Rue

If you are the government, a chartered bank or a very large corporation you can do exactly that. They take (or seize) first then send the lawyers afterwards.Law is all about WHO you are. It should not be this way, but it is. Apparently if I was an Indian I could do this and the police would stand by and critise the home owner for being too aggresive. You have lowered yourself to the point where you now engage in comments that simply show your hatred and make no logical or legal sense.

There is still no real proof that people are born gay. No proof that genuis' are born ......hows that for tit for tat? Again, no they are not. How are they catering to them? Providing Gay only lines at the marriage office? Discounts on the licence? Discounts for the halls?..Churches..? Let me spell it out . They dont, but you want to think they do, because you have an opinion , as you wrote earlier, and no one can change your opinion. Fine.You will need plenty of Q tips when you pull out of the sand. Frankly, no one beleives you. You are here to judge. But you want others to execute that wish. You want no marriage for gays. But you want the govt to enforce it. By your own writings there is no other conclusion . You have all this smarmy crap about not equal cater this and that. You want to dance, but I dont. We are all born equal , some are stronger some are smarter, but we are all equal. Yes you do by posting that they should not have equal rights. Gays conform to society, just not to your micro-society where you sit in judgement of gays all day. Gays do conform to society. How do they not? What standards are they not living up too? They live up to them in every possible way. Oh my, contradiction city there Francis . First no need to treat gays as second class, then the next sentence is summised by stating we should not change anything, which means explicitly that the status quo, in which gays are denied rights you are, are kept in place. Here it is again, really really try and lose that religious smarm of yours and read to comprehend. If anyone of any race, colour, creed, or sexual preference is denied any rights that other CDN's enjoy, they are DE FACTO relegated to second class. Ahh....but you went to a church, maybe stayed in a Holiday Inn and can correct the Professors, Doctors and Scientists who have invested their time, reputation and many years of study. What a smug assertion you make. Tell us about your studies will you ? Sorry, but I will call you on this one and do something I have not said on any forum. You are lying , and you know it. Here is what you posted "Rue" was not arguing any of that. He was giving an informed opinion that emanated from learned people on the subject.Rue never said he came to those conclusions, but had studied the findings as part of his job.But you tried to turn it against Rue. Naw.......nothing against them , provided of course they are denied the same rights , not seen nor heard , not sashaying down any boulevard that you are on. "But oh my lord, I hope they pay the same taxes as me so we can afford to keep the inequality of persons in tact." Try honesty next time. They did teach you that on Sundays dont they? I thank you very much for clarifying what I said. I have given up and appreciate you and some others still have the energy to attempt to deal with these kinds of comments. I think its lowered itself down to some very primal base prejudices that I doubt you or I can really dialogue with at this point.

Hang on I would most certainly concede there probably are people who generalize leftists the way you said. That is another issue and I get your point and concede its just the way you stated it was contentious so I jumped on it. I concede there are at least two sides and often many more to every issue and we all engage in generalizations and quite frankly I got lazy in an earlier response and unintentionally made a generalization against all leftists and Remiel made me bow on that. Point taken. By the way in the past I have stated in posts I do not agree wth JBG on certain comments he makes when I find them to be negative generalizations. I have made that clear. JBG and I support Israel but our approaches have differences. It is in my personal opinion problematic whether we make negative generalizations about Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Muslim whoever so you will note when I debate I debate with fire and flames in defence of Israel but I do not intentionally try dehumanize or demonize or stereotype Palestinians or Muslims. My beef is with terrorists, the fact those terrorists call themselves Muslims or Palestinians is not the real issue for me, the fact they are terrorists is. And yes I criticize Israelis and Jews (my fellow Zionist infidels) if I think they are being extremist. However can I say this. When you live in Israel, and you work and live with Israelis AND Palestinians as I have, I do not immediately assume when some of them sound extreme they feel that way deep deep inside. I think on either side of the conflict, people who have suiffered and watched loved ones die understandably become full of hatred and rage because of the personal attachment they experience to the horror. I see that as a bit different then say people in Canada who are safe and secure making hate statements. As for terrorists the reason I hate them so much is because they insult the peace loving people on both sides of the conflict who have been through the exact same experience as the terrorists but have not chosen to engage in savage murderous behaviour but overcome their grief and transcend their hatred. They are my heroes not the terrorists. To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons. There can be no justification for violence on ANY terms. That I guess I am an extremist on. So yah you have a point!

I think I'll let Rue have the final word here. My I spelled the word diluded dilluded. You have such a sharp mind Higly. Nothing gets my that superior mind of yours.

