Rue

No you missed the point yet again because your brain is incapable of flexing and considering anything but its own postulations as being capable of being considered. The question is not whether Israel uses WPs but why countries use wp's. You have turned that question into a partisan exercise for your own agenda. The very fact you only speak about it in reference to Israel and not the other countries that also use is the point I made that evidences your examination of the topic has nothing to do with the use of wp's and everything to do with trying to use the use of wp's as a way to single out Israel for criticism. Using WP's is a problem whether Israel uses them or anyone else. I know its hard for you Dub to try read anything but your own opinion but until you do, you will continue to come on this forum and simply engage in piss on Israel partisan comments that dettract from the actual issue. No Dub you do not get to determine what the issue is. We all do. That is why its a discussion board.

As usual someone takes a topic and tries to exploit it for a particular parisan purpose in this case an opportunity to single out Israel again. If the topic is genuinely about whether white phosphorous should be used as a weapon then I would argue of course not it should be outlawed. I hate it as a weapon. It exposes civilians to excruciating pain. It is inhumane. I wish there was a way we could stop the whole world from using it for any reason. To the person trying to exploit the horror of this weapon for partisan purposes, i.e., another round of wack the poo poo known as Israel may I suggest you would have more credibility if you referenced your criticism of the weapon in a world context and not present it in a way that suggests it is a problem specific to Israel. All nations in the world must stop using it. I think getting the UN nations to sign a treaty banning it is possible. Trying to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and terrorists not to use it will be impossible. It is a horrible weapon. It truly is a weapon of terror because it slowly burns through skin to the bone. I personally wish the IDF would not use it under any circumstance. I hate it. I hate what it does to Palestinians and to people in general in all conflicts where it is used.

Sorry Oleg. Please add Oleg as 13. I am not sure though what to call his religion I think its called Olegism and he is an Olegist. Either way I am not giving him any money when he comes to my door. I slam the door on all of them the same way.

Did someone ask for examples? Here you go Dawg. 1. men with beards 2. as per 1 and say they know what is "true" 3. as per 1 and 2 and claim to know what "God" thinks and believes 4. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the JDL, the KKK, anti-abortionists from the Christian Heritage Front, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, ultra-orthodox Jews on Friday night when you walk in their neighbourhood wearing short sleeves, certain Israeli settlers on the West bank, George Galloway 5. as per 1 the Taliban and those who now seem to be blowing people up in India and Pakistan 6. as per 1, certain extremist Sieks 7. certain Hindus of the JPL now campaigning for election 8. Tibetan Buddists 9. you 10. me 11. anyone who claims to believe in God when you cut them off in your car or tail gate them or ask them to pay more taxes. 12. The Iranian ruling council.

The UN in my opinion proves by this resolution what we all know, that it has been permanently and irreputably compromised by partisan politics.

