Rue

Why because I find such posts absolutely ludicrous? Think about the postulation. The original post assumes Christians superior to Jews and Muslims and depicts Jews and Muslims as savages to be left to kill each other. There is only one problem with this scenario. There is the 4,000 years of Christian persecution of Jews in Europe culminating in the holocaust which was a major catalyst for the creation of the State of Israel. For any Christian to fail to understand their religion's role in the current conflict is absolutely outrageous. It is also outrageous for any Christian to ignore the role the Christian nations of France and Britain played in carving up puppet states in Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon which exasperated the whole mess in the first place. And of course, now that we have decided Christians are superior and can sit back while savages kill themselves never mind the oil they need and the millions of Christians who benefit from it. While we are on the topic, this same superior Christian can lecture me on gays, abortion, killing Christ, etc. I am not out to lunch, just fed up with people ignorant of history, ignorant of their own religious past, ignorant of any or all religions, and basically just plain old ignorant racist. Out to lunch....do you see me writing posts suggesting Jews are superior to Christians and Christians should be left to kill each other? That is what is out to lunch and you bet I call the poster out on it. And I repeat my final comment, I am sure in fact I am convinced he believes Jews and Arabs have hook noses in common. We both get circumsized too whoopee.

In fact they have. The settlers are armed with AK-47s and Uzis. From their positions in settlements on hills overlooking Palestinian farms, they have murdered Palestinian farmers in their olive groves on a number of occasions. How many have been brought to justice? Higgly once again put up or shut up. Specifically indicate the murders you are referring to. Your comments are a fabrication-I insist you provide specific examples of these murders . You wouldn't ask the question how many have been brought to justice if this was true. No one doubts the presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace but you trying to paint this as a one sided invasion of the West Bank is absolute b.s. For that matter, I would suggest before you lecture anyone on the status of the West Bank, you understand that legally the West Bank belongs to no one. It does not belong to Jordan, Palestinians, Israel, Turkey, etc. It has no status so your legal analysis is b.s. No one Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Christian, what-ever has a legal right to it yet. This is what is under dispute and has to be settled. Under international law, it belongs to no one. It was illegally annexed by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 and since 1967, Israel under inernational law, had the right to annex it as a defence to terrorist attacks being launched from it into Israel proper. The fact is it needs to be part of the Palestine state, but for that to come about, The Arab League and in particular Jordan have to agree to that and they have to be able to prevent Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist factions from using it to launch terrorist attacks. You can pretend all you want Israeli settlers are killing Palestinians but that is absolute b.s. The fact is many of these evil Israeli settlers have also ben killed. It is not the one sided episode you paint it as.