That dancedude was the point of the case precisely. It said he was a legal combatant, which makes him in legal theory a soldier and so as you say according to the Geneva contention the normal procedure is to hold him as a pow until the cessation of hostilities. The problem is the confusion between defining legal and illegal combatants. Due to the fact that terrorists can be both definitions and often switch back and forth, the current Geneva Convention is not equipped to deal with this fusion of illegal and legal combatant definitions and the US as are many other countries caught deciding should they treat them as soldiers or civilian terrorists or both at the same time in different courts. The law has to be modified. What is clear as of yesterday is that the Canadian Charter will not apply to Canadians overseas. What is also clear is that while Guantanamo Bay procedures would violate the US and Canadian constitutions in that prisoners have not been afforded trials in a timely manner, the US is not concerned and will fall back on arguing even if they are civilians they feel they are outside US law which is legally wrong but this is all about politics right now not the law. I mean this is the same US State Department that went to absurd extremes to try re-write the definition of the word torture so as not to be able to be held accountable legally for the torture that went on by CIA contracted interogators in Iraq. From a purely legal point of view, as much h as I support the US politically, I can not as a lawyer myself possbly condone their illegal actions and have to confer with FLA . Even the JAG corps of the US Armed Forces disagrees with Bush on this.

I agree with FTA.

"Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour. His brother (allegedly) committed the crime of killing an american soldier with a hand grenade amongs other less violent things. So aside from the lad in guatanamo, what are the Khadr's crimes? Talking big. So far thats it. Bravado and bullshit are not crimes. Actions count...and so far Momma Khadr has taken none. " No it was not his brother it was him. You are mixing him up with another brother, There were six of them. Omar the one being held was charged with murder for throwing the grenade. The dismissal of his charges is a technical one saying he is not a civilian and must be tried in a military court if any court. If he is tried in a military court then unless he acted outside the scope of combat which it does not appear he did, his actions would be considered in law an act of war.

"Indians get a free ride, it's been going on too long. Dudley George was in the wrong, it's tradgic that people had to die but sometimes that happens when you occupy land with thugs known to kill police officers". Geoffrey read your words above. "Indians get a free ride". Read your words, "thugs known to kill police officers". As long as you communicate in such a manner, i.e., making negative generalizations about an entire people, you engage in nothing more then racism or negative prejudice directed at aboriginal peoples. Here is the point Geoffrey. Many of us who are not aboriginal do not feel aboriginal peoples, and more specifically First Nation peoples have had a free ride. In fact many of us believe they have legitimate legal treaties that have been breached and we believe they have had anything but a free ride. In fact surveys show the MAJORITY of Canadians feel this way and in fact most Canadians now are intelligent enough to even understand why the word "Indian" which remains in the federal law's title is a derogatory word. You want to hate aboriginals as a people and slur them all, no one can stop you but here is the point. The aboriginal peoples in the park at the time of the shooting were Canadian citizens exercising their right under the laws to assemble and express themselves. They were not enagged in crime nor your slurring them as thugs can change that fact. The point is Dudley George had no weapon. The point is he was shot in cold blood and that is precisely what the commission found. The point is the police made a huge error in judgement in shooting him and engaging in the confrontation they did. The point is and what your racist hatred of aboriginals will always fail to understand is that yes in fact legally, the aboriginal peoples have a unique legal status different then ANY OTHER Canadian group precisely because of the law. It has nothing to do with giving them extra rights and everything to do with simply recognizing the treaties we entered into with them precisely because they existed before we came and when we came we took land from them and did all kinds of things to them. We Canadians have a collective legal and moral responsibility whether you like it or not. You hate these people as is clear in your comments because you think they are advantaged. In that sense you are quite something. Are you even aware that aboriginals constitute 3% of our population and yet constitute 20 to 25% of the prisoners in jail. You call them thugs. Would it ever occur to you that if they live in communities with 6o to 70% unemployment and NO facilities, they will turn to drugs and alcohol and this is precisely why their suicide rates are so high and why the vast majority of aboriginals arrested are unemployed. You want to demonize them and call them thugs no one can stop you but many of us feel aboriginal peoples and the First Nations peoples who are part of the aboriginal peoples are not thugs or animals but fellow Canadians who we are proud of and respect. Sorry Geoffrey to demonize Dudly George as deserving of his death is just outlandish. He was a man, a man with a generous spirit trying to do what he thought was right and express his opinion in a peaceful manner when he was shot and murdered and if your hatred blinds you to that so be it. There will e a comprehensive series of just settlements because most Canadians who are not aboriginal people believe it is our moral obligation to assure that this can be done, not because we want to give aboriginal people different rights but because we want to recognize their uniqueness and their heritage and the wealth that comes from being able to shre their uniqueness and heritage.

