Rue

Well I find both left and right wingers on these posts and then people like me stuck in the middle and getting on everyone's nerves equally. I personally think both the left and right of the equation are both doing good jobs arguing their positions.

This political crap has to stop before someone is seriously injured. Its one thing to have girls and boys playing competitive sports BEFORE puberty. Common sense dictates that once children reach puberty, they need to be seperated for two reasons. Firstly placing young pubic men in close contact with females is a no brainer. Secondly and more importantly, young girls could get seriously hurt from the body contact because of the difference in body size, weight and structure of the pelvic girdle, chest, etc. Even an idiot can figure out a Young man raging with hormones and adrenalin hitting a young woman is a recipe for disaster. This is idiotic to think women can play football, hockey or other contact sports with men once they start maturing. You don't achieve equality between the genders by pretending you are the same when you are not. Equality comes from respect. It doesn't come from being idiotic and ignoring basic ruels of nature.l Respecting women is one issue. Trying to pretend they are physically the same as men is another and is idiotic. Enough with this nonsense. This isn't golf or mixed tennis. Hockey is a dangerous sport in the wrong hands and circumstances.

O.k. I admit buying some pirated movies in Chinatown in Toronto. I knew it was wrong but I wanted a break. 99% of the time I buy them or rent them properly and I never copy them. I couldn't resist the difference in price. The quality on some of the movies was o.k. and on others pretty bad. I admit I am a thief and its wrong.

