Rue

Salim Mansur writes for the Toronto Sun. He is a Political Science Professor at University of Western Ontario. There are many more like him who are good Muslim people who come out and denounce violence and are not afraid to criticize those people who in the name of Islam engage in terrorism. Right now in Canada and in particular in Toronto, moderate members of the Islamic community are engaged in heated debate with the fundamentalists in their community and being accused of being traitors and threatened. Please. We must not forget that many Muslims in Canada or the US are loyal to the country and do not believe in terrorism. It is tempting to scapegoat or generalize but we shouldn't. If the moderate Muslims are too grow and have any chance to defeat the terrorists in their midst they need our help and support and not lumping them in the same category as terrorists. Look we all know in the Muslim world outside Canada, the cold hard reality is their society is not where ours is at. They are only beginning to develop critical reasoning for the simple reason the vast majority still do not read or write and depend on a cleric to tell them how to think. It could take many more years until they evolve to the point of seeing things in less fundamentalist terms. I mean look at us. We are supposedly more critical in our reasoning and yet we often are bullied and manipulated by our own extremists. If you ask me I don't feel good lumping in all Muslims in one category or generalizing. Yes they are more fundamentalist then us, and yes we know Iran, Iraq, Egypt, etc.., are far different from us but please understand in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, are Muslims who want peace and individual freedoms and are powerless right now to confront their tyranical regimes or terrorists. I hate all terrorists equally. If they are Muslim, the fact that they are Muslim to me is no different then if they were Jewish, Christian or anything else. I hate them because they are terrorists not because of the religious views they spew out but because they are violent and use religion as a pretext to be psycho. I hate everyone equally!

I totally support your comments.

I believe we are in the position now of having to debate a 3 strike law or some other process like it for one simple reason-the sentences on crimes are too light and even after 3 crimes, people continue committing them. The three strike law is just an exercise to try make up for light sentencing. So the question is this. And you know what I am going to ask cuz you guys like me also ask it every day when we read the paper or watch t.v. Hwo is it people who murder, and rape and engage in violent crimes are getting back out on the streets so fast? I mean is it just me or does it seem insane we only give people 10 year sentences for murder and then of course, for every day you serve you automatically have one day taken off because prisons are overcrowded so they created this system to make more room for new prisoners by getting rid of the old. So we have a criminal sentence that says its a 10 year sentence but its really 5. Then of that 5 years, 50% of that 5 years can be deducted for good behaviour. Good behaviour meaning, don't kill a guard while in jail, not much more because if you see these parole hearings it doesn't take much to show good behaviour. So you ask me, sentencing should be a lot higher and each time you commit a crime, the sentence should automatically increase, so for example, your first conviction for sexual assault, your minimum sentence is 5 years and up to 25 depending on the severity of the violence, second sentence, minimum of 10 and up to 30, third minimum of 15 and up to 40, and so on. If we increased the sentences automatically, that would mean something. What we have now are judges who are reluctant to award large time periods or who feel their hands are tied as to what they can sentence. Our problem is our criminal convictions are too soft with violent crime. And as for non violent crime of a large financial nature, instead of putting millionaires in gold courses to cool off for six months, they should be required to pay back every cent by working for charities and non profit organizations after they come out. Now as for the presumption of innocence factor, its a non issue. This debate is with people ALREADY proven guilty. As for the constitutional issues, I personally think this notion that convicted criminals should have the same constitutional rights as you and I including voting is insane. If you are convicted, for the entire period of your sentence your constitutional rights should be suspended because you no longer are in fact a citizen entitled to privileges of a law abiding person, no voting, no equal rights. You lose the right to be a citizen. Being a citizen is a privilege not an absolute right.