It never fails that whenever there is a discussion of the current conflicts in the Middle East, I read the same misrepresentations over and over as to the origins of Israel in 1949 and specifically that there was a Palestinian state prior to 1949 and that Jews stole land from Arabs to create Israel. The usual version we see repeated on these posts over and is the version of Arab refugees fleeing from the Palestine Mandate before and during the 1948 war as Jews stole land. This version has been repeated so many times it is for some of you considered the starting point and absolute fact. The fact is The State of Israel was created by the United Nations and it was NOT created out of Palestinian lands. It was in fact created out of the Ottoman Empire. There were no "Palestinians". This is a term created in 1963 by the Palestinian Liberation Organization an umbrella group of factions organized by Egypt and Syria. Prior to 1949, there were Arabs, Christians and Jews living in the REGION of Palestine.Many of those Arabs considered themselves in fact Syrians. The fact is, it was not until only after the first World War I what we now call Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were created by the British and French as puppet colonies. These nations like the nations in Africa and many other places in the world were artificially created and in this case from the Turkish Empire by the British and French because they defeated Turket in WW1. Jordan was created on about 85 percent of the Palestine Mandate, which was originally designated by the League of Nations as part of the Jewish homeland. Britain lied to the League of Nations when it misappropriated the land and turned it into Transjordan. This is a fact that those who spew the usual anti-Israel bias simply ignore. When Britain took 85% of Palestine away, on a deliberate misrepresentation, there was no out-cry and the British simply lied to the world and got away with it. No Jew was allowed in Jordan or allowed any rights in Jordan. But again, this is simply ignored by the anti-Israel revisionists. The fact is and remains that two-thirds of Jordanian citizens are Palestinian Arabs but they are ruled by a monarchy that the British installed and in fact a minority of Hashemite followers run the country. Jordan has been just as much an enemy of Palestinian Arabs as Israel, unlike Israel which was created by the UN, Jordan was created by the British. In 1947, once the British lied, and seized 85% of Palestine leaving very little land left and far less then what the League of Nations proposed for Jews, the UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining 15 percent of the Palestine Mandate. So it is absolute b.s. to continue the lie that Israel stole land from Palestinians. In fact if anybody did it was the British and by creating Jordan not Israel. In fact the UN mandate proposed a State of Israel for the Jews, and another state for the Arabs. Jews were willing to accept that. It was the Arab League NOT Israel that rejected this. If you look at the original state proposed for Israel it was tiny. In fact it completely ignored many areas of land that historically Jews had a legal claim to. However the typical anti-Israeli revision of History suggests Jews stole land from Palestinian Arabs. This is b.s. if one actually takes a look at the land we are talking about. The fact is Israel from 1949 to 1967 is less then 20% of all Palestine. The fact is, the Arab League chose to reject the UN proposal and launch a war that had one purpose, get rid of all Jews. The intention by the Arab League was to rid the Middle East of Jews and send them back to Europe and then have Syria and Lebanon carve up the region. This was and will always be the starting point of the Arab refugee problem despite attempts to pretend otherwise. The Arab refugees at the time which numbered around 725,000 people fled not because a bunch of Jews shot at them or chased them. That is a ridiculous, idiotic, simplistic explanation and insulting to anyone who nows what happened. The fact is the vast majority of Arabs vacated what was 1949-1967 Israel without ever having seen a Jew or engaging in any disputes. They fled because they were told to. They were advised to leave by the Arab League who told them the war would be over very quickly and then they could return. Had these Arabs stayed, and not fled because of listening to the Arab League, history would have taken a far different course. Instead, we constantly have to listen to the lie that they left because Jews chased them out. If the Arab League and to be precise, Gamal Nasser the dictator of Egypt, and the dictators of Syria and Lebanon and Iraq and the monarchy in Saudia Arabia did not reject the concept of a non-Arab state in the Middle East, Israel would have simply been a tiny country, and Palestinians would have either created their own nation or the Gaza and West Bank or would have joined Syria or Jordan or Lebanon. The fact is rulers of eight Arab countries whose populations vastly outnumbered the Jewish settlers in the Turkish Empire, namely Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. Morrocco and Kuwait started by invading Israel once it declared itself a tiny nation pursuant to the legal mandate given it under international law by the UN. Israel was created legally. The attack against it, to wipe it out was clearly illegal. In fact prior to and during the beginning of the war Israel repeatedly asked the Arab League for peace and history is what it is - led by Nasser, one Arab leader after the other called for the anhilitation of Israel, and in their speeches engaged in the same anti-semetic references the Nazis engaged in. The head of Egypt's secret police was the former head of the secret police in Poland responsible for killing thousands of Jews. Former Nazi SS and Gestapo officers openly lived in Damascus and ran its secret police. The Arab League allowed themselves after World War Two to be influenced and controlled by first the Nazis and then the Soviet Union also blatantly anti-semetic. The fact is they lost in 1949 and have been revising history ever since. History is what it is depsite some of you trying to pretend otherwise. Had there been no war to destroy Israel and no invasion by Arab armies there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948. Now you want to accuse Israel of stealing and expropriating land -its b.s. During this war, Israel acquired additional land which is called de facto possession under international law, precisely because when the Arabs refused to enter a peace treaty, Israel had to fight and defend itself and in the process the international law allows a country tannexation an aggressor's land during and after a conflict. You can pretend all you want this does not exist in international law as a concept but it does. In this case the land Israel ended up with in 1949 in fact was legally taken from Turkey. Israel in fact offered to return land the land it had acquired during the war in exchange for a formal peace treaty and the Arab League told Israel to stuff it. This offer was made during the Rhodes Armistice talks and Lausanne conference in 1949. The Arab League made it clear they preferred to maintain a state of war in order so they could wipe out Israel. What the anti-Israel revisionists also ignore is that after the 1949 war, Israel passed laws allowing Arab refugees to re-settle in Israel if they signed a form in which they renounced violence, swore allegiance to the state of Israel. Had they done that, the irony is, they would have become Israeli citizens with full equal rights and within 10 years have constituted the majority in the country and the State of Israel as we know it today may have taken another direction. In fact, 150,000 Arab refugees chose Israeli citizenship. None died. None were persecuted. All had the right to own land, vote, go to school, and receive medical care UNLIKE how Jews were treated in Muslim countries where they were forced to live under an apartheid system known as dhimmitude. Jews were never offered a similar option to become citizens of Arab states after 1949 which makes the Arab League complete and absolute liars when they say they simply wanted to leave in peace with Jews and their only problem was a Jewish state not with Jews living in the Middle East. In fact between 1948 and 1949 the Muslim world expelled 900,000 Jews, seizing their property. 700,000 of these Jews had no choice but to move to Israel making the accommodation of other Arabs a moot point. The Arab League not only deliberately created Arab refugees as a tool to keep fighting Israel, but it compounded the situation bt creating 900,000 Jewish refugees. If you read the speeches of Nasser and the Leaders of the Arab League you will see that they could have cared less about Palestinians. KIng Hussein of Jordan was in open civil war with them trying to prevent them from taking over Jordan. Speeches by all the Arab League members made it clear none of them would take in Palestinians. They deliberately left them homeless as a tool and a pawn to pressure the world into ending Israel. The dialogue from the Arab League after 1949 called for the destruction of Israel not peaceful coexistence. Nasser's speeches, the speeches from the regimes in Iraq abd Syria, called for the murder of Jews world-wide and the complete detsruction of Israel. In 1963, the PLO was created and its 1964 congress called for the destruction of Israel and killing Jews world-wide until this was achieved. It was not Israel that caused the Arab refugee problem, nor Israel that obstructed its solution. Pretend all you want the Arab world were victimized by Israel but the fact is it was the decision of the Arab League to refuse citizenship of Palestinians and using them as a pawn to fight Israel, that caused the problem. Nasser's open hatred of Palestinians as well as Jews and Israelis is there for anyone to read in his speeches. It is there in the speeches of then Defence MInister of Syria Assad and King Hussein. In fact when the PLO was formed, it split into numerous factions precisely because the majority of these factions were not interested in following Fatah and Arafat and creating a Palestinian nation. All they were interested in was destroying Israel. Most wanted to join with Syria. Syria controlled most of the splinter groups. Fatah the largest, run by Arafat was in fact never accepted by Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, or Tunisia and he was expelled from Lebanon, Tunisia, and Jordan precisely because they considered him as much of an enemy as Israel. What I would for once want the anti-Israeli revisionists to explain is why when they accuse Israel of misappropriating land they ignore the Jewish refugees from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Let me once hear Myata or Figleaf in their one sided comments, state that these Jews were in fact peaceful citizens and forced at gun-point to flee with nothing. Let me hear them once be honest and discuss how their property was stolen and never given back. Myata wants to lecture on Jews stealing Arab land, what about the property and belongings of the Jewish refugees, confiscated by the Arab governments, which has been estimated at about $2.5 billion to 4 billion in 1948 dollars which was far more money in value then any land Jews took from Arabs for Israel. This is the part of the story revisionists deliberately ignore and I am sick of the double standard from people who do not bother to take the time to acknowledge history and the fact that this was NOT a one sided conflict. Finally let us get something straight. Palestinian refugees in Gaza were forced there in 1948 by Nasser and his Egyptian troops under order to shoot to kill if they tried to leave. Nasser ordered that they were not allowed Egyptian citizenship or passports. Arafat until he died wrote about what the Egyptians did in his biography and never forgave the Egyptians. Finally it is absolute b.s. to argue as the revisionist anti-Israelis do, that those displaced by Israel now total over 5 million and have the right to return to Israel. Under international law , if you are born into a refugee population that has been resettled and living in exile YOU DO NOT HAVE legal status as refugees. The Arab League has created this noightmare by refusing to allow these people citizenship or in the alternative denouncing terrorism, accepting Israel's existence, and calling for a Palestinian state. Refugee status under international law, only applies to those surviving Arabs who fled in 1948. What also ticks me off is the fact that sixty years ago it is a fact there were almost one million Jews in the Arab states of the Middle East but revisionists ignore these people and what happened to them. They are the part of this equation people like Myata and Figleaf deliberately ignore when they trot out the usual antri-Israel revisionism. As for evil Israel, it has 12 Arab Israeli representatives in the Israeli Parliament, Arab Israeli judges sitting on the Israeli courts and on the Israeli Supreme Court, and and many Arab Israelis have obtained Ph.D's and teach in Israeli colleges and universities. In the Arab world this does NOT exist in reverse. More to the point, instead of misrepresenting Jews as having misappropriated Arab property-let us be frank and honest- the vast majority of Palestinian property has been stolen by fellow Palestinians or Arabs- Palestinians such as Arafat have misappropriated billions of dollars from the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and others.

