jefferiah

I didnt say it was uninhabited, I said most of it was. There was no nation under any name that was Palestine. The land was part of a larger Ottoman Empire. The inhabitants were from different backgrounds. Some of them were Jewish. In the late part of the 1800s Jewish people began buying land in Palestine and moving in. They didnt steal the land. They bought it and they moved into this area of the Ottoman Empire (not of a Palestinian nation). The Jews began to do things to revitalize the barren crappy land of Palestine, to rid the swamps of malaria and clean it up. The work the Jews did attracted arabic immigrants from neighbouring areas. There was no effort to rid the areas of any Arabs who were living there or even to stop the influx of Arab immigrants coming in. In 1916 when the Ottoman Empire fell control of the southern part went to Britain and France. France got Lebanon and Syria, while Britain got control over "Palestine" and "Jordan". The British split the land between the Arabic inhabitants and the Jews. The Jews got about 25 percent and the Arabs got 75. And then later the British abandoned the whole thing and let the United Nations deal with. The United Nations made basically the same division and gave around 25 percent to the Jews and the Arabs 75. The Jews accepted this deal, but the Arabs didnt, they wanted it all. It was never their nation either. It was part of the Ottoman Turk Empire, during the reign of which many Jewish people began emigrating to the land (and as I mentioned above, many Arabs came after because the Jews were doing great work in revitalizing a cesspool) The Jews declared themselves a nation on May 14, 1948. The very next day seven Arab nations invaded Israel. The Arabs living with Israel were encouraged to leave by the invading armies. Why? Because they were going to destroy Israel, plain and simple.

The land was stolen from people. Those people subsequently identified as a nation. It's kinda like how, before 1948, there was no nation of Israel, but there was a Jewish people who subsequently created the Israeli identity. Most of the land was uninhabited and the Jews received a small crappy part of that land. It was not a flourishing land. It was a barren cesspool, until Israel began to make it into something, cleaning the water and replanting forests.

The British divided the land between the two. The Jews got the short side of the stick their. But the Arabs didnt even like the Jews having any side of the stick, so they tried to destroy them. And the Jews survived and since then the same thing keeps happening. Arabs try to get rid of Jews, Jews defend themselves. Ask Walid Shoebat, the former PLO terrorist, if the Palestinians and Arab nations honestly just want to have a peaceful solution.

But there is in 2007. But in the 40s Black Dog, how did Israel steal land from a nation that never existed.

Sure it is. Now all of a sudden they are a people, a nation, who had their land stolen.

Of course it is a non-issue Baylee. I am not the one who brought it up.

So whats your problem then. The Dixie Chicks say what they want, and people who dont want to listen to them dont listen to them. End of story.

It's true. Back then nobody identified themselves as Palestinian.

There was no such thing as the Palestinian people in '48. All of Palestine will be Israel.

Only in America would a bunch of redneck right wingers threaten some ladies in a music band because they didnt like what they had to say But yea they had the last laugh Heh-Heh The people that burned their records (which I think is dumb myself) have a right to do so. Their was no bunch of rednecks who threatened them. It was one fan who said to shut up and sing. That's all it was. As for their sales going down the listening public has a right not to buy their albums. I dont care what the Dixie Chicks say because I dont think they are talented, and that Earl song had to be the most annoying song in the world. Anyways, why are they so hung up about free speech. They were allowed to say what they wanted. The law never got involved and prevented them. One guy uttered a death threat (one guy, not a "bunch" of redneck right wingers). And fans who decided they didnt like the Dixie Chicks anymore exercised their freedom to not buy their albums anymore. I think the Dixie Chicks like the publicity, but really they are not brave martyrs or anything.

Now I think I forgot to add something in my drug analogy. I know homosexuality is not drug addiction either but I am making my point using something that some people view as immoral or harmful. Now I mentioned that to some people long hairs and druggies are all trash, but I used to smoke pot when I was younger. And I sort of had it in my head that all people who were against it were like those "we dont let our hair grow long and shaggy" okees who were looking at me as "someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on". There are people like that sure. But my parents weren't. They didnt call me names, or call me trash, but they were concerned when they found out. At first it was convenient for me to lump them in with the "stone him" crowd, but the fact that they opposed what I did never meant they did not love me or that they wanted to slander me. This is a point I would really like to make, because I think it is important.