Two things and let us deal with Harper's comments second but the target of his comments first. It is perfectly legitimate for Harper or any politician to make allegations that any or all Liberal leadership candidates or the LIberal Party have an anti-Israeli bias. That is politics. You don't like it-instead of acting all self-righteous and instead of hiding behind your wife's religious status, debate your position. So let me be blunt. Everyone knows for the last ten years, the Liberal Party adapted the French foreign policy approach in the Middle East and in an attempt to portray itself as neutral actually became bias bending over backwords to the trendy politics of the day which was to never under any circumstance criticize Hebollah or Hamas or terrorism directly and bluntly but to use neutral words. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely no help to Palestinian people to think you are their friends by molly-coddling the terrorists in their midst. What Palestinians need are people of moral fortitude and principal willing to stand with them and show them there is an alternative to terrorism to achieve their means not meely mouthed politicians afraid to lose their ethnic vote so they say what-ever they think caters to the ethnics in their constituency and so if you are Carolyn Parrish you deliberately make anti-semitic remarks and trot out the anti-Zionist remarks to suck up to the majority of Palestinian Canadians in your riding or if you are a non Jew with Jewish people in your riding you make sure to distance yourself from certain LIberals when they go on junkets and come back lecturing the world on how evil Israel is. The Liberal party coasted on the fact that it was the party Jews would vote for simply because in the past the Tory party traditionally was the party of elite wasps who did not like playing golf with Jews but would tolerate them if they needed an accountant, dentist or perhaps a hernia operation at Shuldice Clinic. The fact is the Tory party after Mulroney took over did what the Liberals did, it went out and marketed and brought in ethnic minorities and the French Quebec vote and since then that exclusive monopoly of being the party of minorities evaporated. When the Reform Party started off being a rural party of white boys from the West and fundamentalist Christians it was of course quickly labeled as a racist party. When it merged with the Tories, its fundamentalist Christian wing was toned down by Harper. Of course fundamentalist Christians tend to be very pro-Israel on foreign policy so that adds to the paradox. As for Steven Harper. say what you want but he is much more clear, blunt and to the point as to where he stands and if someone bothers to listen to what he says, while he unequivocally supports Israel's right to exist and comes right out and condemns terrorism UNLIKE ANY LIBERAL candidate, he does not make anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian comments and if someone bothers to read or listen to what he says he has consistently supported the Oslo accord formula, i.e., that Palestinians be given a state in the Gaza and West Bank. Harper is not a Bush clone. If someone bothers to read what he writes and says they will see he is more balanced in his approach to the Middle East-the fact he is not afraid to come right out and say terrorism is wrong is being used to label him a Bush clone and that is intellectually lazy. Now as for the Liberal candidates let us look at their record. Start with Bob Rae. He thinks he can coast on his wife's Jewish status and his statements on the Middle East have been absolutely meaningless. Read back what he says-he has gone out of his way to refuse to commit to any position on anything. To me that makes him a snively coward and his wife's Jewish status does not give him exemption. Now let us talk about Ignatieff. How can a made who tells everyone he is an authority on international human rights and every chance he gets remind people he is a Ph.d from Harvard to tout his aura of invincibility make such diametrically opposed statements on the same issue and think he has any credibility? Let us start with the obvious. To commit a crime there must be deliebrate intent or mens rea even if it is an international crime. Ignatieff being the human rights experty should know, that the Israeli Defence Force did not deliberately intend to kill civilians. The fact that they did was tragic and its horrid and yes we can debate that it should not be done, but to call it an international war crime is absolutely stupid and irresponsible for a man who knows what the definition of an international war cime is and knows it could never be successfully argued as such in a court room. What all the LIberal candidates should have clearly stated when asked about this issue was simple; they should have stated that what Hamas and Hezbollah do are acts of terror and deliberate in nature and constitute crimes against humanity. What the IDF does in reply can not be equated on the same moral terms. The IDF unlike Hamas or Hezbollah wear uniforms and are readily indentifiable. Their mandate unlike the mandates of Hamas or Hezbollah is not one to wipe out all Palestinians. Hezbollah and Hamas have charters calling on the genocide of Jews world-wide. The IDF's mandate is to defend the safety of its citizens period. Hamas and Hezbollah share the moral culpability of chosing to engage in acts of terror and then place their people in harm's way as shields. The moral culpability begins and ends with them. If Israel did nothing when attacked by Hamas or Hezbollah it would be abrogating its moral and legal responsibiloty to its citizens to protect them. Neutral third party evidence from journalists, has no shown us that Hezbollah were in fact firing rockets from mosques, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings. There is actual film of Hezbollah running back into schools, mosques, hospitals, apartments, after firing rockets. The game is simple. If Israel fires back civilians die. That is what Hamas and Hezbollah want. They want civilians dying so that they can use this as a media tool. No one now questions rockets were launched from Qana. Hezbollah has even admitted it. Israel has three choices; i-do nothing as civilians die and the silence is then construed as weakness which causes an increase in furthr attacks, ii-use commando attacks where soldiers have to enter into civilian homes, hospitals, moques, schools in search of the terrorists and engage in a cat and mouse game of attrition where civilians will die, or iii-shoot back at the last known missile launch coordinates. Any way you slice it, Palestinian civilians or Lebanese civilians die and Israeli civilians die and the moral culpability for that lies solely with Hezbollah and Hamas. If any candidate wants to criticize Israel's decision to strike back, then they must also be intellectually honest enough to suggest what the alternative is to terrorist attacks number one, and number two, in their statements they must be clear that the terrorism and international crime is initiated by the terrorists and to suggest the IDF has a deliberate policy to kill Palestinians or Lebanese is absolutely false because if it were true hundreds of thousands moe civilians would have died in a ground war. Case in point, when the Syrian Army went into villages in hot pursuit of the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike Israel it did not warn the civilians first to flee, nor did it choose to use commandoes trying to enage in limited pin point precision attacks. It simply went in and killed 10,000 civilians within a few hours. Same thing happened in Algeria when it was fighting political terrorists in its country. So yes it is easy to criticize Israel for fighting back and killing civilians in the process, but usually the people critcizing have never lived through war or witnessed a terror attack, haven't a clue how small Israel is and who they are dealing with. And I will say it again because it needs to be said, no it is not right Palestinian civilians or Lebanese civilians must die, just as it is wrong Israelis die. The way to stop this is to say it like it is-the cause for this is terrorism and we must all universally condemn it and simplistic answers as to bad and good and black and white do not work. Ignatieff should have explained that the moral culpability and criminal intent lies with the terrorists and that Israel was allowed by law to defend itself but we ALL agree, that the death of civilians on either side is horrible and we must work to defuse the terror so both sides can sit and work towards peace. Instead Ignatieff deliberately chose poor words to originally discuss the issue and then on French radio/t/v/ knowing he was talking to a French audience completely sympathetic to the Lebanese, he deliberately delivered them some inflammatory buzz words seeking to win them over no different then what Carolyn Parrish became famous for by using coded anti-semetic words and choice anti-zionist buzz words to cater to her Palestinian constituency. Ignatieff is an insincere prostitute of the worst kind and is smarmy thinking he is smarter then all of us. As for Kennedy, Rae, Dion, its time they all developed a scrotum sack or two and made a clear statement that the problem in the Middle East is caused by terrorists and a Canadian government must strongly stand against terrorism which is not antithetical to helping both Israel and Palestinians achieve peace. They should have come out and said, no peace can be achieved if we play politics and are afraid to chastize terrorists for fear it will alienate Muslim votes. On the other hand, if they want to criticize Israel, do so but be clear on what the criticism is for and take your lumps if your position is hipporcritical. As for the Liberal Party Chretien's decision to mimmick French foreign policy made a laughing stock of this country. We are a country that believes in democracy and strongly condemning terrorists. We are by far a people not afraid to come out and say, if you engage in terrorism for any REASON it is b.s. What has happened is the LIberal Party has allowed itself to fall into this trend in academic circles to try justify terrorism as the act of victims and in so doing ignoring the true victims which are BOTH Palestinians and Israelis who need people like Canadians to let terrorists know they are full of crap and that the way to help both sides is to create and implement peaceful dialogue and grass roots peace projects where both sides exchange civilians to live and work in each other's environment and to identify common goals such as fresh water supply to work on. So as far as I am concerned if Harper wants to dance all over the Liberal Party its fair game. I think Ignatieff is a complete fool, Rae is a coward for hiding behind his wife, Kennedy is a light weight, Dion is a bumbling bureaucrat, and the rest are pathetic losers trying to consolidate positions for themselves in the post Martin era. If I am Harper I am laughing. The only person who had any credibility to discuss foreign policy was Ignatieff and now he has shown the world he is either brain damaged or a complete misfit. Time he packed up his prissy sheltered soft privileged butt and high-tailed it back to the ivory tower in Boston. The real world is not working out for this pathetic twit who has never worked an honest job in his life. As for Bob Rae, if he thinks he is going to win votes skinning dipping and poking fun at himself, he is mistaken. This country wants someone with pride and dignity and statesmanship not someone who makes a fool of himself. The Liberal party has now doomed itself to failure and Harper will get his majority government.

