Moral Volcano is the (now abandoned) web log of V. Subhash. It was started when the HUMOUR section of Virtual V. Subhash (www.vsubhash.com) started overflowing. The name Moral Volcano is from the short story Journalism in Tennessee written by the American writer Mark Twain.
Moral Volcano is not a real volcano; just the name for this website. This site has absolutely no information on morals or volcanoes. You need to improve your search skills. Select this link to find information about real volcanoes. If you were looking for ideas for a class project, then try How To Build a Volcano at About.com. For stories with a moral, visit the site maintained by Srinivas Padmanabhuni. Bye-bye.
MORAL VOLCANO IS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN. ADULTS MAY EXPERIENCE DISCOMFORT WHEN READING MORAL VOLCANO. SYMPTOMATIC TREATMENT IS RECOMMENDED.
Any good search engine will bring you here if you type in "moral volcano".
Think George W. is bad? Wait till you read about his father!
Inheritance of Nazi fortunes, financial scandals, coups, assassinations, links to drug trade, and coverups; - all make the former CIA Director and later U.S. Vice President and President George Bush Sr. an unmatchable piece of work.
Buy this book from Amazon.com .
Or, read the free online version at www.tarpley.net
In Jerzy Kosinski's novel Being There, a middle-aged man called Chance Gardener, who has the mental age and development of a six-year-old, goes on to become the President of United States with the help of a few powerful friends while he himself is blissfully unaware of the situation. Peter Sellers chose this novel to make his final film (his masterpiece). Both the novel and the movie were released years before George W. came to the White House. Read my review here.
Gobbledegook! All the time he talked gobbledegook! An' it's for sure a White man's world in America. Hell, I raised that boy since he was the size of a pissant an' I'll say right now he never learned to read an' write - no sir! Had no brains at all, was stuffed with rice puddin' between the ears! Short-changed by the Lord and dumb as a jackass an' look at him now! Yes, sir - all you gotta be is white in America an' you get whatever you want! Just listen to that boy - gobbledegook!
Guess Who Came
|
Head For The Exit!A Nut Has Brought
|
In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad as Ronald Reagan's special envoy and met Saddam Hussein, despite evidence that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and had used it on civilians in Iraq and on soldiers in Iran. After his return, Rumsfeld successfully lobbied for financial and military aid for Iraq's war with Iran. Chemical and biological intermediaries and labs were provided by the US to Iraq. Other western countries followed suit. Predictably, Saddam used the weapons in the Kurdish north. In one instance, a set of Hughes helicopters provided by Ronald Reagan was used in a chemical attack that left 5000 dead in a Kurdish village called Halabja. Following this, the US Senate passed a Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime but the Reagan White House blocked it.
Between 1983 and 1988, Saddam used chemical weapons 195 times against Iran killing about 50,000 of their soldiers. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq then became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf shot down an Iranian Airbus killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.
George Bush Sr., as Vice President and later as President, used a number of covert and overt schemes to help with Baghdad's WMD programme. Strangely enough, Israel was one of the countries that helped in the transshipment of banned weapons. Saddam was so encouraged by this level of support that he thought he could get away with an invasion Kuwait. Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a subcommittee in the US Congress investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that between 1985 and 1990 the US government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment used for military applications.
To build the case for the war against Iraq, the Bush administration used the anthrax scare to frighten lawmakers into submission. The US Secretary of State Colin Powell, accompanied by CIA Directory George Tenet, even gave an anthrax demo in the UN Security Council. Interestingly, the anthrax found in Capitol Hill was found to be the same grade as those in the stocks of the US military.
US envoy Bill Richardson with Taliban leaders (circa 1998). See the BBC report for that day.Taliban played host to top US officials including former US assistant secretary of state for South Asia Robin Raphel, her successor Karl Inderfurth, deputy secretary for political affairs Thomas Pickering, and the then-US ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson. Within hours of Taliban's capture of Kabul, Washington moved quickly to announce that it would establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban government. However, the rash statement was quickly retracted. Afghanistan continued to be officially represented at the UN by the defunct government headed by Banruddin Rabbani and the Taliban greatly resented this. Robin Raphael went to the UN to lobby the international community to ignore the extremist threat posed by the Taliban and recognise the government headed by the group. Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan has significant oil and gas deposits. During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in the mid-1970s. Nonstop war since has prevent further exploitation, but that soon changes. According to the Houston Chronicle, the country may also have as much copper as Chile, the world's largest producer, and significant deposits of coal, emeralds, tungsten, lead, zinc, uranium ore and more. |
In 1989, the former Soviet Union was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan after fighting a prolonged guerilla war with the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen grew opium, which was then marketed in Europe and North America. Law enforcement agencies in these countries also turned a blind eye to the trafficking business. Proceeds from the trade were then used to buy weapons for the Mujahideen. The Russians left behind a government headed by the former intelligence chief Najibullah. The breakup of the Soviet Union made Najibullah's position weaker and he offered to step down in March 1992. This news triggered a wave of defections by Uzbek and Tajik militias, which were allied to his government. In April 1992, a prominent Mujahideen commander Ahmed Shah Masood (Lion of Panjshir valley) moved into Kabul. Najibullah then took refuge in the UN compound in Kabul. Between 1992 and 1996, Afghanistan was in semi-anarchy, as the country was carved into individual fiefdoms by the warlords.
In 1996, Unocal of the U.S. and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia became interested in mineral wealth of Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. The ideal route to bring oil from the Caspian sea and gas from the Daulatabad gas field (in Turkmenistan) would have been via Iran. Because of US policy of isolating Iran, Unocal and Delta oil thought of building a pipeline via Afghanistan.