I am constantly amazed by the absolute lack of knowledge some of you have as to international law, the concept of just compensation, and the historical origins of the current State of Israel and current state of Palestinians. To start with will some of you please take a history book and read before you suggest countries owe compensation payments so that you can at least see why such a suggestion makes no legal or historic sense. Lets be clear on something. You can revise history all you want, but the fact is any way you slice it, Muslims, Jews and Christians all have competing and equally as valid legal rights in the Middle East. Any way you argue it you will not get around the fact that legally there is no good or bad guy. Get it through your thick skulls that when equally as valid legal rights conflict and compete, the legal solution is to seek reciprocal agreements not one way agreements. That said, and once and for all, the decision to reject the Belfour declaration or the right of Jews to a sovereign state in the Middle East rests with the Arab League of Nations. It was the Arab League of Nations which chose to ignore the United Nations, and declare a war with the clear and unequivocal intent to defeat the UN Resolution to allow a State for Jews. In so doing, the Arab League in 1948 chose deliberately, to go all or nothing. It could have had a two state solution in 1948 and chose not to and to basically say-no we want it all. The 1949 border of Israel was created de facto as a result of war, not by law. De facto borders, if not disturbed or challenged over an uninterupted period of time, say at least 50 years, can then become recognized in international law as legal borders. The technical reality is that Israel was forced by a war against it, to fight for the borders it came up with in 1949. They were not defined by the UN but defined as the de facto result of war. To this date, the majority of Arab League of Nations member states do not recognize Israel or the 1949 borders. The Arab League of Nations by law, is directly legally responsible for the decision to go to war and to this date has refused to accept legal responsibility for the displaced Palestinians. You can try pretend the Arab League is not legally responsible and did not start the war and Israel just popped up from nowhere but that is pure b.s. The Arab League of Nations instructed Palestinians to abandon their property and flee what is now Israel. That is fact corroborated and proven and not in dispute by anyone who has bothered to read history or takes the time to read neutral sources. The Arab League told Palestinians the war would be over in a few weeks and they would be able to come back. When the Arab League of Nations lost to the Jews of Palestine who then declared an Israeli nation, the Arab League ignored and abandoned the Palestinians. It had the legal and moral obligation to resettle any who wanted to move to Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., but deliberately refused to do so. The Arab League of Nations made a deliberate choice to isolate and leave Palestinians in camps to serve as a political tool to pressure the UN into dismantling Israel. Any talk of the Arab League recognizing Israel's 1949 borders or its right to exist are a joke. With the exceotion of Egypt no Arab League nation recognizes Israel's right to exist so the fact is we have a league of nations that lost a war, uses Palestinians as political pawns and to this day, ignores its moral obligations to Palestinians. In a cruel twist of irony the Palestinians have become the Jews of the Arab world. They are despised in Arab countries and not trusted and are not welcomed. Yes it is easier to blame and scapegoat Israel then for the Arab League of Nations to examine its internal human rights record and treatment not just of Palestinians but fellow Muslims of different sects. Hezbollah and Hamas have no legal status to represent Palestinians as much as you would like to pretend they are democractically elected political interest groups. As long as they choose to engage in attacking and killing civilians and engaging in terrorism they do not have any legal rights because they are in fact engaging in crime, pure and simple. No sovereign nation which Israel is, can negotiate with criminals. It can on the other hand negotiate with non criminals. The UN has failed in its mandate to de-arm militias and contro terrorism so that peaceful Palestinians can sit and negotiate. The UN has allowed itself to become an arena where the Arab League has been able to use the UN to revise history and escape any moral responsibility for looking after Palestinians. Once and for all if there is to be compensation to the Palestinians, it must be by the Arab League of Nations which advised them to flee, and has to this day, left them abandoned when it could have resettled millions of them and/or funded repatriation schemes with the Israeli government it refuses to recognize. Now after 60 years of being morally cowardly and iresponsible to suggest Palestinians will simply march back to Israel proper and take back land, is idiotic. Its too late. What has to happen now is the Arab League needs to help build a country in the Gaza and West Bank. It has had the opportunity to do so and continues to refuse. Instead we have Iran and Saudi Arabia funding terrorist groups. We have Syria funding and sheltering terrorist groups. We have Muslim clerics and politicians of every stripe in the Middle East engaging in open promulgation and hatred of not just Israel but all Jews world-wide, as well as Christians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Buddists, Hindus, etc. Israel has a moral responsibility to feed and look after its own citizens. It is in fact bankrupt and can barely stay afloat and would not exist without US economic aid. It has struggled since 1949 because every ounce of its economy has been forced to be poured into the military to constantly defend it. As for the Palestinian world, to say the West should compensate it is ludicrous. Since 1949 the West has financially funded Palestinians not the Arab League and what and where has it gotten the West. The PLO plundered the aid funds and hid it inn Swiss bank accounts where fat corupt PLO officials have lived off the money while their fellow citizens starve. Terrorist groups such as Hamas set up schools, hospitals, and community services, but because they believe the only solution is to wipe Israel off the face of the map, have refused to allow Palestinians to work and live side by side Israelis. Hamas has destroyed any economic projects Israel tried to set up with Palestinians including expensive green-houses that would have made Palestinians self-sufficient in food production but Hamas preferred to destroy. The fact is as long as Palestine is gripped with groups who would prefer to engage in war and terror and refuse any other options, this conflict will continue.It is time the Arab League grow up, look at its moral failure, denounce violence, stop funding terrorists, and tell the Palestinian people its time to stop fighting Israel and time to start building a country. Israel is going nowhere. Neither are the Palestinians.