Ignatieff presented himself as an intellectual and an expert on human rights. He has constantly referred to his academic status and Ph.d from Harvard as his basis of authority and superiority over others. What he has shown is that he is an idiot and an embarassement and someone who has spent so many years lecturing people and not being questioned that he is not fit for public office. For a man to make two comments so diametrically opposed as to the same incident shows he is insincere and just shooting off at the mouth without thinking first. All he had to say about the incident was that it was unfortunate for both sides. He is an embarassement.

Library: Modern: James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order books by James A. Haught now [This article was originally published in Penthouse, August 1990.] Here are examples of how no one religion has a monopoly on violence; (exerpts from a penthous article written by James a. haught, in 1990, yes yegads I am quoting a Penthouse article!) "A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead." "-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God." " "Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." "In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening." " In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children -- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified." " "The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria." "Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims -- Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent -- were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles." "In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice." "The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months." "In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" -- comely virgins without blemish -- were strangled." " Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week. " "In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun." "When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God. " "The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods -- especially the sun god, who needed daily "nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods." "In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil -- then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 "witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst." "The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics." "Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs -- until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all." "Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali. " "The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple." "Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches." " "Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire." "The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education." "When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned." "In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death." "Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all "sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes -- with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon." "In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews." "When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life." "Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies." "In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage." "Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued -- in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed." -- In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire. "When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the "great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim." "In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000." AND OF COURSE DARFUR TODAY "In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world." "Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery -- but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's baby was born." "In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969." "Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail." "Religious tribalism -- segregation of sects into hostile camps -- has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and "Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a once-lovely nation is laid waste. " "In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn't." "Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran -- "the government of God on earth" -- decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds." "In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria. " "Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated." etc etc etc Religious Riddle Q: what did the Jewish guy say the Muslim guy and the Christian guy? A: Just calm down there is more then enough for both of you.

hah, guess whackan-israel is over for now. since fig is writing me poems now here is one back; Higgly: Israel bad Palestine good anyone who says otherwise makes me sick and tired Rue: guess what I am gonna make you sick and tired Fig: I am the light and the way and I shine upon Higgly and curse the disbeliever and killer of you know who Higgly: Higgly, I agree with you um me er you no me um thanks Higgly, thanks Fig Rue: playing with ourselves Higgly, what does your dogma say about that? Higgly; bad Zionist go away bad bad bad Rue: hey fig do you really nead a leaf not that I am bring up size as an issue. regards, until the next anti-israel diatribe, shalom salaam.

That settles it. You Figleaf and Higgly have settled it. Of course you are right. There is one problem. Your timing and the content of your response is a tad funny don't you think? But I know great minds think a like. p.s. in case you are interested and actually read what I wrote, I wasn't making a case, I was simply filling in those pieces of information and history Higgly leaves out-my point from day one has never been to say one side was right and the other wrong, just that Higgly's approach is deliberately one sided and misleading. Interesting you felt the need to say Higgly had a stronger case. I guess he just brings out the idealism in you and Fig. Lol. Now run along and find a Zionist to call a bad guy.

