Rue

So in summary David Suzuki is evil because he believes human activities are endangering the planet. Also anyone who worries about human activities and their impact on the planet is wrong. O.k. that was easy. Problem is many of us are not afraid of what David Suzuki is trying to say nor do we engage in denial about the state of the planet. You can play semantics all you want about what is causing the planet to warm up but who gives a f...ck. The point is anyone who pretends this planet is not in grave danger is engaging in the same kind of denial people do who smoke cigarettes or drink and drive, or think they can continue to live the lifestyle they do and not have to change it. The fact is those of you who do not die from cancer or heart disease will find yourself unable to afford gasoline soon in any event. But me my guest continue to consume and pretend nothing is wrong. Yah that David Suzuki is nuts. Noah was too. Paranoid schitzophrenics. That is what they are.

"Whatever Ahmadinejad's agenda, he is making a strike on his country more likely." That Sharkdue is precisely the point. Can anyone listening to such comments let a guy like this get his hands on a nuclear weapon? These comments are becoming more and more continuous and inflammatory. I am waiting for Kuzzad to respond with his theory that Ahmadinejad is part of an Israeli Zionist false flag operation and was planted by Mossad.

"While they scream about the Jewish state, they remain silent about human rights abuses carried out by brutal regimes across the world." The point is each day in Sudan, Mauritania, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Algeria to name but a few Muslim countries, human slavery is engaged in and thousands of Muslims are arrested and tortured for having the wrong political views or for being feminist, gay, communist, involved in labour unions or heaven forbid should be Christians, Bahaiis, or someone not of the right Muslim sect. The same trendy leftists who support these regimes suspend their value system and simply pretend these countries are not oppressing and violating the human rights of all the above people. There is nothing more absurd then seeing communist and socialists marching hand in hand with the same anti-Zionists who would kill, torture or imprison them as fast as they would Jews if they had a chance. It is for me the utmost in absurdity to see these leftists, particularily feminist and gay leftists marching arm in arm with people that despise them as much as they do Jews and Israelis and Christians and Bahaiis and Hindus. I do not take the trendy left seriously precisely for the above reason. When I criticize Israel I use the exact same framework to criticize Palestinians, Muslim countries, European countries, anyone else. In the trendy left wing world there are good guys and bad guys. So for example, they are selective in not criticizing China's human rights autrocities and support of Sudan, but they are quick to describe the US and Israel as evil. Your point is well taken and many of us are as fed up with this double standard as you are. I am a pretty middle of the road liberal moderate and I detest it when trendy leftists try label me as a conservative neo con because I believe Israel should have the right to exist and I want Palestinians and Israelis treated equally. No I will not be trendy leftist and look the other way on China, Russia, Iran, Indonesia, Sudan or any other country violating human rights whether it be Israel or anyone else. Quite frankly I find the alleged neo-cons at least more honest and up front about their beliefs. They do not couch them in politically correct words. As a modeate middle of the roader I have no time of day for anyone who is selective in who they try portray as evil. It is particularily why I have a huge credibility problem with the UN right now whose Human Rights committee is stacked with human rights violating nations.

"It's a rant more than anything. " "name calling/smear/demonisation" Oh you mean like when you come on the post and quote second hand heresay evidence and then leap to conclusions it proves your Zionist conspiracy theories that Zionists kill their fellow Jews deliberately? Careful who you piss at. The wind equally blows back in your face I would say.

There is nothing in these excerpts that shows criticism of Israel to be driven by anti-semitism. The suggestion seems quite slanderous, really. have you noticed the page is unavailable when one clicks the link? I am unable to get it. wondering if it is, because it was slanderous? The Mossad are blocking it so you can't read it.

Can we deal with yet another typical Israel poo poo bad evil demon notion. Yes Israel has an external intelligence organization called Mossad and an internal one called Shin Bet. Israel depends heavily on its intelligence operations to prevent terrorist attacks. However to suggest as Kuzzad did that because it has intelligence operations that engage in clandestine activities automatically means it deliberately kills its own citizens in covert operations is absolute and utter b.s. The fact is each and every nation of the world has intelligence agencies, usually those attached to its armed forces and one for internal and one for external intelligence gathering. Would Kuzzad also assume each and every other nation of the world deliebrately kills its own people simply because they intelligence agencies or does he limit his assumption to Israel since Israel evil poo poo demon bad, The fact is all intelligence agencies may be involved in operations that require they use cover stories or spread disinformation to protect their activities. Kuzzad took an incident of an Israeli intelligence operation in the early 1950’s in his earlier post and from that tells us he can assume since Israel was engaged in intelligence operations against Egypt in the 1950’s he can assume Israelis kill Israelis and non Israeli Jews and orchestrated Entebbe. Israel in case Kuzzad has not noticed is not the only country in the Middle Wast with intelligence agencies nor is it the only country in the Middle East whose agencies engage in as he calls it “false flag” operations. Uh hello Kuzzad, the very notion of engaging in intelligence activities requires ANY intelligence agency to create covers. The fact that ANY intelligence agency engages in cover stories, does not mean Kuzzad can simply assume Mossad and Shin Bet kill Jews and Israelis. Here are some of the other agencies Kuzzad may wish to look at. Using his logic they are all killing their citizens in secret operations-however I doubt Kuzzad will be back with any articles quoting "sources" from these countries as to their secret operations. Seem Kuzzad's world is limited to Israel. Al-Mukhabarat Al-'Ammah, General Intelligence Service, Egypt Al-Mukhabarat Al-Harbeya, Military Intelligence Directorate, Egypt Dairat al Mukhabarat , Intelligence Bureau, Jordan Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar (VEVAK), Ministry of Intelligence and National Security, Iran Jamahiriya el-Mukhabarat, Intellgence Agency, Libya Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) , Directorate of Territorial Surveillance, Morrocco Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) , Intelligence Bureau (IB) , Military Intelligence (MI) , Federal Intelligence Agency (FIA) , Special Branch (SB) –Pakistan Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah (General Intelligence Directorate), Saudi Arabia Idarat al-Mukhabarat al-Amma (Directorate of State Intelligence) , Shu'bat al-Mukhabarat al-'Askariyya (Department of Military Intelligence) , Idarat al-Mukhabarat al-Jawiyya (Directorate of Air Force Intelligence) , Syria Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité, Algeria