Myata you are completely incorrect in your analysis but please don't let me stop you from the usual b.s. lecture on land. Your facts are completely wrong. You should try read history before you revise it. There was NO Palestinian state prior to Israel. Once and for all read history before you talk about it as if you are an expert. The area known as Palestine prior to Israel was not a state and was never a state. The creation of Israel was legal and it is a legal state. You can try twist and dance your way around that but international law is what it is and Israel as a soverign state is legitimate. More to the point Myata if you had the slightest clue as to the origins of the current issue you would understand that Jordan sits on 85% of what was then Palestine and has always contained the vast majority of Palestinians, but Jordan was a country created by the British when they broke their promise to the League fo Nations and misappropriated the vast majority of Palestine for Transjordan so they could set up a puppet state. You seem to skip over that completely. As well the countries of Syria and Lebanon were created by the French. If one is to be accurate and understand history without the usual anti-Israel bias, they would unlike you, understand that Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are artificial borders created by the British and French. As for Israel, why don't you go back and read what Britain's mandate was supposed to be on behalf of the League of Nations when they set up Transjordan. Next, put up or shut up. Please refer to the expropriations you are talking about. While you are at it look up de facto possession and what that means in international law.

O.K. a couple of things. Firstly Judaism and Islam are not pagan religions. Not even close. Perhaps you should find out what paganism is before you misuse the term. Secondly, I love your superiority complex. The bottom line is you feel as a Christian you are superior to Jews and Muslims and that these two savages should be left alone to kill each other. Thanks for the holier then thou perspective. Its good to know loving, caring, compassionate, Christians such as yourselves understand when to leave savages alone to kill themselves. I mean heaven forbid, and I mean that HEAVEN forbid, any Christians get involved in the Middle East. I love it. Can't wait until you and your other Christians of the advanced world. cut yourselves off from the Middle East including its oil. Yah I know, Jews and Muslims both have hook noses. Whoopee.