I have one last response to yet more misinformation Higgly presented in his responses. Higgly again made a comment referring to UN Resolution 242 and made a statement that Palestinians wanted an autonomous nation in the West Bank. Well I am not sure what planet he lives on, but Yair Arafat was offered the West Bank and Gaza for a nation and rejected it and Bill Clinton has given numerous speeches indicating Arafat was offered 97% of the land he asked for, indiocated he would take it, and then pulled out of the deal. We know why. If one reads the speeches of the PLO, they were talking out of both sides of their mouth. They told the West they were interested in Gaza and the West Bank as the nation. Israel in fact offered to comply with a peace formula the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis pushed for, but while Arafat told the Wet he was a moderate simply looking for peace, his same speeches to the Arab world stated the PLO would not stop until Israel was wiped off the face of the map. It is absolutely irresponsible to sugget the PLO wanted the West Bank as a nation. The PLO, is an umbella group of many factionsonly one of those factions would have accepted the West Bank and Gaza as a nation, The majority wanted Israel off the map. Then came Hamas, Intifadah, Jihand and many other groups who at least were open and honest in their intentions stating the only solution in the Middle East is the wiping off the map of Israel. So Higgly can skip over Hamas and make lame comments about Hamas and this fact and try skip over this reality-but the fact is today, moderate Palestinians are not stating they want the Gaza and West Bank as a nation. In fact so called moderates such as Mr. Abbas are doing what Arafat did before them. They say one thing for Western consumption and other for the consumption of their people. The fact is the majority of Palestinians today, still buy into the notion, they will have another war, only this time wipe out Israel, and until that happens, the terrorism will continue. Until Palestinians step back from this dream of destroying Israel and engaging in terrorism until this can happen, nothing will change and there is no point whining when Israeli soldiers retaliate against terrorists and kill innocent civilians. This whining is what has created the status quo and is causing both sides to be trapped in a never ending cycle of tit for tat. Want Israel to back off, its simple, recognize their right to exist and stop engaging in terrorism against them. Then they will back off. Want to solve this problem? Stop trying as Higgly does to scapegoat Israel for all the problems and use them as a dumping zone for social failure and intolerance. Stop demonizing Israel and understand all nations can be criticized exactly for the same things but to suggest Israel is acting unfairly trying to defend itself and protect its people is b.s. It is a tragedy Palestinian civilians die, but Higgly, contrary to your quick dismissal of Hamas, some of us think Hamas and all these other extreme groups are morally culpable for the suffering of their people by keeping them entrenched in hatred and refusing to let them move on. You apologize for Hamas. I do not apologize for Israel's army if it makes mistakes. I say if they make mistakes they must be criticized and people held accountable but I am not sdo naive as to think Israel should do nothing in the face of terrorism and I have better things to do then patronize Palestinians and portray them as helpless victims. They are not. Like any people they could choose to master their own destiny and nothing is stopping them but their own self-defeating behaviour and refusal to let go and move on and build a nation.

