Yesterday on NPR I heard a story about how we are now going into the "overwatch" phase of the Iraq occupation and it just brought back memories of playing Halflife 2 and the Combine soldiers that Dr. Breen called "Overwatch" as well. It amazes me that we would call this operation a name like this as it is not something that evokes positive feelings by a country, its people or by people who disagree with the whole situation.

In fact the similarities are startlingly similar between the way Overwatch in Halflife 2 operated and the way we are in Iraq now. The US is trying to assert their dominance over a population that does not want to be conquered or converted into something they aren't. Democracy is fine, but they may not want US democracy or even our form of republican government. So instead we try and ram this ideology down their throats and expect them to like it? Force rarely achieve any success in these situations which is something it appears we have yet to learn. I would suggest all of you go play a couple of maps in Halflife 2 and look at the similarities, we may not be aliens taking over a planet, but we are still the outsiders asserting military rule on another state which is essentially the same deal.

♀ When a hottie becomes haughty, she might as well be a nottie—after conquest, that is.

♀ Expectant mothers duplicate tee-shirted, pot-bellied men, which drives expectant father’s eyeballs to every attractive female within sight.

♀ He cheats on her, so she cheats on him. The former hurts her, the latter terminates their relationship.

♀ Women abandon femininity, modesty, high moral standards, and other female strengths just to have a boyfriend or husband they can’t keep.

♀ It’s self-fulfilling: A wife blames husband for his faults. Accused men resist change and defend themselves by disproving the evidence presented. In her eyes, his resistance makes her see his faults as her failure to correct him. Her failures turn him toward inadequacy. It started with her accepting him with faults she could not stand.

♀ Behind each ex there’s an inadequate man. He’s either dumper or dumpee. Yet, she chose him with inadequate qualifications, and her choices will always determine her outcomes.

♀ Short-term romantic love seduces women into ignoring the need for her man’s respect. Hence, when romantic love fades in a year or two, his respect for her is not enough to fuel his long-term enduring love.

[More about sex and fickle females appears in posts 246, 229, 216, 201, 184, 170, 160, 148, 137, 93, and 34. Scroll down or search by the number followed by a dot and space.]

Okay, another achievement has been reached and i am
so the very very happy and touching la, can?!?!?!

Wahahahahahaahahahahahaha...

Im proud to announce that part of my conquest has been
finished, and im glad to share with you people the
results and conclusion of it all.

Since i promised you in my previous entry i would, here's
the low-down on my bubble tea conquest!!!!!

Ok, what me and my dear are done with here,
is the milk tea platform or version of the bubble tea,
and most of these are bought from SweetTalk,
whether you like them or not, to maintain a precise
comparison standard since SweetTalk is a big franchise.

But even if we're done with milk teas, im still uncertain
whether i will venture to the milkshakes, red tea and
green tea. Everyone knows i dislike green tea. Most
probably i will cover milkshakes, but we just have to
wait and see. Steady?? Okay!

So after trying out like more than 20 milk teas,
we have come to a conclusion on whats hot and
whats not. But of course, i recommend you trying
it out yourself and not take my words 100%. Like
they say, different people have different tastes.

Alright then. Im gonna rank these bubble milk teas,
with the top 3 and bottom 3, based on my discussion
and a systematic voting system with dear.

Wahahahahaha. So like a science experiment, can?!!?!?!

The top 3, with number 1 being best:
1) Honey Milk Tea
2) Green Apple Milk Tea
3) Banana Milk Tea.

No surprises here, as the decisions were pretty much
unanimous. These 3 bubble milk teas are clear
runaway winners of their category, and there's no
two ways about it. Besides, i can drink either one of
these like every single day of my life. So kudos!

The bottom 3, with number 1 being least favourite:
1) Yam Milk Tea
2) Coffee Milk Tea
3) Vanilla Milk Tea.

Im disappointed with these, and to add insult to injury,
these flavours were amongst those recent ones
that we've tried. I guess yam is just not worthy of a
milk tea blend, and inevitably, coffee never mix
with tea. Its like saying a lobster is a prawn. And thats
pretty naive.

So, the milk tea chapter is closed, and expect me
to try out these flavours again in the future. Although,
im so tempted to move on with the milkshakes.

