buffycat

Uhhh, that wasn't Scriblett who said that, it was me. It wasn't any kind of defense either - it was more of an observation wrt how not so long ago women here did not enjoy particular freedoms of expression, or other rights for that matter. This does not condone in any way the forced (by law) wearing of the 'veil'. Rather it looks at the situation existing today in Iran and relates it to her history and the meddling which the west has imposed, both overtly and covertly - hence the reference to Mossadeq. It is common knowledge that both the US and UK funded fundamentalist rebels in order to overthrow Mossadeq for oil interests (among other things). Mossadeq was a secular nationalist, who had he been left in power would have steered Iran clearly towards a more secular, less religiously extreme society. So in essence - the WEST is partly responsible for the eventual fundamentalist overthrow of their own tryannical puppet the Shah. Like I said: Unintended consequenses. Same as Iraq and women's loss of their rights there under the current US occupation. Unintended consequences. But, hey since Saudi's are America's buddies I guess it's fine the way they treat women huh? As for the OP here, I kinda wonder too why the man even served her in the first place - so it does warrant questioning. Do things like that happen? No doubt. Is that fair wrt women? No, it's not. So, you go ahead and misquote and misconstrue away. You will still find NO votes of condoning - whether it is the beating the Iranian women recieved by the police for not wearing the viel - or this woman in Saudi Arabia who was told she couldn't have coffee. (the two not really being comparable either).

did you click on the link? Al Jazeerah.com is not AlJazeerah.net Nor did I find the related article from which the quotes were taken. Granted I didn't look too hard

Thankfully, the gentle, soulful, religious leaders of Iraq will always have people like Figleaf to defend their good reputation. I thought we were discussing IRAN.

Yeah, and they 'took babies out of incubators" too , right? oh, yea, and amassed troops at, was it the border of Saudi Arabia? are these incidents correct? if you think they are,you have little concept of what the 'bald truth' is. I thought the same thing (see post!) Took me bit to write it as the phone rang...then I saw yours! LOL Yeah that incubator fairy tale was quite the buzz eh?

wrt Kuwait and Iraq: Iraq did have a legitmate grievance against Kuwait, as the Kuwaitis were 'slant' drilling and thus stealing Iraqi oil. And yes - Hussein was given a green light from Washington. Haven't thought about that whole debacle for a while - along with all the 'demonisation' techniques applied then as well (incubator story). The more things change the more they remain the same.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y72Qz6A5CFE Some snippets of Ron's performance last night. This man, IMO, is one of the most honest and down to earth politicians I have ever seen. It is so refreshing to listen to his no-nonsense, unscripted answers to some tough questions. Enjoy!

While interesting, certainly not entirely conclusive - there is much debate still on the origins and the migrations of early Homo sapiens. As far as climate change taking thousands of years - not always the case boys. Google 'Younger Dryas' Abrupt changes can and have occured, with this rapid drop in global temp coming on VERY quickly (geologically speaking) Here's a site which talks plainly (ie you don't need to be overly scientifically literate) about both the Younger Dryas as well as other rapid change anomolies in the recent past: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml

BUMP and adding this: What was forgotten that morning Excellent article - again from haaretz. excerpt: "Six months prior to the Six-Day War, the heads of the Mossad, Military Intelligence and the Foreign Ministry explored the possibility of Israel occupying the West Bank. Various scenarios that might lead to such an outcome were discussed, such as the fall of King Hussein's regime in Jordan, an Iraqi invasion of Jordan or a Palestinian uprising. At the end of the deliberations, all were in accord that the occupation of the West Bank would be contrary to Israel's national interest. They concluded that Israel would reap nothing good from ruling over the Palestinians, only bad - including an erosion of the country's Jewish majority and a violent uprising against the occupation. " ***** Just for reference sake here is a rather recent update wrt all the closed borders in the OP: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/Booklet_G...aps_March07.pdf (note it is in adobe format). I have to agree with the author of the Haaretz article, Tom Segev when he says, "Nothing necessitated the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, not even the attack against the western part of the city on June 5. The decision stemmed from the ministers' hearts, not their brains."