In response to Higgly's presentations which depict the Israeli Palestinian conflict as being solely caused by Israel and focusing attention only on the displacement of Palestinian refugees, I stated such a presentation was deliberately one sided and misleading because in addition to 711,000 Palestinians beingd displaced so were 900,000 Jews from the Middle East, and Higgly's response to that was so what and to questiont he veracity of the numbres of displaced. The actual number of displaced Palestinian Arabs from 1949-1967 Israel of 711,000 is a UN guess because many of these displaced Palestinians were of no fixed address. That said the number of 900,000 Jews, also comes from the same United Nations and from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that after 1950, kept track of the movement of Jews for two very important reasons; i-it required charitable assistance from Jews outside Israel to resettle these people so had to be very careful documenting who it was helping to get aid, ii-the people from the displaced communities fleeing to Israel provided the statistics in an effort to document their stolen property hoping one day they could get it back. The point of this issue which Higgly ignored is that when you look at the Middle East conflict and repeat as Higgly has done again that it is solely a problem caused by Israel is misinformation. The fact is had the Muslim world not displaced 900,000 Jews forcing 600,000 to have to flee to Israel, it would have made resettling Palestinian Arabs back in Israel less problematic. See it is easy to shoot off and say oh Israel wouldn't let the Palestinians return but then it is not so easy when you have to explain, well gee, if 600,000 Jewish refugees were forced to move to this tiny parcel of land, what does that do to the equation. Well here is what it did. It is a fact that the actual number of Palestinians who fled the newly formed State of Israel was surpassed by the number of Jews who were forced to emigrate from Arab countries. So of course that effects the ability to properly put people back whence they came. When Higgly tries to blame this solely on Israel and Zionists he skips the fact that in 1947 United Nations debates, the head of the Egyptian delegation warned that "the lives of a million Jews in Moslem countries will be jeopardized by the establishment of the Jewish State". Oh well it wouldn't have happened had they not started Israel. The point is the Arab League chose to use Jews in the Middle East as pawns to try prevent the state from coming about. This is why Haj Amin el-Husseini, chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Executive, told that body, "If a Jewish State were established in Palestine, the position of the Jews in the Arab countries would become very precarious". "Governments", have always been unable to prevent mob excitement and violence". Now before you simplistically state everything was peechy keen for Jews in the Middle East and their problems only happened after 1949, this is utter b.s. The strain of anti-semitic hatred we see wide spread in the Middle East today, was brought in by the French, British and Germans starting in the 1920's. I will not get into the system of apartheid called dhimmitude that persecuted Jews in the Middle East prior to that because Higgly will accuse me of hijacking his post. For example, ion Iraq, thousands of Jews were imprisoned or taken into "protective custody" on charges of "zionism". Legislation was passed freezing Jewish bank accounts and forbidding Jews to dispose of their property without special permission. Jews given exit visas were only allowed to take fifty kilograms of luggage per person. A law was passed issuing seizing the property of all Iraqi Jews and Jewish property was sold at public auction. A year after that, more laws were passed, restricting the movements of Jews, barring them from schools, hospitals and other public institutions, and refusing them import and export licenses to carry on their businesses. The above scenario was repeated in every Arab League nation and in Iran. So to simply ignore this and say, its bad Palestinians were displaced, but let's just ignore the 900,000 Jews thrown out with no property because it was in retaliation for the Palestinians being displaced, is b.s. The fact is there were two huge displacements and from a pratical point of view, whether Higgly wishes to justify one displacement and only focus on the other, it doesn't change the practical reality of the situation, Jews had no place to go but Israel. The fact is Nazis played a prominent role in Arab League nations. The head of Gestapo in Poland went on to be the head of the secret police in Egypt. Former Nazi SS officials openly operated out of Damascus heading Syria's secret police force, training the secret police forces of numerous Arab nations, and leading the hundreds of anti Israel terrorist groups they helped fund before and after world war two. Palestinians were used as pawns by these Nazis and by Arab nations such as Syria and Egypt who were never interested in helping Palestinians but in fact used them as a pawn in their attempts to seize more territory for their own regimes and power. What Higgly will continue to ignore is that through-out the Arab world, after 1947, there were thousands of pogroms against Jews in Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Israq, Aden. So what? So it meant these attacks forced a transfer and movement of populations on an unprecedented scale and made the displacement of Jews from Arab countries an irreversible consequence. So when Higgly lectures you on his version of the Middle East conflict, ask him, oh gee what should we have done with all those displaced Jews, thrown them in the ocean? Yes it is unfair. It was unfair to Palestinian Arabs who found themselves displaced and it was unfair to Jews attacked simply for being Jews. See that is the point. When people attack Israel, they also go world-wide and attack Jews and do not differentiate the two and that is what Higgly does not understand about Israel. It is not just some Europeans who fled to Israel. It is about a final existential stand because Jews know, wherever they lived in the world, without a nation of their own, they would be wiped out and massacered. Unfair to Palestinian Arabs? Yah unfair to them Jews, and countless millions of other people who over the centuries have found themselves displaced. The question remains though, why after 60 years, are we still talking about this? Does Higgly really believe at this point his Israel bad Palestine good lectures will lead to all Jews leaving Israel and millions of Palestinians never born there simply moving in? The point is history moves on and creates fait accomplis and we have to learn to deal with them instead of staying entrenched in the past. And before Higgly lectures me on Israel bad Palestine good, he better understand I do not take what he says with credibility until I see him presenting both sides of the story equally. Until then he simply is yet another person who thinks Israel bad, Palestine good. Here are some of my sources for the population displacement of Jews in the Middle East; 1 - Official census of each country; yearbooks of the Jewish communities: The Jewish case before the Anglo- American Committee of Inquiry, 1946; Hayim Chohen, 1952 and 1973; David Sitton, 1974; Andre Chouraqui 1952; Joseph B. Shechtman, 1961; David Littman, 1975 2 - Ada Aharoni, The Second Exodus, (Dorrance, PA, 1983) 3 - Government of Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 1975 4. Government of Israel, Statistical Abstract, 1974 5. Schechtman, J. B. Population Transfers in Asia. New York: Hallsby Press, 1949, 104. 6.American Jewish Congress, Jewish Communities in the World, p. 48 (Hebrew).

Higgly raised a reference to massacres of Palestinians by Israelis in his response to my responses. I will say this one time specifically in response to his exercise of raising this issue. This was not a one sided war where only civilians died on one side and to simply present these incidents and leave it at that is deliberately selective. To properlly depict what happened in the War of Independence without turning it into a misinformation session about Israel bad, Palestine good, it needs to be properly pointed out that both Jews and Arabs engaged in sniping, raids, and bombings that cost many lives on both sides. And if we want to be accurate instead of hurling out such comments, between December 1947 and February 1948, 427 Arabs, 381 Jews, and 46 British were killed and 1,035 Arabs, 725 Jews, and 135 Britons were wounded. In March of 1948 alone, 271 Jews and 257 Arabs were killed. The point is people died on both sides and the attacks were not from just one side. Here is a specific example of how it was two sided not one sided; The Arab Legion went out and attacked a Jewish civilian bus convoy at Beit Nabala on December 14, 1948, 4 days later the Haganah then attacked the village of Al-Khisas. So do to what Higgly does and take these attacks in isolation is misleading. You can not take selective snap-shots, you have to look at the continuing series of attacks and how they inter-related to each other. Pro Palestinian forces cut off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations.[citation needed] and massacred Jewish convoys in the first phase of the War of Independence and this then led to retaliation by the Irgun who killed 107 Arabs. Four days after the killing of those 107,, the Arabs launched a strike on a medical convoy traveling to Hadassah Hospital. Around 77 doctors, nurses, and other Jewish civilians were massacred. The point is autoricities and deaths happened in the conflict from BOTH SIDES and it is misinformation to present it from only one side.