Read your words above BC Chick. From what I understand of you from reading many of your posts you are not intentionally bigoted and are very idealistic and support Palestinians because you see them as an underdog in a war of oppression. My problem is that when you claim to criticize Israeli government policies or the policies of the IDF, you do what you do above, refer to "Israelis". That in turn triggers off responses from people who feel they need to defend all Israelis and engage in the same reverse reference to all Palestinians. Either way it is wrong to refer to Palestinians or Israelis if in fact we are allegedly debating Israeli government or IDF policies or the policies or actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. I think all of us me included of course, need to be much more disciplined in these debates to avoid stereotyping Israelis or Palestinians because then yes we get into these simplistic good versus bad debates. Me personally I disagree with much of your criticism of Israeli policies and the IDF but I respect your opinions. I just will challenge you the way I do anyone when they engage in referring to to citizens in a collective sense as their reference for the governments or terrorists they are in fact referring to. Now getting back to the actual topic what some of us would argue is this and that is there is a double standard when there is war with Hamas because Hamas is not held to any standard of morality while the IDF is. On one level I believe the IDF must be held to a higher standard and be fully accountable precisely if it is to claim it is not a terrorist force and follows international law. Of course. I am also saying it is easy to look at the IDF in a moral vacum during a conflict and second guess what it should be doing with terrorists. In the real world when fighting terror, what is morally correct may not be possible and therein lies the danger. Fighting terrorism draws conventional armies into a very murky area of engagement where one side will do whatever it feels necessary while the other is being told it has to follow a different code that may get it killed. This story that made the news of Israeli soldiers talking frankly at an Israeli university about their perceived despair as to the moral behaviour of certain acts by IDF soldiers I think was taken far out of context by those with an agenda to engage in pro Hamas optics and partisanship. What in fact happened was Israeli soldiers were trying to talk honestly and frankly about their concerns of having to engage as a conventional army but fight terrorists who hide behind civilians and are often invisible. In fact the two stories widely quoted about these soldiers discussing a sniper who had shot a Palestinian woman, etc., were not even witnessed by those soldiers-in fact they were repeating second hand stories they had heard which they never said were true but they were concerned about-in the proper context of what they said they were being very critical of the role of a conventional army having to go after civilians hiding terrorists or caught between them and terrorists which showed their morality and regret. That was missed. Instead it was picked up and run as evidence of brutality and how Israel is evil. If anything it showed otherwise-that IDF soldiers are human and regret what they must sometimes have to do in the heat of battle. In the actual stories, they were investigated and of course there was another side to them and in fact they have not yet been corroborated by anyone first hand, Palestinian or Israeli. Let me give you a very clear example. One of those stories was a tale of shooting a Palestinian woman. First of all it has not been verified yet. What these soldiers said in full context was that in certain situations a Palestinian woman will come at them and they realize to late she is strapped with bombs or is a man in disguise and so because of such things they may now find themselves having to shoot and kill Palestinian women if they can't get them to stop for fear it could happen again. In its full context the reason the IDF ends up shooting and killing such a woman may not seem fair to you and seem brutal, but it did not happen in vacum. It comes in response to an earlier terrorist action that used a woman as a weapon and so set this stage. That cause and effect is most often ignored in the partisan accusations against the IDF. They are simply seen as cold blooded killers shooting down a Palestinian woman. When someone like me tries to explain to you if they hesitated, and that woman proved to be a man in disguise or strapped with bombs, that hesitation to kill or shoot down the woman will get many soldiers killed. That is the deep regret the IDF was talking about. They were talking about it precisely because they hate what terrorism is forcing them to do to Palestinian civilians. The true soldier caught in this nightmare is not cold blooded-they are human and must in a split second preserve their life and the lives of their fellow soliers. That is their job. Yes there are Israeli and Palestinian citizens now caught up in violent hatred displays and chauvenism. The thought of Lieberman being Foreign Minister for me for example is a loathsome one as I think he is precisely the kind of chauvenist the region does not need. But Lierbman did not just appear in vacum because Israel is evil. His extremism evolved as a response to extremism from the other side. That is what happens when conflicts are prolonged and terrorists can not be stopped-it fuels intolerance on both sides. What I ask people to do when they criticize Israeli soldiers or policies is to be balanced and fair and not just knee jerk react and use wire stories from the web to engage in name calling and partisan debating. The fact is the IDF has a serious challenge trying to assure its soldiers do not exert too much force and kill innocent people-they know this-they struggle with it and their soldiers will and do make mistakes and the excessive force must be questioned and held accountable and challenged and for the most part it is-do not mistake however the IDF doing it in a way that may not be so simple or transparent to you. They can not and will not do it in a way where they ask their soldiers to simply roll over and die when a terrorist appears in a civilian area. They can not. If they did, terrorism would succeed and their civilians would soon be dead. The real story here is two fold-one part deals with not just the IDF but any conventional army of a democracy forced to defend itself and follow laws. The other side of the story is a terror cell that openly has indicated it will not follow any international laws or domestic laws of democracy and will engage in brutal violence to express its will. It is naive for anyone to think conventional armies when faced with lawless terrorists can act like Saints at all times. It doesn't excuse excessive force but it sure as hell doesn't necessarily make them evil either. The big bad IDF that keeps getting referred to is full of civilians called up and who have to be in the army their whole lives. The people who criticize them live in a country where they will never have to joing an army and defend their people-so to me they are presumptious and this is why I wish some of them would go and sit and talk to war vets and temper their comments.