Kuzzad let us deal with your comments as clearly as possible; "David Colvin, was in a position to know." How is someone repeating second hand, uncorroborated heresay information in the position to know? Because the information can not be corroborated he can't possibly be in the position to know. "He put the allegations to paper, which would indicate he took them quite seriously, or he would not have bothered." I made a point of giving you another response showing how idiotic the above contention is. There are millions of Zionist conspiracy theories on the inter-net and that have been written for centuries. The fact that they are put on paper does not make them true. Uisng your logic anyone can write anything and as long as its on paper, it must be true. "He then sent the message to the British Foreign office, again an indication, this was serious and he trusted his info." No that is your interpretation of whyt he did it. You have zero proof that he trusted the information or thought it was serious. That is your subjective conclusion. Did it ever dawn on you diplomats pass on such information because that is there job. If in fact the information is disinformation which it probably was, it is important they keep track of who is spreading the disinformation as it can help reveal changes within the Palestinian militancy structure. You Sir simply jumped to an unsubstantiated conclusion based on your own preconceived notion that it is true and serious because it is the kind of theory you agree with-iot suits your preconceived values as to Zionists and Zionist conspiracy theories. "]there was second independant validation, from a journalist at the time name Leo Murray.Who also informed the British foreign office, that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US." Read your comment above? Do you even read what you write. How would the above comment if it was made by Leo Murray independely validate anything? Where does it validate anything with substantiated collaborated evidence. Tell us. How does a splinter group of the PFLP planning a series of spectactular incidents to disrupt contacts between Arafat and the US prove and independetly validate Israel was involved with it? Show me or anyone else evidence that links this alleged splinter group of the PFLP with Shin Bet. Show us the independent proof. What you repeated above not only does not address the issue, but simply proves the PFLP was involved, nothing else. "his journalist validates and further lends credibility to David Colvin's claims. Ignore as you may, and I get the impression you will." What you did was to take a comment by a journalist that provides no proof Israel's Shen Bet was involved with the PFLP and now you want everyone else to do what you have done, and fabricate that this comment proves Shin Bet was involved. You have exposed yourself as having no proof and simply speculating and you now expect others to engage in this fantasy? "ut as I went through all the points that lend's this claim credibility" No all you did was raise a theory based an unsubstantiated second hand comment from an unamed source and then raised no objective evidence at all to back up what you were saying-you simply repeated your theories and took a comment that doesn't even remotely back up your theory and claimn you are credible. Read the points you went through. Show one point that provides any objective corroborated evidence that Shin Bet engaged in Entebbe with the PFLP. "he obviously got the information, from a reliable enough source" Why is its reliability obvious? What shred of substantiated corroborated evidence is there to make it reliable? You think its reliable because it suits your preconceived notion that Israelis and Zionists are evil conspirators. That is why you feel it is credible and it is precisely why I say to Buffy this is the second time Buffy in a few days you have shown us all you enjoy taking subjective anti-Israel, Israel evil poo poo articles and simply accepting them. You Buffy claim to be intelligent. Show us Buffy. Show us how you, someone who supposedly thinks for herself allows herself to kump on this latest Israel poo poo heresay and condone it. "This is point A to point B kinda stuff, it's not difficult." Have you any idea that heresay comments have zero credibility precisely because they can not be proven. That is why they are inadmissable in law, and that is why historians will not quote them and why journalists will not quote them as truth if the journalist is trying to be credible and objective. No it is not difficult to understand why simply accepting unsubstantiated, unidentified information lacks any credibility but I suppose in your world we just accept what ever we hear from anyone as long as it suits our preconceived opinions right? "if this information was far flung, he would NOT have gone to the trouble of notifying the British Foreign office, he would have dismissed it, He DID NOT dismiss it." Again you assume because he passed on the information it must be true. Thousands if not millions of pieces of disinformation are passed on daily by diplomats and intelligence officers. The fact they pass it on does not make it credible. And no that is not a difficult thing to grasp. Your assuming that the fact someone passing something on automatically makes it the truth is absurd. "Then I went even further to recount an additonal false flag precedent set by Israel the Lavon Affair." What you did was take an unrelated event and that with no logic, no causal connection and no reasoning leaped to the conclusion that you can take the unrelated incident to back up your belief that sicne ISrael engages in false flag operations, you can simply assume any time you hear any unsubstantiated comment that is negative about Israel, it has to be true. "No matter how you may wish the information cannot be dismissed out of hand." The above information and your commments must be dismissed as nothing more then prattle until such time as you or this information provides substantiated objective evidence to prove your allegations-if you do not have any all you are doing is spewing b.s.

Kuzzad you figured it all out. So as a Zionist Jew I guess it is time I confess; 1. I collaborated with the Nazis Please go to;http://the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/holocaust/transfer_agreement_between_zionism_and_nazism.htm Ass they stated; “Zionism and the Third Reich collaborated in their effort to force the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. The Nazis found a Final Solution to their problem and Zionists succeeded in skewing the demographics of Palestine toward a Jewish majority. Camps were built; money was confiscated and transferred to Zionist banks in Palestine to circumvent the British barriers to Jews. The discriminatory round-up of German Jews and their persecution was planned and implemented with the consent and collaboration of Jews who called proudly called themselves "Zionist." 2. my plot to poison Palestinians with death juice Please go tol www.chinaview.cn where they exposed what I was doing; RAMALLAH, June 13 (Xinhuanet) -- Palestinian chief of Environment Authority Yousef Abu Safeya accused Israel Monday of glutting the Palestinian markets with carcinogenic canned juice."Such kind of drinks are specifically produced for the Palestinian consumers in the Gaza Strip." I was behind the above death juice plot. 3.my plot to divide the Arab world Free Arab Voice on July 22,2000 exposed my plot and as they reported; “The Zionist conspiracy to divide the Arab states into small units In 1982 the Hebrew-language magazine Kivunim (Directions), the official organ of the World Zionist Organization published an important article entitled, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties". The Editor of Kivunim is Yoram Beck, Head of Publications, Department of Information, of the World Zionist Organization ”. 4. my conspiracies with the Free Masons Hamas in their thirty-four article covenant published in 1988, articles 22 and 28 exposed my Being behind the French Revolution, the communist revolution (all of them) and all the revolutions you hear about. Oh its true. I was behind them all. Here read their articles; Article Twenty Two: They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others* in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. Article Twenty-Eight: The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. 5. my banking operations As a typical Jewish Zionist I need banks to engage in my conspiracies but Henry Makow, on June 27, 2004 in an article on my banking activities exposed me with these comments; “The Rothschild-Rockefeller banking cartel is behind most political (and cultural) trends and its goal is to destroy the nation state, true democracy, religion, culture, marriage and family, in order to degrade humanity to animal status in advance of totalitarianism.In the "war on terror," they have created a bogeyman to establish a system of repression to be used when they call in their "loans." I was once a Zionist who believed Jews needed a homeland because of anti Semitism. I realize now that, like most of history, this view was mostly contrived. Anti Semitism is caused because many Jews serve (consciously or unconsciously) the bankers' harmful agenda. Zionism, Communism and Feminism are a few examples. Most Jews are now totally identified with Israel, which is a tool of the Rothschilds' demented megalomania. If past is preface, this cannot end well for Jews or anyone.” Yes Kuzzad we Zionist Jewshave engaged in conspiracies since Moses came down that mountain and I am glad you two are here to help us learn and expose the truth.