Unfortunately for them, Afghanistan did not have a strong regime in place, which could guarantee security for the pipeline. For this purpose, Pakistan created the Taliban with funds from Saudi Arabia and UAE. They took into their rolls thousands of Pasthuns who had enrolled in madrasas adjoining Afghanistan. Because these men had never taken part in war, they were secretly trained and led by officers from the Pakistani army. Arms and ammunition including tanks, howitzers, and other military vehicles were provided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In 1996, The Taliban crossed the border into Afghanistan. Initially, they were dismissed as a joke but in September 1996, they had captured Kabul. (Also, see Amnesty International reports on Taleban atrocities.)
However, the Taliban could not occupy all of Afghanistan. (They did occupy 90% of it at one time.) At one point when the Taliban was overstretched and the Northern Alliance was poised to attack, the Clinton administration despatched UN envoy Bill Richardson and Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth to Afghanistan to broker a ceasefire and an arms embargo. While the Northern Alliance was being bamboozled, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sent several planeloads of arms and ammunition to Kabul and managed to fully rearm the Taliban. Soon after, the ceasefire failed. This was six months before the US embassies in Africa were attacked and two months after al-Qaeda issued a declaration of jihad to "kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and military."
In 1998, the Al-Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Despite this, money continued to flow. Both the Clinton and the Bush administrations gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the Taliban under the guise of aid. As late as July 2001, Christina Rocca, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, met Taliban officials in Islamabad and announced $43 million in food and shelter aid, bringing to $124 million the U.S. contribution for that year alone. The U.S. government did not insist on knowing how the money was spent and the flow of dollars did not stop until the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred. It is quite possible that that American taxpayers' money was used to finance the attacks.
To save serious embarassment to the Bush administration, the U.S. media, led by the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and others, has created a notion that the Taliban fought Soviet forces in Afghanistan by tracing its origins to the Mujahideen. The truth however is that the Taliban was not in existence at that time. Taliban was created to fight the Mujahideen, not the Soviets. For more, read CIA and a Blowback World by Tom Engelhardt and Chalmers Johnson.
Interviewer: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Interviewer: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Interviewer: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentlaism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
After Libya revealed that it had sourced components and technology for its clandestine nuclear weapons program from a worldwide network of nuclear arms dealers, Dr. A. Q. Khan, the father of the Islamic nuclear bomb, was named as one of the prime movers in this network. On February 4, 2004, Khan confessed on Pakistan's national television that he had hawked Pakistan's nuclear weapons secrets to other countries and begged forgiveness. With American blessings, Gen. Musharraf wasted no time in granting a pardon for Khan. Gen. Mush also claimed that Mr. Khan acted alone and that no one else was involved in the transfer of the technology, which went to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
No action will be taken on Libya because the Bush administration has shown interest in oil wealth of the country. With the exception of Iraq, Libya is the only OPEC country with spare oil capacity. The two Libyan intelligence officials who were suspects in the Lockerbie bombing are under house arrest and not in prison.
Curiosly, a BBC Scotland news report says that a former Scottish police chief had come forward with the information that the key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated and planted by the CIA. In another bizzare happening, the Amsterdam court that had tried Khan in absentia has claimed that it has "lost" the Khan case files. Before coming back to Pakistan, Khan worked as an engineer in the Netherlands at Urenco, an uranium enrichment plant in the 1970s from where he is suspected of stealing nuclear secrets.
As revealed by former premiers Benazir Bhutto and Nawas Sharif, the Pakistani military establishment including President Musharraf are part of the nuclear trade. North Korea made shipments of missile components to Pakistan in exchange for shipments of wheat from Pakistan. Similarly, China had made shipments of ring magnets and other nuclear eqiupment to Pakistan. But illegal trade in nuclear and missile technology and components is not limited to the Third world. During the Clinton years, US aerospace companies (Loral/Hughes) provided China with technologies that were originally banned for export. The clandestine Israeli nuclear weapons programme was aided by voluntary/involuntary transfer of men, material, and technology from the U.S., Britain, and several other European countries.
The prediction that when Nazism goes to America it will be wrapped in an American flag has become a reality. Nazis believed that if you kept on repeating the same lies again and again, the masses would eventually accept them as truth. Yet again, the Nazis have been proved right. The American people have accepted blatant falsehoods as the truth not because they have been presented with some really great evidence but because they have been repeatedly lied to. And the campaign by faux journalism and the resultant faux news is not limited to the U.S. It is being applied all over the world where phoney revolutions have been staged to put phoney democrats in power. From Lebanon to Ukraine to East Timor, falsehoods have won. The strategy may seem to have failed in Brazil, Venezuela and Bolivia but the setbacks are only temporary. In important countries like Mexico, elections are conducted by private American companies and the electoral rolls are also maintained by them. As there is no paper trail, it is easy to fix the elections.
American diplomats decide who should win elections in Eastern Europe and Third World countries. Western consultants manage everything on the ground - from running opinion/exit polls (so they can claim election fraud) to training volunteers, journalists, and more importantly "pro-democracy protestors" (vital for any regime change that does not involve the U.S. military). Billions of dollars of U.S. government funds are pouring into the coffers of opposition parties and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their mandate is simple - bring down the current dispensation and put pro-Western stooges in power.
Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as Freedom House (run by billionaire George Soros) play an important role in all this. If U.S. media claims are to be believed, Soros is a philanthropist who "promotes democracy movements" in Eastern Europe. However, funds for these activities come from the American government - mainly from USAID (United States Aid for International Development). Perusing the USAID Yellowbook for 2001, one will be surprised to note that one of the many Ukraine contracts received by Freedom House is worth almost $2 billion. This is interesting because, among other things, USAID even refuses funds for AIDS treatment in Africa. Reason for this anomaly becomes clear if one reads USAID's mandate - to promote U.S. "stategic interests" worldwide.
Download:
Apart from USAID, a wide range of semi-government and non-governmental institutions are involved to promote U.S. strategic interests - National Democratic Institute (NDI) of the Democratic Party, International Republican Institute (IRI) of the Republican Party, U.S. billionaire George Soros' outfits Open Society and Freedom House. The role of intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps requires no mention. The role of the media is curiousy naieve.