Once again BlackDog your analysis of Israel's military history is selective and misleading. The 1967 war goes back to 1956. At that time, Nasser prevented Israeli ships from travelling through the Suez canal and the Straits of Iran choking them off from their Iranian oil suppliers and choking off their essential maritime trade that they needed to survive. Israel was int hose days faced with Syria, Iraq and Egypt, and the entire Arab League calling for its destruction. Once this blockade happened it felt it was forced to go to war to protect its ships. Britain and France also upset at the canal being nationalized adn now facing tarrifs for using the canal, told Israel if it attacked Egypt, they would then support it. Of course it gave France and Britain a pretense to take over the canal and end the nationalization. The US felt the way to deal with Nasser was not threw a war since Nasser was supported by the Sovietys and Eisenhower was worried about a nuclear war being triggered off. So while history shows Lester Pearson then worked behind the scenes trying to get Britain to back down, and helped come up wiith the idea of placing peacekeeping troops in the Sinai, it was the United States who assured Israel it would have the right of access to the Straits of Tiran in return for getting Israel to end the Suez war and this is why in 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait as per the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Once again in May of 1967,Nasser would create another blockade but contrary to Blackdog's comments it was not the only reason for the war and was in fact one of many incidents from 157 to 1967 leading up to the war. The blockade was contrary to what Blackdog suggested not a mere annoyance but in fact cut off once again Israel's access to oil from Iran threatening its ability to exist. Also keep in mind in 1963, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded, then in 1964 it broke up into many factions due to continuous disagreements as to how to destroy Israel and when, and its largest group Fatah elected its leader, Yasser Arafat, as the PLO chairman and then set of its principles in the Palestine National Charter, calling for Israel's complete destruction. These principles are what the Arab League, Nasser, Syria, Iraq continuing called upon in open speeches leading up to the 1967 war. Keep in mind it was also in 1964, terrorist attacks by PLO and Fatah started and the targets were civilians and that these attacks could not happen without the logistical support of the Syrian and Egyptian armies and the PLO had to clear every attack with Syria and Egyptian intelligence. Egyptian President Nasser’s agenda in those days was to rally the Arab world against Israel which it saw as a puppet state of the U.S. Nasser considered the U.S. its major enemy. It was supported by the Soviets who armed it and Syria and Iraq. Keep in mind lest you think Nasser was the champion of the people, that he actually came to power thanks to the CIA and then turned roque. He openly called for the death of Jews world-wide and not just in Israel. He also was vehemently opposed to Hussein in Jordan. He and Syria and Iraq also had tried to form a United Arab Republic but that fell apart due to feuds between the Bath parties in Syria and Iraq who were dead enemies of each other. History now shows Nasser and Syria despised Arafat and used him as a dupe against Israel and hoped he would depose Hussein in Jordan for them. Hussein of course was seen as a puppet of the US and Britain. Hussein in Jordan was just as much an enemy as was Israel and the PLO was in fact more of a threat to him as the majority of Palestinians were in Jordan with Arafat and trying to kill him and take over the nation. One of the most important elements leading up to the 1967 war was Hussein expelling Arafat and the Palestinians from Jordan. Nasser and Syria and Egypt, then Lebanon and many other Arab League nations following Nasser's lead accused Hussein of betraying the Arab cause. The United Arab Republic of Egypt, Syria and Iraq then split up and Syria became quite angry and preoccuped with Israel over a water war-a water war that still goes on today and is the real reason for the animosity Syria has with Israel. Israel had created a water-way to take water from the Jordan River to supply the country back in the 1960's and this was what had Syria calling for Israel's end more then anything else. Precisely because of this water conflict, the Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which is 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to then shell Israel. These attacks started in 1965 forcing the people living in Israel's Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. The UN Mixed Armistice Commission in charge of peace in that region of course ignored Israel's protests but the UN would condem Israel if it shot back. Keep in mind leading up to the 1967 war, the Syrians increased these bomardments from Syria to a daily basis and no they were not a mere annoyance. They made it impossible for Israelis in the North to exist and live in peace. As for Nasser he made a famous public speech in 1965 stating; “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.” and " the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.” These speeches are on public record. Between 1965 and 1967 Nasser, Syria and many other Arab leaders continually repeated these kinds of speeches and Arafat escalated terrorist attacks and told the world he would destroy Israel. On April 7, 1967 Israel retaliated against the constant Syrian bombardments by shooting down six Syrian fighter planes. Keep in mind in those days, The Soviets Armed Egypt, Syria, Iraq and so were upset Israel shot down 6 MIGS. As a result the KGB got involved and history now has revealed that they gave Damascus false informationthat Israel was engaged in a huge military and was going to attack Syria. Russia deliberately wound up Syria. In those days Russia felt Israel was a US puppet that could be destroyed by Syria and Egypt ending US influence in the region. It thought this because on paper Israel had a far tinier armed forces then any of the nations surrounding it. Israel actually told Syria in secret this was b.s. but of course Syria would not believe them and invoked a defense treaty it still had with Egypt and asked Nasser/Egypt to come to their military assistance. If anything thank the Russians for their meddling for igniting the war. With this all going on, it was then on May 15, 1967, (Israel's Independence Day) that Egyptian troops headed into the Sinai and started massing on the Israeli border. The next day Nasser ordered the UN peacekeepers out.Then on May 18, Syrian troops mobilized and massed on the Golan Heights border and also on Nasser stated on the Voice of the Arabs radio station stated and again the proclomation is public record; "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." On May 20, 1967 then Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated on Syrian radio; "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." The blockade then came about on May 22, 1967. The closing of the straight was a deliberate tactic by Nasser to try force Israel’s hand as he had in 1956. After annoucning the blockade Nasser again went on radio and declared; "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war." Interesting of course that Nasser in all of his speeches used the word Jew, not Israeli. He also stated in his radio broadcast "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight " and "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." With all this heading to a confrontation King Hussein of Jordan panicked. He felt if he did not join the Egyptians, and Syrians, they would attack him as well and install Arafat, so he signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30 fearing if he did not, Egypt and Syria would not support him against Arafat. Interestingly Britain remained silent and it was their silence that led Hussein to believe this was the right move. Britain was still angry at the U.S. and distanced itself from the US foreign policy which was against the PLO. On May 30, 1967 Nasser again stated: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." As well President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq stated: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." It was in fact on June 4, Iraq officially joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Arab League Armies then began mobilizing and preparing for war. The entire world knew Israel was going to be attacked and all the papers sepculated on the attack date and the UN sat by in silence. Israel had placed its troops on full alert in May of 1967 but could not keep its troops on indefinite alert for obvious psychological reasons. The Arab League would have played out the rhetoric for quite a few more months hoping to psychologically fatigue Israeli troops before attacking. Israel knew this and so on on June 5, attacked first. Teh blockade was but one of many incidents but was not a minor one.