The Iraqi civil war is a completely different scenario then what went on in World War Two. Its like comparing apples to oranges. It would be more accurate to analyze what is going in in Iraq, by looking at other civil wars where external forces came into the country to try restore or impose order. I am thinking of say the French in Algeria, or the British in India, or the British or French in Africa, Asia, the Middle East. I think its safe to say Iraq is a civil war with an external power attempting to colonialize it no different then what the British tried to do in India, or the French in Vietnam or the French in Algeria or the British in Sudan, etc. That is a more accurate comparison. When conventional military forces are used as occupying armies and police forces, necessarily the longer they stay on the ground, the more likely guerilla and/pr terrorist war breaks out and continues indefinitely in a war of slow, long, drawn out attrition until the colonial power withdraws. We have seen it time and time again whether it be with the British, French, Portugese, Belgians, Dutch, Nazis, Greeks, Romans, Napoleon' French forces, etc. The U.S. has used fighting terrorism as a pretense to engage in colonialism in an attempt to control oil. And that in this day and age is doomed. In today's era baboons like the President of Venezuela and Iran can make fools of the Americans. The days of trying to control countries with conventional armies landing on the ground are over. The next President, will be forced to pull the American armed forces out of Iraq and save face no different then when Nixon had to do the same with Vietnam. The reality is cold but there for every one to see. You can't simply walk into the Muslim world and say-hello drink Coke, eat MacDonalds, and be American will yah. The Muslim world categorically rejects Western materialism, Western democracy, and all the values we think are ideal such as freedom of expression, human rights, gender equality. You can't simply impose such values. When the Americans tried to impose their will on Vietnam it did not work. The moment the army left, but the inter-net was allowed to do its thing as well as Coca Cola and and Nike, etc., things changed. The Middle East and Muslim world on a political level will of course reject anything American, but on another level, the young next generation of Muslims is being communicated to by inter-net and hip hop music, etc., and that is a more powerful agent for change then any gun. So I say, look the Americans are right hunt down and kill terrorists. But don't mix that with colonial expeditions. Train your armed forces into small, elite, specially trained commando strike units, that come and go swiftly and leave the rest to the multi-nationals and non profit organizations. Iraq like many countries is destined for prolonged periods of civil war and strife and there is a practical limit to what the US or anyone can do. No I do not think the UN has done its job forcing the US to fight terrorism on its own, but on the other hand Americans have to realize they are their own worst enemy if they think they can simply march into countries and try control them. Its an approach to politics that Ghandi soundly defeated, then Mao Tse Tung soundly defeated and is now easily defeated by low life scum like Ben Laden. Today we need to stick to liquidating terrorists in careful, strategic, surgical strikes, and then show sophistication in trying to influence other countries. Easier to corupt them with a Big Mac or Tim Horton's coffee or Beyonce video then a tank.

Further to my ealier comments the Venezuelan President when to a church in Harlem and referred to Bush as an alcoholic. In so doing he revealed himself as a crass thug. If the emerging non aligned nations are to be taken seriously and if they want to seriously get the attention of the first world as to the unfair economic practices of the International Monetary Fund, etc., engaging in this kind of childish bafoonery is not the way to do it. Bush may have a lot of warts and his foreign and economic policies may be questionable, but insulting the man and attacking him personally is childish. You can't get the U.S. or any nation to take you seriously when you act like a baboon. Even democrat congressmen and senators who openly criticize Bush were saying enough is enough with this clod from Venezuela. In the meantime Venezuela's economy is a complete disaster and its domestic policies have nothing to do with Bush but this bafoon who fancies himself another Castro but unlike Castro does not have his intelligence.

Dion was not a Chretien protege. He was brought in with Pettigrew because Chretien was considered a bafoon in Quebec and the Liberals were desperate for some intellectuals to offset Chretien. Dion did not get along with Chretien and held his own with him during cabinet meetings. I wouldn't describe him as his clone at all. And he did not get along with Martin at all. He like all Liberals in Chretien's cabinet can not claim innocence as to Chretien's coruption. They are all marked by it. Its not a coincidence that Rae, Iggy, Kennedy threw their hats in the ring thinking they could claim they were claim and outside the Chretien dirt. Dion will not get appointed for the simple reason he is a Francophone and the next leader will be an Anglophone. He is actually their best debater and public speaker. At this point I think Harper could easily defeat any other candidate but Dion. And Dion is the only one who can give it back to those blockheads. But I am afraid this Iggy is gonna win, either him or Rae. Then you can kiss off the Liberals for good.

You want to explain this comment? I can. King was a raving anti-semite and sent many Jewish refugees back to their death in Germany. It was as a result of his anti-Jewish and anti-immigration policies, that today, Canada probably over-compensates in trying to be very tolerant of all groups. His legacy during World War Two in turning away Jews is a bad legacy for him.