Read back what you wrote. Your responses are allegedly evidence of Israeli misinformation but all you are doing is responding with misinformation. The Israeli Air Force never was involved in the Black Sabbath uprising, and the one tank corps the Syrians sent was not meant to overthrow Hussein but to serve as a symbolic presence in support of the PLA. One tank corps could not have overthrown Hussein and you know it. More to the point though, and getting back to the debate and precisely why I have responded, in your orginial presentation, you present the conflict between Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East as simply being something between Palestinians and Jews but then quite unintentionally you vividly show how your simplistic Palestine Arabs (good) v.s. Bad Israel is a crock and it is far more complicated then that. It is in fact misinformation to present the conflict in such a way and forget at least two obvious issues;i-that the PLO has been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia, and Arafat has feuded with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia openly leading to his expulsion so your Palestine Arab v.s. Israeli scenario ignores these other segments of the same conflict. But I know in your thesis we ignore everyone but Israel and blame it all on Israel. Now I am not hijacking the post but pointing out Black Sabbath shows have misleading your position is. Jordan was artificially created from Britain in the early 1920's after it deliberately lied, ignored the Leage of Nations mandate it said it would pursue, and unilaterally took 77% of Palestinian land and created the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as a puppet state for its influence. In your scenario Palestine is only Israel and Israel was the only colonial nation to displace Palestinians. Well that is pure b.s. and you have been called on it because that is what your posts have implied and inferred in your one sided version of history which selectively ignores anything that won't fit the simplistic black and white scenario you keep trying to defend. You can ignore this part of the Palestine equation but the fact is the majority of the population of Jordan was always Palestinian and they did not support King Hussein so it was not just Israel they felt hard done by and that is the point. If you want to present yourself as an expert on the conflict present it fairly and don't skip out massive pats of it because they don't conform with your bias. The point is Hussein was a prop for the British and he was completely dependant on his Beduin army for his survival. Jordan like Israel was and is dependent U.S. economic and military aid. The U.S. pays for half of Jordan's budget. Teh Royal leaders of Jordan have received personal payments from the CIA starting in 1957. So my point was and is the above, it has not hijacked your post but illustrated you have been selective and your original hypothesis of the Palestine problem simply being caused by Zionists is a crock. The problem is also just as much caused by; i-Britain and France's decision to crave the Middle East into artificial borders exasperating the situation ii-the thousands of conflicts and never changing alliances between Arab nations and the PLO and the decision of the Arab League not to allow Palestinians to settle as civilians in Arab countries. The decision of Jews to live and create a country in Israel of course created a problem with the existing Palestinian Arabs but what I am saying is, it is one of many catalysts that brought turmoil to the region and to properly understand history we must appreciate them all and not be selective as to what we think is important.

As usual Higgly has scattered about some responses that are inaccurate and need clarification and I am going to address them but I will start with one issue that Higgly seems to once agaion have simplified and selected for subjective analysis and save the rest for another post tomorrow. Let us now be clear on what happened in the black Sabbath uprising because to simply state Syria attacked Jordan is nonsense. The crisis in Jordan in 1970 was triggered off by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which masterminded the hijacking of five passenger airliners on September 6, 1970 and for those of us that can remember 4 planes were forced down in Jordan. The fifth in fact involved an El Al airliner from Amsterdam, which was prevented and the plane landed safely in London after the two hijackers had their butts kicked by on flight Air Marshalls. One of the hijackers, Nicaraguan Patrick Arguello, was killed and the other a woman, Leila Khaled, who had previously hijacked a plane in 1969, was taken into custody by British police. With these hijackings we saw the planes get blown up on t.v. and this served as the match that lit the fuse for the Palestinian uprising in Jordan that then led to an internal civil war by the PLO to kill King Hussein and take over. Edward Heath was the British conservative leader at the time. Information now released from the British foreign ministry does reveal that King Hussein asked Britain and the US to ask Israel for assistance on September 19, 1970. Israel now admits through third party historians but never directly that in fact a Syrian tank column crossed into Jordan, but turned back after Israel threatened to attack it. The Israelis never did attack it and never had any involvement other then this threat in the uprising and subsequent expulsion of the PLO by Kig Hussein. The PLO in fact alleged that Israel secretly supplied Jordan with arms after agreeing with Hussein's assessment that a Syrian invasion of Jordan could spark a full-scale regional conflict. In fact Jordan was assisted by the US and Britain not Israel. In fact the British decided to negotiate with the terrorists and this pissed off Washington. Israel sat this out. The fight between London and Washington is now documented and in fact documents from the British make it clear that Israel was sitting it out. Syria tried to stick their face in the uprising because the PLA or Palestine Liberation Army's HQ was in Damascus. But in case you think it is as simple as the PLO being on Syria's side forget it. As I keep saying to Higgly you can not simplify this in black and white terms. By 1999, Arafat openly was feuding with both Syria and Jordan who he lumped in the same category of being enemies of the Palestinians. I will finish this later.