Ive already tried 5-6 milkshake flavours and 4-5
red tea flavours so far. But i have not tried any
green tea versions just as yet, and am still deciding
whether i should.

Maybe, ill leave it up to my tummy to decide
such a painful dilemma!!!

Wahahahahahaahahahahhahaahahaha.. =)

Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

Imagination motivates. It breeds drive and determination, and curiosity triggers it.

Immature women expect that exchanging intimate knowledge with a  man, especially sexual activity, will enable them to capture and hopefully keep a man. Nature works quite the opposite.

Men appreciate what they pay for, and the more dearly they pay, the greater their appreciation. Pay, that is, with their interest, focus, time, manners, sacrifice, energy, laughter, fun, games, promises, mistakes, affection, commitment, politeness, devotion, and even worry about losing her.

Not knowledge but a man’s imagination keeps him interested in her. It’s the promise of what lies ahead with her that keeps her glued into his self-interest.

For example, each step completed from flirtation to copulation satisfies and shifts curiosity to the next step. Knowledge gained step-by-step satisfies all curiosity about her body. It becomes a known quantity, quality, and value with conquest.

Mature women see his energy for her as more important than his knowledge of her, wanting her as more important than having her, imagining her as more important than knowing her.

If he wonders why she acts resistant to his come on, his imagination shifts toward finding out. If she’s not understandable, his imagination shifts toward her depth of character and what motivates her.

For example, feminine mystique is all about creating curiosity and satisfying it ever so slowly. Her need for modesty, intimacy, and privacy stimulate his imagination to know more about her.

Women could do better with a new strategy: Generate maximum curiosity and satisfy it the least. Exploit curiosity to trigger masculine imagination. It works better than making herself knowable and known without his having paid much in dedication, effort, and self-worry.

More on the shattering of female dominance appears at posts 237, 222, 209, 194, 173, 159, and 151.]

I have no idea how true that is, but I do know that it seems like a convenient excuse for periods of times where movies/books/music with similar theme seemed to come out at the same time. It easily explains away the fads with dinosaur movies, disasters flicks, zombie munchfests, kungfu sockchops and now superhero romps.

Creative serendipity is normally the scapegoat as to why all these similar flicks come out at the same time... NOT plagiarism, or what a layman like me would describe as "riding on the success of others" or copycat.

Anyway, I just finished watching Futurama: The Beast with a Million Backs! (How wonderfully B-Grade)

It's been too long since the last episode was out and it was really good to see all the famous and not so famous cast of Futurama returns. I swear, there was a slight tingling down my back when the theme song played in the opening sequence... I could almost understand what fans of Sex and the City felt when the show hit the big screen.

ALMOST.

Not quite... that was a show that's waaaaay too... *muffled profanities*

Anyway. Loved the show. (NOT Sex and the City, wise guy...) But the thing that got to me when the Beast finally appear was how similar it is to a recent (and ongoing?) Marvel event.

The whole issue of being assimilated into a common consciousness and the "selects" actually maintaining a certain degree of free will... at least enough to hold semi conscious thoughts, and LIKING the experience is an issue that is presented in both scenarios.

It is an interesting idea. And the concept is probably more satirical (yes, I just called Futurama satirical, deal with it!) and thought provoking (Woooo... Thought provoking too...) than I could compute with my minuscule mind right now.

But back to my main point.

If the common conscious thing is true, what do you think it is telling us now?

♀ ♥ Unless he chooses to drop her—very likely in today’s sexual arena—denial of unmarried sex makes a man focus more and more on her quality, value, and potential as whole person and, hence, wife.

♀ ♥ Conquest stops his looking so diligently for her weaknesses and thus learning about her strengths; other things become more important than sex with her.

♀ ♥ Conquest releases a man to focus on other things. It frees him to move his attention to something else such as job, hobby, buds, or other females. 

♀ ♥ If she can refuse unmarried sex until she conquers him for marriage, she expands her influence over his natural dominance. The winning conqueror shapes their subsequent relationship.

♀ ♥ Women play the man’s game. They shop for friendship, pay with sex, and hope the relationship leads to shack up or marry up. Friendship based on sex doesn’t last, which makes escape easier for men.

[More about virtual virginity appears in posts 231, 212, 198, 181, 169, 158, 147, 136, 125, 96, 70, 51, and 44. Post 25 describes options for girls. Scroll down or search for the number with a dot and space following.]

