culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are
paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and
corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world
as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves
America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this
war is ours; the initiative to stop it
must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently
one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the
Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The
Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies.
It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the
possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process
they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image
of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and
democracy, but the image of
violence and militarism.
Unquote.
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of
the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not
stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will
be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible,
clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands
a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands
that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our
adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the
Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to
turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and
errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to
this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should
do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating
ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such
action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast
Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our
interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front
has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role
in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in
accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]
Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing
commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any
Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the
Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the
damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly
needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile
[applause], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a
continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a
disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our
lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must
be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative
method of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify
for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the
alternative of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am
pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy
students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to
all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust
one. [applause] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age
to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as
conscientious objectors. [applause] These are the times for real
choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be
placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man
of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his
convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and
sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade
against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I
wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the
American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and
if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing
"clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They
will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned
about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique
and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names
and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and
profound change in American life and policy. [sustained applause] So
such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as
sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to
him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During
the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which
has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela.
This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for
the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It
tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in
Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already
been active against rebels in Peru.
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F.
Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make
peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is
the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful
revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the
pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I
am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world
revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from
a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines
and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more
important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme
materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness
and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand
we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that
will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole
Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be
constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's
highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It
comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs
restructuring. [applause]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring
contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will
look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only
to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of
the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our
alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not
just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has
everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of
war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of
burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with
orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins
of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody
battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged,
cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than
on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained
applause]
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well
lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a
tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that
the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.
There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with
bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against
communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be
defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join
those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the
United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.
These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We
must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive
thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense
against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We
must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty,
insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed
of communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting
against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the
wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being
born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as
never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.
We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of
communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western
nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the
modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has
driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit.
Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make
democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated.
Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary
spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal
hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful
commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores,
and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and
every mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the
crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our
loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation
must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order
to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern
beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an
all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft
misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by
the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now
become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of
love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not
speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of
that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme
unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the
door which leads to ultimate reality. This
Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is
beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love
one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is
born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for
God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his
love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the
order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the
altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the
ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of
nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.
As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the
saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and
evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that
love is going to have the last word." Unquote.
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We
are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding
conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.
Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us
standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in
the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out
desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to
every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues
of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late."
There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our
vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger
writes, and having writ moves on."
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent
coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find
new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the
developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act,
we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors
of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might
without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and
bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of
the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall
we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too
hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate
against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or
will there be another message-of longing, of hope, of solidarity with
their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The
choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose
in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently
stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide, In the strife of
Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, God's
new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by
forever 'twixt that darkness and that light. Though the cause of evil
prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong Though her portions be the
scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong Yet that scaffold sways the
future, and behind the dim unknown Standeth God within the shadow,
keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform
this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will
make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling
discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we
will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day,
all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down
like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained
applause]

 by Juan Cole
#_Eccellente!
_Profetico al punto 9 ; attuale e regolare come il rintocco di una "campana
a morto", la destra statunitense alimenta la macchina di guerra.
Giano
---
Gandhi was inevitable. If humanity is to progress,
Gandhi is inescapable.
He lived, thought and acted,
inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward
a world of peace and harmony.
We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 wrote in message
news:BFF1F7C3.23C74%tonib...@gmail.com...

--------------
Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it
originated from a "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" in an August, 1967
edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he
declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August,
1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise's discovery. The
letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King
entitled, "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr." No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King
Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and
university libraries.
****Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a
statement declaring that the letter was "apparently" a hoax.****
--------------

 --------------
E infatti non ho citato la lettera, ma il discorso di Harvard, nonno
minchione. Dove Martin Luther ha detto la frase di cui sopra.
La canezza che citi è pappa per imbecilli. Martin Luther King l'ha detto,
non qui, ma là. Rotfl.


 E infatti non ho citato la lettera, ma il discorso di Harvard
#_Che tu solo naturalmente avrai ascoltato....'ricchione!?

 La canezza che citi è pappa per imbecilli.....
#_Mettiti d'accordo colla pappa de' CAMERA, tesoruccio de nonno...o co' chi
ti teneva per mano a Harvard nel 1968 a tre anni scarsi d'eta`.

 #_Che tu solo naturalmente avrai ascoltato....'ricchione!?
Toh, nonno minchione, visto che l'hai citata, leggi cosa scrive Camera.
===========================================================================
http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html
[...]
This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can
use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr.
King¹s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will think it is
from the debunked ³letter.²
[...]
==========================================================================
Non qui, ma là. 
Ti è andata male anche questa volta.
Rotfl!


 ti teneva per mano a Harvard nel 1968 a tre anni scarsi d'eta`.
Leggilo, cosa scrive CAMERA, nonno minchione.
===========================================================================
http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html
[...]
This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can
use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr.
King¹s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will think it is
from the debunked ³letter.²
[...]
==========================================================================
Non qui, ma là. 
Ti è andata male anche questa volta.
Rotfl!
Tb


 >>>> 1Z2When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking

#_Rotfla-rotfla
Quotation confirmed ...by Camera? & by what ?
Verba volant scripta manet, moccioso.
Scava scava ...

Eggia.   Si chiamano "libri".
No. Si chiamano "sostanze stupefacenti" al limite, visto che MLK non ha
scritto alcun libro sull'occupazione dell'Iraq.
-Stefano

 wrote in message
news:BFF24ADF.23C7F%tonib...@gmail.com...