"It came via David Colvin, the first secretary at the British embassy in Paris, according to a newly released National Archives file. He heard it from a contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association three days after the Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was seized in mid-air by Palestinians and German terrorists on June 27, 1976. advertisement Mr Colvin told his superiors that his source suggested that the attack was carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with help from the Israeli Security Service, the Shin Bet." Come one come all join the band-wagon. Read the above. Proves for sure Israelis kill themselves because this "contact" he or she can simply be accepted verbatum. I mean it makes sense. We know how evil Israelis are. Makes perfect sense. By the way I admit it. I have been exposed. I kill Jews and Israelis. Being a Jew I like to do this to support Israel. I do it all the time. That's what we do. We are sinister and evil. But why stop there. We killed Jesus so of course we would do this kind of thing. We make matzoh from the blood of Palestinian children. We take Palestinians and pluck their kidneys and eyes out and sell them on the black market. We have been involved in conspiracies for centuries. We in league with Satan. The holocaust did not happen. We invented it to manipulate the world. Yes its true. Take my word for it. Jews evil. Israel evil. Zionists evil. All evil.

This is typical. It is typical of the stereotype that when Israelis are terrorized its actualy done by Israelis. Its all part of that diabolical Jewish conspiracy mind. I mean Buffy of course just loves it. This coming from a woman who in the thousands of books and essays on how Jews were expelled from the Middle East, finds one ex Israeli Iraqi Jew with an ant-zionist agenda and an affiliation with the Black Panthers of Israel toargue that no Jews weren't expelled from Iraq because of Iraqis it was Jews that did it and killed other Jews and planted bombs. Take a look at the aricle. It quotes David Colvin quoting an unamed sources who says the Israelis assisted Palestinian terrorists hijack their own people. Of course the source is unknown but referred to as a Euro Arab Parliamentary association contact. Gee no agenda there to discredit Israel and try protect Palestinian terorists. No this contact (of course no name and no way of proving what he said) who is clearly repeating unsubstantiated third hand information is repeated as if it can be accepted verbatum and then we get the usual Israelis and Zionists conspiracy theory that they aren't victims of terrorists, they set the whole thing up because you know how Zionists are. You know how Israelis are. Hell we know how those people are. They are sinister. They conspire. They kill each other. Its all a ruse. To come on these posts and repeat third hand heresay from someone with a clear agenda politicall to spread disinformation about Israel to discredit it, and then present conspiracy theories that Israelis kill their own citizens on purpose is pathetic. Buffy you want to join the band wagon every time you see someone come on these posts with unsubstantiated third hand b.s. that tries to portray victims as victimizing themselves then so be it but do not expect me to take you seriously. As for the original poster who came on and repeated this article let us hear him explain how this is substantiated and not third hand and unsubstantiated. Let us have him explain how the theories he presents have no objective basis to them what-so-ever. Its simply Israel bad bad bad demons involved in conspiracies horseshit. And that is precisely what it is horseshit because it is simply someone spreading a story and it has been repeated precisely because the original poster and Buffy need to find stories however unsubstaniated they are to discredit Israel. Does it make you feel good to present Israelis as killers of their own people? Does that fit in your Israel evil demon liar theories? Now let me say this-it is as low as it gets to repeat this kind of b.s. third hand unsubstantiated crap because you are suggesting Israelis kill their own people and of course kill their own soldiers and terrorize their citizens world wide. Yah and people who get raped they actually set up the rapes. They aren't raped. They tell the rapist to rape them so they can make men look bad.\ You want to come on these posts and debate, then present me something factual. To get on this posts and repeat this kind of b.s. is a joke.

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact. It is interesting JBG to note the inconsistent application of the Geneva Convention by the Israel is poo poo posters. It seems only to be used to point out Israel is bad bad bad, but have you ever seen the same posters use it to suggest the same about Arab League nation actions or the actions of terrorist groups? Yah I will hold my breath. Here is the point. The 4th Geneva Convention which the Israel poo poo people likes to quote does not say the settlement of Israelis on the West Bank are necessarily illegal. What it does say is that its being administered by a civilian government makes it illegal Israel could easily conform to the convention and make its settlements legal by simply administering them by the IDF. The point is how would that help. These Israel poo poo people have no clue that the real issue is not a legal one which is a technicality it is the social and political issues associated with Palestinians in the West Bank living in limbo. More to the point the same Geneva Convention the Israel bad people like to quote also allows Israel to use reasonable force to defend itself from terrorist actions including creating safe defensible borders. The convention has never stated Israel must sit around and be attacked and it is not allowed to defend itself as much as some of the posters would like to twist it around to suggest it says that. Of course we can also coveniently ignore what Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan did with international and domestic law when it had to deal with Palestinians within their borders. We can also conveniently ignore the continuous violations by Hamas and the PLO that started long before and continued long after the settlements. Unlike the Israel poo poo people, while I personally think the settlements are an aggravating factor and an obstacle to peace, I don't pretend this is the only reason terrorists break the law or that Israel is the only nation in the world to defend itself against terrorists in the manner it has. As for China, and the hundreds of other countries that have violated international law, oh stop it. Israel bad bad bad. No one else bad. Just Israel. Israel poo poo. Israeli people poo poo. Zionists poo poo. You poo poo. There I have conytributed to the dialogue showing I can understand the other side's arguements and engage in them with respect.

So using that same logic, all the countries that came out of the Ottoman empire are illegitimate, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and (gasp) Israel. You may wish to go back and read the League of Nations mandate. May I suggest you go back to Woodrow Wilson's speeches in 1919 and work from there. There is actually a great deal of legal literature that suggests France and Britain acted unilaterally and illegally when they created Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. The issue as to the creation of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq is distinct from Israel. Those countries borders came about because of the unilateral declarations of Britain and France and in fact there decision to side step the League and simply do what they wanted. The legal proces for how they created these nations is completely distinct from how Israel's 1949 to 1967 country and borders came about. Israel was not created by a colonial state imposing a colonial regime. It was in fact created when Jews living in Palestine not part of another state were faced with the Arab League attacking them. They simply fought to survive and the borders that came about came about de facto from war and defending themselves. They were not imposed by the UN or Britain or France, but in fact the de facto result of the Arab League being unable to kill Jews and a stalemate arising. The actual border between 1949 and 1967 was never recognized by the Arab League and it was only recently Jordan and Egypt recognized it. No other Arab country has although unofficially there is a movement within the Arab League concerned with terrorist fundamentalism from Iran to see the current conflict between the Arab world and the Arab fundamentalist terrorist world serious enough to want to shift attention away from the Palestinian conflict by settling it, so it can deal with the fundamentalist terrorist conflict. Certainly as much as Lebanon and Jordan can not admit it, they share the exact same security concerns as Israel does. Also unofficially as much as Egypt and Saudi Arabia would not admit it officially they share Israel's concerns as to fundamentalist terrorism. Morrocco and Tunisia have unofficially good relations with Israel. Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon and Egypt have all had first hand civil wars within their borders with Palestinians. So the point is yes, legally if you bother to read, this is not a simple issue and no Israel was not started illegally but the current conflict is a result of what France and Britain did, what the League of Nations and UN failed to do, and what the US was able to do in the 1940's and 50's to broker and prevent the mass murder of Jews once deported from Muslim countries in retaliation for the creation of Israel. This simplistic notion that Israel is illegal is bull shit. Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