Yeah. I am not saying you are right or wrong. I am saying this guy should be able to say what he thinks is a disease in a free country. Personally even though I might use the same terminology I dont think of it as an insult, which might be where the confusion arises for some people. I think for one it is natural for homosexuals who may have been poked fun at all their lives for various reasons to think that everyone who believes that what they are doing is wrong is out to get them. But I really dont think this is true. For instance there are people who believe drugs are immoral, and some of them might hate drug users and think of them as long-haired deviants (put em up against the wall----against the wall, and theres one in the spotlight he dont look right to me). But not all people see things this way, and I realize it is not easy for everyone to sort this and that out, but nonetheless I think it is important to preserve free speech because not everything that is offensive to someone is meant to incite attack. Does that make sense, Drea?

I prefer not to dream when I can help it.

Simply put Canada has no say in who the US of A puts on an "American" watch list. Thats an American issue.

Acutally Layton and others pressed Harper to do so. I think it's safe to say without their demand he would not have had to have asked. And no, it is not a Canadian issue. How one of our citizens is treated in Canada is a Canadian issue, whether or not America wants to let him in or not is not a Canadian issue. If you throw a party in your own house and do not send an invitation to someone it is not my business to tell you you should have invited him.

Don't side with a perceived underdog just because he is an underdog.

Why? I think you misunderstood that sentence. Read it again.

We have Wilkins and Jordan calling BS as Geoffrey says. That is not something to be ignored. I cannot really tell you whether Arar is telling the truth or not. I dont think we have seen any evidence of it, except that Justice O'Connor (is that correct?) ruled that he was. But I think it is ridiculous to sue Canada for it, when essentially what happened was the RCMP shared with US officials the fact that they had some suspicions about this guy. That's a far cry from being responsible for his torture. But he won and that is over and done with. What I find extremely ridiculous is the pressure Layton put on the Gov to have them make the US take Arar off their list. Now this is not a Canadian issue. Who America has on their lists is an American issue, and thats not Layton's concern. If Arar himself doesnt like it, he can take that up with the US. I think this must have been very very embarrassing for the Gov to have to ask US to take Arar off their list....the knew the answer we be no and that it was out of their jurisdiction anyway.

But the thing is Fortunata I think he is making some good points. The US has not denied putting him on a plane, but they have not said that Canada was a major determining factor in this, and Wilkins has even gone so far as to say that they decided on other information. Now you could you say that Wilkins is lying to cover an American mistake, but then you are theorizing without evidence. Now Geoffrey and others are pointing out that Arar never had any physical signs of this torture on his body. Now, if you came and told me you were tortured by someone I would not ask you to show me any evidence of it. I would accept your word. But if you came and asked me for several million dollars in restitution I will say "Well you better show me some scars then!" As rude as that might sound to a person who may have been tortured, its necessary to be shrewd. I think this is a good point they are making. It does not mean that they hate him because he is Muslim. It means they are not giving him an easy ride simply because he is Muslim.

Well I think the environment is a very important issue, and we need to start making a lot of changes in order to protect it. However, that said, I think rejecting Kyoto was right----at the time I thought it was crazy to reject it, but I am starting to see some good reasons for its being rejected. It would be stupid to bind ourselves to quotas while the biggest polluters are let off the hook and are given the opportunity to suck cash from the West. Yes the West is rich, but you can't solve all the worlds problems by redistribution. You can give China a jigabazillion dollars if you like-----they already have a nuke program, a space program. If their Gov.s don't spend it right there is no point in giving it to them.

Thank you! If I am ever obese I wont sue you for saying that.

I dont know much about banking or all this stuff----but one very interesting thing about the Federal Reserve can be ascertained from the case Lewis v United States.

Good analogy drea, his using the word disease, was not from the context that substance abuse is a disease. However, even if he was, this is still unacceptable commentary. I would say the context is more in line with a mental illness or psychological problem. Do you think that it is insulting to believe this? (Even if you dont agree with it.) Then you must say it is an insult to all the mentally ill to be considered ill, maybe we should not say that schizophrenia is an illness. Look I realize you will say that you dont believe homosexuality is an illness. Thats fine, but this man believes it is....so what. That is not hatred.

Pffft. this is not true. I find Canadians are becoming very immature and pompous---without reason. I am a Canadian and I love this country very much, but nonetheless I find it very embarassing how some Canadians make Americans out to be something less calling them arrogant and ignorant, all the way displaying arrogance to a sickening extreme. I would rather consider an American friend as my fellow than these fellow Canadians who think we are so superior.

I dont think this is true at all.