Politicians who have take money are identified as "liberals," while those who have not done so are simply called "hardliners." The result is that artificially created protests are considered by the outside world as spontaneous and indigenous. History then gets replaced by the faux news.
American officials openly ask the U.S. Congress for money to "promote democracy" in other countries. (This happens in between demands for huge budget cuts in social spending for American citizens.) No one in America seems to find it odd that democracy could be promoted with money from a foreign country. What is all the more ironical because it was an American who said democracy is by the people, for the people, and of the people.
During the Cold War, intelligence agencies were entrusted with the task of distributing money. Mark Almond, who describes himself as an old cold war swagman who carried tens of thousands of dollars to Soviet-bloc dissidents alongside much better respected academics, is nostalgic about how things have changed. In an article in Guardian he says:
Back in the 1980s, our media portrayed Prague dissidents as selfless academics who were reduced to poverty for their principles, when they were in fact receiving $600-monthly stipends. Now they sit in the front row of the new Euro-Atlantic ruling class. The dowdy do-gooder who seemed so devoted to making sure that every penny of her "charity" money got to a needy recipient is now a facilitator for investors in our old stamping grounds. The end of history was the birth of consultancy.
In many countries, it is not just the manipulation of elections; civil war is encouraged by exacerbating ethnic or religious divisions. One side is provided with with arms and ammunition and the other side is provoked into causing enormous casualities on civilians. Western government, NGOs and media then allege genocide. UN "peacekeepers" arrive, a referendum on secession is held, and a nation is born. What is not mentioned is that the new country is so weak financially that they can't even afford to open embassies in other countries. West-backed politicians who run the country prefer to listen to foreign investors than to their own people. In the end, "poor people" become more poor and less free. The application of "genocide revolutions" found great success in East Timor and is now being actively pursued in Darfur (Sudan) and several other places.
East Timorese people languish in extreme poverty because their government gets very little in revenue. The government has just one purpose - provide security to Western diplomatic corps and foreign investors (made up of solely oil companies). It has no money either for development or for providing essential services. East Timor, it must be noted, has huge reseverves of gas and oil. It could have easily become a rich country but foriegn oil companies have other plans. Australia has claimed that its maritime border extends for 85% of the 600-mile sea separating the two countries. Under international laws, the border should have been drawn halfway between the two countries, which would have given East Timor 100% of its petroleum resources including the oil-rich Greater Sunrise field. In March 2003, tiny East Timor was forced to cede 79.9 percent of the Greater Sunrise oil and gas field to big nieghbour Australia. The entire worth of the field was an estimated $50 billion.
Also, read
Back when I was in school, there was this program on TV called Race To Save The Planet. Every Sunday, it had this wonderful chick, clad in T-shirt and jeans, sitting on a tree stump with her arms around her knees, talking seriously about future climate change. Climate change? Well, it was supposed to take longer than a lifetime to notice any changes. Only future generations were going to be seriously affected. Unfortunately, climate change seems to have arrived earlier than expected. We have seen some very unprecedented floods induced by torrential floods in various parts of the country and even around the world. (circa 2005) The floods were also preceded by periods of unusually hot weather. My guess is that extreme weather conditions are going to be the norm in future but with increasing severity.
The rise in greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the consequent rise in global temperatures was expected to cause a slow melting of the ice caps. But, scientists have noted that the area under permafrost around the Arctic circle is fast receding. When peat bogs under the permafrost gets exposed, they start releasing new amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As this picks up momentum, global temperatures will not just rise but will attempt a high jump.
And, the transition from ice to water occurs over a few degrees. So, the ice cap will not just melt, it will break apart! Large sheets of ice will suddenly break off the North pole and swamp countries in its wake downstream. This ice will break off in such huge proportions that countries near the poles will experience doomsday-size floods that will last for several months. Worse, there will be several floods like that; some of them going on simultaneously. And, that means goodbye to countries like Canada and most of Europe. Large parts of the U.S. and Russia will also dissappear. Antartica will only melt because it is on land and does not float on water like the Arctic. Still, large portions of low-lying land in the southern hemisphere will be eaten away by the sea, leaving hundreds of millions without land under their feet.
Possible Solution: Jaime Pressly |
The treatment that our society gives to rape requires drastic change. Instead of considering rape as a form of physical assault, unnecessary emotional baggage is added to it. In our stupid feature films, if a woman is raped, she has to commit suicide. Or, worse, marry the rapist (if it is the hero guy). But real rape victims cannot commit suicide or marry the rapist! Sadly, our society places a high high value on a woman's character. Feminist propaganda does not help either. The lesbians want death sentence for rapists, making it incumbent on rapists to also kill their victims!
Women's activists portray rape as some kind of unbelievably horrible crime that is simply beyond human nature. Flawless as they are made up to be, women DO commit serious crimes! It has been reported that it is usually a woman who harrases her daughter-in-law for more dowry. Many a woman has handed over the matchbox when her son douses his wife with kerosene. And who do you think snuffs the life out newborn girl children? WOMEN!!!
And, they keep on asking when all women will be safe. It is an incredibly stupid question! Will households ever be safe from burglars? Burglaries will occur just as some marriages will end in divorces. Rapes will occur just as some murders are going to be committed. Deviancy is part of any society. It is an inescapable fact of life, unless of course your marooned on uninhabited island.