I am again amazed at the attempt to simplifya legal opinion into a simplistic easy to understand right and wrong concept. What this legal opinion stated if someone bothers to read it in its entirety is as follows. If Israel chose to make the West Bank part of Israel, which it could have legally, then necessarily all WEst Bank Arabs would automatically have to be given Israeli citizenship. Since the Israeli government was not interested in granting Israeli citizenship to West Bank Muslims, it was told by this legal opinion, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to annex it, then technically to rule it, it has to be done through the Israel Defence Force and not through a civilian government. What Israel was being told was that under the 4th Geneva Convention, if you move into an undefined territory and do not wish to annex it, but move into it for security reasons, the convention requires it be administered by the military not civilian government. Israel at the time was worried about on-going terrorist attacks. It didn't want to annex the West Bank but did want to control it for security reasons. So this legal opinion told the PM you can't have it both ways-no more, no less. Israel felt at the time that by placing settlers in the West Bank they could do two things-pacify Jewish right wingers who felt the West Bank belonged to Israel and at the same time using those settlers as early warning posts to detect terrorist movement. Here is the point. Going back to the League of Nations mandate, Palestine originally was not defined to specifically mean anything other then the area now known as Israel, the Golan Heights, Southern Lebanon, the West Bank and Jordan. It was France who took it upon themselves to create colonies in Syria and Lebanon taking a portion of Palestine (Golan Heights) for Syria and a small portion for Lebanon. It was Britain who took it upon themselves to create two puppet monarchies, one in TransJordan and one in Iraq and the one in TransJordan took 70% of Palestine. It was then Britain who took it upon themselves to imose quotas on Jews in direct violation of the League Mandate as was their imposing a law in TransJordan forbidding the settlement of Jews in that country. It was in fact Britain's decision to try prevent the League mandate to set up a Jewish state by taking away 70% of Palestine coupled with France's land grabs that then left Jews in limbo with Muslims and Christians in what was not Syria, Lebanon, TransJordan. In fact because of that state of limbo the Arab League then moved to refuse to acknowledge any Jewish right to a state. The Arab League was not specifying creating a second Arab Palestinian state. Its comments were simply directed at not allowing a Jewish state. In fact it was the intention of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to see who could get what in the remaining portions. All this is revealed public fact in the statements, documents and policies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, France and Britain. When Israel did come about in 1949 it was by default or by de facto possession from war. Because the Arab League chose to initiate a war to try seize the remainder of Palestine unilaterally, and the Jews who were there were able to defeat them, Israel ended up with the border it did. In fact the only reason it did not end up with a country in both the West Bank and Israel was because Jordan militarily occupied it. Jordan did not annex the West Bank. It never set up a government. It left the West Bank occupied but with no formal government. It wasn't until 1967, Israel militarily went into the West Bank. You can't occupy a piece of land that was never sovereign. That is a legal impossibility. What many call occupation is not that. The word is used because people feel since the Israeli Army is on the West Bank and Israeli settlers are there they are occupying it. From a layman's use of the word yes, from a legal perspective no. What Israel did by placing settlers in the West Bank can be argued to contravene the 4th Geneva Convention not because the settlers are there but because they have been administered civilly and not by the military. That is the legal issue. From a purely practical point of view, or a political non legal perspective, placing Israeli settlers in the West Bank served to fuel terrorism and violent reaction, not curtail it. Here is the problem the ISrael bad people simplify and ignore. Israel was wrong to move into the West Bank from a practical perspective. From a legal perspective it is a minor issue. From a social and political issue it is a huge thing. Politically though there is another part to the story. The West Bank has been and continues to be a launching site for terrrorist attacks. Israel had the right and still has the right under international law to use its military to prevent terrorist attacks whether it be from the Gaza or West Bank. What Israel has realized is it can not from a practical point of view annex the West Bank because it can not absord the West Bank Palestinians. It also knows leaving its civilian settlements ont he West Bank are not providing a strategic defense against terrorists. So the fact is if any one bothers to read, Israel has stated it would as part of a comprehensive peace plan remove the settlers, and in fact the Arab League has already acknowledged this and responded favourably by suggesting in return for the withdrawal of settlers it would agree on demilitarizing the West Bank. The problem is demilitarizing terrorists has not proven possible in Lebanon or the Gaza and what is holding up a peace settlement now is not Israel but the inability of Jordan and Lebanon, not just Israel to control terrorists. In that respect all three countries have the identical concerns. The Oslo accord which was an attempt to delegate administration of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority fell apart not because of Israel, but because when Israel initiated negotiations with the PA to withdraw to secure borders. Arafat changed his tune and recommenced speeches calling on the PLO to attack and destroy Israel. The speeches are public records as are the continuous Oslo violations including hiring terrorists into the Palestinian police forces and terrorist attacks not just by Hamas but by many PLO factions not to mention the thousands of speeches calling for the end to Israel. There are always two sides to this story and of course the usual people like to isolate it and look at only one side. The bottom line is Israel realizes the settlements are a disaster. They are putting up a huge security wall and placing sattelite tracking posts on the West Bank both with the approval of Jordan and the Arab League unofficially. The hardship the walls will cause to Palestinian families who will be forced to detour is a fact and its not a good thing. However one would hope if the wall enables a forced distancing between the West Bank and Israel, there will be a possibility for both sides to heal. Already the wall has proven to stop terrorist attacks. It is hopeful say after 10 years of seperation, both sides could then feel more confident to trust one another and take down the wall or modify it. The exercise of trying to say Israel evil, bad it broke laws is as meaninful as saying the same about Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the Arab League and the international laws the PA has continually violated not to mention the lawlessness of Hamas. For those who are trying to depict Israel as evil, how about you also acknowledge the terrorist factor and understand that as long as it exists both peoples Palestinian and Israeli are witnessing legal violations on both sides all flowing from the inability to control terrorism. The issue here is disarming the terrorists so that it is then possible to create a structure of peace plans. In that respect it would be no different then what has happened in Northern Ireland.