Iraqis would have been better off if someone had tossed a grenade into that spider hole. Trials of men like Hussein are always a farce because their guilt is obvious to everyone. If Saddam got off it would have been because of a technicality - not because he is innocent. Agreed.

"Very good point. When are we gonna see Augusto Pinochet hang? How about Ariel Sharon? The Dear Leader? Why can we not have a World Court where these bastards can be tried? It is interesting how subjective the arguements are about who war criminals are. Take for instance you. You quicklly list Pinochet and Sharon along with Hussein, even though the alleged crimes of the three would be quite different. It seems when someone feels they do not like someone's politics, this may qualify them to be war criminals or should it be something a little more solid then that? Technically for a war crime law to work, it must be applied equally AND NOT SELECTIVELY. The reality is, if Sharon was tried for what he did, U.S. military generals would also have to be arrested becauyse in the Gulf War it is a fact, U.S. generals were advised of on-going massacres of Kurds and Shiites but chose to keep their troops from entering and preventing the massacres. We could have a field day with who we tried, Mugabe of Ziimbabwe, Arafat, the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, the current leader of Iran, oh I am sure some of you would want Castro, Gbago of the Ivory Coast, the junta in Sudan, Somali war lords, Afghani war lords, Putin, Blair, Chirac, Bush, the leaders of China, on and on. If you are on the left side of the equation, you would line up Sharon on the top of the list and any Israeli that ever served in the IDF, then list your usual list of right wing suspects. If you are on the right, you would want Hugo Chavez, and so on. I myself am not interested in using war crime proceedings as an excuse to name call and take pot shots at politicians. In the case of Sadaam Hussein, his ordering of the gassing of kurds, constituted an international crime against humanity and the fact is he should have been arrested and tried years before now but the US and others supported him. For Mummar Ghadaffi not to have been tried for his ordering of the murder of civilians in the air bombing over Scotland is inexcusable. Then again the world has no problems trading with China whose government has been responsible for the massacres, torture and killings of millions of political prisoners. So let us not kid ourselves. As for Sharon, if he had been tried, the legal arguement was that he was INDIRECTLY responsible for deaths in the Sabta and Chatila refugee camps in 1982. At that time the Christian Phalangists, entered these camps. The Lebanese Red Cross reported 380 bodies. The IDF reported 700. The Palestinian authority reported 2,000. What did happen was Christian Phalangists using knives, killed Palestinians in retaliation for the deaths of Christian Lebanese by the PLO. What did happen was the PLO ran into the camps and blended with the refugees. The Phalangist went in, and selectively pulled out the men, knifing to death PLO militia. They also raped and killed women and some sympathizers who fought back. Sharon, the Minister of Defence was found by the Israeli government to have been indirectly responsible as it was determined he knew the massacre was happening but did not send in the Israeli army to stop it. In fact Israeli officers told the Phalangist before they entered to act like gentleman, but did NOT stop them once word filtered out they were raping women during interogation. The Sabra and Chatila killings were repulsive and unacceptable, but interestingly selected out while the many attacks and massacres by the PLO against civilians which brought these on amounting to far more deaths, have been ignored by the same people who condemn Sharon, but have been silent as to Arafat's role in the death and torture of thousands upon thousands of Christian Lebanese. Ironically not only did Sharon go on to become Prime Minister, but the principal leader of the Christian Phalangist was also elected to Lebanese parliament and became a Minister. So I know Higgly and FigLeaf would love to switch the focus away from Hussein and somehow steer this back to taking a pot shot at Israel. The fact is Sharon has done exactly what the UN did when it sat by and did NOTHING as thousands of Africans died in Rwanda or have done nothing as hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese Christians die in Sudan. Should we put the UN and the entire world on trial for this? The fact is in the world of alleged international crimes against humanity, it is flavoured by who is the ruling power of the world, and whose financial interests are at stake. In the case of Hussein the fact is he is on trial because he is a rogue CIA agent not because he's a war criminal. The U.S. naively thought if they put him on show and tried him, it would rally the Iraqi people and want them to support the U.S. This naive notion has blown up in their face. Instead all it has done is give Iraqis fuel to hate each other, and it gives some trendy leftists ammunition and lecture us on the US being a criminal state, etc. Excuse me if I don't lose any sleep over Hussein's hanging and I certainly don't believe it will contribute to a safer world either. It is but one more socio-path strung up as a piece of meat to pacify the masses.

I have consistently defended Israel on this forum against quite a few posters. I have volunteered in Israel. But sorry on this issue, myself like many Jews and non-Jews, believe, for their to be a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East between Palestinians and Israelis, there will need to be a 2 state solution. I think its unrealistic to believe Jewish settlers can continue to live in the West Bank. No I doubt any non-Jew gives a damn about history and the fact that Jews originate from Judea and Somaria and it was seized from them, etc. No they don't care. But I am not talking about past history. I am talking today in the present tense from a purely practical and pragmatic point of view. Palestinians have to live in their own country, its inevitable, and part of it has to be the West Bank. The presence of settlers in the West Bank only exasperates tension and gives terrorists an excuse and pretext to engage in violence. Sorry I respectfully disagree with anyone who feels the settlers remaining in the West Bank is going to do anything but add fuel tot he fire. As I also understand the majority of Israelis polled agreed that settlers should be removed as part of any comprehensive peace solution and Sharon made it clear he was willing to do just that.