Don't be silly. You are your own worst enemy when you make ridiculous comments like the above. The JDL had nothing to do with the decision. The JDL is a fringe lunatic group with less then 50 members in Canada. It is considered an illegal terrorist group in Israel and is rejected by all Jewish organizations in Canada including the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'Nai B'rith and the Anti-defamation League defines it as a racist, terrorist organization. In fact the JDL preaches exactly what Galloway does only in reverse and you are well aware of that. The comment you made above no doubt was meant to be sarcastic but it only contradicts the very point you think you made. Israel and Jews worldwide do not condone or welcome or invite the JDL to its community centres and synagogues and use it to fund raise money that it sheeps to terrorist cells. In fact JDL members will be deported from Israel if they show up their and extremist groups on the West Bank linked to it have had their leaders and members jailed and the press and public will openly denounce such views. I know you want to counter what Galloway does with some lame response that Jews or Israelis do it too, but the fact is even if they did it does not excuse what Galloway does and more importantly, the vast majority of we Jews like the vast majority of Muslims are sick and tired of terrorists and extremists using our conflicts and problems for their own political exploitation. Some of us Muslims and Jews are sick and tired and want to be left alone to get along Kuzadd and yes that means those of us who support both Israel as a state and the right of Palestinians to have a state. We do exist. We may not make speeches and scream and yell but we exist.

With due respect what you quote has nothing to do with the genetic contentions you have made. You are mixing two different topics. Try find out why. We all can't spoon feed you. Here is a hint-increased melanin in skin does not change the genetic markers between humans or between humans and simeons. Better be careful who you call a dunderhead. All you are doing is manifesting your ignorance as to the topic you claim to understand by mixing two completely different concepts that have nothing to do with one another. On that note I defer to my more learned colleagues on the topic. As for me, I have no problem being closely related to many apes in my family tree. I have learned to live with it. I do wear clothes though and I don't like bananas or eating tics or fleas.

Walk away from this one. If you knew anything abotu genetics you would know black skin and kinky hair are not racial markers and in fact people with white skin and narrow noses and straight hair share the exact same corelation in dna connection to other simeons as blacks. The fact you do not understand that means you need to go find out why. You are stating things based on racist stereotypes. Go find out why. Blacks are no more genetically different to you then another black person or chimpanzee or ape. Go find out why. There is a lot more to genetics then your subjective assumptions as to hair texture or the amount of melanin one may have in their skin.

You sound like my wife. Do you know her?

Again you might want to read what he actually writes and says. He in fact supports the insanity of terror and war provided the group engaging in war or insanity does so in support of the political views he believes are right. This man never once denounced what Hamas or Hezbollah does. He cheers it on. He also cheers on the Syrian and Iranian regimes which as I stated previously make a point of jailing and torturing thousands of individuals they suspect of being trade unionists-something he selectively ignores considering he also claims to be a socialist.