61.      If they’ve not had their first sex together, he hears, he heeds, and he modifies his behavior in whatever way he thinks will advance his agenda for bed time together. Long sex-free courtships accumulate more of his habitual changes that help fulfill her hopes and dreams.

63.      Morality serves women much more than men. If a woman fails to live within and uphold a self-imposed strong moral code, she can expect mistreatment by men.

64.      Some women discourage manly devotion by providing cheap, uncommitted sex. Other women inspire manly devotion by delaying a man’s conquest until he wants her for much more than sex.

65.      The two-year glitch arrives quietly as romantic love fades away in a couple’s second year together. Both undergo transformation. If an enduring kind of love has not developed mutually, separation is not far off.

[Previous fortitudinals appear in posts 240, 234, 228, 213, 203, 199, 186, 182, and 176.]

♫ Women have a good sense of what transpires beneath the surface of interpersonal relations. Men don’t.

♫ Women have a natural and strongly motivating sense of guilt. A man’s sense of guilt, if he has one, is the result of early childhood teaching.

♫ Women relieve guilt by making amends. Men relieve guilt through escape or forgetfulness.

♫ A woman scorned tends to be viscious and vengeful. A man scorned turns his attention to someone else. 

♫ Men use imagination to weaken female defenses against conquest. Women use imagination to prepare men for marriage.

♫ A man nags his wife, and she’s inclined to do better. A woman nags her husband, and he responds in his own good time if at all.

[More that explains men appear in posts 225, 210, 195, 179, 167, 140, 126, 124, 112, 95, 83, 74, 63, 53, 43, 35, 29,  and 4. Scroll down or search by the number with a dot and space following.]

♀ Her mystery, morality, and modesty signal ‘permission denied’ for male boldness. It checks him, before he ventures too far. His need for caution makes him uncomfortable, which adds to her ability to dominate.  

♀ If he’s comfortable, he’s in control. If he’s uncomfortable, she’s in control.

♀ Female modesty rigidly enforced is the strongest natural counterbalance to male domination.

♀ Whatever embarrasses a woman reveals her unchanging nature. When she tries to overcome or ignore it for a man, she misses earning his respect and enlarges his dominion over her.  

♀ The next strongest counterbalance to a man’s natural dominance is a woman’s respect and attitude of gratitude for who he is and what he does.

♀ A woman’s moral standards set boundaries. Her enforcement holds a man in line, earns his respect, and sends silent messages about how life will be with her.

♀ Her lack of values, standards, and expectations means that she follows his. The lower his are, the more masculinity and male dominance direct his life.  

♀ She comes across as respectable, courageous, and strong—and maybe and unfortunately disposable—when she repeatedly has the strength to say ‘No’ to conquest.

[More on the shattering of female dominance appears at posts 222, 209, 194, 173, 159, and 151.]

♫ After nakedness and conquest, there’s little left. Her ad campaign dies with conquest, as it kills his imagination except for future arousal. (Conquest is the man’s end-game. Booty sustains him between conquests.)

♫ Dating as a sex object plants the seed of booty for him and maybe something better for her.

♫ Men want to move toward conquest at their pace. More mystery, modesty, and doubt about scoring slow it to her pace.

♫ Suggestive attire is more effective than erotic attire at energizing the imaginative side of the male mind. (The more he has to imagine, think, plot, and worry, the better for her.)

♫ The appeal of boobs lies in the challenge to get to them. Once uncovered, conquest is assured.

♫ Modest attire signals covered boobs to be protected boobs. Cleavage drastically eases his worry to gain access.     

 [More boob language appears at posts 220, 205, 188, 102, 98, 81, 52, 49, and 12. Search by the number followed by dot and space.]

As women go, so goes society. Feminist propaganda over the past four decades was brash and captivating. Women couldn’t resist elevating themselves relative to men.

However, it left huge piles of social and domestic debris. This major political movement now approaches implosion from fatal compressions, such as:

·        Feminists pay no attention to what men say about the subject. Men are unqualified, the culprits, the enemy.

·        Men never bought in to Feminism. Their behavior changed to ensure frequent and convenient access to sex, but their nature didn’t change. (See posts titled ‘Sex differences explain men’ in the Table of Contents.)