"Have you read this: The Jews of Iraq by Naeim Giladi ...Jews killed Jews..... It is quite clear that Zionism dearly needs to encourage anti-semitic actions in order to justify its own existance. " Its all so clear to you? You have it all figured out? It is interesting of course that the thousands of articles, legal documents and books on the history of expulsion of Jews from Iraq you feel one article by someone who is an open anti-Zionist whose work has never been published by any reputable publisher requiring the writer to pay $60,000 to Dadilion Press to print his book is all you need to be an expert and promulgate this latest slur that Zionist Jews kill other Jews because they are Zionist? Do you realize this is no different then the revisionists who have argued Jewish Zionists assisted sending Jews to the gas chambers and encouraged the holocaust so they could create Israel? Does it also not for one second dawn on you how insulting it is to the Jews who escaped Iraq with nothing that you would suggest their fellow Jews made them leave? There are thousands of historic documents that document the forced expulsion of Jews from the Middle East and you would have us believe you took the time to read them before you came to the conclusion to be an expert on what happened? Do you even know who the foreign Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister was in the 1940's and what their role was in expelling Jews?Do you realize the above person also believes in many conspiracies and why? Do you think because he is a Jew that his anti-semitism is acceptable and it is anti-semitic because it does not just criticize Israel it criticizes any Jew that support's Israel's existence. Did you also know this person you quote is someone who is discriminatory and intolerant towards Ashkanazi Jews and sees them as having persecutied Sephardic Jews? Do you have a clue what the Black Panther Party of Israel was and why this man helped start it and then left when he couldn't control it? May I suggest you try make an effort to find out what went on at least try out two neutral history books where the historians do not express their own political opinions of anti-Zionism but simply stick to what happened and do not confuse the time lines and mix up the events and dates as this man did; The Last Jews In Baghdad by Nissim Rejway Iraqi Jews A Mass Exodus, Abbas Shublak. Neither of the above has a political agenda. Would you please stop and think how absurd it is for you to post this man as a credible historic source but completely ignore all the other historic sources? Do you really think you can simplify and revise the history of the expulsion of the Jews from the Middle East with one author with an anti-Zionist agenda? Would you think its possible instead of coming on this post and saying-oph he's good, I like him cuz he tells me what I want to hear Israel bad bad bad...you think it is possible you try speak to a Jew from the Middle East and find out what happened to them? May I suggest you go to any synagogue and ask the Rabbia how you can write to Iraqi Jews in Israel so you can find out from them what happened before you come on this post and think you have figured it all out? Here try this Iraqi Jew out; "The vanishing Jews of the Arab world Baghdad native tells the story of being a Middle East refugee Semha Alwaya Sunday, March 6, 2005 In discussions about refugees in the Middle East, a major piece of the narrative is routinely omitted, and my life is part of the tapestry of what's missing. I am a Jew, and I, too, am a refugee. Some of my childhood was spent in a refugee camp in Israel (yes, Israel). And I am far from being alone. This experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of other indigenous Jewish Middle Easterners who share a similar background to my own. However, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, our narrative is largely ignored by the world because our story -- that of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries dispossessed by Arab governments -- is an inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. Our lives in the Israel of the 1950s were difficult. We had no money, no property; there were food shortages, few employment prospects. Israel was a new and poor country with very limited resources. It absorbed not only hundreds of thousands of us, but also an equal number of survivors of Hitler's genocide. We lived in dusty tents in "transit camps," their official name because these were to be temporary, not permanent. Housing was eventually built for us, we became Israeli citizens, and we ceased being refugees. The refugee camps in Israel that I knew as a child were phased out, and no trace of them remains. Israel did this without receiving a single cent from the international community, relying instead on the resourcefulness of its citizens and donations from Diaspora Jewish communities. Today, many of Israel's top leaders are from families that were forced to flee Arab countries, and we make up more than half of Israel's Jewish population. I was born in Baghdad, and like most other Iraqis, my mother tongue is Arabic. My family's cuisine, our mannerisms, our outlook, are all strongly influenced by our synthesized Judeo-Arabic culture. There once was a vibrant presence of nearly 1 million Jews residing in 10 Arab countries. Our Middle Eastern Jewish culture existed long before the Arab world dominated and rewrote the history of the Middle East. Today, however, fewer than 12,000 Jews remain in these lands -- almost none in Iraq. What happened to us, the indigenous Jews of the Arab world? Why were 150, 000 Iraqi Jews -- my family included -- forced out of Iraq? Why were an additional 800,000 Jews from nine other Arab countries also compelled to leave after 1948? When the world of the 1930s and '40s was divided between the democratic Allies and the Fascist Axis, Arab nationalists in Iraq and Palestine chose to form an alliance with Nazi Germany. The father of Palestinian nationalism and the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, began his close collaboration with Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s. The British put out an arrest warrant for the pro-Nazi Palestinian leader, but he escaped when war broke out in Europe in the spring of 1939. Later that year, he arrived in Baghdad and linked up with pro-Nazi Iraqi nationalist Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. In 1941 al-Husseini and al-Gaylani engineered a pro- German coup against the pro-British Iraqi government, which brought a reign of terror to Iraq's Jews. This culminated in what we remember as the Farhud, an Arabic word akin to "pogrom." In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, murdering, raping and pillaging these cities' Jewish communities. Nearly 200 Jews were killed, more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, as were hundreds of Jewish-owned shops. My father was a survivor of the carnage. He hid in a hole dug in the ground to save his life. He saw Iraqi soldiers pull small children away from their parents and rip the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets. He saw pregnant women being raped and their stomachs cut open. Britain eventually regained control, but al-Husseini and other Palestinian nationalists had already fled to Berlin where they became honored guests of the Nazi state. Hitler told a grateful al-Husseini that "Germany's only remaining objective in the [Middle East] would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands." Later, in a speech over Radio Berlin's Arabic Service, al-Husseini voiced support for the Nazis' "Final Solution" and became the first Arab leader to call openly for the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands -- some eight years before there was a single Palestinian refugee. Even though Hitler lost the war, al-Husseini's call was heeded. In 1948, Iraq rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Jews. Others were removed from their jobs in the civil service, business licenses of Jews were revoked, and quotas were placed on Jewish high school and college students. Later, discriminatory restrictions were imposed on Jewish travel abroad and the buying or selling of property. Thus, even if Jews wanted to escape Iraq, they could not do so legally, and they could not liquidate their assets. In 1950, the Iraqi parliament passed a law called Ordinance for the Cancellation of Iraqi Nationality for Jews, Law No. 1 that stripped Iraqi Jews of their citizenship. In 1951, the Iraqi parliament passed another law, confiscating all Jewish property. Within a year, most of Iraq's ancient Jewish population, my family included, fled to Israel. Elsewhere in the Arab world, Jews faced similar circumstances. In Libya in 1945, nearly 100 Jews were massacred. In 1948, the Jewish communities of Aden and Algeria were rocked by a series of attacks that left hundreds dead and many more injured. Discriminatory laws against Jews were passed in other Arab countries. Within a decade, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was almost complete, with most going to Israel. All of this was conducted under the guise of law by Arab governments. This forced Jews to flee lands where we had lived for thousands of years before the Arab-Islamic conquests. Since 1949, the United Nations has passed more than 100 resolutions on Palestinian refugees. Yet, for Jewish refugees from Arab countries not a single U.N. resolution has been introduced recognizing our mistreatment or calling for justice for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees forced out of our homes. This imbalance of the world's concern is itself an injustice. Arab governments instituted policies that led to nearly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews becoming stateless refugees. Those same governments forced about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to remain in impoverished refugee camps, refusing them citizenship and denying them hope. Peace between Israel and the Arab world requires a solution that recognizes that there were two refugee populations. Acknowledging and redressing the legitimate rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries will promote the cause of justice, peace and a true reconciliation. " The aboive is an article by Semha Alwaya is an attorney in the Bay Area and a founding member of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (www.jimena-justice.org). E-mail us at [email protected]. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...INGM2BJH7U1.DTL This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle Here is an article from another Iraqi Jew. Gosh is he a liar? Semha Alwaya Sunday, March 6, 2005 In discussions about refugees in the Middle East, a major piece of the narrative is routinely omitted, and my life is part of the tapestry of what's missing. I am a Jew, and I, too, am a refugee. Some of my childhood was spent in a refugee camp in Israel (yes, Israel). And I am far from being alone. This experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of other indigenous Jewish Middle Easterners who share a similar background to my own. However, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, our narrative is largely ignored by the world because our story -- that of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries dispossessed by Arab governments -- is an inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. Our lives in the Israel of the 1950s were difficult. We had no money, no property; there were food shortages, few employment prospects. Israel was a new and poor country with very limited resources. It absorbed not only hundreds of thousands of us, but also an equal number of survivors of Hitler's genocide. We lived in dusty tents in "transit camps," their official name because these were to be temporary, not permanent. Housing was eventually built for us, we became Israeli citizens, and we ceased being refugees. The refugee camps in Israel that I knew as a child were phased out, and no trace of them remains. Israel did this without receiving a single cent from the international community, relying instead on the resourcefulness of its citizens and donations from Diaspora Jewish communities. Today, many of Israel's top leaders are from families that were forced to flee Arab countries, and we make up more than half of Israel's Jewish population. I was born in Baghdad, and like most other Iraqis, my mother tongue is Arabic. My family's cuisine, our mannerisms, our outlook, are all strongly influenced by our synthesized Judeo-Arabic culture. There once was a vibrant presence of nearly 1 million Jews residing in 10 Arab countries. Our Middle Eastern Jewish culture existed long before the Arab world dominated and rewrote the history of the Middle East. Today, however, fewer than 12,000 Jews remain in these lands -- almost none in Iraq. What happened to us, the indigenous Jews of the Arab world? Why were 150, 000 Iraqi Jews -- my family included -- forced out of Iraq? Why were an additional 800,000 Jews from nine other Arab countries also compelled to leave after 1948? When the world of the 1930s and '40s was divided between the democratic Allies and the Fascist Axis, Arab nationalists in Iraq and Palestine chose to form an alliance with Nazi Germany. The father of Palestinian nationalism and the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, began his close collaboration with Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s. The British put out an arrest warrant for the pro-Nazi Palestinian leader, but he escaped when war broke out in Europe in the spring of 1939. Later that year, he arrived in Baghdad and linked up with pro-Nazi Iraqi nationalist Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. In 1941 al-Husseini and al-Gaylani engineered a pro- German coup against the pro-British Iraqi government, which brought a reign of terror to Iraq's Jews. This culminated in what we remember as the Farhud, an Arabic word akin to "pogrom." In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, murdering, raping and pillaging these cities' Jewish communities. Nearly 200 Jews were killed, more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, as were hundreds of Jewish-owned shops. My father was a survivor of the carnage. He hid in a hole dug in the ground to save his life. He saw Iraqi soldiers pull small children away from their parents and rip the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets. He saw pregnant women being raped and their stomachs cut open. Britain eventually regained control, but al-Husseini and other Palestinian nationalists had already fled to Berlin where they became honored guests of the Nazi state. Hitler told a grateful al-Husseini that "Germany's only remaining objective in the [Middle East] would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands." Later, in a speech over Radio Berlin's Arabic Service, al-Husseini voiced support for the Nazis' "Final Solution" and became the first Arab leader to call openly for the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands -- some eight years before there was a single Palestinian refugee. Even though Hitler lost the war, al-Husseini's call was heeded. In 1948, Iraq rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Jews. Others were removed from their jobs in the civil service, business licenses of Jews were revoked, and quotas were placed on Jewish high school and college students. Later, discriminatory restrictions were imposed on Jewish travel abroad and the buying or selling of property. Thus, even if Jews wanted to escape Iraq, they could not do so legally, and they could not liquidate their assets. In 1950, the Iraqi parliament passed a law called Ordinance for the Cancellation of Iraqi Nationality for Jews, Law No. 1 that stripped Iraqi Jews of their citizenship. In 1951, the Iraqi parliament passed another law, confiscating all Jewish property. Within a year, most of Iraq's ancient Jewish population, my family included, fled to Israel. Elsewhere in the Arab world, Jews faced similar circumstances. In Libya in 1945, nearly 100 Jews were massacred. In 1948, the Jewish communities of Aden and Algeria were rocked by a series of attacks that left hundreds dead and many more injured. Discriminatory laws against Jews were passed in other Arab countries. Within a decade, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was almost complete, with most going to Israel. All of this was conducted under the guise of law by Arab governments. This forced Jews to flee lands where we had lived for thousands of years before the Arab-Islamic conquests. Since 1949, the United Nations has passed more than 100 resolutions on Palestinian refugees. Yet, for Jewish refugees from Arab countries not a single U.N. resolution has been introduced recognizing our mistreatment or calling for justice for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees forced out of our homes. This imbalance of the world's concern is itself an injustice. Arab governments instituted policies that led to nearly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews becoming stateless refugees. Those same governments forced about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to remain in impoverished refugee camps, refusing them citizenship and denying them hope. Peace between Israel and the Arab world requires a solution that recognizes that there were two refugee populations. Acknowledging and redressing the legitimate rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries will promote the cause of justice, peace and a true reconciliation. Semha Alwaya is an attorney in San Fransisco and a founding member of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (www.jimena-justice.org). Please E-mail him at [email protected] and try challenge yourself to do something other then find the one narrow article that fits your agenda.