Follow the conversation Mr Doors. wiped off the map - NOT said annahilate Israel - not said. Does Ahmendinejad dislke the Israeli government - YOU BET. No argument there, as it's plain to see. BUT he didn't say what he is being accused of. He is talking about the REGIME - not threatening genocide against the Jews for crying out loud. You go and get your blinders removed!

Lovely.

Yes, but only if they comply with the conditions of statehood, i.e. some reasonable economic self-sufficiency, ability to control activities within their borders so they don't endanger other states. Also, said state should not necessarily be drawn entirely from lands under the control of Israel. How about chunks of Jordan and/or Syria? What land? Israel was given it's chunk and now illegally occupies parts of the Palestinians chunk - that and the illegal annexation for the Wall (note LAND GRAB - even recognized as such by the Israeli supreme court). What bloodly land to they have which is contingenous enough to even make a state of their own?! Meanwhile.... Israel who so desperately wants to be 'reconised' as a state refuses to define her borders - how can one recognize something which refuses to be defined??? Man! As for chunks of Jordan and Syria - then heck why not just give Israel chunks of whatever sovereign nation she desires - not plausible jbg.

Do you guys ever miss the point: Despite what one might think of Ahmedinejad, he hasn't said what he is being quoted as saying. Period. That is the whole point. Not whether he is a nutbar or fruitcake or boogeyman... simply that what is attributed to him ad nauseum is NOT what he actually said. Duh.

Yep - lotsa hate to go around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ED7mAeIL3g Israeli kids throwing rocks at journalists See - hate everywhere!!

I actually have listened to it often. I help my father often with household tasks etc. and he has a variety of msm news always droning off in the background - including Fox. I find it all rather poor - so much is reported out of context in a two minute (and that's lengthy) soundbite. The opinion shows are just that - rarely if ever - reporting and unbiasedly accounting the opposite views. Pretty shabby, IMO. (edited too add: And yeah all the bimbettes wear far too much plaster compound on their botoxed faces).

Must be why men watch?! Man could those skirts get any shorter. Wondering when they uncross there legs, do they flash a little skin, for the dirty old men viewers. What's amazing depsite, the obvious "sex sells" factor, is that anyone watches Fox news, for the news. Or do they just make that claim? LOL!! It's the barbie make up which I find really over the top - I keep thinking "Does this woman have a jackhammer to take all that crap off?" (I don't allow myself to think about what these bubbleheads would even look like without it all) Yeah I know, petty - but I've never been a frilly barbie gal. Anyway isn't it called FAUX news?

Pretty disingenuous - you know the holocaust don't you, the one in which that 6 million or so Jewish people were exterminated - or that didn't happen? Why do you and others insist on these sorts of BS posts? It's an established fact that Jews were targeted during WW2 - along with many others too. So what is your point? What about the CURRENT genocides and mass murders occuring? What about all others in the past - Armenians, Ukranians, Ruwanda - heck the South Florida Indians are extinct! I think that focusing in on one genocidal event as somehow 'worse' or 'special' is just the most hypocritical thing to do. To use such an event in order to justify the same sorts of actions makes it even worse. To use such an event to extort 'sympathy' and 'monies' (which is a whole other canard) is beyond reprehensible. But you go on and continue, far be it from me to tell you stop being so blind. Only Jewish suffering counts in your books eh Scribbles?

Holocaust of who? The Palestinians? The Iraqis? The soon to come Holocaust of the Persians?

BS - troll. Show me ONE from that page.