The Kadr issue has two components one legal, one political, neither dealing with immigration policy. In regards to the legal issue, Kadr at the time of his alleged offence was a member of a terrorist cell. He was not engaged in an act against a civilian which is an important legal distinction. During his offence, he threw a grenade that killed a soldier in response to soldiers attacking the hideout where he was at. If he was a civilian at the time of his offence or was a terrorist in a paramlitary terrorist cell as he was but not engaged in an act against a civilian, the law distinguishes this from his acting as a civilian. The law basically says what he did was an act of war. As such he belongs in a military prison, as a prisoner of war. Under the current Geneva convention, after you capure a prison you do not kill enemy soldiers if during the their acts, the acts were not directed at civilians but at soldiers in what can be considered an act of war. All the courts have said is at the time of his throwingt he grenade, Kadr can not be classified as a civilian and therefore be tried in a civilian court. The US Judge Advocate General's office warned Bush of this and were ignored. Placing Kadr in Guantanamo Bay is as a result of a confused US administration wanting to try terrorists as civilians and not consider them prisoners of war, no more no less. Here is the point. In today's word the Geneva convention has become outmoded because terrorists in fact can act at times as civilians and at times as soldiers of war and the line is often blurred by them. A new convention has to be drafted as to the treatment of terrorists who are apprehended but not necessarily engaging in an act of terror against civilians at the time of their arrests or confrontations. That said, no Kadr does NOT because he is a Canadian citizen get to come back to Canada and enjoy the rights of a Canadian citizen. The Supreme Court of Canada just yesterday passed a decision that said the Charter of Rights does not apply outside Canada (in that case it was for money laundering). It is the height of naivity to think someone who joins a terrorist organization in another country and/or engages in war, should be protected and sent back to Canada. What shpould have happened is he should have been detained as a prisoner of war ad not classified as a civilian. This legal issue has become so absurd there are Canadians arguing since he is a youth, Kadr should be treated under the Youth Justice Act and so be released as he has already served his time. No. Whether he was a boy, a half-man or a man, at the time of his offence he chose to engage in war and as such he is not entitled to protection under Canadian law. No you can't enjoy the benefits of Canadian citizenship once you go to another country, break its laws, and engage in war. Anyone who argues from a legal perspective that Kadr is entitled to protection is wrong.He is entitled to a military court tribunal hearing and imprisonment as a war criminal. In regards to the political issue, anyone who is born Canadian and then goes overseas or choses to engage in terrorism or war in other countries is NOT an immigrant, they are a Canadian and suggesting they are immigrants is bull. It has nothing to do with immigration. Now in regards to those persons born outside Canada who come to Canada as a convenience and a cover as did the Kadr family then we have the right to be angry. No they should not be able to obtain citizenship if it is to serve as a convenience and cover for their hatred. The point is the vast vast majority of immigrants feel the same way. They do not come to this country as a cover to be terrorists or to be disloyal and to lump them in with a minority of immigrants who try exploit our citizenship for terrorist purposes is unfair. That said, whether we are new or old Canadians I am sure we all must agree someone engaging in terror or war has consequences to face and no they can't come running back to Canada and get off scott free. How many times do you see a Canadian arrested overseas for selling or possessing drugs and then crying to be sent back to Canada. No its time people wake up. The Kadr family are not entitled to any protection from anyone but they are entitled to due process. What is wrongw ith Guantanamo Bay is not that it exists but that it has failed to provide speedy trials. In that sense it violates everything the US constitution stands for. The US constitution never envisioned people being arrested for years without trial. That is a legal failure not a political one, but the legal failure is as a result of Bush political policies. WE all have to seriously redefine the definition of terrorism and acts of war and decide where they should be tried, by who, and based on what standard of evidence.

quote from Figleaf; "All the quotes there confirm what I've said. Achmetjihad said 'regime', not 'Israel'." Figleaf I specifically went out and found and posted his comments that do not refer to the Israeli regime but the Israeli PEOPLE. When you read all of his quotes for the last 5 years in proper context you would understand "regime" and "Israelis" and anyone who supports Israel and "Zionists" ALL are who he targets. For you to pretend he only means the government of Israel and not its citizens is absurd as the quotes I produced showed. The destation and desire to destroy is not limited to the Israeli government, but Jewish Israelis, Jews world-wide, and anyone who supports Israel, i.e., American infidel. That is the point. To pretend his words are acceptable because they only are meant to say he wants the government gone and nothing else is just down right absurd if not ridiculous. Read the above comments on the holocaust and then his comments about removing JEWS back to Europe. We are not talking about a regime Figleaf. This is about targeting anyone in Israel who is Jewish, anyone outside Israel who is Jewish whether they support Israel or not, and anyone outside Israel who believes in its right to exist. His words couldn't be clearer.