Look all I know is in Tunisia they are pulling La Soleil and other French newspapers that suggested in an article that Islam incites anger and terror. According to the Tunisian government, Islam is a religion of peace and love. All those people screaming and yelling and all those clerics on t.v. discussing the intifadah and the coming war against the West and its infidels and all this talk about killing Jews and Israelis and non believers, its all just part of the peace process and part of love. Get with it. The Pope should love his fellow humans. He should get on his balcony and light something on fire, and then urge a slaughter of some sect. Feel the love.

On another note, I find it intellectually lazy to try rationalize terrorism as a legitimate reaction or a causal effect of/ to colonialism or neo-colonialism. I think we owe our students more analysis and insight then simply to try portray terrorists as victims of George Bush. For example, last night it was absolutely juvenile for the President of Venezuela and his giggling audience to refer to Bush as the Devil. Bush may represent a foreign policy or cultural perspective that many of us openly question, but it is abslutely idiotic to simply dismiss it as evil. This same evil employs as many millions as it oppresses. There are two sides to every story and if one wants to criticize the weakness in American foreign policy it has to be done with a little more care then simplistic rhetoric and name calling designed simply to appeal to primal frustrations that flow from being poor. Scapegoating the US for local coruption and the domestic internal savagery in many nations is good for domestic political consumption but its b.s. Yes maybe multi-nationalism oppresses but so do the same leaders acting all self-righteous and pointing the finger at Bush. This fool from Venezuela is typical of todays' leaders. They are quick to piss in Bush's direction to hide their own disasterous economic policies. In Venezuela's case, you can not blame the IMF or America for the currentstate of its economy.

Exactly what "scarce resource" did Afghanistan have that we need to "maintain our lifestyle"? Indirect strategic positioning to allow oil to flow through pipelines through their country without the Taliban blowing it up. Afghanistan itself, has nothing but poppies. But its position in relation to oil is why it is in the West's sights. If oil pipelines wouldn;t be running through it, I am sure no one would give a rat's asp.

I always find this an interesting issue because all of the police forces and their associations, both the police unions and the police chiefs associations, they are unanimous in having gun control. Its the one thing police unions and management agree on and yet the one thing right wingers just can't agree on with the police. Usually the right wing is on board with police on all crime issues. Me personally I do not see why anyone should own a hand gun. Sorry. Other then the police, fugget about it. As for those who claim they want target practice, let them go to gun clubs, where the hand guns are owned by gun clubs which would be required to be non profit and regulated by the provincial government and the guns would only be loaned out as long as you are on the premises and under struct guidelines. As for rifles it goes like this. There are two kinds of hunters. The real ones who hunt and then eat what they hunt I respect and do not want to get in their face because they hunt out of necessity. They should be differentiated from recreational hunters from the suburbs who get drunk and go shoot and kill for the sake of making a drunken mess. On the latter I have no time of day for and I could care less if they say they can't hunt anymore. For the native peoples or necessity hunters I think its important we understand we can't take their rifles away but there is a way to register them and yah if that sounds like a double standard you betcha. Look I respect professional duck-hunters. Guys that follow all the rules and eat what they hunt. They belong to gun clubs or places like Ducks Unlimited and they are serious and I do not mean to lump them in with idiots who just go once a year on a drunk and shoot them up. But I think this has to be done on the provincial level not federal level. I also think we should listen to the police on this one. I think its ironic too. Just a day or so after the Dawson College shooting there were the Canada Tire fall ads for rifles. Kaboom.