Is the above a riddle? It is illogical. A terrorist is defined as such because they believe committing crimes of violence against civilians is a legitimate method to express political will. In regards to a nation that is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands, logic would dictate to you the fact it killed hundreds of thousands would mean it did not engage in a peaceful exercise. I think what you are confusing or manifesting is your own lack of understanding of the difference between those acts considered legal under international doctrines and conventions of war with war crimes (acts of war that fall outside such doctrines or conventions). A conventional army can be guilty of war crimes if it does not follow conventional rules of engagement as envisioned in such treaties and doctrines. Terrorist groups are not conventional armies. By their nature their are civilian militias orvigilante groups-they are nothing more then a group of armed individuals with the same political opinion. When they commit crimes they do so on behalf of themselves not a state. Although you may feel Hamas was democratically elected, it is not a sovereign state government nor is its military and intelligence wings conventional military armies representing and defending a sovereign state. It is a series of self-appointed vigilantes who engage in terror. Even if civilians support what it does, it does not make what it does non terrorist just as it would be the case that if a conventional army acts outside the appropriate conventions or treaties, the fact that it may do so with the approval of its citizens or government does not exempt it from those doctrines or treaties. Perhaps instead of asking you should read up on the topic. You might want to start by trying to understand why Hamas will not sign any international treaties, is considered an illegal terrorist entity by Canada, the U.S., Britain, etc., and why its engaging in violence is not legitamized because it feels it has the right to express its political views this way because the Arab League of Nations failed in several wars to dismantle the state of Israel. It isn't rocket science but I can tell you this-no one person's terror is not justified because you think the political cause behind it is acceptable to you. It is a tad more complex then that.

In his speeches, interviews and articles. They are public domain,

It was only a matter of time until someone seeking to rationalize his pedophile tendencies was attracted to this series of threads. Can't say I am surprised. Can't say I am surprised either that people think polygamy, pedophilia can be legalized because gay people are allowed to get married. This kind of irrational disconnect in attempting to link completely different phenomena is par for the course witht his topic precisely because some think in black and whites and can't flex their minds to understand that the concept of consent is a variable not an absolute. We have criminal and family laws in Canada. May I suggest some of you read them.Polgamy and pedophilia are crimes-period. Two consenting adults marrying one another do not commit a crime. Get over it. If you have a problem with gays get over it. Stop trying to smeer them as being immoral and in the same category as polygamists or child molesters. Consenting adults who want to have more then one marriage commit a crime. Adults who attempt to do have sex with children are committing a crime. As for anyone who wants to come on this forum and suggest the Bible approves of pedophilia and its civilized I have this to say-its a crime and your defence of pedophilia is what pedophiles do-rationalize their sexual relations with children is morally acceptable. Horseshit and no trying to use the Bible to justify it is even more horseshit. I am waiting for this Mr. Chateau to start quoting the Bible to justify pedophila and explain how it is civilized and we should allow marriages between adults and children. As for those of you who want to equate polygamy to homosexuality, I have news for you, using that absurd and ridiculous connect, then that means no heterosexuals should get married either and we should following this absurd arguement to its logical conclusion suggest anything goes or nothing goes. No you can not marry a horse or have sex with it. Get over it.

Well then. Can't wait for you to explain to me why pedophilia is civilized and how it is morally acceptable and should be allowed. Good to know the Bible approves of it. By any chance are you a priest?

George Galloway is well known for inciting crowds. He went to Egypt and began screaming for the overthrow of Mubarak. What I find interesting about him is in his own riding he allied with Muslim fundamentalists to smeer a gay population to get himself elected. His left wing activism certainly is selective. What also is interesting is while he calls himself a communist and militant socialist, he is allied with Hamas and the Taliban and Hezbollah, and the Syrian and Iranian governments whom he has openly embraced and says are fighting imperialism and colonialism. Its interesting because all 4 of these groups are violently opposed to socialism, trade unionism and communism and are responsible for politically persecuting people with such beliefs. Then again this is someone who went on t.v. to denounce gay hate crimes and in the next breath engaged in gay smeers against a politician because he was gay to suck up to Muslim voters as I said earlier. Hell you can go onto his own web site and read his comments such as: "That’s why I have no hesitation in saying that Hizbollah is not and has never been a terrorist organisation." "I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah." "Yes it would be morally justified. (killing Tony Blair) I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq as Blair did."