Is it possible Figleaf your bias and preconceived notions as to Iran preclude you from conveiving that it funds terrorist activities? Do you think that could be true?

For those of you playing this pathetic game that the President of Iran is only talking about destroying the Israeli regime and not Israelis so its o.k. and he's being distorted and victimized and he really is a nice man he just wants to destroy the regime nothing else, here read and in particular read the last quote. Your attempt to try spin this hatred into not being hatred by trying to argue using the word "regime" makes it acceptable is utter bull-shit. For those of us who bother to keep track of the many comments this mad man makes we do not selectively ignore certain comments and pretend the rest are only directed at the "regime". Figleaf read particularly the last quote. Enough with the semantic bull-shit attempt to spin this man's hatred and sterilize it. "A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel." Bemama Makaysian News Agency, Sept, 2006 “Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame." , August 2, 2006, Iranian television "The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan." Iranian News Agency, July 16, 2006 "The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day." "The worse their crimes, the quicker they will fall." "[israel] has blackened the pages of history". 3 above quotes from Iran television, July 13, 2006 (as quoted by Iranian state television) "I think we have sufficiently talked about this matter and these Holocaust events need to be further investigated by independent and impartial parties." "An event that has influenced so many diplomatic and political equations of the world needs to investigated and researched by impartial and independent groups." "If it is true, then the response to this question should not be solved in Palestine. The Palestinian question should be settled as soon as possible. If it is false, why should such measures be taken against the people of Palestine?" all of the above quoted at news conference July 13, 206 after meeting with China’s President "I believe the German people are prisoners of the Holocaust. More than 60 million were killed in World War II . . . The question is: Why is it that only the Jews are at the center of attention?" "We say that if the Holocaust happened, then the Europeans must accept the consequences and the price should not be paid by Palestine. If it did not happen, then the Jews must return to where they came from." interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, May 28, 2006

While I agree with some of your rebuttal of the more obviously faulty logic in those three points, I fail to see why you make your own seemingly outrageous generalizations in return. People who actually believe what you mention in that first point would be better defined as primarily ignorant, not primary left. As for the second, what was stopping you from adding " that are " between " leftists " and " anti-semitic " , as that was the only difference between a dumb generalization and a factual statement? My response should have said; "some of of us can find SOME leftists....." Your point is taken. The way I wrote it generalizes against ALL leftists which is wrong and was not my intention. You are right. If I generalize ALL leftists, it is as you say a dumb generalization. I was writing too fast. I actually edited my response but missed that one,

In regards to 1 ,since when can a Jewish person not hate Israel let alone have a vicious hatred of Israel? Do you think because someone is Jewish, that automatically means when they make anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, they can't be? This the same typical kind of left wing bull that says a black person can't be racist or a woman can't be sexist. Of course Jewish people can viciously hate Israel or other Jews. Any minority can hate their own minority status. Uh hello do you not think there are Muslims who hate parts of their own religion or hate their own governments or do you think simply because they are Muslim they don't? You think blacks can be racist or its an impossibility? Well? Its a stupid comment that generalizes all Jews and engages in a stereotype about Jews that many leftists engage in. They think if they quite someone like Benny Morris who is a Jew by heritage, then when he makes anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, automatically these comments have automatic credibility since he is Jewish. That is b.s. and its an exercise engaged in time and time again by anti-Israelis on these posts. . The fact that some is Jewish is irelevant to the opinions they state when they criticize Israel and to fuse being Jewish and anti-Israeli opinions as being inextricable and interchangeable is by its very nature necessarily an anti-semitic stereotype of Jews since it suggests anyone who is Jewish when they engage in vicious attacks against Israel, aren't simply because they are Jews. That is a false generalization and it serves as a cover to legitimize anti-semitism and its precisely why anti-semites love to quote Jewish anti-semites. The point is anyone can think and have prejudices about anyone and the fact they are Jewish or anything else does not preclude them from being prejudice. Some of the biggest homophobes in the world are gay, some of the worst sexists are women and some of the most intolerant people against Christianity or Islam are Christian and Muslim. I think your assumption needs to be challenged. I am not saying you make the assumption because you hate Jews either. I do not think that all. In regards to 2, you are enagged in generalizations again. Manyleftists have demonstrated anti-semitic, racist, sexist, homo-phobic and other intolerant views. Where have you been? Do you really believe you can generalize and depict ALL leftists as tolerant? What have you been reading? Do you mean to tell me you would have us believe Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the Communist regime in Camobodia that killed hundreds of thousands are tolerant?