·        Trying to conquer natural male dominance with politics and propaganda, feminists destroyed unconditional respect between the genders.   

·        Modern men possess undependable character traits, make less than ideal mates, and lather the female gender with disrespect—no calls after his conquest, early dumping, surprise abandonment, skipping childcare payments, infidelity, weak commitment, insincere devotion, abuse, violence.

·        Men are more alien than native for helping fulfill the hopes and dreams of women for their children and future.

·        The male gender focuses on sex and conquest. Individuals take out feminist-inspired discouragements, frustrations, and rejections on dates, lovers, mates, spouses, and even children.

·        Women passed to men dominance of cultural values. Masculine values and interests dominate the pop culture, which more clearly dominates the social scene and culture as newer generations take over.

For these and other reasons, Feminism fades as obsolete. Women will soon rise up with a wiser set of cultural values to inspire men to help fulfill female hopes and dreams. Hopefully, it will be feminine and exploit sex differences instead of politically and fractiously trying to level those differences. 

[Other posts about the Dark Side are 211, 196, 180, 168, 157, 146, 134, 129, 123, 103, 92, 71, 50, 47, and 23. Scroll down or search by the number and then click the title.]

♂ A man enjoys looking at an attractive, pleasant looking female. When his woman looks sloppy and uncaring, he’s bored into looking for something more attractive.

♂ Men graciously live with the exaggeration that a man’s home is his castle. But only when his woman exploits her relationship expertise, showers him with gratitude, and recognizes him as head and her as neck of the family. Anything less is not a castle, and he can have it somewhere else.

♂ Men highly value feminine virtue, because the promise of eventual conquest adds honor to his manly persona and significance.

♂ Men intend to make themselves important and their life significant—usually above all else.

♂ Men love working or doing what they feel compelled to do. The most reliable men turn their life into loveable work at home and on the job.

♂ Men make themselves worthy of a virtuous woman. If not perceived as virtuous, she has to make herself worthy of him.  

[More jack about Jack appears in posts 217, 202, 185, 172, 162, 153, 142, 135, 132, 114, 97, 91, and 7. Scroll down or search by the number with a dot and space following it.]

♀ Virtual virginity exploits the male nature and makes feminine virtue and high standards work for her. (Why so can be gleaned from two series in the Table of Contents, “Sex differences explain men” and “Do women know jack about Jack?”)

♀ Nothing focuses a man’s mind so assertively on changing her mind than continued refusals for their first sex together.

♀ Trying harder and harder for conquest focuses his attentions on her. Over time it convinces him she is more worthy than previously thought.  

♀ When his changing her mind about having sex is paramount, he spends much more time with and dreaming about her.

♀ Her easy yielding gains little respect. Conqueror’s rights plus his natural dominance flourish with far less influence from her.

♀ Her big win comes with being able to curtail his dominance and shape their relationship to fulfill her hopes and dreams.

♀ His dominance will always be present or threatening, but greater respect upgrades her opinions and merges her influence.

[More about virtual virginity appears in posts 212, 198, 181, 169, 158, 147, 136, 125, 96, 70, 51, 44, and 25. Scroll down or search for the number with a dot and space following.]

♀ If she can’t risk being dumped to slow his inevitable conquest, she’s highly vulnerable to being dumped later.

♀ Modern women rely on sex, hope, and loving affection to bond their future with a man. But short relationships show it doesn’t work very well.

♀ Women don’t just want men to bond. They want a husband as bond servant to help with housekeeping, child care, constant togetherness.

♀ Women dress their young daughters like hookers and allow adolescent girls to dress likewise—even in church. Pastors stew in near silence. The Marrying Man looks for someone else. Respectable fathers shake their head in exasperation.

♀ Women are not hunters by nature. Yet, some abandon the female persona, hunt with erotic attire, and offer sex with little obligation. When they fail to enjoy life as men do, ennui and depression set in.

♀ Women expect to kiss a frog into prince hood. Men expect their woman to elevate them from prince to king. Modern women fail to provide this second ‘promotion’.

[More about sex and fickle females appears in posts 216, 201, 184, 170, 160, 148, 137, 93, and 34. Scroll down or search by the number followed by a dot and space.]