So the reality is, if your of a certain race, you have priority? Pfft to equally, why do we bother pretending? When race is the primary reason we pick political people, or when we create a racial profile to do so, it's acting out of the utmost hypocrisy. The GG position isn't about merit. Its ceremonial. No one pretends it is anything but ceremonial and symbolic so trying to make sure it represents all kinds of cultures or ethnic groups isn't pretending, its deliberate. No one hides such criteria. Its openly discussed. The concept of a black immigrant GG was openly discussed, never hidden. Now as for Wayne Gretzky sorry, I believe you have to speak at least French or English. That rules him out. Besides come on now let's get serious. If we are going for a former hockey player, it has to be Eddy Shack. (Jean Beliveau turned it down)

What do you suggest as an alternative? A return to normal provincial and federal control of minority concerns prior to the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' along with a form of guaranteed assimilation dedicated to Canadian national values especially directed at any new immigrant but generally encouraged and promoted for all Canadians to harbour. Ahahahahah. That was good. I can't wait until the Guaranteed Assimilation Police get hired to enforce your new assimilation laws. Hey you there, shave off that beard. You-you are too tanned, stay out of the sun! You, get your nose fixed-too broad. Hey you, off with that turban! Hey you-yah you buddy, I better see you listening to an Ann Murray record the next time I walk by here. None of that ethnic shit! Oh Canada. Everyone must wear maple-leaf under-wear and have maple syrup twice weekly. Everyone must drink a Molson Canadian at least once a day.

I do not think Mr. Arar is as crystal clean and innocent as he would have you believe. I do think however there is no doubt his legal rights were violated and he should not have been deported to the US and they Syria. He was sent to Syria because the US wanted him tortured and they can't torture him in the U.S. The U.S. has used Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, and other nations to torture people to get info. Its done all the time and continues to be done. To say Arar was not tortured is silly. You don't go to prison in Syria without having someone give you a prostate exam, repeatedly. As much as I think Mr. Arar is not as innocent as he would like us to believe, it is a clear absolute fact he had his rights violated and was treated unfairly. He may have been involved in some shady dealings but let's face it because of the post 9-11 atmosphere the RCMP panicked and blew it. CSIS was created precisely because the RCMP blew it in the past and now they have screwed up again. The RCMP is a joke and needs sand-blasting starting with the clown Commissioner who only made matters worse refusing to issue a statement and hiding in Brazil when he knew this would come out. He's a coward for not being in Canada to face the heat and accept responsibility and resign without being asked to. Whether we like it or not even with terrorists we can't turn into them as much as we would like to-to defeat them. We still have to adhere to our laws.

Her credentials were; 1-she was Francophone (the rotation called for a Francophone) 2-she was an immigrant/new Canadian 3-black 4-genuinely wanted the job 5-could handle the press easily. Being a journalist doesn't harm matters when the job is all about photo-ops. She actually has been doing a great job. She has unlike Ms. Clarkson, kept her budget modest and spent a great deal of time talking with Canadians. I think the reason they picked her was because they wanted a visible minority who could also represent immigrants and new Canadians who came to Canada to start over. Now in terms of picking a retired General, they haven't done that for ages. They seem to be trying to get away from the military tradition. Who knows, maybe with Harper if he is still in power, he woul choose a retired General. The problem is the obvious choice, Romeo Dallaires is Francophone and next up on the rotation is an Anglophone. If Harper is around maybe he would appoint retired Maj. Gen. Mackenzie. I also hear rumbles they want to seriously consider appointing an aboriginal GG. Phil Fontaine? Elijah Harper? Ethel Blondell (only she is a Liberal so that may hurt her). Ovide Mercredi probably would laugh it off.