I had too look hard for it but I found an article by someone neutral on how genocide is used indiscriminately in regards to the Middle East conflict here it is; The genocide myth - ours and theirs By Bradley Burston It is the nature of myth both to contain a kernel of truth, and to obscure the extent of the truth it contains. So it is, that it is difficult for Israelis to free themselves from the sense that the Arabs want to see them all dead. Certainly there is some truth to the extermination myth, but no one knows how much. Moreover, given the possibility that it may be true, and the inherent danger involved in really putting it to the test, no one really wants to find out. In either event, the myth feeds into what may be called the First Law of Intractability, or the Law of Conservation of Anguish, which may be summarized as follows: The reaction of one side to its own specific pain, tends to directly accentuate the specific pain of the other. Stated differently, our Holocaust pain and their Naqba (1948 war) pain potentiate one another. Our chosen means of self-defense - incursions, body searches, discriminatory laws and regulations, refusal to recognize, refusal to negotiate, raids and bombings, house demolitions, imprisonments without trial, building walls through villages and over farmers' fields, kidnappings and assassinations of leaders - directly act upon the Palestinians' every humiliation nerve. Their chosen means of redeeming their lost honor - suicide bombings, rocket attacks, masked paramilitary posturing, anti-Semitic incitement, refusal to recognize, refusal to negotiate, kidnappings of soldiers - directly act upon our every annihilation nerve. So completely has this system taken us over, that it has manages to slough over the cultural borders between us, such that we have begun to react militarily out of humiliation - witness government actions at the end of the recent war in the north - and the Palestinians have taken it as a matter of course that the object of Israeli policy is genocide against the peoples of the West Bank and Gaza. Both sides can marshal persuasive arguments in favor of the idea that genocide is the object of the other. For Israelis who lived through the 1948 war and the run-up to the 1967 war, there are no end of quotations from Arabs testifying to the idea that the motto Slaughter the Jews was meant to taken literally. Hamas' resistance to recognizing the existence of Israel, currently backed by a large majority of Palestinians in a recent poll, only adds to the sense that all Israelis are potentially in their gunsights. Palestinians - and Israeli Arabs as well - need only to look to the Teddy soccer stadium in Jerusalem to find Israelis willing to chant in delirious unison, "Death to the Arabs." So it is that the myth of genocide has become an article of faith among both Jews and Arabs. But what if it's not true? What if the original myth doesn't hold anymore? What if the Arabs don't want us all dead? Forget, for the moment, the extremists. There will be a pause, at this point, for the extremists in our own midst, who have convinced themselves that they are the only sane Jews, to state chapter and verse that the Arabs - all of them, or enough of them so that the others don't count - want nothing more than they want our extinction. There will be a further pause for moderates to suggest that even if the vast majority of the Palestinians would be willing to live in peace with the Jews, the extremists are now in power, and might carry out genocide, if they saw a chance. What is clear is that after years and years and years of bloodletting, Jews need to hear from Palestinians that they are willing to work for a solution that includes the Jews. It is no less clear that the Palestinians, and their supporters abroad, need to hear a similar message. Otherwise, the myth will remain a token of faith, a perverse badge of patriotic honor, deepening a rift that already defies healing. Consider the following response, from a reader in Ireland: "We simply can't see a genocide in Palestine and pretend it doesn't exist. Today, the Jews are starving, persecuting and killing the helpless Palestinians without any mercy, taking advantage of their domination over American policies and politics. "But we in Ireland can't behave like political whores as many countries are behaving. We must stand up against the mad dogs of zionism. Will the Jews be angry? Well, who cares?" There are good reasons to care. One of them is that the resort to the use of terms like genocide to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acts to cheapen the term, to divert attention from real cases of genocide, and to further confound a solution here. There is something about the use of the term genocide that makes us feel better - Jew and Arab both. It gives us the ultimate moral edge. It gives us the justification for our every excess. But it is time we saw it for what it is. A myth. Would the Arabs like to see the Jews disappear from the Holy Land? Of course. Would the Jews like to see the Arabs gone? In a heartbeat. Is it going to happen? Not on your life. Because that's not what the vast majority of the Israelis and Palestinians want. They want to find an accommodation. They want to find some way to separate and live, independently and in peace. We cannot let anger speak for us, for either of our peoples, any longer. Too many have died on both sides.

Well given Higgly's last comments may I respond in this manner YOU FOOLS BOW BEFORE ME!!!!!I AM THE PURVEYOR OF TRUTH!!!!! I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS!!!!!!!!YOU ALL ARE FOOLS LIVING IN A WORLD OF MAKE BELIEVE DO YOU HEAR ME!!!!!!\ My word. This is getting quite melodramatic. Just for the record everyone is wrong except me. No really. You are all dilluded. Really. Oh its true. I can prove it with maps and historic documents and also my cats agree with me.