Rating:

A man who lived for battle and blood, Genghis leads his warriors across the Gobi Desert and into a realm his people had never seen before—with gleaming cities, soaring walls, and canals. Laying siege to one fortress after another, Genghis called upon his cunning and imagination to crush each enemy in a different way, to overcome moats, barriers, deceptions, and superior firepower—until his army faced the ultimate test of all.

In the city of Yenking—modern-day Beijing—the Chin will make their final stand, setting a trap for the Mongol raiders, confident behind their towering walls. But Genghis will strike with breathtaking audacity, never ceasing until the Emperor himself is forced to kneel.

My Thoughts: Second novel in the Genghis series by Conn Iggulden. Here is my review on the first novel. I have to say the second definitely wasn't as good as the first. It was slower, kind of lumbering--it even lost my attention near the end. Even with this, the good parts were really good--Iggulden's battle scenes appear in my head like movies.

The biggest problem I had with this novel was that the climax seemed to have happened and wrapped up about 3/4ths of the way through the book. That last quarter really dragged. I got bored. I wanted to read other things.

I was a little disappointed by the lack of character development and relationship development. That was really well done in the first novel, and we could see so well how Genghis grew and changed, how he was influenced by his mother, his brothers, and his wife. Especially in the second novel, his family really fell out of the picture. I've read some research about how his first wife, Borte, was one of his strongest political advisors (I may be incorrect) and in this novel, she basically wasn't around for majority of what happened. A lot of my favorite characters from the first book just kind of disappeared.

The action was great, and it moved along well enough until, again, up to the weirdly placed climax.

I don't know if Iggulden is going to write a third in the series, but I hope he does.

Unless I'm misreading this it seems that Clemens words from the past stand true today.  Though he was speaking to Franklin Pierce about Cuba and conquest in general if we followed Clemen's directive we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. This is an excerpt from the book "The World's Best Orations: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time" at Google books.

Clemens believed that this policy of conquest originated with the southern slave holders and he gave this eloquent speech to steer the president away from listening to those terrible voices.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.612238&w=425&h=350&fv=]

As I'd mentioned before, the Teteo are depicted in myth and liturgy as both helpful and harmful. On the one hand, Tezcatlipoca wipes out the people of Tula with a series of devious tricks, tormenting His brother Quetzalcoatl in the process. On the other hand, Huitzilopochtli is shown fiercely protecting His people against all danger as the young, vulnerable Mexica tribe migrates south to the site of Tenochtitlan. In some of the surviving prayers recorded in Book 6 of the Florentine Codex, the priests beg Tezcatlipoca to calm Himself and cease punishing the people with famine and plague, and they plead with Tlaloc to have pity on the dying children and end a drought. Clearly, the gods could be either your best friends or your worst enemies, in traditional Aztec thought.

With these depictions in mind, along with the historical fact of the Conquest and the very real suffering endured by millions around the world today, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that no, the Teteo are not "Good" gods. I capitalize the word "good" here to highlight that I'm using the term in the sense of "morally perfect and benevolent," rather than "useful." I'm talking Good and Evil, not good and bad, to follow Nietzsche's key distinction established in his classic "Geneology of Morals." I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect Good gods to want to reduce the suffering of Their followers, to the extent that Their power would allow them to do so. I would also think that They wouldn't indulge in unjust behavior like collective punishment, punishing a whole group for the wrongs of some of its members as one post-Conquest legend suggests the gods sent the Spaniards to destroy the Empire because of the hubris of Montezuma. If the gods aren't Good, are They Evil?

I'd say that They don't fit the bill as Evil in the way it's commonly used in modern theology. Evil in this context tends to mean that the deity in question is actively malevolent and wicked, inflicting suffering unfairly and delighting in victimizing others. The Aztecs attributed many kind and benevolent acts to the gods, such as creating and re-creating humankind, providing wisdom and the arts, and sustaining the Universe as a whole. There's even a touching scene in the myths where, shortly after He revives them in the age of the Fifth Sun, Quetzalcoatl is shown tenderly feeding the new people like they are His babies, chewing the tough corn to make it soft and carefully placing it in their mouths by hand. In the context of modern practice, I know of some Aztec Reconstructionists who have had UPG experiences of some of the gods weeping out of pity for them or otherwise expressing affection. The Aztecs exhorted their children to be "friends of the gods" in the huehuetlatolli, and it seems that the gods can reciprocate such friendliness. In the light of such traditional depictions and modern experiences, I can't say that the Teteo are Evil, either. But if They're not Good and They're not Evil, then what? Are They both, or neither?