I will put it this way. Every organized religion has good people and bad people. For us in the West these days, we tend to see all Muslims as angry and primative for obvious reasons. Firstly, when we do see Muslims on t.v. its in the context of Afghanistan or Iraq or terrorism or some sort of story where Muslims are angry and burning something. In day to day boring life, we don't read stories of Muslims just going about doing their business. I do think it is fair game to criticize any Muslim cleric or anyone claiming in the name of Islam that it is acceptable to engage in terrorism or violence just as I do when it comes to anyone of any other religion or non religion. That said here is the problem. If we try engage in criticism of Islam, we often get painted as being racist. The fact is we in the West criticize Sharia law and Islamic concepts as to the treatment of women, gays, non Muslims, and the lack of seperation of state from religion. I for one am very critical of the Muslim religious communities role in the Middle East in actively promoting vicious anti-semitism and intolerance not just to Jews, but Hindus, Bhuddists, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, gays and women. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade and say so although I try not to stereotype Muslim people or treat them badly. My problem though is, I personally have found as has the Western press, that when one wants to exercise freedom of speech and criticize an aspect of Islam, we are tarred with racism. Now as a Jew, I am quite used to debating Israel and I will point out when someone is not arguing about Israel anymore but about Judaism in general, and I think it is fair game to criticize Judaism and Israel just as I do Christianity. All our religions or ideologies should be questioned and prodded and criticized. I do think it is fair today, as we speak to say, our Judeo-Christian Western society although full of problems and probably screwed up by its lack of spiritual values and love for materialism, is not the same as what we see going in in the Middle East in Muslim countries. As much as I see the West as having its own problems and lots of them, I do think we still have the right to criticize the Muslim world the same way we do our own. I don't think anyone of any religion should be able to use their religion as a justification for being a terrorist or violent and yes if their religion comes into conflict with the values we hold dear in our society, we are allowed to say so and defend our values. What I think is fair to say is that Muslims have come to the West and take advantage of our freedom of speech and what we have to offer and use it for all its worth but at the same time criticize us and belittle us for the very same things they enjoy. That I have a problem with and I am not saying those are a majority of Muslims. I do not. I think they are a minority and every religious group or ethnic group has such people. But yes where I live I see people who insult Canada and ridicule our traditions but demand every benefit that comes from what we offer. That I have a hard time with. As a Jew, I put Canada first not my religion. My country and all the values it stands for I put first. I don't think that is unfair and I don't think in any way it causes me to be any less of a Jew at all. I do think it would be unrealistic though for me to expect the government to fund Jewish schools or to allow me to opt out of marriage laws or other laws because of my religion. I don't want such privileges. I know there are religious Jews who feel it is unfair there is a Catholic school board but not one for other faiths. I know many religious people of Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominations and sects who disagree with me and think I am too liberal or watered down. I really don't care. But in conclusion I would say, Muslim people if they want to learn to live in the Western world have to be able to accept criticism of those values they hold that come into conflict with the ones we believe are preferable, such as seperation of religion from state or equality of sexes or engaging in anti-semetic displays or comments that are intolerant of others beliefs. Now Muslims say, if you express freedom of speech, make sure not to depict a face of Mohammed in what we say. I can live with that on an individual level but I am not comfortable when people feel they can pressure newspapers or operas into not doing this because it offends them. On one level I find Shylock in the Merchant of Venice or Fagan in Oliver Twist offensive, but on another level, I understand if we allow it to be expressed properly, it leads to tolerance not prejudice. So all I am saying is Muslims have to have more confidence when we criticize aspects of their religion it does not mean we hate them, disrespect them or would hurt them. I think we all agree on the golden rule. All of us have the equivalent expression and atheists like the golden rule too.

Thank you Rue. Can we consider this ground zero? Of course and we always did! Lol. Someone has to make you work hard dude.

I haven't heard Pakistan wanting to wipe a race off the face of the earth like Iran wants to, but I could be wrong. Maybe not but one thing is for sure, you don't live next door in India.

AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HIGGLY'S COMMENTS.

Gosh...just when I thought you were having an epiphany you go and ruin it...... ........yeah....people aren't violent...religions are......not only that...it ain't some whack job interpretation...who is usually always a male, has unresolved sexual conflicts, feels alienated and hates himself, never feels he will be accepted by main stream society and has anger towards women who he blames for his feelings of inadequacy. .......it ain't that....it's religion....... .......ain't no insidious racism here...no siree bob...... O.k. let's try this slowly. There was a crime committed. It was not religious in nature. It was in fact a non religious non political crime of violence against women by a depraved man with unresolved sexual problems that drove him to violence and suicide and acting out his hatred against young women. What was then questionable was to try twist this act of psycho-sexual violence into a political equation to say its wrong to criticize Islam for being violent since this man (presumably a non Muslim) was violent. That is what we are calling out. They are two completely distinct issues. Had this man killed in the name of Christianity or another religion, then there might have been some sort of analogy. What-ever tangent you went off on I have no idea. Yes people are violent. Yes religions can encourage and condone violence. Sometimes the violence is done in the name of religion and sometimes it is not done in the name of religion and when the two are not the same, to try say they are is idiotic. What might be discriminatory is trying to create a group called non-Muslims and trying to lump them all in one general negative category and equate them to Muslims who are violent. Try grasp that before you scream racism or go off on a tangent about religion and misunderstand anything else. It is legitimate to criticize any organized religion or its followers if they are violent. No it is not fair to generalize and say all people of a religion are violent because clerics or terrorists or some in their group engage in violence. No not all Muslims are terrorists or violent but yes their religion and ALL religions have been used to condone violence and when they are we have the right to call it out.