#_Anche se di "CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization" non abbia ragione
di escluderne l'onesta`,e`pur sempre una organizzazione di parte e con
cio`posso permettermi di avere qualche dubbio.
Alla stessa stregua, posso concedermi il privilegio di pensare che un Martin
Luter King jr. (fautore all'estremo di una soluzione *pacifica* dei problemi
che affliggevano i popoli e in special modo le due rappresentanze
afroamericana ed ebrea ),se fosse vissuto oltre il '68, avrebbe certamente
descritto, non il Sionismo in se, ma i metodi adottati da una certa forma
del Sionismo, contrari al suo credo.
G.
"....
We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 _Profetico al punto 9
Ho riletto il suo discorso per intero.
_veramente_ profetico:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-13.htm
Some snippets:
...
 A true revolution of values will soon look easily on the
glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it
will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to
take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the
countries, and say: This is not just." ... The
Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and
nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values
will
lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling
differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with
napalm ... of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields
physically
handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with
wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to
spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift
is
approaching spiritual death.
...
"Each day the war goes on, the hatred
increases  in the hearts of those with humanitarian instinct. The
Americans
are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is
curious
that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of
military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring
deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will
never
again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image
of
violence and militarism."
...
" Perhaps only his sense of humor and irony can save him when he hears
the
most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops
thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than 8,000 miles away
from
its shores."
I wonder what would he think if he were alive today?

 #_Che tu solo naturalmente avrai ascoltato....'ricchione!?
ROTFL.... l'articolo che citi
parla anche del discorso di Harvard
--------------------
http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/palestine/1_21_04_israels_apologists.htm
More recently, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME)
featured excerpts from the letter prominently on its website. Despite
its name, SPME is an advocacy group seeking to bolster Israel's image
on campus--a mission it claims promotes peace in the region.
Ironically, right under the false Dr. King quotation is an announcement
of the formation of a task force "dealing with academic integrity with
respect to fabricating and falsifying data when discussing the Middle
East."
After one of the authors of this article informed SPME's director of
the quotation's discredited status, he replied with hostility despite
the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect.
After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly
far-fetched quote:
Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard
when he said: ".. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the
Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' ...When people criticize Zionism,
they mean Jews... And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the
Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the
people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the
Globe...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake
about it."
When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide
one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in
a 1968 Harvard "speech." However, the language of SPME's new posting
strongly resembles their original one -- on account of the fact that it
too comes from the same discredited "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend."
The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a
mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter
is strikingly unscholarly -- as is the false citation of it to a 1968
"speech" at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from
another unspecified source--classic plagiarism, whether intentional or
out of gross negligence.
SPME's reference to a 1968 "speech" at Harvard mirrors the details from
a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in
right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset's
1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San
Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King
personally.
Lipset wrote in his essay "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews &
Israel" about a "dinner" for Dr. King he attended. When one black
student made "some remark against the Zionists," Dr. King "snapped"
back, "'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking
anti-Semitism'." The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same
remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset's essay.
Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment "shortly before his
death" during "an appearance at Harvard." Lipset states it was "shortly
before he was assassinated" at a "dinner given for him in Cambridge."
This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents
snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a
1968 "speech" at Harvard).
There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the
authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, "The
Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year
ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true,
Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was
in the area for a "fund-raising mission," which would seem to imply a
high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by
Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts
for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge
or Boston.
---------------------------------

 parla anche del discorso di Harvard
Uff... prendiamo il solito cucchiano.
Il tuo sitarello antisionista ("electronic intifadah": lol!) fa un po' 
di fumo, e un po' di puzza di merda, ma non dice che il contenuto del 
discorso di Harvard è:
1) confermato da CAMERA, cioè la "rabid antisraeli organization" che ha 
denunciato il caso della lettera falsa, e che il povero nonno ha 
imprudentemente quotato cercando di sostenere la falsità della frase
2) Confermato da chi lavorò a stretto contatto con Martin Luther King e
3) Confermato dalla famiglia di Martin Luther King
Ed è proprio Camera, in questa lettera, che conferma che la citazione è 
genuina, ma va attribuita ad un discorso di Harvard, non alla "lettera 
ad un amico antisionista". Electronic Intifadah contesta il luogo 
dell'attribuzione per far credere che il CONTENUTO sia falso. E invece 
il contenuto è vero, solo che non è stato detto qui, ma là.
Rimangiata tutta la merdina?  ...bravo bambinello.
Tb
Ecco quello che scrive CAMERA:
=======================================================================
We am sorry to inform you that the “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” 
allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a hoax. 
Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without question, 
spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard, where 
he said: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are 
talking anti-Semitism.” [...]
Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was one 
Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can understand why 
the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to verify the “Letter 
to an anti-Zionist friend.” We at CAMERA apologize, though, for not 
looking past their endorsement when we had initial doubts about it. This 
episode is a reminder of the importance of verifying the authenticity 
and accuracy of sources, even when they appear to be solid.
Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who worked 
closely with Dr. King. In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King’s views on 
Israel, views which stressed Israel’s democratic nature and Israel’s 
need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people 
criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”
This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you 
can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came 
from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will 
think it is from the debunked “letter.”
Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA
======================================================================
-- 
TBLOG
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 _veramente_ profetico:
Sì, era profetico.
Specialmente quando diceva che l'antisionismo è la maschera degli 
antisemiti del cazzo.
Tb
-- 
TBLOG
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 antisemiti del cazzo.
#_Ti stai ripetendo un po' troppo, mi pare; stai peggiorando, di certo.
Dal semplice stronzo che eri, sei sulla via di un patetico stronzo.
Giano

 Dal semplice stronzo che eri, sei sulla via di un patetico stronzo.
Giano, al solito ti sei coperto di merda.
E' per quello che ne vedi dappertutto.


Giano ha scritto:


lol!
-- 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it