I honestly think the person who would have the best chance debating him would be Stephane Dion who by far has the best handle on all the issues. That said the Liberals will not vote him in as they will not go for another Francophone at this time. So who does that leave. Please do not even mention Bob Rae. If he is selected they automatically give up Ontario and lose. I also don't think Ignatieff can win an election ever. I think if he is appointed, Harper will easily debate him and Iggy will stick his foot in his mouth. I think this is the worst slate of Liberal candidates ever. I also think Harper is an excellent debater. His only weakness is that he comes across as arrogant and like a bully. He has to soften up his arrogance a bit. For example last night avoiding a call from the new geek who won the New Brunswick election was mean spirited. He has to watch that kind of nastiness. It is precisely why I would say if anyone can address that nastiness its Dion who apparently had no problem handling himself with Chretien when Chretien tried to bully him. Dion is a very well rounded dude its just he is in the wrong place at the wrong time. He should have replaced Chretien years ago. Bernard Lord for sure will now run for the PC's next election and help shore up some of Harper's lack of Francophone weaknesses. Dion if given the chance would use the gun control issue to woo Quebec voters. If the Liberals weren't so hung up on the Anglo Franco rotation thing, he might suprise.

What about Canadian Charter protection? An excellent question. It is my personal legal opinion ( I am a lawyer but I am also the first to admit I can be a prize idiot about almost anything) that certain legislation in Quebec that was delibereately drafted to be protectionist in nature and prevents other professionals from other provinces to compete with professionals in Quebec from Quebec, Quebec legislation would be struck down precisely because of the charter rights which over-ride or supercede any other legislation. That said, Quebec could make very restrictive language laws which would discourage anyone who could not speak French fluently from coming to Quebec for work that in theory would be taken away from Quebecers. Interestingly, Quebecers move all over Canada precisely because they are more likely to be bilingual then English Canadians. The typical Quebecer under 25 speaks English and French these days despite all the language laws and talks of seperatism. Take a look at all the leading English universities and colleges in Quebec and you will find no shortage of Franco-phone Quebecers learning in English.

The bottom line is trying to use a conventional army in engaged in conventional war to try fight a war with terrorists is doomed to strategic failure. Coventional armies are designed to fight conventional armies. They are not designed to be political police forces, civilian police forces, or non profit development agencies or social workers. I personally believe the mistake was sending in conventional armed units. Nato should have sent in fast moving, small, elite trained commandoes, to hunt and kill terrorists but not stick around when they are done like sitting ducks in visible military posts. I think it is assinine to engage in slow moving convoys or foot patrols making the troops sitting ducks. This notion you can use the Canadian army as social workers to implement democracy and baby sit a puppet government can not work. We have mixed up the notion of hunting and killing terrorists with being colonial importers of Western democracy. I say stick to the anti-terrorist hunt and kill war with small elite commando units world-wide and forget this colonial occupation nonsense. That said, I support the soldiers. I just think the mission is politically retarded and was not thought out and I do not think for a second 2,500 Canadian troops can do what every other foreign occupier including the British and Russians failed to do. Even the Ghurkas, the world's best trained army could not win in Afghanistan. Hunt and kill the terrorists, but never let them know when you are coming or going.

O.k. so John Tory is a rich Mama's boy. Pt. taken. But the alternative? Mr. McGuinty a pathological and blatant liar who made a mockery of politics and our intelligence by breaking every promise he made or that Howie Hampton dude. What a choice. Excuse me if I barf.

This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. I think his concern is not so much about international trade, but about the Muslim world having virtually no capabilities of its own. Western companies drill their oil or mine their diamonds and pay them some royalties. They take their royalties and put them in western banks. When they spend their wealth, it's to buy western-made goods or pay western professionals for assistance. They're somewhat like a rich but senile aunt who has a big bank account and a hefty pension, but doesn't know how to manage her money or care for herself anymore. She puts her trust in her nephew to manage her money, do her taxes, shop for her, care for her home and pay her bills... and trusts that he won't rob her blind in the process. The speaker sounds someone very aware that until Muslim nations develop their own ability to manage their wealth effectively-- ie, "good government"-- they're as helpless and dependent as the senile old aunt. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed??? He addresses that later in his speech: -k The notion that Muslims and Muslim countries are weak savages, or victims is b.s. Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia to mention but 3 countries, have no problems getting into bed with the big bad evil imperialists to maintain totalitarian regimes. You want to point fingers, don't point it just at the West and simply state its the result of colonialism. That arguement is like a child who grows up and at the age of 50 still blames all his failures on his father and childhood. There's a limit to how much can be blamed on the past. The present and future also has to be looked at. The point is today's current state of corupt, totalitarian police states through-out the Middle East is as much a direct result of fundamentalism Islam engrained in the culture as it is anything you care to pin on the Americans, British, etc. Today's genocide in Sudan can not be blamed on the US or Britain as much as some would like to say the artificial border of Sudan imposed by the colonialists is to blame. The fact is Sudan's current regime is racist and in the name of Islam slaughters millions simply because they have dark skin and are Christian.