"If you'll notice, the common denominator between Darfur and Israel is not an oppressive ruling party like Iran or China (something which goes on unfortunately in far too many places in the world for us to stick our noses in every one of the situations), but rather an oppression by a ruling party against an ethnic community. Dictators thrive on greed whereas ethnic clashes are based racism and the manifestation is a powerful ruling party against another ethnic community (whether it's Darfur or Israel)." I had to take a day off and breath before I responded. For you to equate the Sudanese regime and its genocide of Black Christian Sudanese with the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians shows where your head is at. First of all let us once again deal with your preconceived views of Israel which are based on assumptions it is racist and it is involved in genocide. For you to suggest Israel is engaging in genocide of Palestine is an absolute falsehood but who cares right? Why let facts get in the way of rhetoric. Here is what utterly disgusts me about your comments. Do you know anything about Israel? Have you even the slighest clue that goes on there for you to make such statements or are you yet again another arm-chair genius who is in the know because you have read articles on the e-mail and everyone knows Zionism is racism and Israel for no reason simply goes out and engages in genocide. How about you make an effort at least to understand how many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli troops and why, when and where. And while you are at it, and you call Israel racist and engaged in genocide, how about you explain to us how it is in your equation you ignore the Hamas and Al Fatah charters that call for the extermination of Jews world wide as well as the Jews in Israel. How about you explain to us how the anti-semitism that is rampant across the Middle East and fuels the hatred against Israel is not as you would call it "racist". What magic formula do you use to only see one side of a conflict and completely ignore the other. More importantly how is it someone like you who claims to know these things has not explained how if Israel is committing genocide it spent billions funding the Palestinian government, mosques, schools, community centres and agencies including employing 14,000 Palestinians in their government with its funds while the Arab League did NOTHING. Please explain to us how that is genocide. Please explain to us how responding to terrorists who say they want you and Jews worldwide wiped out when they attack your civilians is genocide? Please tell us all. More to the point explain why it is if Israel is so racist unlike any Muslim government in the entire world, it provides its Muslim and Christian citizens with the exact same legal rights as it does its own Jewish citizens. How is it that Arab Israelis are voted to the Knesset, appointed Judges, and have equal access to hospitals, schools, and community centres? How is it the government of Israel guarantees Arabic as a legal language? Why is it they vote and are allowed to openly criticize the Israeli government and are not as Jewish citizens are required to serve in its armed forces? Oh do tell us will you. And while you are at it do explain how in the Muslim world Jews are given these same rights. Do tell us how the Israeli Defence Force and its government has a covenant that it proudly declares calling for it to search down Muslims and Palestinians world-wide and kill them all. Why I even bother to respond is beyond me. Is Israel a perfect nation? No. Does it have problems? Yes. But for you to suggest it is engaged in genocide and is doing to Palestinians what the Sudanese are doing to their citizens is absolutely wrong and you know it. If you even took the time to look at your analogy you would have realized if for no other reason it is defective because the Sudanese genocide of Black Christians is against its own citizens. You are trying to equate what you see is Israeli treatment of NON citizens, i.e. Palestinian Muslims, as genocide. I guess it did not dawn on you that the people Israel targets are terrorists outside their country dedicated to wiping them out and Black Christians have not engaged in terror nor do Black Christians have a covenant to wipe out Sudan? Ooh why let facts get in the way right? Why mention that when Palestinian civilians are killed it is because they are either engaged in terrorist activities or caught in the line of fire because terrorists choose to use them as shields or they find themselves in the line of fire between terrrorists and the IDF. Why mention that right. I mean you know, you are an expert its genocide right? Until you make a serious effort to exercise your brain and venture out of the simplistic black and white name calling world of rights and wrongs and take the time to analyze the genocide going on in Sudan don't come on these posts and make blanket statements its being covered by the media as much as the Palestinian conflict. If you even made an attempt to research before you shot off at the mouth with such comments you would know the people of Darfur do not have the public relations and media apperatus the Palestinian Authority and Hamas do. You would no its people are penniless and forgotten and in fact there has been media watch analysis to show it is not being covered and there is media analysis to show how the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Al Fatah, Hezbollah, all are funded with millions of dollars to get their stories into the media daily. For you to suggest the Israeli government is engaged in genocide like the Sudanese government also is interesting considering other then people like you, arm-chair experts, the only people who would suggest Israel's actions to defend itself against terrorists is genocide have been the terrorists themselves. Maybe you would like to find out just how much money Israel spent on social services in the West Bank and the Gaza before you refer to them as committing genocide. Or would that not fit in your convenient world of Israel evil bad bad bad.

Again? Lol. Too much info!!!! There is no end to this... (pun).