Your analogy is defective. Your analogy would be correct or accurate, if those settlers engage in terrorist acts. The act of physically being on land in itself is not justification for being killed. Going the next step and shooting at Palestinians or hiding settlers who had just killed Palestinians would be. Your analogy is defective because you are suggesting occupying land justifies killing someone. No, occupying land causes a dispute that must be settled through reason and dialogue and non violence. The situation above was a specific example of people who had engaged in violence then retreating to a mosque, and then using women as shields. Had they NOT engaged in violence and terror, the IDF would never have pursued them. These women chose on their own voilition to become tools to be used. Now with these settlers, they choose to put themselves in harms way yes, and no I do not condone what they do, and understand why Palestinians would throw rocks at them, spit at them, etc., but killing no. It is wrong when either side does it. When the IDF chases terrorists and kills them, it is a survival response but it will not resolve the larger issue just as terrorism in the first place won't resolve it. Only peaceful dialogue from both sides can. If women choose to use themselves as shields to protect terrorists being chased in hot pursuit, yes they will risk being shot and killed. If settlers engage in shooting at Palestinians they risk dying not just by Palestinians but by the IDF who have shot and killed settlers in heated moments. The settlers in the West Bank are definitely a provocative symbol then invites trouble. These women who now openly choose to support Hamas in acts of terrorism are dooming their society to self-destruction. Nature did not intend women who carry life to place that life in harm's way. Eventually what will happen is Israel will start using gas to paralyze everyone to avoid killing the women but instead imobiliizing them. To me it is the utmost cowardice to hide behind women and wear their clothes to escape. If you want to engage in war but this is the way you have to do it, it doesn't say much for how you value life. I would have hoped Palestinian women sick of seeing their children die, would be renouncing terrorism not encouraging it. Anyone who thinks this is heroic is mistaken. There is nothing heroic using women as cannon fodder. Its pure cowardice.

1.why do i exist? You are the only one who can answer that question. I personally believe we choose to be born and use our existence as a platform of experiences to learn lessons. 2.why is there something instead of nothing? The combined sum of all or the alpha and omega can not be defined so easily as all or nothing-it defies constructs that our human mind uses to measure and reference things. It is probably why in the Bible God is quoted as describing itself as " I am because I am ". Some would tell you there neither is or is not, and what you experience is what you choose to create and experience so that you can learn but it is all an illusion or what you make of it so it is both everything and nothing at all, at the same time. If that confuses you think of basic physics, for every action, there is a counter-reaction-balance or harmony comes about from the seemingly polar opposites. The trilogy in Christianity (Father, son, holy ghost) is a play on the trilogy some refer to as dialectics (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) or others refer to as the yin and the yang or the id and the ago, eros and thanitos,or the conscious and the subconscious or woman and man or good and evil. It would appear through the clash of extremes, understandings/harmony/balance is supposed to come about. 3.what words must i speak to qet my ultimate question? Words are just words. You have to transcend bust the noise you call words and get to a point where you perceive things without the need for words. People who learn to meditate often die without finding their ultimate questions, others supposedly learn to meditate and get to a place inside their mind where they can conceive of such answers. However, the fact that you are looking outside yourself for questions you should be asking yourself alone, is interesting. Why not spend some time with yourself and stop looking for people to answer what only you can answer for yourself? Start with a walk alone and unclutter your mind of day to day thoughts and noise. Try empty your head of any questions, worries, anxiety. Now as for the other portion of this debate. I personally think nothing good comes from organized religion mixing with the state and politics. I personally believe faith should be an individual and private thing. That said I chuckle when I hear some people say faith is a bad thing. We all need to believe in something and we all do. Figleaf is a classic example of someone full of faith as to his being right and others wrong. Faith is what keeps people alive or what gets them through bad times. It is the fuel and essence of existence. It is like the pilot light in a furnace. Extinguish a person's faith, you take away their reason to exist and they wither and die. Spend some time with chronically ill people or abused people and you will understand this. I have faith. I just don't feel the need to tell you what it is exactly. I prefer to keep what it means for me, private. I would say faith for me is what makes me humble or not think I am better then anyone else. It is what makes me want to keep my big mouth shut if I am tempted to lecture people on my personal faith as opposed to faith in general. I admire the faith beliefs of many people. I have witnessed faith ceremonies in many settings, i.e., from Taoists, Bhuddists, Shaymen, Pagans, Christians, Zoroastreans, Bahaiis, HIndus, Christians, Jews, Muslims. I try respect it when it is expressed by others although I get uncomfortable if someone tries to shove it down my throat and tell me it is the only way. To me there is no one way to have faith.

O.k. Here is my roblem with Anglo-European Christian white males. First off they put mayonaise or butter on sandwitches when they really should try mustard. Secondly they can't dress. They always dress like they are playing golf. Thirdly they are Toronto Maple Leaf fans which is really retarded. Fourthly, they are afraid to admit they have a thing for women of colour when they are straight. Fifthly, they have a hang up about circumcission. Sixthly, they make lousy stand up comedians. Other then that, I suppose they are o.k. although I used to fight a lot with them and Anglo-European Catholic white males when I was a kid since I lived in an Irish neighbourhood and I was the only Jew and Easter was a pain in the butt. Some of their women sort of have flat butts, and not all of them are pedophiles, but I mean all in all, they really aren't that bad, once you beat the crap out of them in a hockey game. Also they can be quite nice if you make them feel guilty especially if you do something to help them when they are in trouble. They could do with a bit of sun.