"The thieving, murderous, baby-killer was referring to the League of Nations and the 1919 Conference of Versailles which spawned the Second World War and the massacre of 6 million Jews." Hi I am going to stop baby killings long enough to respond to the above. At no time did I ever state or suggest that the League of Nations and the 1919 Conference of Versailles spawned the Second Word War and massacres of 6 million Jews. My comments to date never suggested such a thing. "I believe that the thieving, murderous, baby-killer was using the outcomes of the Versailles conference to justify the theft of Palestinian lands, the ethnic cleansing of the people who lived on those lands, their continued subjugation and impoverishment (including a severely reduced life span), and their banishment to the margins of human existence where they have no human rights. Is that right, thieving murderous baby-killer?" I think the above comment is full of emotion and rhetoric and again you do precisely what you accuse me and others of and that is is precisely why I challenge Higgly. I find your comments have nothing to do with history and everything to do with what to me appears as your anger and rage at what you see has been the activities of Jews in the Middle East as evidenced by the above remarks and many earlier remarks. "Would you like to go back to debating historical fact, thieving murderous baby-killer,..." Higgly do you really think the above rhethoric is debating historical fact? ".. or would you prefer to dwell on hate? " Higgly I am disgusted by some of your remarks and find some of them racist but do I hate you? No hate would require my caring about you. I don't. "For surely it is you and you alone, who has steered a course into the realm of hate. " Your playing the victim card is hilarious if not a bit melodramatic. I will for the sake of other posters try ignore you and get back to the debate with others.