What can be done is placing necessary measures to ensure speedy justice; not just for rape but for all crimes. Instead, a fuss is created. Names are published. Photos are printed. In the end, the victim wishes she did not have to survive the trauma. Should not rape victims be able to recover from the incident like from a minor road accident? More than the actual crime itself, it is the way society receives the victim that seems to have a lasting effect.
| Trauma | Victim | Victim's Family |
| Road Accident | gets sympathy | finds social support |
| Sexual Assault | gets a stigma | loses social standing |
Also, read:
Why is the U.S. very much against labelling GM food? In the U.S., we have a policy. If you have a final product that is a substantial equivalent to a conventional product, you need not have to label that it contains GMOs [genetically modified organisms] just because it is a product of GMO; it is a process involved. At the end of the day, it is considered equivalent to the conventional product and so we don't believe in labelling. On the other hand, if you have nutrient enhanced product or a product that contains allergens or toxin, then labelling is required. So we don't believe in process labelling and that is the difference between the U.S. and other countries.Same day as this interview was published in The Hindu, the newspaper's supplement Metro Plus carried the following information in Health Capsules (a syndicated American newspaper cartoon feature):
How do I know if my fish or shellfish is wild, not farm-raised? Beginning in April 2005, all retail fish and shellfish [in the U.S.] were required to be labelled farm-raised or wild-caught and with their country of origin.
A kid who hates freedom. |
"I am not even interested," said Charlie Chaplin when asked whether he was going to have his latest film shown in the U.S. Why, what was wrong? "There is nothing wrong with the American people. It is the top who decay and putrify!," Chaplin explained. Harsh words, no doubt but why? The movie A King In New York was set in New York and yet here was Chaplin (in London, circa 1956) refusing to release the movie in the United States. What made him feel so disgusted and angry? Welcome to the the land of the free.
What many people see of America is not really America; it is Hollywood. Not just foreigners, even Americans see America through the eyes of Hollywood. Take World War II. Many Americans think that it was they who saved the world! (It was actually Russia, led by like-it-or-not Stalin, which was the first to inflict a defeat on the Nazis, free a host of countries from occupation, enter Berlin and take charge of Hitler's bunker.)
Not many know that not until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, America had never entered the War on the side of Britain and France. Or, more correctly, they have absolutely no idea of the significance of this decision. Like the grandfather of George Bush, America was busy trading with Nazi Germany. Many, like Bush family patron William Farris (of Standard Oil, now Exxon), were making their fortunes off Nazi slave labour. The U.S. had also closed its gates to European Jews wanting to flee persecution; (forcing them to go to Palestine where they established Israel and have since remained in conflict with the original owners of the land and with their Arab neighbours.) Franklin Roosevelt spent much of his time assuring his nation that he would NEVER send "their children in harm's way" - certainly a poor foil alongside real heroes like Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle or even Josef Stalin. It was precisely this geographic and political isolation from the conflict, which drew people in the war zone like a magnet to the American continent.
"DO YOU WANT TO DENY YOURSELF THE RIGHT TO BE A MAN?" reads this psy-ops leaflet, dropped by Americans in Vietnam. You don't see RAMBO dropping leaflets like these! He he he! |
So, after sheep-faced Americans joined the war, films like Casablanca were released, which had Americans showing hitherto unseen courage and sparing no effort to save hapless Europeans from evil Nazis. Sure, these films helped sell a lot of "war bonds" to aid the war effort but "war films" continued to be made even after the real war was over - all of them showing Americans as the selfless saviours of the world; all of them conveniently ignoring the enormous sacrifices made by the Russians and the heavy losses made to bear on civilians in the Axis nations. During the War, American soldiers like good soldiers everywhere went about raping and pillaging when they were not busy fighting. In almost all of the war films, Americans GIs were models of good behaviour. It is this image that generations of Americans have believed in, rather than in what history books would have had to offer.
In his book Know Thine Enemy, Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA man who worked in the US consulate in Istanbul during the 1980s, provides an insight into how Freedom™ typically operates. Gerecht's job was to debrief would-be Iranian defectors:
"I'd let hundreds of desperate Iranians languish in Turkey. People who'd given me insights never found in books. I'd watched mothers with children drop to their knees and beg for my help... They didn't want money, just a little kindness, a visa out of their personal hell ... [they met] a sympathetic man waiting in a warm room full of food, coffee, tea, alcohol and cigarettes. A US official who'd politely strip them of all their memories and every corpuscle of information and then reopen the street-side door."
Rambo II, starring Sylvester Stallone, has Islamic fighters in Afghanistan portrayed as brave freedom fighters, quite in line with government policy at that time. By the time True Lies starring Arnold Schwarznegger was made, the "freedom fighters" had become "terrorists" both on screen and in the real world! Movies that romanticises military life (aiding recruitment, usually from poorer sections of the American society) such as Top Gun or Black Hawk Down get active cooperation (and under-publicised editorial input) from the U.S. military while others that question military postures have to rope in a foreign government for using their military hardware.
AVERAGE VOTER IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY IS A MORON! |
In May 2003, an Iraqi boy who suffered burns all over his body, had his arms amputed above the elbow, and lost 20 members of his family after an American missile hit his home became subject of a media frenzy. Although the boy refused American offers of free medical treatment, Hollywoood went ahead and made a movie starring George Clooney with an expectedly different story ending. In the Balkans, American soldiers have been indicted of raping women and forcing them into prostitution but that did not stop Hollywood from making a movie, which showed the opposite - an American soldier killing another soldier to prevent a rape from happening! George Bush and 9/11 was also subject of a movie. However, it featured no pet goat. In sharp contrast, Micheal Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which attempted to come to terms with truth, was received with unrepressed hostility.
With every war, the deception continues to grow. Even though the fall of the Saddam statue in the middle of Baghdad or the rapturous welcome given to Ahmed Chalabi on his return to Iraq or the daring rescue of Private Jessica Lynch are considered as classics among military psy-ops films, Hollywood remains unbeaten in their effort at perpetuating myths for the U.S. government.
FAKE NEWS = FREEDOM NEWS? |
Sure, Hollywood has no designs on the world and they are in it with the American war machine only because it is a mutually rewarding relationship. However, truth becomes a casualty - not just in war but also in peace. This blackout is made complete by sanitised coverage of world events by the American media.