Her being the daughter of a rich man breeds resentment and jealousy over her inherited wealth and the perceived benefits people think come from it. Her being ambitious and competitive are treated with a sexist double standard since if she was a man no one would think twice but since she is a woman cause people to think that somehow is unbecoming of a woman which is b.s. Her looks also play a part because she is attractive and being cute and attractive also breeds resentment among men who think she is too good for them and women who are fatter or uglier then her and who are hung up on their looks and therefore externalize their insecurity on her for being what they perceive cute or having the physical attributes they wish they had. That said, as for her record, there is none. She has presented no political visions, nothing original. So from an intellectual perspective, or political perspective, I would say there is nothing there to discuss. In regards to her private sexual affairs, I could care less who she bongs and when. As far as I am concerned anyone who wants to judge her for bonging Tie Domie or being divorced, etc., is probably got their own sex hang-ups. As for Peter McKay, he was wrong to make the comment he did and should have kept his feelings to himself and behave like a grown man after she switched parties and keep his feelings to himself. As for her switching parties, plenty of people have. Bob Rae, Jack Horner, Scott Brison, Paul Hellyer, what's his face, the guy from B.C., so in that respect why the big deal. She aint the first or the last to switch parties for reasons of ambition. I personally think all this focus on her is stupid. I would also like to think most women appreciate that the kind of men that dwell on her sex life or call her bitch or are put off by her ambition, etc., probably are insecure about the size of their wee wees. If she does debate or present something of substance, then let us talk about it. Giving her the time of day for these other issues is in my opinion dumb and dumber.

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you. Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is? I know exactly what it means and I used it quite appropriately. For YOUR information, here's a definition: It fits your situation perfectly. Yes, its called Israeli Occupation. Argus is wrong to generalize, you are equally wrong to respond accepting this generalization and trying to rationalize for it. The fact is neither you or Argus or correct when you generalize on behalf of all Palestinians. The fact also remains that a belief in ending the state of Israel and anti-semitism are wide spread beliefs in Palestine taught to the people in school and broadcast in the media and in their houses of worship. To pretend anti-Israeli and anti-semitic hatred is not wide spread is pointless. What is also pointless is being shocked at it. Palestinians have come to their anger and violence just as Israelis have come to theirs. The point is when there is a long festering conflict that remains unresolved, cycles of violence continue until we find peaceful ways to find a compromise. Violence and hatred expressed by anyone from either side is equally as repugnant. I myself prefer to focus my attention on the people of both Palestine and Israel who refuse to give into violence and hatred and work for peace. I do not like you Figlead engage in absurd exercises in trying to deny or rationalize violence and hatred just as I do not condone Argus or anyone else if they only emphasize the negative cultural beliefs of a people. I choose to point out many Palestinians despite their climate and Hamas' imposed cultural of violence choose to reject violence and look for alternative peaceful solutions.

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that. Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people just as I do not like it when certain people write in posts making blanket generalizations about all Jews or Israelis. Argus I respect you and you know better then to defame an entire people. Hating Palestinians will not resolve this conflict.

Here are two examples of a problem that hampers all intelligent discussion. So if something challenges a predetermined position it’s not worth reading? Or is it the fact that something challenged the position of a party that you hold a membership in? In these two cases the discreditors didn't even read the whole post. I'm guessing enough was read to determine that they didn't like the direction and like good foot soldiers fought for their party. Not with any counter arguments though...just with angry little criticisms of its direction. sad I particularly like the claim of bias…of course it is biased…everything on this board is biased. In this case the definition of bias seems to be any statement that goes against a supported position. I’m guessing that statements like the Liberals are a bunch of lying thieves or the NDP are left wing nut jobs would be considered perfectly unbiased by the authors of the quotes above. I think Jerry was correct in saying that this is “none of our business” and that “we can't fix the problem for them and we can't fight their battles for them”. That’s why I have a hard time supporting our government’s position on this issue. Why are we unequivocally backing a side that acts more like a terrorist group than the surrounding factions that have been labeled as such? I also love how “our” side can support the enemy one minute and attack them then next. Israel supported Hamas so they could fight Fata and destabilize Palestine. In the past the US supported Iran, Sadam in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Maybe it’s time to challenge ridiculous Western imperialistic foreign policy. I don't think we No I think the point was Mr. Chuckman wrote a lecture posing opinions as if they were facts. Now of course we know where Figleaf stands on such efforts. He enjoys doing the same thing. However in your case, read what Mr. Chuckman said before you defend. With due respect to your opinions, you are defending something not worthy of your defence. Here is a point for you also to consider. Yes Israel at one point supported Hamas against the PLO. At one point Stalin supported Hitler, then switched. The U.S. supported the same people who are now the Taliban fight against the Russians. Britain in 1969 referred to Sadaam as a good man they wanted to do business with and FRance ad Germany supplied Hussein with the gas he used to kill the Kurds and in 1984 Rumsleld went to Iraq and shook Sadam's hand and the US openly supported Hussein as long as he was fighting the communists and then Iran. Britain recently saw its Prime Minister go to Tripoli, Libya and refer to Mummar Ghaddafi as a friend of Britain...the same guy who not too long ago blew up a passenger craft and was referred to by the British as a disgusting war criminal. China which is responsible for more human rights violations in the world then any other country is great friends and the primary supporter of Sudan, Iran and North Korea. France has openly funded Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups and has supplied weapons to Iran. This is the same France that once provided Israel with its technology to build a nuclear bomb. So I am not sure what your point is about Hamas at one time being supported by Israel but the point is, in this world, political alliances constantly change and today's ally is tommorrow's enemy and then the day after's ally again. In the Middle East one only needs to look at the constantly changing alliances between terrorist groups and arab nations to understand this. So my question is for you is why do you single out Israel and somehow make it seem unusual they would have supported a group that would come to bite them in the ass-for what point? What does it prove other then at one point Israel saw Hamas as a way to keep the PLO neutralized just as the Americans found the Mujadeen to their liking when they fought the Soviet Union? What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting Israel is the only country in the world to form an alliance with someone who would later come to fight them? Time for you to get a grip on reality. Israel supported Iran in its war against Iraq. You want to make a point on that? How about France. You want to comment on how France had no problems funding Hezbollah after Hezbollah killed 59 French soldiers in Lebanon? My point is Mr. Chuckman produced dribble and you are picking the wrong person to try defend just as your own concern about who Israel picked as an ally at one point can also be criticized as being a moot point if even that.