Black Dog as usual your recitation of history in regards to Palestine and Palestine refugees is selective. What you seem to have conveniently forgotten is that the Arab League of Nations declared war on Israel with the express purpose of ridding the entire Palestinian area of Jews as it catergorically rejected the Belfour Declaration or any suggestion of an independent Jewish State. You seem to pretend this decision to go to war and attempt to get all or nothing is not directly related to the decision of thousands of Palestinians to flee. They were told to flee by the Arab League who also suggested they could return as soon as the war was over. What you also selectively ignore is the fact that the Arab League deliberately has left Palestinians in refugee camps when it could have re-settled many of them. Palestinians asked to be resettled in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Morrocco, Libya and Algeria and were refused by those governments. So you can engage in your usual one-sided, selective recitation of history, but there is another side to the story and the ARab League's explicit role in deliberately forcing Palestinians to live in exile as a political decision to pressure the West into getting ride of Israel doesn't just vanish because you have been brought up to read just the portion of history that suits your preconception that Israel is bad, Palestine is good. And one last point should be made. Israel accepted Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war so attempts to depict Israel as being simply bad are b.s. As much as you love to single out Israel as the big bad evil oppressor unlike any Arab nation, it has in its charter, guaranteed property rights for its Muslim citizens and has nuermous cases that have decided in favour of Muslims on property rights disputes not to mention it guarantees the use of Arabic in all civil service and government services, provides free medical care to Muslim Israelis AND Palestinians, and warts and all has at least made an effort legally to try deal with the legal rights of Muslims in Israel. But then again in your world, The Arab League are a bunch of angels. They have no complicity in the plight of todays Palestinians. They could not possibly have offered to set up Palestinians in communities in their countries. Your simple recitation of selective history ignores the hatred and discrimination of Palestinians at the hands of Arab governments who did not want any of them in their country. It also deliberately ignores the fact that Jordan is an artifical state created by the British and was the home of the majority of Palestinians who the King of Jordan did not want taking over his nation. So as much as you love to depict it as Israel bad, Palestine good, you also forgot the King of Jordan had to call on Beduin Arabs to rid his country of Palestinians in a bloody uprising because he did not want them ruling his country with majority rule. You seem to forget the Syrian Army openly feuding with Arafat and forbidding him from settling in Damascus with Palestinians. You seem to forget how Syria was a principal player in ridding Lebanon of Palestinians. You forget the expulsion of Palestinians from Tunisia. You also ignore the fact that Iran loaths Palestinians who are not Shiite and that the Algerians and Moroccans wanted nothing to do with Palestinians. I would also point out, as much as you love to portray this as Israel bad invader, Palestine as pre-existing innocent victims, it is far more complicated then that but then your selectivity as to whose land was taken away and when seems to begin and end in 1949.

But ignoring its effect on social, political and economic factors at work, is alsoequally as ridiculous, so your point is overstated.

My view is that if someone loves their goat, they should be allowed to have carnal relations with that goat, irrespective of gender. I believe anything less represents out-of-touch reactionary conservatism. So my question is, if you want to sleep with goats, why would I be so preoccupied with needing to innunciate an edict saying screwing goats is yechy bad? I mean next you will want an edict preventing men from screwing Paris Hilton! Where will it end?

Careful he might just take you up on that offer.