In Iraq, for example, news reports are solely based on the version provided by the U.S. military spokesman. American journalists rarely leave the safe confines of the fortified "Green Zone" in Central Baghdad. However, to fool the American public, videos shot by Iraqi journalists are placed in the background. The American journalist wears a bullet-proof vest, stands in front of the camera and then files his "report." A white screen (not seen by viewers) placed behind this brave journalist allows video technicians in a New York or Washington D.C. studio to be able to seamlessly mix the two videos, creating the illusion of the journalist having actually visited the scene. With this kind of deception, the American military remains free to drop bombs on houses of innocent people.
Several decades ago, Jawaharlal Nehru remarked,
"They shoot and kill and destroy only for the good of the people shot down. The novel feature of the modern type of imperialism is its attempt to hide its terrorism and exploitation behind pious phrases."
His words remain true to this very day. And, "they" continue to do it with the approval of the American people. Yet, when a 911 happens, you will hear Americans asking, "Why do they hate us so much?"
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. There were actually two pages on the CIA website under the title Iraqi Rewards Program offering rewards for information regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). One web page was in English (at http://www.cia.gov/cia/english_rewards.htm) and the other was in Arabic (at http://www.cia.gov/cia/arabic_rewards.htm, still present.) The CIA removed the English version after a short time. I had saved a copy of the English version, I put it up here and later moved it to www.vsubhash.com. I also added a timeline of the Iraqi Rewards Program.
In case you are wondering, rest assured that the cia.gov domain is used only to host their website. The domain ucia.gov (unclassified CIA) is used for other unclassified purposes. You can see their updates page for references to ucia.gov.
Want a cool HTML email signature template for use in Outlook express? Then, visit my E-Mail Signature & Template Generator. Echelon Salt™ is purely optional. E-Mail Signature & Template Generator can be customized to include only those details you would like to have in your e-mail signature.
 |
"Echelon Salt®™ is 100% compatible with our Echelon program." |
 |
 |
"Thanks to Echelon Salt®™, at least someone in the government reads our reports now." |
|
 |
"I used Echelon Salt Enterprise Edition®™ for Al-qaida and we got a lot of attention. Unfortunately, our license was stolen and given to someone in the Pentagon basement - to a guy called Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Soon, all action shifted to Iraq." |
Some years ago, I picked up a book by Dominique Lapierre called The City of Joy at a library. The author's name was familiar because a chapter from his semi-fiction Freedom At Midnight was in a English reader in school. But what really caught my interest were the quotations on the blurb of the book. On further examination, I found that the publishers had devoted several pages exclusively for the comments - comments from literary critics, celebrities, religious figures, and even lay people. All of them mentioned how deeply they were moved by the book and how life in Calcutta was sad and miserable. I was very puzzled and decided to borrow the book.
The book was set in a slum called Anand Nagar, which the author translated as City of Joy. When people in foreign countries read the book, the boundaries of the entire city of Calcutta and this slum merged into one. Don't believe it? Just check the Amazon page for the book: In Dominique LaPierre's book, "The City of Joy" we learn of the struggles of every day families trying to survive in the abject poverty of Calcutta, India.
So, who do we blame? The author or the reader? When I was a kid, I thought people in English countries did not wear clothes, as the film posters of English films always showed nudes. That idea changed when my father took me to a real English movie. Unfortunately, I was left with the impression that everyone in English countries had helicoptors in their homes. For some time after that, I tried in vain to persuade my father to sell his cycle and buy a helicopter.
Foreigners are like that. They believe what they see. Page after page, Dominique LaPierre dished out mind-numbing accounts of poverty, insanitary conditions, diseases, starvation, deprivations, hand-pulled rickshaws, lepers, riots, murders, etc. It convinced a new generation of Westerners that one could go to Calcutta and see people dying in the streets. Probably prompted by this, the image-conscious Marxists changed the name of the city to Kolkatta. But the city of joy appellation still continues to be used, mostly by idiots in Indian media.
The City of Calcutta went into disrepute because of Mother Teresa. She rose to fame overnight when the BBC released a hagiographic documentary in 1969 called Something Beautiful for God. The film had a huge impact in the west. The book (of the same name) that followed it became a bestseller. There was no stopping her after that. Awards were heaped on her. Celebrities visited her Home For The Dying. Heads of state played host to her.
An unfortunate casualty in all this was city of Calcutta. When people from Calcutta or West Bengal went to North American or Europe, they were asked about the poverty and the starvation in the city. The word Calcutta became synonymous with the worst of human suffering and degradation. It was totally different from the Calcutta that we know of. In their minds, Calcutta was the ultimate hellhole in the world.
Meanwhile, the order established by Mother Teresa prospered, as lots of money poured in as donations. According to Christopher Hitchens, all the millions that she receives is parked in bank accounts in foreign countries because the Indian government requires disclosure of foreign missionary organizations' funds. While Mother Teresa solicited donations by touting her service for the poor, very little money was spent. The nuns are never paid and other workers were volunteers who had taken vows of poverty. Rest of the expenses were always waived or borne by charity-minded citizens. But, the money in the bank accounts was rarely touched. It was touched only when a new branch had to be opened in a country. After that, the branch managed itself.
According to the German Stern magazine:
In Calcutta, there are about 200 charitable organisations helping the poor. Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity is not amongst the biggest helpers: that contradicts the image of the organisation. The name "Mother Teresa" was and is tied to the city of Calcutta. All over the world admirers and supporters of the Nobel Prize winner believe that it must be there that her organisation is particularly active in the fight against poverty... The fortune of this famous charitable organistaion is controlled from Rome, from an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure however - Mother's outlets in poor countries do not benefit from largesse of the rich countries. The official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink, writes, As soon as the sisters became established in a certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial support. Branches in very needy countries therefore only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank.