I have no idea what is behind the original hypothesis of this thread because there has never been a Supreme Court decision that has stated anything even remotely close to what Figleaf has stated.

There are many possible legal formulas for aboriginal self-rule that have been discussed and continue to be discussed. I appreciate within the aboriginal communities there are differences of opinion as to how this aboriginal self-rule should take place. We have heard for example Liberal candidate Ignatieff make references to recognizing the aboriginal nations as a distinct nation within Canada as he has about Quebec. I am not sure whether his concept is original or genuine, but the concept of aboriginal nations being self-ruling but co-existing in a federal state similiar to provincial and federal jurisdictions is not new and inevitable as the existing system with the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs has proven to be out-moded and not working at all. I personally would argue the aboriginal nations have become a 13th province so to speak already and must be recognized as such because like the provinces they have specific legal rights to govern themselves in specific areas that was granted to them through legal treaties that would be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada if contested.

Pt. taken Higgly. I think we all agree fundamentalists come in all stripes and colours. I guess what is happening though is that in regards to Muslim fundamentalism, it brings into play the larger picture of disagreement between the West's values and the East's values. I guess I would put it this way-yes Jimmy and Jerry Falwell and a whole bunch of other tele-evangelists can be pretty darned rigid and fundamentalist as well but I guess the question is will they try violently impose their views on me in a war or terrorist act or are they content to work within the legal system and respect our differences of opinion. I know some Christian fundamentalists have taken to terrorist acts (killing doctors) but am I wrong to feel they are far more of a minority and not representative of mainstream Christians as say fundamentalist Muslims now are today for Muslims? That is a question not a statement. I am not sure. I mean I am the first to say there are moderate Muslims who do not feel this way and should not be scapegoated or negatively stereotyped because of such people, but are they truly representative of mainstream Muslims or are fundamentalist clerics like this one more representative. I fear the answer is that the vast majority of Muslims today are fundamentalist like this, and the moderate Muslims are a minority and need our help to develop their views and not feel endangered if they express them. Certainly in Canada we have read how moderate Muslims have had serious back-lash from fundamentalists in their community for speaking out. I applaud them.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake). If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it. I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women. Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one. Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf. Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance. Thank you, Rue. You are most welcome. I respect your strength in your responses. I would like to think I have taught my daughters to be like you in regards to your approaches to this and other issues I have read. I hope so! I also respect if women and men find what McKay said was stupid that was not the issue for me, taking it out of context and giving it more importance then it was worth, to me was the issue.

I think Chretien personally wasn't enriching himself in office. I do have some questions when he was out of office though but no one ever raised them officially. Mulroney's investigation was poorly handled. It still appears there are questions to be asked about the money he received from an account linked to bribery. It is the one area of the RCMP that I think needs improving: The Commercial crime squad unit. They need more forensic accountants and investigators. And not just for political hanky panky but for business and non-government agencies funded by some government money. If you genuinely believe neither Chretien or Mulroney enriched themselves while in office, all I will say is I disagree and think they both did and did what all politicians do but what some of our posters seem to think only exists in Israel. That was the pt.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake). If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it. I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women. Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one. Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf. Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance.

I do look at the Israeli press but I tend to think they are a bit over the top and didn't comment on Olmert until an investigation was announced. Until then, it was basically a smear following the war. Also, there is a tendency to call Canadian scandals more salacious than other countries. This is a fallacy. There are fewer stories of Canadian MPs and ministers within the government enriching themselves in financial deals. There are few sexual scandals as well. The best that people come up with in Canada is innuendo. Well we had the Chretien years and the Mulroney years certainly no shortage of the same b.s. going on in Israel. In terms of wives of elected officials getting involved in scandals well we know about Hilary and that gentleman committing suicide and her shady deals and of course Tony Blair's wife got involved with a con man scoundrel from Australia who they just arrested in Fiji and the Mr. Chirac's spouse in Paris, also had her share of accusations. As for the shoot to kill, like I said, I am sure Figleaf when he gets over his shock will provide us the tapes he took of Hamas shooting at Palestinians from his last visit there.

O.k. so I have children. They all ask me who their favourite is. I say, well, I don't really have any. What I say is, each child has their own unique attributes. So I try find a way to recognize each as an individual but then remind them they are still part of a larger family. My problem with one child is I really found him walking on the streets. When I went to build my home he was already on the land and I realized I couldn't throw him off and just ignore him. So with that child, he has a different history and I have always taken the time to deal with his specific problems differently because for example he has diabetes from having eaten badly when he was young and he has emotional problems from sexual abuse and he is an alcoholic. I have another child with a language problem and another feels alienated because he feels he is always let out of the action. Then I have the last born child and the youngest who definitely is unique and seems to sing his own tune. Yah all these children are a handful. Now the other day some putz from Harvard University came to my house and told me I have to take the kid with the language problem and make him feel special. So I said to this putz, oh really..and which one of us will end up paying his bills at the end of the day. I can't stand academics who tell me how to raise my children.