"There is a term for this in criminal investigations (I can't recall what it is)....but investigators need to pull back when they've realized they're trying to fit everything in a box just so to produce the results that they believe." Its called the heresay evidence rule Betsy. Heresay evdience is inadmissable precisely because it can not be corroborated. Um Betsy I suddenly got this vision of you on a beach trying to explain to this big fat, middle aged balding man he shouldn't wear a g string.(and no Besty I do not wear g strings!!!!!but I would hold my stomach in for you)

Your posts is filled with half-truths and utter drivel, so I will only address the fact, that had you read,what I wrote, at all??!! which understandabley and demonstrabley is difficult for you. Golly. Who would have thought Kuzadd would simply avoid debating the issues and simply engage in name calling? Man imagine that. I am constantly amazed at the shocking turn of events on this forum! Wow.

I like most really want to know is can you get me a Harry Rosen suit at 50 points off retail? Maybe. But first you must become circumsized and engage in some Satanic rituals. Then I have to teach you the secret hand signals.

"What is remarkable about these posts is the idea that somebody else should negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. " Higgly as usual takes a comment of JBG out of context. What JBG is stating is that Jordan has a legal obligation to be a direct participant in any negotiations as to the future of Palestinians since Jordan is in fact already a Palestinian state and its citizens are Palestinian Muslims and it was a Palestinian state created by Britain with a specific mandate not to allow Jews in as citizens and was constituted from 70% of the territory mandated by the League of Nations for Palestine that talked of a Jewish state but not a Muslim one. To pretend Jordan is not a Palestinian state is bull shit. Should Palestinians be self-determining. That was the whole point of what was attempted by Oslo but it is a legal fact Arafat NOT Israel repeatedly from day one of the signing deliberately breached the accord. The arguement that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank is a smokescreen the PLO and Hamas have used to change the subject at their own violations of Oslo and other international laws. It was Arafat not Israel who made it clear he would never agree to a state in Israel for Jews in Arabic while telling the Western press he would sign a treaty with Israel. The alleged Israel violation is not that it is in the West Bank but that it has used a civilian administration as opposed to a military administration to administer the West Bank. That is the violation. The practical reality is that a second state in the West Bank is the only solution and for that State to be able to exist it would need an economic alliance with both Jordan and Israel so of course Jordan must be party to this. The problem is, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt do not want anything to do with Palestinians. They do not want them in their countries. For that matter even Syria and all the other Arab League nations refuses to provide Palestinians citizenship. It is absurd to think in a comprehensive peace settlement, the Arab League nations will not have to absorb and resettle Palestinians born in their nations and who have lived there all their lives. When 900,000 Jews were expelled from Middle East countries in retaliation for Israel becoming a nation in 1949, those Arab Legaue nations doing the expulsions could care less about Palestinians. If they did they would realize this unified action of expulsion by them forced Israel to absorb these displaced Jews, making it physically impossible for them even if they wanted to take back Palestinians. Today's conflict flows from second and third generation Palestinians born in camps in Arab countries which refuse to give them citizenship. They have been deliberately left in these camps as a pawn. To blame Israel for this as Higgly does is absolute b.s. It was the Arab League not Israel that chose in 1949 to try rid Palestine of Jews and it was the Arab League that then decided after it could not, not to accept responsibility for its failed plan and absorb displaced Palestinians. It is the height of revisionist bull-shit to suggest the Arab League nations could not have and were not responsible for the plight of Palestinians because of their unilateral decision to try force Jews out of Palestine by trying to kill them in a war. That all or nothing position that in fact is the reason for the displaced Palestinians is a direct consequence of the Arab League's actions. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, all were given parts of the area mandated as Palestine by the League of Nations. Why is it that all these Muslim countries can not absorb their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters? Why is it that every other country in the Middle East can be a Muslim country but there can not be a Jewish one in such a small area for that matter? The bottom line is the current confloict continues because terrorist fundamentalists fueled by Syria and Iran truly believe the solution continues to be wiping Israel off the map. In fact Syria could caere less about Palestinians. It wants Israel for itself. Take a look at who fuels Hamas and all the Palestinian terror organizations. It is either Syria, or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Libya. They do so for reasons not based on benevolence but aspirations related to their own need for power. Here is the reality. For peace to come about terrorists need to be disarmed. The only way to do that is to have the Arab League disarm them, the same Arab League that will need to in a comprehensive peace plan recognize its actions to create and set up refugee camps and refuse to allow Palestinians to be absorbed in other nations causing the second and third generations to be born in these camps. International law does not recognize these second and third generation Palestinians born in these camps to have a right to return to Israel just as it does not recognize the rights of Jews born to those thrown out of the Middle East to return to their nations. That is the point. The Jewish community world-wide spent millions helping Israel absorb 700,000 displaced Jews. What has the Muslim world done for its Palestinians other then for the last 60 years do nothing but blame Israel? The Arab League allows genocide in Sudan, human traddicking and slavery within its borders and is host to military dictatorships with terrorist secret police agencies and posters come on this forum and pretend it is all Israel's fault and Israel is the only problem nation in the world let alone in the Middle East. There can be a comprehensive plan but it requires the Arab League disarming terrorists, assisting the West Bank financially and supporting an ecopnomic alliance between Jordan and Israel and this second Palestinian nation and then Lebanon, Syria and hopefully Egypt. This will not happen as long as the Arab League nations can not control Iran, Syria and anti-semitism is prevalent and condoned and spread through-out the Arab League nations t.v., radio and newspapers.