The magazine interviewed a former official who had worked in their New York office. She had left the order disillusioned after working there for several years:
The money was not misused, but the largest part of it wasn't used at all. When there was a famine in Ethiopia, many cheques arrived marked for the hungry in Ethiopia. Once I asked the sister who was in charge of accounts if I should add up all those very many cheques and send the total to Ethiopia. The sister answered, No, we don't send money to Africa. But I continued to make receipts to the donors, [marked] For Ethiopia... Mother Teresa taught her nuns how to secretly baptised those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a ticket to heaven. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person's forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims.
The magazine alleges that the order is so tightfisted that the orphans in their care do not get the money that was donated for them.
The nuns run a home in Delhi in which the orphans wait to be adopted by, in many cases, by foreigners. As usual, the costs of running the home are borne not by the order, but by the future adoptive parents. In Germany the organisation called Pro Infante has the monopoly of mediation role for these children. The head, Carla Wiedeking, a personal friend of Mother Teresa's, wrote a letter to Donors, Supporters and Friends which ran: On my September vist I had to witness 2 or 3 children lying in the same cot, in totally overcrowded rooms with not a square inch of playing space. The behavioural problems arising as a result cannot be overlooked.
When the magazine asked Sr. Pauline, head of the German branch of her organization, they recieved the reply, It's nobody's business how much money we have. She then corrected herself, I mean to say how little we have. The financial dealings of the order is shrouded in secrecy. The size of donations or how they are spent are not released to the public.
During her foriegn sojourns, the lady used to solicit funds in the name of her hospital in Calcutta but in reality she runs no hospitals in Calcutta. Her hospitals are actually hospices, providing care to destitutes and terminally-ill people. In her Nobel Price acceptance speech, she said:
We have a home for the dying in Calcutta, where we have picked up more than 36 000 people only from the streets of and out of that big number more than 18 000 have died a beautiful death.
Aroup Chatterjee, a native of Calcutta, did some undercover work at her facilities. He writes in his book:
Shahida was swiftly turned down by the Missionaries of Charity, because she was not destitute enough, i.e., she was a family case, a clause regularly applied during the vetting of indigents by the Missionaries of Charity in India; the organisation is ever watchful that family cases do not slip in...
When the plague struck India in 1994, Mother Teresa arrived at the Vatican on one of her frequent visits. As she arrived at Rome airport, she was ceremoniously quarantined there. Pictures of her being taken away for quarantine were circulated all over the world - the natural assumption was that she had been working knee deep with plague sufferers. She had had no involvement whatsoever either during or after the plague with treatment or prevention...
But she herself was the source of serious and continuous misinformation... Let us take for instance her comment that on the ground floor of Shishu Bhavan [her orphanage in Calcutta] there are cooking facilities to feed over a thousand people daily. That there are, but are the facilities used for the purpose of a soup kitchen? The soup kitchen at Shishu Bhavan feeds about 70 people a day, and that too 5 days a week. The daily turn out is about 50 people for lunch and 20 for dinner, but charity does not come easy for the poor - they need to possess a 'food card' in order to get their gruel... Mother's soup kitchen runs on a far stricter regime at Prem Daan, her other home in Calcutta. The production of food cards is mandatory here, possibly because Prem Daan sits in the middle of Dnarapara slum and there is the likelihood of getting overwhelmed. Here the number of beneficiaries is around 50 a day, 5 days a week, but only one meal is served daily... Now, how does one obtain a food card? - The process is shrouded in mystery, like most of the functions of the Missionaries of Charity. New ones have not been issued for some time... It is to Mother Teresa of Calcutta's credit that her soup kitchens feed three times as many people in New York as they do in Calcutta...
She once said, Today there is a modern school in that place [in Motijheel slum] with over 5000 children in it. This appears in a book published in 1986... In 1969-70, Mother Teresa's primary schools catered for not more that 200 (a generous overestimate) in Calcutta - the figure is not much more today...
Mother Teresa frequently said that her nuns pick[ed] up people from the streets of Calcutta... The sad truth is, Mother Teresa's organisation does not pick up people from the streets of Calcutta... It is not true that they do not provide a 'pick up' service at all for destitutes - they do in Rome... no arrangement exists... in Calcutta...
The Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta possess a small fleet of 'ambulances', many of them donated by businesses and individuals. These vehicles are painted to appear as ambulances and are fitted with red beacons; they are exempt from traffic regulations. But their main or sole function is to provide a taxi service for the nuns...
She said in Carmelite Church in Dublin in 1979, she said, The Sisters go out at night to work, to pick up people from the streets. They do not... Sisters retire early - about 8 p.m., and a major earthquake will not bring them to the doors, at least not in Calcutta. I have numerous recorded telephone conversations where I was trying to have somebody admitted to the home for the dying in Calcutta in the middle of the night, and the Sisters kept insisting that I brought the person at 9 a.m. the following morning... Indeed, until a few years back, the home for the dying did not even have a nun staying there overnight - the building was left to the mercy of sweepers and local anti socials. Mother agreed to provide two nuns for the night after intense agitation by some volunteers...
I cannot say that Mother Teresa was continuously callous and calculating about misrepresenting her charitable activities - from time to time she became extremely agitated, especially with people who were close to her, that she should be represented in such an extreme charitable light. When, for instance, Edward Le Joly, first wanted to write a book on her, she erupted: Do it, do it. We are misunderstood, we are misrepresented, we are misreported. We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious... Mother Teresa herself was the most responsible for the misrepresentation of her activities. She did get periods of guilt and remorse that she should be cast as such a figure of charity, but she would soon lapse into her usual mode: 'If there are poor on the moon, we will go there,' etc.
Mary Louden had spent time as a volunteer worker in one of the mission's homes. She wrote in May 3 1992 issue of The Guardian that the home at Kalighat consisted of two rooms, each with around 40 patients in stretcher beds, sandwiched between pieces of green plastic and small, scratchy blankets. She reported that on admission the patients' heads were shaved, their clothes and any possessions removed. Patients wore only a knee-length western-style overall that tied at the neck and was open at the back. Louden described the food as nutritionally inadequate and unvaried, the water disease-ridden, and the volunteers largely unable to speak Bengali, the local language. Patients were left with nothing to do and nowhere to go. My initial impression was of all the photographs and footage I've seen of (Bergen) Belsen and places like that, because all the patients have shaved heads. No chairs anywhere, there were just these stretcher bed... There's no garden, no yard even.