To make along story short. He was not simply accused. He made it clear many times in his statements that he was financing Hamas terrorist operations and believes terrorism is a viable means to express political opinion. It is his financing of terror operations and support of terrorism not his other views that are being questioned. It is worried he is fund raising not for benevolent charities but to raise finances to enable future terror attacks. That is a big difference then just someone saying he does not believe Israel should exist. If he was simply criticizing Israel's right to exist it would not be an issue not should it be. Its his decision to incite people to commit violence against others, nothing else, that is causing the contraversy and I would suggest he deliberately incites violence to get attention. I personally believe this is just a narcissist who likes drawing attention to himself.

No matter how many humans are killed, the inevitable movement to peace can not be extinguished. As many Sadats and Rabins are killed, as many terrorists make the news killing people, so too are born peaceful people spurred on by this kind of violence to resist it and provide an alternative. Out of tragedy comes strength and hope for an alternative to violence and anger. It just does not sell news stories.

Change the word "arabs" to "Muslims", "Humans", "Jews", "christians", etc., it could equally apply of course. On this case, the inter-secretarian violence in Middle East is very much part of an over-all complex network of sub-societies within the Arab League nations and Iran fighting each other to the death and would have existed had Israel come about or not. It comes down to but one question-when a society chooses violence to express political or religious views-this is what happens and the decision to embrace violence as a means of collective expression is at the root of what is tearing apart the Muslim societies of the Middle East and no amount of scapegoating the U.S. or Israel can change that. No doubt financial interests outside the Middle East in need of energy add to it and exasperate it but at its roots-until Muslims within their societies choose to denounce violence this will continue. I hear many Muslims say violence is not what Islam is about and what it preaches. Actions however spurred on by the words of its fundamentalist clerics and terrorists claiming it justifies their violent actions is what we all keep seeing. Lebanon has always been a patch work of competing factions. The only thing keeping Lebanon quiet these days is the military monopoly Hezbollah has over the nation because its alliance with Syria and Iran. It rules by brute force not will of the people just as the Syrian, Egyptian, Sudanese, Libyan, Iraqi and Iranian governments do. As for that nation of Israel you criticize, it openly argues its political views for the most part without Jews killing each other (Rabin is a stained exception) and it is precisely why the posters who came on this and many other forums to suggest Netanyahu would embrace facism when dealing with the Palestinians can not understand what was going on the last three weeks and why he can not even if he wanted to-may want to examine what is going on with Barak today in Israel and compare that to the above incident.

I believe dub you have made it clear you wish to discuss this conflict from one partisan perspective and criticize those who do not engage in the same partisan perspective you do. You are at least unlike some, upfront about your intent to be partisan. I can handle that. I would prefer someone be upfront about their biases and intentions like you then pretend they are not being bias. I again challenge you that the approach you are using to analyze this conflict is self-fullfilling. You see what you want to see because you start off with the presumption it is black v. white. Here is what I want you to think about. How does what you do help resolve the conflict? How does cheer leading one side resolve the conflict? Do you think your partisan cheer leading will help Palestinians deal with their own failure to find peaceful solutions? Do you think cheer leading terrorists will help them? When have I once seen you come on this forum and talk of Palestinian peace activists who openly renounce terror as a means to express politics? It is that selectivity I question not that you criticize Israel. Israel must and has to be criticized for certain policies and mistakes. That is a given. But as long as you choose to remain silent on terrorism and selectively suggest it is not and simply a justified political response to Israeli policies you miss out on the whole point of what makes this conflict continue and that is people like you enabling and empowering people like Hamas to believe their terror is soliciting sympathetic support against Israel. What I am saying to you is if any of us are genuinely interested in resolving conflicts we have to stop taking sides and cheer leading violence and focus our attention on concentrating on positive non violent actions, policies and programs that humanize people and get them to see what they have in common. Sounds to me you are caught up in the exact same chauvenism you claim all Israelis to be guilty of.