My own thoughts on the matter as they currently stand is that maybe we're going about this all wrong with this talk of Good and Evil outside of humanity. A recurring theme throughout Nietzsche's work is that any creator must necessarily be "immoral" in a certain sense, beyond Good and Evil. What did he mean by "immoral"? Well, a necessary part of creation is destruction, annihilating the old to make way for the new and reshaping the material into new forms. Interacting with the creation in these ways will unavoidably cause it harm and suffering if it's capable of feeling. A creator has to be able to steel Itself against the miserable cries of the creature and avoid falling into the paralyzing snare of pity, pity that would force the creator to abandon the work because It couldn't stomach the pain It would have to cause the subject. This softness and pity would have the awful consequences of leaving things stuck in stagnant stasis, rotting slowly rather than being destroyed to be reborn afresh and seek greater heights.

I think that this might be one way out of the Good/Evil dilemma regarding divine morality, though perhaps not a very comfortable or satisfying one, and it may not be a complete escape from the problem. If we're working from the position that there are personal, individual gods that interact with the world in some way, then They're almost by definition going to be operating at the level of Nietzsche's "creator," the individual(s) who shapes, builds, and destroys the subject material. It seems to line up well with the way the Teteo are depicted periodically wiping away the decayed old things to make way for the new, and the way that old life passes through death and is the seed for new life via the sacrificial knife. The fit is even better when we stop and remember that the traditional Aztec cosmology is truly one of Order/Chaos rather than an Abrahamic-style "Battle of Good vs. Evil." Order and chaos have to be nudged back and forth in a delicate balancing process in order for the universe to stay healthy and survive -- the very epitome of creation and destruction. Suffering in this process is an unavoidable "byproduct" of the continuing act of creation and change, and the Powers That Be simply have to be cruel to a certain extent to get anything done. Thus, They can't exactly be Good. But there's no particular malice, which makes a label of Evil not quite right. So it seems that the least-problematic answer is to say that the Teteo are beyond Good and Evil.

Granted, this potential answer sucks in a lot of ways. It doesn't do jack to comfort me when I suffer or when I see innocent people and animals in pain. It doesn't make me any less pissed off when I feel like I've been left twisting in the wind or see the hundredth domestic violence victim in the courtroom pleading for a protective order against an abusive spouse. It also doesn't promise us that the gods are going to help us in any given situation, though the traditional moral exhortations of the Aztecs, the huehuetlatolli, say that it sure doesn't hurt to ask anyway.

This potential answer is also rather relative. While in one sense the gods might be beyond Good and Evil, in another sense, down at the personal, individual human level, They could be one or the other to us. If I were a starving child and I cried out to Tlaloc for help in a drought, and nothing happened, I'd sure call Him an evil bastard right then. From a human perspective, it would make sense. If one human showed such a callous indifference to the suffering of a fellow human that he or she had the power to help, most societies would condemn that individual as inhumane. On the other hand, switching perspective to a "god's-eye view," it'd be kind of like calling a lion "evil" when it eats an antelope. It's just what the lion does and has to do, a brute fact of life. If keeping the world in balance is what a god does, then, continuing the Tlaloc example, governing the global weather patterns in their delicate balance, even if it means that child starves, is simply what must be done, regardless of individual suffering.

In other words, the gods aren't the source of human morality in the realm of Aztec Reconstuctionism, nor is there a transcendent, absolute morality that can cover both gods and man. Humans have to work out morality for themselves, and the gods have Their own business to take care of. The two worlds can intersect, but they're not always ethically-harmonious.

In closing, I don't expect this article to answer everyone's questions -- it doesn't even answer all of mine. And I certainly don't claim to be some Aztec Recon pagan pope or prophet. This is just Cehualli's (very tentative) View on this thorny, obnoxious, pain in the ass question. Take what you will from my thoughts, I hope this first step to untangling this theological knot is helpful.

While I've heard much about the Palestinian political parties, I actually know very little about them. These "Times Topic" explanations were helpful.

HAMAS

Hamas, one of the two main Palestinian political groups, derives its name from an acronym for the Arabic words ''Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," which translates into English as the Islamic Resistance Movement. It was founded in 1987 during the first Palestinian uprising with its roots in Muslim Brotherhood politics in Gaza and became more active in the second Palestinian uprising which started in 2000.