Dr. Robin Fox, the editor of The Lancet, visited the Calcutta operation in 1994. He expected to be impressed but was disappointed. He scathingly dismissed the order's so-called medical facilities: Souls not bodies are the grist of her mill of faith. He found that the sisters did not utilise modern technology (notably study of blood to determine such common ailments as malaria from other illnesses). The sisters used no procedures to distinguish the curable from the incurable. Wrote Dr Fox in The Lancet in 17 September 1994: Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. On the question of pain and its alleviation, the sisters offered no relief for the dying. I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. After the publication of the article, the entire British journalistic community descended on Dr. Fox like a ton of bricks.
In 1996, the Ladies Home Journal sent Daphne Barak to do a story about Mother Teresa. When she asked Do you think about death?, Mother Teresa replied, When my time comes, I will just take a bed in the house in Kalighat and wait for the end. By some mistake the Journal published Ms. Barak's astonished remark, In that terrible place? Why?. Shortly after this, she had some close encounters with death. On these occasions, she checked into the city's Woodlands Clinic and Birla Heart Institute.
Criticisms of Mother Teresa were slow to emerge. Aroup Chatterjee asked BBC's Channel 4 to create a program on Mother Teresa. The program titled Hell's Angel was made by Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali. Hitchens later summed up his arguments in his pamphlet The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.
Also read:
Link to Moral Volcano's Peddlers Of Poverty
Your Comment
As per the original plan, India was to gain independence in July 1948. The date was advanced to August 1947 by Lord Mountbatten, who was the then Viceroy of India. The reason, he claimed, was to avoid a bloodbath. But, his intention was to create a bloodbath.
At some point in time, the British realized that their days in India were numbered. India had been the jewel in their empire. When they did not call it the empire, they referred it as the white man's burdern. Their reasoning went like this - Wasn't it good fortune of these Indians that they have the British to rule over them? Resigned to the fact that they would have to eventually leave, the British decided to make their exit an honourable one. A bloodbath, they conceived, would provide just that. It would let them claim that Indians were not capable of ruling themselves. Or, in other words, only the British could rule India effectively. So, they decided to do what they did to Bengal - divide the country on the basis of religion. As Sardar Vallabhai Patel noted, The British statesmen in order to win the sympathy of the world, now go on repeating that they are willing to give freedom to India, were India united.
Unfortunately for them, the Muslim League did not have a huge following among Muslims. Their goals were same as that of the Congress but with a special focus on Muslims. So, the British brief for the League was simple - Change your act if you want to be taken seriously. Hence, a delegation went to London to get a man whom the League believed would galvanise the Muslim masses for an eventual partition of India. His name was Jinnah.
Mr. Jinnah, as he was known, was an old Congressman. He believed in gaining autonomy from the British by legislative means, as did most Congressmen. He had no appetite for civil disobedience and the possibility of arrest or jail time. Feeling sure that the movement had gone to the dogs and that he had no longer had a role to play, Jinnah had left for London.
Apart from Jinnah, the British employed B. R. Ambedkar† for their act. He was supposed to be a champion of Harijans. These two parties were then used as counterweights against the Congress, both at home and at the Round Table Conference. Addressing the British Prime Minister, he said
"Prime minister, permit me to make one thing clear. The depressed classes are not anxious, they are not clamorous, they have not started any movement for claiming that there shall be an immediate transfer of power from the British to the Indian people.... Their position, to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of power from the British to the Indian people....
Thus, an unified opposition to the British was not available. After the conferences, Ambedkar would be feted by British politicians for his loyal service. Jinnah was too much of a gentleman that the British did not take the same route. So, they cultivated him by proxy. They would claim that Jinnah was the sole voice of Indian Muslims and hence the Indian National Congress could not speak for the broad masses.
However, when the division came, Jinnah was an extremely frustrated man. The date was advanced against his wishes. His plea for a land corridor between western and eastern wings of Pakistan across India was rejected. Kashmir* was a princely state and hence its fate would be determined by its Maharaja. Nehru declared that Pakistan would be treated as a part of India that had seceded from it and not as equal halves.
It was then Jinnah knew he had been had by the British. They had been playing him all along. Smarter from the experience, Jinnah conveyed to the British that he intended to become Governor General of Pakistan himself and Mountbatten would have to be content with being the Governor General of India alone. Mountbatten would later extract a revenge that was only as cheap as he was. When his PRO (a rarity in those days) Alan Cambell-Johnson found a doodle by Jinnah with tennis racquets, fireworks, and the words Governor General, Mountbatten promptly passed it on to the press, as undeniable evidence of Jinnah's greed for power.
Personal relations between Jinnah and Mountbatten may have been become sour, but British treachery continued from inside Pakistan. Both Indian and Pakistani armies were under Claude Auchinleck, the Commander-In-Chief of British Indian armed forces. In October 1947, Pathan tribesmen from North-West Frontier Province, backed by regulars from the Pakistan army, moved into Kashmir. But, the C-in-C adopted a don't ask and don't tell policy. Later, he claimed he was totally unaware of the mobilizations and the planning by the Pakistan army, which at that time was commanded by his British generals.
* - The word Pakistan is an acronym of Punjab Afghania Kashmir Iran Sindh Tukharistan Afghanistan BaluchistaN. Fortunately or unfortunately, it does not seem to include Junagarh, Hyderabad or East Bengal.