Sorry Remiel. You ask some great questions. Let me start by explaining that in Israel they most certainly have their extremist parties and people full of hate for Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians just as is the case reverse. These are not the majority. The Israeli government has however come down hard on extremists, often people who come from New York City and resettled in the West Bank and have very rigid views and for example led to the kind of insanity that killed Yitzhak Rabin. That said, the vast majority of Israelis you must understand have seen someone die by a terrorist attack, lost an immediate relative in a terrorist attack or war, and have been directly in a war or injured so it impacts in their psyche and gives them a siege mentality no different then what you see in Palestinian civilians who have suffered the same thing. On one level your question has to be answered like this- Israeli citizens like Palestinian civilians, on one level are not able to do anything positive because they both feel powerless to change the status quo. Everyone is waiting for someone in Palestine to say no more violence for now, lets talk instead, sort of like Sadat did because they know Israelis are tired and do not want to fight either. Already mothers on both sides are reaching out to one another. Now there is a very extensive peace network in Israel. Many Israelis are involved in it and if you go on the web and simply type in Israeli peace networks on google, etc., you will see suprisingly, Palestinians and Israelis have reached out together despite all the nonsense and terrorism and war. A specific example of positive actions by Israel is its providing medical care in Israeli hospitals to Palestinian children with cancer, liver and kidney disease (in need of dialysis), and other chronic illnesses or treating children injured or maimed by bombs, etc. Another positive action was Israeli funding of green-houses in Gaza so that Gaza citizens could grow their own food. Unfortunately Hamas destroyed the green-houses. Israel also donated residential buildings that Israeli settlers lived in but were removed from and they gave these homes to Palestinians after the Israeli government forced the settlers to move out-but again Hamas destroyed them all. Now to answer your last and most important question, you ask what power do Palestinians have to compel Israel to keep their side of the bargain-well its the exact same power Ghandi showed Indians had with the British, or Martin Luther King showed blacks had in America-they have the power to give Israeli moderates the ability to say, there is no need for our side to maintain a military presence in Gaza or the West Bank. The power of peace is far more powerful then a terrorist bomb because it would neutralize the Israeli army and neccessarily force Israel to make concessions since they no longer would have to worry about security. Now you said "give them back their share of the land". That is a subject that you must understand has already been answered when Britain chose to allocate 77% of Palestine to Jordan and it has also been answered because after 900,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries and 600,000 fled to Israel, the likelihood of Jews moving back to Muslim countries to make room to bring back the displaced Palestinians was gone for-ever. The practical reality is this-Palestinian Arabs do not ever want to live in a Jewish State of Israel, and Jewish Israelis will not ever again want to live in a Muslim or Christian state. It is not reasonable to expect either side to give up what the other side won't and that is why the practical and only realistic solution today is to move on and embrace reality and stop trying to undo what happened 60 years ago and recognize two countries. That is why the moderate Palestinian wing now is saying its time to simply start a country in the Gaza and West Bank and what is holding this up now is not Israel but Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Wahadi terrorist cells out of Saudi Arabia, and fearful Arab governments who fear if Palestine and Israel settle down, it will not focus attention away from their own internal problems. Check out these web sites if you want to see examples of Israelis and Palestinians working towards peace in government, education and social projects; http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do...mp;npoId=108364 www.mevic.org/ippen.html www.mevic.org/ippen.html http://www.seedsofpeace.org/site/PageServe...nter_friendly=1

"While you prefer a more flexible stance on facts, reason, history and sense ... I guess. " Yes Fig, I try to look at all sides of a story instead of just one. "How strange. If you don't think you're right, do you think you're wrong? If you don't think you're right, why do you post?" "What is your point?" Fig I post to debate and challenge people's assumptions, and try get them to see more then one side of a story. If you approach issues and only embrace that which you agree with and suits your way of thinking, you miss out on a lot of life. You might want to try flex and get past right and wrong and learn to understand the grey in between black and white.

So with Rue's playing of the anti-semitism card, this makes two. Just keeping track here. 1) Anti-semitism (2) 2) Israel's right to exist (1) 3) Bleeding heart know-nothing Liberal (1) Did I miss any? Or are you accusing me of not respecting Israel's right to exist as well? I'm going to give you guys a name: the Mythectionists. It's a contraction of the words Mythinformation and Projectionist. Just like something Chomsky might do, no? So tell me Higgly, why do you inter-change the words Jew and Israeli and why did you refer to me as an Israelite? Why when you discuss Israel, do you make statements about Jews in general? Read back what you and I have written, and show me anywhere where I brought up your religion in a persona or perceived ethnicity in a personal way. As well Higgly I have yet to see anything in any of your comments inr egards to Israel which presents a view other then being negative of Israel so for you to now say you believe in Israel's right to exist is a good one...Higgly the Zionist. Lol.

I guess to you Higgly. To those of us who kept track of the situation, we realize that the PLO was not one lump unit you infer it is and was divided as it still is. The PLO is not a cohesive unit, it is a series of many groups each with its own leader and ideology. At the time you refer to, the PLO's numerous factions were engaged in an internal war between those believing in engaging in terror and those who believed terror should be denounced. The reason Israel at the time was attacking Palestinian police was that many of those police were shooting at Israeli soldiers or openly sympathetic with the terrorist factions within the PLO. So Higgly it is not remarkable for Israel to have been openly feuding with that portion of the PLO which was engaging with terrorism while asking for the moderate factions of the same PLO for help. Nothing remarkable about that. If you stopped trying to define Middle East politics in black and white terms and tried to understand its inconsitencies, you would find nothing remarkable about these inconsistencies and for example the fact that within the PLO and today's Hamas are many factions with different beliefs and values, just like there is a wide range of political views within the Knesset or I dare say how other posters perceive what you and I state.

Well Fig once again you are demonstrating something unfortunate. Your comments are indicative of someone who believes that facts, reason, history and sense, must be defined by you, to be acceptable. If anyone should laugh at something Fig, its your arrogance and the fact that you think you have a monopoly on facts, reason, history and sense. The difference between us Fig is, I may be a Liberal and argus a conservative, but I do not have the audacity to disrespect him or think I am right and he is wrong because we disagree on certain issues. At least Argus doesn't hide his arrogance with passive aggressive comments. He comes right out and says what he means. Can we debate facts and not simply make comments that we think we are smarter then other people because there is a universal truth and only some of us know what that truth is. Thank you.