"Relax. You're not anti-Semitic, since you love Arabs. You're simply a Jew-hater." Actually I personally do not think Figleaf hates Jews. I really don't. I think he is very anti-Israeli to the point of being absurd, but as much as I find Figleaf's opinions repugnant I would with due seriousness say Figleaf is not making negative disparaging comments about Jews as a people as do some of his colleagues when they post. I have never once felt Figleaf has attacked me for being Jewish when he makes his comments. I really don't. I can't stand his opinions but I have never felt for a second he has deliberately meant to be anti-semitic as are come of his Israel poo poo buddies when they make certain comments. I really do think Figleaf is a gentleman and I appreciate that although he may not know it given my absolute and utter disagreement with virtually everything he says. However JBG I do concede Fig's trying to engage in a game of semantics to defend what Iran said or suggest it is Israel's fault is absurd. But then what would a day be on these posts without an Israel poo poo message. And yes JBG it is your fault Iran is saying what it says. I mean as a Zionist why can't you just get the Israeli regime to leave and tell those silly Jews in Israel to go away. Didn't Higgly say in a previous post that New York is a Jewish state. Why can't they go there like he says. I mean really. Seriously JBG, this latest round of comments the DancingDude referred to makes me concede to you on a previous point you made to me about Iran and I took the liberal moderate approach to. I did say to you JBG that I did not think Israel should engage in a preemptive strike and that much of the rhetoric from Iran was simply a smole screen to dettract from its seerious internal economic problems or sable rattle. However JBG I am now very worrried because unlike before, the Council of Clerics in Iran backed the statements and when read in conjunction with other articles and speeches being sent through-out the Middle East, these latest comments signal a new message for Hezbollah and Shiite extremists to go full speed ahead with terror. Do I think Iran is nuts enough to use a nuclear weapon against Israel. After the last speech yes. Would I sit around and wait for them to have nuclear bombs, no. Not after the last speech. I really regret this. Because it is precisely this kinds of comments that will set the stage for a preemotive strike as Sharkdude already said. I really also think JBG it is only a matter of time until we read a post on this forum that this is all an elaborate Zionist plot to justify bombing Iran and that this nut case President is really a Zionist oeprative. Hasn't that been the constant theme of these posts. That when someone threatens to destroy Israel, they are really Zionist operatives or if they are not, they don't want to kill Israelis, just their government. Oh brother. If I was China which has the biggest financial interest in Iran and depends heavily on its natural gas, I would stop being the moral hippocrate and coward of a nation I am and step up to the plate and tell Iran to cool it or else. Then again China has enabled the genocide to continue in Sudan because of its blind and total support of Sudan so why should it say anything now. Russia and Turkey have already made a secret agreement with Israel to stay out of this if they engage in a preemptive attack. I also think for these Israel poo poo people they should understand Iran's comments are not just directed at Israel, they in fact send a message to the Sunni Muslim world that Iran wants to establish its ideology across the Middle East. This is not simply anti-Zionist, this is rhetoric challenging all of the Middle East. These kinds of comments are as worrisome for Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia as they are Israel. The nuclear fall out will kill their people too.

Holy Christ! Israel is a democratic nation whose Government is elected by the universal and free suffrage of its citizens. The only way to destroy the "zionist regime" is to destroy the zionists, which happen to be 90% of the population. Get out. You figure? You mean they don't want to kill Israeli civilians or say Jews in the rest of the world? Get out. Figleaf doesn't think so. Golly I am confused.

"So, which thing did Aminijihad actually say? Destruction of Israel, or destruction of the regime in Israel? " Figleaf you make an excellent point. That destruction and destroying of the Zionist regime won't kill any Israeli citizens or Jews world-wide or for that matter Israelis who are not Jewish. Yes Figleaf the nuclear bomb will srrategically only kill the Israeli politicians and their buildings and not touch the civilians who willo be free to join a Muslim theocracy in that area once the bombs are finished their strategical strikes. Thanks Figleaf. Once again you have reminded me not to get all hysterical and keep things in perspective.