Ahahah. Sorry I have been having a good laugh and enjoying your attempts to suggest the Walk for Israel campaign was timed to coincide with the latest missile firings from Hamas on Israel. Your playing the victim card is hilarious. Go ahead. Call me what you want. ahah. Oh you made my day. Baby-killer? How did you know?

I am with Margrace on this one but I also like your analysis above. I also truly believe myths of any kind take on added dimension the further the years pass since they were written and then re-written and then re-re-re-re-written and censored and edited and cut and pasted as was the case with both the old and new testaments. Anyone who thinks the Jesus trilogy is orginal surely needs to read so many of the other myths that preceded it to see its lack of originality. I myself personally think all human thoughts are-is subjective ones people invent and project. I do not think any human can convince me they are universal or absolute or an authority on anything but their own personal beliefs. Me I see existence as a continuing exercise in urination. It is a constant process of pissing each other off by spewing their nasty fluids called thoughts upon each other. I find human thought unsanitary and germ infested and smelly. On that note I should do my fly up and cease and desist with any further thoughts.

I would think if Muhammed was alive today he would have been classified as a stoner and pedophile. Moses would be defined as a delusional paranoid schitzophrenic and I would think Jesus would have been arrested for being a vagrant with a mental illness. I think all three of them would have been institutionalized. I also think Prince Sudhartha (Budda) would probably have been shot by some terrorist. On a more serious note we do have figures today we give great reverence to only now they are usually movie stars, musicians, politicians, terrorists and professional athletes. Those are the people whose actions and words we tend to worship these days. There are also no shortage of leaders of huge cult and religious followings. Now why does it appear we have no modern Bible. We have many. Whether they become Bibles 2000 years from now remains to be the question. What you see today, will look a lot different 2000 years from now if the planet is still about. I mean for all we know 2000 years from now Paris Hilton will be considered the messiah. Time distorts what people allegedly say. Death tends to also distort and make things larger then what they were.

"OMG, I really don't understand how you could possibly misunderstand what I wrote.. X = [Homosexual; Pedophile]" Why you getting God involved in this Kap? No Kapitan, the above equation is wrong. The fact that someone who has gay sex with an adult also has sex with a child of the same sex does not make them a homosexual pedophile. Stop fusing the categories into one indistinguishable one. " You'd have to be absent-minded to think that those statements you quote state that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same." Onstinate maybe but not absent minded and I again challenge your fusing the two distinct categories which you did with the above equation. "No d'uh. I never suggested that they were the same, I am simply arguing that Homosexual and Pedophile are neither synonyms, nor antonyms." You just did it again repeating the homosexual and pedophile can be fused into one concept. "Can we just agree that most homosexuals are not pedophiles and get on with this?" I have never disagreed that someone who is a homo-sexual with an adult can not be a pedophile with a child of the same sex. What I have said is when he becomes a pedophile with a child of the same sex that does not make him a homo-sexual pedophile, that makes him a pedophile, period. "I simply wanted to mention that there is a higher rate of pedophiles amongst adults willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) than those who aren't willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age)." And I have pointed out that the above is not true and is a misconception. The vast majority of pedophiles are males who practice hetero-sexuality with adults or in fact no sex with adults. Only a minority are in fact people who have engaged in homo-sexuality with adults. "I am aware that most people willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) are not willing to engage in sexual relations with children, it's just a point I made about proportion." Your point about proportion is wrong so I have challenged it and continue to do so. "I ignore no components."....."however it doesn't motivate me to distinguish teleiophile heterosexuals for the purpose of this thread"...."...."I have no interest in distinguishing the behavioral components of the GBLT and of pedophiles for the purpose of this thread"...." That is precisely why I am debating you. Because as you can see from your above comments you are being intellectually lazy and refusing to take the time to use psychiatric and psychological terms correctly and then hide behind this " I am not a psychiatrist" comment which is lame. Since when do you have to be a psychiatrist to read? I don't need to be Christian to understand your Christian beliefs do I? Do I need to be a scientist to know what gravity is? "Appology accepted. However, I have nothing to hide. I never said that they are the same. I say homosexuality are neither the same, nor opposites." You did it again. On the one hand you state you never said they were the same and then in the next sentence say they are not oppposites. If they are not opposite they necessarily are the same and your exercise of fusing the concept of homo-sexuality and pedophilia continues. "One can be one of the two, the other of the two, both or neither. " No you are not both. The notion that someone would engage in a homo-sexual act with an adult at the same time he is having a same sex act with a child in fact is a misnomer. It does not happen. The very reason an adult has sex with a child would make it repulsive for him to do it with another adult present. Gang rapes or group sex between adults and children is very rare, and when it is done the adults do not touch one another or are aroused with one another. There is a reason youd on't see more then one adult with a child in sex tapes. Even when sex rings are exposed the adults molest the children singularily without other adults. So stop fusing the two concepts and behaviour patterns. They are distinct behaviour patterns. You are not a homo-sexual pedophile. You are a homo-sexual with adults and a pedophile with children. There is a huge difference saying that then as you do playing the game of fusing the words and calling them homo-sexual pedophiles. "I'm aware that most gays are not pedophiles and most pedophiles are not gays." The above terminology you will notice I am not jumping on. "I'll be honnest with you. I agree with the majority of the world's sizeable religious institutions (not only my own) that homosexual relations and pedophile relations are both immoral and sinful. " "My beliefs and how I live up to them is my business. This is a personal attack and irrelevant to the topic." I apologize. It may be a personal attack ibut it is in response to your comments which are in fact a personal attack on gays. You make it personal by using subjective opinion statements. I wish to make clear I am engaging you in a debate not your right to your personal opinions or religious views. I just challenge them when you impose them on others. No more no less. I am the first to say what you do in your church or within your own family or group of people you choose to live with is your right-I only get by drawers knotted when you try impose your comments on gays. I genuinely apologize if you think I am challenging your right to have the beliefs you have. I don't. I am challenging the beliefs themselves, not your right to believe in them or for that matter your spiritual inregrity. Sorry. I should have been much more clearer. I got all fire and brimstone in my responses making me as persecutorial and self-righteous as anything I thrust in your direction. Sorry. "I don't spend my time thinking about what others are up to in the bedroom... " Well lol. Be careful if you get the movie channel and stay up late. You might get suprised what is on t.v. "I have much better things to do to keep busy. I only evaluate myself according to my beliefs. I may pray for others, but judging others and comparing one's self to others is completely pointless. In fact, I have a very independant mind. I question my beliefs often and I've read a lot on other beliefs. If I find beliefs more truthful than mine, I adapt my beliefs accordingly." I respect the above comment 100% and seriously apologize if the debate appears I am questioning your right to your beliefs or your spiritual integrity. I do not. I am in no position to judge you or anyone else. I meant only to debate the beliefs without in a general sense. I should have been more careful with the words I use. I have forced you to defend your religious beliefs. That is not what I meant at all. I am a huge hippocrate if I complain you are persecuting gays with your beliefs if I turn around and get all in your face for your lifestyle choices. I am sorry about that. I am only debating the use of the terms. "Unless you pertain to a religious institution, "sinful" shouldn't phase you." Your above point is absolutely right and it is merely an academic point of debate. "I never used any pretext to say homosexuals are pedophiles. I simply used secular definitions to prove that they are neither opposites nor the same, meaning one can be gay, pedophile, neither, or both." To me the above exercise is circular and necessarily leads to the fusion of gay and pedophile lifestyles into one category. All I am saying is don't fuse them. "I will however state that homosexuals are gay. (feel free to quote that one)" I never did understand why they were given this term. When the Flintstones theme song used to come on and they said they would have a "gay old time" I wonderred even as a child, did this mean Barney and Fred were gay and Wilma and Betty were lesbians? I also suspect Batman and Robin were gay given their leotards and penchant for sliding down posts and staying out all hours. Plus Bruce Wayne was a confirmed bachelor. Also you may want to question why Superman spent so much time with Jimmy Olson and the fact that Wonder Woman was an amazon. I personally think the word gay is an interesting choice considering how sad most gay people have to be before they can get to a point in their life where they can feel good about themselves. I would change the word for gays to RockHuds (men) (short for Rock Hudson) or KD's (named after Kadie Lang) for women. I would refer to straight men as BradPitts and straight women as Jalbas (Jessica Alba). I would refer to bis as Jolies (women) and JamesDeans for men. There its all sensical now. "My s/n is German for "Captain Redbeard". You're welcome to think otherwise, but please at least quote my s/n with the diaeresis (umlaut)." Lol on the last comment. Pirates are very butch and flamboyant dude. Careful. I would name myself after an NFL football player like James Brown to be safe. I would say John Wayne but given the way he walked I think he went both ways and no I do not think he walked that way because he rode horses. He never fooled me.