The groups' 9,000-word charter, written in 1988, includes a description of the struggle for Palestine as a religious obligation, saying the land is an endowment that cannot be abandoned.

It recognizes the fact of Israel but refuses to recognize its right to exist, and has been responsible for many of the deadliest suicide attacks in Israel.

But the social programs that were the group's initial focus made the group widely popular among ordinary Palestinians -- it created centers for health care, welfare, day care, kindergartens and preschools along with programs for widows of suicide bombers. In January 2006, facing a divided Fatah, the party created by Yassir Arafat, Hamas won a decisive victory in parliamentary elections.

Since Hamas took office, it has faced increasing turmoil. Israel withheld tax revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and Western assistance to the Palestinian government was cut off until Hamas renounced violence and agreed to recognize Israel. After months of negotiations, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah of Hamas and President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, agreed in March 2007 to form a national unity government in an attempt to end the Palestinians' international isolation. The pact did not succeed in restoring the flow of aid, and clashes between gunmen loyal to Fatah and Hamas began to increase, particularly in Gaza, where militant branches of Hamas operate independently of the government. A series of cease-fires have been proclaimed and quickly broken, raising fears of a civil war. (Christine Hauser, June 12, 2007)

AL FATAH

Fatah, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, is the larger of the two main Palestinian political parties. It was founded in the late 1950s by Yasir Arafat and a small group of Palestinian nationalists.

Its name is the reverse acronym of Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Falastini, meaning the Palestinian National Liberation Movement. The name also means Conquest or Victory in Arabic.

In its early program, Fatah was committed to an armed guerrilla struggle for Palestine's liberation from Israel. Its official emblem shows two fists holding crossed rifles and a hand grenade in front of a map of Palestine.

It was initially based in Jordan and later Lebanon; its leadership was dispersed during the 1970s and 1980s but returned to Gaza and the West Bank in the 1990s.

Fatah became preeminent among Palestinian factions in the 1960s though a series of strikes against Israel -- in its eyes, successful military campaigns, though condemned by Israel and the West as terrorism -- and by the end of the decade it was the largest and best funded of the Palestinian organizations. It became the vehicle for Mr. Arafat's control of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the umbrella group for Palestinian movements.

In 1993 Mr. Arafat signed the Oslo peace accord with Israel, which sought to negotiate a peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on a two-state solution. In the legislative elections for the Palestinian Authority created by the accord, Fatah captured a majority of seats, and Mr. Arafat became president. Mr. Abbas, another original member of Fatah, became president in 2005 following Mr. Arafat's death.

By then, however, Fatah had become strained by internal divisions and tarnished by accusations of corruption, and began to lose ground to the more hardline Hamas. It lost power to Hamas in legislative elections in January 2006.

Hamas and Fatah in early 2007 formed an unsteady coalition government, a so-called unity government, but tensions reemerged between the two groups that quickly erupted into violence.

In June 2007, Fatah was completely routed from Gaza by Hamas, raising the prospect that the Palestinian territories would be divided between a Fatah-controlled West Bank and a Hamas-controlled Gaza.

As a result, Mr. Abbas dissolved the unity authority and appointed a new emergency government dominated by Fatah. It drew immediate support from Israel, the United States and the European Union, who were eager to isolate Hamas. Fatah had become the moderate alternative. (Graham Bowley, June 20, 2007)

As he makes his mark on Bristol,
Silvo raises all the standards,
Takes the prize for handsome charmers;
Wins the trophy for the gamers!
And when he is tired of playing
Silvo thinks his thoughts of conquest.
Great is this tremendous warrior!

Mighty, he, the champion pupil;
Wonderful his schoolroom exploits,
And his excellent reputation
Follows him with spoken virtue!
His, the legend in the building;
His, the everlasting glory.
Silvo will be famous one day,
Will be master of his future
Will the ladies’ hearts go breaking
When his love is finally chosen.

Silvo’s exploits will make history;
His the name linked with discovery.
All the world will know his brilliance,
Some rejoicing in his shadow,
Praising Silvo’s claim to greatness.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Hope you enjoyed it!

Thank you for viewing... Comment if you like... :)