It is a sordid industry if anyone does as you do, and take a look at the number of deaths and of course what the death rate doesn't begin to explain are the thousands left permanently disabled and drug addicted. It is an unforgiving profession. The average wrestler if they intend to make it have about a three year window of opportunity provided their knee, back, kneck, shoulder, etc., doesn't prevent them. Mos wrestlers end up permanently crippled with serious kneck, shoulder, back and knee injuries as well as post concussion syndrome. They take steroids for two reasons. One they need to bulk up to sell themselves. Two they need to find a way to heal their injuries quickly. A wrestler is on the road 360 days a year going from show to show living in a circus performer world. They drink heavily and become addicted to drugs partly because of being lonely and alienated and partly to deaden the pain of their injuries and then it becomes a vicious cycle. It is a brutal business and few make it and the ones who make it are cursed. Very few can get out of it like the Rock Dwayne Johnston. Most have a year or two if they do make it before they are forgotten and cut. 99% of pro wrestlers never make it. Of the 1% who do the vast majority of them have brief careers. The tragedy involved in this industry is inescapable and it goes on and on. These guys are the last of the gladiators. It may look harmless what they do but when you jump and engage in the theatrics they do with their body size it is highly dangerous. Someone is always breaking a nose or a neck or ripping a knee or destroying a shoulder, etc. To me there is no difference between the professional porn business and professional wrestling. I put them in the same category. The actors and actresses are expendable. They can find them because it pays good for people who are not educated to do anything else. But few if any last at it long.

Leave it to you to question the obvious but leave it to me to suggest an exercise for you on the above issue. Go take some sand and sprinkle it profusely underneath your smegma. Then do what you may already do. Walk around without showering for a week. May I also suggest you try it again in the summer when its over 30 degrees a second time. I am sure at that point, you will understand Dr. Argus' point.

There have been a series of research projectrs underway in four Israeli universities examining the psychology of protracted conflict and placing IDF soldiers in a conflict of attrition with an invisible enemy. The demonization process of Palestinian civilians is not that different then the demonization of Israelis and for that matter all Jews and then Westerners Hamas and Hezbollah and the mainstream media across the Arab League nations engages in. Its interesting an article comes out engaging in full and frank discussion as to the psychological consequences of protracted conflict and the same people who pounce all over it as a propaganda opportunity to suggest Israeli is evil and the IDF is evil are the same silent hippocrites when it comes to Hamas, Hezbollah and the countless terrorist organizations or mainstream media demonization of Israelis in the Arab world. The IDF knows it has a serious problem trying to use a conventional army as a continuous civilian political police force. The difference though is Israel knows and discusses it openly while Hamas, Hezbollah and the usual anti-Israeli opportunists see absolutely nothing wrong or in need of examination from the other side of the conflict. What I am saying is the demonization of Palestinians is not an isolated phenomena it is part and parcel of a response to demonization of Israelis-neither side is innocent of demonization. If the sob's who now try use the story that discusses Israeli soldiers discussing their psychic conceptions read it fully and read the studies fully they would know that and they would not turn the complex and tragic consequences of conflict into yet another opportunity to sit on the side and cluck like blood spectators at an ultimate fighting match as they think one side has been given a good shot to the head.

Who are you to call anyone dishonest and portray yourself as the only truthful person in discussing this matter.. You are using a legitimate problem for political partisan propaganda purposes and you fabricated the claim that the IDF kills hundreds of innocent civilians.

And you are? You think its honest to discuss this issue in the way you do to suggest only one side of this equation demonizes the other. Save the sanctimonious b.s. You came on this forum to exploit demonization for partisan political purposes. Here is the point. Your selectivity is what is dishonest. Here is the point. In Israel such problems are openly discussed and people will be questioned and confronted. Let me know when Hamas and Hezbollah's "freedom fighters" will sit around discussing their demonization of Israelis. Let me know when Hamas will stop depicting Israelis as demons and encouraging their children daily to see them as monsters. The fact is in any protracted conflict, demonization of the other party to the conflict evolves and spreads the longer the conflict evolves. Any conventional army sent in to police a civilian zone and asked to fight an invisible enemy faces such problems. No one is apologizing for it. It is bad, It is unacceptable. It needs to be addressed but to do as you do exploit it for one sided partisan sanctimonious posturing is b.s.