† - Ambedkar opposed Indian independence as much as he could because he felt that an independent India would be dominated by Brahmins. In 1937 elections, Ambedkar allied with the Muslim League and challenged the Congress but lost miserably. In his home state, the Congress 14 out of the 15 seats that wre reserved for harijans. The all-India situation was no different. The sore loser that he was, Ambedkar alleged fraud in his What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. When independence from the British seemed inevitable, Ambedkar was one of the champion supporters of Pakistan. In 1946, Ambedkar lost the elections but was elected to the Constituent Assembly after the winner vacated his seat. When India became independent, Ambedkar was promptly in Nehru's cabinet on the recommendation of Gandhi.
The offer came as a great surprise to me... I had my doubts... But I kept my doubts at rest and accepted the offer of the prime minister on the ground that I should not deny my co-operation when it was asked for in the building up of our nation...
Arun Shourie in his book Worshipping False Gods (ASA Publishers, 1997) quotes the diary of Indrani Devi, the widow of Jagjivan Ram.
And on this side Ambedkar had started coming over to our house. One day he (Ambedkar) told him to put in a word with Gandhiji to have him (Ambedkar) included in the Cabinet. Before talking to Gandhiji he (Jagjivan Ram) talked to Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel said, do what you think is appropriate. He (Jagjivan Ram) got into quite a quandary -- that Ambedkar had always opposed Gandhiji and the Congress, how could he now recommend his case to Gandhiji? Even so, given his large-heartedness, he pleaded with Gandhiji on behalf of Ambedkar, and told him that as he has surrendered in front of you please request Nehruji so that he may be taken into the first Cabinet.
Anyway, he drew up the draft of the Indian Constitution. Hence, he is known as the father of the Indian Constitution. This is ironical for three reasons. One, he was a traitor to the Indian cause. Second, he followed Manu to write the law for Indians. Three, Ambedkar himself denounced the constitution and expressed regret for having participated in its making. After four years in Nehru's cabinet, Ambedkar resigned. He contested the Lok Sabha elections in 1952 and lost. He gained entry into the Parliament via the Rajya Sabha. In 1953, he stood in the Bhandara Constituency by-election and lost again.
Link to Moral Volcano's Save Kashmir - I
Your Comment
Several years ago, I read that the world-renowned industrialist Henry Ford was an anti-Jewish and had written several anti-semitic* anti-Jewish articles during his lifetime. I did not get to read those articles but I was very disappointed that such a great man could have so much prejudice on that community. It was only the last month that I learned the truth about Jews and Israel. Now, I realize I was wrong about Henry Ford. Ford published his articles in his newspaper The Dearborn Independent during the years 1920 to 1922. The articles have been published in abridged form in the book The International Jew, The World's Foremost Problem. It is available online at the Bible Believers.org.
Instances of Jewish prosperity in the United States are commonplace, but prosperity, the just reward of foresight and application, is not to be confounded with control. It would be impossible for any Gentile coalition under similar circumstances to attain the control which the Jews have won, for the reason that there is lacking in the Gentile a certain quality of working-togetherness, a certain conspiracy of objective, and the adhesiveness of intense raciality, which characterizes the Jew. It is nothing to a Gentile that another man is a Gentile; it is next to everything to a Jew that the man at his door is another Jew.
The International Jewish plan to move their money market to the United States was what the American people did not want. We have the warning of history as to what this means. It has meant in turn that Spain, Venice, Germany or Great Britain received the blame or suspicion of the world for what the Jewish financiers have done. It is a most important consideration that most of the national animosities that exist today arose out of resentment against what Jewish money power did under the camouflage of national names.
"The British did this," "The Germans did this," when it was the International Jew who did it, the nations being but the marked spaces on his checker board. Today, around the world the blaming word is heard, "The United States did this. If it were not for the United States the world would be in a better shape. The Americans are a sordid, greedy, cruel people."
Why? Because the Jewish money power is centered here and is making money out of both our immunity and Europe's distress, playing one against the other; and because so many so-called "American business men" abroad today are not Americans at all -- they are Jews.
Citizens wake up with a start to find that even the white nations are hardly allowed to see each other nowadays except through Jewish eyes. Great Britain and France seldom see a special American spokesman who is not a Jew. That may be the reason why they reciprocate by sending Jews to us, thinking perhaps that we prefer them.
* - Anti-semitism is just a cool name that Jewish groups have decided to use to characterise hate towards Jews. Since the class of Semotic people would also include Arabs and other people of the Middle East, it is incorrect to use term anti-semitism. Jews also have a problem with the word Jew. Yes, apparently it is an offensive term for them. They have even forced Google to issue an explanation everytime someone tries to search for the word jew. Jews also have problems with numbers and other mathematical expressions such as 14, 88, 14/88, 5, 311, 33/6, 666, 83, 100%, 4/19, 4/20, 18, 23.
Link to Moral Volcano's Why Americans Are Not All To Blame
Your Comment
Although the statement "Lies, not love, makes the world go round," was made in the context of human relationships (in the article Bombay Sucks), it symbolises everything that Moral Volcano has been saying. To paraphrase Michael Moore, we live in fictitious times. Lies rule the world.
CafePress says: Panty-minimalists love our casual thong that covers sweet spots without covering your assets, putting an end to panty-lines. This under-goodie is "outta sight" in low-rise pants. Toss these message panties onstage at your favorite rock star or share a surprise message with someone special ... later.
* - Conditions Apply
Moral Volcano is written by V. Subhash, a former writer for British magazine The Current Bun, where he was noted for his interest in modified sweat glands, which not being the focus of his employer was contributory to his firing. Currently, the author lives with his wife, children and mistress in Virginia, U.S., where he is an active campaigner for the American Nazi party better known by its official name Republican.
Rating Scale |
Votes |
|
|
BAD - |
|
POOR - |
|
FAIR - |
|
GOOD - |
|
EXCELLENT - |
|
|
To vote, just click on one of the panels on the Rating Scale. Your vote will be instantly accepted. The voting started on 3 October 2005. |
|
|
Visitors:
|
|