I enjoyed the above essay and speaking as an ex English Quebecer who felt forced to leave, I think you hit the nail on the head in a very susinct manner. It is my personal opinion that Quebec can never be a country to itself for one major reason-its people are not by nature interested in taking a risk and investing in themselves. With the exception of a few noteable businessmen who have been successful, French commerce in Quebec has been non existent as its people will not invest in their own province. Case in point, the Expos, the Quebec Nordiques, the lack of Quebec owned enterprises. I think part of what makes Quebec what it is, is the security in knowing it can bitch all it wants but never really has to leave. Quebec reminds me of an angry teenager who insists on wanting equality with his parents and being treated as an adult, but not wanting to give up the basement and car keys to Dad's car. I do think French Quebec's solitude however is very real and you captured it. The above comments I made are my own subjective ones probably tainted by my own English minority bias. If I had truly felt the nationalism in Quebec was not racist in nature, which I believe it is, I would have stayed. I am bilingual. I was not however interested in being second class and always feeling like I had to apologize for being English. I will admit this. As an English Quebecer, I failed like many English Quebecers to make more of an effort to visit the East of Montreal. By the time I found the courage to do so and enjoy the French culture of Quebec I was afraid of, I had already become an adult living in Ontario. There are things about Quebec culture I can not flush out of my system-the way one has a long lunch to do business and how the pace of business and the way people interact is much warmer and friendlier then in Toronto. The style of clothing, art, architecture, the food, all things I will never stop enjoying. It is very insightful what you said and I can not help but wonder, what if growing up in Quebec I identified with French Quebec artists instead of American ones? What if...a question maybe too late for me to answer but what I do know is my children have grown up bilingual even though not born or living in Quebec.

Do an experiment. I swear to you that when you eat any kind of french fry gravy or no gravy with a fork as opposed to your fingers, it tastes different. I think the dirty from your hands is that extra flavour missing when you use your fork.

Marois is a seperatist. I do not wish her well. She has no need for anyone who does not fit her stereo-type of a Quebecer. Typical of her generation, she feels Canada should still fund Quebec after they seperate, share currency, a military. She is an elitist, snob without a clue how to run today's economy. Excuse me but she and Mario Dimwit are precisely what is wrongw ith Quebec. They are one dimensional characters that know how to complain but nothing else. They are professional opposition leaders. They are great at bitching but haven't a clue at how to administer or run a program or a business. They are light-weights. Her political believes are based on 1960's liberation politics completely antiquated and irrelevant in today's world economy. In case you have not noticed she and Mario Dummy are reactionaries, no more no less. They cringe at Jean Charest because he has the nerve to think the province should be run with fiscal responsibility and as part of a greater world wide economy. Quebec can not succeed economically on its own. Extolling the virtues of in-breeding as a way to create a country is ridiculous and that is all Marois and Dumont stand for.

As an ex-Montrealer born in the city known for steamies, and known for its unique square hot dog buns and may I say hot dogs that made the Montreal Forum what it was and assisted in many Stanley Cup wins by keeping its fans well nourished....I find it impossible to believe a Quebecer would eat a hot dog with a fork and knife. Clearly it was someone posing as Stephane Dion-probably an alien that had taken over his body. Next to its bagels and smoked meat, and the Habs, steamies are a sacred symbol of everything Montreal. This is an attack on its culture, its essence. I am paralyzed with disbelief. And please. Even with soggy putines, you do not use a fork. It is just not done.

"Does anyone know how fast the Afghanis are in getting their military and police up to snuff to secure their own country?" To answer your question here is an exerpt from an article by John Cotter from March 3, 2007, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070303/...olice_reform_2; "RCMP Staff Sgt. Alan McCambridge said that while Afghan police are keen to learn, the vast majority have never been in a classroom before and can't read or write. He said there is a plan in the works to identify top Afghan police non-commissioned officers with good ethics and leadership skills for literacy training. "Progress is slow because the literacy rate is so low, but when you see the pride they exhibit when they learn a new skill, that's the reward," McCambridge said Saturday. "It is going to take years to really change the way the Afghan people look at the police as a respected profession." A training school for recruits of the new Afghan National Auxiliary Police force is run near Kandahar Airfield by Canadian military police. Despite the hurdles, O'Brien said the Afghan police can be reformed, but he warns change won't come quickly. "It is going to take time and it is going to take resources and it is going to take resolve from the international community," O'Brien said. "I would hope that the people of Canada come to understand the challenges, and not just the issues." That appears to coincide with what most military journals are saying-that the Afghan police and army are many years away from being able to run their own country. The pratical reality is Afghanistan if not occupied by NATO would revert back into a civil war and probably Taliban would re-emerge as the most powerful force.

I have always been unfomrtable with "embedded" journalists. They necessarily form a strong emotional attachment to the soldiers and therefore the conflict which distorts their ability to remain neutral and report the facts in an objective manner. I do not believe journalists should be embedded and should remain dettached from the news and events they are reporting. Embedded journalists become in fact mascots and cheer-leaders. That said, I have nothing against what our troops are doing and do not question their integrity and honour. I am simply discussing a point as to journalism. With due respect I find Rosie's columns exactly what one would expect from an embedded journalist-bias and far from neutral. True war correspondents have made a point to avoid being embedded and remain independent. The above point I have raised is a hot topic in journalism schools and is something Walter Cronkite and other famous war correspondents have argued.