Living the Lives of Others excerpt: No one could have foreseen the extent to which this enterprise damaged Israel's internal cohesion, nor could anyone have predicted the degree to which it compromised Israel's standing in the eyes of the free world. In June 1967, tiny Jerusalem accommodated 13 foreign embassies. Following the passing in 1980 of the Basic Law on Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, the city was orphaned of all its embassies. It has been suggested that the Palestinian territories expanded the security margins that "tiny" Israel had. Few recall that in the mid-1960s, several months before the war broke out, the government saw fit to reduce mandatory military service for men by two months. Very few soldiers benefited from this because the security challenges of the occupation forced the government to increase service by 14 months - putting it at three years. But that's not all. During the Second Lebanon War, the citizens of Israel proper, within the Green Line, paid a steep price for the deterioration of the IDF's abilities. This was a result of its employment as a police force in the territories that Israel conquered in June 1967. This involved guarding the property of Jewish land robbers. **snip It is true that there were times when the other side was unwilling to discuss anything, not even the borders of June 4, 1967. But nowadays, the 22 member states of the Arab league declare that they view this border as a basis for peace - an accomplishment no one would have dreamed of 40 years ago. And so, Israel is missing the opportunity to transform its military victory into its biggest achievement ever. It is losing the war of independence from controlling the lives of others. **** Great article in today's Haaretz. Often missing in so much of the discussions is the REAL impact of the illegal settlements - which continue to grow. Some of which house some of the worst of Israeli society the far right settler movements - Frontline did a good doc. about them here: The Hilltop People I think it is important to keep in mind the impact of these settlements on not only the Palestinians but the impact on Israel and her standing in the eyes of the world. It is these illegal areas, connected by Israeli only roads, littered with checkpoints and IDF forces which contribute largely to much of the unrest of the Palestinian peoples. The extent of these enclaves is rarely shown in context in the NA media, how they honeycomb the West Bank and thus make any kind of Palestinian state impossible. Not to mention the cost to Israel of protecting and subsidize these illegal settlements - not only in NIS, but also in the broader sense of Israeli security. It's a shameful situation all 'round.

Neither - since he hasn't called for the annihalation of Israel. This whole 'wiped off the map' thing is as bad as the 'push into the sea' thing. If anyone is being wiped off the map it's the Palestinians - whose villages have been and are continued to be, wiped litterally off the map. ""Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." -- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99."

boy you guys sure don't dissappoint! As usual adhoms and nonsense! Well done! As for the site's link page, here is it so everyone can go look at all the horrid anti-semite sites they have there!! Such as Jewish Voices for Peace and eeks The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, gosh even Janes is there!! Run for the hills kids! OOPS: http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina...p&id=3564&blz=1

The link is messed up: http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/8463/Leo+McKinstry It's a rant more than anything. You see, no action is to ever be taken against Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Whether it be peaceful - such as both the academic boycott and the trade unions' boycotts, the peaceful demonstrations which occur weekly in B'Lin or any other kind of non violent protest. It is all anti-semitism! Nothing to do with the illegal settlements, land confiscations, bulldozing houses, targetting civilians, the radical right settlers, the Wall... nope - it's all just plain old anti-semitism and of course all Israelis and Jews are innocent victims as always. *sniff* "War Now!!" Kahane

suggest what Scriblett? Legalise drugs? Anything to say about Ms. Johnson? Or the OP? Or do you think it's fine that this 92 year old woman is dead?

Wilber, I think the problem revolves around a situation (drug abuse) being dealt with in a way which is counterproductive for all involved - the police and those using or selling so-called 'illegal' drugs. It is a compromising position to put our police into the business of dictating a moral or personall behaviour, in effect upholding a prohibition against a normal human behaviour. It sets up an area rife for the corruption of both police and local officials. You ask if I want all of what the cops screw up legalized? Your question is blurry - if you are asking whether I think that all so called illegal drugs be legalised then YES - if you are asking whether all laws, say against murder, theft, child abuse should be revoked - no. But - last time I checked the SWAT team hasn't beaten down the door of a child molester and shot him to death only to find out they had the wrong address - then proceeding to COVER IT UP. If you can clarify your question I can address it more clearly. Do you agree that what happened in this case ( the op) is certainly tragic and a gross miscarriage of the law?

The only one doing that in a bigotted way is you, keep it up - you are always improving! btw - what are 'jooos'? I don't recognize that word.